Planning and Environment Act 1987

GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME

AMENDMENT C138

ARMSTRONG CREEK URBAN GROWTH PLAN

Report of a Panel

Pursuant to Sections 153 and 155 of the Act

Panel:

Ms Kathryn Mitchell, Chair

Mr Andrew Clarke

Mr Henry Turnbull

27 February 2008 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME

AMENDMENT C138

ARMSTRONG CREEK URBAN GROWTH PLAN

Report of a Panel

Pursuant to Sections 153 and 155 of the Act

Kathryn Mitchell, Chair

Andrew Clarke, Member

Henry Turnbull, Member

27 February 2008

Page i Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 5

1. BACKGROUND...... 9

1.1 INTRODUCTION...... 9 1.2 THE AMENDMENT ...... 9 1.3 EXHIBITION, SUBMISSIONS AND HEARING...... 10 1.4 PRELIMINARY MATTERS...... 13

2. ARMSTRONG CREEK ...... 15

3. PLANNING CONTEXT...... 18

3.1 POLICY ...... 18 3.2 ZONES AND OVERLAYS ...... 22 3.3 PANEL FINDINGS ...... 23

4. WHAT DOES THE AMENDMENT SEEK TO ACHIEVE? ...... 25

4.1 PLANNING FOR A GROWTH AREA ...... 25 4.2 PURPOSE AND COMPONENTS OF THE AMENDMENT ...... 26 4.3 PUBLIC CONSULTATION ...... 31 4.4 KEY ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED...... 32

5. ACTIVITY CENTRES ...... 33

5.1 MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTRE...... 33 5.2 WAURN PONDS SHOPPING CENTRE ...... 37 5.3 NEIGHBOURHOOD AND LOCAL CENTRES ...... 40 5.4 PANEL FINDINGS ...... 42

6. INDUSTRIAL/EMPLOYMENT AREAS ...... 43

6.1 NORTH‐EASTERN PRECINCT ...... 44 6.2 WESTERN PRECINCT...... 44 6.3 OTHER BUSINESS LOCATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES...... 46 6.4 PANEL FINDINGS ...... 47

7. ACCESS AND MOVEMENT ...... 48

7.1 ROAD NETWORK ...... 48 7.2 GREENWAYS ...... 49

Page ii Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

7.3 DIAGONAL ROADS ...... 51 7.4 PUBLIC TRANSPORT NETWORK...... 52 7.5 RAIL LINK ...... 53 7.6 RING ROAD LINK TO SURF COAST HIGHWAY...... 55 7.7 PANEL FINDINGS ...... 56

8. SOCIAL AND COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 57

8.1 PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ...... 57 8.2 EDUCATION FACILITIES...... 61 8.3 OTHER COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 62 8.4 PANEL FINDINGS ...... 63

9. BIODIVERSITY CORRIDORS ...... 64

9.1 ARMSTRONG CREEK AND ITS TRIBUTARIES ...... 64 9.2 MAIN NORTH‐SOUTH CORRIDOR...... 66 9.3 HOOPERS PADDOCK...... 67 9.4 PANEL FINDINGS ...... 69

10. FLOODING/DRAINAGE CONTROLS ...... 70

10.1 FLOOD MAPPING...... 70 10.2 IMPACTS...... 71 10.3 PANEL FINDINGS ...... 73

11. NON‐URBAN AREAS ...... 74

11.1 OVERVIEW ...... 74 11.2 COUNCILʹS BASIS FOR SELECTION OF THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY .. 74 11.3 THE MT DUNEED AREA ...... 77 11.4 THE SOUTH‐EAST BOUNDARY ...... 79 11.5 FARMING LAND TO NORTH OF GROWTH AREA...... 80 11.6 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL IN SOUTHERN NON‐URBAN AREA ... 80 11.7 PANEL FINDINGS ...... 82

12. LAND SUPPLY AND STAGING ...... 83

12.1 RESIDENTIAL LAND SUPPLY...... 83 12.2 STAGING OF DEVELOPMENT ...... 84 12.3 DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS ...... 86 12.4 PANEL FINDINGS ...... 87

Page iii Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

13. OTHER MATTERS...... 88

13.1 BLUE CIRCLE SOUTHERN CEMENT...... 88 13.2 DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES ...... 90 13.3 COUNTRY FIRE AUTHORITY ...... 90 13.4 GEELONG CREMATORIUM...... 91

14. WHERE TO FROM HERE? ...... 92

14.1 FORM OF THE AMENDMENT...... 92 14.2 PROCESS FOR FUTURE REZONING ...... 93 14.3 THE WAY FORWARD ...... 95

15. PANEL CONCLUSIONS...... 96

16. PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS...... 99

APPENDICES 1. List of Submittors 2. List of Documents 3. Revised Clause 21.40 4. Revised Framework Plan and Text

Page iv Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Armstrong Creek is the designated growth area in the Geelong Region, and has been recognised for this purpose since the 1980s. The time has now come to commence the detailed planning for this. The growth area will take in the order of 25 years to fully develop, and will realise a population in the order of 55,000 people to be accommodated in 22,000 households. The first step in the planning process is to provide the policy framework and statutory basis for the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, to facilitate the implementation and realisation of the Urban Growth Plan, and to identify and protect existing conditions and environmentally sensitive areas. Amendment C138 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme is the mechanism for this to occur.

2. The amendment applies to the area covered by the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan, and proposes to amend the scheme as follows:

• Amend Clause 21.08 “Urban Growth” to update the recommendations for the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area; • Introduce a new local planning policy Clause 21.40 “Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area”. This will introduce the Urban Growth Plan, and identify the objectives, related strategies and implementation measures; • Apply Schedules 1 and 2 to the Environment Significance Overlay to environmentally sensitive areas along Armstrong Creek and the Barwon River floodplain and stands of significant remnant vegetation on private land; • Apply Schedule 1 to the Vegetation Protection Overlay to areas of significant roadside vegetation; • Apply relevant flood overlays – to increase the coverage of the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay, Floodway Overlay and Special Building Overlay to areas that have been identified as subject to inundation in 1 in 100 year events; and • Introduce the Incorporated Plan Overlay clause into the scheme and include Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan, Volume 1 as an Incorporated Document in the scheme.

The amendment was not intended to, nor does it result in rezoning of any land within the growth area, however, the Panel recommends that the Major Activity Centre and residential areas of Armstrong Creek be rezoned as a matter of urgency.

3. In response to exhibition, Council received 119 submissions. While the majority of submissions expressed a high level of support for the strategic imperative of the amendment, the Panel noted that many were also critical of the way in which Council put together the package of policies and controls for it. Reconciling the different

Page 5 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

viewpoints expressed on the proposed policies and controls was one of the key tasks for the Panel.

4. In reaching its conclusions and recommendations, the Panel had regard to the amendment in the context of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, the State Planning Policy Framework, the Municipal Strategic Statement, Local Planning Policy, the Metropolitan Strategy – Melbourne 2030 and submissions and evidence of various parties. The key findings and conclusions of the Panel are as follows:

5. In response to activity centres and industrial precincts:

• The nominated location and extended area for the Major Activity Centre (termed “sub‐regional” in the exhibited amendment) and integration of bulky goods retailing within the activity centre bound by Surf Coast Highway, Boundary Road, the proposed transit rail corridor and Burvilles Road is generally supported. • The principles of co‐location of key facilities in the Major and Neighbourhood Activity Centres are now well entrenched planning outcomes, and the Panel believes that planning for Armstrong Creek provides an excellent opportunity to lead the way in this regard. • The identification of the two key employment areas, delineated as the North Eastern and Western Industrial Precincts on the Framework Plan, should be supported. However the extent of the Western Precinct should be reduced by approximately one third.

