CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 CORANGAMITE SHIRE TOURISM OPPORTUNITIES STUDY

PANEL REPORT

22 DECEMBER 2011

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 CORANGAMITE SHIRE TOURISM OPPORTUNITIES STUDY

PANEL REPORT

Michael Kirsch, Chair

Kevin Breen, Member

22 DECEMBER 2011

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 The Amendment ...... 1 1.2 The Panel ...... 1

2. BACKGROUND ...... 4 2.1 Amendment C30 ...... 4 2.2 The Corangamite Shire Tourism Opportunities Study (2010) ...... 6 2.3 Amendment C28 ...... 7 2.4 Amendment C29 ...... 8

3. PLANNING CONTEXT ...... 10 3.1 Policy framework ...... 10 3.2 Planning strategies and policies referred to in the SPPF ...... 20 3.3 Other tourism strategies and policies ...... 24 3.4 Planning scheme provisions ...... 27

4. SUBMISSIONS AND ISSUES ...... 32 4.1 General submissions ...... 32 4.2 Coastal area submissions ...... 35 4.3 Issues dealt with in this report ...... 37

5. THE CORANGAMITE SHIRE TOURISM OPPORTUNITIES STUDY (2010) (TOC) ...... 39 5.1 Introduction ...... 39 5.2 General findings and implementation strategy ...... 41 5.3 Study process ...... 42 5.4 Findings ...... 56

6. STRATEGIC ISSUES ...... 57 6.1 The policy framework for tourism ...... 57 6.2 The assessment of environmental and other impacts ...... 65

7. LOCAL PLANNING POLICY, ZONES AND OVERLAYS ...... 68 7.1 Local Planning Policy ...... 68 7.2 The selection and content of zones ...... 71 7.3 Design and Development Overlay ...... 74 7.4 Consistency between Amendments C29 and C30 ...... 77

8. THE TOURISM OPPORTUNITY SITES ...... 78 8.1 Glenelg Highway, Skipton (Site 1) ...... 78 8.2 Mount Widderin Caves (Site 2) ...... 83 8.3 Mount Elephant, Derrinallum (Site 3) ...... 85 8.4 658 Purrumbete Estate Road (Site 4) ...... 90 8.5 Glenormiston College, Terang (Site 5) ...... 93 8.6 Berry World, Timboon (Site 6) ...... 97 8.7 1 Barrett Street, Timboon (Site 7) ...... 101 8.8 Scott’s Creek General Store (Site 8) ...... 104 8.9 Camp Cooriemungle (Site 9) ...... 107 8.10 Peterborough Airfield (Site 10) ...... 110

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011

8.11 Port Campbell West (Site 11) ...... 114 8.12 Loch Ard Bed and Breakfast (Site 12) ...... 120 8.13 8816 Great Ocean Road, Princetown (Site 13) ...... 123 8.14 Booringa Road, Princetown (Site 14) ...... 126 8.15 Glenample Homestead (Site 15) ...... 130 8.16 Kangaroobie, Princetown/Gellibrand Lower (Site 16) ...... 134 8.17 Princetown East (Site 17) ...... 139 8.18 Moonlight Head West (Site 18) ...... 143 8.19 Moonlight Head East 1 and 2 (Sites 19 and 20) ...... 148

9. ADDITIONAL SITES PROPOSED IN SUBMISSIONS ...... 157 9.1 Great Ocean Road Princeton, Crown Allotment 1A, Parish of Waare ...... 157 9.2 Anchors, Port Campbell ...... 158 9.3 Booringa Road ...... 159 9.4 Pebble Point ...... 160

10. CONCLUSIONS ...... 162

11. RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 163

Appendices

APPENDIX 1 LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED DURING THE HEARING ...... 167

APPENDIX 2 LIST OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ...... 172

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011

Abbreviations

CMA Catchment Management Authority CPS Corangamite Planning Scheme DDO Design and Development Overlay DPCD Department of Planning and Community Development DSE Department of Sustainability and Environment EDO Environmental Defenders Office ERZ Environmental Rural Zone ESO Environmental Significance Overlay FZ Farming Zone GOR Great Ocean Road GORRLAS Great Ocean Road Region Landscape Assessment Study HO Heritage Overlay LPP Local Planning Policy LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework MSS Municipal Strategic Statement PCCG Port Campbell Community Group PCWRP Port Campbell Water Reclamation Plant RAZ Rural Activity Zone RCZ Rural Conservation Zone SLO Significant Landscape Overlay SPPF State Planning Policy Framework TOS Corangamite Shire Tourism Opportunities Study VCAT Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal VCS Victorian Coastal Strategy VNPA Victorian National Parks Association VPO Vegetation Protection Overlay VPP Victoria Planning Provisions WCB Western Coastal Board WMO Wildfire Management Overlay

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 1

1. Introduction

1.1 The Amendment

Amendment C30 to the Corangamite Planning Scheme (CPS), as exhibited, proposes to implement the findings and recommendations of the Corangamite Tourism Opportunities Study, 2010 (the TOS).

The Corangamite Shire Council is the planning authority.

1.2 The Panel

This Panel was appointed under delegation on 19 July 2011 pursuant to Sections 153 and 155 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act) to hear and consider submissions in respect of the amendment.

The Panel consisted of: . Michael Kirsch (Chairperson); and . Kevin Breen (Member).

Hearings and inspections

A Directions Hearing was held on 1 September 2011 at the Camperdown Community Centre. The Panel Hearing was held between 7 and 10 November 2011 at the Camperdown Community Centre.

The Panel inspected the twenty ‘tourism opportunity sites’ and the general areas within which they are located prior to the Hearing.

Exhibition

The amendment was exhibited between 28 April and 3 June 2011. Formal notices were placed in the Victorian Government Gazette, Ballarat Courier, Terang Express and Warrnambool Standard on 28 April, 2011. Informal notices were placed in the Camperdown Chronicle on 29 April, the Warrnambool Standard on 30 April, the Cobden Times on 4 May and the Skipton Community Newsletter May edition.

In addition, Open House Forums were held at Port Campbell (3 and 23 May), Camperdown (11 and 19 May), Timboon (12 May) and Skipton (16 May).

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 2

Submissions

The Panel considered all written submissions, as well as submissions and material presented to it during the Hearing. The Panel also considered a number of late submissions that were referred to it by Council. In addressing the issues raised in submissions, the Panel has been assisted by the information provided to it as well as its observations from inspections of the sites.

The Panel heard the parties listed in Table 1 below.

Table 1 Submitter Represented By Corangamite Shire Peter O’Farrell (Counsel) who called the following witnesses: Matt Ainsaar and Mike Ruzzene (Urban Enterprise) Lisa Riddle and Kate Pleban (Planisphere) Catholic Education Office Ian Pitt Sc of Beast Hooper who called the following witnesses: (for the Roman Catholic Trusts Corporation for the Diocese of Melbourne) Erwin Taal (Aspect Studios) Lincoln Kern (Practical Ecology) Roady Macey (M J Macey) Shipwreck Coast Tourism John Maher and Carole Reid Victorian National Parks Association Russell Costello Port Campbell Community Group Inc Gabrielle Tipple and Bonnie Renou (The Environmental Defenders Office) Marion Manifold Julie Brazier and Bill Kirby Neil Trotter Daryl and Jocelyn Salmon Brendan Howard who called the following witness: David Klingberg (David Lock Associates) John and Dianne Curran Corangamite Arts Inc Gail Watson Jane Robinson John Saxon Mt Elephant Committee of Management Valerie Lang Gavin and Judith Mitchell Greg Tobin (Harwood Andrews Lawyers) Trust for Nature Andrew Burns Ivor Coster

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 3

Submitter Represented By Bert Rogers David Tiller Gavan Mathieson

A list of the documents that were submitted during the Hearing is included at Appendix 1 and a list of all written submissions to the amendment is included at Appendix 2.

Procedural issues

On the final scheduled day of the Hearing (Thursday 10 November) the Panel advised parties that it would adjourn the Hearing in order that it could consider various matters that might require the Hearing to be extended. This was necessary in light of additional material and submissions that the Panel received on the final day that required further consideration.

Having subsequently considered that material, the Panel advised parties in a letter dated 16 November 2011 that it was satisfied there was no need to reconvene the Hearing and that the Hearing was closed.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 4

2. Background

This section of the report describes the key elements of Amendment C30, the Corangamite Shire Tourism Opportunities Study (TOS) and Amendments C28 and C29 that are relevant to Amendment C30.

2.1 Amendment C30

2.1.1 Overview

The amendment implements the recommendations of the TOS and proposes to: . Introduce a revised Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development). . Apply the Rural Activity Zone . Apply two new schedules to the Special Use Zone (5 and 6). . Introduce a new schedule to the Design and Development Overlay (5).

The amendment directly affects 20 sites that are listed in the following table. The table also identifies which elements of the amendment are relevant to individual sites.

No Site 22.03‐4 RAZ SUZ5 SUZ6 DDO5

1 Glenelg Highway, Skipton, Lot 2 x x x LP78265, Parish of Skipton 2 Mt Widderin Caves, Lots 4 and 5 x TP810977, Parish of Borriyalloak 3 Mt Elephant, Derrinallum, Lot 1 x x x TP886368, Parish of Geelengla 4 658 Purrumbete Estate Road, Lake x x x Purrumbete, Lot 2 TP234554, Parish of Purrumbete South 5 Glenormiston College, Crown x x x Allotment 5, Parish of Glenormiston 6 ‘Berry World’, Lot 1 TP166179, x x x Parish of Timboon 7 Barrett Street, Timboon, Lot 2 x x x LP205437 and Lot 1 LP88072, Parish of Timboon

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 5

No Site 22.03‐4 RAZ SUZ5 SUZ6 DDO5

8 Scotts Creek General Store, Lot 1 x x x TP684191 Township of Scotts Creek 9 Camp Cooriemungle, Crown x x x Allotment 10d Section C, Parish of Waarre 10 Peterborough Airfield, Lot 2 x x x TP834074, Parish of Timboon 11 Port Campbell West, 268 Great x x x Ocean Road, Port Campbell, Lot 1, TP174312, Parish of Paaratte 12 Loch Ard Bed and Breakfast, Lots 1 x and 2, LP114924, Parish of Waarre 13 8816 Great Ocean Road, x Princetown, Crown Allotment 2 Section A, Parish of Waarre 14 Booringa Road, Princetown, Lot 2 x x x PS508387, Parish of Waarre 15 Glenample Homestead, Lots 17 x x x and 18, TP130811, Parish of La Trobe 16 Kangaroobie, Princetown, x x x Gellibrand Lower, Lot 1 TP251582, Lot 1 TP231273 Crown Allotment 141 Parish of La Trobe 17 Princetown East, Crown Allotment x x x A, Parish of La Trobe 18 Moonlight Head West, Lots 1 and x x x 2, PS500657 and Crown Allotments 27 and 33, Parish of Wangerrip 19 Moonlight Head East, Crown x x x Allotments 34 and 35, Parish of Wangerrip 20 Moonlight Head East 2, Crown x x x Allotments 38 and 39, Parish of Wangerrip

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 6 2.1.2 Elements of the amendment

Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development)

The revisions to Clause 22.03‐4 include: . Three new objectives and a revised objective. Notably, the existing objective that focuses coastal related development in Port Campbell and Princetown has been expanded to include ‘strategic tourism opportunity sites’. . Two new policy statements relating to topography and the visual prominence of buildings and works. . A new ‘tourism opportunity sites’ section that includes the preferred uses for the 20 sites identified in the TOS. The Clause supports the ‘preferred uses’ identified for each site and discourages ‘permit required’ uses (other than preferred uses) unless a ‘Masterplan’ is prepared and the proposal will achieve a ‘net community benefit’. In addition, a ‘permit required’ use may be considered if the primary use of the site is for agriculture and the proposal relates to the use of the land for agriculture and will support its ongoing viability.

Zones

The amendment proposes to apply: . The Rural Activity Zone Schedule (RAZ1) to twelve of the tourism opportunity sites. . The Special Use Zone Schedule 5 (Tourism Opportunities in Rural Conservation Areas) (SUZ5) to three sites. . The Special Use Zone Schedule 6 (Tourism Opportunities in Farming Area) (SUZ6) to two sites.

Overlays

The amendment proposes to apply the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 5 (Tourism Opportunity Sites) (DDO5) to seventeen sites.

2.2 The Corangamite Shire Tourism Opportunities Study (2010) (TOS)

The TOS was commissioned by Corangamite Shire with funding support from Tourism Victoria and DPCD. The purposes of the study were to identify tourism product and accommodation development opportunities as well as potential barriers to investment.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 7

The key aims were to: · Identify the supply, quality and gaps in existing accommodation and tourism product in the Shire; · Understand why previous tourism developments have not proceeded; · Understand the strategic policy framework for tourism and planning in the Shire; · Identify visitor markets and demand for tourism product and accommodation; · Identify the barriers to tourism development in Corangamite Shire and provide recommendations to remove those barriers and facilitate development, including a prospectus for tourism development and amendments to the planning scheme where required.

The implementation element of the TOS led to the preparation of Amendment C30 and the specific proposals for the 20 ‘opportunity’ sites.

The Panel’s assessment of the TOS is included in section 5 of this report.

2.3 Amendment C28

Amendment C28 affects one of the sites (Site 1, Skipton) that is also affected by Amendment C30. This amendment was exhibited in 2011 and a Panel Hearing was held prior to the C30 Hearing.

Amendment C28 was prepared by Council and seeks to implement the findings of the Skipton Structure Plan (2009). Currently, the majority of land within Skipton is located within a Township Zone (TZ) and the amendment proposes various rezonings to reflect the current and intended use of land including industrial, commercial and residential areas.

Amendment C28 proposes the rezoning of land adjacent to Jubilee Park on Park Street from the Farming Zone to the Rural Activity Zone. The Explanatory Report explained that: The intended use of the land is to provide for short term accommodation for interim workers and visitors to the region. The structure plan has identified this location for a possible future cabin/caravan park facility. A schedule to the zone details this lands intended purpose for short term accommodation and provides a justification for its inclusion under the Rural Activity Zone. The land can also be adequately serviced and is within a convenient location near the highway and adjacent parkland.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 8

This proposal attracted objections and was one of the elements that triggered the need for the Panel Hearing.

This rezoning was also proposed in Amendment C30 (although the site to be rezoned was larger) and was an outcome of the TOS.

To avoid having two Panels considering the same proposal, Council removed this proposal from Amendment C28 in order that it would only be considered by the C30 Panel. All of the relevant amendment documentation, including submissions, was provided to the C30 Panel and submitters were invited to make a submission to that Panel.

The Panel’s discussion of this site is included in section 8 of this report.

2.4 Amendment C29

Amendment C29 affects sites included in Amendment C30. It revises the existing SLO1 and 3 and applies a new SLO4 to the TOS sites 15 and 17 and a new SLO5 to the TOS sites 19 and 20.

Amendment C29 implements the recommendations of the Great Ocean Road Region Landscape Assessment Study, DSE, (2003) (GORRLAS). The amendment was prepared by Council and exhibited in 2011. Following the receipt of submissions, Council resolved to request the appointment of a Panel. The Hearing will be held in 2012.

The amendment proposes to: . Modify two existing Significant Landscape Overlays – SLO schedules 1 and 3. . Introduce two new SLO schedules ‐ SLO4 (Princetown Estuarial Landscape) and SLO5 (Moonlight Head Coastal Landscape).

SLO1 and 3 will be strengthened through: . The replacement of existing ‘Statements of nature and key elements of landscape’ with statements that refer more specifically to the significant features of each landscape. . The introduction of new ‘Landscape character objectives to be achieved’ sourced from both the existing SLO schedules as well as the relevant objectives from the GORRLAS Precinct Development Principles. . The introduction of new ‘Permit requirements’ that focus on activities that have the potential to adversely impact on landscape values, while providing appropriate exemptions for low impact activities associated with existing agricultural land uses.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 9

. The introduction of ‘Decision guidelines’ sourced from the existing SLO schedules as well as the relevant Design Responses from GORRLAS Precinct Development Principles. . The introduction of ‘Application requirements’ including a site analysis and design response.

The two new schedules 4 and 5 include content that is consistent with the proposed revisions to schedules 1 and 3, and content sourced from GORRLAS, supplemented by information gathered through consultation with the community and Council, as well as through site visits.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 10

3. Planning context

Many submissions raise issues with the ‘policy’ context under which the amendment should be considered. These submissions referred to various elements of the CPS and a range of policy documents and strategies.

Given the diversity of views that were reflected in these submissions, it is important that the Panel identify those elements of the policy context that it believes are most important and that it has relied upon in its assessment of the amendment.

3.1 Policy framework

3.1.1 State Planning Policy Framework

The key elements of the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) are included below under Coastal, Tourism, Environmental and Rural themes.

Coastal policies

Clause 11.05‐5 (Coastal settlement) includes the objective: To plan for sustainable coastal development.

The objective is supported by various strategies including: Direct residential and other urban development and infrastructure within defined settlement boundaries of existing settlements that are capable of accommodating growth. Avoid linear urban sprawl along the coastal edge and ribbon development within rural landscapes and protect areas between settlements for non‐ urban use. Avoid development on ridgelines, primary coastal dune systems and low lying coastal areas.

Clause 12.02‐1 (Protection of coastal areas) includes the objective: To recognise and enhance the value of the coastal areas to the community and ensure sustainable use of natural coastal resources.

The objective is supported by various strategies including: Coordinated land use and planning with the requirements of the Coastal Management Act 1995 to:

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 11

· Provide clear direction for the future sustainable use of the coast, including the marine environment, for recreation, conservation, tourism, commerce and similar uses in appropriate areas. · Protect and maintain areas of environmental significance. · Identify suitable areas and opportunities for improved facilities. Apply the hierarchy of principles for coastal planning and management as set out in the Victorian Coastal Strategy 2008, which are: Principle 1: Provide for the protection of significant environmental and cultural values. Principle 2: Undertake integrated planning and provide clear direction for the future. Principle 3: Ensure the sustainable use of natural coastal resources. When the above principles have been considered and addressed: Principle 4: Ensure development on the coast is located within existing modified and resilient environments where the demand for development is evident and the impact can be managed.

Clause 12.02‐2 (Appropriate development of coastal areas) includes the objective: To ensure development conserves, protects and seeks to enhance coastal biodiversity and ecological values.

The objective is supported by various strategies including: Ensure development is sensitively sited and designed and respects the character of coastal settlements. Maintain the natural drainage patterns, water quality and biodiversity within and adjacent to coastal estuaries, wetlands and waterways.

Clause 12.02‐6 (The Great Ocean Road region) includes the objective: To manage the sustainable development of the Great Ocean Road region.

The objective is supported by various strategies including: Protect public land and parks and identified significant landscapes. Ensure development responds to the identified landscape character of the area. Manage the impact of development on catchments and coastal areas.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 12

Manage the impact of development on the environmental and cultural values of the area. Manage the growth of towns by: · Respecting the character of coastal towns and promoting best practice design for new development. · Directing urban growth to strategically identified areas. Encourage sustainable tourism and resource use by: · Developing a network of tourism opportunities throughout the region. · Supporting tourism activities that provide environmental, economic and social benefits. · Supporting the land use and transport needs of key regional industries including tourism. · Using natural resources with care.

Tourism policies

Clause 12.02‐4 (Coastal tourism) includes the objective: To encourage suitably located and designed coastal and marine tourism opportunities.

The objective is supported by various strategies including: Ensure that a diverse range of accommodation options and coastal experience are maintained and provided for and that sites and facilities are accessible to all. Ensure tourism developments demonstrate a tourist accommodation need and support a nature based approach within non‐urban areas. Ensure developments are of an appropriate scale, use and intensity relative to its location and minimises impacts on the surrounding natural visual, environmental and coastal character.

Clause 17.03‐1 (Facilitating tourism) includes the objective: To encourage tourism development to maximise the employment and long‐term economic, social and cultural benefits of developing the State as a competitive domestic and international tourist destination.

The objective is supported by various strategies including: Encourage the development of a range of well designed and sited tourist facilities, including integrated resorts, motel accommodation and smaller

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 13

scale operations such as host farm, bed and breakfast and retail opportunities.

Environmental policies

Clause 12.04‐1 (Environmentally sensitive areas) includes the objective: To protect and conserve environmentally sensitive areas.

The objective is supported by various strategies including: Protect environmentally sensitive areas with significant recreational value such as the Dandenong and Macedon Ranges, the Upper Yarra Valley, Western Port and Port Phillip Bays and their foreshores, the Mornington Peninsula, the Yarra and Maribyrnong Rivers and the Merri Creek, the Grampians, the Gippsland Lakes and its foreshore, the coastal areas and their foreshores and the Alpine areas as well as nominated urban conservation areas, historic buildings and precincts from development which would diminish their environmental conservation or recreation values (Emphasis added by the Panel).

Clause 12.04‐2 (Landscapes) includes the objective: To protect landscapes and significant open spaces that contribute to character, identity and sustainable environments.

The objective is supported by various strategies including: Ensure sensitive landscape areas such as the bays and coastlines are protected and that new development does not detract from their natural quality. Improve the landscape qualities, open space linkages and environmental performance in green wedges and conservation areas and non‐urban areas. Ensure natural key features are protected and enhanced.

Rural policies

Clause 11.05‐3 (Rural productivity) includes the objective: To manage land use change and development in rural areas to promote agriculture and rural production.

The objective is supported by various strategies including: Prevent inappropriately dispersed urban activities in rural areas.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 14

Clause 14.01‐1 (Protection of agricultural land) includes the objective: To protect productive farmland which is of strategic significance in the local or regional context.

The objective is supported by various strategies including: Ensure that the State’s agricultural base is protected from the unplanned loss of productive agricultural land due to permanent changes of land use. Permanent removal of productive agricultural land from the Stateʹs agricultural base must not be undertaken without consideration of its economic importance for the agricultural production and processing sectors.

Policy documents

The SPPF also requires that ‘planning must consider as relevant’ various policy documents. The relevant documents include: · The Victorian Coastal Strategy (Victorian Coastal Council, 2008). · The Coastal Spaces Landscape Assessment Study (Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2006). · The Great Ocean Road Landscape Assessment Study (Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2004). · The Great Ocean Road Region ‐ A Land Use and Transport Strategy (Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2004). · Any relevant coastal action plan or management plan approved under the Coastal Management Act 1995 or National Parks Act 1975. · Tourism Investment Guidelines – Your Guide to Tourism Investments in Victoria (Tourism Victoria, 2008), in considering applications for tourist development. · Any relevant regional tourism development strategy.

3.1.2 Local Planning Policy Framework

The key elements of the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) are included below under Tourism, Township, Landscape and Agriculture themes.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 15

Tourism

Clause 21.02 (Key influences) includes the following in relation to Tourism: The municipality has a range of features that attract tourists with the main one being the Great Ocean Road and its associated features. This area has been recognised in the Victorian Coastal Strategy as one that requires special attention to protect and promote its visual, heritage and environmental values. Tourism along the coast is predicted to grow at 10% per annum for the foreseeable future. Both council and Parks Victoria recognise the need to manage the expected growth to protect the asset. This includes protection of both the natural landscape and the modified rural landscape setting. Of particular concern to council is managing the impact of tourism and its predicted growth on Port Campbell. Some residents see increased development as a threat; others see it as a commercial opportunity. Apart from the coast many tourism opportunities are gathering strength inland. These relate to the dramatic volcanic landscape with its many lakes, abrupt cones and craters rising from the plains and the many historic built features, both town and rurally based. Protection of these features will ensure some prospect of the development of tourism related commerce broadly across the shire as the combination of built and natural heritage assets give the shire a comprehensive and diverse tourist product. The main issues affecting tourism are:‐ · encouraging the development of tourism and at the same time protecting the resources on which it is based; · integrating the development of tourism along the coast with the lifestyle and desires of residents who live in the area; · generally containing tourist related development within the townships not spilling into the rural hinterland.

Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development) applies to use and development: · for tourist purposes; or · which may affect natural, built and cultural resources of the Shire which contribute to its tourism appeal.

It includes the Policy Basis: Tourism development in Corangamite shire is inextricably linked to the quality of natural and cultural attractions. The management of the

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 16

assets on which the industry relies is a major contributor to tourism development.

It includes the Objectives: · To support quality tourist development in association with the landscape and the heritage values of rural and urban areas. · To promote coastal related use and development to be focused in the towns of Port Campbell and Princetown. · To encourage tourism development related to agricultural and other rural based industries.

It requires that the design and siting of buildings and works will have regard to: · The natural and built environment. · Its location relative to transport routes. · The landscape features of the immediate environs. · Integration with existing commercial use and development. · The use of landscaping treatment to assist in the presentation of the development; and · Height, scale, mass and colour to reflect building forms and types that are compatible with the environment. · Native vegetation, watercourses and other natural features. · The capability of the site to accommodate the proposed use and development. · Access from roads, both internal and external to the site and the provision of car parking areas for patrons.

Townships

Clause 21.04 (Objectives, Strategy and Implementation) includes the following objective in relation to Derrinallum: · To increase employment opportunities through the development of eco tourism based around Mount Elephant and surrounding wetlands and lakes.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 17

Clause 21.04 includes the following supporting action in relation to Princetown: · Develop and promote the coastal tourism role of the town. Encourage small scale appropriate accommodation and tourism opportunities in the town.

Clause 21.04 includes the following discussion and objective in relation to Timboon: Tourism offers a growing market for Timboon and development associated with the tourism industry is encouraged. Assets include boutique produce industries, proximity to the coast and Great Ocean Road, walking trails, the natural environment and heritage. Opportunities exist within the township to capitalize on these assets particularly on the railway land directly adjacent to the main commercial precinct. Objective · To provide for a growing tourism industry.

Clause 21.04 also includes the following objectives and strategies in relation to Port Campbell; Objective – Urban Design · To protect the existing low scale coastal village character and identity of Port Campbell. Strategies · Ensure that new development maintains the low scale coastal village character of the town and is compatible with the landscape setting of the town. · Contain the town area to its existing and identified footprint. · Provide for limited new development at higher densities in appropriate locations including in and around the commercial centre. Objective – Environment Protection · To protect the unique natural setting of the town and the quality of the surrounding environment. Strategy · Maintain a compact urban form and prevent urban use and development establishing outside the urban zones of the town. · Contain the town area to its existing and identified footprint.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 18

· Ensure that new development does not compromise the landscape setting of the town. · Prevent development that would compromise important view sheds from the town including along ridgelines around town, the cliffs and bay, along the estuary and to the rural areas to the north of the town and visual links to the National Park. · Ensure tourism development and activity does not detrimentally affect the natural features and environmental values of the town’s surrounds. Objectives – Land Uses and Activities · To develop a vibrant and consolidated commercial area with a range of services and facilities catering to the needs of both residents and visitors. · To develop Port Campbell as a tourism node for this section of the Great Ocean Road. · To encourage increased visitation to Port Campbell in terms of number of visitors and length of stay. · To provide a range of dwelling and accommodation types in the town to cater for the needs of all residents and visitors and meet growth demands. · To encourage tourist accommodation on the eastern side of Tregea Street/southern side of Morris Street. Strategies · Discourage commercial activities establishing outside the existing commercial area. · Provide quality facilities and infrastructure to cater for the needs of visitors, including car parking and accommodation that suits the needs of a range of age groups and budgets. · Improve access to the natural attractions around the town. · Build on the natural assets of the town and develop them into tourist attractions for example heated ground water, marine attractions and walking trails. · Provide for permanent camping accommodation adjacent to the estuary and for peak demand in the recreation ground and adjacent public land.

Many of these objectives and strategies are informed by the Port Campbell Strategy Plan (1997).

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 19

Landscape

Clause 21.04 includes the following objectives and strategies in relation to Landscape: Objectives · Protect the scenic values of coastal areas, particularly along the Great Ocean Road · Prevent linear development along the Great Ocean Road · To preserve and protect important landscape features Strategies · Prevent additional access points outside identified development areas along the Great Ocean Road

Agriculture

Clause 21.04 includes the following material in relation to Agriculture: Primary industry is the largest single industry in the Corangamite Shire. The Shire contains land of such quality that it is important on a State and national level. Issue · Protection of high quality agricultural land from non agricultural based development Objectives · Ensure that the use and development of rural land is both compatible and complementary to agricultural activities.

Clause 22.03‐1 (Agriculture) applies to all land in the Rural Zones and includes the objectives: · To protect the natural and physical resources upon which agricultural industries rely. · To prevent land use conflicts between agricultural uses and sensitive uses and ensure that use and development in the Shire is not prejudicial to agricultural industries or the productive capacity of the land.

In relation to Agricultural Resources, it includes the policy statements: · Land capability and land suitability will be taken into account in the assessment of use and development proposals.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 20

· Agricultural land will be protected as an economic and environmentally valuable resource. Conversion of land to non‐soil based use and development will be strongly discouraged unless there is no other suitable site for the proposed use and development and overwhelming public benefit is demonstrated. · The retention of the resource of agricultural land in productive units will be preferred and the fragmentation of land will be strongly discouraged. · Use and development which alienates agricultural resources, is sensitive to off‐site effects, lessens the capacity of essential infrastructure or in any other way may prejudice agricultural resources and agricultural production will be strongly discouraged.

3.2 Planning strategies and policies referred to in the SPPF

This section discusses the relevant elements of the various planning strategies and policies referred to in the SPPF.

3.2.1 The Victorian Coastal Strategy, Victorian Coastal Council (2008)

The Victorian Coastal Strategy (VCS) is the overarching coastal planning policy document and builds on earlier documents and investigations such as the Great Ocean Road Region ‐ A Land Use and Transport Strategy and the Coastal Spaces Landscape Assessment Study. Key elements of the VCS and the supporting documents were implemented through Amendment VC52 which was approved in December 2008.

The VCS establishes the ‘hierarchy of principles’ that are referenced at Clause 12.02‐1 (Protection of coastal areas) of the CPS, including: Principle 1: Provide for the protection of significant environmental and cultural values. Principle 2: Undertake integrated planning and provide clear direction for the future. Principle 3: Ensure the sustainable use of natural coastal resources. When the above principles have been considered and addressed: Principle 4: Ensure development on the coast is located within existing modified and resilient environments where the demand for development is evident and the impact can be managed.

