I I

I GEELONG REGIONAL COMMISSION I I I I Report to the Minister for Planning Hon. G. Hayes, M.P. I I on I The Exhibition of and Hearing of I Objections to the Proposed Geelong Regional Planning Scheme I I I I I I I 711 . 1 Geelong Regional Commission ___. 3099 I 11 7 Myers Street 452 Geelong V1ctona 3220 GEE:M P 0 Box 770 I Tel (052) 21 7377 I I

I C 0 N F I D E N T I A L I I I I GEELONG REGIONAL COMMISSION I I I REPORT TO THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING HON. G. HAYES, M.P. I I on I THE EXHIBITION OF AND HEARING OF OBJECTIONS TO THE I PROPOSED GEELONG REGIONAL PLANNING SCHEME I I I

I c;?711. 1658657 .3099 452 Report to the Minister for C)EE:M Planning, Han. G. Hayes, M.P. on the exhibition of I· and hearing of objections I to the proposed Geelong May 1~78 Regional Planning I L ~ I·· I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS I Foreword I REPORT 1~ . Preparation and Exhibition of the Proposed Scheme 1. I 2. Overview of Objections to the Geelong Regional 6 . I . Planning Scheme 3. Objections Received from Municipalities, State 12. I Government Agencies and Semi-government Organisations

4. Objections to the 11 Tenement Clause 11 and Subdivision 16. I Minima in Rural Zones

5.. Objections to the Rural (Streamside Foreshore and 26. I Floodland) Zone

I 6. Objections to Road Reserves and Road Location Provisions 30.

I 7. Other Major Groups of Objections 35.

8. Amendments to Geelong Regional Interim Development 41. I Order I ·MAPS. I Map of Geelong Regional Planning Authority Area. fo 11 owing 44. I Map of Existing Schemes· and Orders - July 1969 following 44. I I I ------·-- -, I· I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) I APPENDICES

A. List of Gov~rnment Departments and Public Authoriti~s 45. I notified of Preparation of the Draft Geelong Regional Planning Scheme and Letter sent to them. ,I B. ·Rural Area Planning Policy adopted by the Geelong 48. Regional Planning Authority and incorporated in the Draft Geelong Regional Planning Scheme.

I C. List of Government Departments and Public Authorities 55. notified nf the exhibition of the Draft Geelong I Regional Planning Scheme. D. • · Notice of Objection Hearings 56. I . E. Schedule of Hearing Committee Sitting Dates 57 . F. Final Notice to ~bjectors 58. I G. Statutory Authorities and Municipalities objecting 59 .. to the Exhibited Scheme. I H. Terms of Reference of Community Advisory Committee 60. on Rural Affairs. I. General Statement of Existing Tenement Provisions 61. I in the proposed Geelong Regional Planning Scheme. J. Report on Rural (Streamside Foreshore and Floodland) 72. I Zone I K. Results of Floodland Study 74. L. Report on Outer Freeway Corridor 88. I M. Report on Bellarine By-Pass Roads 92. I I I I I FOREWORD I This report summarises and documents the exhibition and objection process for the proposed Geelong Regional Planning Scheme. This process included I the exhibition of the proposed Scheme, the receipt and hearing of objections, investigations undertaken as a result of objections and the determinations of the Geelong Regional Planning Authority {now the Geelong I Regional Commission) in respect of each objection.

The report covers the major features of the Scheme which caused public I .concern and comment, and which generated significant numbers of objections, and sets out policy decisions made by the Authority to guide determinations of such objections. Proposed policies affecting development in rural I areas of the Region were a major reason for many objections to the Scheme, and received considerable attention from the Authority.

I Municipal and Government Authority objections are separately considered in the report, which briefly summarises their main elements. I The report also discusses several significant amendments to the Geelong Regional Interim Development Order which have arisen in large measure from objections to the proposed Planning Scheme and the Authority's determinations I on these objections.

I In general, the report is intended to assist the Minister for Planning and the Town and Country Planning Board in considering the manner in which the Geelong Regional Planning Authority, and its legal successor, the II Geelong Regional Commission, have fulfilled their statutory obligations under the Town and Country Planning Act 1961, in respect of the exhibition I and adoption of a planning scheme for the Geelong Region. I I COLIN K. ATKINS I May 1978. CHAIRMAN I I I 1.

I 1. PREPARATION AND EXHIBITION OF THE PROPOSED GEELONG REGIONAL PLANNING SCHEME

I 1.1 Introduction The preparation and exhibition of the proposed Geelong Reqional I Planning Scheme has been a lengthy process which had its genesis in the creation of the Geelong Regional Planning Authority (G.R.P.A.) in I July 1969. The G.R.P.A. was set up by agreement of the nine municipalities of the Region, in consultation with the Town and Country Planning Board, and I the then Minister for Local Government, the Han. R. J. Hamer, as a regional planning authority under the provisions of Clause 12 of the · · Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. I It became the Authority's task to prepare a regional planning scheme, and over the intervening period between commencing to prepare a scheme and the approval of that scheme by the Governor in Council, to administer I planning and development control in the Region throuqh Interim Develop­ ment Orders. I This chapter sets out the steps taken by the Authority in preparing and exhibiting a proposed regional planning scheme, and also describes the administration of planning during the life of the Authority and at I present. I 1.2 Preparation of the Draft Geelong Regional Planning Scheme On the 31st July, 1969 the Geelong Regional Planning Authority, being a Responsible Authority under the·Town and Country Planning Act 1961, I resolved to prepare a planning scheme for the following area, namely the whole of the municipal districts of the Cities of Geelong, Geelong West and Newtown, the Borough of Queenscliffe, and the Shires of Bannockburn, Bellarine, Barrabool, Corio and South Barwon in accordance I with the Town and Country Planning Act 1961, and determined that the date of commencement of the preparation of such scheme be the 31st I July, 1969 (Map 1. ). At the same time there were eight planning schem~or interim develop­ ment orders in operation in the Region. These were: The Geelong I Planning Scheme (1959); the Lara Planning Scheme (1961); the Barrabool Planning Scheme (1966); the Ocean Road Planning Scheme (1955); the South Barwon Interim Development Order (1964); the Bellarine Interim Development Order (1960); the Bannockburn Interim I Development Order (1972); the Queenscliffe Interim Development Order (1971). The Connewarre Draft Planning Scheme (1961) was also in I preparation. (See Map 2) Although the Geelong Planning Scheme had initially extended .across eight of the Region's nine municipalities (all except Queenscliffe), it I had effectively been adminsitered as if it were eight separate municipal schemes. Separate amendments had been made, frequently resulting in I I I 2.

I differerit planning controls applying in adjoining municipalities for the same land use.· · The Geelong Regional Planning Authority proceeded to undertake a range I of regional land use and resource studies to determine the extent to which the zoning and otherpmvisions of· the existing planning schemes ,I and interim development orders required amendment or extension of the areas covered, and to rectify anomalies between the existing schemes. A wide range of public authorities, including municipal Councils, semi­ I government bodies and government departments, were notified that the Authority had resolved to prepare a ·scheme, and were given the opport­ unity to request that specific provisions affecting their areas of I responsibility be included (Appendix A). Consultants were engaged to consolidate the existing schemes and orders, review their provisions and introduce such new elements as were consid­ I ered. desirable, to produce a draft Regional Planning Scheme. Of particular significance in determining the major provisios of the I draft scheme was the Victorian Government Statement of Planning Policy No. 7, Geelong, 1973, which set out the State•s official policy with respect to future deve 1opment fn the Region. · I The policy called for accelerated development of the Region; a high standard of protection of coastal and recreation areas, and in particular, required the Regional Planning Authority to 11 give special attention to I 11 the following:- ·

I 11 3.1 The evaluation of the social, economic and natural resources capable of sustaining substantial urban growth in the region. 3.2 The assessment of the suitability and capacity of land for I development paying due regard to - (a) the value of areas for nature conservation, recreation, I water catchment, farming and mineral extraction; I (b) an efficient urban servicing structure; and (c) social service requirements of the community. 3.3 The formulation of special policies designed to encourage growth I and including - (a) measures designed to ensure that existing community services I are not detrimentally affected by accelerated growth; (b) measures aimed at improving the attractiveness of Geelong I as a centre for growth; (c) measures aimed at achieving high standards in the urban and rural environment and avoiding any detriment to the ecology I of the region; I I ------I 3.

I (d) proposals for improved communications particularly tele­ communications, road, rail and air links to other centres I and development of port facilities; and (e) determination of the extent and level of services including the full .range of social services necessary for stimulating urban growth in the region and particularly the level to which I State instrumentalities and semi-government authorities should be committed. I 3.4 The implications of any measures introduced with Government auth­ ority to regulate and improve the pattern of distribution of I people and activities within the State. 11 Of equal significance were Statement of Planning Policy No. 5, Highway Areas, 1973, and Statement of Planning Policy No. 6, Land Use and I Aerodromes, 1973, which controlled highway development proposals and building near highways, and also specified restaints on development to be observed in the vicinity of major aerodromes. Provisions were I incorporated in the draft Scheme for building setbacks from major roads and for noise contours and development controls in the Avalon aren. I The draft Scheme as prepared was, in fact, largely a consolidation of the existing schemes and orders, corrected for inconsistencies, but it did incorporate further provisions for the control of subdivision in rural areas, partly intended to protect environmentally sensitive areas along I the coast, the main streams and lakes, and in the forest areas of the Region. This was achieved by incorporating in the draft Scheme the Rural Area Planning Policy which had been adopted by the Authority in March I 1974 and was widely circulated in the Region in published form prior to its inclusion in the Scheme (Appendix B). I The draft Scheme, comprising a map series at scales of 1:10000 and 1:25000 together with an accompanying Ordinance, was larqely modelled on other Schemes then operating in Victoria, such as the Melbourne I Metropolitan Planning Scheme. Prior to its presentation to the Authority, the draft Scheme was formally presented for discussion to each municipal Council in the Region, to I ensure that each Council was aware of the provisions of the Scheme as it affected their municipality, and had the opportunity to comment on I those provisions. The draft Geelong Regional Planning Scheme was presented to the Authority at its meeting on 18th August, 1975, for formal consideration and I acceptance. I 1.3 Exhibition of the Proposed Planning Scheme The Authority resolved on the 18th August, 1975 that the draft Geelong Regional Planning Scheme be accepted by the Authority for public exhibition I and that seal~d copies of the Plans and Ordinance be deposited at the offices of the Town and Country Planning Board, the Authority, and for I I I 4.

I ·those parts of the Scheme applying to each Municipality, at municipal offices throughout-the Region. In accordance with Clause 28(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1961 I the Authority advised public authorities likely to be affected by the provisions of the Scheme that the Scheme had been prepared and deposited I for inspection. These bodies are listed in Appendix C. Notices were placed in the 'Geelong Advertiser' and in 'The Age' inform­ I ing the public of the exhibition of the Scheme. The Scheme was exhibited from the 15th September, 1975 to 9th February, 1976, the statutory 3 month period having been extended to include the Christmas holiday period, thus allowing coastal town visitors to view I the Scheme. At each exhibition venue, objection forms were available and officers I were on hand to assist the public in their examination of the exhibited Scheme. I During the exhibition period some 400 copies of the draft Planning Scheme Ordinance were distributed and over 4,000 objection forms were issued. In addition, some 750 copies of the report 11 A Guide to Statutory Planning in the Geelong Region 11 were distributed. This report was prepared by I ·the G.R.P.A. to assist the public in understanding the objectives and I. administrative procedures of the draft Scheme. 1.4 Interim Development Control I In order to avoid a situation of significant discrepancy between the provisions of the exhibited Planning Scheme and the provisions of the various Schemes and Orders then having effect in the Region, it was decided that the existing Schemes and Orders should be revoked, and a I regional Interim Development Order made. A 'blanket' interim development order was considered inappropriate. I Accordingly, at its meeting of 18th August, 1975 the Authority adopted the Geelong Regional Interim Development Order which incorporated the draft Planning Scheme Ordinance and Maps, and at the same time adopted I instruments of delegation of responsibility for administration of the Order, which would come into effect·as each of the existing municipal Schemes and Orders was revoked. The Geelong Regional Interim Development I Order was gazetted on the 17th September, 1975. The drafting of the interim development order was reviewed by the Authority's solicitors, and modifications to the formal drafting were I proposed. The Authority accordingly resolved to make a further interim development order incorporating these modifications, and this second interim development order was gazetted, after Ministerial approval, on I· 17th December, 1975. This Order, and its subsequent amendment, provides current planning control for.the Ge~long Region. · I I I I 5.

I 1.5 Present State of the Planning Scheme In the light of objections, submissions and continuing studies carried out by the G.R.P.A., the Geelong Regional Commission and Councils, I and experience gained in administering the Interim Development Order, the original Order is now supstantially amended. Amendments (See Chapter 8) which include many corrections to minor errors in the draft I Scheme, new Reserved Residential Zones, a new regional commercial centre and more precise freeway reservation definition, have been the subject of detailed enquiry and public discussions, and have kept pace I with urban expansion policies or other new de~elopments. The draft Scheme has been amended as a result of objection determinations and also incorporates the several amendments to the Interim Development I Order anddher Authority or Geelong Regional Commission resolutions . .. With these changes, it comprises the Scheme adopted by the Geelong Regional Commission and submitted to the Minister for Planning for the I Government•s consideration and approval. I I I I· I I I I I I I I I ~------

I 6. I. . 2. OVERVIEW OF OBJECTIONS TO THE GEELONG REGIONAL PLANNING SCHEME I 2.1 Introduction The proposed Geelong Regional Planning Scheme was placed on public exhibition on 15th September, 1975. Section 28(c)(iii) of the Town and I Country Planning Act 1961 provides that a period of three months must be allowed for receiving objections. The Minister for Planning directed that the objection period in this case be extended a further six weeks beyond 15th December, 1975 to provide adequate opportunity for seasonal I residents affected by the provisions of the exhibited Scheme to view it and lodge any objections. The remainder of this Chapter discusses the I arrangements made fur hearing the objections received by the Authority. I 2.2 Authority Resolutions regarding the Hearing of Obj€ctions A total of 1,135 private objectors, 35 statutory bodies and 9 municipal councils lodged objections to the exhibited Geelong Regional Planning I Scheme. Of these, some 743 objectors expressed a desire to be heard. In addition to these formal objections, a petition of some 730 signatures was sent to the Authority requesting deletion of Clause 17(4) of the I Ordinance (the Tenement Clause) and a further petition of some 790 signatures was forwarded to the Shire of Bannockburn and subsequently to the Authority seeking deletion of the tenement clause and the Rural I (Conservation), Rural (Landscape), and Rural (Streamside Foreshore and Floodland) zones. These petitions were treated as private objections. Under Section 28(1)(d) of the Town and Country Planning Act, the Authority I was obliged to hear all objectors who indicated in writing to the Authority they wished to be heard, unless it was proposed to allow the I objection. Accordingly, the Authority resolved on the 25th March, 1976 to appoint a Committee consisting of an independent Chairmand and two Authority I members to be drawn from a panel of nine Authority members, being one from each municipality, to hear objections to the draft Geelong Regional Planning Scheme. Mr. Frank Lonie, an eminent Melbourne Town Planning lawyer, who chaired the Town Planning Appeals Tribunal for many years, I was selected by the Authority to be the Independent Chairman of the Hearing Committee. I The following Authority members (and replacement members) were appointed by the Authority to serve on the Objection Hearing Committee: Councillors Simon (Barrabool Shire), Harvey (Bannockburn Shire), Dean (South Barwon), I Davies (Bellarine Shire), Beckley (Corio Shire), Lloyd (City of Geelong), McAllister and Hudson (City of Geelong), Kenworthy (City of Geelong West), and Spry (Borough of Queenscliffe). These members were selected because I of their knowledge and involvement in local affairs over many years. The Authority also resolved at the meeting of 25th March, 1976 that draft Planning Scheme objections concerning matters of principle would I be heard by the full Authority and the appointed independent Chairman of the Hearing Committee. I I I 7.

I This resolution aimed to give objectors who had objected to principle matters such as the 11 tenement clause 11 (Clause 17(4) of the exhibited Scheme Ordinance) and the minimum subdivfsion requirements in Rural I zones, as fair and sympathetic a hearing as possible. I 2.3 Hearing Committee Powers The appointment of the Objection Hearing Committee was made under .I Section 48 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1961: 11 Where under this Act a responsible authority is authorised or required to hear any person or to give to any person an opportunity to be heard I before making any determination on any matter that authority may designate any two or more persons, who may include any memb~r of the authority, to hear that person or his solicitor or agent on behalf of I' the authority and to report on that hearing to the authority and make any recommendation, and such hearing shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed a hearing of that person.by the authority, but the final I determination of the matter shall be made by the authority.~~ Thus, under the Act, the Hearing Committee could only recommend action I to the Authority; it could not make decisions itself on matters raised. 2.4 Objection Hearings I Those objectors who stated that they wished to be heard were invited to the offi ce.s of the Authority for a scheduled hearing. A copy of the Authority's notice of hearing is contained in Appendix D. As far as I possible adjustments to the date and time of hearing were made to fit objectors' requirements. I ·Forty-one hearing days were scheduled between 27th Apri 1 , 1976 and 21st April, 1977. A schedule of Hearing Committee sitting dates is contained in Appendix E. The initial aqendas for the meetinqs are I also separately available. · · · On the following three dates the full Authority heard objectors concerning I rural matters of principle: 9th September 1976 . 15th September 1976 I lOth October 197.6 For practical reasons it was not possible for all those who objected to principle matters to be heard by the full Authority as many objections I included both zoning proposals or other aspects related to individual parcels of land, and matters of principle. These were considered by I the Hearing Committee. As many principle objections were similar however, I I the full Authbrity had ample representation of principle matters objected to. I Objection hearings took almost a year to complete for two reasons: I I I 8.

(a) Each objection required a report by Authority staff. Given the number of objections and the desire of objectors for expediency, the Hearing Committee could not visit every location referred to by objectors nor personally collect the background information required to make recommendations on zoning or development proposals. Consequently, the Committee relied on staff of the I Authority to provide the background information necessary. ,. Where development proposals or rezonings were desired by objectors, officers visited the site concerned, took photos if desirable, prepared location maps and consulted with councils and other public bodies such as the Soil Conservation Authority, the Geelong Waterworks & Sewerage Trust and others where I appropriate. This task necessitated the scheduling of objectors generally on I a weekly basis. (b) The nine Authority members appointed to hear objections could I not be expected to be available for a high frequency of hearings. Members of the panel appointed to hear objections by the Authority were allotted hearing days according to their knowledge and experience as I fallows: Objection Category Committee Composition I Rural (Streamside Foreshore & Crs. Simon, Harvey & Dean Floodland) I Rural (Conservation) II Rura 1 (Landscape) II I Areas of Special Significance II Preservation Order Areas II I Rural (Residential) Crs. Davies and Lloyd Rural -Miscellaneous II Commercial and Urban (General) Crs. Beckley & McAllister I (Hudson) Industrial II I Rural to Urban Residential Crs. Spry and Kenworthy Miscellaneous II I Hearings were undertaken in a semi-formal atmosphere with a public gallery from where the Chairman invited each objector to come forward. The objector was advised that he/she was addressing a Committee and that the Committee was only able to make recommendations to the full Authority. I By means of a report, re 1evant maps and photographs, a member of the Authority 1 s staff reported on. the objector 1 S written objection. The objector was then invited to speak in amplification of the original I objection and comment on the staff report. All hearing proceedings were taped and objectors \'/ere ad vi sed that recordings were for Committee use only. I 9.

·Approximately one-half of objectors who requested hearings were legally 11 11 represented or were-accompanied by an expert witness - a town planner, architect or in one or two cases, a local real estate agent. Where the need was evident the Hearing Committee visited selected sites in the Region. In May 1977 a letter was sent to all objectors who desired to be heard advising the~ that the objectiori hearings were nearing completion, and that the Authority expressed concern as to whether all aspects of objections had in fact been heard. Objectors were asked to notify the I Authority if they felt that they had not received an adequate hearing. A copy of this letter is contained in Appendix F. In this way any objector who felt disadvantaged due to administrative, postal or other I problems had a further opportunity for presentation of an objection. I 2.5 Nature of Objections The nature of objections to the Planning Scheme is considered compre­ hensively in the following chapters of this report; however, some general I comments are appropriate. I Objectior.s can be broadly categorised as follows:- 1) Objections submitted and prepared by individuals with, in some cases, professional assistance from solicitors and/or planning I consultants. 2) Comprehensive objections submitted by community groups such as I landowners associations, conservation groups, business groups, etc. I 3) Objections by public authorities: Councils, the Harbor Trust, the State Electricity Commission, Conservation Council of 'I Victoria, etc. The matters referred to by objectors covered a wide range in content and a~proach. As the accompanying Schedule of Objections indicates, matters I dealt with varied from questions of basic planning philosophy to specific proposals for individual parcels of land. Most objectors sought a more intensive use of the land which was in their I ownership, disagreed with controls limiting the subdivjsion or more intensive use of their property, and consequently applied for a zoning that allowed such uses. Typically, landholders in the proposed Rural 'I (General Farming) Zone who were located near urban areas objected to the minimum subdivision allowed in that zone (75 hectares), and desired a zoning that allowed small-acre subdivision, usually the Rural (Residential) I Zone, which enables subdivision into 5 acre (2.5 hectares) allotments.