6. In response to access and movement:

• While public transport will be a major component for the development area, the proposed dedicated local transit routes are not appropriate. Local public transport opportunities should be provided for on the collector road network. • The proposed rail link from the Geelong‐Warrnambool line to the Major Activity Centre and beyond to Torquay/Jan Juc is a fundamental plank of future planning and should be incorporated into the plan. • The diagonal road system and ‘greenways” are not supported.

7. In response to social and community infrastructure:

• The Panel lacks confidence in how the Floodway Overlay and the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay are applied, especially as they relate to open space allocations. Further work needs to be undertaken to ensure that the optimum locations are set aside for the purpose of providing open space. • The Panel does not support the extent of open space proposed and considers a

Page 6 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

total allocation of 12 to 15% of land to be set aside for public open space purposes is realistic and achievable. • The provision of community and education facilities will be a matter for more detailed planning once rezoning occurs and the Precinct Structure Plans are being prepared. All areas should have access to well planned and appropriate social infrastructure.

8. In response to the biodiversity corridors:

• The main east west (Armstrong Creek) and north south (rail corridor) biodiversity corridors are supported, although the width of the corridor along Armstrong Creek should be further refined. • The Panel does not support Hooper’s Paddock as a biodiversity corridor and considers it should be designated for site‐responsive residential development. • The biodiversity corridor from the proposed Rossack Drive railway station to Mt Duneed should be deleted.

9. In response to flooding and drainage controls:

• The Floodway and Land Subject to Inundation Overlays should be deleted and introduced at a later stage, when greater certainty about the post‐development extent of any flooding is known. • The designation of indicative wetlands/detention basins should be removed from the Framework Plan, at least until further infrastructure studies associated with formulation of Developing Contribution Plans have been undertaken.

10. In response to the boundary of the growth area and non‐urban issues, land supply and staging:

• The methodology used to establish the southern Urban Growth Boundary is supported, although the boundary should be modified to follow cadastral boundaries. • Proposals by some submittors for a Rural Living or Rural Activity Zone south of the proposed Rural Land Use Strategy are not supported. • It is generally acknowledged that there is a chronic shortage of residential land available in Geelong and this amendment and follow up work should be progressed expeditiously. • There is no need for a staging plan to be included in the Urban Growth Plan. • There is an urgent need for Council to define and refine Armstrong Creek’s future infrastructure requirements and to develop Development Contribution Plans as a critical next stage of the planning process.

Page 7 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

11. While some aspects of the proposal from Council could certainly have been improved prior to the hearing, the Panel strongly supports the amendment. Amendment C138 is necessary to provide new urban land and give effect to the orderly development of future growth within the City of Greater Geelong where it can best be accommodated and serviced. The Panel commends Council for the proactive way in which it responded to many concerns raised by the Panel during the course of the hearing and the positive manner in which it responded to these.

12. As a result, the Panel recommends that Amendment C138 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme be adopted, subject to a number of changes. The key changes include:

• Providing the Framework Plan as an Incorporated Document and including the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan Volume 1 (as amended) as a Reference Document to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme; • Amending the southern part of the Urban Growth Boundary to follow cadastral boundaries; • Deleting the Floodway and Land Subject to Inundation Overlays (and also the detention basins); • Revising the text to Clause 21.40; • Deleting the diagonal roads and the greenways; and • Reducing the land area for the Western Industrial Precinct.

13. Planning for Armstrong Creek will occur through finalisation of the Framework Plan, guidance by Local Policy (Clauses 21.08 and 21.40), development of Precinct Structure Plans, implementation of Development Contributions Plans and future rezoning of land. In this regard, the Panel further recommends that substantial areas of land proposed to be used for residential purposes and the area designated as the Major Activity Centre in the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area be rezoned using the provisions of a Section 20(4) Ministerial amendment. This should occur as a matter of urgency to enable the further work necessary to allow the commencement of development, as well as concurrent preparation of Development Contributions and Precinct Structure Plans.

Page 8 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 Introduction A Panel was appointed under the provisions of Sections 153 and 155 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, (under delegation) by the Minister for Planning on 14 September 2007 to hear and consider submissions about Amendment C138 (the amendment) to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme. The Panel comprised Kathryn Mitchell (Chair), Andrew Clarke and Henry Turnbull.

As the first part of the hearing process, the Panel held a Directions Hearing in Geelong on 17 October 2007. The Panel then conducted a hearing in Geelong and Planning Panels Victoria for 17 days (between 13 November and 18 December 2007) to hear submissions about the amendment. In reaching its conclusions and recommendations, the Panel has read and considered all submissions and other material referred to it. This includes written submissions and oral presentations.

The Planning Authority for the amendment is the City of Greater Geelong (the Council).

As part of the hearing, the Panel undertook an extensive site inspection of the subject site and its general surrounds. This was undertaken as a group with various submittors, and by bus. The Panel then followed this formal inspection with further views as the hearing progressed.

1.2 The Amendment The amendment applies to the area covered by the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan. It seeks to provide the policy framework and statutory basis for the growth plan in the scheme, to facilitate the implementation and realisation of the Plan, and to identify and protect existing conditions and environmentally sensitive areas. Specifically, the amendment proposes the following changes to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme:

• Amend Clause 21.08 “Urban Growth” to update the recommendations for the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area; • Introduce a new local planning policy Clause 21.40 “Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area”. This will introduce the Urban Growth Plan, and identify the objectives, related strategies and implementation measures;

Page 9 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

• Apply Schedules 1 and 2 to the Environmental Significance Overlay to environmentally sensitive areas along Armstrong Creek and the Barwon River floodplain and stands of significant remnant vegetation on private land; • Apply Schedule 1 to the Vegetation Protection Overlay to areas of significant roadside vegetation; • Apply relevant flood overlays – to increase the coverage of the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay, Floodway Overlay and Special Building Overlay to areas that have been identified as subject to inundation in 1 in 100 year events; • Introduce the Incorporated Plan Overlay clause into the scheme, and include Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan, Volume 1 as an Incorporated Document in the scheme.

Supporting documents include Volumes 2 to 5 (Precinct Plans, Implementation Plan, Background Report and Appendices).

The detail of the amendment is discussed in further detail in Section 4 of this report.

1.3 Exhibition, Submissions and Hearing Council placed the amendment on public exhibition for 10 weeks (December 2006 to February 2007) and it was extensively advertised. Council sent notices of the amendment to nearby landowners and various groups, many of whom attended the hearing.

In response to the exhibition, Council received 119 submissions, the names of which are included as Appendix 1. Most submissions expressed a high level of support for the strategic intent of the amendment, although many were critical of the way in which Council put together the package of policies and controls for it.