The theme ‘planning and managing use and development’ under Principle 2 includes various ‘policies’, including:

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 21

Ensure coastal planning schemes apply the appropriate provisions contained within the Victoria Planning Provisions to protect non‐urban areas between settlements for their visual, environmental and biodiversity values. Protect visually significant landscapes, views and vistas in coastal areas through the application of the Coastal Spaces Landscape Assessment Study 2006. Protect non‐urban areas for their visual landscape, environmental, agricultural and recreational qualities. Identify and avoid development in areas susceptible to flooding (both river and coastal inundation), landslip, erosion, coastal acid sulphate soil, bushfire or geotechnical risk.

The theme ‘tourism’ under Principle 3 includes various ‘policies’, including: Support development of sustainable nature‐based tourism that benefits the local community and state and regional economies and heightens visitorsʹ experience of the coast. Support the development of tourism accommodation opportunities that are non‐residential in nature and are consistent with the long term strategic planning objectives outlined within a settlement plan. Improve and enhance touristsʹ and visitorsʹ experience and understanding of the coast, while protecting sensitive and significant areas.

The theme ‘coastal settlements’ under Principle 4 includes various ‘policies’ that seek to ensure that coastal settlements and growth are appropriately planned and managed. This is to be achieved by a range of actions including: · implementing the Coastal Spaces Landscape Assessment Study, State Overview Report, 2006 into relevant planning schemes. · directing residential, other urban development and infrastructure within defined settlement boundaries of existing settlements that are capable of accommodating growth · encouraging urban renewal and redevelopment opportunities within existing settlements to reduce the demand for urban sprawl.

It also includes the following actions: Maintain existing non‐urban breaks between all coastal settlements to support community identity, sense of place and limit urban sprawl.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 22

Avoid linear development along the coastal edge and major transport routes and within rural landscapes to preserve areas between settlements for non‐urban use. Retain non‐urban uses between settlements and protect visually significant landscapes, views and vistas. Ensure development is sensitively sited and designed and respects the character of coastal settlements.

The VCS identifies Port Campbell, Princetown and Peterborough as having: Low Growth Capacity: Growth contained within existing urban or appropriates zoned land primarily through infill capacity and renewal within defined settlement boundaries.

It identifies Timboon as having: Moderate Growth Capacity: Some growth potential beyond existing urban zoned land or through infill but within defined settlement boundaries.

3.2.2 The Coastal Spaces Landscape Assessment Study, DSE (2006) and the Great Ocean Road Region Landscape Assessment Study, DSE (2003)

These studies applied ‘landscape types’ to the coastal areas and hinterland within Corangamite. They identified the landscape character of the Corangamite coastline to the west of Princetown as being of ‘National Significance’ and the area around Princetown and to its east as being of ‘State Significance’.

GORRLAS reviewed the existing landscape protection controls in the CPS and recommended that additional controls be introduced. These recommendations are the subject of Amendment C29 discussed earlier.

3.2.3 The Great Ocean Road Region - A Land Use and Transport Strategy, DSE (2004)

The Strategy includes a number of relevant strategies grouped under themes. The theme ‘Protect the landscape and care for the environment’ includes: Strategy 1.2 Identify and protect significant landscapes. Strategy 1.3 Ensure effective protection of catchments and coastal areas. Strategy 1.4 Promote the region’s environmental and cultural heritage values.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 23

The theme ‘Manage the growth of towns’ includes: Strategy 2.1 Respect the character of coastal towns and promote best practice design for new development. Strategy 2.2 Direct urban growth to townships where it can be best accommodated and limit growth elsewhere.

The theme ‘Encourage sustainable tourism and resource use’ includes: Strategy 4.1 Promote the geographic and seasonal dispersal of visitation throughput the whole region.

In support of this strategy, there are various initiatives including: · Build on the international status of the Great Ocean Road and the Twelve Apostles to disperse the benefits from tourism more widely across the region year round. · Encourage high quality nature‐based investment to enhance the visitor experience. · Encourage and facilitate more high‐quality accommodation including nature‐based accommodation in key towns and suitable locations near visitor attractions such as national parks. Strategy 4.3 Direct significant tourism facilities to key towns and strategic locations.

In support of this strategy there are various initiatives including: · Identify strategic locations for major tourism attractions and associated visitor facilities.

3.2.4 Coastal action plans or management plans approved under the Coastal Management Act 1995 or National Parks Act 1975

Port Campbell National Park and Bay of Islands Coastal Park Management Plan, Parks Victoria (September 1998) and the Great Otway National Park and Otway Forest Park Management Plan (December 2009)

Although these Management Plans are principally concerned with the internal management of the Parks, some of the issues and actions that they raise are relevant to the development of private land in their vicinity, including: . protecting the values of the Park; . increasing the length of visitation; . utilising opportunities to increase nature‐based tourism; and

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 24

. minimising the impacts on the Park of development on adjoining private land.

3.2.5 Regional tourism development strategies

The Regional Tourism Action Plan 2009 – 2012, Tourism Victoria

The Action Plan identifies the following ‘major opportunities for tourism development in the Great Ocean Road region’: · Building upon the supply of high quality tourism product that enhances nature based and touring experiences; · Encouraging visitor dispersal and yield across the region; and · Realising the priority actions in Victoria’s Nature‐based Tourism Strategy 2008 – 2012.

The Action Plan commits Tourism Victoria to working with stakeholders to achieve various ‘priority projects’ including: · Nature‐based tourism infrastructure and product including the development of iconic trails to support the region’s natural assets such as the Great Otway National Park and Great Ocean Walk. · High end accommodation, both large scale and boutique, at key locations along the Great Ocean Road to induce overnight visitation and capitalise on the natural assets of the region

3.3 Other tourism strategies and policies

A number of other tourism strategies and policies are relevant to the amendment and were raised in submissions. These are discussed below.

3.3.1 Victoria’s Nature-based Tourism Strategy, Tourism Victoria (2008)

The strategy defines nature‐based tourism as ‘any type of tourism that relies on experiences directly related to natural attractions’, including: 1. ecotourism (guided nature interpretation and Aboriginal cultural heritage in nature) 2. adventure tourism (horse riding and kayaking) 3. extractive tourism (fishing, gold panning and fossicking) 4. wildlife tourism (native wildlife viewing and whale watching) 5. nature retreats (eco‐lodges).

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 25

The Strategy has a primary focus on the Great Ocean Road and Grampians, Phillip Island and Gippsland, and Victoria’s High Country. In relation to the Great Ocean Road, the Strategy supports various initiatives, including: . Staged development of a parks precinct and interpretive centre at the Twelve Apostles/Loch Ard Gorge. . Nature‐based tourism accommodation and activity hubs.

3.3.2 The Great South Coast Regional Strategic Plan, Regional Development Australia (2010)

This ‘regional’ Plan highlights ‘emerging challenges’, including ‘coastal development growth pressures’ and ‘small town population decline’. In relation to ‘Tourism’, it identifies the following main issues: · Significant barriers to private investment in nature based tourism. · Undervaluing of our nature based tourism assets. · Lack of high end tourism products and supporting infrastructure. · Poorly coordinated tourism sector.

It identifies a list of ‘things to do’ including: · Increase multiple night stays by international visitors to the Twelve Apostles. · Develop nature based tourism products including the Loch Ard Gorge Interpretative Centre, Lake Condah, Great Ocean Walk and the Grampians Wild Walk by 2020. · Identify, develop and promote inland and private tourism products and associated connecting infrastructure. · Build tourist attractions in smaller towns by investing in arts, heritage and cultural events.

3.3.3 Corangamite Shire Council Economic Development Strategy (Draft), Urban Enterprise (June 2011)

The Strategy notes the Shire’s tourism attractions associated with the Great Ocean Road and the potential to draw visitors further north into the Shire. It cites opportunities associated with ‘Artisan Produce’, ‘Nature Based Tourism’ and ‘History and Heritage’.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 26 3.3.4 Great Ocean Road World Class Tourism Investment Study, A Product Gap Audit, Investment and Regulatory Reform Working Group (September 2011)

During the Hearing, Mr Ainsaar and Shipwreck Coast Tourism advised the Panel of this report which was released after the Hearing had ended. The report was prepared by Urban Enterprise Pty Ltd and was jointly commissioned by the Commonwealth and State governments. Its purpose was to ‘identify world class tourism infrastructure and tourism development projects which will both enable further private sector investment in the tourism industry and attract a greater proportion of higher yielding and experience seeker segments to the Great Ocean Road region’.

The report discusses the strategic policy context for tourism, visitation trends, market segmentation, experience audit, product and infrastructure audit, barriers to investment and potential projects.

In relation to Corangamite, the report identifies the following ‘priority projects’ that are described as: ‘game changers for the Great Ocean Road Region, and will have significant flow on benefits for the region in terms of attracting additional private sector investment and attraction of new high yielding visitor markets’: . The Port Campbell Precinct and Loch Ard Interpretative Centre. . The Great Ocean Walk. . Great Ocean Road Signature Accommodation at Moonlight Head. . Great Ocean Road Integrated Resort at Port Campbell.

3.3.5 Other documents

Other documents that were referred to the Panel are listed below. They provided background and context material that assisted the Panel’s understanding of various issues and submissions. . Great South Coast Investment and Development Snapshot, SED Consulting (2008). . The Value of Parks: the economic value of three of Victoria’s national parks: Port Campbell Grampians Wilsons Promontory, Price Waterhouse Coopers. . Corangamite Shire Arts and Cultural Strategy 2010‐2015, Corangamite Shire. . Corangamite Shire Tourism Strategy, Corangamite Shire (September 2001). . Corangamite Economic Development Strategy, Corangamite Shire (April 2007).

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 27

. Victorian Trails Strategy 2005 ‐ 2010, Victorian Trails Co‐ordinating Committee. . Victoria’s Geothermal and Natural Mineral Water Tourism Investment Opportunities (September 2007). . Environmentally Sustainable Tourism Strategy Plan 2009 – 2012, Tourism Victoria. . Tourism Investment Guidelines – Your Guide to Tourism Investments in Victoria, Tourism Victoria (2008).

3.4 Planning scheme provisions

Submissions raised various issues associated with the selection and content of zones, as well as the content of the DDO5.

3.4.1 Zones and overlays

The Panel has relied on the VPP Practice Notes: Applying the Rural Zones (March 2007) and Applying the Special Use Zone (February 1999) in its assessment of issues associated with the zones in the amendment.

VPP Practice Note: Applying the Rural Zones (March 2007)

The amendment proposes to delete the FZ from sites 1‐9, delete the RCZ from sites 10‐20 and apply the RAZ to 12 of the 20 sites.

The Practice Note includes the following discussion in relation to ‘tourism’ and the application of rural zones. Rural Victoria is home to many trails, transport routes and nature‐based attractions that have strong tourist appeal and create demand for recreation and tourism facilities and services. Tourism can promote and facilitate economic activity that supports aspects of regional and rural life. For example, farm stays, cellar door sales and the sales of local produce support agriculture. A range of small to medium sized farming‐related tourism uses may be considered in the Farming Zone (such as farm stays, restaurants, taverns, and farm produce sales). However, if a planning authority is keen to facilitate the establishment of larger scale tourism uses or a more diverse mix of tourism and recreation uses, the Rural Activity Zone may be the most appropriate zone to apply. In deciding to apply the Rural Activity Zone to facilitate tourism in an area, matters to be considered include:

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 28

· the need to protect the agricultural, environmental and cultural values of the area · the scale and mix of tourism and recreation uses to be encouraged · whether there are opportunities to build alliances between tourism business operators, farmers, food and wine producers and trail network managers · the product and infrastructure needs of tourists and the local community · requirements for the siting, planning and design of tourism facilities.

The Practice Note establishes that the RAZ is designed to be applied to rural areas where: · Farming is an important activity in the area but the planning objectives identified for the land support the establishment of other land uses. · A mixed‐use function would support farming activities in the area, assist in preventing the unplanned loss of productive agricultural land elsewhere, or allow for the logical and efficient provision of infrastructure. · The use of land in the area for non‐farming purposes would not compromise the long term productivity of surrounding farmland. · Appropriate buffers can be provided between different land uses so that land use conflicts are avoided. · The planning authority has developed a clear policy about how discretion in the zone will be exercised.

The Practice Note also identifies that the RAZ can be applied to: · An existing mixed use rural area where the mix of uses complements the agricultural, environmental and landscape values of the area and supports the council’s urban settlement objectives. · Rural areas where commercial, tourism or recreation development will complement and benefit the particular agricultural pursuits, landscape features or natural attractions of the area. · Farming areas where complementary rural industry, agribusiness uses, and rural research facilities are encouraged.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 29

Importantly, the Practice Note establishes that: Because the mix of uses that may be considered in the Rural Activity Zone is wide‐ranging, the planning scheme should be clear about: · what the planning authority wants to achieve in the area where the zone is to be applied, and · how discretion in the zone will be exercised.

In relation to the RCZ, the Practice Note indicates that it can be applied to rural areas where: · The protection of the environmental features of the land is of primary strategic importance. These features could include native vegetation, flora and fauna, significant habitats, or they could relate to the visual qualities of the land. · The environmental features of the land are scarce and strict controls are required to prevent the further loss or decline of those features. · Land use and development could directly or indirectly threaten the environmental values of the land and strict controls are required to manage this.

The Practice Note also identifies that the RCZ can be applied to: · Relatively intact natural areas where land use and development could result in the loss of important environmental features or values. · Areas of biodiversity or ecological significance. · Rural areas that contain threatened species habitat, such as wetlands, water catchments and grasslands. · Rural areas of high scenic or landscape value. · Environmentally degraded areas where a cautious approach to land use and development is required to avoid further environmental damage. · Rural areas that are unstable or prone to erosion or salinity. · Open, potable water supply catchment areas.

The RCZ was applied in Corangamite as a translation of the former Environmental Rural Zone (ERZ).

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 30

VPP Practice Note: Applying the Special Use Zone (February 1999)

The amendment proposes to apply the SUZ5 to three sites and the SUZ6 to two sites.

The Practice Note establishes that a SUZ can be applied where · An appropriate combination of the other available zones, overlays and local policies cannot give effect to the desired objectives or requirements.

Purposes of the Zones

The purposes of the RCZ are: To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies. To conserve the values specified in the schedule to this zone. To protect and enhance the natural environment and natural processes for their historic, archaeological and scientific interest, landscape, faunal habitat and cultural values. To protect and enhance natural resources and the biodiversity of the area. To encourage development and use of land which is consistent with sustainable land management and land capability practices, and which takes into account the conservation values and environmental sensitivity of the locality. To provide for agricultural use consistent with the conservation of environmental and landscape values of the area. To conserve and enhance the cultural significance and character of open rural and scenic non urban landscapes.

The purposes of the FZ are: To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies. To provide for the use of land for agriculture. To encourage the retention of productive agricultural land. To ensure that non‐agricultural uses, particularly dwellings, do not adversely affect the use of land for agriculture. To encourage use and development of land based on comprehensive and sustainable land management practices and infrastructure provision.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 31

To protect and enhance natural resources and the biodiversity of the area.

The purposes of the RAZ are: To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies. To provide for the use of land for agriculture. To provide for other uses and development, in appropriate locations, which are compatible with agriculture and the environmental and landscape characteristics of the area. To ensure that use and development does not adversely affect surrounding land uses. To provide for the use and development of land for the specific purposes identified in a schedule to this zone. To protect and enhance natural resources and the biodiversity of the area. To encourage use and development of land based on comprehensive and sustainable land management practices and infrastructure provision.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 32

4. Submissions and issues

This section of the report provides an overview of the submissions and issues that were considered by the Panel.

For ease of reference, the Panel has summarised submissions within three broad categories: 1 General submissions that either support or oppose the TOS and the amendment. 2 Submissions that either support or oppose the TOS and the amendment in relation to the coastal sites. 3 Site specific submissions that support, oppose or provide commentary on specific sites.

The first two of these categories are summarised in this section of the report, while site specific submissions are discussed in section 8 of this report.

4.1 General submissions

Submissions that supported the TOS and the amendment

Various submissions including those from Tourism Victoria, the Western Coastal Board and Shipwreck Coast Tourism offered general support for the TOS and the amendment.

Tourism Victoria cited a number of supportive policy documents relating to tourism development in the region. It also supported the development of a nature‐based lodge in the Great Ocean Road region. The submission noted that ‘planning certainty is one of the essential elements in attracting private investment in tourism developments’ and for that reason sought restrictions on ‘third party appeal rights for a number of the sites’. Curiously, the submission also noted the need for ‘discretion and flexibility’ as projects will evolve and change over time.

John Maher and Carole Reid from Shipwreck Coast Tourism cited a number of policy documents that lent support to the TOS and amendment. They supported the coastal sites on the basis that they met demand for sea and rural views, and nature based tourism, while protecting the village character of Port Campbell.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 33

The Western Coastal Board generally supported the TOS and amendment but sought some changes to elements of the amendment. These are discussed in section 7 of this report.

John McInerney submitted that the TOS and amendment provide opportunities for unique accommodation and tourism products, and will therefore increase the length of stay. Mr McInerney also noted that there were opportunities associated with ‘educational tourism’ and ‘high‐end market share’, as well as flow on benefits from tourism‐related skills development.

Lois Dupleix supported the amendment but questioned ‘why the areas designated for tourism ventures have to be so exactly marked, when there could be better opportunities somewhere else’.

Submissions that objected to the TOS and amendment

Neil Trotter submitted that: . The opportunities to contribute to the TOS were inadequate. . Many of the proposals are speculative (three are dependent on the proposed interpretative centre at Loch Ard Gorge). . There has been inadequate consideration of environmental impacts. . The amendment is inconsistent with existing policy.

John and Dianne Curran submitted that: . The TOS should have addressed planning constraints on existing tourism businesses, rather than just provide opportunities for new businesses. . A number of existing businesses met the TOS criteria and are constrained by planning controls but were not included in the amendment. . The TOS and amendment should include criteria for assessing future development/rezoning proposals instead of rezoning sites now.

A number of proforma and individual submissions raised various issues, including: . There was inadequate community consultation during the study. . The TOS was too narrow in its focus and failed to adequately consider marketing, transport, entertainment, national park planning, heritage values and landscape values. . The TOS and amendment are inconsistent with various State planning policies and principles.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 34

Julie Brazier and Bill Kirby submitted that the TOS was flawed for various reasons, including: . The TOS is opinion based and flawed. . The data does not provide any new information – the conclusions and solutions come from presumptions and opinions that are not evidence based. . There is no evidence the stated outcome of increasing visitor length of stay will be achieved. . It failed to recognise the impacts on investment of the lack of certainty associated with the mooted Loch Ard Gorge interpretative centre. . The focus on accommodation was inconsistent with the oversupply of beds even in peak times. . The emphasis on planning ‘constraints’ is overstated given the number of businesses that have been able to establish in the region.

Ann and Neil Tribe noted that the main reason for tourists not staying overnight was that ‘there was not enough to do’, yet most of the proposed sites offered accommodation rather than activities. They also noted that development outside the existing towns impacted on existing businesses within the towns.

The Victorian National Parks Association (VNPA) objected to the amendment and submitted that the TOS: . Failed to consider the impacts on the cultural and environmental values of the Shire. . Is contrary to various State Government policies and strategies. . Provided inadequate opportunities for community consultation. . Is inconsistent with the ‘hierarchy of principles’ in the VCS.

Mr Russell Costello made a submission on behalf of the VNPA at the Hearing arguing that: . The amendment was not supported by an adequate level of investigation into potential effects. . The potential for small lot subdivision under the exhibited RAZ and SUZ had adverse implications for vegetation and habitat protection. . The potential impacts on National Parks had not been adequately assessed. . The Moonlight Head sites (18 to 20) were particularly problematic in terms of protecting vegetation and habitat values and issues associated with wildfire.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 35

Angela Munro opposed the TOS and amendment on the basis that they do not meet the principles of ‘environmentally sustainable development’. Ms Munro referred the Panel to her thesis ‘A stakeholder approach to ecologically sustainable tourism. The case of the Twelve Apostles, Port Campbell National; Park’, 2001.

Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. submitted that: . Consultation processes were inadequate. . There had been a failure to comply with the ‘strategic assessment guidelines’. . There had been no community consultation in the choice of sites. . An unreliable questionnaire had been used to justify policy changes. . Rezoning along the Port Campbell coastline will impact on public land.

Chris Belcher submitted that there had been a failure to comply with the ‘strategic assessment guidelines’ and that the amendment does not comply with the ‘Objectives of Planning’ or the VCS.

Corangamite Arts Inc. submitted that: . Consultation processes had been inadequate in the TOS. . The TOS had a significant number of omissions. . The development proposals would have negative impacts on the Shire’s cultural and natural landscape. . The TOS and amendment were driven by pre‐conceived outcomes.

Many submissions referred to the existing approvals for tourist accommodation but are yet to be acted upon. These were cited as reasons why additional accommodation facilities were not required.

4.2 Coastal area submissions

Donald Swanson opposed the amendment on the basis that it failed to protect ‘nationally significant coastline’.

Terry Bourke opposed the rezoning of the coastal sites noting that the proposed developments will negatively impact on existing tourism businesses and that the sites are inconsistent with policies to avoid ‘ribbon development’ and to encourage consolidation within existing settlements.

The Port Campbell Community Group (PCCG) objected to the coastal sites being included in the amendment for various reasons, including: . There has been no reasonable strategic justification for their rezoning.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 36

. It would be a major change in policy that would produce a significantly different or new land use in a heritage listed area (Great Ocean Road and Environs). . It would be inconsistent with various elements of the Planning and Environment Act, 1987.

The Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) made a submission at the Hearing on behalf of the PCCG submitting that the amendment should be rejected because: . It would deliver unacceptable planning outcomes and would fail to protect the environment. . It is not supported by an environmental assessment of the sites. . It is inconsistent with State and local polices relating to the protection of biodiversity and coastal development.

Marion Manifold objected to the amendment and the inclusion of the coastal sites on the basis that the TOS was flawed, contrary to various state policies, and there was insufficient consultation. Dr Manifold also submitted that the amendment would have adverse environmental and heritage impacts and was a threat to coastal landscapes. Dr Manifold provided comments on individual sites that are included in section 8 of this report.

Julie Brazier and Bill Kirby objected to the proposals for the coastal sites because: . The sites are not justified by the data provided. . They will result in ribbon development rather than seek to consolidate development in existing settlements. . The amendment will weaken planning controls and create uncertainty for future development. . There has been inadequate assessment of the impact of development on the environment.

John Saxon provided commentary on the TOS and raised issues with the coastal sites (particularly site 11) on behalf of Jane Robinson. These issues included visual impact, wildfire, and flora and fauna impacts.

Harley Manifold objected to the proposals for the coastal sites (10, 13, 14, 17 and 18) because they would destroy the iconic value of the sites and the broader coastal area, and were not justified.

A number of proforma and individual submissions raised various issues, including: . There was inadequate community consultation during the TOS.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 37

. The proposed developments will damage the Port Campbell coast – and the attractions that draw tourists to the area. . The TOS and amendment are inconsistent with various State planning policies and principles.

The Victorian Coastal Alliance submitted that: . Rezoning land zoned RCZ was inconsistent with the VCS hierarchy of principles. . The rezoning proposals were speculative. . Tourism development should be directed to existing settlements. . The proposals would negatively impact on landscape and environmental values of the coast.

Janis Rossiter submitted that the values of the area would be damaged and that development should be focussed in the existing settlements.

David Tiller submitted that: . The TOS and amendment are inconsistent with the VCS. . Tourism development should be directed to existing settlements. . Zoning and other approvals are not barriers to investment.

Tony Grant and Helen Grant submitted that development must be limited to the towns in order to protect the coastal hinterland and the national parks.

4.3 Issues dealt with in this report

Many submissions opposed the TOS and the amendment in their entirety. For this reason the Panel has reviewed the merits of the TOS in detail to determine whether it provides the necessary strategic justification for the amendment. This has necessitated a detailed assessment of the extent to which it is consistent with the policy framework, an issue that was raised in many submissions.

The Panel has also reviewed the amendment to confirm that those elements of the TOS that the Panel supports are adequately implemented in the proposed provisions. The Panel has also reviewed specific sites in light of the concerns about the adequacy of the analysis that underpinned their selection and the specific provisions that have been proposed for them.

These issues are discussed under the following headings in subsequent sections of this report:

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 38

. The Corangamite Shire Tourism Opportunities Study (2010), which includes a discussion of the general findings and implementation strategy in the TOS and the study process. . Strategic issues, which includes a discussion of the policy framework and the adequacy of the assessment of environmental and other impacts. . Local planning policy, zones and overlays, which includes a discussion of the proposed Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development), the selection and content of the proposed zones, and the use and content of the Design and Development Overlay 5. . The twenty tourism opportunity sites. . The additional sites proposed in submissions.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 39

5. The Corangamite Shire Tourism Opportunities Study (2010)

This section of the report provides the Panel’s assessment of the Corangamite Shire Tourism Opportunities Study (TOS). Many submissions argued that the TOS is fundamentally flawed and is not a sound basis on which to support the amendment. These submissions are discussed in section 4 of this report.

Mr O’Farrell argued in support of the TOS and relied on the Urban Enterprise evidence of Messrs Ainsaar and Ruzzene to address concerns raised in submissions.

5.1 Introduction

The TOS provides the key strategic justification for Amendment C30, and consequently its methodology and implementation are central to the Panel’s assessment of the amendment.

The TOS was commissioned by Corangamite Shire in mid 2009, commenced in December 2009 and completed in December 2010. It was then reported to Council, also in December 2010, as part of a report regarding authorisation to prepare Amendment C30.

The TOS was prompted by broad recognition by Council and a range of other interested bodies (such as Tourism Victoria, Parks Victoria, Shipwreck Coast Tourism) that despite the very high level of visitation to the Great Ocean Road region and the iconic Twelve Apostles, exceeding 2 million annually, there is relatively little economic benefit accruing locally. This is principally due to an inability to convert high daily visitation numbers to overnight stays where the consequent expenditure on accommodation, associated hospitality services and retail would support local economic development, not only along the coast but to other destinations in the Shire and beyond.

Brett Cheatley, Director Community and Tourism, Parks Victoria reinforced the importance of the Great Ocean Road region in an e‐mail to Council in which he described the Great Ocean Road as: ‘the number one priority destination in Victoria’s Nature‐based Tourism Strategy’.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 40

He added that:

In future it’s expected that visitation to Port Campbell National Park may exceed 4m a year with more than half of this from interstate and international visitors. This has implications for precinct planning and accommodation provision.

The importance of the region and the opportunity to expand visitor spending was emphasised in Tourism Victoria’s submission: For the year ending December 2010 overnight visitation to the Great Ocean Road was approximately 2.4 million, with growth of 1.8% annually in international overnight visitation. This region is the most visited outside Melbourne for both domestic and international visitors and is Australia’s third most popular natural attraction after Uluru and the Great Barrier Reef…… However, conversion of visitation into overnight stays and visitor spend is low compared with other regions in Australia.

DPCD and Tourism Victoria contributed $70,000 to undertake the TOS. This funding support reinforces the active interest the State Government and various agencies have in the development of tourism along the Great Ocean Road and within Corangamite more generally.

As noted in Victoria’s Nature‐Based Tourism Strategy:

…. Phillip Island and Port Campbell National Park (Twelve Apostles) are important nature‐based tourism attractions for Victoria, have high consumer awareness levels, and receive high visitation. Both of these attractions have limited scope to capture yield and raise visitor expenditure without the addition of supporting accommodation, access and diversified activities. This is severely limiting the economic benefits from nature‐based tourism for these provincial destinations and failing to disperse the economic spend on other products and services at or around the destination.

It is also noteworthy that the TOS was undertaken against a background of a strained, if not struggling, Australian tourism industry where the current high value of the Australian dollar makes tourism in Australia more expensive for international visitors while at the same time making international tourism more attractive and affordable to Australians. This is further compounded by the lasting effects of the global financial crisis that has restricted capital markets for investment in tourism ventures. The extent to which Victoria has been adversely affected by these trends is unclear as Tourism Victoria figures suggest continued growth in international visitation to Melbourne and regional Victoria. However, negative sentiment about

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 41

current Australian tourism was reinforced in evidence to the Panel from several sources that indicated a recent drop in tourism related spending along the Great Ocean Road and an inability by tourism accommodation projects to obtain financing. This macroeconomic context is relevant as it will have a significant bearing on the nature, timing and level of investment in tourism related ventures in Corangamite Shire as envisaged by the TOS and as proposed through Amendment C30. The extensive analysis of factors impacting on tourism that was provided to the Panel highlighted the importance of looking at trends affecting local tourism beyond the current business cycle and to plan for a future that is likely to see sustained increases in visitation to the Great Ocean Road region.

Given Parks Victoria’s prediction of a 65% increase in visitor numbers, particularly in market segments that require overnight accommodation, and the stated opportunities for the nature‐based tourism sector that the Port Campbell area represents, there is a strong prima facie case for planning for the future provision of tourism related services and infrastructure to occur in areas proximate to the Port Campbell and Otway National Parks.

5.2 General findings and implementation strategy

The TOS report was structured into two parts.

Part A was an analysis of tourism opportunities in Corangamite including a description of visitation numbers and patterns, visitor demand for tourism product, some examination of tourism product, and a review of tourism accommodation, including commentary on limitations within the existing planning framework.

Part B then focussed on ‘Implementation’ by identifying tourism development precincts against commercial development criteria, site identification within each precinct that exhibited tourism development potential and shortlisted sites that were matched against the planning framework for rezoning or alternative treatment within the planning scheme.