It must be .no~ed, however, that many objectors, especially in rural areas, I genuinely believed that the proposed Scheme was a fundamental invasion of the rights of landowners and thus objected to the Scheme (and planning) I I I 10 ..

11 11 in general terms as a restriction of freedom • Approximately one-half of all objectors raised this fundamental question of rights as well as I other issues. As has been indicated, the bulk of objections received were to the draft I Scheme provisions relating to rural zones. The main matters referred to by these objections were:-

I the 11 tenement clause 11 (which requires that no house may be constructed on a parcel of land within any Rural Zone which is less than the minimum area prescribed for that zone, except I where certain dispensations apply- see Chapter 4). I the minimum subdivision areas allowable in Rural Zones. the restrictions placed on land zoned Rural (Conservation) and Rural (Streamside Foreshore and Floodlahd) or designated as an Area of Special Significance or a Preservation Order Area. to inaccuracies in the boundary of the Rural (Streamside Fore­ I shore and Floodland) Zone. the lack of compensation available due to adverse ·zonings or planning restrictions. Other matters referred to by objectors included: Proposed roads: Mainly the proposed Outer Geelong Freeway I and the proposed Bellarine By-pass Road. Various aspects of the draft Planning Scheme Ordinance other · ttran··-rur·a·l-.pr-o.v.isJons. Mistakes in Planning Scheme Maps, e.g. drafting errors, zone I boundary misalignments, etc. I 2.6 · Action Taken on Objectioos All objections have been determined by the Authority. Each objection . that was heard received a recommendation from the Hearing Committee I outlining the reasons as to whether the objection should be allowed or disallowed, or, in cases of multiple objections, which parts should be allowed or disallowed. Similarly, an officer report was prepared for I objections that did not require hearing. Determinations on objections were made by the Authortiy 11 in committee• on the following dates: 28th April 1977 26th May 1977 30th June 1977 21st July 1977 28th July 1977 I 11.

I In addition, a number of outstanding objections were determined at a meeting of the Geelong Regional Commission on 16th March, 1978. Isolated objections were also determined at other times, where the matters I involved particular hardship or desirable development proposals. Determinations by the Authority are contained in the accompanying schedule of objections, and the major determinations on either matters I of principle or on particular features which lead to significant numbers of objections, are discussed in the following €hapters. I Many objections that reflected development or rezoning proposals of merit, anomalies in the Ordinance or zonings, errors in mapping and the like were determined, and acted upon, by incorporation into amendments to the I Interim Development Order. These amendments are discussed in Chapter 10. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 12.

I 3. OBJECTIONS RECEIVED FROM MUNICIPALITIES, STATE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ANu SEMI-GOVERNMENT ORGANISATIONS I 3.1 Introduction In accordance with Clause 28(1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act I 1961, an extensive list of public authorities, including Municipal and semi-Government authorities had been notified of the preparation of the draft Regional Planning Scheme, and had been given the opportunity to I request the inclusion in the Scheme of specific matters of concern to them. I Further notification was given to a wide range of public authorities of the Authority•s resolution to place the draft Regional Planning Scheme on publit exhibition. Some 56 authorities, ~ncluding municip­ alities within and adjoining the Region, were advised of the exhibition I of the draft Scheme·, and were thus g.iven an explicit opportunity to raise any objections to its provisions. I Objections were received from each municipality in the Region, and from eighteen government and semi-government authorities. (Appendix G). This chapter briefly discusses the main elements of these public auth­ I ority objections. I 3.2 Municipal Council Objections Councils played a major role in the preparation of the draft Planning Scheme. Consultation took place between the Authority•s consultants and I Council officers on the proposed content of the Ordinance as well as the zoning provisions on the various Scheme Maps. All Councils received· 11 rough 11 copies of proposed Planning Scheme Maps at least three months I before the exhibition period. Any comments received from Councils were then taken into consideration by the full Authority and the appropriate map changes were carried out prior to the exhibition period. I All nine municipal Councils in the Geelong Region lodged objections in one form or another to the exhibited Scheme, but no objections were received from adjoining municipalities outside the Region. The majority of I municipal objections, in both principle and detail, were lodged by rural municipalities. This can be partly explained by the fact that the Geelong Planning Scheme 1959, covering the urban area of Geelong (including I Leopold) was incorporated into the exhibited Scheme almost in total and did not introduce many new planning concepts and zonings affecting urban municipalities. However, in the rural areas, existing plan~ing controls usually consisted of 11 blanket 11 Interim Development Orders and Planning I Schemes which exercised minimal development control. The introduction of new zonings and the wider application of tenement I clauses and subdivision controls, resulted in more detailed planning controls in rural areas and the iRtroduction of updated planning concepts. These changes were the subject of most of the objections from the rural · I municipalities. I I I 13 ..

Only three Councils requested that their objections be heard, i.e. the I Shires of Bellarine, Barrabool and Bannockburn. At their request the full Authority heard Council objections. Where Councils did not request formal hearings consideration was given to their objections by the I Authority in the same manner as private objections not requiring hearings. Council objections, like those of private individuals, generally fell ·into two categories, i.e. objections relating to principles embodied I in the Scheme such as the tenement clause or l~ck of provision for compensation, and those which related to matters of detail. Objections in principle were the main concern of the three Councils which requested a hearing. Objections to matters of detail were generally discussed at I officer level and agreement reached on the nature of recommendations to be put to the Authority. I The main elements of the objections received from individual Councils can be very briefly summarised as follows:- I A. City of Geelong West objections to details of zone locations. I objections to Ordinance provisions, particularly those relating to setbacks and car-parking requirements. I B. Borough of Queenscliffe errors and omissions in zonings and zones considered un­ related to existing uses. I objection to the tenement clause and queries relating to a range of other ordinance provisions. I c. City of Nev.Jtown objection to Ordinance provisions relating to vehicle I. capacities. objections to details of zone locations. I D. City of Geelong objections to Ordinarice provisions, in particular, lack of flexibility for Council to determine parking provisions. I objections to details of zone locations. objections to particular building setback lines and road widenings in the Central Business District.

I E. City of South Barwon objections to zone details inc-luding proposed road align­ I ments and Resort zoning. F. Shire of Bellarine I objection in principle inluding tenement clause, proposed roads, minimum subdivision size, compensation and proposed public open space and legal issues. I objection to Ordinance provisions, particularly interpret­ ations. I I I 14.

I objection to detail of zoning locations. additional objections covering Ordinance interpretations, uses, historical buildings and the tenement clause. I G. Shire of Barrabool objections in principle including minimum subdivision, I tenement clause, areas of special significance and compensation. objections to a wide range of Ordinance provisions. I objections to zone details including delineation of floodland zones. I H. Shire of Corio objections to zone details.

I I. Shire of Bannockburn objections in principle to rural zones including tenement I clause, conservation zones, arterial roads, minimum sub­ division sizes and areas of special significance. objections to Ordinance provisions largely relating to development control in rural zones. I objections to zone details, including designation of areas of special significance and floodland zones. I At the time hearings were undertaken, a large number of items of detail which had been raised in Council objections had in fact already been resolved by incorporation in amendments to the Geelong Regional Interim I Development Order.. The Authority chose to adopt this approach to resolving minor matters in order to avoid hardship to individuals or delay to development projects. The effect of incorporating these changes in amendments to the Interim Development Order was that these elements I of Council objections were therefore recommended to be allowed, and would subsequently become part of the Regional Planning Scheme. The substance of the hearings of Council objections was therefore largely confined to issues of principle, which were frequently complex in nature and required consideration in depth before resolution.

3.3 Government Departments and Other Statutory Bodies I Objections lodged to the exhibited Scheme by government departments and other statutory bodies generally fell into one of the following categories: I ( i ) objections to zoning details, e.g. reservations being applied to private land. I ( i i) objections to extent of planning controls, e.g. relationship of planning controls to statutory bodies, etc. (iii ) objections relating to management responsibilities for land I in public ownership. I I I 15.

I Most of the objections lodged by public authorities related to matters of detail and agreement was usually reached at officer level on I recommendations to be made to the Authority. In determining objections lodged to the extent of pl~nning controls and their relationship to other statutory functions, the Authority•s decisions were guided by the understanding that all government depart­ I ments, being the Crown, are exempt from planning control,· but are expected to confer with responsible authorities before carrying out works. All other public authorities are subject to planning controls and are I expe~to comply with all provisions of the Planning Scheme, unless the Governor in Council specifies otherwise. I The objections relating to management responsib.ilities for land in public ownership arose frGm provisions in the draft Ordinance which appeared to provide greater rights of public access to certain publicly owned land I than was available under other relevant legislation. As part of the process of considering public authority and municipal objections, the Authority undertook extensive consultation with those I bodies resulting in significant upgrading of base map information and accoracy of zone boundaries, together with updating of information on public land ownership and definition of public reserve boundaries. The I Authority also extended its practice of identifying uses within public reserves. I I I I I I I I I I I I 16. I 4. OBJECTIONS TO THE 11 TENEMENT CLAUSE 11 AND SUBDIVISION MINIMA IN RURAL ZO~ES

I 4.1 Introduction As planning controls, the tenement clause and subdivision minima cannot I be considered in isolation from each other. The tenement prov1s1ons complement and give effect to the minimal subdivision provisions relating to rural zones in those areas where earlier subdivision has created multiple small allotments. For this reason, the two controls are I discussed jointly in this report. The tenement clause, when corisidered in the light of subdivisional m1n1ma I proposed for the Rural (General Farming) Zone, and to a lesser extent, Rural (Conservation), and Rural (Streamside Foreshore and Floodland) zones, engendered far more public interest and controversy than any other apsect I of the exhibited Planning Scheme. It was widely argued that these provisions restricted the essent1al freedom of landowners to subdivide and dispose of land and could in some cases lead to hardship. I The principle of tenement control had been a feature of all Victorian Planning Schemes since 1970, and indeed, in the Geelong Region, had already been operating through each of the local planning schemes (inc­ I luding the Geelong Planning Scheme) which had effect in various parts of the Region. I The object of the prov1s1ons in Clause 17(1) of the draft Planning Scheme Ordinance which specifies minimum subdivision sizes allowable in Rural Zones was principally to protect the rural status of large areas of the Region and to ensure as far as possible that the patterns of property I ownership and management in these areas were related to the most appropriate use of the land, i.e. generally for agricultural purposes. The controls, therefore, sought to minimise pressures for speculative I subdivision and avoid the fragmentation of large holdings which retained the potential for viable farming operations, and to protect environment­ I ally sensitive areas. 4.2 Rural Area Policies I The subdivision minima and the tenement provisions in the draft Scheme had been adopted by the Authority after extensive study, and as a modification to earlier rural subdivision policies applying in the I Region. In November 1971 the Authority had circulated a preliminary report on I Rural Area Planning, for comment by a wide range of municipal and other public authorities, which set out minimum subdivision sizes for a range of zones in the Region, but allowed subdivision in general farming areas to a m1n1mum of 25 acres. This policy was adopted by the Authority in I June 1972. After consultation with municipal Councils, this m1n1mum was put into I effect by the Authority through the administration of an Interim Development Order of April 1972, which had initially controlled rural I subdivision throughout the Region as a· 1 blanket 1 Order. I ------·---·-. I 17.

The Town and Country Planning Board notified all planning authorities I in Victoria in June-1972 that it would in future recommend to the Minister for Planning that all planning schemes submitted for the Minister•s consideration provide for minimum subdivision of 40 acres I in all rural zones. This po 1 icy was in turn adopted and .administered through the Interim I Development Order. During the same period the Authority had commissioned a regional resource I ·and environmental study, and, in March 1974, after consideration of the findings of this study, the Authority adopted a revised Rural Area Policy which subsequently formed the basis of the Ordinance provisions in the draft Regional Planning Scheme, including the subdivisional I minima set out in Clause 17(1) of the Ordinance. The Rural Area Policy as adopted by the Authority and incorporated in I the Minutes of the Authority•s meeting of 28th March, is included as Appendix B. The Policy report was subsequently published and widely distributed throughout the Region, accompanied by an inserted letter I inviting· public comment. At the same meeting the Authority resolved to establish an Advisory Committee to assist in administration of the Rural Area Policy and to I oversee an ongoing program of rural studies. The terms of reference of the Committee are in Appendix H. · I The development of the tenement and subdivisional prov1s1ons in the draft Planning Scheme was a result, therefore, of a considerable history of research, consultation and public discussion, both within and beyond I the Region. The specific provisions included in the Scheme are discussed in the following sections.

I 4.3 The Tenement Clause The provisions in Clause 17(4) require that no house may be constructed I on a parcel of land within any Rural Zone which is less than the minimum area prescribed for subdivision of land within the zone, except where I certain dispensations apply. One of these dispensations is the 11 Existing Tenement .. Clause which allows the erection of a house on any allotment which was separately owned on the Approval Date, or where two or more contiguous allotments were owned I by the same person on the above date, the total area of which was less than the minimum area for subdivision. Such 11 tenements 11 of land would be treated as a single allotment for the purpose of erecting a house I (or houses where these would otherwise be permitted). The relevant section of the draft Planning Scheme Ordinance (Clause 17) I reads as follows:- I I I I 18.

11 No house shall be erected on a site having an area and frontage I or depth less than that prescribed in Sub-clauses (1) and (3)* of this Clause where:- I (a) the allotment existed as a separate parcel of land on the approval date and where two or more allotments were con­ tiguous and in the same ownership. on the approval date they I shall be deemed to be one tenement and if required by the Responsible Authority shall be consolidated onto a single I title prior to a permit being issued. Provided that this provision shall not be construed as conferring rights to build houses on allotments where such allotment did not comply with any scheme or order in I existence prior to the approval of this Scheme; . . (b) such site was created pursuant to a permit granted by the I Geelong Regional Planning Authority; (c) such site was created in conformity with the provisions of I an Approved Planning Scheme; (d) such house is in accordance with a use approved pursuant I to Paragraph (d) of Sub-clause 3 of this Clause; (e) such site was not created in conformity with the provisions of an Approved Planning Scheme and is included within the I Rural (Conservation) Zone it shall have an area of not less than 75 hectares; I (f) such site was created following the purchase or compulsory taking of contiguous land for the purpose of its inclusion in a Reservation pursuant to this Scheme; I (g) the Farming Advisory Committee is satisfied that the site is suitable for any specified purpose of agriculture or husbandry and permission therefor is granted by the I Responsible ALithority. 11

I 4.4 Subdivision Minima Clause 17(1) which specified subdivision minima for Rural Zones states I as follows:- 11 No land in the zones listed in Column 1 of the Table to this Clause shall be subdivided into allotments lesser in size than I indicated in Column 2 and all subdivision shall be in accordance with a permit granted by the Responsible Authority. 11 I *Sub-clause (1) refers to the minimum subdivisions allowable in Rural Zones and to certain requirements of subdivision in Rural Zones in I . respect of road frontages.··~~b-clause (3) refers to conditions where the excision (subdivision) of a parcel of land of less than the pre­ I scribed minimum subdivision is acceptable. I I 19.

11 I • • • ( a ) Tab 1e to C1 au s e 17 ( 1 )

Column 1 Column 2 I ZONE Minimum Allotment Size (ha) Rura 1 (Genera 1 Farming) 75 I Rural (Intensive Farming) 20 Rural (Conservation) No subdivision permitted Rural (Landscape) 10 I Rura 1 (Future Urban) 50 Rural ~esidential) Av. 1.75 Minimum 1.25 in any one subdivision Rural (Streamside Foreshore I and Floodland) No subdivision permitted

I 4.5 Interim Planning Control The draft Planning Scheme's entire minimum subdivision prov1s1ons are I incorporated in the Geelong Regional Interim Development Order of December 1975. However the tenement provisions included in the Interim Development Order are now substantially different from those included in the Planning I Scheme as exhibited. In the Interim Development Order, the following clause substitutes for the more limiting provisions of the tenement clause as set out in the Scheme. Clause 6(3) of the 1975 Interim Development I Order states: 11 Notwithstandi ng the provisions of Sub-clause (1 )* of this Clause the Responsible Authority may permit, subject to such conditions I as are specified in the permit, the erection of a house on an allotment of land included within any Rural Zone which apart from the permit would be in conflict or not in conformity with I this Order, provided that where the Responsible Authority is the Council of any municipality (acting under delegated powers authorities and respdnsibilities from the Geelong Regional Planning Authority) no such permit shall be granted without the I approval of the Geelong Regional Planning Authority first being given thereto. 11 I The administrative complexity of this provision and concerns expressed by rural Councils and landowners resulted in the Authority making.Amend­ ment 1 to.the Interim Development Order, which was gazetted on the 19th I May, 1976. This Amendment introduced a further clause (Clause 6(4)) which gave municipal Council power to approve the erection of dwellings on below minima allotments where not more than five allotments comprised I a tenement, without approval of the Geelong Regional Planning Authority. The clause is as follows:

11 6 ( 4) I Notwithstanding the prov1s1ons of Sub-clause (1) and Sub-clause (3) a Responsible Authority (acting under delegated powers auth­ orities and responsibilities from the Geelong Regional Planning I Authority) may permit the erection of a house in any Rural Zone on an allotment comprising a tenement of not more than five allotments without the approval of the Geelong Regional Planning I Authority. 11 1 .. * Sub-clause (1) refers to Uses allowed in zones. I 20 I This Amendment is the current form of tenement control for the Region. I 4.6 Objections to the Tenement Clause and Subdivision Minima As was indicated in Chapter 2, about one-half of all objectors considered that the draft Planning Scheme was a significant limitation on the rights of landowners. In nearly all cases this criticism was directed at the I tenement clause and subdivision minima.

In many ~ases objectors did not distinguish between the two controls. I There was considerable confusion as to the effect of these complex provisions, and much of the public debate which emerged resulted in land­ owners gaining incorrect impressions as to the implications of the I controls and the manner in which they were to be applied. Objections to the tenement and subdivisionai provisions can be summarised I as fo 11 ows:- (a) Objections to the Tenement Clause I ( i ) A major source of objections was the Responsible Authority•s power to require consolidation of sites under a number of circumstances, as a condition of approval to erect a dwelling. Many considered I this to be an erosion of basic freehold title rights. Objectors took this provision to mean that the sale of individual allot­ ments in a tenement would be prohibited and that a condition precedent to the erection of house would be that all allotments I in the tenement must be consolidated onto one title. The position in fact is that nothing in the Scheme can prevent I any dealing or the registration of any dealing in land to which separate title is held (refer Section 17 (IE) of the Town and Country Planning Act). With respect to the requirement to con­ I solidate titles within a tenement, this is not mandatory, and would only apply where the Responsible Authority specifically required such consolidation as a condition of permit. The effect of the provision could still be to limit the-marketability of I small allotments to which it applied.

( i i ) Some objectors thought that the Clause prevented the building of I a house on land which was of less area than the minimum subdiv­ ision prescribed for a particular zone. Typically many thought that because their land was zoned Rural (General Farming) and I less than 75 hectares in area (the minimum subdivision allowable in that zone) they could not erect a house on the land. I Objectors misunderstood the provisions of the Clause in this case,as the 11 Existing Tenement 11 clause referred to in 3.2 allows the erection of a house on any allotment regardless of area, which was separately owned on the Approval Date for the Geelong I Regional Interim Development Order, unless this was prohibited by the provisions of a prior scheme, such as the Ocean Road I Planning Scheme. I I I 21.

(iii) Intense objection was ·exp~essed to the limitations created by I Clauses 17(3)(b) and 17(5) of the draft Planning Scheme Ordinance on the freedom of rural landowners to subdivide blocks of land from their major holdings to provide housing and land for family members, or to erect additional dwellings without subdivision. I The clauses effectively only provide for such excision and/or building of a house where the family member is actively engaged in work on the property, as set out below. Objectors cluimed I that other circumstances frequently warranted the provision of extra housing. The clauses are as follows:- I 11 17(3): Notwithstanding the provisions of Sub-Clause (l)(a) of this Clause (minimum allotment sizes) the excision of a parcel of land lesser in area than that prescribed may be permitted - I ... (b) for the purpose of providing a site for an employee of the owner of the land or for a member of his family actively engaged in work on the land, I provided that: .. (certain conditions are met). 11 I In addition Clause 17(5) states:- 11 The Responsible Authority may permit the erection of additional houses on a parcel of land if such houses are for the accommodation of employees of the owners or members of his family actively I engaged in work on the land. 11 (iv) Many further objected to the specification (although not in the 11 11 I tenement clause), actively engaged in work on the land , stating that this was too restrictive a specification and that it was a basic landowning right to give members of the family some land, to I allow them to erect a house on the land irrespective of whether they worked on the land or not, or to keep a family home while selling off the bulk of the farm property. I (v) Concerted general objection was directed to the tenement clause in that it does not allow flexibility in selling land, which is needed in times of hardship or in providing for probate. This is I discussed further in the context of the subdivisional minima.