Council considered the submissions at its meeting on 24 July 2007 and resolved to request the Minister for Planning to appoint a Panel to consider and report on the amendment. The Panel was then convened and the following parties appeared at the Panel hearing:

Page 10 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

Submittor Represented By Greater Geelong City Council, Planning • Mr Terry Demeo, Manager, Planning Strategy, Authority: Greater Geelong City Council (with Mr Anthony Sang), with evidence from: Mr Lawrie Conole, Golder Associates Mr David Shrimpton, Arup Mr Mark Sheppard, David Lock and Associates Dr Andrew McCowan and Mr Stephen Muncaster, Water Technology Mr Robert Panozzo, ASR Research Mr Alex Hrelja, SGS Economics Mr Peter Baker, Applied Development Research Department of Infrastructure • Mr John Storrie, Public Transport Division VicRoads • Mr Duncan Elliot, South West Victoria Region Country Fire Authority • Mr Peter O’Farrell of Counsel Armstrong Creek Corporation Pty Ltd • Mr Stuart Morris QC (instructed by Maddocks Lawyers, Ms Kate Morris), with evidence from: Mr Mike Day, Roberts Day Mr Rob Milner, Coomes Consulting Mr Tony Dimasi, Pitney Bowes MapInfo Muirwil Nominees • Mr Jeremy Gobbo QC and Mr Chris Townshend (instructed by Minter Ellison), with evidence from: Mr Stuart McGurn, Fulcrum M U Nominees Pty Ltd • Mr Chris Canavan QC and Mr Chris Townshend (instructed by Rigby Cooke Lawyers), with evidence from: Mr Jamie Govenlock, Urbis Mr Ian Shimmin, Urbis Dennis Family Corporation and Mayson • Mr Mark Bartley and Ms Kim Piskuric (DLA Properties Phillips Fox), with evidence from: Mr Nevan Wadeson, Tract Mr Chris McNeill, Spade Consultants Mr David Hunter, Coomes Consulting Mr Damien Hancox, TTM Richardson and others (eight various • Mr Phil Bisset (Minter Ellison), with evidence landowners) from: Mr Rob Milner, Coomes Consulting Brown, Woodyard and Hodge • Mr Phil Gleeson, Urbis Soritel • Ms Natalie Bannister, Gadens Lawyers, with evidence from: Dr Jeff Wolinski, Ratio Consultants

Page 11 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

Submittor Represented By Catholic Education Office • Mr Pat Love, Planning Manager Woolworths Ltd • Mr David Fetterplace, SKM Villawood Properties and Carter • Mr Geoff Underwood, Underwood and Hume, Electrical Contractors (who shared evidence with Dennis Family Corporation) Vincent Kelly • Mr Lester Trickey, Bosco Jonson Echin Pty Ltd • Ms Vanessa Turner, SJB Planning Urban Development Institute of Australia • Mr Stephen Copland, President – Victoria Division Paul Byron and Others • Mr Chris Mason, Coomes Consulting Blue Circle Southern Cement • Mr Piers McComas, SKM Committee for Geelong • Mr Jim Cousins and Mr Peter Dorling Public Transport Users Association, • Mr Tim Petersen and Mr Paul Westcott Geelong Branch Mount Duneed Ring Road Action Group • Mr Michael Carroll and Mr Donald Grimmer Mount Duneed Residents Group • Mr Ian Dyer and Mr Peter Ashton Anglican Diocese of Melbourne • Archdeacon John Minotti and Reverend Jeffrey Traill Geelong Lutheran College • Mr Andrew Eichler Van Berkel, McCoy, Logan and Brdar • Mr Chris Marshall, TGM W and M Dallman • Mr David Curtain, Curtain Consulting Australia Greens Victoria • Mr Bruce Lindsay Other Submittors: • Mr Henry Roebuck • Ms Susan Wardrop • Ms Raewyn Hansen • Mr KG and Ms MJ Rossack • Mr Jonathon Uphill • Ms Carole McFarlane • Mr David and Ms Melissa Branagh • Ms Jan Calaby, for Calaby, Simmonds, Chester and Clarke • Mr Warwick Peel • Mr Bruce Fletcher • Mr Ian Dyer and Ms Janet Hoggart • Mr Graham Kelleher for Mr Rupert Julien • Mr Geoff and Ms Carolyn Blyth • Mr Peter and Ms Lyn Ashton • Mr Brian and Ms Karalyn Keirl

Page 12 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

Submittor Represented By • Mr John and Ms Ann Duncan • Mr Collin Wallace

The Panel thanks submittors for the way in which they contributed to the Panel and hearing process. There is no doubt that the collective contribution of all submittors, whether or not they appeared at the hearing, has resulted in a much improved outcome for the amendment and the future development of Armstrong Creek.

The list of documents tabled at the hearing is provided at Appendix 2.

1.4 Preliminary Matters (i) Panel Opening Observations

From its perusal of the amendment and the submissions and evidence received, the Panel raised a number of matters which it considered pertinent at the commencement of the hearing, and these included:

• The location and quantum of the area required for the proposed sub‐regional centre; • The allocation of land for residential areas and various land supply issues; • The allocation of land for employment areas; • The hierarchy and layout of roads and other infrastructure (including the proposed “greenways”); • The function and purposes of the proposed Incorporated Plan Overlay; • The need or otherwise for an indicative zone plan; and • The extent of the urban growth area and rationalisation of its boundary, especially in the south.

(ii) MSS Review

The Panel was aware that the City of Greater Geelong was concurrently in the process of reviewing its Municipal Strategic Statement (Amendment C129) and that it was on exhibition at the time of this hearing. For that reason, the Panel did not spend a lot of time reviewing this amendment in the context of either the existing or proposed MSS, except in the context of reviewing those aspects of the MSS particularly relevant to Armstrong Creek. This primarily relates to Clause 21.08 and 21.40, as well as the proposed Incorporated Plan Overlay.

(iii) Panel Further Directions

Page 13 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

From the outset of the hearing, it was obvious that there were numerous aspects of the amendment that needed further thought and review. The Panel made it quite clear that it saw a key objective of its role as trying to facilitate an outcome for both Council and the landholders, in order to progress the planning for Armstrong Creek. While it might be said that if the amendment was so deficient it should or could be abandoned, the Panel did not take that view. It is a major local and State policy initiative, and the Panel considered it important to ensure that an acceptable outcome could be derived.

As the hearing progressed, it further became obvious that Council itself recognised some of the key deficiencies. Consequently, the Panel issued new directions on 6 December 2007 and requested the Council provide further information in the form of a written summary on its position in relation to the following:

(i) The form of the amendment in relation to key elements being included as an Incorporated Plan – either under an Incorporated Plan Overlay or through Clause 81 of the scheme, or any or part of it included as a Reference Document; (ii) Any agreed revisions to the “visual” plan including: • The area covered by the plan, • The legend on the plan, and • The location of proposed Sub Regional Centre; (iii) The proposed diagonal road network; (iv) The location and extent of the proposed Greenways; (v) Any agreed revisions to Clause 21.08 and 21.40; (vi) Use of common and consistent (planning) language regarding the Growth Area Plans and the retail facilities; (vii) A clear outline of how Council proposes to proceed with the next stages of the amendment and Growth Area process; and (viii) Any other key strategic issue identified and able to be addressed.

Council provided this information on 12 December 2007 and parties were invited to make additional responses. All of this information was highly valuable to the Panel and it has been instructive in the resolution of the key issues relating to the amendment. Importantly, the Panel commends the positive manner in which Council (and submittors) responded to the clear directions of the Panel in that Council reviewed its position in relation to many issues. This has ensured a most robust process that paves the way for an excellent planning outcome for Armstrong Creek.

Page 14 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

2. ARMSTRONG CREEK

Volume 1 of the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan says:

The Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan (UGP) is one of the City of Greater Geelong’s largest and most important strategic projects. It aims to concentrate the majority of the growth of Geelong for the foreseeable future into a comprehensive community on the area south of the railway line at Grovedale and Marshall.

The Armstrong Creek area has been identified as an important growth corridor since the 1980s. At that time, the area was originally designated as a growth corridor by the Geelong Regional Commission, and this was reinforced by the Mount Duneed Armstrong Creek Urban Development Study in 1994. The status of this area was then confirmed as Geelong’s future growth area corridor in the City’s Urban Growth Strategy 1996 and later through Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement.

The Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area contains 4,284 hectares of land, of which approximately 2,350 hectares is designated as developable land. It is proposed that some 22,000 dwellings will ultimately be built, catering for a population in the order of some 54,000 persons.

The subject land lies in a predominantly rural area south of the existing urban area of Geelong and includes parts of Grovedale, Marshall, Connewarre and Mount Duneed. The Armstrong Creek traverses east‐west through the site, while the Surf Coast Highway and Barwon Heads Road are the main north‐south arterial roads. Much of the subject land is used for a variety of agricultural, horticultural, viticultural and rural living pursuits.

The study area is located approximately 10 kilometres from Torquay and 4.5 kilometres by road to the Bellarine Peninsula. The subject land is bound to the north‐ east by the Barwon River, to the south‐east by Baenschs Lane, to the south by Lower Duneed/Mount Duneed Road, to the west by Ghazeepore Road, and to the west and north‐west by the Warrnambool to Geelong Railway line (with a small area lying to the north of the railway line at Marshall).

The subject site is in reasonable proximity to Deakin University to the north, and a number of primary and secondary schools in Grovedale. A small primary school at Mount Duneed lies immediately to the south. It is reasonably close to a large retail centre in Waurn Ponds to the north‐west as well as a number of smaller local retail centres in Grovedale.

Page 15 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

The subject site is located within the catchment of the Barwon River, Armstrong Creek, Reedy Lake and Lake Connewarre and significant areas in the east are flood prone. The area has some notable stands of vegetation, principally along existing road reserves, but there are no environmental or ecological reasons that preclude its designation and ultimate development as a major urban area.

Figure 1: Site Context

From the plan above, the context of the site shows it as a significant parcel of land to the south of the existing urban area of Geelong. It also notes its proximity to Torquay and the Geelong Ring Road and its strategic positioning to the Surf Coast.

The plan below in Figure 2 outlines the boundary of the study area and highlights key features including existing roads, the railway line, Reedy Lake and Armstrong Creek.

Page 16 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

Figure 2: Armstrong Creek Study Area Boundary

It should be noted that the boundary of the study area does not represent the exhibited Urban Growth Boundary. This has varied, particularly in the south to take account of various environmental and landscape features which the Panel addresses in Section 11 of this report.

Page 17 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

3. PLANNING CONTEXT

3.1 Policy (i) State Planning Policy Framework

The purpose of the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) in planning schemes is to inform planning authorities and others of those aspects of State level planning policy which need to be taken into account and give effect to planning and development proposals. Planning policies are directed to land use and development through the Planning and Environment Act 1987, a primary objective of which is to provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use and development of land. Clause 11 of the SPPF contains seven principles of land use and development planning, namely settlement, environment, management of resources, infrastructure, economic well‐being, social needs and regional co‐operation. Clause 11.02 states:

The State Planning Policy Framework seeks to ensure that the objectives of planning in Victoria (as set out in Section 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987) are fostered through appropriate land use and development planning policies and practices which integrate relevant environmental, social and economic factors in the interests of net community benefit and sustainable development.

In assessing this amendment, consideration has been given to the Goal of the SPPF and the various clauses as relevant.

Clause 11.03 – Principles of Land Use and Development Planning comprise general principles that elaborate on the objectives of planning in Victoria covering settlement, environment, management of resources, infrastructure, economic well‐ being, social needs, and regional co‐operation.

Clause 12.01 – Metropolitan Development bears on the matters under consideration by the Panel. While the predominant application of this clause applies to Metropolitan Melbourne, it is noted that “The objectives and strategies also influence municipalities beyond Metropolitan Melbourne and should be taken into account where relevant”.

While this amendment does not relate to a planning scheme within metropolitan Melbourne, Melbourne 2030 provides guidance on approaching urban planning through setting an urban growth boundary and promoting higher density housing around activity centres. Melbourne 2030 is adopted State Government policy and provides the strategy for Metropolitan Melbourne to achieve more sustainable

Page 18 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

growth to accommodate an additional one million people, while maintaining its liveability and attractiveness.

The Victorian planning system and planning schemes in particular, have a central role to play in implementing these directions and delivering the built environment outcomes across Melbourne. Melbourne 2030 aims to ensure that land use and transport planning contribute to economic, social and environmental goals. These objectives lie behind the development of the key directions.

The key elements of Melbourne 2030 are set out in nine strategic directions, with those with relevance to the amendment including Clause 12.01 and 12.3.

Clause 12.01 calls for a more compact city, and in this regard, Clause 12.01‐2 provides strategies in relation to Activity Centres:

Concentrate new development at activity centres near current infrastructure and in areas best able to cope with change. Development is to respond to its landscape, valued built form and cultural context and achieve sustainable objectives.

Build up activity centres as a focus for high‐quality development, activity and living for the whole community …

Clause 12.3‐2 Regional Cities encourages planning for regional areas and cities that:

• Delivers an adequate supply of land for housing and industry to meet forecast growth; • Ensures that new development is supported by strong transport links that provide an appropriate choice of travel; • Limits the impact of urban development on non‐urban areas and supports development in those areas that can accommodate growth; • Protects conservation and heritage values and the surrounding natural resource base; • Develops and reinforces the distinctive roles and character of each city; and • Fosters the development of towns around the regional cities that are on regional transport routes.

Following on, Clause 14 relates to Settlement, and has as its objectives:

• To ensure a sufficient supply of land is available for residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, institutional and other public uses; and • To facilitate the orderly development of urban areas.

Page 19 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

Importantly, Clause 14.01‐2 notes that:

Planning authorities should plan to accommodate projected population growth over at least a 10 year period, taking account of opportunities for redevelopment and intensification of existing urban areas as well as the limits of land capability and natural hazards, environmental quality and the costs of providing infrastructure.

In planning for urban growth, planning authorities should encourage consolidation of existing urban areas while respecting neighbourhood character. Planning authorities should encourage higher density and mixed use development near public transport routes.

There are further general implementation clauses relating to the orderly preparation of structure and precinct plans, which the Panel discusses further in this report in Section 4.

Clause 15 relates to Environment and has relevant objectives and strategies for catchment planning and management, air quality, and noise abatement.

Clause 17 relates to Economic Development and in particular, Clause 17.01 ‐ Activity Centres encourages the concentration of major development of a range of types into such centres, which benefit from a range of land uses and accessibility to the community. It states that activity centres should ”provide a range of shopping facilities in locations that are readily accessible to the community”. Clause 17.02 addresses Business and encourages development that meets community needs for a range of commercial services (including retail), and which benefit from accessibility, aggregation, efficient infrastructure use and sustainability.

Clause 17.03 relates to Industry, where the objective is “to ensure availability of land for industry and to facilitate the sustainable development and operation of industry and research and development activity”.

Clause 18 relates to Infrastructure, and Clause 18.02 – Car Parking and Public Transport Access to Development seeks to ensure adequate access is provided to development taking advantage of all modes of transport.

The Panel considers this amendment upholds the principles and goals of the SPPF.

(ii) Local Planning Policy Framework

The Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) comprises the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and the local planning policies (LPPs). The Municipal Strategic

Page 20 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

Statement (MSS) for Geelong is found at Clause 21 of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme. It provides the strategic planning, land use and development objectives to deliver the vision for the municipality and the strategies and actions for achieving those objectives. In particular, the MSS provides the strategic basis for the application of the zones, overlays and particular provisions in the planning scheme and decision making by the responsible authority. The Local Policies are found at Clause 22 of the scheme. The key themes contained within the MSS of relevance to the current proposal are outlined below.