Part A of the TOS concluded that: . The majority of the tourism ‘product’, taken to include those destinations and attributes that attract tourism and retain visitors in the general area after arrival, is located south of the Princes Highway, i.e. along the coast. . Natural attractions remain the key tourism product type within Corangamite. . Corangamite Shire attracts some 2.6m visitors annually with 400,000 or 15% staying overnight. The vast majority of these visitors (over 2m)

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 42

visit the Port Campbell National Park. Those that do stay have a shorter length of stay compared with the Great Ocean Road region (1.9 nights versus 2.7 nights). . The Great Ocean Road is the major drawcard and so exists as the primary node for tourism development. . Enhancing visitor experience beyond sightseeing is considered essential to the area remaining competitive with other ‘icon’ focussed tourism destinations in Victoria such as Sovereign Hill and the Penguin Parade. . Corangamite Shire is well positioned to develop nature‐based tourism and eco‐tourism as these build on the existing natural attractions. . Inland and northern parts of Corangamite Shire also have opportunities for tourism development as destinations in their own right but also by offering a range of tourism products and experiences that might be developed to complement visitation to the Great Ocean Road area. . There is a need for specific types of tourism accommodation, particularly in the southern parts of Corangamite, including a large high quality 4.5 to 5 star hotel, boutique high quality accommodation in the coastal hinterland, a large 4 star integrated resort and walker accommodation. Improving the range of accommodation types and number of establishments would attract new overnight visitors, despite the current moderate occupancy rates for existing accommodation. . The existing planning framework, including township development constraints that preclude large scale tourist accommodation development as well as a lack of appropriately zoned rural land outside townships, is a barrier to private sector investment in new types of desired tourist accommodation.

The Implementation Strategy identified 20 sites within various ‘precincts’ and then analysed each of the sites against various criteria. These criteria are discussed in the following section.

5.3 Study process

5.3.1 Introduction

The scope of the TOS and its methodology including the adequacy of consultation, the rigour of survey techniques and the process of site selection were raised by a range of submitters as being fundamentally flawed. In their view this undermined the conclusions and recommendations in the TOS and its implementation in Amendment C30.

Mr O’Farrell maintained that the TOS adequately and competently addressed the demand and supply of tourism accommodation in the Shire

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 43 and that the study’s methodology including consultation and site selection was satisfactory to provide the strategic justification for the amendment.

While the Panel was interested in the TOS study process, it limited its primary concerns to those aspects of the process that bear on the strategic justification for the amendment and not on those aspects of process that may, in other circumstances, make for inclusive policy development. The key question for the Panel was whether the TOS was adequate to provide strategic justification for some or all the proposed changes to the CPS as proposed in the amendment. To this end the Panel accepted that a number of sites included in the TOS are either largely uncontentious and their current zonings are inappropriate for their longer term orderly development. At the same time, the Panel was unconvinced that the process used in the TOS for selecting a number of other sites was sufficiently comprehensive, open and transparent, or fair and equitable.

The TOS adopted a ten step methodology: 1 Project inception, involving meeting with the steering committee, establishing reporting timeframes and preparing a consultation strategy. 2 Quantitative research, including a visitor market analysis, an audit of tourism product and infrastructure, an accommodation demand and supply analysis, and primary visitor research. 3 Qualitative research, including a review of relevant policies and strategies, a review of the CPS, identifying and reviewing development trends and a SWOT analysis to determine relative competitiveness. 4 Consultation with Corangamite tourism operators, meetings with stakeholders, and meetings with tourism accommodation chains. 5 An issues and opportunities paper, generated for presentation to the steering committee, that identified: . accommodation, tourism product and infrastructure gaps and opportunities; and . barriers to investment and potential precincts for further tourism development. 6 Field investigation of precincts to review and identify sites for tourism development. 7 Consultation (telephone) with landowners of key sites and meetings with stakeholders. 8 Reporting stage, including identification of strategies and actions, preparation of draft report and planning scheme amendment

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 44

documentation and presentation of draft strategies to the steering committee. 9 Final consultation, comprising exhibition of a draft planning scheme amendment and a draft report for community consultation, implementation of community consultation strategy and finalisation of amendment documentation and report based on community consultation. 10 Implementation, involving a request to the Minister for the preparation and exhibition of a planning scheme amendment and preparation of an investment prospectus for tourism development.

The Panel reviewed the overall methodology, examined the implementation of the adopted methodology and considered the submissions that challenged the efficacy of the TOS. The range of issues that the Panel considered relevant are identified and discussed below.

5.3.2 Study Scope

It is apparent that the TOS was primarily conceived of as a mechanism to increase the diversity and general availability of tourism accommodation in the Shire as a means to expand or retain visitor stays, increase visitor expenditure and thereby improve local economic development outcomes. While the study is titled a ‘Tourism Opportunities Study’ and included some analysis of tourism product, its implementation was predominantly focussed on tourism accommodation. That this was always the primary intention is clear in the Council’s project brief that stated: This project is not a broad Tourism Strategy, but specifically focuses on identifying the demand [for tourism accommodation] (how much, what quality and what characteristics) and then identifying sites and providing the necessary strategic support to allow these sites to be developed.

The Mt Elephant, Mt Widderin Caves and Timboon Berry Farm sites were the only sites where increasing tourism accommodation was not the objective through the amendment. The relationship between ‘tourism product’ that provides the destinations, activities and experiences for tourism and the necessary hospitality services including accommodation that facilitate this is axiomatic. A number of submissions noted, as indeed did the TOS itself, that a key driver for tourists staying or extending their stay is the availability of activities, experiences and tourism product that would prompt extra time and spending in the area. It appears that interested members of the community (including Dr Manifold and Mr Trotter) had expectations of the TOS undertaking a deeper analysis of tourism across Corangamite and were frustrated that the TOS was largely limited to dealing with tourism

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 45

accommodation, rather than the broader tourism product. It became apparent to the Panel that these expectations were not successfully managed during the project.

While the Panel recognises that tourism product development is a critical component of the local tourism sector, it must restrict itself to the core issues raised by the amendment, which is largely concerned with increasing the diversity of tourism accommodation. In doing so, the Panel does not rely solely on the TOS in forming its views about future tourism accommodation demand ‐ it also notes the projected 65% increase in visitor numbers, especially to the Great Ocean Road region, as indicated by Parks Victoria as well as the gaps in particular forms of tourism accommodation highlighted in other State Government reports such as Victoria’s Nature‐Based Tourism Strategy.

5.3.3 Loch Ard Gorge Interpretative Centre

The Panel heard several references by Mr O’Farrell, Mr Ainsaar and various submitters to a mooted major visitor and interpretation centre in the vicinity of Loch Ard Gorge that is being investigated by Parks Victoria. While such a centre might be important in attracting and retaining visitors in the region and creating positive flow‐on economic benefits, the Panel was not provided with any specific information relating to the possible timing, location or features of the centre. Parks Victoria did not make a submission (other than to provide an unrelated e‐mail to Council that was provided to the Panel) so it is not possible for the Panel to comment about the role that such a centre might play in generating demand for an expanded tourism accommodation offer. Ms Brazier and Mr Kirby submitted that the speculation and uncertainty associated with the centre contributed to uncertainty about investment in tourism related infrastructure, noting that: The biggest barrier to investment in the last 5 years has been the ‘rumour’ of a major development by Parks Victoria in the vicinity of Loch Ard Gorge. Because all discussion about this has been behind closed doors there is significant uncertainty about what is being proposed. Why would a developer invest in a significant infrastructure within one of the townships knowing that there may be that possibility adjoining a major Interpretive Centre 10 km down the road?

The centre is referred to in the Victoria’s Nature‐based Tourism Strategy, the Great South Coast Regional Strategic Plan and the Great Ocean Road World Class Tourism Investment Study, A Product Gap Audit although there is no public commitment to it proceeding and little or no detail about where it might be located or what it might include.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 46 5.3.4 Quantitative Research

The TOS included an analysis of visitor markets and demand for tourism product and accommodation.

Audit of existing accommodation

The audit of existing accommodation was undertaken to establish the available supply of guest rooms and bed spaces. The audit relied on Council data, local tourism databases, RACV touring guides and web‐based research. Mr Ainsaar maintained in his verbal evidence that he remained ‘reasonably confident of the accuracy of the audit’ despite some challenges to the currency and completeness of the audit data from submitters.

Of relevance is that room occupancy rates decreased from 54.8% to 49.6% over the three year period to 2008/09, indicating that significant spare capacity exists within the existing accommodation stock. Although this does not reveal the likely demand for the different and diversified accommodation proposed in the TOS, it does suggest that developing more accommodation of the type that is currently available may be unwarranted and uneconomic in the short term.

Visitor survey

A key finding of the TOS was that the accommodation supply in Port Campbell, the primary accommodation node serving the Port Campbell National Park, does not meet market preferences. There is a gap in the market for high quality integrated resort style accommodation, a 4 to 5 star hotel, walker accommodation and boutique bed and breakfast style accommodation, often in locations outside existing townships. A critical aspect of the argument that unmet demand exists for undersupplied (e.g. bed and breakfast) or currently non‐existing (e.g. integrated resort) tourist accommodation was based on the results of a survey of tourists at key tourist attractions conducted over the 4 month period at the start of 2010. A sample size of 290 was used with 182 of these as intercept surveys and the balance as self administered surveys within Visitor Information Centres and some selected businesses. Among the questions asked in the survey were the reasons for not staying in Corangamite Shire. 16% of respondents stated that there was not enough to see and do and only 2% stated that accommodation was not available, with the majority (81%) citing ‘Other’ reasons including ‘time constraints’, ‘not part of the tour route’, ‘passing through’,’ booked elsewhere’ etc. In another question regarding the type of accommodation where they had stayed the preceding night, the dominant accommodation types were nominated as hotel/motels, serviced apartments and caravan parks. On the figures presented in the Visitor Survey Results report, survey

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 47 respondents’ satisfaction rating with the accommodation was high across a number of factors including location, quality of service, value for money and facilities. More than 75% rated the accommodation a 1 or a 2 on a 5 point scale, where 1 represents ‘being more satisfied’, indicating quite high levels of satisfaction. This was in direct contrast to the verbal evidence from Mr Ainsaar who maintained that there were high levels of dissatisfaction. The survey also asked questions concerning preferred accommodation, then compared this with their actual accommodation and concluded there were accommodation gaps, notably for bed and breakfast and resort hotel accommodation. Further questions were asked about preferred star rating for accommodation and then the attributes of preferred accommodation. In terms of accommodation attributes, those that rated highly included ‘being close to the coast’, ‘close to town’, ‘views of the coastlines, rolling hills and bushland’, ‘value for money’ and ‘service quality’.

Findings

After considering submissions and evidence, the Panel places little weight on the conclusion drawn from the survey material that there are serious gaps in accommodation types in and around Port Campbell. That is not to say that such gaps might not exist, it is just that the survey methodology and results are not evidence based in demonstrating this proposition. The Panel found that the survey sample of 290, including over one third of this number (108) being self selected, is likely to be inadequate and unrepresentative of the total visitor population. On the figures presented in the Visitor Survey Results report there was no compelling evidence that potential overnight visitors are being deterred because of the absence of particular forms of accommodation. However, the Panel notes that one limitation of the survey is that it only included existing visitors, not potential visitors who might have different accommodation preferences.

The survey results lead the Panel to conclude that visitors have had relatively high satisfaction levels with the accommodation currently available. However, the Panel also recognises that in light of the findings of other tourism strategies the lack of some specific accommodation types might restrict potential visitation.

In any event, the survey results in the TOS and the evidence presented to the Panel failed to adequately demonstrate the perceived demand for additional tourism accommodation types that underpins the amendment.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 48

5.3.5 Consultation

A number of submissions complained of inadequate consultation in the TOS process. These submissions related to a general lack of community consultation and inadequate consultation with existing tourism owners and operators.

Community consultation

Several community members submitted that there had been very limited or no opportunity to have input or contribute local knowledge and experience to the TOS. This was considered important to allow the broader community to inform the outcomes of the study. As submitted by Mr Trotter: …. the Tourism Opportunity (Study) started with a premise and set out to prove it. The opportunity to contribute was limited to vocal submission at the first and only information session. Written submissions were not sought and there was no opportunity for further contribution until the proposed amendment was announced.

The limited opportunity to contribute to the TOS clearly elicited a negative response from members of the local community. Although the Panel acknowledges the consultation issues raised by submitters in relation to the TOS, these issues do not constitute a fundamental flaw in the amendment. As noted earlier, the project brief for the TOS indicates that Council had a particular view about the outcomes that might flow from the TOS and has based this, not unreasonably, on State and local planning and tourism studies and policies. It is also apparent that some interested members of the community do not agree with this approach and wanted the question of ‘tourism product’ more rigorously dealt with, as well as limiting the spread of tourism development outside established townships.

The Panel also notes that Council decided not to release the draft TOS for consultation, even though the TOS methodology included a final consultation stage comprising the informal exhibition of the draft TOS and draft planning scheme amendment.

While the consultation involving the TOS might have been better handled, the Panel is satisfied that the formal exhibition of Amendment C30 was undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

Consultation with owners and operators of existing tourism businesses

More seriously from the Panel’s point of view, there appears to have been significant gaps in the consultation with the owners and operators of existing

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 49 tourism businesses during the development of the TOS. Shortcomings as to how particular sites were chosen are discussed below, but it is clear that the consultation did not extend to all of the industry stakeholders who would have had an interest in the TOS, and consequently Amendment C30. Mr Ainsaar indicated that there was substantial reliance on local tourism bodies to advise their members of the TOS and that he was confident most of the relevant stakeholders were aware of the study. A number of submitters indicated that this was not the case and that consultation with tourism stakeholders did not occur comprehensively or adequately.

For example, the submission from Mr and Mrs Curren, members of the local tourism association, indicated that they and other landowners in the strategically important Booringa Road area were unaware of the TOS during the conduct of the study and only became aware of it and its potential implications once it had been completed. The Currens operate a motel in an area where the TOS supports further accommodation opportunities. Their motel is on a site zoned RCZ which limits the opportunity for it to expand. The Panel believes that the owners of such an obvious, established and importantly located tourism accommodation business should have been directly consulted as a matter of course during the TOS.

The Panel was also advised by Mr Mathieson that he was not directly consulted or made aware of the TOS despite having had ongoing interactions with Council regarding approvals for his accommodation business in Princetown that subsequently opened in June 2011, albeit after the completion of the TOS. Mr Mathieson advised that he only became aware of the TOS by chance and voiced his concerns about the lack of transparency and adequacy in the site selection process to determine preferred sites for rezoning.

Findings

The Panel acknowledges the community concerns about the extent and nature of consultation during the TOS process. There were limited opportunities for consultation and the informal consultation of the final draft as foreshowed in the methodology did not occur. Whether this affected the outcomes of the TOS is difficult to judge, but clearly there may have been a better community understanding of the TOS and the amendment had stakeholders been more involved and informed.

Of more concern to the Panel is the apparent lack of awareness of the TOS on the part of some tourism stakeholders. This is a potentially significant issue given that many of the 20 sites were initially selected on the basis that landowners had expressed an interest to Council in developing their land. Had there been a wider awareness of the TOS, it is certain that other

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 50

landowners would have expressed similar interest. The issues associated with site selection are discussed in the following section.

5.3.6 Site selection process

Key issues for the Panel in relation to the amendment are how the proposed sites were identified and whether other sites should have been considered and potentially preferred.

The process used to select sites involved three stages: 1 Tourism development precincts were selected which met commercial development criteria. 2 Sites were identified within each precinct which exhibited tourism development potential. 3 Identified sites were matched against a planning framework and shortlisted for rezoning.

Precinct assessment criteria

The TOS initially identified 35 specific sites within 15 Tourism Development Precincts. These sites were then assessed against the planning framework using the criteria included below. This review confirmed the twenty sites that are included in the amendment.

As the TOS indicates, the identified sites were considered to have the highest potential for tourist development that matched developer requirements and visitors expectations of tourist facilities. RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING TOURISM PRODUCT STRENGTHS 1. Is in close proximity to existing tourism product and infrastructure nodes or in a location which exhibits tourism development potential. For example undeveloped high quality natural attractions. 2. Is in an area exhibiting existing tourist visitation and opportunity for increased tourism activity through further tourism product development. 3. Provides opportunity for links to nature based tourism, walks, waterways, State and National Parks. 4. Is within proximity to an existing township. This will ensure that any rural tourism development can draw on existing labour pools and existing local services.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 51

SITE ATTRIBUTES 5. Provides an attractive setting, either rural or coastal, and provides the opportunity for tourism development to capture significant rural or coastal views and vistas. 6. Is elevated more than 5 metres above sea level with preference to areas which are not subject to predictable adverse environmental processes and effects including storm surges, river and coastal flooding or landslip. 7. Does not affect the existing views and landscape, or the site allows for a potential tourism facility to be designed in a way which is discrete and sensitive to the existing environment. ACCESS 8. Has direct access to a major sealed road or touring route.

The adequacy and application of the precinct assessment criteria

Mr Ainsaar advised that Parks Victoria and the TOS consultant team helped refine and validate sites but that the initial site selection occurred by: Council internal investigation into potential sites which may be suited to tourist development in Corangamite Shire, these were identified through past interest shown by landowners and through local knowledge of the region.

In response to a specific query from the Panel regarding the number of potential sites that were identified by the TOS consultants, the Panel was advised by Mr O’Farrell, that he had received advice from Urban Enterprise that: 4 of the 35 sites included in the assessment were identified by Urban Enterprise, these were identified during our initial site visit, they include 4 sites all of which have existing or proposed tourism uses.

The Panel inspected all of the twenty sites, at least to the boundaries, so were able to form views about the appropriateness and application of the assessment criteria. The Panel concluded that the application of the criteria was not consistently rigorous as some of the sites manifestly did not meet one or more of the assessment criteria. That is not to say that these sites may not be suitable for the anticipated development, it is just that they do not meet all the assessment criteria.

For example, some sites (such as 9 and 18) are arguably not ‘within proximity to an existing township’ or at least are not easily accessible to townships.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 52

However, paradoxically it was also clear that some of the sites were selected because of their more remote wilderness locations.

The same applies to sites having ‘direct access to a major sealed road or touring route’. A number of the sites (12, 14, 16, 17 and 18) simply do not have this access. Again, how ultimately pivotal this criterion is to properly assessing the suitability of the sites for future development is debatable and probably depends more on the specific nature of a development, and so the type of clientele and amount of traffic movements that would be generated.

At least two sites (part of Site 16 and Site 17) were selected because of their potential to offer accommodation to walkers using the Great Ocean Walk, a significant local tourist product that was identified in evidence as being further extended and developed as one of Victoria’s major nature‐based tourism attractions. The Great Ocean Walk is planned, managed and maintained by Parks Victoria. However, no reliable information was presented to the Panel that adequately demonstrated the practical link between the recommended overnight stopping points that logically break the 8 day/7 night walk and the sites nominated in the TOS as potential walker accommodation. It was also pointed out in submissions that for walker accommodation to be based on part of Site 16 it would require walkers to traverse private land unconnected with the site, and cross the Gellibrand River, probably in a place without a bridge. Parks Victoria did not attend the Hearing and the Panel was unable to seek its views on this issue (as well as the proposed Loch Ard Gorge interpretive centre).

The Panel agrees that having criteria to assess potential sites is useful and appropriate, however the criteria adopted in the TOS should have been better refined and then more rigorously applied.

The adequacy of site assessment process

The Panel’s inspection of the sites raised immediate questions and substantial concerns about why some of the 20 sites were selected and why other sites, adjoining or in the same vicinity, did not equally meet the assessment criteria.

This was the case in Booringa Road where other sites along Booringa Road might equally have met as many of the assessment criteria as Site 14 (and, incidentally, would not meet, such as the ‘direct access to a major sealed road’). The Panel also formed these views in relation to other sites. This issue became a fundamental concern for the Panel because it raises issues about the adequacy of the site selection process.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 53

The Panel heard submissions from landowners that their sites also met the assessment criteria, but that they were unaware of the TOS being undertaken and its implications for the possible development of their land. The possibility that other sites might also meet the criteria regularly occurred to the Panel as it inspected the nominated 20 sites.

The Panel believes that the lack of an open and transparent process to enable landowners to nominate sites for consideration and possible inclusion in the amendment is a significant flaw in the selection process. It is not as though the actual selection process was impartial – Council selected 31 of the initial 35 sites based on ‘past interest shown by landowners and through local knowledge of the region’.

Planning scheme constraints on existing tourism businesses

As discussed earlier, there were submissions from existing tourism businesses seeking inclusion in the amendment on the basis that their sites met the selection criteria and/or their expansion opportunities are constrained under the current RCZ. These businesses included Anchors (Port Campbell), the Twelve Apostles Motel and Country Retreat, and Pebble Point (Princetown). Two of these businesses expressed explicit interest in expanding and all three, on the face of it, represent the niche or boutique accommodation types or locations being actively courted through the TOS.

The Panel believes that a fundamental and explicit element of the TOS should have been the identification of existing tourism businesses that are constrained by their current zoning, including the RCZ or FZ.

Mr Ainsaar advised Council that: Of the 35 sites reviewed 30 have an existing tourism use or a proposed tourism use by the owner. These were identified through direct contact with all tourism operators through the Local Tourism Association (12 Apostles Tourism Association), and through owner submissions to Council during the course of the project. As I understand the project was widely advertised.

The Panel accepts that there was an intention to capture existing businesses, but believes that the process was inadequate given the submissions from the owners of existing tourism businesses who were not consulted.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 54

Findings

Having reviewed the issues associated with the site selection process in the TOS, the Panel has concluded that: . The site selection criteria were very general and not always rigorously applied. . The reliance on Council officers to identify the majority of the sites based on ‘past interest shown by landowners and through local knowledge of the region’ was inadequate. . Tourism owners and operators should have been more effectively targeted for consultation. . Expressions of interest should have been sought from tourism owners and operators to nominate sites for assessment. . There should have been an explicit assessment of existing tourism businesses that are constrained by their existing zoning.

In light of its concerns about the rigour of the site selection process, the Panel cannot conclude that the TOS by itself provides adequate justification for the 20 sites. As discussed earlier, some of the sites and proposals are clearly sensible and should be supported, however some are at the margin and warrant further analysis than was undertaken as part of the TOS. To the extent that the Panel has been able to do this as part of the Hearing process, it has done so.

5.3.7 Other issues

The cumulative effects of tourism development

The Panel also notes that there are longer term planning issues relating to the capacity of certain landscapes and environments to absorb cumulative tourism development, not only for the sites identified in the amendment but for other potential sites. This is reflected in the exhibited Clause 21.03‐4 which includes: It is policy that the cumulative impacts of tourism development will be taken into account in decision making.

While the Panel did not attempt to define the overall tourism development capacity of areas within the Shire, it recognises the importance of retaining the essence of what attracts visitors to the Shire and preserving the critical landscape and environmental values of the Great Ocean Road region and the Port Campbell and Otway National Parks. This concern was raised in many submissions.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 55

For these reasons, the Panel believes that there should be a cautious approach to identifying new sites for tourism and facilitating their development, particularly where such proposals are largely speculative. It is critical that the right sites are selected.

Disincentives to tourism development

A number of submissions opposed the conclusion in the TOS that the current planning framework and the need to rezone sites were limiting the development of new tourism accommodation. They noted that two significant tourism accommodation projects had been granted planning permits but had not proceeded, arguably for commercial reasons. While the key aims of the TOS included the examination of this issue, it dealt with this in a cursory manner by observing: The financial climate of 2009 may have impacted on developers obtaining finance for these projects.

Mr Ainsaar expanded on this during the Hearing and indicated that he had interviewed representatives of the businesses that held these permits and confirmed that the challenge in obtaining finance was a major reason for projects not proceeding.

The Panel also heard evidence from Mr Tiller who, in conjunction with business partners, holds one of the planning permits for a major project in Port Campbell that has not proceeded. He suggested that developing new tourism accommodation in Port Campbell required an ‘act of faith’ as accommodation supply exceeds demand.

Mr Tiller outlined the extensive economic feasibility studies and market analysis his group commissioned in relation to the project. This underlined the range of commercial factors that impact on the viability of projects and highlighted that the planning framework is only one element, albeit an important element, particularly where a rezoning and planning permit are required.

As an overall observation, it is self evident that the need to rezone a site for tourism development incurs costs and creates investment uncertainty – outcomes that are disincentives to development. The Panel agrees with the general premise in the TOS that the planning scheme should seek to address these issues by applying appropriate zones to suitable sites that will enable permits to be sought.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 56 5.4 Findings

Given that the TOS provides the strategic justification for the amendment and has been the subject of detailed criticisms in many submissions it has been necessary to review it in detail. Having done so, the Panel has concluded that the TOS has a number of flaws that to varying degrees impact on the amendment.

The Panel’s main observations about the methodology and outcomes of the TOS are that: . Its focus was on tourism accommodation rather than tourism product. . The findings and recommendations relating to preferred accommodation types were not always adequately justified by the qualitative research undertaken as part of the project. . The engagement with the owners and operators of existing tourism businesses was not as comprehensive as it should have been. . There was insufficient attention to identifying existing tourism businesses that are constrained by the current planning controls. . The site assessment criteria were very general in nature, sometimes inappropriate and not always rigorously applied. . The process for selecting sites was not adequately transparent. . The reliance on Council officers to identify the majority of the sites, based on past expressions of interest and local knowledge limited the range of sites that were considered. . The analysis of site constraints was limited.

Nevertheless, the TOS provides a useful assessment of the local tourism sector and identified opportunities for diversified tourism accommodation.

It also identified some worthy proposals that will add to the tourism offer in Corangamite that were relatively uncontentious.

However, the Panel does not have enough confidence in the TOS to rely on it to provide full strategic justification for the amendment. Consequently, the Panel has had to undertake a more rigorous analysis of the amendment than might otherwise have been required. This has included the detailed assessment of individual sites and the content of the provisions in the amendment.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 57

6. Strategic issues

This section of the report assesses the ‘strategic’ issues raised in submissions. These include ‘the policy framework for tourism’ and ‘the assessment of environmental and other impacts’.

6.1 The policy framework for tourism

6.1.1 What is the issue?

The issue is whether the amendment is consistent with the policy framework for tourism, both generally and in relation to the Great Ocean Road region. This was a recurring issue in most of the submissions that opposed the TOS and the amendment.

6.1.2 Submissions and evidence

Mr O’Farrell provided an assessment of the SPPF and LPPF in support of the amendment and also relied on the material in the TOS and in the Urban Enterprise and Planisphere evidence.

Shipwreck Coast Tourism also provided an assessment of the VCS and ‘tourism’ policies in support of the amendment.

Submissions that opposed the amendment argued that development of the coastal sites would be inconsistent with the CPS and various policies and strategies such as the VCS. Many of these submissions focussed on the ‘environmental’ elements of the policy framework, rather than those that related to ‘development’, particularly ‘tourism’ development. These submissions are discussed in section 4 of this report.

6.1.3 Discussion

There is strong policy support in the SPPF and LPPF for tourism. This support is evident both generally and specifically in relation to coastal areas and the Great Ocean Road region.

At a general level, Clause 17.03‐1 (Facilitating tourism) seeks to maximise the employment, economic, social and cultural benefits of tourism development. It also supports the development of a range of tourist facilities that are compatible with and build upon cultural and natural attractions.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 58

Clause 12.02‐4 (Coastal tourism) encourages suitably located and designed tourism opportunities and supports the development of a diverse range of accommodation options and coastal experiences.

Clause 12.02‐6 (The Great Ocean Road Region) supports sustainable tourism and the development of a network of tourism opportunities.

These policy positions have been drawn from and are reflected in various planning strategies such as the VCS, and in various higher order tourism strategies such as the Regional Tourism Action Plan 2009 – 2012.

While the Panel is satisfied that the policy framework provides broad support for the amendment, it also includes a number of ‘tests’ against which tourism proposals, such as this amendment, should be assessed. These tests principally relate to coastal sites and the Panel summarises them as follows: . There should be a demonstrated demand for the proposed coastal tourism development, including tourism accommodation (Clauses 12.02‐1 Protection of coastal areas – principle four of the hierarchy of principles and 12.02‐4 Coastal Tourism). . Significant coastal tourism facilities should be directed to key towns and ‘strategic locations’, although there is explicit support for nature based facilities in non‐urban areas (Clauses 12.02‐4 Coastal tourism and 12.02‐6 The Great Ocean Road). . Linear urban sprawl and ribbon development in coastal areas should be avoided (Clause 11.05‐5 Coastal settlement). . Adverse impacts on coastal public land and parks should be avoided (Clause 12.02‐6 the Great Ocean Road Region). . Adverse impacts on agricultural productivity should be avoided. (Clauses 11.05‐3 Rural productivity and 14.01‐1 Protection of agricultural land). . Development in sensitive coastal areas, including ridgelines, primary coastal dune systems and low lying areas should be avoided (Clauses 12.02‐2 Appropriate development of coastal areas and 12.02‐4 Coastal tourism). . Development should be suitably located, sited and designed to avoid impacts on environmental, cultural, landscape, coastal and heritage values (Clauses 12.02‐1 Protection of coastal areas – principle four of the hierarchy of principles, 12.02‐2 Appropriate development of coastal areas, 12.02‐4 Coastal tourism, and 12.04‐2 Landscapes).

The Panel’s general assessment of the amendment against these ‘tests’ is provided below, while site specific assessments are include in section 8 of this report.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 59

In undertaking these assessments, it is clear that the policy framework for coastal areas is more demanding and the ‘tests’ are more rigorous than those for the inland areas. This reflects the general proposition that coastal areas (particularly the Great Ocean Road region) potentially have more landscape and environmental sensitivities than many inland areas. Notwithstanding this, the inland areas of Corangamite have many areas of landscape and environmental significance that also need to be protected.

There should be demand for development

The Panel believes that to rezone a coastal site for tourism development there should be a demonstrated demand for the anticipated uses and an indication of interest in developing the site or likelihood that the site will be developed. This approach precludes purely ‘speculative’ rezonings, particularly broad acre rezonings of large areas or sites. The Panel is satisfied that this approach is consistent with the SPPF.

In general terms, the Panel is satisfied that the TOS has identified types of tourism uses for which there is some level of demand (either now or in the future), notwithstanding its concerns about the adequacy of the surveys used to identify accommodation ‘gaps’. However, the Panel is less certain that there is any immediate or reasonable prospect of some of the sites being developed for the uses proposed in the TOS. The evidence for this is in the existing approvals that have not been acted upon, and the low occupancy rates identified in the TOS.

In this context, the Panel does not support the creation of a ‘land bank’ of sites for which there is no real or immediate prospect of development. Such a land bank would potentially constrain the rezoning of other sites for which there might be legitimate development proposals and an intention to develop. This is a particular issue with Amendment C30 because the Panel does not believe that the coastal sites identified in the TOS are the only sites that might be suitable for tourism development. As discussed in section 5, the Panel has reservations about the thoroughness of the site selection process in the TOS and considers it likely that there are other coastal sites that are as suitable (if not more suitable) than those promoted in the TOS and included in the amendment.