I (b) Objections to the Subdivisional Minima (i) Perhaps one-quarter of all objectors contended that the minimum subdivision proposed fur the Rural (General Farming) zone (75 ha) I was far too large - and would cause extreme hardship to landowners. Often objections related to indivi~ual parcels of land where subdivision was desired. Many argued that the subdivision control I was especially onerous given that most titles in the region relate to 40 and 80 acre allotments. I Probate commitments and the need for subdivision in times of hard­ ship were common talking points in objection hearings. These aspects were accentuated by the proposed scheme•s genesis in a time of rural depression, which has since continued. Objectors argued that I in meeting probate commitments the minimum subdivision area would force landowners to dispose of a much larger area than may be I I I 22. necessary and cause, in c·erta in circumstances, the remainder to I become a non-viable farming proposition. Generally a minimum subdivision of the order of 20 hectares was considered desirable. (ii) The requirement that there be no subdivision in the Rural (Conservation) I Zone and the Rural (Streamside Foreshore and Floodland) zone was also objected to in strong terms. In the case of the latte~ zone, objections were somewhat nullified when objectors were assured that I the zone boundaries (see Chapter 5) would be significantly reduced to accord with actual flood levels. I (iii) Objectors to the non-subdivision requirement in Conservation Zones contended that this was extremely restrictive and was inconsistent with the subdivisional minimum of 10 hectares provided for in the I Rural (Landscape) Zone. (.iv) Objectors also expressed confusion over Clause 17(c) which providt!d a minimum frontage and a minimum rectangular area and shape for I rural allotments.

I 4.7 Report to the Authority and Objectors on Objections to the Tenement Provisions of the Proposed Scheme At the meetings of the Authority which dealt with objections to the tenement I clause and to the subdivision minima, a report prepared to support the need for and purpose of a tenement clause was presented. This report was prepared and presented by the Authority .. s planning consultants who also prepared the I draft Planning Scheme, Meldrum Burrows and Partners. A copy of the report is included as Appendix I. The report was not presented for adoption or endorsement by the Authority but as an explanation of the purposes and I operation of the tenement clause. This report also formed the basis of discussions with individual objectors a~d presentations made to objection hearings by staff of the Authority, I in order to ensure that all objectors had an adequate understanding of the meaning and implications of the tenement clause and the subdivisional minima I as they affected their particular holdings. Objectors were also informed of the Authority•s ongoing studies of rural land use in the Region, and the work of the Advisory Committee on Rural I Affairs, which was overseeing these studies. I 4.8 Recommendations of the Hearing Committee The Hearing Committee, against the background of the above reports and its knowledge of the Authority•s work, followed the practice of recommending I to the Authority that objections to the tenement clause provision and the subdivisional minima be allowed in p~rt. This provided fo~ the Authority to subsequently consider and adopt alternative provisions to I those exhibited in the draft Planning Scheme, on the basis of its further studies. I I I I 23.

4.9 Determinations by the Authority on Objections to the Tenement I Provisions and Subdivisional Minima in Rural Zones At its meeting on 21st July 197.7 the Authority considered a progress report I on its Rural Areas Study which had been considered by the Community Advisory Committee on Rural Affairs, and also considered a recommended interim rural areas policy for the purposes of determining objections to the draft I Planning Scheme. In respect of fue subdivisional m1n1ma, the following subdivisional minima were adopted by the Author~yfor the purposes of determining draft I Planning Scheme objections;

I SUBDIVSION MINIMA: Rural (General Farming) 60 hectares I Rural (Conservation) 60 II Rural (Streamside Foreshore & Floodland) 60 II I Rural (Future Urban) 50 II Rural (Intensive Farming) 20 II I Rural (Landscape) 10 II Rural (Residential) 1.75 hectares average, 1.25 hectares minimum I This policy was to be the subject of a review on the completion of the Rural Areas Study and the results of this review would be incorporated as necessary in subsequent amendments to the Planning Scheme. I In relation to tenement clause provisions, the Authority determined that the tenement clause, for the purpose of determining draft Planning Scheme I objections, would be as ·follows: I TENEMENT PROVISIONS: TENEMENT CLAUSE NOT TO APPLY - '(1) · Where the allotment siie exceeds the subdivisional minimum I. for that Zone. (2) For single allotments in separate ownership prior to 16th I December, 1975. (3) All allotments included in Special Schedule X. I (A special schedule to the Scheme Ordinance to set out all those areas where the tenement clause would not apply.

I TENEMENT CLAUSE TO A~PLY AT THE DISCRETION OF COUNCILS - (1) All allotments, (apart from those in areas where the tenement clause I is not to apply) over 4 hectares in area. I I I 24.

(2) All allotments created pursuant to a permit under any previous I Interim Development Order or Planning Scheme. I TENEMENT CLAUSE TO APPLY WITHOUT DISCRETION - ( 1) Where any tenement comprised of allotments of less than 4 hectares which were not created pursuant to a planning scheme or interim I development order permit . . (2) Any allotment included in Special Schedule Y. (A special schedule to the Scheme Ordinance to set out all those I areas where no discretion was .Provided.)

(3) Any allotments previously prohibited from obtaining a building I permit under a previous scheme or interim development order. At its meeting of 20th April, 1978 the Geelong Regional Commission adopted I a draft of a series of amendments to the Scheme Ordinance which would put the earlier Authority resolutions into effect. The form of the proposed changes varied from the Authority's earlier approach, but the effect was the same, although only one Schedule was required - a schedule I of those areas where the tenement clause would apply without discretion, I. or would apply with mandatory conditions. The new tenement clause provides for a house to be erected in any rural zone where - I (i) the allotment is equal or greater in area than the subdivisional minimum; (ii) the allotment was a single, separately owned, allotment or a I tenement in one ownership at 17th December, 1975 or tenement altered since that date; I (iii) the allotment was created under schemes or orders administered by the Geelong Regional Commission, the Geelong Regional Planning , I Authority or a municipality acting under delegated powers; (iv) the allotment was created by any Approved Planning Scheme existing prior to 17th December, 1975; I (v) the allotment was created prior to 17th December, 1975 under any previous Interim Development Order; I (vi) the allotment is a necessary adjunct to some special use such as an educational establishment or institution; I (vii) the allotment is suitable for agriculture or animal husbandry or similar purposes; (viii) the allotment is greater in area than 4·hectares, and a permit I to build a home has been obtained; (ix) formerly illegal subdivisions are excluded from the provisions I as are old and inappropriate subdivisions such as the new Corio Estate, or areas requiring consolidation such as Orton Street in I Ocean Grove. · I I 25.

Provision is made for these subdivisions, and any other subdiv­ I ision of allutments of less than 4 hectares, to be included in a special schedule which sets out the conditions under which erection . of a dwelling·may be permitted if any permission is available. I In the case of the new Corio Estate, for example, erection of a dwelling is prohibited unless a consolidated allotment of 2 hectares or more is created, and a permit is issued. This· provision I allows landowners who hold existing inappropriate subdivisions to seek their inclusion in the Schedule, with any accompanying conditions which may be required to ·permit erection of dwellings.

I (x) A final provision of the amendments requires that where any dwelling may be erected on an allotment of less than 4 hectares, a permit stating any conditions affecting the erection of the house I must be.obtained~ These provisions represent a substantial increase in the freedom of land­ I owners owning existing small rural allotments to obtain building permits and either build for their own use or sell off the allotments.

I 4.10 On-going Action

The above determinations are incorporated in the amended Planning Scheme I for consideration of the Minister for Planning. The Geelong Regional Commission has adopted a program for preparation of a draft Rural Areas Policy for public discussion during 1978, and it is expected that sub­ I sequent amendments to the Interim Development Order and the Scheme could arise from this work, and would affect both subdivisional minima and I application of the tenement clause. I I I I I I I I I I

I 5. . RURAL (STREAMSIDE FORESHORE AND FLOODLAND) ZONE

I 5.1 Introduction The exhibited Ordinance to the draft Geelong Regional Planning Scheme describes the Rural (Streamside Foreshore and Floodland) zone as I comprising:-

11 areas adjoining streams, lakes and waterways in which I existing development and uses may continue but in principle no new buildings or works would be allowed other than in conformity with the proper future use of I areas zoned. 11 The object of the zone was to protect waterways from undesirable develop­ I ment or inappropriate use of the land that would jeopardise water quality, vegetative cover, the stability of banks and hillsides, and the visual amenity of waterway areas. The zone was also intended to identify flood­ prone land upon which development should be restricted to non-intensive I agricultural pursuits. It includes sensitive sections of the foreshores to Port Phi1lip Bay. I 5.2 Zone Provisions .I The provisions of the Rural (Streamside Foreshore and Floodland) zone as exhibited, significantly limit development. Subdivision is not permitted in the zone. Agriculture and afforestation (as defined in the Scheme Ordinance) are considered 11 as of right 11 uses, and therefore do not require I planning permission for their undertaking. The building of outbuildings and other works and the activity of animal husbandry (other than feed-lotting) however, are uses which require permission from the Responsible Authority I before commencement. Intensive agricultural uses such as pig keeping and poultry farming are prohibited in the zone. Likewise the building of a house is prohibited I in the zone except where the whole of an allotment lies within the zone (Clause 17(9)(a)(ii)). I '·. 5.3 Extent of the Rural (Streamside Foreshore and Floodland) Zone I A Rural (Streamside and Foreshore) ·zone was origina1ly defined as part of ·, a wider study of the environmental resources of the Geelong Region, under­ taken in 1973 and 1974, and was adopted in March 1974 as part of the Rural Area Planning Policy adopted by the Authority. This policy was widely I circulated as a special publication of the Authority. A modified Rural (Streamside Foreshore and Floodland) zone was incorporated I in the exhibited Planning Scheme following the work of the Authority's consultants who prepared the Scheme, Meldrum & Partners, based on analysis I of available aerial photography and contour maps and the existing zonings. I ·I I 27.

I The zone as exhibited covers land nn the steep, erosion prone and occasionally flood-prone sides of water courses such as the Barwon River, Thompsons Creek and the Moorabool River. The extensive floodland areas around Lake Connewarre, Reedy Lake and Hovells Creek have been identified in the zone. I The zone also protects many environmentally sensitive areas bordering Corio Bay and the lakes between Point Lonsdale and Ocean Grove. I In certain places the zone does not conform accurately to topographical detail in that areas are covered which are neither flood-prone nor I environmentally sensitive, while other areas that flood annually are ignored. 5.4 Nature of Objections I The Authority received 123 objections to the zone. Three main aspects of the zone concerned objectors: I (a) Nearly all objectors complained of the inaccuracy of the zone. This complaint arose for two reasons: firstly, the zohe was inaccurate, and, secondly, many objectors thought the zone was I just a floodland zone and did not realise that the zone also was intended to protect foreshores and waterways and their environs.

(b) Most objectors objected to the provisions restricting activities I permitted in the zone. These were often referred to as being 11 11 11 11 0verly restri cti ve and · an i nfri ngement of rights • In I particular, the following provisions of the zone were objected to: no subdivision being allowed in the zone; I insufficient provision for the erection of dwellings; the inclusion of 11 Animal Husbandry 11 as a Column 4 Use I (i.e. subject to permit). The latter provision 1 s unpopularity was further compounded as many farmer-objectors did not realise that they had existing use rights I and concluded that their activities would be heavily curtailed or would unnecessarily involve red tape. I (c) A number of objectors thought that the zone was a proposed public reserve, mistaking the Streamside and Foreshore Reserve (i.e. a Public Open Space Zone) on Planning Scheme Maps for the Streamside Foreshore and Floodland Zone, and often concluding that the public I would be all owed access to their 1and. This misunderstanding apparently arose in the early days of the Scheme and was quickly I put to rest in objection hearings. I 5.5 Hearing of Objections The Hearing Committee considered objections to the Rural (Streamside . Foreshore and Floodland) zone on two main hearing days, the 21st October I 1976 and the 27th October, 1976. I I I 28.

I An officer report explaining the Rural (Streamside Foresho~e and Floodland) zone was presented at the objection hearings to assist both the Hearing Committee and objectors (Refer Appendix J). · In the context of this report, the Hearing Committee took the view that it should recommend to the Authority that all Rural (Streamside Foreshore and Floodland) zone objections should be allowed in part on the basis that the I boundaries o"f the zone would qe inspected and where necessary be changed to· accord with known flood levels. The Authority accepted this recommendation as the basis upon which to both determine objections and to re-define the I zone boundaries.

I 5.6 The Floodland Study Staff of the Authority undertook a major study of the flood-prone areas of the Region, based on information on flooding gained from interviews and I field inspection with objectors and long-term residents of flood-prone areas, municipal Councils and other public authorities, together with avoilable contour information and aerial photography. The basic study I process can be summarised as follows: Objectors and •sources• (i.e. long-term residents of various areas who did not object) were interviewed to obtain specific. I information. Naturally, many objectors were able to supply information on flood areas apart from their own. I Of the 123 objectors to the zone, 68 were interviewed or represented in interviews. Of the remaining objectors, most could either not be contacted, had general objections to the I zone, or were located in areas that obviously did not flood. No distinction was made between objectors who desired to be heard and those who did not require a Hearing, in selecting I persons for interview. All objector•s properties were inspected. I Information from the field was collated with information supplied by municipalities, and where available: aerial photographs, contour maps, photomaps and orthomaps. A proposed Rural (Floodland) I Zone was then drawn up to define flood liable areas. It should be noted that although the study endeavoured to align the Rural (Floodland) Zone with actual floodland boundaries as accurately as possible, I detailed contour maps which provide important base information are only available for the central part of the Region, and generally only at 5 foot contour intervals. The bulk of the Region is mapped' with only 50 foot I contour intervals. A report on this study was presented to the meeting of the Geelong Regional I Commission on March 30, 1978 and the Commission resolved to: ( i ) amend the title of the Rural (Streamside Foreshore and Floodland) Zone to Rural (Floodland) Zone to conform with the revision of zone I boundaries to accord with the highest known flood level. I I

----·-- I 29. I ·(ii) amend the definition of the Rural (Streamside Foreshore and Floodland) ~one, as retitled, in the Planning Scheme Ordinance, 11 11 to areas subject to significant inundation • (iii) adopt the Rural (Flcodland) Zone boundaries displayed at the presentation of the staff report on the floodland study in accordance with the determination that objections to the Rural I (Streamside Foreshore and Floodland) Zone be 11 allowed in part 11 reflecting the Hearing Committee's recommendation that the boundary be realigned to indicate highest known flood levels, together with minor boundary amendments discussed at the meeting. (iv) ·prepare an amendment to the Geelong Regional Interim Development Order incorporating both the revised Rural (Floodland) Zone boundaries and revised Ordinance provisions relating to that zone. The final resolution was to provide the public with an opportunity to consider the amended boundaries, while.the first three resolutions provided for incorporation of the amended boundaries in the adopted Scheme in response to the Authority's earlier determination on objections received. In addition, amendments to the Ordinance were adopted to incorporate a I provision for a building line setback from defined shorelines and water­ courses (100 metres along lake and sea foreshores and the Barwon and Moorabool Rivers, and 50 metres on permanent watercourses elsewhere) I and changes to the provisions for uses in the zone. Appendix K summarises the changes made to zone boundaries as a conse­ I quence of the F1nodland Study, and indicates in a schedule the impact of those changes on each objector's property. A separate report on the Floodland Study sets out the methods by which I changes to zone boundaries were made, the impact of these on each objector's land, the details of interviews with objectors, and the amended Ordinance provisions, together with surrrnary maps of the former I boundaries and the adopted revised boundaries. I I

I I I I 30. I. 6. OBJECTIONS TO ROAD PROPOSALS

I 6.1 Introduction The exhibited Geelong Regional Planning Scheme provided for designation of the major trafficked routes in the Region as Arterial roads, to clearly I indicate their status and to provide for building setbacks as a means of protecting future rights-of-way. In addition, two major new road locations were identified - the Outer Freeway Corridor and the Bellarine By-Pass I Road Reserve. Significant numbers of objections were received to the two new road locations (Bellarine By-pass and Outer Freeway) and to one particular arterial road classification - The Terrace in Ocean Grove. In addition, a detailed objection to a range of minor road features of the Scheme was received from the Country Roads Board. This chapter discusses these objections and the manner in which they were I determined. 6.2 Outer Freeway Corridor I 6.2.1 Resolution of Objections The Outer Freeway Transportation Corridor designation was placed on I the exhibited Geelong Regional Planning Scheme after consultation with the Country Roads Board, to protect the major route options I for the proposed Outer Freeway, which was then under study. A Transportation Corridor designation as defined in Clause 25(4) of the exhibited Planning Scheme Ordinance 11 Comprises land which is either required for or likely to be affected by regional transport­ I ation routes. 11 The Ordinance further states that:

11 Within these areas, no buildings may be constructed nor any works I carried out without the permission of the Responsible Authority, after having first taken into consideration reports by:- · I (a) the Country Roads Board; and (b) the Geelong Regional Authority ~o the extent that I it is not the Responsible Authority. 11 The Corridor was situated along the western fringe of Geelong, from the Corio Overpass in the north, along the Lovely Banks hill, Myers I Reserve, the Moorabool River escarpment, Fyansford, Brownhill to the Waurn Ponds G--eek in the south. · I Over 30 objections to the Corridor were received. These objections can be broadly classified as follows: (1) Objections seeking a decision on the exact alignment of I the freeway route to remove doubt and indecision to the landowner and so that compensation can be made available. I I I 31.

I (2) Where two corridors are shown, i.e. at Ceres and Fyansford, objections favouring one or other of the routes. I (3) Objectors seeking major relocation of ~he Corridor. (4) Objectors to the Corridor designation in principle. I An extensive report was presented to objectors at the Hearing day of the 20th July, 1976 which was set aside specifically for the hearing of obj~ctions to the Outer Freeway Corridor, explaining the back­ I ground to the Corridor designation, the studies which were under way, and the manner in which objections would be resolved once the final alignment of the proposed freeway had been determined. The report I is included in Appendix.L. The Hearing Committee recommended that the objections to the Transportation Corridor be disallowed in view of the fact that the I exact alignment of the freeway had not been decided upon and there­ fore any alteration to the Corridor designation would be premature. I The Authority determined objections accordingly. 6.2.2 Finalisation of the Outer Freeway Location I Following completion of the required location and design studies, the Country Roads Board provided the Geelong Regional Commission with a recommended alignment for the Outer Freeway. The Commission I adopt~d this alignment at its meeting of 23rd February, 1978, and subsequently proceeded with the incorporation of that adopted align- ·ment in the amended Planning Scheme. At its meeting of 30th March I 1978 the Commission resolved: II to adopt the proposed Road Reservation for the Outer Freeway as set out on the plans displayed at the Commission meeting I of 30th March, 1978 for incorporation in the amended draft Geelong Regional Planning Scheme, and delete the existing I Transportation Corridor Area from the draft Planning Scheme. to adopt the above changes of zoning in the areas affected by the Outer Freeway and the Proposed Road Reserve, together I with other minor amendments arising from the precise definition of the Reserve as set out on the maps displayed at the Commission meeting of 30th March, 1978, for incorporation I in the amended draft Geelong Regional Planning Scheme. to adopt the Proposed Road Reservatipn for the Outer Freeway as set out on the plans displayed at the Commission meeting I of 30th March, 1978 for incorporation in Amendment No. 7 to the Geelong Regional Interim Development Order and delete the existing Transportation Corridor Area from the Interim I Development Order. to adopt the above changes of zoning in the areas affected II by the Outer Freeway and the Proposed Road Reserve, together with other minor amendments arising from the precise definition of the Reserve as set out on the maps displayed at the Commission meeting of 30th March, 1978 for incorporation in I Amendment No. 7 to the Geelong Regional Interim Development Order. I I 32.

I to exhibit Amendment No. 7 to the Geelong Regional Interim Development Order pursuant to the provisions of Section 17(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1961. I The Interim Development Order maps comprising the Amendment are to be accompanied by maps and a report provided by the Country Roads Board setting out details of the adopted 11 I Outer Freeway. · These resolutions provide for further public exhibition of the I adopted route and consequently for a further opportunity for objections .to be receiverl. Amendment No. 7 to the.Geelong Regional Interim I Development Order was placed on exhibition on May 3, 1978. 6.3 The Proposed Bellarine By-Pass Roads I The proposed Bellarine By-pass roads were shown on the exhibited Geelong Regional Planning Scheme as Proposed Roads and as such the land affected was reserved for that purpose. Clause 34 of the exhibited Planning Scheme I Ordinance states, amongst other things, that:- "Reserved land ... shall not be used, except with the permission of the Responsible Authority and subject to any conditions the Responsible A~thority I may include, for any purpose other than the purpose for which it is reserved or for which it was lawfully used immediately before the Approval I Date. 11 (Clause 34(5).) The proposed Bypass roads are situated on the Bellarine Peninsula and include the Drysdale Bypass, the Portarlington Bypass, the Indented Head Bypass, and I the St. Leonards Bypass. Over 25 objections were received to the proposed roads including a detailed I objection submitted by the Shire of Bellarine. The objections by the Shire and private objectors can be summarised as I follows:- (1) The need for the roads had not been established and their I purpose was not evident. (2) There had been no detailed discussion on the roads 1 location with the Countil. They had been established on an 1 ad hoc 1 I basis. ( 3) The method of funding, responsibility and compensation had II not been resolved. (4) The roads adversely affected ratepayers 1 properties, there were alternative routes available at lesser cost, and the roads would have an adverse environmantal impact on the I community. I I I I 33.