Clause 21.02 puts “Geelong in Perspective” and acknowledges its role as the most populous municipality in Victoria, Australia’s eleventh largest city and Victoria’s second city. This clause notes that Geelong’s significance is derived from:

• Its coastal location with deep water port facilities; • Its proximity and accessibility to Avalon Airport; • Proximity to Melbourne and situation within the sphere of metropolitan influence; • Good infrastructure connections to Melbourne (by the Princes Freeway and rail); • Its strength as a regional and national industrial and business location; • Its role as a government, administrative, educational, legal and medial service centre for the wider South West of Victoria, extending to the South Australian border at Mount Gambier; • Proximity and ease of access to attractive coastal locations and national parks; • An attractive regional lifestyle; and • Well developed sporting facilities and the host of a national competition AFL team.

Clause 21.04 outlines Geelong’s Vision and Guiding Principles. Clause 21.04‐2 contains Council’s Corporate Plan, which sets out the City’s commitment and provides Council’s business units with a clear mandate for action. The Plan sets out that the City is committed to:

• Deliver or facilitate major projects that meet the needs and aspirations of the community for growth and resilience; and • Provide a policy and systems framework to secure the delivery of best value services and projects.

Further, Clause 21.05 – Planning Principles sets out a number of land use and development principles that underpin Council’s strategic directions. These principles include:

• Settlements; • Rural Residential; • Population and Housing;

Page 21 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

• Natural Environment; • Cultural Heritage; • The Economy; • Rural Areas; • Infrastructure; • Transport; • Commercial and Retail; and • Design and Built Form.

Council’s Urban Growth Plan is contained in Clause 21.08 – Urban Growth, which includes the following urban growth direction:

Designation of Stage 1 of Armstrong Creek/Mount Duneed as the primary growth corridor for future urban growth.

Objective 1 under this Clause seeks to direct urban growth to selected suitable locations. Specifically, this provides that new residential growth be limited to designated areas in Armstrong Creek/Mount Duneed, Wandana, Ocean Grove, Drysdale/Clifton Springs, Lara and Leopold. This Clause calls for an Urban Growth Corridor Plan for the Armstrong Creek corridor which will provide the overall design framework for the area to be prepared. Amendment C138 specifically responds to this direction.

There are several local policies at Clause 22 of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme that support the above highlighted elements of its Municipal Strategic Statement. As previously mentioned, the Geelong MSS is currently under review, so this Panel only comments on Clauses 21.08 and 21.40.

3.2 Zones and Overlays The subject land is principally located within the Farming Zone under the provisions of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme. This zone has as its purposes:

To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

To provide for the use of land for agriculture.

To encourage the retention of productive agricultural land.

To ensure that non‐agricultural uses, particularly dwellings, do not adversely affect the use of land for agriculture.

Page 22 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

To encourage use and development of land based on comprehensive and sustainable land management practices and infrastructure provision.

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

While the outcome of this amendment does not result in any rezonings, it is clear that the change from Farming Zone to various residential, industrial and business zones will be a significant change. The Panel was advised that planning for the Armstrong Creek area has been on the agenda of Council since the early 1980s in a number of ways. The amendment seeks to facilitate future urban growth that is consistent with the revised MSS, which identifies the Armstrong Creek area as Geelong’s primary future growth direction.

The general position of Armstrong Creek being a major growth front for Geelong is not in issue.

The subject land is variously affected by the following overlays:

• Environmental Significance Overlay; • Land Subject to Inundation Overlay; • Floodway Overlay; • Special Building Overlay; and • Vegetation Protection Overlay.

The Panel proposes a number of changes to these overlays as discussed in greater detail in subsequent sections of this report.

3.3 Panel Findings The Panel considers that Amendment C138 is generally consistent with both the State and local planning framework of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme. Subject to some changes to Clause 21.40 and rationalisation of the overlays, the amendment supports the policy intent of the scheme.

One of the issues that emerged during the hearing is the need for the planning language in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme to be consistent with that of metropolitan Melbourne. For reasons that become evident in further discussion, the Panel recommends that Council adopt the hierarchy of centres in Melbourne 2030 (particularly that the sub‐regional centre becomes known as the Major Activity Centre, with other centres as Neighbourhood and Local Activity Centres). The same approach should also be adopted for the hierarchy of plans for growth areas (e.g. the Structure Plan becomes the Framework Plan, with Precinct Structure Plans (PSP) to follow). Council readily agreed to this.

Page 23 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

Because this is an amendment that has clear implications for growth area planning, the Panel is mindful that implementation of the plan be broadly consistent with planning for growth areas in metropolitan Melbourne. This is a commonsense approach and will ensure consistency and transparency throughout key growth fronts in Melbourne and Geelong.

Page 24 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

4. WHAT DOES THE AMENDMENT SEEK TO ACHIEVE?

As exhibited, the amendment seeks to facilitate future urban growth that is consistent with the MSS and which identifies the Armstrong Creek/Mount Duneed area as Geelong’s primary future growth direction. In opening, Mr Demeo explained that there is a very limited supply of zoned residential land in Geelong and the resolution of the Armstrong Creek Growth Area is a matter of urgency. The process of fully developing Armstrong Creek is expected to take in the order of 25 years, although Mr Demeo conceded there could be a much quicker land take‐up than previously anticipated. He said Council has adopted a Master Plan approach for Armstrong Creek – and acknowledged that this process “does not provide all the answers”. The development of an accelerated rezoning strategy and preparation of the infrastructure plan will be the next two key pieces of work, both of which he said Council was already working on.

The amendment provides the policy framework and statutory basis for the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan in the Planning Scheme, it facilitates the implementation and realisation of the Urban Growth Plan, and through the application of overlays, identifies and protects existing conditions and environmentally sensitive areas. The amendment proposes to extend and update overlay protection recognised in specialist technical reports on flora and fauna, and flooding and drainage.

4.1 Planning for a Growth Area Planning for a growth area from first principles is a very important and complex process. Council advised the Panel that while this area had been earmarked as a major growth front for some 20 years, it was not until recently that the detailed planning process commenced. In this regard, Council chose to pursue a particular path, the details of which were well articulated in its opening submission.

In commenting on this, the Panel notes Clause 14.01‐2 of the SPPF under Settlement, which states that:

Planning authorities should facilitate the orderly preparation of developing urban areas through the preparation of structure plans. The plans should take into account the strategic and physical context of the location, provide for the development of sustainable and liveable urban areas in an integrated manner, facilitate the development of walkable neighbourhoods and facilitate the logical and efficient provision of infrastructure.

Page 25 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

Structure plans may consist of a hierarchy of plans that provide the broad planning framework for an area as well as the more detailed planning requirements for neighbourhoods and precincts within an area. Planning authorities should facilitate the preparation of a hierarchy of plans appropriate for the development of an area.

Responsible authorities should use any relevant structure plan in considering applications for subdivision.

To take this further for particular areas, the Government has designated five metropolitan growth areas (Melton, Casey/Cardinia, Hume, Whittlesea, and Wyndham), in conjunction with the Growth Area Authority (who report directly to the Minister for Planning) to monitor, advise and partner on a range of planning issues across these areas. To progress these selected growth areas, each municipality is required to prepare Growth Area Framework Plans, which set the long term strategic planning direction to guide the creation of sustainable communities. The purposes of the Framework Plans are to:

• Identify the long term direction of urban growth; • Identify the location of broad development types, for example activity centres, residential development areas, employment and industrial areas; • Identify committed transport networks as well as network options for investigation; • Identify committed regional open space networks, as well as investigation sites; • Show significant waterways as opportunities for creating green corridors; and include strategic directions for individual growth areas.