The Panel believes that the RAZ should be applied judiciously and sparingly in sensitive areas because of its wide range of permissible uses. Although there are mechanisms such as Clause 22.03‐4 to manage this, the RAZ should not be applied as a broad acre, general purpose tourism zone in coastal areas. This issue is discussed further in section 7 of this report.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 60

Although the process for determining which sites might have a reasonable prospect of being developed is highly subjective, the Panel has been influenced by factors such as: . Whether detailed submissions were made to the TOS process and the Panel about a specific development proposal for a site. . Whether the landowner or proponent has a demonstrated background in or capacity to undertake tourism development. . Whether there is an existing tourism facility on the site. . Whether there are tourism facilities or attractions in the immediate vicinity of the site that demonstrate existing demand.

The Panel has also adopted the general principle that existing tourism facilities that are constrained by their zoning (the RCZ) should have the opportunity to apply for permits (under the RAZ or SUZ) for further development. While the expansion of some facilities will not be appropriate, it is reasonable that there be an opportunity to assess proposals on their merits. In adopting this approach, the Panel notes that: . the performance and actual impacts of an existing facility would be relevant factors in determining whether it is appropriate to allow its further development; and that . there are potentially broader benefits in encouraging further development of existing tourism facilities in preference to the development of ‘new’ sites.

The Panel also recognises that there will be situations where existing facilities are poorly located and should not be further developed.

These issues affect a number of the sites and are discussed in section 8 of this report.

Coastal tourism development should be appropriately located

There is a clear policy support for coastal tourism development to be located within existing settlements and in ‘strategic locations’. There is also policy support for ‘nature based’ tourism in non‐urban areas.

In Corangamite’s case, there is limited scope for additional tourism development within the existing coastal settlements. Port Campbell has a limited supply of undeveloped land and there are significant planning scheme constraints to maximising the development potential of this land. While there is some scope for additional small scale development, there are significant limitations on new large scale development. Having said that, the Panel also notes that the existing permit for a large scale development in Port Campbell is yet to be acted upon.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 61

Princetown also has limited potential for further development, given its lack of infrastructure, topographic constraints and the growth limits imposed by the town boundary. The Panel notes that the recent Amendment C21 (which seeks to implement the Princetown Strategic Plan and the Princetown Urban Design Framework) does not anticipate or provide for Princetown to be the site of significant tourism development.

The Panel also notes that many of the coastal tourism facilities anticipated in the TOS rely on remote locations in association with natural features. These types of facilities would not be suitable in an urban environment, but would be consistent with the policy support for ‘nature based’ tourism in non‐urban areas.

The concept of ‘strategic locations’ is discussed in the Great Ocean Road Region – A Land Use and Transport Strategy (2004) which informed the preparation of the VCS and the current SPPF provisions relating to the Great Ocean Road region. Although it does not include criteria for determining ‘strategic locations’, it is clear that they are intended to provide for a range of facilities, including major tourism attractions, associated visitor facilities and accommodation.

In the absence of any specific policy direction about what constitutes a ‘strategic location’, the Panel considers that they include: . areas in close proximity to significant natural tourism features or attractions (such as the Twelve Apostles) that have easy access and a sense of connectedness; and/or . areas that have already been developed as significant tourism nodes.

Obviously, they must also include the ability to absorb development without negatively impacting on the defining natural features and attractions.

Simply being located in the Great Ocean Road region or on the Great Ocean Road does not automatically confer the designation ‘strategic location’. Strategic locations are those with particular characteristics that support tourism and that can draw on or complement existing tourism assets in close proximity.

In relation to ’nature based’ tourism, the VCS defines it as ‘tourism that relies on experiences directly related to natural attractions’. Victoria’s Nature‐based Tourism Strategy 2008 ‐ 2014 identifies 5 types of nature based tourism: Eco tourism; Adventure tourism; Extractive tourism; Wildlife tourism; and Nature retreats.

Although the characterisation of a nature based tourism facility is largely derived from the activities that take place on the site, these are dependent on

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 62 the environmental characteristics and opportunities of the site and location. In this context, the Panel believes that coastal nature based tourism sites are generally those that have (or are in close proximity to) natural features and experiences that are fundamental to the tourism facility. These can include individual features or attractions such as the Great Ocean Walk, or a combination of features such as remoteness, views, wildlife habitat etc.

Linear urban sprawl and ribbon development should be avoided

Some submitters argued that the coastal sites were distributed in a way that would lead to ‘ribbon development’ along the Great Ocean Road.

In general terms, the Panel does not agree with this proposition. The coastal sites are reasonably dispersed and few are located directly on the Great Ocean Road. Most of those that are located on the Great Ocean Road are large sites that are proposed for limited, low scale development where visual prominence has been an identified as an issue that needs to be addressed through the planning permit process.

Nevertheless, the Panel has concerns with site 10 (which might be construed as a linear extension to Peterborough). This is discussed in section 8.

Adverse impacts on public land and parks should be avoided

Many submissions, including the VNPA submission, expressed concern about the impacts of coastal tourism development on the Port Campbell and Otway National Parks and noted that inappropriate development could damage the natural features that draw tourists to the area in the first place.

During the Hearing, Mr O’Farrell tabled an e‐mail from Brett Cheatley, Director Community and Tourism, Parks Victoria. Mr Cheatley advised that Parks Victoria supported the amendment, specifically ‘...the provision of a range of tourist accommodation on private land in close proximity of the coastal parkland’.

While the Panel acknowledges Parks Victoria’s advice, it nevertheless has concerns about the potential impacts of development on sites that directly abut the National Parks. While impacts might be manageable through the siting, design and scale of development, the Panel is not satisfied that this issue has been adequately considered in the TOS. The Panel notes, for example, that the TOS does not consider the Port Campbell National Park and Bay of Islands Coastal Park, Management Plan or the Great Otway National Park and Otway Forest Park Management Plan, documents that are called up by the SPPF.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 63

Although all of the coastal sites are in reasonable proximity to a National Park, the Panel has particular concerns about sites 12, 13, 17, 18, 19 and 20 which share direct boundaries. These sites are discussed in section 8 of this report.

Adverse impacts on agricultural productivity should be avoided

A number of submissions expressed concern about the anticipated ‘loss’ of agricultural land resulting from the rezoning and development of farming land. The Panel agrees that there is a strong policy support for protecting productive agricultural land in the SPPF and the LPPF. This is particularly relevant in Corangamite which has areas of highly productive agricultural land.

This is not an issue that is directly addressed in the TOS, although Mr Ainsaar noted that the amount of land that might be lost was insignificant in the context of the total area of farming land in the Shire. This was particularly so given the large size of most of the sites and the expectation that tourism development would be confined to relatively small areas within them. He observed that it is reasonable to expect that the undeveloped areas within these larger sites would continue to be farmed and noted that the proposed RAZ and SUZ supported this.

The Panel agrees that the potential impacts on farming land is not a significant issue given the relatively small areas of land that might be developed and the expectation that the sites will continue to be farmed before, and most likely after, any tourism development occurs.

Environmentally sensitive areas that are unsuitable for development should be avoided

The SPPF identifies a range of ‘sensitive areas’ that should be avoided, including ridgelines, primary coastal dune systems and low lying coastal areas. It also seeks to ensure that development is located within ‘existing modified and resilient environments’.

The Panel notes that all of the sites have been modified to varying degrees, reflecting that they have all had some level of development and that they have all been or are being used for farming.

Having reviewed and inspected the sites, the Panel is satisfied that none are located in the types of ‘sensitive areas’ referred to in the SPPF or that they have fundamental environmental constraints that preclude them from at least being candidates for rezoning. The Panel was not presented with any specific evidence or detailed submissions that suggested otherwise.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 64

Clearly most of the sites have some degree of environmental or landscape sensitivity, but these issues can be assessed during the planning permit process. Importantly, while the rezoning of a site will confer opportunities to apply for planning permits – it does not follow that permits will be granted.

Development should be responsive to the site and its context

The SPPF and LPPF highlight the need to appropriately site and design development, particularly in the coastal areas. The Panel agrees that these are fundamental issues and that the planning scheme should provide suitable guidance about how they might be assessed and addressed. It should also provide the statutory mechanism to require planning permits in appropriate situations.

The combination of new provisions introduced by Amendment C30 together with the existing planning scheme provisions is intended to act as a ‘package’ to address these issues. These provisions include the revised Clause 22.03‐4, the DDO5 and zones that are proposed in the amendment, the existing provisions (such as the SLO, VPO, ESO and WMO) that apply to specific sites, and general provisions such as Clause 52.17 (Native Vegetation).

As discussed in the previous section, the amendment will provide an opportunity to apply for planning permits ‐ a process that will trigger the application of various provisions intended to address these issues.

The Panel is generally satisfied that the combination of new and existing provisions will provide mechanisms that will at the very least raise siting and design issues that need to be addressed. The extent to which the characteristics of individual sites and the site specific provisions that apply to them provide an adequate basis to address these issues is discussed in more detail in sections 7 and 8 of this report.

6.1.4 Findings

The Panel is satisfied that there is strong policy support in the SPPF and LPPF for tourism development in rural and regional areas, including coastal areas such as the Great Ocean Road region. Those submitters that argued otherwise failed to form a balanced view about the range of policies that are relevant to these areas and to tourism development within them.

However, tourism development in coastal areas is subject to stringent tests and requirements, including the need to demonstrate that: . There is demand for the proposal. . The site is appropriately located.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 65

. The proposal will not contribute to linear urban sprawl or ribbon development. . The proposal will not have adverse impacts on public land and parks. . The site does not have any fundamental environmental constraints that render it unsuitable for development. . The proposal will be responsive to the site and its context.

In order to determine whether the rezoning of the coastal tourism sites (10 – 20) should be supported, it is necessary to assess whether these tests and requirements have been met or whether they will be assessed as part of a planning permit or other approval process.

In relation to the rezoning of the inland sites (1 ‐ 9), it is evident that the policy framework is less restrictive. However, the potential for adverse impacts must be considered, and where they exist, there should be mechanisms in place to address them.

6.2 The assessment of environmental and other impacts

6.2.1 What is the issue?

The issue is whether there has been adequate environmental analysis of sites to conclude that they are suitable for the proposed uses.

6.2.2 Submissions and evidence

The PCCG and VNPA submitted that the TOS had failed to undertake the level of environment assessment required by the CPS to demonstrate that the sites were suitable for the proposed uses and that there would be no adverse environmental impacts.

The PCCG also submitted that the amendment was inconsistent with the ‘precautionary principle’ on the basis of the possible impacts of development on threatened flora and fauna.

Some submitters argued that until all of the potential environmental issues and constraints are identified for all of the sites, none of them should be rezoned or deemed to be suitable for development. Some submitters referred to the site investigations that the Catholic Education Office had undertaken in relation to sites 19 and 20, and suggested that an equivalent level of investigation should be undertaken for all of the sites before they are rezoned.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 66

Some submissions referred to the lack of ‘ESD’ and ‘net community benefit assessments in support of the amendment.

Mr O’Farrell responded to these submissions by noting that: The answer to these submissions is that the Amendment doesn’t provide all of the permissions and approvals that would be required to actually undertake a development – it merely provides the opportunity to make an application. There is a wide range of planning and environmental controls at Local, State and Commonwealth levels that will continue to affect the land which is the subject of the Amendment. In this respect, it is submitted that the level of detailed assessment that has been called for by objectors in this case is not necessary for the purposes of this Amendment. It is further submitted that the submissions as to the application of the Precautionary Principle are misguided in this case.

6.2.3 Discussion

It is evident that some submitters have misunderstood what the amendment seeks to achieve and what it will allow. As Mr O’Farrell noted, the amendment allows very little, except the opportunity to apply for planning permits. In this context, the amendment is very specific about the location, type and scale of development that it seeks to facilitate and it also provides mechanisms to ensure that relevant issues, including those raised by submitters, are identified and assessed. It does not follow that planning permits will be granted for any of the uses that have been proposed for individual sites.

For its part, the Panel needs to be satisfied that there is a prima facie case for sites to be rezoned and that there are processes in place to identify and assess unforseen or unresolved issues. The Panel does not agree that the amendment needs to provide the level of environmental analysis sought in some submissions in order that sites can be rezoned.

The Panel has reviewed all of the sites and concluded that many should be rezoned; some should not be rezoned, while others might be suitable for future rezoning to facilitate specific development proposals. The Panel is satisfied that it has had adequate information on which to make these assessments.

The Panel also notes the provisions and processes that will guide the assessment of planning permit applications, including: . The exhibited planning scheme provisions (the zones, Clause 22.03‐4 and the DDO5).

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 67

. The existing planning scheme provisions that apply to specific sites (such as the SLOs, VPOs, and ESOs). . The existing general planning scheme provisions (such as Clause 52.17 Native vegetation).

The Panel is satisfied that these provisions will provide an adequate basis on which to assess permit applications and to further consider the types of issues raised in submissions.

In addition, there are other mechanisms such as the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 and the State Heritage Act, 1995 to address various environmental issues.

For these reasons the Panel does not agree with submissions that the amendment is contrary to the ‘precautionary principle’ or that it should be abandoned, or at least not proceed, until further environmental or other investigations are undertaken.

6.2.4 Findings

The Panel is satisfied that the analysis of environmental and other impacts in the TOS and amendment are adequate to determine whether the proposed rezonings should proceed. In reaching this conclusion, the Panel notes that the rezoning of these sites will only allow limited opportunities to apply for planning permits and that the permit process will trigger the need for a range of potential impacts and issues to be further considered. The Panel also notes that there are other approval mechanisms that apply to various environmental impacts.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 68

7. Local planning policy, zones and overlays

This section of the report provides general commentary on the various components of the amendment before discussing site specific issues in section 8.

7.1 Local Planning Policy

7.1.1 What are the issues?

The issues are whether the exhibited Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development) should be included in the amendment, and if so, what it should contain.

The amendment proposes revisions to the existing Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development) including: . Three new objectives and a revised objective. Notably, the existing objective that focuses coastal related development in Port Campbell and Princetown has been expanded to include ‘strategic tourism opportunity sites’. . Two new policy statements relating to topography and the visual prominence of buildings and works. . A new ‘tourism opportunity sites’ section that identifies preferred uses for the 20 sites. The clause supports the ‘preferred uses’ identified for each site and discourages ‘permit required’ uses (other than preferred uses) unless a ‘Masterplan’ is prepared and the proposal will achieve a ‘net community benefit’. In addition, a ‘permit required’ use may be supported if the primary use of the site is for agriculture and the proposal relates to the use of the land for agriculture and will support its ongoing viability.

7.1.2 Submissions and evidence

Mr O’Farrell relied on the TOS and the Planisphere evidence in support of Clause 22.03‐4. The TOS and Planisphere evidence provided the background to the selection of VPP tools, including the use of the clause.

Some submissions made reference to the existing Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development) objective: ‘To promote coastal related use and development to

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 69

be focused in the towns of Port Campbell and Princetown’ and opposed the changes to it that are proposed in the amendment.

7.1.3 Discussion

Justification for using a Local Planning Policy (LPP)

Clause 22.03‐4 provides a policy basis for assessing tourism related applications and a mechanism to identify preferred uses on the sites identified in the TOS and included in the amendment.

The LPP is an appropriate VPP tool to guide the exercise of discretion in the RAZ1 and the SUZ, and its use in Amendment C30 is generally consistent with the relevant Practice Notes.

Objectives

The WCB proposed that the following additional ‘objectives’ be included in the clause: · To ensure nature‐based tourism and recreation opportunities are sustainable and sensitive to the natural environment and the unique coastal character and offer a high level of experiential learning. · To ensure that accommodation is specifically designed to prevent conversion to permanent residential occupation to protect the future overall availability of accommodation stock. · To encourage innovative tourism, business and rural activities which demonstrate sustainability practices and do not compromise the integrity and diversity of natural assets.

This was supported by Council.

While the Panel supports the intention of the WCB submission (and the objectives), this material is drawn from the VCS which is already called up by the SPPF. The Panel does not agree that they need be repeated in the clause.

Some submissions opposed the proposed addition (underlined) to the existing objective: To focus coastal related use and development in the towns of Port Campbell and Princetown and on strategic tourism opportunity sites.

The Panel believes that this change is consistent with the SPPF and VCS which provide for ‘tourism facilities’ to be located in key towns and ‘strategic locations’. For this reason the Panel supports the proposed addition.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 70

Other content issues

The Panel is generally satisfied that the clause achieves its intended aims but believes that it requires some revision to improve its performance and usability.

Firstly, the clause applies to ‘use and development’: · for tourism purposes; or · which may affect natural, built and cultural resources of the Shire which contribute to its tourism appeal.

Although this is a carryover from the existing Clause 22.03‐4, the Panel believes that the second dot point should be removed. It raises a number of application and interpretation issues and potentially applies to a wide range of permit applications. It also triggers all of the policy requirements in the clause, even though most of them are not relevant to use and development that is unrelated to tourism. The Panel also believes that the decision guidelines in the RCZ, FZ and RAZ and the requirements of the SLOs (where they apply) are adequate to deal with the impacts of non‐urban tourism use and development.

Secondly, the Panel believes that the section ‘Tourism opportunity sites’ is unnecessarily prescriptive and cumbersome. It seeks to achieve a number of outcomes including: . encouraging the use of nominated sites for identified tourism uses; . discouraging the use of nominated sites for other section 2 uses unless: - a Masterplan has been prepared; and - the proposed use and development will achieve a ‘net community benefit’; and . allowing applications for section 2 uses associated with agriculture.

The Panel believes that the requirement for a ‘Masterplan’ is unnecessary and that it should be removed. The expressed purpose for preparing the Masterplan is to demonstrate that ‘the proposed alternative use and development integrates with the primary use of the land and addresses the features of the site and surrounding area’. These are matters that should be considered as part of the normal assessment of a permit application, the need for which is triggered under the decisions guidelines within the relevant zones.

The Panel also believes that the ‘net community benefit’ test is implicit in the planning scheme and need not be repeated in Clause 22.03‐4.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 71 7.1.4 Recommendation

The Panel recommends:

That Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development) be modified to: . Replace the description of when the clause applies with: ‘This policy applies to use and development for tourism purposes.’

. Replace the introduction to ‘Tourism opportunity sites’ with: ‘It is policy to encourage the use of nominated tourism opportunity sites in accordance with Table 1. It is policy to discourage the use of nominated tourism opportunity sites for other section 2 (permit required) uses except where the current primary use of the site is for Agriculture and the proposed use is in conjunction with the use of the land for Agriculture and will support its ongoing viability’.

7.2 The selection and content of zones

7.2.1 What are the issues?

The issues are whether appropriate zones have been included in the amendment, whether the proposed zones will allow inappropriate uses and subdivision, and whether specific provisions in the zones are appropriate.

The amendment applies the RAZ1 to twelve sites, the SUZ5 to three sites and the SUZ6 to two sites. These zones replace the FZ (in relation to the inland sites) and the RCZ (in relation to the coastal sites).

7.2.2 Submissions and evidence

Mr O’Farrell relied on the justification for the proposed zones in the TOS and the Planisphere evidence that described why they had been chosen and how they would operate. He noted that the provisions of the current zones (the FZ and RCZ) do not allow for the ‘on ground’ implementation of Council’s tourism policy because they prohibit many of the tourism uses that have been identified in the TOS for specific sites. He also submitted that the discretion under the RAZ1 and SUZ would be adequately guided by the other elements of the amendment and in combination with the existing provisions in the CPS.

Many submissions supported the retention of the existing RCZ and FZ and opposed the application of the RAZ and SUZ. Some of these submissions expressed concerns about the increase in ‘permitted’ and ‘permissible’ uses

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 72

in the proposed zones compared to the RCZ and FZ. Concerns were also raised about the potential for small lot subdivision in the SUZ5.

The WCB sought the inclusion of additional provisions in the zone schedules to ensure that uses which are incompatible with tourism activities or could prejudice tourism development are not permissible.

7.2.3 Discussion

Use of the Rural Activity Zone

The Panel is satisfied that the RAZ is an appropriate zone to facilitate tourism in rural areas, subject to the planning scheme providing policy guidance about how the wide‐ranging discretion in the zone should be exercised. This is consistent with the Practice Note: Applying the Rural Zones (March 2007) and the purposes of the zone.

In the case of Amendment C30, the proposed mechanisms to provide this guidance are the revised Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist use and development) and the proposed DDO5. While the Panel has concerns about specific elements of these provisions, it supports the general approach that has been adopted in drafting the amendment and the use of the RAZ.

Use of the Special Use Zone

The Planisphere evidence explained that the SUZ had been proposed for five sites because the type of tourism related uses advocated in the TOS were not permissible in the RAZ. This approach is consistent with the VPP Practice Note: Applying the Special Use Zone (February 1999) which establishes that the SUZ can be used when the available suite of zones, overlays and local planning policy would not give effect to the intended outcomes or requirements.

Permitted and permissible uses

A number of submissions expressed concern that the proposed RAZ1 and SUZ 5 and 6 included a greater range of permitted and permissible use than the existing RCZ1 and FZ. The implication being that there would be less control over potentially inappropriate development.

In relation to section 1 uses (permit not required), the differences between the RCZ/FZ and the RAZ/SUZ are relatively minor and are mainly concerned with agricultural uses. Notably, ‘Dwelling’ is a section 1 use in the FZ and proposed SUZ6, but a section 2 use in the other zones. In relation to the PCCG submission that questioned the additional permitted uses (associated with mining and greenhouse gas sequestration) in the exhibited SUZ tables

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 73 of uses but not in the RCZ, FZ or RAZ, the Panel notes that these uses are permitted in all of these zones by way of Clause 62.01. This is a drafting issue resulting from recent State‐wide changes to the provisions, and is not a ‘different’ set of requirements.

In relation to section 2 uses (permit required), the key difference between the zones is the inclusion of innominate (unspecified) uses in section 3 (prohibited) in the RCZ, FZ and SUZ, compared to the RAZ which includes them in section 2. This provides a greater range of opportunities in the RAZ, although the amendment uses the revised Clause 22.03‐4 to discourage section 2 uses that are unrelated to the identified tourism use or agriculture.

The other key differences between the zones are their ‘Purposes’ (these are provided in section 3 of this report). These must be considered in conjunction with other provisions, such as Clause 22.03‐4, and will influence the assessment of permit applications. The RCZ and FZ purposes are more focused on conservation and farming (respectively), while the RAZ anticipates a broader range of uses. Nevertheless, the RAZ requires that use and development should be compatible with the environmental and landscape characteristics of the area, and that natural resources and biodiversity should be protected and enhanced.

The Panel also notes that the RAZ has comprehensive decision guidelines relating to agriculture, dwellings, the environment, design and siting. These decision guidelines provide an important layer of considerations to the assessment of planning permit applications.

Subdivision

The VNPA expressed concern that lots less than 60 ha (the subdivision minimum in the exhibited schedule) that are related to tourism or educational uses could be approved in SUZ5. The concern was that this could lead to a proliferation of small lots that could have adverse environmental impacts. This opportunity is also provided in the exhibited SUZ6 and RAZ1, although none of these zones enable the provision to be used to create lots for dwellings.

The Panel does not share the VNPA’s concerns. There is unlikely to be a proliferation of applications for small lots, and if there is, they need to be tested against the stringent policy framework. The Panel would be concerned if there were additional opportunities for small lots to provide for dwellings, but this is not the case.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 74

Other content issues

The WCB proposed additional provisions in the zone schedules including statements in the ‘purpose’ of the RAZ1. The Panel is satisfied that Clause 22.03‐4 provides adequate ‘policy’ guidance and does not believe that additional material need be included in the RAZ1.

Findings

The Panel is satisfied that the use of the RAZ and SUZ is generally consistent with their respective Practice Notes and that they are appropriate VPP tools to facilitate the tourism uses advocated in the TOS. As discussed earlier, this support for the RAZ and SUZ is contingent upon there being complementary provisions that guide the exercise of discretion, particularly Clause 22.03‐4.

Nevertheless, the Panel notes that the RAZ provides opportunities to apply for a wider range of uses than the RCZ, FZ and SUZ. Although this discretion is restricted by Clause 21.02‐3, it is possible to apply for various uses that might not be appropriate in parts of the coastal areas of the Shire. This is not a basis on which to oppose the use of the zone, but it is a reason for applying it judiciously and sparingly.

7.3 Design and Development Overlay

7.3.1 What is the issue?

The issues with the DDO5 are whether it is needed for specific sites, and if so, what it should contain.

The amendment applies the DDO5 to seventeen sites. It includes general design objectives, buildings and works requirements and individual ‘decision guidelines’ and identifies ‘preferred indicative locations for development’ for sixteen of the sites.

7.3.2 Submissions and evidence

Mr O’Farrell relied on the TOS and the Planisphere evidence in support of the DDO5. The Planisphere evidence provided the background to the selection of VPP tools, including the DDO.

Mr O’Farrell submitted a revised DDO5 at the close of the Hearing (document 39) that included revisions to the ‘siting of buildings and works’ and ‘permit’ requirements, as well as to the ‘decision guidelines’ for the individual sites.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 75

The WCB sought the inclusion of additional reference documents: . The Siting and Design Guidelines for Structures on the Victorian Coast, Victorian Coastal Council, May 1998; and the . Great Ocean Road Region Landscape Assessment Study, DSE, 2003.

This was supported by Council.

The PCCG raised issues with the content of the DDO5 and observed that it was focussed on ’aesthetics, not the avoidance of adverse environmental impacts’. In relation to the ‘preferred indicative locations for development’, the PCCG submitted that the assessment of potential environmental impacts of development within these areas had been deficient and that on further analysis the sites might prove to be inappropriate for environmental reasons. In the event that the amendment proceeded, the PCCG submitted that the DDO5 should include a requirement to prepare a detailed flora and fauna assessment.

7.3.3 Discussion

Use of the Design and Development Overlay

The Panel supports the general principle that a DDO is an appropriate VPP tool to assist the exercise of discretion under the RAZ and SUZ in the context of Amendment C30. However, it has concerns about elements of the DDO5, including the analysis that underpins many of its requirements, whether it should be applied to specific sites, and if it is applied, what it should contain.

Content of the DDO5

The Panel’s inspections of the sites and its subsequent review of whether a DDO was necessary and what it might contain led it to form conclusions about these matters that were often at odds with those reached in the TOS and reflected in the exhibited DDO5.

The Panel believes that many of the decision guidelines are too general to be useful, that they seek to address general design issues that are already referenced in the decision guidelines of the applicable zones, that they replicate existing specific provisions (such as the Heritage Overlay) and that they often reflect a poor or incomplete analysis of the site. In relation to this last observation, the authors of the DDO5 did not inspect two of the sites (sites 8 and 9) that are subject to the overlay.

The Panel also notes that the revised Clause 22.03‐4 requires a comprehensive range of design and siting issues to be considered, some of which are duplicated in the DDO5 decision guidelines.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 76

Preferred indicative locations for development

The Panel also has reservations about many of the ‘preferred indicative locations for development.’ Although it understands the general rationale for selecting these areas, the Panel is concerned about the adequacy of the site analysis that led to their delineation and whether they are necessary in light of other provisions in the planning scheme that address ‘siting’ issues. The Panel notes, for example, that the ‘design and siting’ decision guidelines in the RAZ include: · The impact of the siting, design, height, bulk, colours and materials to be used, on the natural environment, major roads, vistas and water features and the measures to be undertaken to minimise any adverse impacts. · The impact on the character and appearance of the area or features of architectural, historic or scientific significance or of natural scenic beauty or importance.

In addition, the Panel agrees with the PCCG submission that although the ‘preferred indicative locations for development’ might address visual impact issues, there may be other factors (such as native vegetation, wild fire, landslip, impacts on National Parks etc) that make development in these ‘locations’ impractical or undesirable. For this reason, it would be premature to identify preferred development areas for some of the sites without a more comprehensive analysis of other ‘siting’ issues.

Reference Documents

In relation to the WCB submission about including additional reference documents, the Panel notes that the Great Ocean Road Region Landscape Assessment Study is already referenced in the SPPF as ‘policy guideline’ and does not believe that it need also be referenced in the DDO5.

The Panel has no objection to including The Siting and Design Guidelines for Structures on the Victorian Coast, Victorian Coastal Council, May 1998 as a reference document.

7.3.4 Findings

Although the Panel acknowledges the potential benefits of using a DDO to address built form and siting issues in sensitive rural and coastal locations, it has a range of concerns about the exhibited DDO5 and its application to most of the sites in Amendment C30. These site specific issues are discussed in section 9 of this report.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 77 7.3.5 Recommendation

The Panel recommends:

That the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 5 (Tourism opportunity sites) be modified to include The Siting and Design Guidelines for Structures on the Victorian Coast, Victorian Coastal Council, (May 1998) as a Reference Document.

7.4 Consistency between Amendments C29 and C30

The WCB submitted that the zone schedules in Amendment C30 may not be consistent with the buildings and works exemptions in the SLOs proposed in Amendment C29.

Mr O’Farrell agreed that ‘cross‐checking’ the exemptions in Amendments C29 and C30 should be undertaken and indicated that Council would do so before adopting Amendment C30.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 78

8. The tourism opportunity sites

This section of the report discusses site specific issues associated with the twenty sites referred to in the amendment and provides the Panel’s findings and recommendations in relation to them.

The sites have been assessed in terms of the site specific submissions and against the policy framework discussed in section 7, in which the Panel differentiated between the ‘inland’ sites (1 ‐ 9) and the coastal sites (10 – 20). The Panel concluded that the policy framework for coastal sites was more rigorous than that for the inland sites.

8.1 Glenelg Highway, Skipton (Site 1)

(Lot 2 LP78265, Parish of Skipton)

8.1.1 The site

Site 1 is to the north‐east of the Skipton urban area and consists of approximately 15 ha of cleared farming land. It is zoned FZ and is not subject to any overlays. The TOS identifies the potential uses as ‘Camping or caravan park’ and ‘Temporary worker accommodation’.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 79 8.1.2 Proposal

Amendment C30 proposes to: . Rezone the site from FZ to RAZ. . Apply the DDO5. . Include a reference to the site in revised Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development) which identifies ‘Camping and caravan park’ as preferred uses.

The exhibited DDO5 includes the following decision guidelines in relation to this site: · Buildings are low in scale. · Buildings are constructed of materials that complement the surrounding landscape. · If sited on the south‐eastern part of the site, buildings are well set back from the boundary and screened by vegetation. · Vegetation screening is provided along the western boundary.