·Many objectors indicated that the use of existing roads for by-pass I purposes was prefer?.ble as their use would minimise the impact on land­ owners. Some objectors sought modification of the bypass route location I in their particular area. A report on the proposed bypass roads setting out the reasons for them and responding in particular to objections based on alleged lack of I consultation, was presented to objectors at the Hearing on 27th October 1976, the day on which bypass road objections were heard. This report is included as Appendix M. I The Hearing Committee considered that the bypass roads would be necessary in the future to cope with expected traffic and felt that the funding responsibility and compensation aspects had been adequately resolved by I the Country Road Board's offer to fund compensation on the basis of unclassified road grants. On this basis the Committee considered that it would be premature to allow these objections, and recommended-to I the Authority accordingly. At its meeting of 28th July, 1977 the Authority adopted the Committee's I recommendation and disallowed these objections. Following further correspondence and consultation with the Country Roads Board and the Shire of Bellarine, it was agreed that a study should I be commenced to fix the alignment of the by-pass road, and that that study would review the demand for the road and possible alternative I alignments. At its meeting of 27th April, 1978 the Geelong Regional Commission decided to initiate necessary action to result in a joint study of the location of the Bellarine Bypass Roads with the Shire of Bellarine and I the Country Roads Board.

I 6.4 The Terrace, Ocean Grove The Terrace, a major east-west street in Ocean Grove, was marked on the I exhibited Pl.anning Scheme Maps as an Arterial Road, leading from a widened Tuckfield Street. There were few development restrictions associated with this designation, but rather, the implication that I traffic volumes could i·ncrease in the future. Over 40 objections were received to the proposal to designate The I Terrace as an Arterial Road. Objectors considered that the Terrace was unsafe, having poor inter­ sections, humps in the road, a church and elderly citizens club situated I in it, and would suffer from congestion and lead to a bottleneck at the Ocean Grove shopping centre. Objectors also considered that Tuckfield Street, which leads into The Terrace, should not be widened. Objectors proposed that other streets such as Thacker Street or an extended Ocean I Throughway would be more preferable routes for bypass traffic. The Hearing Committee recommended that the Terrace should be shown as a I Distributor Road and not an Arterial Road, and the Authority adopted this recommendation. I I I 34.

I 6.5 Country Roads Board Objections The ·country Roads Board lodged a series of some 50 objections to a wide range of provisions of the exhibited Planning Scheme, these being for the I most part matters of detail which were decided as a result of officer discussion. A report was prepared for the Authority on each item of the Board's objection, and the Board was advised that all except three I areas of objection were agreed with, and would be recommended to be _allowed. · I The remaining items were considered by the Hearing Committee and subsequently determined by the Authority ih accordance with recommendations received.

I 6.6 Other Issues During objection Hearings mention was made of ongoing work by the Authority I to determine· a road hierarchy for the Region, in consultation with the Country Roads Board and Municipal Councils. The determination of such a hierar~hy will, when completed, significantly assist i~ forward road I planning, and avoid in future conflicts between private residential development in particular, and road requirements. A system of building line setbacks related to road function will assist in this process. The road hierarchy, when established, would be introduced as an amendment I to either the Interim Development Order, or the Planning Scheme, as appropriate. I I I I I I I I I I I I 35.

I 7. OTKER GROUPS OF OBJECTIONS

I 7.1 Introduction

This chapter deals with ij range of other matters in the exhibited Planning Scheme and Ordinance which attracted significant numbers of objections I but which were not as contentious as the major items discussed in earlier chapters. These lesser issues were either specific zonings or area designations to which many affected owners in that locality objected I (e.g. Orton Street, Ocean Grove) or to certain Ordinance provisions (e.g. for Industrial Zones).

I 7.2 Inappropriate Subdivisions Considerable objection was raised in two areas, namely coastal Portarlington I and Orton Street, Ocean Grove, where small allotments had been placed under a Rural Zone in the exhibited Planning Scheme because these areas were not considered suitable for intensive development purposes, and to zone them to I reflect their residential use would result in pressure for further subdivision. The Authority indicated in its resolutions of the 21st July, 1977 that these I and other areas such as Eastern View on the southern coast, where subdivision is considered undesirable, would be exei11pt from the tenement Clause. This would leave the owners of land within the areas free to build on the I land without a change in zoning which might create pressure for further subdivisio.n. I 7.2.1 Point Richards Road, Ramblers Road, Sunset Boulevarde, Arlington I Street, Portarlington: Residential type blocks in a linear fashion are situated on the above-mentioned roads east and west of Portarlington. The subject blocks are zoned Rural (General Farming) with a minimum subdiv­ ision of 75 hectares. Over 50 block owners objected to the zoning as the I zone prevents building on the land. Most objectors desired a residential zoning .. I The following report was presented to objectors at Hearings:- "The lands subject to objection are subdivisions along the low coastal dune overlooking Port Phillip Bay with remnant post-dunal wetlands behind. The I areas both east and west of Portarlington are very close to sea level with very high water tables, reed growth on or behind the subdivisions~ and are in visually fragile locations, particularly the Pt. Richards area. The I development which has occured is of a ribbon type, lining the coastline, and has seriously affected the visual and tourist amenity of the Portarlington I area. I I I 36.

I The Authority is of the op1n1on that the subject land is totally unsuitable for urban development ~nd that subdivision should never have been permitted. Present circumstances are such that rezoning to Residential 11 A11 would be inadvisable due to the development pressure which would ensue. However, I under Clause 6(3) and subsequent amendments to the Interim Development Order, the Authority may grant permits for the erection of dwellings on existing subdivisions in rural areas, provided that the circumstances justify such I action. In this situation, development has proceeded to such an extent that the I situation is irretrievable and it i·s recommended that permits for dwellings should be issued subject to fulfilment of the necessary conditions of available services and waste disposal for all existing blocks in these I subdivision, without any alteration to the existing zoning. 11

The Hearing Committee recommended to the Authority that 11 Steps be taken to I preserve the rights of individual owners to develop these allotments for residential purposes. 11 I The Authority resolved to allow the objections 11 in part 11 in accordance with the officer report.

I 7.2.2 Orton Street, Ocean Grove: The subject land is an old subdivision fronting Orton Street and the I Esplanade, Ocean Grove, between Hodgson and Tuckfield Streets. The proposed zoning for the land is Rural (Conservation) which allows no subdivsiion, whilst. objectors desired a residential zoning or to use the land for I residential purposes. The area is situated on primary sand dunes and is made desirable only by its proximity to the ocean. The land is low wth a high water table, and I whilst attractive in its natural state, is easily degraded by urban develop­ ment. I The Objection Hearing Committee recommended that the objections be disallowed 11 but that steps be taken to acquire the blocks as are necessary to enable 11 restructuring of the subdivision • The Authority resolved to determine the I objections in accordance with the Committee's recommendations.· The restructuring of allotments in this area has been seriously delayed by I the lack of funds, which are to be provided by the State Government. I 7.3 Special Control Zones or Designated Areas The exhibited Planning Scheme Ordinance specifies the Rural (Conservation) Zone, the Rural (Landscape) Zone, the Area of Special Significance designation and the Preservation Order Area, as covering areas of 11 natural beauty, interest I and importance in accordance with Jtem 8A of the Third Schedule to the Town . 11 I . and Country Planning Act • -I I ·-... I 37.

Although objection was directed to all these special control areas the Rural I (Conservation) Zone anJ Area of Special Significance designation received particular attention because they applied to brge areas, and exercised I considerable control over pennitted development. I 7.3.1 The Rural (Conservation)Zone: The Rural (Conservation) Zon~ as described in the Scheme Ordinance relates to: I "land which has particular qualities relating to either natural features, significant landscape, habitat or a particular rural environment. The intention is to conserve these features and environment in areas which I should not be available for urban purposes." The zone has therefore been applied to the environmentally noteworthy and I sensitive areas of the Region such as the heavily timbered and steep areas of the Upper Moorabool River valley (Steiglitz area), the coastal and coastal-upland areas on the southern coast (Airey's Inlet, Lorne), and the very sensitive and marginal post~dunal areas of Breamlea and Lake Victoria I (between Ocean Grove and Point Lonsdale). The provisions of the Rural (Conservation) zone as exhibited, significantly I limit development. No subdivision is permitted in the zone and there are no "as of right" (i.e. Column 2) uses. Agriculture, afforestation and Animal Husbandry all require pennit from the Responsible Authority before I commencement. Furthermore, except with the permission of the Authority, no buildings can be constructed or trees and native plants destroyed, felled, lo~ped or I uprooted in the zone (Cbuses 17(7) and 17(8)). I Objections to the zone and zone provisions can be summarised as follows: a) To the requirement that there be no subdivision in the zone I (See Chapter 3 for discussion). b) To the accuracy of the zone boundaries. Many objectors considered that the zone did not conform to topographical or vegetation I boundaries. c) Many objectors mistakenly thought that the zone allowed public access. I d) To the provisions of the zone limiting the landowner's "freedom of choice" to do with the land what 'is desired. Objectors expounding this argument, invariably referred to inclusion of Agriculture as a "subject topermit" use. Farmer-objectors found the idea of going I to Council for permission to farm their land completely unacceptable. Some objectors who conceded that control was needed in certain areas were concerned that the controls were in no way specific, and I expressed concern, for example, as to whether a farmer would have to get the Responsible Authority's permission to crop a new paddock. I e) To the lack of compensation available in lieu of the zoning. I I I 38.

I Overall, objectors contended that the prohibition of subdivision within the zone combined with the imposition of the controls would result in zoned areas becoming totally non-viable for farming purposes and have no resale I value. I Staff reports to objectors to' the zone at objection Hearings were presented I along the following lines: 11 The Rural (Conservation) Zone is intended to include areas which are of scientific or historical interest or have natural beauty and which have I been identified as being of Special Significance. The Authority has heard a number of objections concerning the zone and Authority staff have recommended a significant reduction in the zone's area I .to maximise the potential uses of land for agricultural practice so that only those areas of the Region which are particularly environmentally sensitive will be zoned Rural (Conservation) when the plan is finally adopted. I Subdivision in this zone is also being considered. It should also be noted that existing use rights are protected in all cases, except where the use involved an extension of area utilised for that use. Thus the estalbished I farmer should be little, if at all, affected by the Rural (Conservation) Zone. 11

I The Hearing Committee took the view that principle objections to the Rural (Conservation) Zone should be allowed in part to reflect the need for the I Authority to review the boundaries, definition and provisions of the zone. Specific objections to inclusion of particular properties within the zone were treated on their individual merits, and recommendations were made to I 11 allow 11 or 11 disallow 11 accordingly. The Authority's determinations were in accordance with the Hearing Committee's recommendations, and officer reports to the Authority on these objections I which were not heard, adopted the same basis as the Hearing Committee, i.e. that principle objections be allowed in part and specific zoning objections I be considered on their merits. I 7.3.2 Areas of Special Significance: The specification 11 Area of Special Significance .. is a designation overlaying zonings. The Area of Special Significance designation applies to those areas which are environmentally sensitive, and where development I and land use changes should be sympathetic to the established characteristics of the general locality. · I The specification has almost invariably been applied to noteworthy areas that are used in part or whole for farming purposes, and where the Rural (General Farming) Zone applies. The designation has been placed over areas I such as the scenic and steep-sided Moorabool Valley and the timbered Sutherland Creek Valley; areas of significant vegetative cover such as the hinterlands between Bells Beach and Anglesea, and areas of remnant I vegetation, such as the area designated behind Indented Head. I I I 39.

I The prov1s1ons of the designation as exhibited in the Scheme Ordinance aim to maintain harmony between development and landscape characteristics. I The relevant Ordinance provision (Division 4 Clause 25(3){b)) reads as follows: 11 The use or development of the land for any purpose or the pulling down, I removal, alteration, decoration or defacement of any building, work, site or object or the destruction of any bushland, trees or shrubs shall be subject to the permission of the Responsible Authority and in I determining a~y application the Responsible Authority may require buildings and works to harmonise in characterffid appearance with adjacent buildings or with the character of the area and for such purposes specifying the I materials colours and finishes to be used in the external walls of buildings or in the external ·covering of such walls ...

I Objections to the designation were very similar to objections to the Rural (Conservation) Zone - the same questions of rights, the maintenance of viable farming practices, the inaccuracy of designation boundaries and I compensation were brouqht up. I A report was presented at objection Hearings, as follows: "The designation provides Council with discretionary controls over any development and land use changes in order to preserve the environmentally sensitive characteristics of the area. In most objectors' cases the I Council ,would be guided by the zone applying to the property (i.e. Rural (General Farming)) in that the primary farming use of the property would be maintained. The farmer would be restricted in farming practices only to I that which is consistent with the farming potential of the area. Naturally the objector has complete existing use rights. · I Given the above, the land should not lose its agricultural value, and ther~fore compensation would not be appropriate, even if the Authority had I the power to grant compensation in such a case." The Hearing Committee made recommendations to the Authority according to the individual merits of casas, but also expressed reservations as to the I wording of the Ordinance provisions and the accuracy of the designation. The Authority determined individual objections on the basis of Hearing Committee recommendations. The Hearing Committee questioned the legal I basis of the provisions for Areas of Special Significance in the exhibited Ordinance, and amendments to these provisions were included in Amendment 5 to the Interim Development Order, and subsequently in the amended Planning I Scheme Ordinance.

I 7.4 Industrial Zones Concerted objection was raised to the exhibited Industrial Zone provisions. I Objections can be summarised as follows: I I I 40.

1. To the prov1s1on in Industrial 11 A11 and 11 811 Zones which requires I that the mi~imum area of allotments shall be 1,300 square metres (Clause 21(1).)

I 2. To the setback requirements in the Industrial 11 A11 and 11 811 Zones which, as exhibited, are 30 metres from the ~ignment of a Collector or Arterial Road or 10 metres from any other road I provided that the Responsible Authority may determine a lesser setback after having regard to the setbacks of existing buildings in the area (Clause 23(1)) and to the setback requirements of the Reserved Industrial Zone being 30 metres from an Arterial I or Collector Road or 20 metres from any other road. The Authority has acknowledged that the industrial provisions I that were exhibited lacked flexibility. Concerning the first objection, it was indicated to objectors that I Authority staff would recommend that the minimum area of allotments would be significantly reduced. The Hearing Committee recommended that the minimum area. for subdivision I 11 11 in the Industrial A Zone be lowered to 700 square metres, and le~s where Cluster Titling is proposed. I The Authority allowed objections on this basis. However, discussion on legal difficulties during the preparation of Amendment 5 to the Interim Development Order resulted in the Commission adopting a I provision in that Amendment, under which the minimum allotment sizes in 11 11 11 11 IAdustrial A , Industrial 8 and Reserved industrial Zones are to be 1,000 sq.m., with minimum sizes in cluster developments to be at the discretion of the Responsible Authority. This provision is also inco~porated in the amended Scheme Ordinance. · Similarly, as a consequence of Authority resolutions, the setback requirements have been reduced to 20 metres from the alignment of an Arterial Road or Collector Road, or 10 metres from any other road in the Industrial 11 A11 and 11 B11 Zones, and 20 metres from an Arterial Road, I and 10 metres from any other road in the Reserved Industrial Zone. I 7.5 Maggs Creek Township Zone Thirty-six objectors objected to the proposed Township zoning of the sea-village of Maggs Creek, south-west of Anglesea. The objectors I requested that the subdivided area ofthe town be zoned Residential 11 A11 . so that commercial uses, allowed subject to permit in the Township Zone, I could not be located in the area. The Objection Hearing Committee recommended that the objections be up­ held and the Authority determined the objections accordingly. The Township Zone was replaced by the Residential 11 A11 Zone in Amendment 3 to I the Geelong Regional Interim Development Order. I I I I 41.

I 8. AMENDMENTS TO THE GEELONG REGIONAL INTERIM DEVELOPMENT ORDER

I 8.1 Introduction Since the exhibition of the proposed Geelong Regional Planning Scheme in I September 1975 and the gazettal of the Geelong Regional Interim Development Order, several amendments have been made to the interim development order to implement needed changes, to respond to straight-forward objections to the provisions of the Scheme which were duplicated in the Order, and to I provide for new developments. Seven amendments have been initiated, but only four have so far received I formal Governor in Council approval. Further amendments are proposed by the Geelong Regional Commission. The effect of many of the items incor­ porated in these amendments is to put into effect Authority determinations I on objections or Authority action arising from objections (e.g. freeway reservation and Floodland boundary decisions) and to place these decisions on public exhibition to allow for further public comment and any additional objections. This procedure helps to avoid undue delay in finalising I the Scheme The several amendments and their progress are described I below. 8.2 Amendment No. 1 I This amendment to the Interim Development Order provided for the delegation of administration of the Tenement Clause through Clause 6(4) of the Interim Development Order to responsible authorities in those cases where a tenement consisted of five or less allotments. The same amendment also I deleted Schedule 1 and Clause 27 of the Ordinance and all references thereto from the Interim Development Order. I The effect of the delegation of the Tenement clause to responsible authorities is fully described in Chapter 4. I Deletion of Clause 27 and Schedule 1 which generally refer to residential planning standards was carried out on receipt of legal advice. The effect of this was to allow responsible authorities to return to their own planning standards enforced under the Local Government Act. Since few objections I were lodged to these provisions their exclusion from the Interim Development Order did not have a significant effect on the approval process. This I amendment was approved by the Governor in Council on 18th May, 1976. I 8.3 Amendment No. 2 This amendment consisted of 181 separate items making changes to the Interim Development Order Maps to respond to objections to the Planning Scheme Maps as exhibited. All of these items can be identified as being either drafting I errors and simple anomalies or necessary zoning changes to allow development projects with obvious merit to proceed. The amendment was necessary to avoid creating undue hardship in the cases of many individuals whose land I was affected by straight-forward technical errors in the exhibited Scheme. I I I 42.

'I This had the effect of .immediately responding to a large number of objections. The amendment was approved by the Governor in Council on 2nd February., 1977, and its provisions .are incorporated into the I adopted Planning Scheme. Approval of this amendment had important implications for the Planning Scheme objection process. Most of the objections lodged by statutory I bodies were responded to by changes made in this amendment. The amend­ ment also allowed most of the objections raised by Councils apart from II objections in principle and objections to the Ordinance. I I 8.4 Amendment No. 3 Amendment No. 3 consisted of 53 separate map chanqes including further zoning anomalies, a number of approved minor rezoninqs, and. a major rezoning to give effect to the approved Waurn Ponds Valley Structure I Plan which released over 1,000 hectares of rural land for urban development. I The main difference between the effect of Amendment No. 2 and Amendment No. 3 on the approval of the Planning Scheme was that Amendment No. 3 put into effect Authority determinations on more than 20 objections I 1odged to both the freeway corridor and the rura 1 zoning in the Waurn Ponds Valley area. Amendment No. 3 also qave effect to the three separate negotiated planning agreements at St. Leonards, Swan Bay and Fairhaven, thereby responding to objections lodged in respect 0f those I parcels of land. Amendment 3 was approved by the Governor in Council on 29th November, 1977 and its provisions are incorporated in the adopted I Planning Scheme. I 8.5 Amendment No. 4 Amendment 4 related to changes to Bannockburn Shire's boundary, negot­ iated planning settlements, the Jan Juc Structure Plan and other I approved minor rezonings for specific development proposals. This amendment, when approved, wi 11 give effect to Authority determi n­ ations on a number of objections lodged to the exhibited Scheme in the .I Bellarine, Corio and Barrabool Shires. The amendment has been approved by the Geelong Regional Commission and forwarded to the Minister for I Planning. 8.6 Amendment No. 5 I Amendment 5 souqht to ensure that the Interim Development Order Ordinance was legally correct in its wording and provisions. It also consolidates I the Interim Development Order and the Ordinance into one document. This amendment had the effect of removing inconsistencies and poor drafting in the Ordinance which had become apparent during the objec:ion I process and durinq administration of the Interim Development Order. No significant new ·planning controls or concepts were introduced as a result of this amendment apart from the introduction of cluster subdivision I which had become necessary as a result of the Cluster Titles Act 1974. I I 43.