Implementation of the Framework Plans will inform development and review of local structure plans, the preparation of future strategies and provide a strategic basis for infrastructure and service planning. It is proposed that structure plans will be the primary vehicle for implementation of the Framework Plans, and these will provide a more detailed outline of the key strategic elements. The preparation of these is guided by various guidelines and practice notes.

While Geelong is not a designated Growth Area in the context of metropolitan Melbourne, the Panel considers it prudent that for consistency, it follow the model as set out in the Growth Area Framework Plans 2006 to ensure that the same language is being spoken in both metropolitan Melbourne and regional Victoria. The Panel makes specific recommendations about this in later sections of this report.

4.2 Purpose and Components of the Amendment The purpose of the amendment is to put in place a planning framework in the

Page 26 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

Greater Geelong Planning Scheme for the Armstrong Creek growth area. It does this through new and revised policy, new and revised overlays and an Incorporated Plan Overlay, with a detailed Incorporated Document. The amendment does not rezone any land.

Specifically, the changes to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme are as follows:

(i) Policy

The amendment provides for two key policies in the MSS, one of which updates an existing policy, the other of which introduces a new policy:

• Amend Clause 21.08 “Urban Growth” of the Municipal Strategic Statement.

This updates the recommendations for the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area.

• Introduce a new Clause 21.40 “Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area” into the Municipal Strategic Statement.

The new clause introduces the Urban Growth Plan into the MSS, identifies the objectives and related strategies, implementation measures and includes the overall structure plan map.

(ii) Overlays

The amendment introduces and/or modifies several overlays:

• Amend Schedule 1 to the Environmental Significance Overlay

The Environment Significance Overlay 1 schedule is revised to refer to Armstrong Creek in the Statement of Environmental Significance.

• Apply Schedule 1 to the Environmental Significance Overlay

The Environment Significance Overlay 1 is applied to environmentally sensitive areas along Armstrong Creek and the Barwon River and stands of significant remnant vegetation on private land originally identified in the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan ‐ Flora and Fauna Technical Report (Ecology Australia, February 2006).

• Apply Schedule 2 to the Environmental Significance Overlay

Page 27 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

The Environment Significance Overlay 2 is applied to the Barwon River floodplain and the lower reaches of Armstrong Creek to provide a buffer for the adjoining wetlands of Reedy Lake, Hospital Swamps and Lake Connewarre.

• Amend Schedule 1 to the Vegetation Protection Overlay

The Vegetation Protection Overlay 1 schedule is revised to include a reference to the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan.

• Apply Schedule 1 to the Vegetation Protection Overlay

The Vegetation Protection Overlay 1 is applied to areas of significant roadside vegetation identified in the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan ‐ Flora and Fauna Technical Report (Ecology Australia, February 2006).

• Apply the Floodway Overlay

The Floodway Overlay is applied to areas identified in the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan ‐ Flooding and Drainage Technical Report (Water Technology, February 2006).

• Apply the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay

The Land Subject to Inundation Overlay is applied to areas of land identified as being subject to inundation in the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan ‐ Flooding and Drainage Technical Report (Water Technology, February 2006). It reflects existing site conditions.

• Apply the Special Building Overlay

The Special Building Overlay is applied to a small number of residential properties at Marshall identified as flood prone in the Flooding and Drainage Technical Report.

Page 28 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

(iii) Incorporated Plan

The amendment introduces the Incorporated Plan Overlay clause into the Scheme.

• Introduce and apply Schedule 1 to the Incorporated Plan Overlay

A new Incorporated Plan Overlay Schedule 1 is introduced into the Scheme and is to apply to the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area (land within the urban growth boundary) to ensure that future use and development of the land is carried out in accordance with the Urban Growth Plan and does not prejudice the implementation of the Plan.

• Amend Clause 81.01 Table of Documents Incorporated in this Scheme

The “Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan Volume 1 October 2006” is added to the list of incorporated documents in the Scheme. This document contains an introduction, and then it has six key sections relating to vision, structure plan, planning and design principles, non‐urban areas, surrounding areas and staging.

(iv) Precinct Plans

Volume 1 is supported by further documents including Precinct Plans, Implementation Plan, Background Report and other Appendices. These documents do not form any part of the actual amendment. The Precinct Plans (Volume 2) identify nine precincts for Armstrong Creek as follows:

• Precinct 1: Marshall Transit Village • Precinct 2: Rossack Drive Transit Village • Precinct 3: Armstrong Creek New Town • Precinct 4: Horseshoe Bend New Town • Precinct 5: Batten Road New Town • Precinct 6: Lower Duneed Village • Precinct 7: Whites Road Village • Precinct 8: Western Industrial Precinct • Precinct 9: North Eastern Industrial Precinct

It is noted that the precincts identified have been mainly defined by natural boundaries “for the sake of convenience”. They do not necessarily reflect Council’s proposed development stages. There was little discussion about the boundaries and extent of these precincts at the hearing and there is no doubt that these will be further refined once the outcome and resolution of this amendment is finalised. Towards the end of the hearing, in response to the Panels further directions, the Council advised it

Page 29 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008 had reviewed the precincts and had identified seven instead of the initial nine, taking into account the following:

• Contiguous land interest/ownership; • The study area drainage catchments; and • Land assembly based around key features to provide a level of self containment.

Mr Demeo indicated this revision would inform the next level of planning and the refined precincts are shown on the revised Framework Plan (revision A) and identified as:

• Activity Centre (Major) • Armstrong Creek East • Armstrong Creek West • Horseshoe Bend • Marshall • North Eastern Industrial • Western Industrial

Figure 3: Council Amended Precinct Plan

Page 30 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

The Panel generally supports this refinement, but notes that during the course of development of Armstrong Creek, these may be refined further.

Council advised that subsequent amendments will be undertaken to rezone land for urban purposes (in line with its proposed Staging Strategy) and apply other relevant overlays, namely: the Development Contributions Plan Overlay, Development Plan Overlay, Heritage Overlay and Public Acquisition Overlay, as required. Many of the key stakeholder submittors were critical of this approach, and some suggested that rezoning of land and the introduction of (at least) the Development Contributions Plan Overlay at this stage, would have enhanced the amendment.

4.3 Public Consultation The Panel was advised that the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan project formally commenced on 12 April 2005 when Council considered an officer’s report on the scope of the project. It resolved to appoint the Mayor and Ward Councillor to be part of a Steering Committee.

It is understood development of the plan has been undertaken in consultation with a wide group of technical stakeholders, including the City of Greater Geelong, Surf Coast Shire, Golden Plains Shire, G21, the Department of Sustainability and Environment, the Department of Infrastructure, the Department of Education and Training, VicRoads, Barwon Health, Barwon Water, Corangamite Catchment Management Authority, Country Fire Authority, Powercor Australia Limited, SPI Powernet, Telstra and TXU Tenix.

Stakeholders have participated in a series of meetings and workshops spanning the period of the study, and a design workshop (charette) at which the essence of the plan was developed. In addition, consultation has occurred with community groups, local landowners and interested developers through meetings and their involvement in a workshop to develop the vision for the Armstrong Creek growth area. Key consultation activities included:

• Landowner and Developers Forum • Community Groups Forum • Vision Workshop • Design Workshop • Urban Growth Plan Public Display ‐ Landowner Information Sessions • Project Newsletters (1‐4)

It is understood by the Panel that Council retained a consultant team, led by David Lock and Associates to prepare and develop the plan. Interestingly, it is understood

Page 31 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

that some of the more contentious issues relating to the plan, including the greenways and the diagonal roads, emerged through a charette process, a process which the Panel holds some concern about. It would seem that the Plan was not road tested by the very group who have a key stakeholder interest in the area (however it is acknowledged that perhaps the land owners had not been fully known or identified when this process was occurring). Even so, it may have been useful for Council to include some developer representation in the road testing – as while it may be useful to have community desires included, this needs to be balanced with a strong degree of practical reality and experience – by those experienced in the development field.