It also includes a ‘preferred location for built form’. Mr O’Farrell submitted a revised DDO5 at the Hearing.

The site is also subject to Amendment C28 which proposes to: . Rezone part of the site from FZ to RAZ. . Reference part of the site as within an area designated as ‘Potential Future Town Boundary Expansion’ in the proposed Skipton Structure Plan.

The C28 Explanatory Report describes the proposal as follows: The intended use of the land is to provide for short term accommodation for interim workers and visitors to the region. The structure plan has identified this location for a possible future cabin/caravan park facility. A schedule to the zone details this land’s intended purpose for short term accommodation and provides a justification for its inclusion under the Rural Activity Zone. The land can also be adequately serviced and is within a convenient location near the highway and adjacent parkland.

The background to Amendment C28 and its relationship to Amendment C30 are discussed in section 2.3 of this report.

The Panel sought advice from Mr O’Farrell about how it should proceed in order that the two amendments would be consistent in the event that the Panel supported the proposed changes. The C28 Panel recommended that

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 80

the amendment be adopted subject to various revisions. Mr O’Farrell advised that Council had yet to resolve how to deal with the C28 Panel recommendations, but that his submissions were based on those recommendations being adopted. He submitted that in the event that the Panel supported the amendment, it should recommend: That clause 21.04‐1 Settlement Skipton be amended by replacing the current provisions of clause 21.04 with the ‘marked‐up’ changes shown in the document titles ‘Additional Amendment C30 document for Skipton including reference to site 1’ provided to the Panel. That the map to clause 21.04‐1 Settlement be amended to illustrate site 1. That site 1 be rezoned RAZ 1 as proposed in the exhibited amendment. That site 1 be subject to the DDO5 in line with Ms Riddle’s ‘marked‐up’ version of the provision.

8.1.3 Submissions and evidence

Mr Rogers objected to both amendments and the proposed rezoning of the site on the basis that: . There was insufficient demand for a caravan park in Skipton and there is existing accommodation. . It would only be viable if it had long term tenants. . The site is unsuitable, given flooding and topographical constraints. . Skipton should be a ‘dormitory’ town that is suitable for retirees.

Janos and Bozica Sakac live adjacent to the site and submitted that the development of a caravan park will have adverse privacy and amenity impacts on their property.

Robert Klemke supported the rezoning given its proximity to a range of services and facilities. He noted that it was on higher ground than other areas and less liable to flooding.

A petition raised issues with flooding of the site, possible Council involvement in developing the site and lack of demand.

The VNPA submitted that the assessment of potential ecological constraints in the TOS was inadequate.

Mr O’Farrell relied on the support for the rezoning in the TOS and the Skipton Structure Plan and the Planisphere evidence. He submitted that the site was suitable for the proposed uses and that detailed issues such as amenity impacts would be addressed at the planning permit stage. The

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 81

Planisphere evidence noted that the site has a number of locational advantages that supported its proposed uses.

8.1.4 Discussion

The Panel is satisfied that the site is suitable for the tourism uses proposed in the amendment and agrees with Mr O’Farrell that the planning permit process will provide the mechanism to address on‐site issues and off‐site impacts, including flooding. The Panel is also satisfied that the rezoning is consistent with the Skipton Structure Plan which identifies this site (or part of it) as one of two potential tourism accommodation sites.

The Panel does not agree with the submissions that opposed tourism development on the site because it might be inconsistent with a perceived role for the town. The Panel is satisfied that the development of tourist accommodation would be consistent with the ‘Vision’ for Skipton in the Skipton Structure Plan and provide an opportunity to diversify the local economy and take advantage of local tourism opportunities.

During the Hearing, the Panel questioned whether the DDO5 was necessary for this site and noted that the ‘preferred indicative location for built form’ was within a reasonably prominent drainage line that would have cost and stormwater flooding impacts for development. This is in contrast to the remainder of the site that is relatively flat and seemingly unconstrained. The Panel also noted that it is a large lot with many siting options to address visual and amenity impacts.

Mr O’Farrell acknowledged the Panel’s concerns and sought a recommendation about whether the DDO5 should be applied, and if so, what it should contain.

The Panel does not believe that a DDO is necessary for this site. The decision guidelines in the RAZ1 and the requirements in the revised Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist use and development) provide an adequate basis on which to address design and siting issues. The Panel is also unconvinced that the ‘preferred location for built form’ is either sensible or needed.

The Panel does not believe that the revised DDO5 submitted by Mr O’Farrell at the Hearing includes any new or revised material that warrants being supported.

In relation to Amendment C28, the Panel notes that proposed Clause 21.04 (Skipton) supplied by Mr O’Farrell (document 38) includes references to ‘short term accommodation’ in the ‘Overview’ and ‘Strategies’, as well as to

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 82

‘caravan park/cabin facility’ in ‘Implementation’. These references should be changed to ‘Camping and caravan park’ to be consistent with Clause 22.03‐4.

8.1.5 Recommendations

In relation to Amendment C30, the Panel recommends:

That the Design and Development Schedule 5 (Tourism Opportunity Sites) be modified to: . Remove the material relating to Site 1 (Lot 2 LP78265, Parish of Skipton).

That Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development) be modified to: . Remove the DDO5 Map Reference to Site 1 (Lot 2 LP78265, Parish of Skipton) from Table 1.

In relation to Amendment C28, the Panel supports the consequential changes proposed by Council (Document 38), except to replace the references to ‘short term accommodation’ and ‘caravan park/cabin facility’ with ‘Camping and caravan park’ in Clause 21.04 (Skipton).

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 83

8.2 Mount Widderin Caves (Site 2)

(Lots 4 and 5 TP810977, Parish of Borriyalloak)

8.2.1 The site

Site 2 is south of Skipton and consists of approximately 246 ha of predominantly cleared farming land with a dwelling and associated outbuildings. It is zoned FZ and subject to the SLO1 and the HO106 which applies to an English Oak tree. The site is notable for containing the Mount Widderin volcanic caves which are a geological feature of State significance. The caves are accessible to the public by appointment with the owner. The TOS identifies the potential tourism uses as ‘Interpretation centre’ and ‘Group accommodation or camping in association with tours’.

8.2.2 Proposal

The amendment proposes to include a reference to this site in revised Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development) which identifies ‘Group accommodation’ and ‘Interpretation centre’ as preferred uses. It does not propose to rezone the site or apply the DDO5.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 84 8.2.3 Submissions and evidence

Mr O’Farrell relied on the TOS and the Urban Enterprise and Planisphere evidence in support of the proposals for this site. Planisphere noted that the current activities on the site can continue under the FZ, but that it would need to be rezoned to allow more intensive tourism use in the future.

The VNPA submitted that the assessment of potential ecological constraints in the TOS was inadequate. A number of other submissions objected to this proposal as part of general objections to the TOS and amendment.

8.2.4 Discussion

The Panel supports this element of the amendment on the basis that: . The site is a ‘strategic location’ by virtue of the Mount Widderin Caves. . Tourism development associated with the Mount Widderin Caves is consistent with nature based tourism policies. . The site is predominantly cleared farming land and there are no apparent landscape or environmental constraints of significance.

The Panel considers that identifying the tourism potential of this site in Clause 22.03‐2 and foreshadowing a possible future rezoning to RAZ in the TOS are entirely appropriate in light of the opportunities associated with the Mount Widderin Caves.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 85

8.3 Mount Elephant, Derrinallum (Site 3)

(Lot 1 TP886368, Parish of Geelengla)

8.3.1 The site

Site 3 is approximately 136 ha and to the west of and in close proximity to Derrinallum. It is predominantly cleared farming land and the site of Mount Elephant. Val Lang on behalf of the Mount Elephant Community Management (MECM) advised that the site was jointly purchased by the local community and the Trust for Nature. It is managed by MECM, while the title is held by the Trust for Nature. The site is made available for community and visitor access on set days and by appointment.

The site is zoned FZ and subject to the SLO1. Mt Elephant is referenced in the MSS as a ‘significant cultural heritage item’.

The TOS identifies the potential uses as ‘Food and drink premises’ (e.g. kiosk) and ‘Interpretation centre’. The TOS also recommended that the existing SLO1 be expanded to the area within the surrounding roads in order to protect views to the site.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 86 8.3.2 Proposal

The amendment proposes to: . Rezone the site from the FZ to the SUZ6. . Apply the DDO5. . Include a reference to the site in a revised Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development) which identifies ‘Food and drink premises’ (other than Hotel and Tavern) and ‘Interpretation centre’ as preferred uses.

The exhibited DDO5 includes the following decision guidelines for the site: · The suitability of the proposal in the context of any master plan prepared for the site. · No buildings are located on the cone itself. · The visibility of buildings and structures is minimised from the Hamilton Highway, O’Donnell Road, Heards Road and Mt Elephant Road. · Buildings and structures are low in scale.

It also requires that an application for a tourist‐related development be accompanied by a Masterplan, although the requirement can be waived for minor buildings and works.

The proposed site for the visitor centre is on the floor of an old quarry, and vehicular access is principally from the Hamilton Highway, through a long term lease of an access track on land owned by the Mitchells, the current owners of the adjoining land and submitters to Amendment C30.

8.3.3 Submissions and evidence

Mr O’Farrell relied on the TOS and the Urban Enterprise and Planisphere evidence in support of the proposals for this site.

Val Lang advised that MECM supports the amendment and plans to develop a visitor centre at the site to cater for increasing visitor numbers. Ms Lang indicated that the site is currently open one day a month and has had approximately 1,000 visitors per annum, with peaks of 50 ‐ 60 people on holiday weekends. Ms Lang indicated that the visitor centre was intended to provide shelter and interpretation facilities, and potentially a ‘coffee shop’. Half of the required funding for the visitor centre has been secured and the other half will be sought from the Regional Growth Fund. Ms Lang highlighted the significance of the site to the local community and the intention that any development does not undermine the local community and businesses.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 87

Andrew Burns represented the Trust for Nature which owns the site and supports the amendment. Mr Burns supplied copies of the Mount Elephant Management Plan (December 2002) and described the Trust’s involvement in the site and its relationship with the MECM. Mr Burns indicated that the proposed visitor centre was consistent with the Management Plan and also noted that the Trust has power of ‘veto’ over development and use of its sites. He also indicated that the Trust does not support third party commercial development and use of its sites and would not support such development at Mount Elephant. He noted that low scale uses such as a ‘coffee shop’ within the proposed visitor centre run by volunteers might be supported.

Ivor Coster supported the amendment but submitted that the proposed DDO5 and SUZ5 should be extended to include the area bounded by the Hamilton Highway, Mount Elephant Road, Heards Road and O’Donnells Road. He submitted that this would provide an additional buffer area and ‘would avoid any future quarry applications and other inappropriate developments on the adjoining properties, whilst allowing the current farming activities to continue...’. This was opposed by Mr Tobin on behalf of the Mitchells.

Wannon Water advised that water services are not available to this area, and that a booster pump station and a tower would need to be installed. Reticulated sewerage services are not available.

Greg Tobin represented Gavin and Judith Mitchell, the owners of land generally to the north of Mount Elephant that comprises approximately 134 ha. They support the vision to develop an interpretative centre on the site but have a number of concerns about the TOS process and the proposed planning controls for this site. These include: . The lack of consultation during the preparation of the TOS. . A ‘disconnect between the public vision of the MECM and the breadth of what the controls seek to permit’.

Mr Tobin made detailed submissions comparing the SUZ5 provisions to what are intended for the site by MECM and in the TOS. He submitted that the range of possible uses raised issues such as impacts on existing businesses in Derrinallum and on the agricultural productivity of the Mitchell’s property. Mr Tobin recommended a number of changes to the amendment, and submitted a revised zone schedule (Document 28).

Gary and Jane French supported the amendment but opposed an extension of the SLO to the surrounding area.

Marion Manifold raised concerns about the extent of the area to be rezoned.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 88

A number of other submissions objected to this proposal as part of general objections to the TOS and amendment.

8.3.4 Discussion

Mount Elephant is a significant local tourism and natural asset and the Panel applauds the local community and the Trust for Nature for their support for the site.

While the Panel supports the intent of the amendment in relation to this site, the proposed SUZ6 raises a number of issues.

Firstly, the Panel believes that the site should have a site specific SUZ rather than the generic SUZ6 proposed in the amendment. This is consistent with (and a consequence of) the Panel’s recommendation elsewhere in this report that the only other site selected for the SUZ6 (Glenormiston College) should also have site specific schedule. This approach was discussed at the Hearing and was generally supported by Mr O’Farrell.

In relation to the content of the SUZ, the Panel shares some of the concerns expressed by Mr Tobin on behalf of the Mitchells about the extent of permitted uses. It agrees that accommodation uses such as ‘Dependant person’s unit’, ‘Dwelling’ and ‘Bed and breakfast’, should be section 2 (permit required) rather than section 1 (permitted) uses. In relation to section 2 uses, the Panel agrees that ‘Residential hotel’ should be included in section 3 (prohibited), but is satisfied that the other exhibited section 2 uses should be retained. Mr O’Farrell supported accommodation uses being included in section 2.

The Panel does not agree with the proposition that ‘Food or drink premises’ or ‘Restaurant’ should be prohibited or be subject to floorspace or operational restrictions in the schedule. The Trust for Nature indicated that it does not allow commercial development on its sites and that it is not supported in the Mount Elephant Management Plan (2002). MECM indicated that it might seek to provide refreshments at the interpretative centre, but this would be in support of the centre rather than a standalone commercial operation. The Panel does not support the prohibition of theses uses or restrictions on floorspace because they might impede appropriate uses such as providing refreshments to an occasional bus load of visitors, or holding occasional fund raising events on the site. The Panel is satisfied that there should be a degree of flexibility in relation to these matters.

The new schedule should carry over the provisions of the exhibited SUZ6, except to: . Rename the schedule.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 89

. Include ‘purposes’ that are specific to the site. . Reposition ‘Dependant person’s unit’, ‘Dwelling’ and ‘Bed and breakfast’ into section 2 of the table of uses. . Reposition ‘Residential hotel’ into section 3 of the table of uses. . Delete any material unrelated to the site.

The Panel believes that the concerns expressed by Mr Tobin about the impacts of a visitors centre on the amenity of the Mitchell’s dwelling and the operation of their farm are overstated. The Panel is satisfied that it is intended to be a small‐scale, low intensity use that will have minimal, if any, notable impacts. In the event that something more significant is proposed in the future, then possible impacts can be assessed as part of the planning permit process.

The Panel does not agree with Mr Coster that the SUZ and DDO5 should also apply to adjoining land. While the Panel shares his concerns about the potential impacts on Mount Elephant of development in its vicinity, the appropriate mechanism to address this is through the application of a Significant Landscape Overlay. Mr O’Farrell indicated that Council is considering this issue as part of its deliberations relating to Amendment C29.

The Panel supports the application of the DDO5 (specifically the revised DDO5 submitted by Mr O’Farrell) and the references in Clause 22.03‐4. This is a site where the need for the ‘preferred indicative location for built form’ is clearly justified.

8.3.5 Recommendations

The Panel recommends:

That a site specific Special Use Zone be applied to Site 3 (Mount Elephant) that is generally consistent with the exhibited SUZ6 except to: . Rename the schedule. . Include ‘purposes’ that are specific to the site. . Reposition ‘Dependant person’s unit’, ‘Dwelling’ and ‘Bed and breakfast’ into section 2 of the table of uses. . Reposition ‘Residential hotel’ into section 3 of the table of uses. . Delete any material unrelated to the site.

That the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 5 be modified to: . Replace the exhibited provisions relating to Site 3 (Mount Elephant) with the revised provisions submitted on behalf of Council at the Hearing (Document 39).

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 90 8.4 658 Purrumbete Estate Road (Site 4)

(Lake Purrumbete, Lot 2 TP234554, Parish of Purrumbete South)

8.4.1 The site

Site 4 is to the east of Camperdown, on the western shore of Lake Purrumbete. The 16.5 ha site is used for tourism accommodation and is known as Lake Purrumbete Cottages.

The site is zoned FZ, and although it is not subject to any overlays, the lake is subject to the ESO1 and SLO1. The TOS identifies the potential uses as ‘Group accommodation’, ‘Restaurant’, ‘Motel’ and ‘Tavern’. The TOS also recommended that only the eastern part of the site be rezoned RAZ, simultaneously with a subdivision application. This does not form part of the amendment.

8.4.2 Proposal

The amendment proposes to: . Rezone the site from the FZ to the RAZ1. . Apply the DDO5. . Include a reference to the site in a revised Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development) which identifies ‘Function centre‘, ‘Group accommodation’, ‘Motel’, ‘Restaurant’ and ‘Tavern’ as preferred uses.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 91

The exhibited DDO5 includes the following decision guidelines for the site: · An integrated approach to redevelopment of the site has been considered. · The creation of a large single building footprint is avoided in favour of individual cabins or cottages. · New buildings are low in scale and constructed with materials that are designed to complement the surrounding landscape. · Buildings avoid location on the ridgeline and are benched into the topography.

It also requires that an application for a tourist‐related development be accompanied by a Masterplan, although the requirement can be waived for minor buildings and works.

Mr O’Farrell submitted a revised version of the DDO5 during the Hearing.

8.4.3 Submissions and evidence

Mr O’Farrell relied on the TOS and the Urban Enterprise and Planisphere evidence in support of the proposals for this site. He also sought a recommendation from the Panel in relation to whether the DDO5 should identify a ‘preferred indicative location for development’.

Lois Dupleix, the owner of the site, supported the amendment.

The VNPA noted that the TOS did not assess whether there is any native vegetation on the site. Marion Manifold expressed a concern that the ownership might change and that new owners might ‘want to build an RACV‐type resort on the lake’. A number of other submissions objected to this proposal as part of general objections to the TOS and amendment.

8.4.4 Discussion

The Panel supports the application of the RAZ and Clause 22.03‐4 to this site because: . The site’s frontage to Lake Purrumbete is a significant tourism opportunity. . Tourism development associated with Lake Purrumbete is consistent with nature based tourism policies. . The site is currently developed and used for tourism purposes. . There are other tourism facilities in the area.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 92

. The site is predominantly cleared and modified land that does not raise any apparent landscape or environmental issues that are likely to be significant.

The Panel is satisfied that this site is suitable for tourism development in association with Lake Purrumbete and does not share Dr Manifold’s concern about large scale development on the site. Although the site is unlikely to attract the type of facility discussed by Dr Manifold, it may be suitable for a larger scale development if it is sensitively designed and sited.

During the Hearing, the Panel raised issues associated with the DDO5 and questioned whether it was needed on this site. The Panel noted that the site was in a reasonably remote location and was not highly visible from any significant vantage points. The Panel also noted that the RAZ decision guidelines and the requirements of revised Clause 22.03‐4 provide a basis on which to address design and siting issues.

The Panel has also reviewed the revised DDO5 submitted by Mr O’Farrell and does not believe that it includes any new or revised material that warrants being applied to the site.

For these reasons the Panel does not support the application of the DDO5 to this site.

8.4.5 Recommendations

That the Design and Development Schedule 5 (Tourism Opportunity Sites) be modified to: . Remove the material relating to Site 4 (658 Purrumbete Estate Road).

That Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development) be modified to: . Remove the DDO5 Map Reference to Site 4 (658 Purrumbete Estate Road in Table 1.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 93

8.5 Glenormiston College, Terang (Site 5)

(Crown Allotment 5, Parish of Glenormiston)

8.5.1 The site

Glenormiston College is located to the north‐east of Noorat and has a site area of approximately 200 ha. The College is owned by South West TAFE and has extensive education and associated facilities set within an agricultural property.

The site is zoned FZ and wholly affected by the HO59. It is also listed on the Victorian Heritage Register. The TOS identifies the potential uses as ‘Education centre, Residential building (e.g. Tourist accommodation) and Function Centre’.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 94

8.5.2 Proposal

The amendment proposes to: . Rezone the site from the FZ to the SUZ6. . Apply the DDO5. . Include a reference to the site in a revised Clause 22.03‐4 Tourist Use and Development which identifies ‘Education centre’, ‘Function centre’ and ‘Residential building’ as preferred uses.

The exhibited DDO5 includes the following decision guidelines for the site: · The proposed development respects the heritage values of the buildings and gardens on the site. · The use and/or refurbishment of existing buildings and facilities has been considered in any proposal.

Mr O’Farrell submitted a revised version of the DDO5 during the Hearing.

8.5.3 Submissions and evidence

Mr O’Farrell relied on the TOS and the Urban Enterprise and Planisphere evidence in support of the proposals for this site and provided a detailed explanation of and response to the submission from South West TAFE. He also sought a recommendation from the Panel about whether the site should have a site specific SUZ schedule.

South West TAFE supports the rezoning of the College to SUZ with an appropriate schedule; however, it submitted that the College should have a site specific SUZ6 rather than one that is shared with other sites not related to educational services. It also advised that while it supports the DDO5 ‘in principle’, it only applies to one section of the title for the College.

The submission concluded that: ‘...further work will be required in relation to the zoning proposal as part of the land indicated in the report of the Glenormiston College, being Special Use Zone 5 and 6 Planning Scheme Map 13, is one of three components under the same title. The Institute strongly suggests that separation of the three components of the title will be required and it is the Institute’s intent to work with the Shire as a matter of urgency on this matter’.

Mr O’Farrell indicated that the amendment affected the main part of the College that contains the principal buildings, and that there was no need to

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 95

change the zoning of other parts of the TAFE landholding. In the absence of a TAFE representative it was difficult to understand the full intent of its written submission, and the Panel had to rely on the assistance of Council’s Mr Gibb to ‘interpret’ it.

Wannon Water advised that that reticulated water is available to the site, but not sewerage services.

The VNPA submitted that the assessment of potential ecological constraints in the TOS was inadequate. Marion Manifold opposed the rezoning on the basis that there was ‘no need to change the zone’. A number of submissions objected to this proposal as part of general objections to the TOS and amendment.

8.5.4 Discussion

The Panel agrees that the FZ is inappropriate for this site because it does not reflect or adequately provide for its role as a significant educational facility. Under the FZ the current educational use of the site is prohibited and the College relies on existing use rights.

The Panel also agrees that the site has potential to provide the types of tourism facilities envisaged in the TOS (such as conference and function facilities) that could complement and co‐exist with the educational use of the site. These uses also require the site to be rezoned.

The site has been extensively modified and is a working farm with a large number of buildings, including significant heritage assets. The Panel was not presented with any evidence or detailed submission that the site is affected by any significant environmental constraints.

The Panel agrees with South West TAFE that the site should have a site specific SUZ rather than the generic SUZ proposed in the amendment. It makes no sense to apply a zoned titled ‘Tourism Opportunity Sites in Farming Areas’ to the Glenormiston College. Ms Riddle agreed and indicated that generic schedules had been used because of reluctance on the part of DPCD to support a proliferation of SUZ schedules. The Panel is satisfied that this is a situation where a site specific schedule is justified and recommends that Council prepare and apply one as part of the amendment.

The Panel also supports the reference to the site in the revised Clause 22.03‐4 which identifies the preferred tourism uses for the site and establishes requirements relating to siting and design issues.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 96

In relation to the DDO5, the major design and siting issues relate to the heritage values of the site and the Panel is satisfied that these are adequately addressed by the existing HO59 that applies to the entire site. The site is also listed on the Victorian Heritage Register. Design and siting requirements are also referred to in Clause 22.03‐4.

For these reasons, the Panel does not believe that this element of the DDO5 serves any useful purpose and recommends that it be removed from the amendment.

8.5.5 Recommendation

The Panel recommends:

That a site specific Special Use Zone be applied to Site 5 (Glenormiston College) that is generally consistent with the exhibited SUZ6 except to: . Rename the schedule. . Include ‘purposes’ that are specific to the site. . Delete any material unrelated to the site.

That the Design and Development Schedule 5 (Tourism Opportunity Sites) be modified to: . Remove the material relating to Site 5 (Glenormiston College).

That Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development) be modified to: . Remove the DDO5 Map Reference to Site 5 (Glenormiston College) in Table 1.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 97

8.6 Berry World, Timboon (Site 6)

(Lot 1 TP166179, Parish of Timboon)

8.6.1 The site

This 16 hectare site is located to the north‐west of the Timboon urban area. The site is used as a berry farm and has a dwelling and various outbuildings.

The site is zoned FZ and subject to the WMO, and is outside but abuts the Timboon Urban Growth Boundary included in the Timboon Township Structure Plan at Clause 21.04 of the MSS. The TOS identifies the potential uses as ‘Convenience shop and Restaurant’.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 98

8.6.2 Proposal

The amendment proposes to: . Rezone the site from the FZ to the RAZ. . Apply the DDO5. . Include a reference to the site in a revised Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development) which identifies ‘Convenience shop’ and ‘Restaurant’ as preferred uses.

The exhibited DDO5 includes the following decision guidelines for the site: · Any new buildings are located towards the southern end of the site, closest to the built up area of the township or in close proximity to existing development. · Any new buildings are of a high‐quality design, taking advantage of views across the site and the Creek/Rail Trail corridor. · Development is designed to reflect the natural surroundings, including through the use of appropriate materials and retention of existing vegetation wherever possible.

Mr O’Farrell submitted a revised version of the DDO5 during the Hearing.

8.6.3 Submissions and evidence

Mr O’Farrell relied on the TOS and the Urban Enterprise and Planisphere evidence in support of the proposals for this site.

Alan and Joy Kerr, the owners of site 6, supported the amendment.

Wannon Water advised that water is available via an extension of the existing reticulation system and that part of the site can be serviced by extending the existing gravity sewer line, while a sewerage pump station would be required to service all of the site.

The VNPA submitted that the assessment of potential ecological constraints (particularly native vegetation) in the TOS was inadequate. Marion Manifold opposed the rezoning because the site adjoins ‘areas of environmental significance’. A number of other submissions objected to this proposal as part of general objections to the TOS and amendment.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 99

8.6.4 Discussion

The Panel supports the application of the RAZ1 and Clause 22.03‐4 to this site because: . The site is adjacent to other tourism facilities such as the Camperdown rail trail and the Timboon golf course. . The site is predominantly cleared land that has been extensively modified for agricultural use and includes various buildings. . The site does not have any apparent landscape or environmental issues that are likely to be significant. . The site is on the periphery of the Timboon urban area but is sufficiently distant from existing housing to minimise any potential amenity impacts.

During the Hearing the Panel raised issues associated with the DDO5 and questioned whether it was needed on this site. The Panel noted that the site was in a reasonably remote location (on a ‘no‐through’ road) and was not highly visible from any significant vantage points. While the Panel accepts that any future development should take into account visual impacts on the adjacent rail trail, the Panel is satisfied that the RAZ decision guidelines and the requirements of revised Clause 22.03‐4 provide a basis to address this issue.

In relation to the ‘preferred indicative location for built form’, the Panel expects that it was chosen to maximise the separation from the rail trail and to group it with existing buildings on the site. While these are potentially relevant issues, there might also be a commercial preference for locating tourist facilities (such a restaurant) elsewhere on the site in order to take advantage of views, to avoid overlooking farm buildings and farming equipment, and to avoid noise and other impacts associated with the golf course car park. The Panel believes that there should be more flexibility in the possible siting of development.

The Panel has also reviewed the revised DDO5 submitted by Mr O’Farrell and does not believe that it includes any new or revised material that warrants being applied to the site.

The Panel is satisfied that the preferred tourism uses identified for this site are appropriate and that detailed siting and design issues can be addressed as part of the planning permit process.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 100 8.6.5 Recommendations

The Panel recommends:

That the Design and Development Schedule 5 (Tourism Opportunity Sites) be modified to: . Remove material relating to Site 6 (Berry World).

That Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development) be modified to: . Remove the DDO5 Map Reference to Site 6 (Berry World) in Table 1.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 101

8.7 1 Barrett Street, Timboon (Site 7)

(Lot 2 LP205437 and Lot 1 LP88072, Parish of Timboon)

8.7.1 The site

This site is centrally located within Timboon and consists of 2 parcels (2.7 and 1.1 ha) that are predominantly cleared land, as well as various buildings and areas of vegetation.

It is currently zoned FZ and is not affected by any overlays. The Timboon Township Structure Plan at Clause 21.04 of the MSS includes the site within the Urban Growth Boundary and designates it as ‘Tourist Facilities – Encourage tourist related facilities and accommodation’. The TOS identifies the potential uses as ‘Camping and caravan park, Residential hotel and Group accommodation’.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 102

8.7.2 Proposal

The amendment proposes to: . Rezone the site from the FZ to the RAZ. . Apply the DDO5. . Include a reference to the site in revised Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development) which identifies ‘Camping and caravan park’, ‘Group accommodation’ and ‘Residential hotel’ as preferred uses.

The exhibited DDO5 includes the following decision guidelines for the site: · Any new development on Site is of a high‐quality design, reflecting the high‐profile location of the site within the township. · Development is designed to reflect the natural surroundings, including through the sensitive use of materials and finishes in muted colours, and the retention of existing vegetation wherever possible.

Mr O’Farrell submitted a revised version of the DDO5 during the Hearing.

8.7.3 Submissions and evidence

Mr O’Farrell relied on the TOS and the Urban Enterprise and Planisphere evidence in support of the proposals for this site. He also advised that a permit had been issued for a caravan park on the site in 2002.

Wannon Water advised that water is available via an extension of the existing reticulation system and that the majority of the site can be serviced by extending the gravity sewer line. Servicing the north‐east corner of the site would require a pump station.

The VNPA submitted that the assessment of potential ecological constraints (particularly native vegetation) in the TOS was inadequate. Marion Manifold opposed the rezoning because the site adjoins ‘areas of environmental significance’. A number of other submissions objected to this proposal as part of general objections to the TOS and amendment.

8.7.4 Discussion and recommendations

The current FZ is an anomaly given that the site is centrally located within the urban area of Timboon and is within the town’s urban growth boundary identified in the Timboon Township Structure Plan. The proposed RAZ1 will allow development that is consistent with the designation of the site for tourism facilities in the Structure Plan. The Panel also considers that

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 103

proposed uses in the TOS and Clause 21.3‐4 (‘Camping and caravan park’, ‘Group accommodation’ and ‘Residential hotel’) are appropriate for the site.