However, the amendment comprised a substantially redrafted Ordinance I and the effect of legal and drafting changes was an extensive rational­ isation of many of the provisions and subsequent changes to permitted I uses in the Table of Zones to avoid inconsistencies. Objections to the following elements of the exhibited Planning Scheme Ordinance, which were allowed by the Authority, were substantially put I into effect as a result of Amendment 5 to the Interim Development Order:

the allocation of land uses to columns, in particular the I specification of Animal Husbandry as a Column 2 Use in the Rural (Streamside Foreshore and Floodland) Zone; · I discretionary control of buildingsetbacks in Industrial Zones; I discretionary control of residential buildings more than one storey in height in the Shires of Barrabool and Corio; I controls in Resort Zones; provisions affecting Poultry Farming, Junk Yards, .. Advertisements, I Produce Stalls, and Car Sales Establishments; the nature of Special Controls, particularly Areas of Special I Significance; car parking standards.

I The Minister for Planning has been asked to specify Amendment 5 in I accordance with Section 17 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1961. 8.7 Amendment No. 6 I Amendment 6 relates to rezoning of rural land at Point Hilson to Industrial 11 A11 zoning to permit the establishment of a large industrial project and has no implications for the Planning Scheme approval process. The Commission has heard objections to this Amendment and is considering the I recommendations of the Hearing Committee.

I 8.8 Amendment No. 7

Amendment 7 to the Interim Development Order contain~, as its major I item, the proposed Outer Freeway reservation in accordance with the alignment recommended by the Country Roads Board and adopted by the Geelong Regional Commission. The finalising of this alignment and its public exhibition responds to many objections to the exh;.bited Planning I Scheme in that it fixes the route and hence the areas affected by the free~ay, and provides further opportunity for objections to be consider­ I ed. This amendment was placed on public exhibition on May 3, 1978. I I I 44.

I '8. 9 'El oodl and Amendment

' . Having received a report on the floodland study, the Geelong Regional Commission resolved at its meeting on 30th March, 1978 to place the I amended floodland boundaries on public exhibition as an amendment to the Interim Development Order. This would provide adequate opportunity for further comments, and particularly for objectors to the previous I zone boundaries and provisions to consider the revisions made. This amendment is to be finally prepared and formally considered by the I Commission in the near. future. I I I I I I I I I I I I· I I I I I - I 1-':% I I I I I I

I Boss Strait I N I GEELONG REGION !I LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS I J , I - Local Government Boundones ~ Geelong RegwAlOI Boundary

500,000 I ~ 0 ~ II-' t~ MILES --=~~--~ -__j ....,.. ___r-=-~--··-··- .... ·-.Jill -- ·--- T I __ :1 0 !> tO t!> 20 KILOMETRES

Geelong Reg1onol Comm1551on I :~ ~~ I I I ~I ------·------...,.--- I

I I I

PORT PHILLIP BAY I I I I

I BASS STIWT I I I I >. I

I · GEELONG REGIO.NAL PLANNING AUTHORITY AREA 0 16 Miles I I I I

POHT" PHILLI' BAY

I 1: i

BARWON 1.0 .0.

BAARABOOI. SA$$ SrRAir PLANNINO 8CH!M! 1966

t

~ Queenacllffe 1.0.0. ~6·10·71 ~ Bannockburn I .0.0. 15. 2·72 c:::J No Planning Control•

I PLANNING CONTROLS IN REGION PRIOR TO GEELONG REGIONAL 1.0.0. 1975 I

I OEEl.ONG REGIONAl. COt*'iiSSION I 45. I APPENDIX A NAMES OF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND PUBLIC AUTHORITIES ETC., WHICH WERE NOTIFIED OF THF AUTHORITY'S RESOLUTION TO PREPARE A PLANNING SCHEME PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 10 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING REGULATIONS 1962. I Premier's Department Treasury Department I The Under Secretary, Chief Secretary's Department La\1/ Department Edu~ation Department I Public Works Department Department of Health Department of Agriculture Department of Crown Lands and Survey I Forests Commission, Victoria Department of Labour and I ndustry Department of Mines I State Rivers and Water Supply·Commission Local Government Department The Co-ordinator of Transport I State Electricity Commission of Victoria Country Roads Board Gas and Fuel Corporation Victorian Railways Department I Housing Commission Victoria State Development Division, Premier's Department Fisheries and Wildlife Department I National Parks Authority Tourist Development Authority Transport Regulation Board I State Traffic Commission Clean Air Committee Country Fire Authority Mental Hygiene Authority I Secretary for Fuel and Power Chief Property Officer, Department of the Interior Native Plants Preservation Society I Commercial Fisheries Council of Victoria Bird Observers Club Victorian Piscatorial Counci1 Rural Finance and Settlement Commission I Town and Country Planning Board Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works City of Geelong I City of Geelong West City of Newtown Borough of Queenscliffe I Shire of Bannockburn Shire of Barrabool Shire of Bellarine Shire of Corio I City of South Barwon Barwon Regional Council for Social Development I Port Phillip Authority I I 46. I ~eelong Harbor Trust Geelong Waterworks ~nd Sewerag~ Trust I Geelong Gas Company Queenscliffe Gas and Coke Co. Ltd. Shire of Winchelsea I . Shire of Leigh· Shire of Ba 11 an Shire of Bacchus Marsh Shire of Werribee I Victorian Pipelines Commission I (now Gas & Fuel Corp.). I I I

I I. I. I I I I I I I. I 47.

I GEELONG REGIONAL PLANNING AUTHORITY c/- 235 QUEEN STREET, MELBOURNE

I I TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1961 I REQUEST FOR.PLANNING REQUIREMENTS OF MUNICIPALITIES AND PUBLIC AUTHORITIES I I GEELONG REGIONAL PLANNING SCHEME I

Advice is hereby given that on the 31st July, 1969, the I Geelong Regional Planning Authority commenced the preparation of a planning scheme in accordance with the provisi0ns of the Town and Country Planning Act 1961 for an area comprising the whole of the I municipal districts of the :- (a) City of Geelong;· I' (b) City of Geelong West; (c) City of Newtown; I (d) Borough of Queenscliffe; (e) Shire of Bannockburn; (f) Shire of Barrabool; I (g) Shire of Bellarine; (h) Shire of Corio; and (i) Shire of South Barwon. The Authority would be pleased if you would submit details of any matter which your desires to be taken into consideration in the preparation of the planning scheme. I

I H. R. Trotter,. Acting Secretary. I 4th August, 1969. I I 48. APPENDIX B I RURAL AREA PLANNING POLICY I' GEELONG REGIONAL PLANNING AUTHORITY MINUTES OF MEETING NO. 50 HELD ON THURSDAY 28th MARCH, I 1974, AT 4.30 P.M~ AT THE CITY OF GEELONG WEST COUNCIL CHAMBERS PRESENT: I Cr. G.R. Stevens (Chairman) - Shire of Bellarine Cr. V.H. Andrews - City of Geelong Cr. R.J. Branch - Shire of Corio I Cr. B.J. Butterworth - Shire of Barrabool Cr. H.D. Feldtman - Borough of Queenscliffe Cr. A. L. Dean - Shire of South Barwon I Cr. L.W. Gleeson Shire of South Barwon Cr. R. Guyett - Shire of Bellarine Cr. W~H. Kenworthy - City of Geelong West .I Cr. K.J. Kirby - City of Geelong West Cr. A.K. Lloyd - City of Newtown Cr. F.C. Mason - Borough of Queenscliffe Cr. N.P. Mitchell - City of Newtown I Cr. R. W. Pettitt - Shire of Barrabool Cr. D.W. Stevenson - Shire of Bannockburn Mr. C.K. Atkins - Director of Planning I Mr. H.R. Trotter - Acting Secretary

I RURAL AREA PLANNING POLICY: The Authol~ity gave consideration to a report dated 28th March, 1974 by the Director of Planning and to the Rural Area Planning Policy I Statement that had been prepared by "the Director following the presentation of the Consultants' Regional Environmental and Land Resources Study at a Special Meeting of the Authority on 13th March, I 1974, and the Director proceeded to describe the associated Policy Map that was displayed. Followirig considerable discussion:- A. It was resolved on the motion of Cr. Lloyd - seconded Cr. Stevenson that the Authority adopt the following Rural Area Planning I Policy and the Rural Area Policy Map on display for the purpose of administering the Authority's Interim Development Order until such time as a Strategy Plan has been developed for the Region or until such I time as amendments to the policy are proved necessary:- I RURAL AREA PLANNING POLICY The Geelong Regional Planning Authority, as a Responsible Authority under the Town and Country Planning Act, has resolved to prepare a Planning I Scheme for the Geelong Region. During the period of preparation the Authority is administering an Interim Development Order for the purpose I of regulating, restricting, restraining or prohibiting the subdivision I I 49.

I ·of any land within the area of the Region outside the sections of Geelong, Torquay and Anglesea, zoned for urban uses under existing Planning Schemes. The Policy adopted by the Authority on the 28th day I of March, 1974, is for the administration of the Interim Development Order. · For the purposes of the Policy, that section of the Geelong Region I which comes within the control of the Authority's Interim Development Order has been divided into a s~ries of zones. The map, entitled 11 Geelong Regional Planning Authority Rural Area Planning Policy Map 11 I is available for inspection at the offices of the Geelong Regional Planning Authority, the Town and Country Planning Board, the Shires of I Bannockburn, Barrabool, Bellarine, Corio and South Barwon. This policy therefore comprises the following Statement of Rural Area Pla~ning Policy and the Rural Area Planning Policy Map. I The Policy is as set out hereunder: A. To implement this Planning Policy the Authority has divided the I area covered by its Interim Development Order into the following zones:- I 1. RURAL (GENERAL FARMING) Land included in this zone generally comprises areas which are used for a variety of agricultural pursuits, such as I pastoral activities, cropping and other forms of farming. The zone covers those areas which are suitable for I. continuation of general farming and which are not considered necessary (within the foreseeable future) for urban purposes. It is intended that this land would not be subdivided into small allotments and allotment sizes have been set at a I level to discourage speculative subdivision and subsequent pressures for further urban development. I 2. RURAL (INTENSIVE FARMING) Land in this zone comprises those limited portions of the regional ·planning area identified as being suitable for the I carrying out of intensive agricultural pursuits such as the growing of vegetables, fruit and horticultural produce. 3. RURAL (LANDSCAPE) Landscape zoning relates to land which has particular qualities relating to either natural features, habitat or I a particular rural environment. The intention is to maintain the environment in areas not required for future urban purposes. Allotment sizes have been established to permit very low density residential development associated with strict controls to protect the environment. I I I I 50.

I 4. RURAL (RESIDENTIAL) Land in this zone is set aside for limited residential development in a semi-rural or open environment. The I provisions are designed to encourage a variation in allot- ment sizes and to en~ure that the supply of allotments is related to the rate of building activity and the availab­ I ility of services~ Subdivision for urban use is not envisaged. I 5. RURAL (STREAMSIDE AND FORESHORE) Land in this restrictive zone comprises areas adjoining streams, lakes and waterways in which building development I would enable existing development and uses to continue but no new buildings or works would be allowed other than in I conformity with the future recreational use of the area. In general this zone will be 100 metres wide from high water mark albng the Region•s coastline and from either banks I of rivers and streams in the Region except where topography or other natural features dictate the necessity for a larger zone. I 6. TOWNSHIP Land in this zone comprises areas of existing small towns I or villages. Additional land proposed for urban growth, beyond existing development, has been designated having regard to the capacity of the settlement to absorb further I urban activities. 7. RURAL (CONSERVATION) I This zone is intended to include areas which are of histor­ ical or scientific interest or natural beauty and which have been identified as being of special significance. The zone I is also intended to include areas, such as flood plains, considered unsuitable for development. The provisions of the zone relate to the conservation and enhancement of the I character of the area so sp~cified. No subdivision is permitted~ and no new buildings or works allowed. I 8. SPECIAL USES This zone is to provide for those areas in private owner­ ship which are used and developed as private recreational I areas, nr religious and educational institutions. I 9. SUBJECT TO INTENSIVE STUDY This zo~~ is to allow the Authority to complete its detailed studies, already under way, or urban settlements in the Region, other than greater Geelong, to determine I their future capacity for expansion. No minimum lot size has been set aside for this area and each application for I subdivision will be treated on its merits. I I 51. B. No land in the zones mentioned above and listed in Column 1 I Df the following Table, shall be subdivided into allotments lesser in size than included in Column 2 and all subdivision shall be in accordance with a Permit granted by the Responsible I Authority. ·

Column 1 Column 2 I ZONE MINIMUM ALLOTMENT I SIZE (Ha.) Rural (General Farming) 75 Rural (Intensive Agriculture) 20 I Rural (Landscape) 10 Rural (Residential) 2 I Rural (Conservation) No subdivision · Rural (Streamside & Foreshore) I Township Intensive Study I c. Because of the importance of conserving the character of the rural sections of the Region, the whole of the land included in I the rural zones listed are hereby specified as being of natural beauty, int~rest and importance. In determining whether or not permission to subdivide such land shall be granted and if I permission is to be granted what condition or conditions should be imposed, the Authority shall have regard to: I (i) the existing use and possible future development of such land and of contiguous or adjacent lands; I ( i i) the orderly and proper planning of the zone; (iii) the amenity of the neighbourhood; I (iv) the effect of development of the land upon the use or development of other land (whether contiguous or adjacent or not) which has a common means of natural I or artificial drainage; ( v) the area and dimensions of each allotment comprised in the subdivision and its suitability for the proposed I use; (vi) the need for preserving the natural environment and I preventing erosion; (vii) the advisability or otherwise of retaining native I vegetation within specified distances of water courses, roads and property boundaries; I I I. 52. (viii~ where the land to be subdivided. is in a Rural I (Residential) Zone, the provision of services of water, drainage, electricity and roads.

I D. Notwithstanding the provisions of (B) above the Authority may give consideration to the excision of a parcel of land lesser I in area or frontage than the minimum prescribed - (i) for the purpose of increasing the area of an existing allotment, providing the allotment remaining is not I less than the minimum prescribed in the above Table; (ii) for the purpose of providing a house lot for the owner, a member of the owner•s family or an employee actively I engaged in work on the property concerned, provided the lot to be excised is not less than 1~ hectares or larger than 3 hectares and provided the land is not I within the Rural (Residential), Rural (Landscape) or Rural (Conservation) Zone; I (iii) for the purpose of providing for any of the following uses, except in the Rural (Conservation), Rural (Land­ scape) Zones:- I

F. Notwithstanding the prov1s1ons of (B) and (E) above the minimum I ·allotment size in a Rural (Residential) Zone, shall be not less than 10 acres where .the allotment abuts a State Highway, Rural I Arterial or Tourist Road as defined by the Authority. I I I S3. I G. In the Rural (Residential) Zone the m1n1mum frontage to a road shall be 5 ~etres per 0.1 ha. provided that the minimum frontage for any allotment is 80 metres and provided that any allotment I abutting a State Highway, Rural Arterial or Tourist Road, as defined by the Authority, the minimum length of allotment abutting such a road shall he 2CO metres. Provided always that for I irregular shaped allotments a lesser frontage may be permitted if the Authority is satisfied that compliance with the permitted I minimum is unreasonable. H. In the Rural (Conservation) Zone the minimum frontage shall be I 300 metres. I B. It was resolved on the motion of Cr. Andrews - seconded Cr. Gleeson that copies of the Policy Statement and the Planning Policy Map I be forwarded to each municipality in the Authority's Interim Development Order area stating .that the document is being used by the Authority as an instrument for administering its Interim Development Order and also stating that the Authority is intending to undertake a public particip­ I ation program with respect to the Policy and is therefore seeking each municipality's comments with respect to the existing zoning and in part­ icular with respect to possible locations for future Rural (Residential) I subdivisions provided they m~et the ~equirements laid down in the Policy and provided the rate of staging of development conforms to that set I down in the Authority's report on "Small Lot Subdivisions in the Region". C. It was resolved on the motion of Cr. Pettitt - seconded Cr. Kirby that as many interested organisations in the Region as possible I be informed that the Policy has been adopted for the administration of the Interim Development Order and that in fact the Authority is still seeking comment on the Policy from informed sources so that any I modifications may be considered in the light of representation from interested groups. I The following groups, and any others which wish to make representation to the Authority should be contacted: The Victorian Farmers' Union I The Young Farmers' Club The Geelong Environment Council Department of Agriculture I State Rivers & Water Supply Commission Country Roads Board Field Naturalists' Association, Geelong I Forests Commission of Victoria Land Conservation Council Angair National Parks I Fisheries & Wildlife Department Environment Protection Authority Port Phillip Authority I Victorian Field & Game Association Geelong Waterworks & Sewerage Trust I I I 54.

D. It was resolved on the motion of Cr Mitchell - seconded Cr. I Stevenson that the Marcus Oldham Agricultural College be requested to prepare a submission to the Authority with respect to the conduct of a I detailed agricultural productivity study of the rural lands. . E. It was resolved on the motion of Cr. Lloyd - seconded Cr. I Gleeson that a Technical Advisory Committee on Rural Area Planning be established to report on the matters described in D (iii) of the Policy. I The Technical Advisory Committee shall comprise:- Cr. R. Pettitt I Cr. R. Branch Mr. C. Atkins

I with power to co-opt appropriate experts and the Chairm~n of the Authority to be an ex officio member.

I ·F. It was resolved on the motion of Cr. Lloyd - seconded Cr. Kirby that the Authority forward a copy of the Policy and .accompanying I map to the Town and Country Planning Board.

G. It wa~ resolved on the motion of Cr. Guyett - seconded Cr. I Mitchell that were member Councils have the powers they be asked to administer the principles of the Planning Policy in Rural (Conservation) I and Rural (Streamside and Foreshore) Zones. PUBLICITY - RURAL AREA PLANNING POLICY: I Cr. Gleeson considered that the Authority should ensure that the public is advised the new Policy by way of a press release and also that copies of the Policy Statement be printed for which a reasonable charge I could be made; · Following discussion, it was resolved on the motion of Cr. Mitchell - seconded Cr. Feldtman that the Rural Area Policy Statement be printed I and be available for sale at $1.00 per copy. It was further resolved that 1,000 copies be available at no cost for I distribution by member Councils. It was considered that the Press in attendance would give adequate I press coverage to the Policy. I I I I 55. I APPENDIX C LIST OF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND PUBLIC AUTHORITIES ETC. WHICH WERE I -NOTIFIED OF THE GEELONG REGIONAL PLANNING SCHEME EXHIBITION Premier's Department Treasury Department . I The Under Secretary, Chief Secretary's Department Law Department Education Department Public Works Department I Department of Health Department of Agriculture Department of Crown Lands and Survey I Forests Commission, Victoria Department of Labour and. Industry ·Department of Mines I State Rivers and Water Supply Commission Local Government Department The Co-ordinator of Transport '(Department of Transport) Country Roads Board I State Electricity Commission of Victoria Gas and Fuel Corporation Victorian Railways Department I Housing Commission Victoria State Development Division, Premier's Department Fisheries and Wildlife Department I ·National Parks Authority Tourist Devel~pment Authority Transport Regulation Board State Traffic Commission I Clean Air Committee Country Fire Authority Mental Hygiene Authority I Secretary for Fuel and Power Department of the Interior, Services and Property Bird Observers Club, Geelong Environmental Council. I Victorian Piscatorial Council Rural Finance and Settlement Commission Town and Country Planning Board Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works I City of Geelong City of Geelong West City of Newtown I City of South Barwon Borough of Queenscliffe Shire of Bannockburn I Shire of Barrabool Shire of Bellarine Shire of Corio Barwon Regional Council for Social Development 1. Port Phillip Authority Geelong Harbor Trust Geelong Waterworks and Sewerage Trust I Geelong Gas & Fuel Corporation Shire of Winchelsea Shire of Leigh I Shire of Ballan Shire of Bacchus Marsh I Shire of Werribee I I I I Ci((L011G QeGOlAL PLA!lnrn AUTfiOQIH

I GEELONG REGIONAL PLANNING SCHEME

I NOTICE OF HEARING I

Dear Sir/Madame, "· I wish to advise you that you are invited to be heard by the Committee· I responsible for.hearing Planning Scheme Objections in respect to the matters raised in your Objection No. PSO/ I to the Geelong Regional I Planning Scheme. The time and date set aside for.your hearing are {time, day, date, month and year). Would you please confirm this date with Ms ( I Phone 21'7377· within seven {7) days if you intend being present. The Committee sits in the Boardroom of the Geelong Regional Planning I Authority, Level 3, 117 Myers Street, Geelong. Five (5) copies of any printed submission intended to be read from I should be presented to the Chairman of the hearing Committee. To facilitate the hearing of Objections, those people wishing to be ~r heard are asked to be present at the appointed time. It should be noted that persons appearing on behalf of Objectors or groups of Objectors other than themselves should have written authority I to do so. Yours faithfully, I I A.K. LLOYD I CHAIRMAN REF PSO/ I I 117 MYERS STREET GEElONG VICTORIA 3220 AUSTRALIA POST OFFICE . BOX 770 I TELEPHONE (STD052) 217377 DIRECTOR: COLIN ATKINS I 57. I APPENDIX E

I HEARING COMMITTEE SITTING D..l\TES I 27th April, 1976 · 17th May, 1976 18th May, 1976 I 24th May, 1976 3rd June, 1976 I 8th June, 1976 16th June, 1976· 2nd July, 1976 I 6th July, 1976 7th July, 1976 20th July, 1976 21st July, 1976 I 27th July, 1976 28th July, 1976 I 3rd August, 1976 4th August, 1976 11th August, 1976 25th August, 1976 I 31st August, 1976 7th September, 1976 8th September, 1976 I 9th September, 1976 14th September, 1976 I 15th September, 1976 2.0th ·September, 1976 I 22nd September, 1976 28th September, 1976 4th October, 1976 I 5th October, 1976 12th October, 1976 13th October, 1976 I 19th October, 1976 20th October, 1976 21st October, 1976 27th October, 1976 I 28th October, 1976 9th November, 1976 I 30th November, 1976 2nd December, 1976 7th December, 1976 I 21st April, 1977 I I, I ····---· I FINAL NOTICE TO OBJECTORS I I aeeLOlJ. Qea!OlAL PLAflnllti AUTiiORITI

I 12th May, 1977 I I

I As an qbjector to the Geelong Regional Planning Scheme you will be aware that this Authority has, over the past months, been hearing I objections to the above scheme. This program is now virtually complete. It is. intended that decisions with regard to all objections will shortly be taken by the Authority I and that the ~cheme will then be amended and prepared for presentation to th~ Minister. As will be realised, the co-ordination, hearing and analysis of I objections to a scheme of this size and complexity are considerable, and the Authority is concerned that those objectors who asked to be heard.in re~pect of their objections have in fact been given reasonable I opportunity to be so heard. Concern was particularly expressed, that where an objection related to different aspects of the scheme, or as a result of postal problems, some objectors may not yet have received I an opportunity to be heard. The Authority 1 s records do not show that the hearing of your objection is outstanding; however, to ensure that all objections can b~ properly I considered, the Authority has asked that objectors who requested hearings be notified of the finalisation of objection hearings. I If therefore, you have not been given an opportunity to be heard in respect rif your objection, and you feel that appearing before the committee is desirable, then the Authority would be pleased if you I would notify it, in writing, prior to the 25th May, 1977. It is stressed that this would represent the last opportunity to arrange a he~ring and after the above date, the Authority will proceed to I resolve objections on the information before them. I Yours faithfully, REF I ~

I Community Advisory Committee Rural Affairs I I Terms of Reference I

· To co-ordinate Federal, State and local intereits I in matters related to the rural areas in the Geelong Region. · I 2. To establish working links between the G.R.P.A. (~he new Authority in due course) and those interested and/or expert in matters related to agricultural,. I horticultural and pastoral interests.