The Panel considers that the extent of consultation undertaken was generally extensive and reasonably inclusive, except for the reservations noted above.

4.4 Key Issues to be Resolved In reviewing, and then taking this amendment forward, the Panel has identified several key issues which it considers need to be resolved in the context of the amendment and what it is seeking to achieve, as follows:

• activity centres • industrial/employment areas • access and movement • social and community infrastructure • biodiversity corridors • flooding/drainage controls • non‐urban areas • land supply and staging • form of the amendment

These issues are discussed separately in the following sections of this report.

It should be noted that there are some aspects of the amendment that did not raise issues where the Panel considers that any commentary is required. For example, the refinement of the Environmental Significance Overlay, the Special Building Overlay, and Clause 21.08 did not raise issues that require resolution or change.

Page 32 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

5. ACTIVITY CENTRES

5.1 Major Activity Centre (i) General Location

Under the exhibited Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan a Major Activity Centre (termed “sub‐regional” in the exhibited amendment) was proposed on the north‐east corner of Torquay Road and Burvilles Road. It was shown as a large red dot and clearly such designation was indicative only.

Some submissions generally supported this location (eg. Coles Group Property Developments Ltd and Armstrong Creek Corporation Pty Ltd). Other submittors argued that the Major Activity Centre should be located elsewhere. Delfin Lend Lease, who did not attend the hearing, argued that the centre would be better located west of Torquay Road. Reasons for this view were:

• The distribution of activity centres was seen as inequitable in that the three major centres would be located east of Torquay Road. Relocating the sub‐ regional centre to the west would balance the access to goods and services for residents and workers within this portion of the site. • Closer proximity to Armstrong Creek offering higher amenity and connection to that open space corridor. • Access to major park areas along Armstrong Creek west of Torquay Road in higher density housing surrounding the activity centre. • Reduced infrastructure costs for a railway connection west of Torquay Road. • At the proposed location the crematorium and cemetery absorb a significant amount of the centre’s immediate catchment.

Soritel Pty Ltd, principally through Ms Bannister and Dr Wolinski, argued that the Major Activity Centre should be in a more northern location focused on the primary north‐south and east‐west arterial roads being Torquay Road and Boundary Road. Dr Wolinski said the north‐west quadrant was the best location because it provided access to a potential new railway station on or near the Geelong‐Warrnambool railway line furthest from Marshall Station. Ms Bannister emphasised that accessibility rather than geographic centrality was a key consideration in the selection of the Major Activity Centre and this was afforded by the Soritel location at the junction of the two roads. Ms Bannister questioned almost every planning and economic witness about this.

Following consideration of submissions to the amendment, Council at its 24 July 2007

Page 33 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

meeting resolved to relocate the major centre approximately 200 metres to the north of its exhibited location. The basis of this relocation was in response to submissions that the centre should be located slightly further away from Armstrong Creek and the crematorium on the south side of Burvilles Road.

Page 99 of the Urban Growth Plan sets out the rationale for the selection of the location of the Major Activity Centre:

• Central part of Armstrong Creek catchment, accessible from all development cells. • Unique catchment to nearest competitor at Waurn Ponds. • Location adjoining Torquay Road to capture expenditure from Surf Coast Shire (first intervening opportunity for north bound trips). • Positioned just off Torquay Road to encourage development of an integrated and pedestrian oriented precinct. • Location adjacent proposed high‐quality public transport link … • Location adjacent Armstrong Creek parkland to provide associated recreational opportunities and attractive walking and cycling connections.

The Panel agrees that a major activity centre location at or near the Torquay Road/Boundary Road intersection is the most accessible location (particularly given the Panel’s recommendation elsewhere to abandon the greenways concept including along Boundary Road). Its location either on the Soritel land or on an expanded site generally in the location proposed by Council with access to both roads could both work well. However, there are two key reasons why the Panel considers the Council nominated site (as modified by Council at its July 2007 meeting and by the Panel) is better.

Firstly, the Panel is persuaded by the evidence of Mr Dimasi that not only is accessibility important at the junction of the two major roads (an agreed position between most of the parties) but that the distribution of population through the Urban Growth Plan area is a highly relevant consideration. Mr Dimasi’s evidence was that 40,500 of the future Armstrong Creek population would live east of Torquay Road compared with a much lesser proportion of 13,500 living west of Torquay Road and 34,300 would live south of Boundary Road compared with 19,600 who would live north of Boundary Road. The south‐eastern quadrant will accommodate the single largest population concentration with an estimated 23,500 residents upon completion. This favours a Major Activity Centre location in the south‐eastern quadrant at the junction of the two major roads.

The second reason relates to the provision of rail infrastructure. There is no certainty that the proposed rail line extending from Marshall Railway Station past the proposed activity centre site and on to Torquay will ever be built or will be built in

Page 34 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

the foreseeable future. Its provision is visionary but it is appropriate that it be accommodated and that the opportunity for it to occur in the future should not be abandoned. Dr Wolinski was of the view that it was unlikely to eventuate and that a new railway station on or adjacent to the existing Geelong‐Warrnambool railway line was a more feasible and likely option.

The Panel heard from Mr Storrie of the Public Transport Division of the Department of Infrastructure, the Government organisation responsible for the planning and provision of public transport services. With the Soritel submission in mind, the Panel questioned Mr Storrie on the likelihood of a train station ever being established on or near the Soritel land. Mr Storrie indicated it was not a preferred location principally because it was too close to Marshall Station. Whilst questions about the likelihood of a spur line to Torquay were raised, the Panel considers that this is a more likely public transport option than the establishment of a railway station on or near the Soritel land. The Soritel location for a railway station is even less likely given the planned future park and ride railway station at Waurn Ponds further west and a greater distance from Marshall Railway Station, which at this stage appears to have greater support.

Further, one of Dr Wolinski’s contentions about why the proposed site for the Major Activity Centre was unsuitable, was because of its slope. The Panel went back to inspect the site, and could find no significant slope that would militate against any development, least of all an activity centre. Moreover, examination of topographic plans provided to the Panel indicate that the slope over the Soritel land (the lot on the north‐west corner of Torquay Road and Boundary Road) is similar to that of the Coles land on the north‐east corner of Torquay Road and Burvilles Road.

The Panel is therefore of the view that the proposed general location of the major activity centre as expressed at the July 2007 Council meeting is the preferred location for the Major Activity Centre.

(ii) Specific Location and Boundaries

Based on an ultimate Armstrong Creek population of 54,000 persons the Urban Growth Plan envisages the Major Activity Centre would contain approximately:

• 35,000 square metres of retail space; • 7,000 square metres of entertainment space; • 35,000 square metres of office space; and • 35,000 square metres of community services space.

Other key elements would include high‐density housing, a town square, a possible

Page 35 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

future public transport interchange and a dedicated local transit route linking it with the whole growth area.

Mr Dimasi’s evidence was principally that the amount of retail and commercial floorspace would be greater than that foreshadowed by the Urban Growth Plan. He calculated that between 75,000 and 105,000 square metres of floor space, including bulky goods floorspace, could be accommodated at the Major Activity Centre in the longer term.

At its July 2007 meeting, Council resolved that the bulky goods retailing component initially proposed along Torquay Road north of the Major Activity Centre should be a single site specific purpose built location with some frontage to Torquay Road and integrated with the major centre and located adjacent to higher density housing. Both Dr Wolinski and Mr Dimasi agreed that a bulky goods component of up to 25,000 square metres was sustainable at Armstrong Creek.