For these reasons the Panel supports the application of the RAZ1 and Clause 22.03‐4.

During the Hearing the Panel raised issues associated with the DDO5 and questioned whether it was needed on this site. The Panel noted that the site was in a reasonably secluded ‘valley’ and was mainly visible from the south (looking up the valley) and from some vantage points that overlook the site. The decisions guidelines are also very general and provide little site specific guidance.

The Panel also noted that the ‘preferred indicative location for built form’ largely relates to the flat area of the site on which it would be expected that development would occur. Because of this, the designation of this area does not serve any useful purpose.

For these reasons the Panel does not believe that the DDO5 is warranted for this site and is satisfied that RAZ decision guidelines and the requirements of revised Clause 22.03‐4 provide an adequate basis on which to address siting and design issues.

The revised DDO5 submitted by Mr O’Farrell does not include any substantive changes for this site.

8.7.5 Recommendations

The Panel recommends:

That the Design and Development Schedule 5 (Tourism Opportunity Sites) be modified to: . Remove the material relating to Site 7 (1 Barrett Street, Timboon).

That Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development) be modified to: . Remove the DDO5 Map Reference to Site 7 (1 Barrett Street, Timboon) in Table 1.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 104

8.8 Scott’s Creek General Store (Site 8)

(Lot 1 TP684191, Township of Scott’s Creek)

8.8.1 The site

This site is located at the intersection of the Cobden–Port Campbell Road and the Timboon‐Colac Road, midway between Cobden and Port Campbell. It has an area of 2.9 ha and is the site of a former dwelling and general store that were burnt down in 2010. The northern half of the site is cleared land where the former dwelling and general store were located, while the southern half seems to contain remnant native vegetation.

The site is zoned FZ but is partly subject to the ESO1 and VPO2 (in association with the native vegetation). The TOS identifies the potential uses as ‘Convenience shop, Restaurant, Group accommodation and Tavern’.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 105

8.8.2 Proposal

The amendment proposes to: . Rezone the site from the FZ to the RAZ. . Apply the DDO5. . Include a reference to the site in the revised Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development) which identifies ‘Convenience shop’, ‘Group accommodation’, ‘Restaurant’ and ‘Tavern’ as preferred uses.

The exhibited DDO5 includes the following decision guidelines for the site: · The suitability of the proposal in the context of any master plan prepared for the site. · Commercial activities on the site occur either in the location of the former General Store, or nearby, in order to attract the attention of passers‐by. · Where tourist accommodation is proposed, it is located to the north of the existing vegetation buffer along the Cobden‐Port Campbell Road. · Proposed buildings or structures are of a high architectural standard, reflecting the opportunity to attract passers‐by. · Development is designed to reflect the natural surroundings, including through the sensitive use of materials and finishes in muted colours, and the retention of existing vegetation wherever possible. · Any new dwelling or tourist accommodation facility is screened by new or existing vegetation.

Mr O’Farrell submitted a revised version of the DDO5 during the Hearing.

8.8.3 Submissions and evidence

Mr O’Farrell relied on the TOS and the Urban Enterprise and Planisphere evidence in support of the proposals for this site. The authors of the DDO5 advised the Panel that they had not inspected the site.

The VNPA submitted that the assessment of potential ecological constraints (particularly native vegetation) in the TOS was inadequate. A number of submissions objected to this proposal as part of general objections to the TOS and amendment.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 106 8.8.4 Discussion

The Panel supports the application of the RAZ1 to the site and the preferred uses identified in Clause 22.03‐4 because: . The site is well located in the region as a stopping point for passing traffic. . It has a history of commercial use that is now prohibited under the FZ. . The site has a large cleared area that is suitable for development. . The areas of remnant vegetation are protected by the ESO 1 and VPO2.

During the Hearing the Panel raised issues associated with the DDO5 and questioned whether it was needed on this site. The DDO5 decision guidelines are very general and the Panel is satisfied that the RAZ decision guidelines and the requirements of revised Clause 22.03‐4 provide an adequate basis on which to address siting and design issues.

In relation to the ‘preferred indicative location for built form’ the Panel notes that two areas have been identified within the cleared section of the site. The Panel was advised that these relate to the sites of the former dwelling and general store. This is a curious approach given that all of the cleared area would seem to warrant this designation. In any event, the existence of the environmental overlays in the southern area and the likelihood that the most logical access point to the Cobden‐Port Campbell Road is in the north of the site will confine development to the cleared northern section of the site. For these reasons the Panel does not believe that these designations serve any useful purpose.

The Panel has also reviewed the revised DDO5 submitted by Mr O’Farrell and does not believe that it includes any new or revised material that warrants being applied to the site.

The Panel is satisfied that this site is suitable for the preferred tourism uses identified for it and that siting and design issues can be adequately addressed through the planning permit process.

8.8.5 Recommendations

The Panel recommends: That the Design and Development Schedule 5 (Tourism Opportunity Sites) be modified to: . Remove the material relating to Site 8 (Scotts Creek General Store). That Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development) be modified to: . Remove the DDO5 Map Reference to Site 8 (Scotts Creek General Store) in Table 1.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 107 8.9 Camp Cooriemungle (Site 9)

(Crown Allotment 10d Section C, Parish of Waarre)

8.9.1 The site

This 13.92 ha site is located south‐east of Timboon. It is currently used as a school camp and includes large buildings, various cabins, common areas and outdoor education facilities. It was formerly a prison farm.

The site is zoned FZ and partly subject to the ESO1 and WMO. The TOS identifies the potential uses as ‘Camping and caravan park, and Group accommodation’.

8.9.2 Proposal

The amendment proposes to: . Rezone the site from the FZ to the RAZ1. . Apply the DDO5. . Include a reference to the site in the revised Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development) which identifies ‘Camping and caravan park’ and ‘Group accommodation’ as preferred uses.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 108

The exhibited DDO5 includes the following decision guidelines for the site: · Any new buildings or structures are screened by vegetation to avoid or minimise views from surrounding roads. · Any new development is designed to reflect the natural surroundings, including through the sensitive use of materials and finishes in muted colours, and the retention of existing vegetation wherever possible.

It also requires that an application for a tourist‐related development be accompanied by a Masterplan, although the requirement can be waived for minor buildings and works.

Mr O’Farrell submitted a revised version of the DDO5 during the Hearing.

8.9.3 Submissions and evidence

Mr O’Farrell relied on the TOS and the Urban Enterprise and Planisphere evidence in support of the proposals for this site. He sought a recommendation from the Panel in relation to the proposal that the adjoining land to the south be included in the amendment. The authors of the DDO5 advised the Panel that they had not inspected the site.

The owners of the site support the rezoning but also seek the inclusion of the land at the front of the property that faces Cooriemungle Road. They submitted that this land would be a better position for a potential caravan/camping ground as it provides separate access to the main camp area and could have visitors all year round. They submitted that it would also be an ideal location for a nature reserve.

The Corangamite CMA advised that the southern portion of the site is subject to inundation associated with the Cooriemungle Creek during a 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) flood. The CMA concluded that continued recreational use of the land was compatible with the flood hazard, provided infrastructure and camping sites are not located within the area of the estimated 1% flood event. Notably, this area affects a substantial part of the adjoining land at the front of the property that faces Cooriemungle Road. The Panel assumes that is the land that the owners seek to add to the rezoning site.

The VNPA submitted that the assessment of potential ecological constraints (particularly native vegetation and habitat values) in the TOS was inadequate. A number of submissions objected to this proposal as part of general objections to the TOS and amendment.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 109 8.9.4 Discussion

The Panel supports the application of the RAZ1 and Clause 22.03‐4 to the exhibited site because: . The site is currently developed and used for tourism purposes. . The site is predominantly cleared and modified and there are no apparent environmental issues that are likely to be significant. . The site is not in a visually sensitive location and has significant perimeter landscaping that effectively screens the site.

The Panel does not support rezoning the area to the south as requested by the owners given the submission from the Corangamite CMA about the extent of flooding. The Panel also notes that this section of the property is wholly subject to the ESO1 that is associated with the Cooriemungle Creek that traverses the site.

During the Hearing the Panel raised issues associated with the DDO5 and questioned whether it was needed on this site. The DDO5 decision guidelines are very general and the Panel is satisfied that the RAZ decision guidelines and the requirements of revised Clause 22.03‐4 provide an adequate basis on which to address siting and design issues. In addition, the Panel notes that the ESO1 applies within the southern area of the site and will restrict development in that area. The Panel has also reviewed the revised DDO5 submitted by Mr O’Farrell and does not believe that it includes any new or revised material that warrants being applied to the site. For these reasons the Panel recommends that the DDO5 not be applied to this site.

The Panel is satisfied that this existing facility should have the opportunity to expand under the proposed RAZ1.

8.9.5 Recommendations

The Panel recommends:

That the Design and Development Schedule 5 (Tourism Opportunity Sites) be modified to: . Remove the material relating to Site 9 (Camp Cooriemungle).

That Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development) be modified to: . Remove the DDO5 Map Reference to Site 9 (Camp Cooriemungle) in Table 1

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 110 8.10 Peterborough Airfield (Site 10)

(Lot 2 TP834074, Parish of Timboon)

8.10.1 The site

The site is approximately 60 ha, immediately to the east of Peterborough and on the northern side of the Great Ocean Road. It is predominantly cleared land that is used as an airfield and heliport and has associated buildings and infrastructure.

The site is zoned RCZ1 and is entirely subject to the SLO3. The TOS identifies the potential uses as ‘Airport, Heliport and Group accommodation’.

8.10.2 Proposal

The amendment proposes to: . Rezone the site from the RCZ to the SUZ5. . Apply the DDO5. . Include a reference to the site in the revised Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development) which identifies ‘Airport’, ‘Group accommodation’ and ‘Heliport’ as preferred uses.

The exhibited DDO5 includes the following decision guidelines for the site:

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 111

· The suitability of the proposal in the context of any master plan prepared for the site. · Any proposed buildings or structures are low in scale and integrated within the landscape. · The proposal is designed to reflect the natural surroundings, including through the use of sensitive materials and finishes in muted colours, and the retention of existing vegetation wherever possible. · If located on the southern boundary of the site, any helicopter storage facility is designed and constructed to consider the appearance and minimise the prominence of the building when viewed from the Great Ocean Road; and to avoid adverse noise impacts on surrounding properties. · If constructed at the eastern end of the site, any new accommodation is designed to minimise the prominence of buildings and works when viewed from Peterborough and the Great Ocean Road.

Mr O’Farrell submitted a revised version of the DDO5 during the Hearing.

8.10.3 Submissions and evidence

Mr O’Farrell relied on the TOS and the Urban Enterprise and Planisphere evidence in support of the proposals for this site. He advised that the owner intended to expand the airport operations and provide boutique accommodation on the site. Mr O’Farrell also referred to various VCAT decisions relating to previous airport related planning approvals.

The Planisphere evidence report included: Given the existing use of the site, it would appear appropriate for it to be rezoned to a Special Use Zone specific to its use as a Transport Terminal (including airport and heliport) in order to recognise existing uses as appropriate to the location and to allow the airport facilities to be relocated if necessary. In addition, the identified potential for group accommodation requires rezoning.

Stephen Cumming, the owner of the site, supported the amendment. He noted that visitors and aircraft movements associated with the Twelve Apostles would continue to increase. He submitted that this would have an increasingly negative impact on the immediate area, and that Peterborough had the capacity and attractions to relieve some of this demand, particularly aircraft movements from the Peterborough Airfield.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 112

Richard Nesseler submitted that the site should be removed from the amendment or the preferred uses should be limited to ‘group accommodation’. He also submitted that the ‘preferred locations for built form’ were adjacent to and visible from the Great Ocean Road, an approach that was inconsistent with the rationale adopted for other sites.

Wannon Water advised that water is available via an extension of the existing reticulation system and that reticulated sewerage services are not available. The site is located approximately 2km away from the nearest sewerage manhole and a pump station would be required to service the site.

Marion Manifold objected to the inclusion of this site because of its high visibility and the availability of alternative accommodation sites in Peterborough. The VNPA submitted that the assessments of potential ecological constraints (particularly the existence of native grassland and impacts on the Port Campbell National Park) in the TOS were inadequate. The PCCG expressed concerns about the possible impacts of development on the Port Campbell National Park. A number of other submissions objected to this proposal as part of general objections to the TOS and amendment.

8.10.4 Discussion

This is clearly a contentious site that raises a number of threshold issues. Following its review of submissions and the policy framework discussed in section 7, the Panel notes that: . There is likely to be demand for the continued use and development of the airport, but the demand for tourism accommodation on the site is less certain. . There is a reasonable prospect of the site being further developed if approvals can be obtained. . The airfield and heliport have existing use rights and can continue to operate. . The characteristics of the site and its location do not warrant it being classified as a ‘strategic location’, although the airport is reasonably significant tourism infrastructure. . The proposed uses are not related to nature based tourism. . Accommodation development of the site, even if carefully sited and designed, could be construed as a linear expansion of Peterborough. . If there is demand for tourism accommodation in Peterborough then there is policy support for directing it to the existing urban area. . The site is heavily modified given its past use as farming land and its current use as an airfield and heliport, and is unlikely to have any significant environmental constraints.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 113

. There are no apparent environmental issues that are likely to be significant. . The site is highly visible, and it is uncertain whether visual impacts on the Great Ocean Road will be adequately ameliorated even with the application of the DDO5 and the identification of ‘preferred indicative location for built form’.

On balance, the Panel is not satisfied that the proposals for this site are consistent with the policy framework for tourism development in the Great Ocean Road region. It is a sensitive site, and although it has an existing ‘tourism’ use by way of the airport, the Panel is not satisfied that there are adequate policy grounds to support the possible expansion of that use or the introduction of new tourism uses. Planisphere indicated that the rezoning was necessary ‘in order to recognise existing uses as appropriate to the location’, but did not adequately demonstrate that they are appropriate for the location.

It follows that the Panel does not support the rezoning of the site, the application of the DDO5 or the reference in Clause 22.03‐4.

8.10.5 Recommendations

The Panel recommends:

That the rezoning of site 10 (Peterborough Airfield) be abandoned.

That the Design and Development Schedule 5 (Tourism Opportunity Sites) be modified to: . Remove the material relating to Site 10 (Peterborough Airfield).

That Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development) be modified to: . Remove the material relating to Site 10 (Peterborough Airfield)

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 114

8.11 Port Campbell West (Site 11)

(268 Great Ocean Road Port Campbell, Lot 1 TP174312 Parish of Paaratte)

8.11.1 The site

This site is located 2.2 km to the west of Port Campbell and is predominately cleared farming land used as a dairy farm. The 50 ha site consists of two lots – the larger being the dairy farm and grazing land, while the smaller is the site of the dwelling and associated farm buildings.

The site is zoned RCZ1 and is wholly subject to the SLO3 and partly subject to the WMO. The TOS identifies the potential uses as ‘Camping and caravan park, Host farm, Group accommodation, and Residential hotel’.

8.11.2 Proposal

The amendment proposes to: . Rezone the site from the RCZ to the SUZ5. . Apply the DDO5. . Include a reference to the site in the revised Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development) which identifies ‘Camping and caravan park’,

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 115

‘Group accommodation’, ‘Host farm’ and ‘Residential hotel’ as preferred uses.

The exhibited DDO5 includes the following decision guidelines for the site: · The suitability of the proposal in the context of any master plan prepared for the site. · The proposal comprises a high‐quality, large‐scale resort style development. · Proposed buildings are sited to avoid the highest contour lines on the site. · Proposed buildings are designed to follow the contours of the site. · The proposed built form is broken up to avoid the appearance of a large single building footprint. · Development is screened by vegetation to avoid or minimise its visibility in views from the eastern side of Port Campbell. · The site is accessed from the north, with the appearance of the southern entrance improved or closed and reinstated with native vegetation.

Mr O’Farrell submitted a revised version of the DDO5 during the Hearing.

The Panel was not advised of any current tourism proposals for the site, although there seems to be an assumption in the Great Ocean Road World Class Tourism Investment Study, A Product Gap Audit that the site will be rezoned for development as a ‘4 star internationally branded resort’, including ‘a large bistro/restaurant; self‐contained accommodation, hotel accommodation, cabins and tourist park facility for vans’.

8.11.3 Submissions and evidence

Mr O’Farrell relied on the TOS and the Urban Enterprise and Planisphere evidence in support of the proposals for this site. At the request of the Panel he also provided material relating to the impacts of the Port Campbell Water Reclamation Plant (PCWRP) operated by Wannon Water. This included further material that was supplied following the Hearing that largely confirmed discussions that had been held during the Hearing.

Mr O’Farrell proposed various changes to the DDO5 in response to buffer issues associated with the PCWRP and the deletion of ‘Camping and caravan park’ from the preferred uses for the site.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 116

Jane Robinson owns an adjoining property between Site 11 and the Port Campbell National Park and was represented at the Hearing by John Saxon. Mr Saxon opposed the proposals for this site for various reasons, including: . Development would be inappropriate on a highly visible, non urban site on the Great Ocean Road. . The site is high quality farming land and should be retained as such. . The site has frequent visitations of rare birds. . The site has various constraints that would affect the viability of tourism development. . The proximity to the sewerage treatment plant would be incompatible with tourism use of the site.

Written submissions lodged by Ms Robinson indicated that if the rezoning proceeded, her land should either be included or the amendment should ensure that her land is protected by way of building setbacks.

Wannon Water made a submission relating to the operation of the Port Campbell Water Reclamation Plant (PCWRP) and its impacts on Site 11. It advised that the PCWRP is a lagoon based system that irrigates adjoining farmland with the treated water. It was recently upgraded to provide for the future growth of Port Campbell. Wannon Water referred to the EPA’s Recommended Buffer Distances for Industrial Residual Air Emissions (AQ 2/86, July 1990) and submitted that the required buffer distance for the PCWRP is 500m.

Marion Manifold objected to the inclusion of this site on the basis of its high visibility, the availability of alternative sites in Port Campbell, its role as a wildlife corridor, and its proximity to the treatment plant. She noted that it is inappropriate to locate a major tourism development next to ‘smelly’ treatment ponds.

The VNPA submitted that the assessments of potential ecological constraints (particularly impacts on the Port Campbell National Park) in the TOS were inadequate. The PCCG also expressed concerns about the possible impacts of development on the Port Campbell National Park. A number of other submissions objected to this proposal as part of general objections to the TOS and amendment.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 117

8.11.4 Discussion

Following its review of submissions and the policy framework discussed in section 6, the Panel notes that: . The site is not in a ‘strategic location’, although its proximity to Port Campbell is a locational advantage. . The uses proposed in the TOS are not related to nature based tourism. . The Panel was not made aware of any current tourism proposal for the site, although it is being promoted as a development site. . The site is significantly constrained by its proximity to the PCWRP and the need for associated buffers. . The site is cleared faming land and is unlikely to have any significant environmental constraints. . The eastern boundary of the site abuts a small section of Port Campbell National Park, but this small interface that is some distance from the preferred development area will not raise significant interface issues. . The site is highly visible (from the Great Ocean Road to the immediate south and in longer views from the east), although appropriate siting and design might potentially ameliorate visual impacts.

The potential impacts of the PCWRP were significantly understated in the TOS which determined that a 300m buffer distance to the facultative ponds was required. Following Wannon Water’s submission on the amendment, this buffer distance was increased to 500m reflecting the design capacity of the facility. Following questions from the Panel, an additional buffer area (200m) relating to the use of treated effluent for spray irrigation was also identified. The area of site 11 that is constrained by the PCWRP has become progressively larger, and would be even greater if the 500m buffer was measured from the edge of the PCWRP site rather than from the nearest existing pond. A plan prepared by Council that indicates the buffer areas and the remaining ‘preferred indicative location for built form’ is provided below.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 118

In any event, the Panel notes that most of the site is constrained by the need to buffer the PCWRP, leaving an unconstrained area in the west of the site. The extent of this ‘unconstrained area’ would be further reduced by Council’s proposal to require an additional buffer to protect the residential amenity of Ms Robinson’s property to the south of the site. Although Council has taken the view, based on Mr Ainsaar’s advice, that the remaining ‘unconstrained’ land is appropriately located within the site to address visibility issues and is of sufficient size for the preferred uses, the Panel believes that these issues would require further consideration before a rezoning of the site could be justified.

In addition, the Panel is unconvinced that this site can be reasonably assessed as being within a ‘strategic location’ or that it has any characteristics that suggest it is suitable for nature based tourism. The Panel also has concerns about the potential visibility of development on the site. For these reasons, the Panel is not satisfied that tourism development of this site would be consistent with the policy framework.

The Panel believes that the basis for selecting this site for tourism development should be reassessed from first principles. Even if the site is capable of supporting tourism development and it is determined that it is in a ‘strategic location’, it is not clear why other sites in the area should not be considered and preferred. The Panel also has reservations about the wisdom of identifying a site for a ‘4 star internationally branded resort’ that is adjacent to a sewerage treatment plant.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 119

It follows that the Panel does not support the rezoning of the site, the application of the DDO5 or its inclusion in Clause 22.03‐4.

8.11.5 Recommendations

The Panel recommends:

That the rezoning of site 11 (Port Campbell West) be abandoned.

That the Design and Development Schedule 5 (Tourism Opportunity Sites) be modified to: . Remove the material relating to Site 11 (Port Campbell West).

That Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development) be modified to: . Remove the material relating to Site 11 (Port Campbell West).

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 120

8.12 Loch Ard Bed and Breakfast (Site 12)

(Lots 1 and 2 LP114924, Parish of Waarre)

8.12.1 The site

This site is to the east of Port Campbell and abuts the Port Campbell National Park to the south and north. The site consists of two titles totalling approximately 90 ha and has been developed as the Loch Ard Bed and Breakfast.

The site is zoned RCZ1 and wholly subject to the SLO3. The TOS identifies the potential uses as ‘Interpretation centre and Residential hotel’.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 121

8.12.2 Proposal

The amendment proposes to: . Include a reference to the site in a new clause 22.03‐4 Tourist Use and Development which identifies ‘Interpretation centre’ and ‘Residential hotel’ as preferred uses.

8.12.3 Submissions and evidence

Mr O’Farrell relied on the TOS and the Urban Enterprise and Planisphere evidence in support of the proposals for this site. The authors of Clause 22.03‐4 advised the Panel that they had not inspected this site.

The VNPA submitted that the assessments of potential ecological constraints (particularly impacts on the Port Campbell National Park) in the TOS were inadequate. The PCCG expressed concerns about the possible impacts of development on the Port Campbell National Park. A number of other submissions objected to this proposal as part of general objections to the TOS and amendment.

8.12.4 Discussion

Importantly, the amendment does not propose to rezone this site, but by including it in Clause 22.03‐4, it elevates the potential for the site to be rezoned at some point in the future. The Planisphere evidence indicated that Council support for any future rezoning would be contingent on the proposed interpretative centre at Loch Ard Gorge proceeding. Planisphere also indicated that the clause would also provide guidance for assessing permit applications under the current RCZ.

The Panel does not agree that the possibility of the Loch Ard Gorge centre being built somewhere in the vicinity of this site is grounds to elevate its status for future rezoning. This situation potentially applies to a number of properties and is not a basis for pre‐emptively supporting future rezoning proposals.

The Panel is also unconvinced that the clause is necessary to provide guidance in the application of the current RCZ. It is not clear that a permit for ‘residential hotelʹ (one of two preferred uses in the clause) could be granted given the conditions that apply in section 2 of the table of uses. The other preferred use, ‘Interpretation centre’, is permissible but seems an unlikely use for this site.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 122

In any event, the Panel has considered the proposal for this site (and the implicit support for a possible future rezoning) against the policy framework discussed in section 6 of this report and notes that: . The existing and proposed uses are consistent with the types of uses advocated in the TOS. . There is an existing tourism use on the site. . The characteristics of the site and its location do not warrant it being classified as being within a ‘strategic location’. . The Panel is not aware of any public commitment to develop a Loch Ard Gorge interpretative centre in proximity to this site. . The preferred uses are not necessarily related to nature based tourism. . The site is cleared faming land and is unlikely to have any significant environmental constraints. . The site shares its northern and southern boundaries with the Port Campbell National Park, creating potential interface issues. . The site is reasonably remote and will not have significant landscape impacts if development is appropriately designed and sited.

On balance, the Panel is not satisfied that the proposal for this site is consistent with the policy framework for tourism development in the Great Ocean Road region. Although the site has an existing tourism facility, it has not been demonstrated that it is a suitable site for an expanded facility or additional development. The Panel also has concerns about the interface with the National Park and is unconvinced that there are other sites in the area that might not be more suitable. The Panel also notes that the site does not meet the access criteria in the TOS.

8.12.5 Recommendation

The Panel recommends:

That Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development) be modified to: . Remove the material relating to Site 11 (Loch Ard Bed and Breakfast).

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 123

8.13 8816 Great Ocean Road, Princetown (Site 13)

(Crown Allotment 2 Section A, Parish of Waarre)

8.13.1 The site

This site is to the east of Port Campbell and located on the Great Ocean Road. It consists of a single lot of approximately 130 ha that is cleared farming land. Significantly, it abuts Port Campbell National Park and has substantial views to and from the coast.

The site is zoned RCZ1 and wholly subject to the SLO3. The TOS identifies the potential uses as ‘Interpretation centre and Residential hotel’. It also notes the possible development synergies of this site and the mooted Loch Ard Gorge interpretative centre.

8.13.2 Proposal

The amendment proposes to: . Include a reference to the site in a new clause 22.03‐4 Tourist Use and Development which identifies ‘Interpretation centre’ and ‘Residential hotel’ as preferred uses.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 124 8.13.3 Submissions and evidence

Mr O’Farrell relied on the TOS and the Urban Enterprise and Planisphere evidence in support of the proposals for this site.

Katy Bright on behalf of the Walls Brothers submitted that their land (immediately to the east of the site) should also be identified for future tourism development. This submission is discussed in section 9 of this report.

The VNPA submitted that the assessments of potential ecological constraints (particularly impacts on the Port Campbell National Park) in the TOS were inadequate. The PCCG expressed concerns about the possible impacts of development on the Port Campbell National Park. Marion Manifold agreed that no rezoning should occur. A number of other submissions objected to this proposal as part of general objections to the TOS and amendment.

8.13.4 Discussion

The proposals for this site are similar to those for site 11. The amendment does not propose to rezone the site but, by including it in Clause 22.03‐4, it elevates the potential for the site to be rezoned at some point in the future. This possibility is linked to the mooted development of the Loch Ard Gorge interpretative centre to the west of the site. Planisphere also indicated that the clause would provide guidance in the event that permits were sought under the current RCZ.

The Panel does not agree that the possibility of the Loch Ard Gorge centre being built somewhere in the vicinity of this site provides grounds to elevate its status for future rezoning. The Panel is also unconvinced that the Clause is necessary to provide guidance in the application of the current RCZ ‐ it is not clear that a permit for ‘residential hotelʹ (one of two preferred uses in the Clause) could be granted given the conditions that apply in section 2 of the table of uses. The other preferred use ‘Interpretation centre’ is permissible, but seems an unlikely use for this site unless it is selected as the site for the Loch Ard Gorge interpretative centre.

In any event, the Panel has considered the proposal for this site (and the implicit support for a possible future rezoning) against the policy framework discussed in section 6 and notes that: . The Panel was not advised of any actual tourism development proposals for the site and is unconvinced that such development is likely in the absence of the Loch Ard Gorge interpretative centre being developed.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 125

. The characteristics of the site and its location do not warrant it being classified as a ‘strategic location’, although this might change in the event that the Loch Ard Gorge centre is developed in proximity to the site. . The site is cleared faming land and is unlikely to have any significant environmental constraints. . The site shares extensive boundaries with the Port Campbell National Park, potentially creating interface issues. . The site is highly visible from the Great Ocean Road and development is likely to have some visual impact.

On balance, the Panel is not satisfied that the proposal for this site is consistent with the policy framework for tourism development in the Great Ocean Road region. The Panel has particular concerns about the visual impact of development and the interface issues with the National Park. The Panel has also concluded that in the absence of a commitment to the Loch Ard Gorge interpretative centre, the site is not considered to be in a strategic location.

In the event that there is a commitment to the interpretative centre and there are clear synergies between the sites, it might be appropriate to advance a development proposal for site 13 by way of a Section 96A application. This would provide a mechanism to identify and address interface and landscape issues.

8.13.5 Recommendation

The Panel recommends:

That Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development) be modified to: . Remove the material relating to Site 13 (8816 Great Ocean Road, Princetown).

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 126

8.14 Booringa Road, Princetown (Site 14)

(Lot 2 PS508387, Parish of Waarre)

8.14.1 The site

This site is to the east of Port Campbell and located on the Great Ocean Road, north of the Twelve Apostles and associated visitor centre. It consists of a single lot of approximately 80 ha that is cleared farming land, with some cypress pine shelterbelts.

The site is zoned RCZ1 and is not subject to any overlays. The TOS identifies the potential uses as ‘Group accommodation, Residential hotel, Interpretation centre and Restaurant’.

8.14.2 Proposal

The amendment proposes to: . Rezone the site from the RCZ to the SUZ5. . Apply the DDO5. . Include a reference to the site in the revised Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development) which identifies ‘Group accommodation’ and ‘Residential hotel’ as preferred uses.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 127

The exhibited DDO5 includes the following decision guidelines for the site: · The suitability of the proposal in the context of any master plan prepared for the site. · Any new buildings are well set back from road boundaries and screened by vegetation. · New development is located away from the highest contours of the site. · Buildings are designed to follow the contours of the site. · Any new development is designed to reflect the natural surroundings, including through the sensitive use materials and finishes in muted colours, and the retention of existing vegetation wherever possible.

It also requires that an application for a tourist‐related development be accompanied by a Masterplan, although the requirement can be waived for minor buildings and works.

Mr O’Farrell submitted a revised version of the DDO5 during the Hearing.

8.14.3 Submissions and evidence

Mr O’Farrell relied on the TOS and the Urban Enterprise and Planisphere evidence in support of the proposals for this site. In response to questions from the Panel he indicated that land between this site and the Twelve Apostles visitor centre had not been selected because of its closer proximity to the Great Ocean Road and greater potential for visual impact.