I 3. To provide a vehicle for a two-1-1ay exchange of information, advice and ideas between the conmunity and the Authority on primary employment, housing, I economic and social infrastructure of rural areas.

4. To provide advice on rural studies bei~g undertaken I by the Authority.

I ~. To establish a co-ordinated bank of local knowledge.

I 6. To raise any issue related to rural affairs that the committee consider of relevance to the rural I coinmun i ty. I I I I I I APPENDIX I

GENERAL STATEMENT ON 11 EXISTING TENEMENT'• PROVISIONS IN THE PROPOSED GEELONG REGIONAL PLANNING SCHEME

Prepared by Meldrum Burrows and Partners, Town Planning Consultants

I 1. INTRODUCTION This statement is intended to explain the basis of •Existing Tenement• I controls, as a basic planning technique~ and to examine the effect which such control would have it if were to be either deleted from, I or. included in the adopted Planning Scheme. The purpose of this statement is not to establish a defence of the provisions included in Clause 17(4) of the exhibited Planning Scheme, but rather to present a review of the factors associated with a I control of this type and establish a basis on which an objective assessment can be made of the very large number of objections which have been made, both by members of the public and organisations · I having an interest in the Geelong Region. I 2. THE PURPOSE OF TENEMENT CONTROL Regional planning is a discipline which is (or should be) directed I towards the achievement of proper land use management, the avoidance of conflict between competing land uses, the establishment of the ·widest possible range of opportunities for compatible forms of land I use to establish and to remain, to rationalise undesirable pressures which serve to bring about the premature cessation of appropriate forms of land use, and to encourage the proper utilisation of I natural resources. Subdivision and land development in the State of Victoria has taken place on a largely unplanned basis however, and it has only been .I more recently realised that the subdivision of land and size of individual allotments should be dictated (at least primarily) by what the most appropriate use of the land is adjudged to be - and I not by the whim of land surveyors or opportunities established in the market place for the speculative sale of land. It will be apparent to most people that early crown subdivisions of rural land were never designed to establish viable agricultural activities on single holdings: even from the date when the first selections of farming land were made, farmers in most areas were forced to take ~p multiple-lot holdings so that their enterprises could be I economically viable. When farms have changed hands, dealings have invariably involved the exchange of parcels of allotments between farmers, and in this Region it has only been in recent decades, where I' conflicting market pressures caused by this growth of the urban population, have made it financially advantageous to fragment farms and sell the constituent allotments to separate purchasers. This, I however, is a short-term advantage, as the remaining land owners are left with the burden of increased valuations and rates. I I I 62.

I Experience has shown that only rarely does the opportunity exist in the market place for individual rural allotments to be assembled into larger viable farming units. In these circumstances ·in view of the present economic climate where farmers are more than ev~r being enticed to seek short-term remedies to very real financial problems by selling portions of their holdings, the long-term viability of farming (at I least in the traditional sense) in this Region is under·serious threat. It is not only the agricultural areas of the Region which are encumbered .bY inappropriate subdivisions~ for there are a great I many old subdivisions of semi-urban and even urban allotments in remote or environmentally unstable areas which are held in large tenements and which, for very good reason, should not be I developed for housing purposes according to the existing sub­ divisional pattern - an example of this is the old Crown township of Rothwell, which is totally undeveloped for urban purposes, and I which is presently used for farming. The form of tenement control proposed in the Scheme is therefore aimed at rationalising the problems of inappropriately subdivided land in ·rural areas by:

(a) discouraging the fragmentation of ownership of larger I holdings where this would reduce the viability of the 11 parent" agricultural holding' and creating small rural residential or hobby farming lots in areas which are I not appropriate for these types of use. (b) discouraging the premature development of small rural I allotments in areas likely to be required for future urban purposes, and which would prejudice opportunities for their orderly redevelopment at a time when· I additional urban land is required.

(c) preventing the intensive development of small-allotment subdivisions which are remote from urban facilities, where appropriate reticulated services cannot be made available, or where environmental problems could occur from such development. I 3. HISTORY OF TENEMENT CONTROL I The principle of tenement control is neither new or unique to the Geelong Region. Despite some Council •s objections to the concept and equity of this form of control~ it has been a feature of every I local Planning Scheme which has ever operated in the Geelong Region (we include the old Geelong Planning Scheme in this context, for ever since it was approved, Councils have been the sole Responsible Authorities for those parts of the scheme which applied- or sttll I apply- in their local areas). I I I 63.

I The tenement controls in these schemes were expressed somewhat differently however, and did not have a significant effect in broad­ acre farming areas. The Objection· of Councils to the principle of I this form of control are therefore puzzling; it is however understandable that members of the public hither to unaffected by tenement controls, might raise objection to them at this time. I The use of the term •tenement' is new in that it relaxes the rigid control methods prescribed under the old scheme by establishing a basic right for houses to be built on any existing tenement regardless I of its size. The main difference between the old and new schemes and the need to establish this •tenement• concept was because of the .more stringent subdivisional minima in rural zones under the new Scheme I - where previously the subdivisional minima were merely directed at preventing the more blatant forms of speculative land subdivision, ·the new minima are based on the need to protect those forms of rural land use appropriate in particular areas and also to enable I the continuation of established farming units. The use of •tenement• control per se is not unique to Geelong, for I in fact, it is a feature of every Planning Scheme in this State which has been approved since the Town and Country Planning Board began insisting, in 1970, on stringent subdivisional minima for general t· farming zones. These minimum subdivisional requirements and related controls for the erection of houses were in need of some modification to account for established patterns of development, and the tenement controls were conceived as being a reasonable compromise which at least I gave every property owner the right to erect a house (or in some cases, houses) on his land. II Schemes which have almost identical forms of tenement control to those in the new Geelong Regional Planning Scheme are the Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Scheme, Ovens and Upper Murray Planning Scheme (1.0.0.), East Gippsland Lakes Planning Scheme (1.0.0.) and the Shire I of Pakenham Planning Scheme (!.D.O.). In the light of the above comments, it will be seen that the concept I . of tenement control is an accepted State policy. If the Authority is to seek to have its Scheme exempted from this policy, then it would need to be clearly demonstrated that the adopted Scheme was I capable (by other means) of averting the types of problems which . existing tenement controls are fundamentally concerned with solving. I

4. THE EFFECT OF TENEMENT CONTROL IN THE GEELONG REGION ! I As previously mentioned, there are three basic objectives which can t· be achieved by the use of tenement control. (a) Minimise the Impact of Inappropriate Urban and Semi-Urban I Subdivisions .I The problems associated with subdivision of this type have long been ~II I 64.

appreciated by Councils in the Region, and •tenement• prov1s1ons in I previous Schemes were directed towards restricting their development for housing purposes. (i.e. the de Garis subdivisions in North Corio, Rothwell Township, Big Hill and Eastern View subdivisions on the Great Ocean Road, and areas of small allotments in Moolap). These subdivisions and others which should be identified as a matter of urgency could be effectively managed in the short term by special I forms of tenement control pending the implementation of proper restructuring procedures by the local Councils. I To remove the existing tenement controls from these areas would encourage their immediate sale and bring about pres~ures for housing development which would be badly serviced and create (in many instances) I serious environmental problems. By the same token however, development in some of these areas at reduced densities could be acceptable, and if the Authority believes that effective restructuring should be sought, then more specific zoning provisions should be applied. I (b) Discourage the Fragmentation of Ownerships I in Future Urban Areas The development of new urban areas is a comp~ex matter demanding large-stale development if community needs are to be met. It is therefore considered essential that opportunities should be available for comprehensively planned urban developments to be carried out as market demands require. Experience in Melbourne has shown that for efficient serv1c1ng programs to be organised and urban land to be developed and brought onto the market in an· orderly manner, it is preferable to maintain large land­ I holdings with fewer owners. In this way servicing headworks and trunk/ mains contributions can be obtained from the large developers concerned at an early phase of the development of whole catchments, and I therefore enable co-ordinated staging programs for development to be implemented over an appropriate time-scale. I The removal of tenement control from the Rural (Future Urban) Zone (including other urban fringe land which should now be rezoned) would lead to the fragmentation of larger holdings, lead to speculative investment by •middlemen•, and prevent genuine developers from I obtaining land at reasonable prices and proceeding with development as it is needed. It is also believed that removal of tenement control from these areas will create a real need for public authorities to I undertake land assembly programs so as to enable orderly urban development in the.Region to proceed . .I I I I ------·· .... _.. I 65. I

(c) Encourage Economic Stability in Areas with a Valid I Agricultural Potential The imposition of tenement control in these areas will probably I. cause the greatest degree of personal hardship - if for no other reason than that the areas affected are most widespread and a large number of property owners are effected. In addition to persoanl hardship caused to some farmers, the tenement provisions I also represent a form of public interference with (what have been up until now) the individual's rights to sell land in the expectation that subsequent purchasers would be able to erect houses on individual I allotments - a question which is inextricably bound up with the philosophy of whether land is a resource which the present owner has an over-riding obligation to protect for the benefit of future I owners, and to ensure that sufficient land will exist for future generations of farmers. In assisting the Authority to adjudicate on this question, we refer I to conclusions recently drawn by the (Commonwealth) Commission of Enquiry into Land Tenures chaired by Mr. Justice Else-Mitchell of the N.S.W. Supreme Court. This Enquiry sat for a very long period I of time and considered submissions from all sections of the community having an interest in the question of Land Tenures: one significant conclusion drawn by the Commission WqS that the individual I does not, in terms of fundamental equity, have an inalienable right to do whatever he wishes with his land, and that just because land is subdivided into allotments it should not mean that any particular I rights of use are conferred on the sub~equent owners. Apart from the questions of equity, we believe·that there are very real long term benefits which can be obtained by the application of I tenement control in farming areas: they do however, bring with them certain short-term dis-benefits. I Fundamental to the whole question of rural land use is that if agriculture is to remain as a viable form of enterprise (notwith­ standing the present economic difficulties) then individual holdings of land should become larger so that economies of large scale production can be achieved; and that the price of farming land should be based on its land use capability so that land assembly can be undertaken by individual farmers and a reasonable return on invested I capital can be achieved. The fact of course, is that values of smaller agricultural holdings I are rarely related to the productive capability, and this over-capital isation is one of the reasons why the owners of many small 'marginal' farms are in financial difficulty today.

I I I I I I I 66. I The imposition of tenement control will have the disadvantages of discouraging the farmer from disposing of the odd allotment from I his holding (often at an inflated price) either to obtain an · immediate speculative gain or to help over-come short-term financial difficulties; from disposing of part of the land to help pay probate I duty; and from disposing of the major portion of the farm at the time of his retirement. In making its decision on the question of tenement control in I agricultural areas, we therefore suggest that the Authority should be mindful of the effect which removal of tenement controls from I the Scheme would have: viz. (i) Encourage the escalation of property values to equate with I the price which could be expected for the smallest allotments in each locality, and accordingly inflate the costs of municipal rates and probate duties to a point where substantial difficulty would be caused to those genuine I farmers remaining; (ii) Make it difficult for existing farms to be economically I ·viahle (when related to the value of assets) and deny opportunitie~ for smaller farms to be enlarged; I· (iii) Encourage the fragmentation of existing viable farms, and bring high quality agricultural land into hobby farming and rural residential uses; I (iv) Cause mis-management of large areas of land by inexperienced nrin-farmer land-lords or by absentee speculator land-lords. I (v) Cause the release of an excessive number of hobby-farms and rural residential allotments which would (for the most part) be purchased as an investment buffer to compensate for the I current high level of inflation, and have no prospect of being developed in the forseeable future. (vi) . Bring excessive pressure to bear on the Authority to sub- I stantially reduce subdivisional minima on the basis that individual holdings are no longer viable, and the only economic remedy available to owners is to subdivide I further into smaller allotments. I I 67. I 5. THE JUSTIFICATION AND NEED FOR TENEMENT CONTROL I While there are sound technical and legal bases (in the case of the latter by the Commission of Enquiry into Land Tenures) for restricting the opportunities for landowners to erect dwellings I on the individual allotments in subdivision which have now been found to be inappropriate, the over-riding moral justification for taking away such rights (even though the individuals affected I may never choose to exercise these rights) is not so clear. While no doubt the Authority's final decision on this matter will be based on a balanced consideration of all the factors which have a bearing, ·perhaps the greatest di·lemma of all is posed by the I question of whether the short term advantages of the deprivation of individual rights outweigh the long term disadvantages which il could result if in-appropriate subdivisions are further fragmented in ownership, and in particular, valuable agricultural resources in the Region are destroyed by virtue of the fact that inappropriate subdivisions are extremely difficult to restructure once they are I fragmented. It must be pointed out therefore, that the piecemeal sale of portions of existing tenements to solve short-term financial I difficulties provides only temporary relief, and in fact, merely serves to aggravate the difficult problems already confronting those p~ople who seek to derive their living from rural l~nd in I this Region. In specific terms, a reduction in the size of individual land holdings will cause an increase in land valuations municipal rates and probate costs, and for those people left I behind in the industry, make it increasingly difficult to both borrow money for the purchase of additional land, and generally to obtain reasonable returns on capital invested in agriculture. I The Authority should therefore realise that politically-attractive ad hoc decisions to completely delete any form of tenement control from the Scheme may in fact offer no long term security or real I benefits to the genuine primary producer- nor in fact, may it present a viable long term political solution. I I 6 . POSSIBLE ADAPTATIONS OF THE PRESENT FORM OF TENEMENT CONTROL The Authority will recall that when the decision was taken to include the existing tenement provisions in the draft Scheme, special rural I area studies were also commissioned so that any objections lodged in respect of those provisions could be considered in the light of more specific and accurate information. These studies are now in their concluding stages and will avail the Authority of an opportunity I to make more specific and rational policy decisions - particularly in respect of subdiv-sional minima in certain locations,and the applicability of existing tenement control as an objective planning I tool. I I I 68. I We suggest therefore, that the information obtained from the Objection Hearings should be used as input in the final stages of the Rural Area I Studies and the formulation of the final planning scheme for adoption. The principle question before the Authority however, is whether or I not there should be tenement control for Rural zones tn the Scheme. We would stress that even if the tenement control is retained in principle, then a number of changes to the manner in which it is I applied will become evident from the· rural area studies now in progress. Should the Authority take the view however, that the present form of tenement control is generally unacceptable, then we suggest that consideration be given to an alternative form of I control which would broadly achieve the same management objectives - but be somewhat more complex to administer. The principle of these I alternative methods are briefly as follows:-

(a) If the concept of restricting the right to build houses on I rural allotments according to the existing tenement principle is determdned to be appropriate:

I These controls should apply in precisely defined areas which are of particular agricultural value. The minimum area of that part of a tenement for the erection of a I dwelling (i.e. the tenement density) should be related to both objective subdivisional minima, and to the average I size of tenements which exist in particular areas. Areas of small rural allotments which are considered to be inappropriately subdivided should be subject to tenement control pending the imple~entation of specific restructuring I schemes by local Councils (with the assistance of the Regional Authority). These areas should be precisely defined and included in a special zone: the tenement density I should be related {by means of separate policy guidelines) to the objectives which would ultimately be achieved by · I restructuring. Tenement control in the Rural (Future Urban) zones should remain unchanged. I There should be no tenement control in the rural residential, landscape interest, conservation or marginal agricultural areas of theRegion. It is suggested that more appropriate forms I of development control in the environmentally sensitive areas of the Region should apply and in the marginal agricultural areas development should be permitted according to the present I subdivisional pattern pending the formulation of specific land use objectives which would allow further subdivision according to a pre-determined staging program (i.e. rezoning I of selected areas over a period of time). I I ~------

I 69. I

(b) If the concept of tenement control is rejected in pEinciple I by the Authority:

Additional houses within an existing tenement in areas of I particular agricultural value could be permitted only if the land is consolidated onto a single title and re-subdivided in cluster form to create no more cluster lots than the I previous number of allotments in the tenement. The size of individual cluster lots would be subject to the approval of the Responsible Authority, although the idea I would be to create relatively compact rural hamlets. Cluster lots should not be of sufficient size to permit hobby I farming activity but rather, the bulk of the land would be retained as common property and used for agricultural purposes either by members of the Body Corporate on a share-farming I basis, or more preferably, leased to a single farmer (who could be a member of the Body Corporate) and developed as a separate I farm. · This system of management would offer attractive opportunities for the owners of nearby marginal farms to lease the common I property and incorporate it into their overall operation - so as to enable economies of Scale to be achieved. I As there· wi 11 i nevi tab ly be a conflict between the needs for rural residential living and the proper utilisation of valuable farming land (particularly on the Bellarine Peninsula) this system, we suggest, offers an acceptable and realistic I compromise solution to these problems. There are no really effective alternatives to catering for I problems of the small allotment, inappropriate subdivisions or areas intended for future urban development. Even if the Authority rejects the use of tenement con-rol in agricultural I areas we suggest that serious .consideration should be given to retaining it in these other areas. · The only alternative suggestion we can offer for the areas of I inappropriate subdivision (other than to compulsorily acquire the. allotments, and restructure and re-sell them in the short term) would be to re-introduce a form of control similar to that I which was used in the previous local Schemes - we suggest however that the degree of hardship caused to individual owners would be little different to that which would be caused by the I method suggested in Section (a) above. I I ·I I 70. I 7. CONCLUSIONS I The existing tenement prov1s1ons of the new Geelong Regional Planning Scheme have been the cause of much public debate and while many Opjections are founded on real questions of hardship, many others have I an emotional basis which does not pay regard to the long-term implic­ ations to either individuals or the community which could arise from a total abandonment of the provision. The present attitude of opinion I ·in some sections of the community has not been conducive to objective public debate on this question -we have attempted to put all of . the re.levant material before the Authority in this paper so that an I ·informed decision can be made on the merits or de-merits of the case.

In conclusion therefore, we would make the following points for the I Authority•s guidance:-

I (a) A number of Objections are founded on a misunderstanding of the provisions included in the exhibited Scheme.

I (b) The deletion of tenement control will undoubtedly remove opportunities for the proper future use of a significant I number of rural properties in the Region.

(c) While helping to stabilise rural land prices, the tenement I controls will also remove opportunities for the re-sale of small isolated allotments which in some areas are highly I sought after. (d) The fragmentation of farms to overcome short-term financial problems should be discouraged, as should investment in I prime agricultural land to achieve short-term financial gains. I (e) The planning and land development process should not be manipulated so as to provide a means of overcoming inequities in current probate laws. These inequities are very real, I but the deletion of tenement controls which could in turn create other long-term inequities would be quite unjustified­ we suggest that instead the probate laws themselves should I be amended. · I I I I I 71. I . (f) The future viability of agriculture as an important form of land use in the Region will depend on larger farming I units being available. Any rural policy adopted by the Authority (whether or not this embraces a form of tenement control) should be· directed towards this end. Forms of I tenement control have been imposed in every rural municipality. in the Region prior to the introduction of I the new Regional Planning Scheme. (g) Tenement control of the type provided in the Scheme is consistent to that which is used in contemporary planning I schemes throughout the State.