Brendan Howard made a submission on behalf of Daryl and Jocelyn Salmon (the owners of Site 14) and called evidence from David Klingberg in support the amendment. Mr Howard indicated that the Salmons had been planning a low scale, low impact and high quality tourism accommodation facility for the site and would lodge a planning permit application upon the approval of the amendment. He provided concept plans for the proposed development, which provide for ten single bedroom villa units and associated facilities. He also outlined their involvement and experience in the local tourism industry.

Mr Klingberg supported the TOS and submitted that the amendment (in relation to the Salmon land) was consistent with the planning policy framework and various policy documents. He submitted that the proposed DDO5 was appropriate for the site, and that the concept plan for the proposed ‘eco village’ demonstrated how the site could be sympathetically developed.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 128

John and Diane Curran opposed the rezoning of all of the coastal sites including site 14. They did not believe that the development plans for site 14 were likely to eventuate and that proposed rezoning of the site conferred an unjustified commercial advantage to the detriment of other legitimate tourism sites. Although they did not support the amendment proceeding, they believed that their properties should be included if it did. These sites are discussed in section 9 of this report.

The VNPA submitted that the assessments of potential ecological constraints (particularly native vegetation) in the TOS were inadequate. The PCCG expressed concerns about the possible impacts of development on the Port Campbell National Park. A number of other submissions objected to this proposal as part of general objections to the TOS and amendment.

8.14.4 Discussion

Following its review of submissions and the policy framework discussed in section 6, the Panel notes that: . The proposed use is consistent with the types of uses advocated in the TOS. . The Panel is satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of the site being developed if approvals can be obtained. . The site is in a ‘strategic location’ by virtue of its proximity to the Twelve Apostles and associated visitor centre, and is within a node of existing tourism accommodation (albeit of limited scale). . The proposed uses are not nature based tourism, although the development of an ‘eco–lodge’ might go some way to meeting this criterion. . The site is cleared farming land and is unlikely to have any significant environmental constraints. . The site does not share any boundaries with the Port Campbell National Park and will not impact on it. . The site is reasonably remote from the Great Ocean Road and although development would potentially be visible from it, visual impacts can be addressed by careful design and siting.

On balance, the Panel is satisfied that the proposals for this site are consistent with the policy framework for tourism development in the Great Ocean Road region and supports the rezoning of this site and the proposed uses in Clause 22.03‐4. In particular, the Panel is satisfied that this is a strategic location and that adverse impacts can be avoided.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 129

The Panel also supports the site specific DDO5 provisions in the schedule submitted by Mr O’Farrell during the Hearing, including the ‘preferred indicative locations for built form’. Although there will be some duplication between the provisions in the DDO5 and those in the RAZ1 and Clause 22.03‐4, the Panel is satisfied that this is reasonable in order to ensure that design and siting issues are adequately addressed.

8.14.5 Recommendations

The Panel recommends:

That the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 5 be modified to: . Replace the exhibited provisions relating to Site 14 (Booringa Road, Princetown) with the revised provisions submitted by Council at the Hearing (Document 39).

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 130

8.15 Glenample Homestead (Site 15)

(Lots 17 and 18, TP130811, Parish of LaTrobe)

8.15.1 The site

This site is to the west of Princeton and is the location of the historic Glenample Homestead. The site consists of two titles over approximately 61.3 ha. It is predominantly cleared farming land in association with the homestead and other outbuildings. The site is privately owned and is leased by Parks Victoria, which in turn has leased the property back to the owners. Parks Victoria previously leased the site to private operators as a tourism venture. The Panel was advised that this was unsuccessful.

The site is zoned RCZ1 and is subject to the HO58. It also included on the Victorian Heritage Register. The site is also wholly subject to the SLO4 proposed in Amendment C29. The TOS identifies the potential uses as ‘Camping and caravan park, Residential hotel, Interpretation centre and Restaurant’.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 131

8.15.2 Proposal

The amendment proposes to: . Rezone the site from the RCZ to the RAZ1. . Apply the DDO5. . Include a reference to the site in the revised Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development) which identifies ‘Camping and caravan park, ‘Interpretation centre’, ‘Residential hotel’ and ‘Restaurant’ as preferred uses.

The exhibited DDO5 includes the following decision guidelines for the site: · The suitability of the proposal in the context of any master plan prepared for the site. · New buildings are located outside the east‐west viewshed available from the homestead. · New development is sited to the north of the homestead on the downward slope towards the valley. · New buildings are designed to follow the contours of the site. · New buildings are sensitively designed and located to respect the heritage significance of the homestead and gardens.

It also requires that an application for a tourist‐related development be accompanied by a Masterplan, although the requirement can be waived for minor buildings and works.

Mr O’Farrell submitted a revised version of the DDO5 during the Hearing.

8.15.3 Submissions and evidence

Mr O’Farrell relied on the TOS and the Urban Enterprise and Planisphere evidence in support of the proposals for this site. He advised that the owner is interested in tourism development of the site and that the homestead by itself cannot generate enough income to be a viable standalone tourism proposition. It was also generally agreed that the homestead is in poor condition and in need of renovation.

Ann and Neil Tribe objected to the development of a camping/caravan park on this site given the two existing facilities in Princetown. The VNPA submitted that the assessments of potential ecological constraints (particularly impacts on the Port Campbell National Park) in the TOS were inadequate. The PCCG also expressed concerns about the possible impacts

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 132

of development on the Port Campbell National Park. Marion Manifold opposed the rezoning of the site, submitting that additional development would compromise its heritage values. A number of other submissions objected to this proposal as part of general objections to the TOS and amendment.

8.15.4 Discussion

Following its review of submissions and the policy framework discussed in section 6, the Panel notes that: . The proposed use is consistent with the types of uses advocated in the TOS. . The Panel is satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of the site being developed if approvals can be obtained. . The site is in a ‘strategic location’ by virtue of its association with the Glenample Homestead. . Appropriate development of the site provides an opportunity to secure the future of the homestead. . The proposed uses are not related to nature based tourism. . The site is cleared faming land and is unlikely to have any significant environmental constraints. . The site is distant from the Port Campbell National Park and will not impact upon it. . The site’s heritage values are protected by the HO58 and its inclusion on the Victorian Heritage Register. . Any off site visual or landscape issues are capable of being minimised by appropriate siting and design of development.

On balance, the Panel is satisfied that the amendment proposals for this site are consistent with the policy framework for tourism development in the Great Ocean Road region and supports the rezoning of this site and the proposed uses in Clause 22.03‐4. In particular, the Panel is satisfied that this is a strategic site and that appropriate development might provide an opportunity to secure the future of this important heritage asset.

The Panel also supports the DDO5 provisions for this site in the schedule submitted by Mr O’Farrell during the Hearing, including the ‘preferred indicative location for built form’. This is a particularly visually sensitive site and the Panel is satisfied that the revised decision guidelines in the DDO5 provide an appropriate level of prescription that complements the RAZ1 and Clause 22.03‐4.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 133

In relation to the submission from the Tribes, the Panel does not consider that potential commercial competition is a relevant planning consideration.

8.15.5 Recommendations

The Panel recommends:

That the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 5 be modified to; . Replace the exhibited provisions relating to Site 15 (Glenample Homestead) with the revised provisions submitted by Council at the Hearing (Document 39).

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 134

8.16 Kangaroobie, Princetown/Gellibrand Lower (Site 16)

(Lot 1 TP251582, Lot 1 TP231273 Crown Allotment 141, Parish of LaTrobe)

8.16.1 The site

This site is to the south‐east of Princetown and contains 3 large parcels that are in common ownership: . TP251582 (Kangaroobie) is 110 ha and is the site of the Kangaroobie school camp. . TP231273 (Kangaroobie) is 39.6 ha and is predominantly cleared farming land that is partly used in association with the school camp. . CA 141 is 133 ha and is predominantly cleared farming land.

The sites are zoned RCZ1 and partly subject to the WMO. The TOS identifies the potential uses as ‘Backpackers’ lodge, Group accommodation, Residential hotel and Walker accommodation’.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 135

8.16.2 Proposal

The amendment proposes to: . Rezone the site from the RCZ to the RAZ1. . Apply the DDO5. . Include a reference to the site in a revised Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development) which identifies ‘Backpackers’ lodge’, Group accommodation’ and ‘Residential hotel’ as preferred uses.

The exhibited DDO5 includes the following decision guidelines for the site: · The suitability of the proposal in the context of any master plan prepared for the site. · New buildings are well set back from road boundaries. · New buildings avoid the appearance of one single building footprint in favour of smaller detached buildings that have a lower profile within the landscape. · New buildings are low in scale and designed to follow the contours of the site. · New buildings are screened by vegetation to avoid or minimise views from the Great Ocean Road and the Old Ocean Road.

Mr O’Farrell submitted a revised version of the DDO5 during the Hearing.

8.16.3 Submissions and evidence

Mr O’Farrell relied on the TOS and the Urban Enterprise and Planisphere evidence in support of the proposals for this site.

The amendment was supported by Matt and Sophie Bowker, the owners of the site, although they did not make any specific reference to these elements of the amendment.

The Corangamite CMA advised that the western portion of the site is within an area subject to inundation in a 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) flood. The CMA also advised that a number of waterways traverse the site and that it is likely to have requirements relating to their protection in response to development plan and planning permit applications.

The VNPA submitted that the assessments of potential ecological constraints in the TOS were inadequate and raised issues associated with the loss of native vegetation and habitat. The PCCG expressed concerns about the possible impacts of development on the Port Campbell National Park and the

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 136

Gellibrand River. Marion Manifold opposed the rezoning on the basis that the sites are highly visible and environmentally significant and sensitive. A number of other submissions objected to this proposal as part of general objections to the TOS and amendment.

8.16.4 Discussion

TP231273 and TP251582 (Kangaroobie)

Following its review of submissions and the policy framework discussed in section 6, the Panel notes that: . The existing use (Kangaroobie) is consistent with the types of uses advocated in the TOS. . The Panel is satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of the site being further developed if approvals can be obtained. . The characteristics of the site and its location do not warrant it being classified as a ‘strategic location’. . The existing and proposed uses could be classified as nature based tourism. . The potential to develop ‘walker accommodation’ associated with the Great Ocean Walk is limited by the need to cross the Gellibrand River and private land to access the site. . The site is predominantly cleared farming land but has reasonably large areas of remnant vegetation, suggesting that impacts on vegetation and habitat will need to be considered. . The site is distant from the Port Campbell National Park and will not impact upon it. . The site is relatively remote and development could be designed and sited to address any visual or landscape issues. . The issues raised by the Corangamite CMA can be addressed through the planning permit process.

On balance, the Panel is satisfied that the amendment proposals for these lots are consistent with the policy framework for tourism development in the Great Ocean Road region and supports their rezoning and the proposed uses in Clause 22.03‐4. This is not a strategic site, but it does provide an opportunity to expand an existing nature based facility without creating any adverse visual or landscape impacts. The Panel is satisfied that environmental issues can be addressed through the planning permit process, particularly through the appropriate siting of development.

In relation to the DDO5, the Panel notes that the decision guidelines are very general and were designed to be applied to two sets of sites (Kangaroobie

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 137 and CA141), where development would have different issues and potential impacts. In relation to the Kangaroobie sites, the Panel considers that the DDO5 is not warranted because of their remoteness and limited visibility from key vantage points such as the Great Ocean Road and Old Great Ocean Road. The Panel is satisfied that the RAZ decision guidelines and the requirements of revised Clause 22.03‐4 provide an adequate basis on which to address siting and design issues. The Panel also believes that there should be more flexibility in siting development to ensure that areas of vegetation or habitat significance can be avoided.

For these reasons, the Panel recommends that the DDO5 not be applied to this site.

CA 141

Following its review of submissions and the policy framework discussed in section 6, the Panel notes that: . The site does not have an existing tourism use (although it is apparently used in combination with Kangaroobie). . The Panel was not advised of any specific tourism development proposals for the site. . The characteristics of the site and its location do not warrant it being classified as a ‘strategic location’ although, like many sites, it has impressive views to the coast. . The characteristics of the site and its location do not confer any particular advantages for nature based tourism. . The site is predominantly cleared farming land with only scattered areas of native vegetation and is unlikely to have any significant environmental constraints. . The site is distant from the Port Campbell National Park and development will not impact on it. . The site is located on the Great Ocean Road and although the frontage of the site is highly visible, there are significant areas beyond the break of slope that would not be visible.

On balance, the Panel is not satisfied that the proposals for this site are consistent with the policy framework for tourism development in the Great Ocean Road region. It is not in a ‘strategic location’ and it does not have any particular characteristics that make it suitable for nature based tourism. The Panel is also unconvinced that this site has any particular advantages over other sites in the area.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 138

It follows that the Panel does not support the rezoning of the site, the application of the DDO5 or the reference in Clause 22.03‐4.

8.16.5 Recommendation

The Panel recommends:

That the rezoning of CA 141 (part of site 16) be abandoned.

That the Design and Development Schedule 5 (Tourism Opportunity Sites) be modified to: . Remove the material relating to Site 16 (Kangaroobie, Princetown/Gellibrand Lower).

That Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development) be modified to: . Remove the DDO5 Map Reference to Site 16 (Kangaroobie, Princetown/Gellibrand Lower) in Table 1.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 139

8.17 Princetown East (Site 17)

(Crown Allotment A, Parish of LaTrobe)

8.17.1 The site

This site is to the south‐east of Princetown, south of the Old Ocean Road. It is predominantly cleared farming land with areas of native vegetation and is adjacent to the Great Ocean Walk.

The site is zoned RCZ1, wholly subject to the WMO and partly subject to the ESO1 which applies along the Gellibrand River. The site is also wholly subject to the SLO4 proposed in Amendment C29. The TOS identifies the potential uses as ‘Walkers’ accommodation and Eco‐accommodation’.

8.17.2 Proposal

The amendment proposes to: . Rezone the site from the RCZ to the RAZ. . Apply the DDO5. . Include a reference to the site in a revised Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development) which identifies ‘Backpackers’ lodge’ and ‘Group accommodation’ as preferred uses.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 140

The exhibited DDO5 includes the following decision guidelines for the site: · The suitability of the proposal in the context of any master plan prepared for the site. · Development has a strong eco‐tourism focus, prioritising the conservation of the surrounding environment. · Buildings are low in scale and designed to follow the contours of the site. · Materials complement the surrounding landscape, minimising the prominence of buildings when viewed from the Old Ocean Road. · Built form is screened from views from the Old Ocean Road. · If new development is to be located on Site 14A as shown on Map 14 (sic), vegetation is used to screen buildings from the Great Ocean Walk without compromising views from key vantage points. · Vehicle access to any new accommodation is minimised. Access to the development should be provided for walkers via the Great Ocean Walk.

It also requires that an application for a tourist‐related development be accompanied by a Masterplan, although the requirement can be waived for minor buildings and works.

Mr O’Farrell submitted a revised version of the DDO5 during the Hearing.

8.17.3 Submissions and evidence

Mr O’Farrell relied on the TOS and the Urban Enterprise and Planisphere evidence in support of the proposals for this site. The Panel was advised that the owner has had discussions with Tourism Victoria about developing the site, but that there has been no progress to date.

The Corangamite CMA advised that the northern portion of the site is subject to inundation associated with the Gellibrand River during a 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) flood. The CMA concluded that development should be located outside the estimated 1% AEP flood extent and take into account potential impacts on waterway health.

The VNPA submitted that the assessments of potential ecological constraints (including native vegetation, habitat, and impacts on the Otway National Park) in the TOS were inadequate. The VNPA questioned why the proposed facility should not be located in Princetown, noting that there was no apparent justification for walker accommodation on the site when it is ‘only about 5 kilometres, an hour or so’s walk from Princetown’. This observation was

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 141

also made by Julie Brazier. The PCCG expressed concerns about the possible impacts of development on the Otway National Park and the Gellibrand River. Marion Manifold opposed the rezoning because of poor access and high conservation values. A number of other submissions objected to this proposal as part of general objections to the TOS and amendment.

8.17.4 Discussion

Following its review of submissions and the policy framework discussed in section 6, the Panel notes that: . The site does not have an existing tourism use. . There are no current tourism development proposals for the site, although there have been discussions with Tourism Victoria in the past. . The characteristics of the site and its location do not warrant it being classified as a ‘strategic location’, except that it is adjacent to the Great Ocean Walk. . It was not demonstrated to the Panel that this site is suitably located to service overnight stays associated with the Great Ocean Walk. . The site has potential for nature based tourism. . The site is predominantly cleared faming land with scattered areas of remnant vegetation and is partly within the Gellibrand River floodplain, suggesting that impacts on vegetation and habitat might be an issue. . The site shares a lengthy southern boundary with the Otway National Park, potentially creating interface issues. . The site is remote and development could be designed and sited to address any visual or landscape issues. . Access to the site is challenging.

On balance, the Panel is not satisfied that the proposals for this site are consistent with the policy framework for tourism development in the Great Ocean Road region. While it might have potential for nature based tourism, this has not been adequately demonstrated, particularly in relation to the Great Ocean Walk. The site also has a range of potential environmental constraints that would warrant further analysis before the site is rezoned. The Panel also notes that the site does not meet the access criteria in the TOS.

It follows that the Panel does not support the rezoning of the site, the application of the DDO5 or the reference in Clause 22.03‐4.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 142

8.17.5 Recommendation

The Panel recommends:

That the rezoning of site 17 (Princetown East) be abandoned.

That the Design and Development Schedule 5 (Tourism Opportunity Sites) be modified to: . Remove the material relating to Site 17 (Princetown East).

That Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development) be modified to: . Remove the material relating to Site 17 (Princetown East).

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 143

8.18 Moonlight Head West (Site 18)

(Crown Allotment 27, Lot 2 PS 500657, Lot 1 PS500657, Crown Allotment 33, Parish of Wangerrip)

8.18.1 The site

This site is to the south‐east of Princetown and includes four land parcels: . CA 27 is approximately 49.98 ha and used as a dairy farm. Mr O’Farrell advised that there is no intention on the part of the current owner to develop the site, but that it might be sold if the rezoning was approved. . CA 33 is approximately 42.2 ha and is partly cleared, partly vegetated, and is the site of the Moonlight Head Private Lodge which consists of three residential cottages that are short term lets to visitors. The site also has a current planning permit issued in 2002 for a 75 room hotel complex in two stages and five residential cottages. The Panel was advised that the owner (Moonlight Head Properties) is now in receivership. . Lot 1 is approximately 4.2 ha and is partly cleared, partly vegetated. It has a current planning permit (P2004/045) issued in May 2005, which has been partially acted on. Current improvements on the site include three cabins and a manager’s residence. . Lot 2 is approximately 2.6 ha and is the site of the Moonlight Retreat which includes several self contained cottages amongst remnant vegetation. Permits were issued in 2000 and 2004. The Panel was advised that the site is now in the possession of the mortgagee.

Access to these sites is by unsealed road, with access to CA 27 being by a ‘4WD only’ track.

The sites are zoned RCZ1 and wholly subject to the VPO1 and WMO. The TOS identifies the potential uses as ‘Backpackers’ lodge, Bed and breakfast, Group accommodation and Residential hotel’.

Amendment C29 proposes to apply the SLO5 to all of CA 27 and CA 33 and to parts of Lots 1 and 2.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 144

8.18.2 Proposal

The amendment proposes to: . Rezone the site from the RCZ to the RAZ1. . Apply the DDO5. . Include a reference to the site in a revised Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development) which identifies ‘Backpackers’ lodge’, ‘Bed and breakfast’, ‘Group accommodation’ and ‘Residential hotel’ as preferred uses.

The exhibited DDO5 includes the following decision guidelines for the site: · The suitability of the proposal in the context of any master plan prepared for the site. · New development is consolidated around existing development.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 145

· New buildings and access roads are sited and designed to minimise the need for cut and fill and vegetation removal. · New buildings are low scale and designed to follow the contours of the site. · New development is sited and designed to minimise views of the buildings and access roads from the Moonlight Head Road, Parkers Access Track and the Great Ocean Walk track. · New development is constructed to withstand environmental impacts such as strong winds.

It also requires that an application for a tourist‐related development be accompanied by a Masterplan, although the requirement can be waived for minor buildings and works.

Mr O’Farrell submitted a revised version of the DDO5 during the Hearing.

8.18.3 Submissions and evidence

Mr O’Farrell relied on the TOS and the Urban Enterprise and Planisphere evidence in support of the proposals for this site. Following the Hearing, Mr Gibb provided additional information regarding the current use of these sites at the request of the Panel.

In relation to CA 33, Mr O’Farrell noted that the ‘preferred indicative area for development’ in the DDO5 had been selected to reflect the existing approval for the site. He speculated that if this development did not proceed there might be a suitable development proposal for elsewhere on the site. On this basis he sought a recommendation from the Panel on whether this element of the DDO5 should be retained.

The VNPA submitted that the assessments of potential ecological constraints (including native vegetation, habitat and wildfire) in the TOS were inadequate. The PCCG expressed concerns about the possible impacts of development on the Otway National Park. Marion Manifold opposed the rezoning of this site because of visual impacts and landslip risks. A number of other submissions objected to this proposal as part of general objections to the TOS and amendment.

8.18.4 Discussion

CA33 (Moonlight Head Private Lodge), Lot 1 and Lot 2 (Moonlight Retreat)

Following its review of submissions and the policy framework discussed in section 6, the Panel notes that:

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 146

. The existing tourism uses are consistent with the types of uses advocated in the TOS. . The Moonlight Head area can be characterised as a ‘strategic location’ by virtue of its significant environmental attractions (such as its physical setting, views, and remoteness) and the existing tourism facilities in the area. . The existing uses and some of the proposed uses could be classified as nature based tourism. . Tourism proposals and ventures in this area seem to have had limited commercial success. . The sites have been partly cleared for farming, although they contain significant areas of remnant vegetation, suggesting that impacts on vegetation and habitat might be an issue. . The sites do not abut the Otway National Park, although they are in an area of general environmental sensitivity. . The sites are not visible from the Great Ocean Road or other key vantage points.

On balance, the Panel is satisfied that the amendment proposals for these parcels are consistent with the policy framework for tourism development in the Great Ocean Road region and supports their rezoning and the proposed uses in Clause 22.03‐4. The Panel is satisfied that Moonlight Head is a ’strategic location’, and a potentially suitable location for the development of nature based tourism facilities. Nevertheless, the Panel notes that this area has a range of environmental sensitivities that will need further analysis in support of specific development proposals and planning permit applications.

The Panel has reviewed the proposed DDO5 and does not believe that it adds anything of value to the existing planning scheme provisions (VPO1) and the proposed provisions within this amendment and Amendment C29 (RAZ1, Clause 22.03‐4 and SLO5).

CA 27

Following its review of submissions and the policy framework discussed in section 6, the Panel notes that: . The Moonlight Head area can be characterised as a ‘strategic location’ by virtue of its significant environmental attractions (such as its physical setting, views, and remoteness) and the existing tourism facilities in the general area. . Some of the uses proposed in the TOS could be classified as nature based tourism that are suitable for this site, however others such as ‘Residential hotel’ might not.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 147

. The Panel was not advised of any current tourism development proposals for the site. . The site has been largely cleared for farming, although it contains some areas of remnant vegetation. . The site has a lengthy shared boundary with the Otway National Park (north, west and south) and is on the Great Ocean Walk, confirming that there will be interface issues that would need to be addressed. . The site is not visible from the Great Ocean Road, but is visible from the Great Ocean Walk. . The site has potentially significant access, wildfire, landslip risk and other issues that might not be easily resolved.

This site has significant potential for a high standard, nature based tourism facility, however the Panel is not satisfied that there has been adequate analysis within the TOS and amendment to justify the rezoning, the preferred uses in Clause 21.03‐4 or the detail of the DDO5.

For these reasons the Panel does not support this site being included in the amendment.

However, if there is a future proposal for this site, it could be processed under Section 96A of the Act that provides for combined rezoning and permit applications. This would provide a mechanism to address the complex issues that the development of this site would pose.

8.18.5 Recommendation

The Panel recommends:

That the rezoning of CA 27 (part of site 18) be abandoned.

That the Design and Development Schedule 5 (Tourism Opportunity Sites) be modified to: . Remove the material relating to Site 18 (Moonlight Head West).

That Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development) be modified to: . Remove the DDO5 Map Reference to Site 18 (Moonlight Head West) in Table 1.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 148

8.19 Moonlight Head East 1 and 2 (Sites 19 and 20)

(Site 19 – Crown Allotments 34 and 35, Parish of Wangerrip and Site 20 – Crown Allotments 38 and 39, Parish of Wangerrip).

These sites are dealt with jointly given that they are in the same area and are owned by the Roman Catholic Trusts Corporation for the Diocese of Melbourne (the Trusts Corporation).

8.19.1 The site

Site 19 consists of 2 parcels: . CA 34 which is accessed via the unsealed Parkers Track, consists of native vegetation with some cleared areas in the north and east. . CA 35 which has direct access to the Great Ocean Road, and is a mixture of cleared farming land and native vegetation.

Site 19 is zoned RCZ1 and is wholly subject to the VPO1 and WMO. It is also wholly subject to the SLO5 proposed in Amendment C29.

The TOS identifies the potential uses as ‘Education centre’, ‘Group accommodation’ and Residential college’.

Site 20 consists of 2 parcels: . CA 38 which is accessed via unsealed Ryan Den Track is a mixture of cleared farming land and native vegetation. . CA 39 which adjoins the Great Ocean Road and has access via unsealed Ryan Den Track is a mixture of cleared farming land and native vegetation.

Site 20 is zoned RCZ1 and is wholly subject to the VPO1 and WMO. It is also wholly subject to the SLO5 proposed in Amendment C29.

The TOS identifies the potential uses as ‘Bed and breakfast, Group accommodation, Backpackers’ lodge and Residential hotel’.

Amendment C29 proposes to apply the SLO5 to all of CA34, CA35, 38 and 39.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 149

8.19.2 Proposal

In relation to Site 19 the amendment proposes to: . Rezone the site from the RCZ to the SUZ5. . Apply the DDO5. . Include a reference to the site in a revised Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development) which identifies ‘Education centre’, ‘Group accommodation’ and ‘Residential hotel’ as preferred uses.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 150

The exhibited DDO5 includes the following decision guidelines for the site: · The suitability of the proposal in the context of any master plan prepared for the site. · Buildings and access roads are sited and designed to minimise the need for cut and fill and vegetation removal. · The proposal avoids the appearance of one single building footprint in favour of smaller detached buildings that have a low profile within the landscape. · Buildings are low in scale and designed and sited to follow the contours of the site. · Development is sited and designed to minimise views of the buildings and access roads from the Great Ocean Road and the Great Ocean Walk track. · New development is constructed to withstand environmental impacts such as strong winds.

It also requires that an application for a tourist‐related development be accompanied by a Masterplan, although the requirement can be waived for minor buildings and works.

In relation to Site 20, the amendment proposes to: . Rezone the site from the RCZ to the RAZ. . Apply the DDO5. . Include a reference to the site in a revised Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development) which identifies ‘Backpackers’ lodge’, Bed and breakfast’, ‘Group accommodation’ and ‘Residential hotel’ as preferred uses.

The DDO5 includes the following decision guidelines for the site: · The proposal has a strong eco‐tourism focus. · The suitability of the proposal in the context of any master plan prepared for the site. · Buildings and access roads are sited and designed to minimise the need for cut and fill and vegetation removal. · The proposal avoids the appearance of one single building footprint in favour of smaller detached buildings that have a low profile within the landscape. · Buildings are low in scale and designed and sited to follow the contours of the site.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 151

· Development is sited and designed to minimise views of the buildings and access roads from the Great Ocean Road and the Great Ocean Walk track. · New development is constructed to withstand environmental impacts such as strong winds.

It also requires that an application for a tourist‐related development be accompanied by a Masterplan, although the requirement can be waived for minor buildings and works.

Mr O’Farrell submitted a revised version of the DDO5 during the Hearing.

8.19.3 Submissions and evidence

Mr Pitt made a submission on behalf of the Trusts Corporation and relied on an earlier written submission and evidence reports that were circulated and made available prior to the Hearing, including a draft SUZ7 intended for this site.

Mr Pitt advised that the land owned by the Trust Corporation was more extensive than the area affected by the amendment and had been acquired in July 2009 for the purpose of a ‘rural learning campus’. He indicated that current RCZ prohibited the use of the site for an education centre and it was this that provided the impetus for the rezoning.

He cited elements of the SPPF and LPPF in support of the proposal and relied on the evidence of Messrs Kern, Tall and Macey to demonstrate that a rural learning campus and tourism facilities could be accommodated on the site.

Mr Pitt indicated that the Trusts Corporation supported the general intent of the amendment (in relation to its site), but submitted that it should be modified to better reflect the proposals for the land. He submitted that: . A new SUZ7 should be applied to CA 28, 29, 32, 34, 34A, 35 and 36 to facilitate the rural learning campus. . The RAZ1 should be applied to CA 38 and 39 to facilitate ‘low impact tourism’.

Mr Pitt indicated that the Trusts Corporation was unlikely to sell or undertake a tourism development on lots 38 and 39, but might lease the land for such development. In the event that the land was not developed it would continue to be farmed.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 152

Mr Pitt indicated that the SUZ7 had been drafted to incorporate the relevant elements of the SUZ5 and DDO5 that had been proposed in the amendment, removing the necessity for the DDO5 to be applied.

Mr Pitt also proposed that ‘Education centre’ and ‘Residential college’ be included in section 2 with the condition that ‘No building may be constructed on CA 28, 29, 32 or 36 other than shelter sheds, toilets or on CA 36 servicing infrastructure’.

Mr O’Farrell indicated that Council generally supported Mr Pitt’s proposed changes to the amendment and agreed that they better reflected the intentions for the site than the exhibited amendment. Nevertheless, he expressed concern about some elements of the SUZ7 and proposed various changes including: . Revisions to the tables of uses, including the relocation of innominate uses from section 2 to section 3. . Revisions to the development plan provisions including that the responsible authority must not amend a development plan without giving notice, and that there be no exemption from notice and review. . Additional site analysis and design requirements associated with development plans.

Ray McInerney submitted that various matters should be taken into account in the assessment of any building or planning permits within CA 34. He also suggested various changes to the DDO5.

The VNPA submitted that the assessment of potential ecological constraints in the TOS was inadequate (including the impacts on the Otway National Park) and that the assessments undertaken on behalf of the landowners failed to address the impact of wildfire protection on the retention of native vegetation and habitat. The PCCG expressed concerns about the possible impacts of development on the Otway and Port Campbell National Parks.

Marion Manifold opposed the rezoning of this site because of the lack of an ‘ESD assessment’, fire safety, lack of services, fragile environment and visual impacts. Dr Manifold submitted that the site was inappropriate for the proposed education centre. A number of other submissions objected to this proposal as part of general objections to the TOS and amendment.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 153

8.19.4 Discussion

The submissions raise two sets of issues: whether the site is suitable in a policy sense for the development proposed by the Trusts Corporation, and if so, what planning scheme provisions should be applied to the site to enable permits to be sought.

A third issue is whether the proposed changes to the provisions and the areas proposed to be rezoned are that significant that they warrant some form of notice or exhibition.

The proposed rural learning campus

In its assessment of the site and the proposed rural learning campus, the Panel notes that: . The site and proposed use have characteristics associated with nature based tourism. . There is a long term commitment by the owners to the development of the site, as evidenced by extensive investigations undertaken to date. . The site has significant environmental constraints (such as native vegetation, habitat, wildfire and landslip). . Expert evidence indicates that the site is generally suitable for the proposed uses. . The eastern (CA 38 and 39) and southern lots (CA 28, 280, and 37) form the boundary with the Otway National Park.

Although the Panel does not categorise the proposed ‘rural learning campus’ as ‘tourism’, it has similarities to nature based tourism given the ‘environmental’ purposes of the facility as described by Mr Pitt. In this context, the Panel notes that the site has a number of suitable physical and locational features, such as remnant vegetation, views, remoteness and proximity to the coast. The Panel also notes that the rural learning campus is consistent with the general intent of the TOS, to the extent that it will result in overnight visitation and increased spending in the region.

Importantly, the site also has areas of cleared farming land where facilities can be sited to minimise environmental and landscape impacts. This was demonstrated by the evidence from Messrs Kern, Tall and Macey. Without repeating the detail of this evidence, the Panel notes that some issues will require further analysis and that it would be premature to exactly determine the appropriate scale, form and location of development. Nevertheless, the Panel has been presented with adequate evidence to indicate that the site is capable of supporting a rural learning campus.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 154

For these reasons, the Panel is satisfied that the proposed rural learning campus proposed for CA 28, 29, 32, 34, 34A, 35 and 36 is consistent with the policy framework. The Panel notes that CA 37 is not required for the campus and is intended to retain the RCZ, while CA 38 and 39 are proposed to be rezoned RAZ1 to facilitate tourism that is unrelated to the campus.

The Panel agrees that CA 37 should be retained in the RCZ, but also believes that CA 38 and 39 should be retained in the RCZ. In forming this view the Panel notes that: . There are no proposals to develop this land, and it is likely that it will continue to be farmed. . These lots are not within a ‘strategic location’, although there is potential to develop them for nature based tourism. . These lots form the eastern boundary of the Trusts Corporation’s holdings with the National Park (CA 37 also forms part of the eastern and southern boundary), suggesting that there will be potential interface issues.

The Panel is not satisfied that there is adequate justification for rezoning these lots, particularly in the absence of any specific development proposals.

The appropriate planning scheme provisions

The Panel generally prefers the SUZ7 submitted by the Catholic Education Office of Melbourne (CEOM) than the SUZ5 included in the amendment. It is specific to the site, and includes material from the DDO5, enabling that element of the amendment to be deleted.

Nevertheless, the Panel believes that the draft SUZ7 needs to be revised to rationalise the ‘purposes’ given that many are repetitive of others and of the decision guidelines. They should provide a description of the facility and the key outcomes that are sought, rather than broad repetitive statements.

In terms of the tables of uses, the Panel generally agrees with Council that given the sensitivities of the site and the area, it is appropriate to have a higher level of control than might otherwise be required in a rural area.

For this reason, the Panel supports the proposed changes to the table of uses included in the version submitted by Mr O’Farrell at the Hearing (Document 8), including the reference to innominate uses being in section 3. This version also includes the other changes proposed by Mr Pitt.

In relation to the Development Plan provisions, the Panel also agrees with Council that there should be a ‘notice’ requirement for amendments to a Development Plan, but not for ‘minor’ amendments. However, it agrees

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 155

with Mr Pitt that permit applications should be exempt from notice and review provisions where they are generally consistent with an approved Development Plan. The Panel supports the use of the development plan process as the key mechanism to seek input and to identify and address issues.

In light of the comprehensive SUZ schedule for the rural learning campus, and the recommended abandonment of the proposed rezoning of the ‘tourism sites’, it is not necessary to retain the DDO5 or Clause 22.03‐4 references to these sites.

Further notice or exhibition

Although the Panel has supported a different SUZ and the rezoning of more land than proposed in the amendment, it is satisfied that this is not a transformation of the amendment and that additional notice or exhibition is not required.

The SUZ7 proposed by the CEOM is a variation of the exhibited provisions and is not significantly different to the intent of what was exhibited. As Mr Pitt also noted, the SUZ7 (as it relates to the southern lots) is more restrictive and is similar to the existing RCZ.

The Panel also notes that the CEOM provided advanced notice of its intentions regarding the inclusion of additional lots prior to the Hearing, yet there were no specific objections to this in submissions at the Hearing.

8.19.5 Recommendations

The Panel recommends:

That the rezoning of CA 38 and 39 in site 20 (Moonlight Head East 2) be abandoned.

That CA 28, 29, 32, 34, 34A, 35 and 36 (Moonlight Head) owned by the Roman Catholic Trusts Corporation for the Diocese of Melbourne be rezoned to a Special Use Zone (Wattle Hill) consistent with the marked up schedule submitted by Council at the Hearing (Document 8), except to: . Rationalise the ‘Purpose’ in order to remove unnecessary repetition and to focus on a description of the facility and the key outcomes that are sought. . Establish that the responsible authority cannot approve amendments to a Development Plan without giving notice, unless the amendment is considered by the responsible authority to be minor in nature.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 156

. Provide an exemption from notice and review where an application is generally in accordance with an approved Development Plan.

That the Design and Development Schedule 5 (Tourism Opportunity Sites) be modified to: . Remove the material relating to Sites 19 and 20 (Moonlight Head East 1 and 2).

That Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development) be modified to: . Remove the material relating to Sites 19 and 20 (Moonlight Head East 1 and 2).

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 157

9. Additional sites proposed in submissions

A number of submissions sought the inclusion of additional sites in the amendment. The Panel has taken a cautious approach to such submissions because of the contentious nature of the TOS and the amendment, and the public interest that they have generated.

9.1 Great Ocean Road Princeton, Crown Allotment 1A, Parish of Waarre

9.1.1 The site

The site is located on the Great Ocean Road, Princeton directly abutting site 13 (98816 Great Ocean Road, Princetown). It is cleared farming land comprising approximately 3 ha on a narrow lot that is approximately 52 m wide and 578 m deep. The site is zoned RCZ and is subject to the SLO3.

9.1.2 Submissions and evidence

The submission from Rod Bright and Associates on behalf of the landowners (the Walls brothers) advocated that this site also be identified as a preferred site for tourism development, particularly in the event that the Great Ocean Walk is extended and the Loch Ard Gorge interpretative centre is built.

9.1.3 Discussion

This is a long narrow lot that is not ideally configured for tourism development. Although it adjoins site 13, the Panel has recommended that site 13 be removed from the amendment.

The Panel adopts the same position in relation to this site and also agrees with Council that it is unsuitable because of its size and the constraints associated with slope and visibility from the Great Ocean Road.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 158

9.2 Anchors, Port Campbell

9.2.1 The site

This existing resort facility site is located 2 km north of Port Campbell on the Cobden‐Port Campbell Road. The resort provides ‘luxury boutique’ accommodation on a large site that has views over Port Campbell and out to the ocean.

The site is currently zoned RCZ1 and is subject to the SLO3.

9.2.2 Submissions and evidence

The submission from Tanya White, the resort manager, sought a revised amendment that would allow the future development of the site, including: . A manager’s residence with a restaurant for in‐house guests. . Additional accommodation options. . A swimming pool and/or tennis court.

Council opposed this submission on the basis that ‘the site does not satisfy the criteria for inclusion in the TOS’.

9.2.3 Discussion

This existing tourism business is consistent the type of accommodation facility advocated in the TOS. Although the desire to expand the facility is constrained by the RCZ, it was not assessed by the TOS and did not make the initial short list of thirty five sites, let alone the amendment.

While there might be justification for rezoning this site, the Panel has not been supplied with enough information to form any views about what zone might be appropriate and whether other provisions such as an overlay should be applied. In addition, a rezoning of the site would need to be exhibited.

For these reasons the Panel does not support this submission.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 159

9.3 Booringa Road

9.3.1 The site

John and Diane Curran own three ‘tourist’ businesses in proximity to site 14: . 172 Booringa Road (Karingal Park– self contained accommodation); . 266 Booringa Road (Booringa Lodge ‐ self contained accommodation); and . 314 Booringa Road (Twelve Apostles Motel and Country Retreat).

These sites are on the eastern side of Booringa Road and are zoned RCZ.

9.3.2 Submissions and evidence

The Currans opposed the rezoning of all of the coastal sites including site 14, while noting that 266 and 314 Booringa Road met the TOS site selection criteria but were not included in amendment. Although they did not support the amendment proceeding, they believed that their properties should be included if it did.

Mr O’Farrell advised that Council did not oppose the rezoning of the Curran sites but sought a recommendation from the Panel.

9.3.3 Discussion

Of the three sites owned by the Currans, the Twelve Apostles Motel and Country Retreat is another example of an existing tourism businesses that is potentially constrained by the RCZ, yet was not assessed by the TOS and did not make the initial short list of thirty five sites, let alone the amendment.

The Panel is sufficiently familiar with this site and its location to have formed the view that it is a legitimate candidate for the RAZ1 and might have been included in the amendment. However, the Panel was not presented with an assessment of whether a rezoning should be accompanied by a DDO or other overlay, and what such an overlay might contain. The Panel also believes that a rezoning of this site should be exhibited so that other parties, particularly adjoining landowners, have an opportunity to comment.

For these reasons the Panel does not support the inclusion of Curran properties in the amendment.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 160 9.4 Pebble Point

9.4.1 The site

Gavan Mathieson owns a tourism business called ‘Pebble Point’ that consists of tent accommodation and ancillary facilities at 20 Old Coach Road, Princetown. The site is to the west of the Princetown town centre and near the current end of the Great Ocean Walk. It is zoned RCZ and partly subject to the WMO. It is also subject to the proposed SLO4 in Amendment C29.

The Panel understands that a permit for the business was issued by VCAT in 2005 and that the permit was subsequently revised and extended.

As discussed in section 5 of this report, the site or the business are not referred to in the TOS.

9.4.2 Submissions and evidence

Mr Mathieson lodged a late written submission and made a verbal submission on the final day of the Hearing.

In summary, Mr Mathieson submitted that Pebble Point meet the criteria included in the TOS as an ‘opportunity site’ and should have been identified and included as such. He submitted that although he generally supported the TOS, the failure to include existing businesses that meet the criteria was a weakness.

Mr Mathieson advised that he intended to expand his business, but that the current zone prohibited this, and also restricted his ability to secure finance. For these reasons he submitted that the site should be rezoned RAZ as part of Amendment C30. He tabled various documents including correspondence between himself and Council.

Mr O’Farrell supported the rezoning of the site to RAZ and its inclusion within the DDO5 as part of Amendment C30. He submitted that: . This would not represent a ‘transformation’ of the amendment. . The Panel can require notification of the proposed changes to the amendment. . DDO5 provisions relating to the site should be ‘similar to others’ and that the preferred area of development should ‘reflect the footprint of the approved development plus a bit more’.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 161 9.4.3 Discussion

The Panel agrees that there would have been merit in this site being assessed as part of the TOS process, although it is uncertain whether this was possible given the timing of the TOS and the opening of the business.

The Panel notes Council’s view that the planned expansion of the business is permissible under the current zoning and therefore questions whether a rezoning is necessary. In relation to whether or not the current zone is an impediment to securing finance for the planned expansion ‐ this is not a matter that the Panel can usefully comment on, other than to note that this is not a planning consideration.

The Panel is concerned that Council supports the inclusion of the site as part of the amendment without there having been any documented assessment of what alternative zone might be appropriate (setting aside the issue of whether a rezoning is actually required), and whether a DDO (or some other overlay) is required and what it might contain. The Panel does not agree with Council’s submission that the failure to exhibit a rezoning of the site could be overcome by requiring ‘further notification’.

In practical terms, including this site in the amendment would lead to a significant delay in the amendment being dealt with ‐ it would require an analysis of the site and the existing planning controls, the drafting of new controls, further notification and the Panel being reconvened. If the Panel agreed to this in relation to Mr Mathieson’s site, it would also potentially have to do so in relation to other sites.

While the Panel agrees that this site is a potential candidate for the RAZ1 (and potentially a DDO) it does not support this being done as part of Amendment C30.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 162

10. Conclusions

The Panel supports the amendment and recommends that it be adopted subject to various changes. It will provide a sound basis to facilitate new and expanded tourism opportunities that will have a net benefit for the Shire, the broader region and the State.

The Panel has raised a number of issues associated with the TOS and has concerns about the adequacy of some of its findings and recommendations. This is particularly so in relation to the site selection process, the identification of preferred types of accommodation and the analysis of specific sites. However, it agrees with the underlying premise that there is scope to further capitalise on the tourism potential of the Shire’s natural assets and features, and its existing tourism infrastructure.

In recommending that the amendment be adopted, the Panel has also recommended a number of changes, including the removal of some of the coastal sites. It has done this because it is not satisfied that there is adequate strategic justification for these sites, and particularly because of its view that to rezone them would be contrary to the policy framework for tourism and development in the Great Ocean Road region. The Panel has supported all of the inland sites and is satisfied that that they are consistent with the policy framework.

The Panel has also recommended various changes to specific elements of the amendment, particularly Clause 22.03‐4 and the DDO5. The Panel generally supports Clause 22.03‐4 and the recommended changes are mainly intended to improve its performance and usability. The Panel has more fundamental concerns with the DDO5 and has recommended that significant elements be removed or revised. These concerns are whether it is needed in light of other provisions in the amendment and the planning scheme, and whether there has been adequate analysis to justify specific provisions.

The amendment attracted significant community and stakeholder interest and the Panel appreciates the contributions and assistance provided by Corangamite Shire and the submitters during the Hearing.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 163

11. Recommendations

Amendment C30

For the reasons set out in this report, the Panel recommends that Amendment C30 to the Corangamite Planning Scheme be adopted, subject to the following modifications:

1 That the rezoning of the following sites be abandoned: . Site 10 (Peterborough Airfield). . Site 11 (Port Campbell West). . Part of Site 16 (CA 141). . Site 17 (Princetown East). . Part of site 18 (CA 27). . Site 20 (Moonlight Head East 2).

2 That a site specific Special Use Zone be applied to Site 3 (Mount Elephant) that is generally consistent with the exhibited SUZ6, except to: . Rename the schedule. . Include ‘purposes’ that are specific to the site. . Reposition ‘Dependant person’s unit’, ‘Dwelling’ and ‘Bed and breakfast’ into section 2 of the table of uses. . Reposition ‘Residential hotel’ into section 3 of the table of uses. . Delete any material unrelated to the site.

3 That a site specific Special Use Zone be applied to Site 5 (Glenormiston College) that is generally consistent with the exhibited SUZ6, except to: . Rename the schedule. . Include ‘purposes’ that are specific to the site. . Delete any material unrelated to the site.

4 That CA 28, 29, 32, 34, 34A, 35 and 36 (Moonlight Head) owned by the Roman Catholic Trusts Corporation for the Diocese of Melbourne be rezoned to a Special Use Zone (Wattle Hill) consistent with the marked up schedule submitted by Council at the Hearing (Document 8), except to:

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 164

. Rationalise the ‘Purpose’ in order to remove unnecessary repetition and to focus on a description of the facility and the key outcomes that are sought. . Establish that the responsible authority cannot approve amendments to a Development Plan without giving notice, unless the amendment is considered by the responsible authority to be minor in nature. . Provide an exemption from notice and review where an application is generally in accordance with an approved Development Plan.

5 That the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 5 (Tourism Opportunity Sites) be modified to: . Include ‘The Siting and Design Guidelines for Structures on the Victorian Coast’, Victorian Coastal Council, (May 1998) as a Reference Document. . Remove the material relating to Site 1 (Lot 2 LP78265, Parish of Skipton). . Replace the exhibited provisions relating to Site 3 (Mount Elephant) with the revised provisions submitted on behalf of Council at the Hearing (Document 39). . Remove the material relating to Site 4 (658 Purrumbete Estate Road). . Remove the material relating to Site 5 (Glenormiston College). . Remove the material relating to Site 6 (Berry World). . Remove the material relating to Site 7 (1 Barrett Street, Timboon). . Remove the material relating to Site 8 (Scotts Creek General Store). . Remove the material relating to Site 9 (Camp Cooriemungle). . Remove the material relating to Site 10 (Peterborough Airfield). . Remove the material relating to Site 11 (Port Campbell West). . Replace the exhibited provisions relating to Site 14 (Booringa Road, Princetown) with the revised provisions submitted by Council at the Hearing (Document 39). . Replace the exhibited provisions relating to Site 15 (Glenample Homestead) with the revised provisions submitted by Council at the Hearing (Document 39). . Remove the material relating to Site 16 (Kangaroobie, Princetown/Gellibrand Lower).

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 165

. Remove the material relating to Site 17 (Princetown East). . Remove the material relating to Site 18 (Moonlight Head West). . Remove the material relating to Sites 19 and 20 (Moonlight Head East 1 and 2).

6 That Clause 22.03‐4 (Tourist Use and Development) be modified to: . Replace the description of when the clause applies with:

‘This policy applies to use and development for tourism purposes.’ . Replace the introduction to ‘Tourism opportunity sites’ with:

‘It is policy to encourage the use of nominated tourism opportunity sites in accordance with Table 1.

It is policy to discourage the use of nominated tourism opportunity sites for other section 2 (permit required) uses except where the current primary use of the site is for Agriculture and the proposed use is in conjunction with the use of the land for Agriculture and will support its ongoing viability’. . Remove the DDO5 Map Reference to Site 1 (Lot 2 LP78265, Parish of Skipton) from Table 1. . Remove the DDO5 Map Reference to Site 4 (658 Purrumbete Estate Road in Table 1. . Remove the DDO5 Map Reference to Site 5 (Glenormiston College) in Table 1. . Remove the DDO5 Map Reference to Site 6 (Berry World) in Table 1. . Remove the DDO5 Map Reference to Site 7 (1 Barrett Street, Timboon) in Table 1. . Remove the DDO5 Map Reference to Site 8 (Scotts Creek General Store) in Table 1. . Remove the DDO5 Map Reference to Site 9 (Camp Cooriemungle) in Table 1. . Remove the material relating to Site 10 (Peterborough Airfield). . Remove the material relating to Site 11 (Port Campbell West). . Remove the material relating to Site 12 (Loch Ard Bed and Breakfast). . Remove the material relating to Site 13 (8816 Great Ocean Road, Princetown). . Remove the DDO5 Map Reference to Site 16 (Kangaroobie, Princetown/Gellibrand Lower) in Table 1.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 166

. Remove the material relating to Site 17 (Princetown East). . Remove the DDO5 Map Reference to Site 18 (Moonlight Head West) in Table 1. . Remove the material relating to Sites 19 and 20 (Moonlight Head East 1 and 2).

Amendment C28

In relation to Amendment C28, the Panel supports the consequential changes proposed by Council (Document 38), except to replace the references to ‘short term accommodation’ and ‘caravan park/cabin facility’ with ‘Camping and caravan park’ in Clause 21.04 (Skipton).

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 167

Appendix 1 List of Documents submitted during the Hearing

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 168

Document Date Name/Description Presented by Number 1 7 Nov 2011 Opening submission, Corangamite Mr P. O’Farrell Shire Council 2 8 Nov 2011 Revised Schedule 5 to DDO Mr P. O’Farrell 3A 8 Nov 2011 Marked up aerial photograph of main Mr P. O’Farrell Glenormiston College landholdings, Blacks Road, Glenormiston (3A) and 3B 8 Nov 2011 Title Plan - properties on the corner Mr P. O’Farrell Trufood and Blacks Roads, Glenormiston 4 8 Nov 2011 VCAT decision (VCAT Ref Mr P. O’Farrell P3529/2009, Permit Application Number 1194) Corangamite SC v Cumming (No 3) 5 8 Nov 2011 VCAT decision (VCAT Ref P479/2005, Mr I. Pitt. S.C. Permit Application Number P2004-276) Conway v Corangamite SC 2008 6 8 Nov 2011 Written submission on behalf of the Mr I. Pitt. S.C. Roman Catholic Trusts Corporation for the Diocese of Melbourne 7 8 Nov 2011 Proposed addition to Section 2 uses, Mr I. Pitt. S.C. Schedule 7 to the Special Use Zone 8 8 Nov 2011 Amended Schedule 7 to the Special Mr P. O’Farrell Use Zone 9 8 Nov 2011 Summary of Submissions received to Mr P. O’Farrell C30 10 9 Nov 2011 Brief for the Tourism Opportunities Mr P. O’Farrell Study, Corangamite SC 11 9 Nov 2011 Copy of email dated 8 Nov 2011 from Mr P. O’Farrell Brett Cheatley, Director Community and Tourism, Parks Victoria 12 9 Nov 2011 Submission, Shipwreck Coast Tourism Ms C. Reid 13 9 Nov 2011 Submission, on behalf of Victorian Mr R. Costello National Parks Association 14 9 Nov 2011 Submission, on behalf of Port Ms G. Tipple Campbell Community Group Inc 14A 9 Nov 2011 Appendix 1, Biodiversity map Site 11. Ms G. Tipple Submission, on behalf of Port Campbell Community Group Inc

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 169

Document Date Name/Description Presented by Number 14B 9 Nov 2011 Appendix 2, Biodiversity map Site 16. Ms G. Tipple Submission, on behalf of Port Campbell Community Group Inc. 14C 9 Nov 2011 Appendix 3, List of flora and fauna on Ms G. Tipple sites 11 & 16, Submission on behalf of Port Campbell Community Group Inc. 15 9 Nov 2011 Copy Clause 12, State Planning Policy Ms G. Tipple Framework. 16 9 Nov 2011 Submission, Dr Marion Manifold. Dr M. Manifold 16A 9 Nov 2011 Copy of letter dated 26 Oct 2011 from Dr M. Manifold Scott Salzman, Deakin University. 16B 9 Nov 2011 List of persons interested in Southern Dr M. Manifold Ocean Beach House. 16C 9 Nov 2011 Extract of Colac Otway C55 Panel Dr M. Manifold Report. 16D 9 Nov 2011 Copy of submission to the Dr M. Manifold Corangamite Tourism Opportunities Study from Dr Manifold, email dated 27 April 2010. 16E 9 Nov 2011 Extract of Corangamite Shire Council Dr M. Manifold minutes of 28 September 2010. 17 9 Nov 2011 Submission, Mr Neil Trotter. Mr N. Trotter 18 9 Nov 2011 Copy of Rural Conservation Zone & Mr. P. O’Farrell Schedule 1 to the Zone, Corangamite Planning Scheme. 19 9 Nov 2011 Submission on behalf D & J Salmon. Mr B. Howard 20 9 Nov 2011 Copy of submissions 93 to 99, Mr. P. O’Farrell including submission 97, Mr G. Mathieson. 21 9 Nov 2011 Submission by Ms Julie Brazier & Mr Ms J. Brazier Bill Kirby. 22 9 Nov 2011 Extract from Expert Witness Statement Ms J. Brazier to VCAT P1102/2005 re tourism in Victoria. 23 10 Nov 2011 Submission from Twelve Apostles D. & J. Curran Motel and Country Retreat, 314 Booringa Road, Princetown. 24 10 Nov 2011 Submissions from Corangamite Arts Ms G. Watson Inc.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 170

Document Date Name/Description Presented by Number 24A 10 Nov 2011 Corangamite Arts Inc. - Vision. Mission Ms G. Watson and Statement of Purposes. 25 10 Nov 2011 Presentation on behalf of Ms Jane Mr J. Saxon Robinson. 26 10 Nov 2011 Submission on behalf of Mount Ms V. Lang Elephant Community Management Inc. 27 10 Nov 2011 Submission on behalf of G & J Mitchell. Mr G. Tobin 28 10 Nov 2011 Proposed revised Schedule 6 to the Mr G. Tobin Special Use Zone. 29 10 Nov 2011 Submission, Trust for Nature. Mr A. Burns 30 10 Nov 2011 Mount Elephant Management Plan. Mr A. Burns 31 10 Nov 2011 Corangamite PS C28 Panel report. Mr. P. O’Farrell 32 10 Nov 2011 Submission from Mr Ivor Coster. Mr I. Coster 33 10 Nov 2011 Submission from Mr Gavan Mathieson. Mr G. Mathieson 34 10 Nov 2011 VCAT decision (VCAT Ref P712/2005, Mr. P. O’Farrell Permit Application Number P2004/209) Corangamite SC v G & J Mathieson. 35 10 Nov 2011 Amended permit proposal for 20 Old Mr. P. O’Farrell Coach Road, Princetown with endorsed architectural plans (for Mathieson). 36 10 Nov 2011 Closing submission on behalf of Mr. P. O’Farrell Corangamite Shire Council. 37 10 Nov 2011 Copy of Explanatory report for Mr. P. O’Farrell Corangamite C29. 38 10 Nov 2011 Additional Amendment C28 Mr. P. O’Farrell documentation, including text changes recommended by C28 Panel, and additional Amendment C30 documentation for Skipton including reference to C30 Site 1. 39 10 Nov 2011 Proposed amendments to Schedule 5 Mr. P. O’Farrell to the DDO. 40 10 Nov 2011 CFA Caravan Park Fire Safety Mr. P. O’Farrell Guideline. 41 10 Nov 2011 2 aerial maps with contours for Site 1 Mr. P. O’Farrell Skipton. 42 10 Nov 2011 EPA Recommended Buffer Distances Mr. P. O’Farrell for Industrial Residual Air Emissions.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 171

Document Date Name/Description Presented by Number 43 10 Nov 2011 Copy of referral letter from Mr. P. O’Farrell Corangamite SC to EPA, dated 30 April 2011. 44 10 Nov 2011 Letter from Wannon Water to Mr. P. O’Farrell Corangamite SC regarding the Port Campbell Wastewater Treatment Plant, with coloured marked up map. 45 10 Nov 2011 Copy of internal email from Alex Mr. P. O’Farrell Green, Director Works and Services regarding status of Coxans Access Road and bridge.

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 172

Appendix 2 List of Written submissions

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 173

Number Submitter Organisation (if any) 1 Neil Trotter 2 B Rogers 3 Denise Till 4 Ross Hawkins 5 Gael Glennon 6 Tanya White Anchors Port Campbell 7 Donald Swanson 8 Charlene Payne Nicole and Brent Oberin Camp Cooriemungle 9 Richard Nesseler 10 Matt Bowker Kangaroobie 11 Ivor Coster 12 Bill Renehan Tourism Victoria 13 Terry Bourke 14 Peter Wilson Wannon Water 15 John and Dianne Curran Twelve Apostles motel and Country Retreat 16 Marion Manifold Port Campbell Community Group 17 Marion Manifold 18 Ashley and Michelle Gristede 19 Mara Pacers 20 Stephen Elder Catholic Education Office 21 Katy Bright Rod Bright and Associates 22 Joe Piper South West TAFE 23 Julie Brazier and Bill Kirby 24 Ann and Neil Tribe 25 David Klingberg David Locke Associates 26 Lois Dupleix 27 Bryan Conway 28 Alan and Joy Kerr Berry World 29 Jane Robinson 30 John Maher Shipwreck Coast Tourism 31 Gareth Smith Corangamite CMA

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 174

Number Submitter Organisation (if any) 32 Peter Hamilton CFA 33 Stephen Cumming 34 Steve Blackley Western Coastal Board 35 The Hon Louise Asher MP Minister for Innovation, Services and Small Business Minister for Tourism and Major Events 36 Greg Tobin Harwood Andrews Lawyers 37 G and J Mitchell NTLP Pty Ltd 38 Chris Cook Trust for Nature 39 Simon Branigan Victorian National Parks Association 40 Val Lang Mount Elephant Community Management 41 A Munro 42 Julianne Bell Protector of Public Lands Victoria 43 Harley Manifold 44 Chris Belcher 45 Lyn McDonald Corangamite Arts Inc 46 Rita Radford 47 Alison Parr 48 Jenny Mason 49 Colin Sugget 50 Jack Roach Boroondara Residents’ Action Group 51 Ian and Greta Bird 52 Timothy Oseckas 53 George Janko 54 Vivienne Ortega 55 Ann Reid 56 Jenny Warfe 57 Colin Suggett Victorian Coastal Alliance 58 Margot Carroll 59 Mark Horner

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 175

Number Submitter Organisation (if any) 60 Miranda Bain 61 Gabrielle Perversi 62 Neil Trotter 63 Carole Reid Shipwreck Coast Tourism 64 Greg Tobin Harwood Andrews Lawyers 65 N/A 66 Janos and Bozica Sakac 67 Robert Klempe 68 N/A 69 N/A 70` B Rogers 71 Sandra Pederson Petition 72 Bert Rogers 73 Bert Rogers 74 Bert Rogers 75 Bert Rogers 76 Jill Quirk 77 Margit Alm 78 Barry Breen and Laura Fazzalari 79 William Fenner 80 Colin Sugget Victorian Coastal Alliance 81 Daryl Cloonan 82 Susan Pyke 83 Ray McCaw 84 Ian and Greta Bird 85 John McInerney Port Campbell Touring Group 86 Angela Munro 87 Janis Rossiter 88 David Tiller 89 Stephen Elder Catholic Education Office 90 Peter Field 91 Margaret Fooke

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011 Page 176

Number Submitter Organisation (if any) 92 Mary Drost Planning Backlash 93 Gary and Jane French 94 Tony Grant 95 Helen Grant 96 Bill and Patrick O’Shea 97 Gavan Mathieson 98 Tom and Margaret McKenzie 99 Tony McCaulif

CORANGAMITE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C30 PANEL REPORT: 22 DECEMBER 2011