I ( i) · Tenement control should not be indiscriminately applied throughout the Region. I (j) The recently enacted Cluster Titles Act provides an alternative and perhaps more equitable means of achieving the aims of a tenement clause - namely the proper use and I management of agricultural land. The potential application of these procedures would need to be fully evaluated · I before proposals for the adopted Scheme were finalised.

( k) The use of some form of tenement control is the only really effective means of achieving desirable ~lanning objectives I inappropriate subdivisions which should be"restructured I and in areas which are set aside for future urban development. I I I I I :.I I I -....------· ----·-· 72. I APPENDIX J REPORT ON RURAL {STREAMSIDE FORESHORE AND FLOODLAND ZONE, PREPARED FOR OBJECTION HEARINGS.

I 11 It should be stated at the outset that this zone does not in any way imply the acquisition or public ownership of land so zoned, I nor does it indicate any right of public access. The Rural {Streamside Foreshore and Floodland) zone has been used in a number of situations throughout the Region to achieve several I planning objectives aimed at preserving sensitive river and bay- .. side areas. As the name implies, it is a zone applied to foreshore areas around Port Phillip and Corio Bays and along rivers, streams and waterways of the Region, and also to cover flood-prone and I low-lying land. The zone is intended basically to protect those waterways to which I it is aligned in a number of ways. It is intended to restrict development of a permanent nature in close proximity to the streams, bays and lakes of the Region, particularly where alternative I locations are available. The object being to protect the water quality from effluent discharge and run off from developed areas. To protect any existing vegetative cover and reduce the danger of erosion through over-use or inappropriate use of the land, and to I preserve the visual amenity of these unique and sensitive areas. It is also intended in other areas to identify flood prone land I upon which development should be restricted. As the zone is applied predominantly in rural areas the formulation of appropriate permitted uses has tended to focus around the I continuation of traditional farming activities. Particularly as in a number of areas much of the character of the river valleys is derived from the farming activities that take place therein. I It should be noted that existing lawful development and uses may continue without the need to apply for a planning permit, and that the general run of farming activities, with the exception of intensive stock raising enterprises such as feedlots, piggeries and other potentially highly polluting activities, are in fact I permitted as of right or as Column 4 uses requiring a permit. At the same time it is realised that where the whole of a property lies within a zone it may still be desirable to erect a dwelling I and provision has been made within the Scheme for this to occur. Subdivision is not permitted within the zone to further restrict development of these sensitive areas; however, it is recognised I that under certain circumstances, particularly on the highly productive river flats, subdivision may be a valid or necessary I part of the farming activity.* The Authority will review this provision in the light of Rural Area studies presently being undertaken.· The inclusion of animal husbandry as a Column 4 use in this zone does not seen appropriate. I Inclusion in Column 2 of the Ordinance will be recommended.**

I * As an interim policy, subject to the completion of the Rural Areas Study, the Authority adopted a subdivision minimum of 60 ha in the zone. See Chapter 3. I ** Rectified in Amendment 5 to the Geelong Regional Interim Development Order. I I 73.

I Objection has been raised to the inability of the Responsible Authority to allow the erection of a dwelling within the zone where only a part of a property is so zoned Rural (Streamside I Foreshore and Floodland). In a limited number of instances such a permit may well be appropriate and a method of including such I a mechanism in the Ordinance is being considered. The Authority had hoped to be able to resolve the objections to . the Rural (Streamside Foreshore and Floodland) zone without the need for formal hearing. and indeed, this work is underway. Some I landowners have been contacted, and further information gathered. However, as the objection hearing process is drawing to a close .it has been necessary to list these objections for hearing so I that objectors would not be deprived of their right to make representations to the Authority. I .Whilst it will already be apparent that only a portion of the land zoned Rural (Streamside Foreshore and Floodland) has been so zoned because of its susceptibility to flooding, it is hoped that objectors will be able to provide the Authority with more I accurate and detailed information regarding actual flood levels 11 I within their respective areas. I I I I I

I I I I

- .. ------...:....· _:::.______:______.::..::..:.:..:.:....:.....:.;.;.;; _ ____J ------~------.. -. I 74. APPENDIX K I ZONE BOUNDARY CHANGES ARISING·FROM THE FLOODLAND STUDY

For study purposes the region was divided up into catchment areas. Some I comments on each catchment area and on the sources of information are appropriate. The accompanying map shows the location of the several I catchment areas. A. BARWON RIVER (west of Geelong) I The existing zone in this catchment is proposed to be extensively reduced as there are only two major flood areas along the river west of Geelong - at Inverleigh and between Stonehaven and Fyansford. Minor I floodplains have not been zoned along the river as the proposed 100 metre setback should suffice. · I Information Sources: Visual inspection I Objectors 1976 ~erial flood photos; 1973 aerial flood photos I 1:25000 aerial photos State Rivers photomaps; 1:10000 Orthomaps and 1:5000 contour maps (5 foot contour interval)where available. I Shire of Bannockburn information (Inverleigh). Highest Flood Levels: (This century only) I Western Section 1952/1973 I Eastern Section 1952 B. LOWER BARWON (includes Barwon River south of Geelong, Reedy Lake, I Lake Connewarre, and Armstrongs Creek) This catchment is by far the most extensive and important floodland area in the Geelong Region. As the land is generally flat and is under pressure for development, very accurate flood levels had to be deter­ I mined. South and west of Lake Connewarre and along Armstrongs Creek the I existing zone has been severely reduced as many high areas were included in the zone. West of Reedy Lake the zone has been increased as the Barwon floodplain was not completely identified. Around the Marshall area the I proposed zone has been reduced, although slight increases have occurred in some locations. East of Reedy Lake and Lake Connewarre the proposed zone has been reduced significantly as·the natural floodbank is well defined and reasonably close to the Lake and river boundaries. North I and north-west of Reedy Lake the zone has been reduced only marginally. I Information Sources: Long-term residents of the are~: I I I

I >1~ ~11"11"0-:::> ·o 1 ~.J.!S ·c;; ~ ~~~NIV'd ~ ~1)\. ~ "L. I ';>I~ "SN~ ·q

~=-~? ~ ~ ::?f3AJ"2:1. ~ :.{,.. I ">13=:¥a'J ~1-"'O;.L ~ ~~~~~ ·z ~'3""'2:1 ~~ . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 76. I Claude Perkins (Connewarre-Mar·shall) C. Polley (Cunnewarre) C. Hinchcliff (Reedy Lake) I H. Grinter (Reedy Lake) W. Thompson (Reedy Lake) I P.V. Hutchinson (Connewarre-Barwon Heads)· Ray Nelson, Senior Lecturer in Engineering, Deakin University I Objectors Visual inspection 1973, 1976 Aerial Flood Photos I 1:10000 colour and 1:25000 aerial photos 5 foot contour maps and orthomaps where available I Highest Flood Levels: 1952.

I C. THOMPSONS CREEK The zone is proposed to be removed almost entirely in this area excepting the swamplands at the mouth of the creek. Many objectors ·are unnecess­ I arily disadvantaged by the present zone. Mr.· I.M. Burns, for example, who owns a 140 acre property of undulating nature in Blackgate Road, Paraparap, has 100 acres included in the Streamside Foreshore and I Floodland Zone, yet none of the area zoned could be identified as floodland nor warrant 11 Streamside 11 protection. I Only small areas have been included in the proposed Floodland Zone along Thompsons Creek as the proposed Ordinance setback requirement of 5o.·metres should cover minor floodplains. I The existing zone in the Breamlea area (the mouth of Thompsons Creek) has been marginally reduced in area, although local changes in the proposed zone are significant as the Rural (Streamside Foreshore and I · Floodland) Zone did not conform in any way to topography. I Information Sources: Visual inspection Objectors I Barrabool Shire i976 aerial flood photos, 1:25000 aerial photos I Orthomaps and contour map~ where available I Highest Flood Levels: 1952. D. MOORABOOL RIVER 1- The existing zone is proposed to be reduced and realigned in the Batesford area. Other changes are minor. I I I 77.

I ·sources of Information: Visual inspection I Objectors 1:10000 colour aerial photos I Contour maps and orthomaps where available.

I E. HOVELLS CREEK (Lara) The existing Rural (Streamside Foreshore and Floodland) zone is proposed ·to be reduced considerably in nearly all locations. As flood patterns I in this area are complex it is fortunate that accurate flood information is available. I Information Sources: Visual inspection I Objectors Corio Shire (report on Lara Floods) I 1973 aerial flood photos, 1:25000 aerial photos Contour maps and orthomaps where available. I Highest Flood Level: 1973.

I F. SPRING CREEK (Torquay) It is proposed that there be no Rural (Floodland) Zone along Springs I Creek as this watercourse is intermittent and well defined. I G. LAKE VICTORIA (Pt. Lonsdale)· ·The new zone's area represents a significant reduction over the old I zone; however, new flood areas have been identified. Information Sources~ · I Visual inspection 1:10000 colour aerial photos I Contour maps where available I H. PAINKALAC CREEK (Airey's Inlet) The proposed Rural (Floodland) Zone on Painkalac Creek is vastly different from the existing zone as the existing zone is on the wrong I side of the creek. I I I 78.

I "Infonnati on Sources: Visual inspection·.· I Barraboo 1 Shire I 1:10000 aerial photos I. ST. LEONARDS MARSHLAND I The existing zone is proposed to be replaced with a Public Open Space · zoning. I I. COWlES CREEK I No new Floodland Zone is proposed along this intennittent watercourse. I FLOODLAND OBJECTION SCHEDULE The accompanyin~ schedule summarises the proposed changes to the existing Rural {Streamside Foreshore and Floodland) Zone on each I objector•s land. The objectors are listed under catchment areas. I I I I I I I I I I I ------

NAME OBJECTION LOCATION · INTER- EXHIBITED COMMENT ON ZONE NUMBER VIEW.ED PLANNING . CHANGES Y/N SCHEME MAP ·NUMBER...

1. ·BARWON RIVER

11 Boobook 11 Partnership 373. Hamilton Highway, y 15 Reduction Inver leigh M. Kahl 378 Kahl •s Rd, Gnarwarre y 10 Reduction Noble•s Rd, Gnarwarre 15

"Tl J. c. Small 391 Hamilton Hway, Inverleigh . N 15 Reduction. r- 0 0 W.H. & V.M. Thornton 397 Common Rd, Inverleigh y 15 Reduction 0 r- (Leigh River) )::o z W. F. Mcintyre 401 Hamil ton Hway, · Inverl ei gh ·. y 10F Reduction 0 0 co R. Rogal sky 410 Pollocksford, Gnarwarre . N 10 Zone deleted c... rn (""") B.J.G. Venters 412 Hamilton Hway,:Stonehaven y 10 d~leted Zone (J.S...... --! Venters represented 0 the Objector) :z (./') (""") F.E. Morgan 419 Hamilton Hway, Murgheboluc N 15 Reduction :c rn 0 G.P. Guinane 421 Hami 1ton Hway, Murgheboluc N 15 Reduction c:: r- R. Venters 425 Hamilton Hway, Stonehaven y 10 Zone deleted (J.S. rn Venters represented the Objector) Castler Pty Ltd 427 South-west of Inverleigh N 15 Reduction Lamour Pty Ltd 428 South-west of Inve.rleigh. N 15 Reduction F. F. &. A. F. Parker 453 West of Pollocksford 15 Reduction bridge, Gnarwarre J.B. & p .E. Gniel 484 Hamilton Hway, Murgheboluc y 15 Reduction "'-.1 \..0 E.P. Knight 485 Hamilton Hway, Murghebolu~ y 15 Reduction (E.J.Knight . represented Objector) ------

NAME OBJECTION LOCATION INTER- EXHIBITED COMMENT ON ZONE NUMBER VIEWED PLANNING CHANGES --Y/N. ..SCHEME MAP .NUMBER E.J. Knight 486 Burnside Rd, Murghebo.l uc y 15 Zone deleted on -Bruce •s Creek L.J. Knight 487 Burnside Rd, Murgheboluc y 15 Zone deleted on Bruce•s Creek (E.J. Knight represented the Objector) L. & J. Savage 553 Hamilton Hway, Stonehaven N 10 Zone deleted 15 A.K. Edgar 557 Cochrane •s Rd, Ceres General objection to the inaccuracy of the zone S.M. Faulkner 617 Common Rd, Inverleigh y 15C Zone extended to cover floodplain. Phone contact only. L.A. Faulkner 618 Common Rd, Inverleigh 15C II II

11 11 Bindaree Pastoral Co. P/L 885 Rosemor.t , Ceres N 10F Reduction

11 11 S.L.C. Me Cann 893 Glencairn , Ceres N 10F Zone deleted

11 11 G.D. Mcintyre McCann 894 Glencairn , Ceres N 10F Zone deleted P.G. & C.M. Donaldson 915 11 Roxby Park .. , Gnarwarre N 10 Reduction 15 D.W.M. McCann 991 11 Ba lyarta .. , Stonehaven N 10F Reduction J.P. & M.E. George 1045 West of Pollocksford N 10 Reduction Bridge, Gnarwarre 15 Bannockburn Shire Rate- 1089 General objection to the payers• Committee inaccuracy and provisions of the zone. 00 .0 ------

NAME OBJECTION LOCATION INTER­ EXHIBITED COMMENT ON ZONE NUMBER VIEWED PLANNING CHANGES Y/N . SCHEME MAP . . NUMBER

Sun City Pty Ltd 1093 Ba 1com be Rd , Newtown N 10F No change Graziers Association of 1094 General objection to the Victoria inaccuracy and provisions of the zone. J.S. Venters 1232 Hamilton Hway, Stonehaven y Zone deleted.

2. LOWER BARWON

F. & T. Lehrmann 66 Taits Rd, Barwon Heads N 7D Zone. deleted I.R. & L.J. Sharp. 77 Lake Road, Connewarre y 7C Reduction E.B. Dixon 112 Lake Road, Connewarre N 7C Reduction E. Head, c/- A.C. Thoms 132 Brinsmeads Lane, Leopold N 7B Zone deleted P. McNaughton c/- A.C. Thoms 148 Barwon Heads Rd, Connewarre N 7D/7F Zone deleted A. Cooke c/- A.C. Thoms 149 Barwon Hds Rd, Connewarre Y 7C Reduction P.M. & C. Howard 238 Barwon Hds Rd, Connewarre Y 7A Zone deleted R.G. & B.D. Bennett 267 Boundary Road, Marshall Y 7A reduction W.G. & D.J. Short 306 Boundary Road, Newcomb Y 6E/7A Reduction F.M.C. Mathews 312 Mathews Road, Leopold Y 7A/7B Reduction - telephone contact H.W. Stewart 315 Stewarts Rd, Mt. Duneed y 7C/ll . Reduction G.R. Swinburn 505 Lings Road, Wallington y 7B Reduction . G.R. Swinburn 506 Lings Road, Wallington y 7B Reduction

L.J. Simpson 524 Simpson Road, Conewarre y 7C Reduction co ...... M. &J. Dekleva 544 Boundary Road, Marshall y 7A Reducti ori · . ------· - i. NAME OBJECTION LOCATION INTER.,. EXHJBITED NUMBER VIEWED PLANNING COMMENT ON ZONE Y/N SCHEME MAP CHANGES NUMBER A. Cameron 599 Barwon Hds Rd, Connewarre y 7C Zone deleted (J.B. Cameron represented . the Objector) J.B. Cameron 600 Charlemont Rd, Connewarre y 7C Zone deleted H.W. Stewart 682 Stewart's Rd, Mt. Duneed y 7C/ll Reduction C.W.R. Grimmer 731 Lower Duneed Rd, Mt. Duneed y 7C/ll Zone deleted -·Telephone contact only P.V. Hutchinson 741 Simpson Road, Connewarre y 7C Reduction J.· Higgins 764 Belchers Lane, Connewarre ·y 70 Reduction A.K. & A.C. Seiffert 831 Lower Duneed Rd, Mt. Duneed y 7C General objection-no floodland on property J.J. Mcintyre Heath 850 General objection J.W. &M. Bishop 868 Barwon Hds & Lake Roads, y 7C Slight reduction Connewarre. R.J. &M.A. Byrne 870 Barwon Hds Rd, Marshall y 7A/7C Reduction Sprague Investment co; 916 Lower Duneed Rd, Connwarre y 7C Reduction W. Cooke 947 Tannery Road, Marsha 11 y 7A Reduction G.B. Perkins 949 Reserve Road, Marshall y 7A Zone extended to cover Barwon floodplain G. & J. Wileman 997 Bluestone School Road, N 7C Zone deleted Connewarre w.s. & P.C. Seiffert 1000 Lower Mt. Duneed, C'warre y 7C Reduction S.M. Birkett 1028 Boundary Rd, Marshall y 7A Reduction

D.J. Forster ' 1048 Barwon Hds Rd, Marshall N 7A No change 00 .N ------

NAME OBJECTION LOCATION INTER-. EXHIBITED COMMENT ON ZONE NUMBER VIEWED PLANNING CHANGES . -Y/N SCHEME. MAP . NUMBER

J.M. & E. Scanlon 1231 Groves Rd, Connewarre N 7A Zone extended to cover Lake Connewarre flood­ plain A. Blackburn 1234 Lake Rd, Connewarre y 7C .Little change

3. THOMPSONS CREEK {~REAM CREEK) Minya Pastoral Co. 103 Breamlea Rd, Connewarre y 7E Reduction M.P. Wreford 158 Pettavel Rd, Freshwater Ck y 11 Zone deleted S.F. & G.L. Hopkins 236 Blackgate Rd, near N 7E Reduction Bream lea N.L. & J.J. Todd 389 Pettavel Rd, F'water Ck N 11 Zone deleted L. J. McCa 11 urn 447 Pettavel Rd, F'water Ck N 11 Zone deleted P.M. McCann 465 McCanns Rd, Mt. Duneed N 11 Zone deleted E.J. & E.M. Brough 567 Pettavel Rd, Mt. Duneed N 11 Zone deleted Minya Pastoral Co. 571 Breanlea Road, Connewarre y 7E Reduction R.C. Baker 586 Horseshoe Bend Rd, Mt. N 11 Zone deleted Duneed D.R. Baker 603 Horseshoe Bend Rd, Mt. N 11 Zone deleted Duneed K.A. & J.M. Menzel 619 Breamlea Road, Connewarre N 7E Reduction K.H. & B.M. Scale 640 Dickens Rd, F'water Creek y 11 Zone deleted I.M. Burns 644 Blackgate Road, Paraparap y 11 Zone deleted T.A. O'Brian 667 McCanns Road, Mt. Duneed y 11 Zone deleted ------

NAME OBJECTION LOCATION INTER­ EXHIBITED COMMENT ON· ZONE NUMBER VIEWED PLANNING CHANGES .:Y/N SCHEME MAP NUMBER.

C.S. & A. Stewart PSO/P/671 · Pettavel Rd, Freshwater y 11 Zone deleted Creek G.H. Baxter 763 Mt. Duneed Rd, Fresh­ y Geheral objection. water Creek Telephone contact only Paraparap Citizens 807 General objection to Action Committee · provisions of zone ~nd inaccuracies A.J. & J.C. McDonald 822 Pettavel Rd, F'water Ck N 11 Zone de 1eted · P. E. E. La rcombe 887 Mt. Duneed Rd, Pettavel y 11 Zone deleted (Duneed Creek) H.L. & S.C. Hickman 926 Larcombe's Rd, Modewarre N 11 Zone deleted D. Lester 951 McCanns Rd, Connewarre y 7C Reduction

4. MOORABOOL RIVER

S. & I. Parker 565 Midland Hway, Bannockburn General objection to in­ accuracies of the zone. C. Buchter 590 Hills Rd, Batesford y lOB Extension to cover river floodplain K. & F. Parker 711 Midland Hway, Bannockburn General objection to in­ accuracies of the zone. I. & S. Parker 712 II II II II II L.M. Stray· 766 She-Oaks, via Bannockburn General objection to in­ accuracies and provisions of the zone - .. - ..

NAME OBJECTION LOCATION INTER­ EXHIBITED COMMENT ON ZONE NUMBER VIEWED PLANNING CHANGES Y/N SCHEME MAP , NUMBER

A.J. Drysdale 871 Steiglitz Rd, north of 10/10B Reduction Bates ford y S. S. & J. W. Nevi 11 e 1200 Ballan Rd, Bannockburn y 10/10B Modified to cover small floodplains along river and the major floodplains along Sutherlands Creek

5. HOVELLS CREEK (LARA) U.H. & M.C. Binks 43 Patullos Rd, Lara y 5E Reduction Turnstyle Developments 134 Princes Highway, Lara y 5E/6A Reduction c/- A.C. Thoms B. Fabretto 311 Cantebury Road, Lara y 5E Reduction c/- A.C. Thoms M. &A.V. McAllister 314 Patullos Rd, Lara y 5E Reduction D. Gebbie 481 Forest Road, Lara N 5E Reduction A.J. Blair 507 Curletts Road, Lara y 5E Reduction M.M. Callaghan 512 Curletts Rd, Lara N 5E Reduction S. &M.J. Foote 596 Windemere Rd, Lara Lake y 5E Reduction , C.J. & J.J. O'Neill 632 Curletts Road, Lara y 5E Reduction A. H., Wilks 704 Windemere Road, Lara y 5/5E Reduction G.V. Watson 765 Curletts Road, Lara y 5E No change N Reduction , B.S. &M.H. Young 1070 Cozen's Road, Lara 5E cO (.]1

-~------

.I I• NAME OBJECTION LOCATION INTER- EXHIBITED COMMENT ON ZONE Ji Number VIEWED PLANNING CHANGES i .. Y/N . SCHEME MAP I .NUMBER. I' I I 6. SPRING CREEK Estate of H.W. Wood _PSO/P/250 Ocean Road, Bellbrae y 12B Zone deleted C.K. Gr.ossman 257 Grossmans Rd, Torquay N 12B Zone deleted· Victorian Automobile 290 Jan Juc Cr, Jan Juc N 12B Land has been rezoned Chamber of Commerce under Amendment 3 which zoned creek frontage as Public Open Space I.M.D. & J.J. Goddard 330 Gt. Ocean Rd, Bellbrae N 12B Zone deleted W. K. McDowa 11 470 Grossmans Rd, Torquay N 12B Zone deleted S.J. Spittle 659 Geelong Road, Torquay y 12B Zone deleted Puebla Pty Ltd 660 Geelong Road, Torquay y 128 Zone deleted D.S. Sutherland 740 Grossmans Rd, Torquay N 128 Zone deleted

7. LAKE VICTORIA Gladesville Developments 327 Bellarine Highway, Pt. N 3C Reduction Lonsdale G. Grimes & H. Scholz 518 Shell Rd, Ocean Grove N 3C Reduction c. Laker 623 Bellarine Hway, Pt. N 3C Reduction Lonsdale . ' c. Laker 624 II II N 3C Reduction

CX> .0'1 8. · PAINKALIC CREEK R. L. Grant 448 Bimbadeen Dve, Aireys Inlet y 188 Reduction J.B. Allen 449 II II N Zone deleted ---·------

NAME OBJECTION LOCATION · INTER- EXHIBITED COMMENTS ON ZONE NUMBER VIEWED PLANNING CHANGES ·YIN SCHEME MAP NUMBER

9. ST. LEONARD$ Marshland ·Alliance Acceptance P/L PSO/P/439 Ibbotson St, St. Leonards y 3B Zone deleted (land to be amended to P.O.S.) Thomas·Horne Nominees 532 Ibbotson St, St. Leonards y 3B Zone deleted (Land to be ·amended to P.O.S.) Alliance Acceptance P/L 626 Ibbotson St, St. Leonards y 3B Zone deleted (land to be amended to P.O.S.)

.10. COWlES CREEK L.A. McGuiness 971 Rollins Road, Norlane y lOB Zone deleted 88. I APPENDIX L I REPORT TO OBJECTORS ON THE OUTER FREEWAY 11 (a) Background and current situationof the Transportation I Corridor The Corridor on the Planning Scheme resulted from two major studies I carried out by this Authority and the Country Roads Board .. The~e sutdies commenced in 1970 by the Country Roads Board with the Geelong Transportation Study. This study (costing some $300,000) ·examined in detail inner and outer freeway routes and recommended a I central freeway system for Geelong. In 1974 the Authority initiated the Environmental and Social Benefits I and Costs Study of these inner and outer freeway alternatives costing some $200,000. The study involved a large public participation phase ~d involved specialists in the fields of: I Landscape Planning Noise I Air Pollution Transportation I Social Planning The preliminary results of the study were exhibited publicly and debated. All municipalities were involved together with a Citizens Liaison I Committee. All public input was considered before the study was finalised. The final result of the study was a recommendation for an outer-based freeway strategy for Geelong. This recommendation gained wide support I of the majority of Geelong people. This strategy was adopted by the Authority at its meeting of t.he 31st July, 1975. A copy of the Authority• s recommendations was sent to all Councils, Members of Parliament and I relevant statutoryruthorities.

The remaining a~pect to finalise at the conclusion of this Environmental and Social Benefits and Costs study was that of the exact detailed location I of the freeway so that a road reservation could be placed on the Geelong Regional Planning Scheme. I To protect land-holders along the route of the possible outer freeway whilst the detailed route was being investigated, a transportation corridor was placed on the Planning Scheme Maps to cover any reasonable freeway I alternative. This corridor was based on extensive design work carried out by the Country Roads Board and consultants during the Geelong Transport­ ation Study. The corridor was placed on the Scheme to prevent any future hardship arising from new construction proceeding without advice being I obtained from the Country Roads Board and Geelong Regional Planning Authority (refer to the Planning Scheme Ordinance, page 76). I The work to finalise the route of this outer freeway is now under way. The detailed engineering study is being conducted by the Authority and the Country Roads Board. It is a multi-disciplinary study comprising the I skills of specialists in the fields of: I I I 89.

Municipal Engineering I Landscape Planning Noise I Transportation Geology I Road Design The cost of the study is estimated to be $200,000. The work is being supervised by a Steering Committee comprised of representatives from I the four municipalities concerned (Corio, Bannockburn, Barrabool, and South Barwon), the Country Roads Board and the G.R.P.A. This is to ensure that the final solution is a balanced one with the interests of I the residents of the municipalities concerned well protected. Part-w~y through this study (prior to finalisation) a large public participation phase will be conducted. There will be an exhibition of I the draft results of the study showing a favoured route and alternatives. Detailed discussions will be held with all municipalities concerned and I public meetings will be held. Input from the public will be sought, their objections and proposals considered by the Steering Committee and the specialist consultants. I The study will fuen be finalised to a final recommended route. Upon agreement to the route's final location by affected municipalities, G.R.P.A. and the Country Roads Board, the road reservation will then form I a further Amendment to the Geelong Regional Planning Scheme. This Amendment will be exhibited in accordance with the requirements of I the Town and Country Planning Act. A formal exhibition and objection period will be held. Objections will be heard. The Authority will make its recommendations to the Minister. Upon approval of the Governor in I Council the Amendment will be gazetted. I (b) The Current Objections to the Transportation Corridor It can be seen that the objections to the Transportation Corridor in nearly a 11 respects are being dea 1t with and wi 11 be answered by this compre­ I hensive detailed multi-disciplinary study - a study culminating in some $0.7 million expenditure to obtain a sound and acceptable outer freeway location for the people of Geelong. I Objectors requiring an exact alignment of the route to remove doubt and indecision, a reduction in the wfdth of the Corridor and finalisation of the compensation aspect, will be completely answered on finalisation of I the study. Objectors requiring a decisior. in favour of the outer corridor will also I be answered either way by the current study and will also have an opportunity for input to the study before-it is completed as well as a I further statutory objection phase. I I I 90.

I Objectors who consider that a shift in the location of the corridor ·is preferable will also be answered by the very comprehensive work I carried out in the study. Objectors who object .to the Corridor in pri nci p1 e have been answered by the tremendous amount of planning that has gone into the selection of an outer freeway based strategy for Geelong and the plBcing of the tran~­ I portation corridor ori the Planning Scheme to protect them from further I hardship until answers are known regarding the location of the final route. (c) Conclusions I The Outer Freeway Road Strategy for Geelong has resulted from the most comprehensive and detailed studies of thier kind in Australia and has received support of the wide majority of Geelong people as the best road I ·strategy for the future of Geelong. The placing of a transportation corridor in the Planning Scheme is in support of these studies and protects affected landowners from future hardshi~. I Objections to the location of the Corridor, its width and the route of the freeway cannot be properly. heard until this freeway reservation study I is complete . . This study, anticipated to be completed to draft. report stage early next year, will also have its own public exhibition and consideration stage I before being finalised. Many of the current objectors will be satisfactorily answered when the route is known in detail. Any outstanding objections will have the opportunity to provide input to the study and their ideas or I objections considered before the study is finalised. Following completion of the study and acceptance by the G.R.P.A., municipalities and the Country Roads Board, there is still a formal I exhibition and objection period to be carried out in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Act. This is for an Amendment to the Planning Scheme so that the freeway reservation can be placed on the Scheme. Any I remaining objectors can be further heard at this stage, together with any additional objectors.

I Recommendations: 1. Objections in principle to an Outer Freeway Strategy for I Geelong Region or the Transportation Corridor not be upheld. I 2. Objections relating to the location of the freeway, width of the corridors and any aspect that depends on the completion of the current study be heard when the freeway reservation study is complete, a road reservation is I placed on the Planning Scheme and the formal objection period is held in accordance with Town and Country Planning I Act. · 3. Objectors to the location of the freeway be advised that: I (i) the current study will have its own public exhibition and consideration stage before being I I. .. ;.., '•. ' .: :· ...... - ...... :· 91.

completed. Opportunity to present ideas or I detailed objections to the route's location wi11 be available at that time. I ( i i) following completion of the study there is a formal exhibition and objection period to be carried out in accordance with the Town and I Country Planning Act so that the final freeway reservation can be placed on the Scheme. Objectors can be further heard at this stage, II I together wit~.any additional ob~~Gtors. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 92. REPORT ON BELLARIN£ BY-PASS ROADS APPENDIX.· M.

I The Bellarine Peninsula is an area of rapidly increasing population and recreational use. Traffic on the major roads is growing from both the normal daily traffic from the I residents and the recreational traffic from the Region, urban Geelong and Melbourne. The 1975 population of Clifton Springs/Drysdale, Portarlington I Indented Head and St. Leonards is 4,200. The capacity of the currently zoned residential land is some 23,000 people (this latter estimate presumes only 50%-60% occupation in the I coastal towns due to the resort type population). These figures represent an increase in population by a factor of 5 for permanent residents only. This capacity for a much I higher population than exists now is an important factor in the location of these bypass roads as discussed further on. The recreational usage of the Peninsula is rapidly increasing I as the Melbourne beaches are becoming more congested. The lack of suitable recreational opportunities around Melbourne, the growth in demand for increasing leisure time and the I completion of Westgate Bridge will accel~rate the usage of the Bellarine Peninsula's recreational resources. I Detailed assessment of this growth in traffic demand has been carried out by this Authority". The figures used have been those supplied by the Country Roads Board und the Shire of Bellarine. This data has been availuble to the Shire I of Be 11 a r i ne a t a 11 t i me s . I The need for Bypass Roads I Detailed assessments have been made at each of the Townships along the Portarlington Road in regard to future traffic growth. These traffic growth projections have also been ·compared with recreational growth figures on the Bellarine I Highwuy and Melbourne Road. The following growth factors were consistent for all cases.

I In 10 years the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) thJ.-ough­ out the year and the recreational traffic in summer months I will double. In 20 years the Average Annual Du.ily Traffic (AADT) tllroughcut the year and the recreational t.rc:ffic in summer months will I increase between four (4) to five (5) times. It is important to realise the impact of these increases. So for comparative purposes statistics are shown for Leopold I and Nepean Highway (Dromana-Rosebud). Leopold is now an area of growing concern to the Council and the residents as heavy traffic flows are disrupting the town and providing I an even i nct~eas i ng accident hazard to 1oca 1 residents. The Nepean iii gh\'lay at Dromana-Rosebud has now (1973/74) had I a freeway constructed to bypass the area due to the severe congestion on the high~t1ay, disruption to residents and high I i'lCCident rates. I 93. I Bellarine Highway at Leopold 1975/76: I Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) = 10,000 vehicles per day Average December Traffic = 10,000 v.p.d. Average January Traffic = 13,000 v.p.d. I Average February Traffic = 11,000 v.p.d. Nepean Highway at Dromana-Rosebud 1973/74 (prior to the I freeway being opened):- Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) = 10,000 vehicles per day Average December Traffic = 13,000 v.p.d. I Average January Traffic = 16,000 v.p.d. Average February Traffic = 11,000 v.p.d. I (a) Drysdale Bypass Examination of traffic volumes on the Portarlington Road I at Drysdale shows that the AADT is now 6,500 vehicles per day. In 5 years it is estimated to be·about 10,000 v.p.d. I and in 20 years the travel demand will be over 20,000 v.p.d. This means .t.hat in 5 years time a similar problem will exist through Drysdale as there is at Leopold now. I In 20 years time more than twice the volume passing through Leopo 1d now wi 11 be experienced through Drysda 1e. When recreati-onal flows in summer months a1·e examined the picture I is even more disastrous as volumes of up to 14,000 v.p.d. occur now in 1975/76 on peak days and these volumes also \o.Jill increase at ·growth rates similar to the AADT until the I Portarlington Road in summer months is at intolerable congestion levels, with very high accident rates. I (b) Portarlington The situation at Porta1·lington is similar. Examination of .I traffic volumes on the Portarlington Road immediately west of Portarlington shows the AADT is now 4,500 v.p.d. In 10 years it is estimated to be 10,000 v_.p.d. and in 20 years I the travel demand will approach 20,000 v.p.d.

This means that in 10 years a sj_mila.r problem will exist I at Portarlington to that at Dromana-Rosebud lvhez·e .local action demanded a bypass road for the area to serve through traffic and give access to the local towns from other than I the Nepean Highway. In 20 years volumes will be so high that unless a bypass is provided not only will the existing Portarlington Road I become intolerably congested, but the local residential streets will be used by outside traffic. This will cause serious disruption to resort type environment in this town. I The increase in accident rates, noise and air pollution will be to the severe detriment of the residential areas. I I 93A- I These above estimates are only for the AADT; when summer traffic volumes are examined the future traffic problem is I worse. Peak flows of over 8,000 v.p.d. are experienced now in 1975/76 for summer months. This demand will also double in 10 years and increase by up to 4 to 5 times in 20 years if road and beach capacity permits. To not plan for a I bypass road now (despite the current width of Portarlington I Road) is considered to be planning negligence. I (c) Indented Head - St. Leonards For the section of Portarlington Road from Indented Head to St. Leonards there is again a need to plan now for a I bypass road. Although traffic volumes are low.they are similar to the volumes on the Nepean Hightvay, Dromana to Rosebud 20 years I ago tvhen Dromana and Rosebud were in a very simi,l.ar development situation. I The situation of Indented Head to St. Leonards is of course worse than the Nepean Highway. This foreshore road is narrow, winding and used as an access road to residential I areas, stopping place to launch boats and is used extensively by local pedestrian population. The residential zoning in· this area has the capacity to increase some 10 times in the future. The environment is of a quiet resort area, I substantially inhabited by families in summer months and every means must be taken to preserve this environment for I the present and future residents of the area. Examination of traffic figures leading to Indented Head on the Portarlington Road show that the AADT now is almost I 2,000 v.p.d. In 20 years the travel demand is estimated to increase to almost 10,000 v.p.d. Summer peaks are now (1975/76) in the order of 3,500-4,000 v.p.d. These volumes will also increase by 4 to 5 times within the 20 year period, I further increasing the.traffic loading on these roads. I (d) Location of the Gypass Roads I The location of these Bypass roads is as close as practicable to the towns that they bypass. The latent demand for road capacity due to traffic growth from the towns themselves is high. For example, although the AADT at Drysdale is now I 6,500 v.p.d. ahd Portarlington 4,5CO v.p.d., the winter volumes are only slightly lower. For the winter months the ADT at Drysdale is 5,500 v.p.d. and that at Portarlington I 3,800. This means that the need for road capacity in the future is also required for traffic resulting from the I future population. I I .I 94 . The urban areas of Clifton Springs-Drysdale and Portarlington have a current population of 3,200. The capacity of these I areas in currently zoned residential land (allowing only 50%-60% res6rt occupancy) is 15,000, i.e. an increase factor of 5. Consequently, to serve the dual role of both the recreational traffic and the normal daily traffic needs, the I proposed roads have to be located closely to the towns that they serve.. I· For the section Indented Head - St. Leonards the need is not only to service the towns traffic-wise from the north and south, but to supplement the narrow, winding, envir­ I onmentallY low-capacity foreshore road. A road alignment as shown on the Planning Scheme will not only provide a bypass to the residential areas, ·but provide a high, safe level of I traffic service to the area. I Consultation with Council I The reference in the Council's Objection to non consultation with the Council is considered to be a matter of grave concern to this Authority as it adversely reflects on the validity and seriousness of Council's submission in regard I to these bypass roads.

Discussions have been held ~'lith Council's Engineer and the I Council reviewed these Bypass roads for a period of three months, supplied written documentation to this effect, and proposed certain amendments to these roads which were I incorporated into the Planning Scheme. On the 17th January, 1975 the Planning Scheme Maps and Ordinance were submitted to Council for comment and for I annotation of the maps "to show any desired corrections".

On the 30th January, ~75 the Council advised the Authority I that the Planning Scheme was being considered.by the Planning Officer and Ri~ing Councillors. I On the 12th March, 1975 and the 19th March, 1975 the Council advised the Authority that meetings had been held by ''each of the three Ridings to study the plan and ordinance" and that a special committee had been formed to consider their I Planning Officer's report. On the 25th March, 1975 the Council advised the Authority of their Planning Committee's comments on the Planning Scheme and forwarded their annotated set of Planning Scheme Maps to the Authority. These maps included suggested amendments to the bypass roads at Drysdale, Portarlington, and Indented Head, which were subsequently incorporated into the exhibited Scheme. I 95.

On the 4th April, 1975 the Council advised the Authority of their ratification of their Planning Comnittee's I comments forwarded on the 25th ~1arch, 1975. Together with the Co unci 1' s comments as above, b1o meetings were held between the Council Shire Engineer and the I Deputy Director of this Authority to discuss the location of these Bypass roads. Also, preliminary subdivisional proposals at Indented Head for the Reserved Residential I zone have already incorporated a section of the Bypass road, in accordance with discussions with the Shire of I Bellarine's Engineer and this Authority.

I Funding, Responsibility and Compensation I. This matter has been discussed in deta i 1 \-Ji th the Country Roads Board and official replies received on their attitude. Copies of these letters are with the Council. I The Country Roads Board does not object to the Bypass roads of Drysdale, Portarlington and Indented Head and \-Jould be "prepared to consider the granting of normal unclassified road funds for land purchase in hardship cases" for these I sections of road. In regard to the Bypass roads at St. Leonards and Pt. Lonsdale, these have not been objected I to by the Council. It is considered that the Board's offer of funding on the basis of unclassified road grants is reasonable, particularly I as experience has shown that compensation demands are always low for this type of road. It is not unusual for the Country Roads Board to contribute to compensation in these cases, and the outer ring road Rl, which has been on this basis for many years is an example of this.~

I Adverse Effect of the Bypass Road on the Property Owner This matter is of concern to this Authority as well as to both the Council and the effected landowners. It was also a matter of concern to the State Government when they issued I their Statement of Planning Policy No. 5 - Highway Areas 1973. In this Policy the compatible use of the highway and surrounding land use is stressed. Both the surrounding I residential communities have to be considered as well as the level of service, safety and amenity of the highway. I The early location of Bypass roads in surrounding areas is essential to ensure that residents who locate and develop in the area can do so with confidence in the future. They can be then assured that the environment they choose will be I unchanged. Experience has shown that hardship is substantial if major arterials are introduced-into urban areas at too I late a stage. I 96. I The_ purpose of these Hearings is to hear the individual problem of the affected owners, assess in detail their I objections (particularly in relation to affected homes) and then investigate means so that envirohmental or physical impact can be minimised before the Scheme is I submitted to the r~i-nister. This process has already been employed by this Authority in reqard to the definition of a road reservation fo1~ the I outer freeway. A1 though the outer fr·eeway l'Oute has been tentatively fixed, detailed work is now in progress considering the problems of Counci 1, other Departr:-:ents, I business interests and affected landholders before finalising the route. This procedure would be followed for the Bellarine Bypass I roads. The route would be carefully analysed to minimi~e impact and the alignment modified where appropriate before the 1·oad alignment is submitted to the ~tinister for approval. I The results of these Objection He~rings would be used as input to assist in this work. Obviously the alignment can be modified to .avoid homes in the i~nediate surrounds of I the route. I Conclusions I Examination of the traffic demand for these Bypass roads clearly demonstrates the need to plan for such facilities now. It is considered that not only is the need apparent for these roads but they have been placed on the Planning I Scheme in consultation with the Shire of Bellarine. The locations now shown in the Exhibited Scheme are in accordance with Council 1 S suggested amendments and requirements prior I to exhibition. The funding, responsibility and compensation aspects have I been adequately resolved by the Country Roads Board 1 s offer to fund compensation on the basis of unclassified road grants. the details of these arrangements are now a matter for the C.R.B. and Council and should be resolved in time I for the Authority to make a decision on the Bypass roads. The impact of these road alignments on affected landowners I will be minimised during the detailed investigations required to fix the road reservation, and before the Scheme is I finally presented to the Minister. I I I