In subsequent submissions and evidence to the Panel, Armstrong Creek Corporation Pty Ltd sought a larger area set aside for the activity centre. In broad terms the Panel agrees that a larger area than that depicted by the red dot would be required to sustain a Major Activity Centre containing the above components so as to serve the Armstrong Creek residential catchment. The Panel generally agrees that the area required to sustain the activity centre would be a larger area bound by Torquay Road (the activity centreʹs principal frontage) to the west, Burvilles Road to the south, the proposed sub‐regional transit route to the east and Boundary Road to the north.

Plan 03 appended to Mr Dayʹs witness statement depicts the area that the Panel agrees should be indicated as the Major Activity Centre on the Urban Growth Plan, including land in this vicinity controlled by Armstrong Creek Corporation, Coles Group Property Developments, and Richardson and others. Whilst Mr Day also provided a more detailed urban design layout for the activity centre, the Panel considers that other than informing the overall likely land area required for the activity centre, it is premature at this stage to commit or recommend any particular layout or configuration of the activity centre. The internal layout and distribution of uses within the activity centre was not a matter that the amendment addressed at this initial conceptual stage and it would be unfair, for example to Coles who made no detailed submissions on this matter, for the Panel to make any recommendation on a preferred layout.

Mr Morris urged the Panel not to include in the designated activity centre the land east of the proposed rail line between the rail line and Barwarre Road. The Panel agrees that this land should not be included in the designated activity centre. This may create confusion in the future as to whether this land ought to be developed for

Page 36 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

retail/commercial purposes with the possible effect that the retail/commercial offer could be split between both sides of the rail line if it proceeded. Whilst acknowledging that it should not be included in the designated activity centre, the Panel considers that this site would be eminently suitable for high density residential housing and this should be specifically referenced in the Framework Plan.

5.2 Waurn Ponds Shopping Centre Section 6.6 of Volume 1 of the Urban Growth Plan says in relation to the Waurn Ponds Shopping Centre:

Waurn Ponds Shopping Centre is a sub‐regional centre on the Princes Highway approximately two kilometres north of the Armstrong Creek growth area. It serves a substantial catchment in the south of Geelong with anchors including a Target Discount Department Store, two supermarkets (Coles and Safeway) and a cinema complex.

Expansion plans are currently underway for this centre, including the creation of an additional 6,000 square metres of retail floorspace. It is recommended that further expansion of this centre be strongly limited, in order to ensure the sustainability and early development of the retail component of the proposed Armstrong Creek Sub‐ Regional Centre. While the Armstrong Creek centre has been deliberately located towards the south of the growth area in recognition of environmental opportunities and its companion role with the existing Waurn Ponds centre, restricting the latter’s growth is important to optimise the potential for a major tenant to anchor the proposed new centre.

The successful development of the Armstrong Creek Sub‐Regional Centre will be critical to the creation of a strong focus on which to build the economic facilities and social fabric for future residents, and the timely take‐up of residential land.

Having sensed a victory in relation to his submissions regarding the physical expansion of the area designated as the Major Activity Centre to include his client’s land, Mr Morris sought to add value to his client’s position. He provided a slightly modified version of the second paragraph cited above that emphasised the need to regulate rather than limit or restrict the future growth of Waurn Ponds so as to ensure a net community benefit and to take account of the sustainability and desirable early development of the retail component of the Armstrong Creek Major Activity Centre.

M U Nominees Pty Ltd, the owners of the Waurn Ponds shopping centre, have lodged a request for a combined planning scheme amendment and planning permit with Council for a significant expansion of the Waurn Ponds shopping centre. Not surprisingly, they were opposed to Section 6.6 being included in the Urban Growth

Page 37 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

Plan.

During the course of the hearing, the Panel sought to identify from Council and its witnesses the author responsible for Section 6.6 and the basis for it. It turned out to be Mr Baker’s idea, but under cross‐examination from Mr Canavan, Mr Baker stated that it was not based on any empirical or thorough economic analysis or modelling undertaken by him or undertaken by anyone else and made available to him. Page 6 of Mr Hrelja’s witness statement indicates that he had not investigated the proposed expansion at Waurn Ponds in any detail.

The only relatively detailed assessment undertaken by or on behalf of Council is a “preliminary assessment” undertaken by Essential Economics in July 2007. The public existence of this report only became known and available during the course of the hearing. A representative of Essential Economics was not called to give evidence to the Panel and there is no reference to it in the submission by Council or the statements of its witnesses. That report found at pages 24‐25 in relation to the most recent expansion request lodged for Waurn Ponds that:

In our opinion, the proposed Coles Superstore development at Waurn Ponds assessed in this report is also unlikely to delay the provision of a sub‐regional centre at Armstrong Creek. The proposed Armstrong Creek centre site identified in the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan is extremely well‐placed to serve the population growth identified for Armstrong Creek, as well as the significant growth identified for Torquay and the Surf Coast region (ie, the Secondary South trade area sector currently served by Waurn Ponds Shopping Centre). In view of the magnitude of the forecast population growth in the Secondary South sector to at least 2030 (an additional 25,000 people), and the superior location of the Armstrong Creek centre to serve this catchment, the proposed Coles Superstore development is not expected to significantly impact upon the timing for the development of a centre at Armstrong Creek …..

In our opinion, the proposed Coles Superstore development scheme at Waurn Ponds is unlikely to reduce the ability of the proposed Armstrong Creek Centre to attract a major tenant and our view is based on the significant opportunities offered by the Armstrong Creek site as a retail location.

Essential Economics did however note that additional substantial retail facilities beyond the current proposal, such as a third discount department store at Waurn Ponds, may impact on development at Armstrong Creek.

The Panel notes that the planning scheme contains requirements to have regard to net community benefit when assessing any planning proposal and the concept of net community benefit originated from and is applied in particular to retail

Page 38 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

development proposals. More specifically, Clause 22.09: Assessment Criteria for Retail Planning Applications is an existing local planning policy that applies to all applications for new or expanded provision of retail floor space. It includes requirements to assess any likely impact on existing or planned retail facilities and to provide an assessment of a retail expansion proposal’s overall contribution to net community benefit. Similar provisions are included in the recently exhibited rewrite of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme under Amendment C129. The Panel considers that there are existing and proposed planning provisions in the planning scheme to deal with retail expansion proposals and their impacts without the need for explicit reference to limit, restrict or regulate development at Waurn Ponds in favour of promoting Armstrong Creek.

The Panel is mindful that any explicit preference for retail/commercial development at Armstrong Creek over Waurn Ponds has the potential to adversely affect the provision of facilities and services to the Waurn Ponds catchment, to the possible detriment of its residents. The difficulty with Section 6.6 is that it may have the effect of unfairly diluting the consideration of community benefit to Waurn Ponds residents in preference to Armstrong Creek in any assessment of net community benefit. Whether or not that assessment should be diluted should be the subject of the net community benefit assessment itself undertaken under the existing or future planning framework. In any event, the Panel is quite certain Council will legitimately take into account the impact of any retail expansion at Waurn Ponds on the planned Armstrong Creek Major Activity Centre. It appears to have done so already in commissioning the Essential Economics assessment.

Other than a preference for protection of the primacy of Central Business Districts generally, the Panel is unaware of any planning policy or provision in any planning scheme that seeks to give preference to one activity centre in the retail hierarchy over and above another activity centre at the same level in the hierarchy.

To be fair to the Council, towards the end of his submission, Mr Demeo verbally conceded that Section 6.6 ought to be deleted and indicated as much in his closing submission. Therefore, in the Panelʹs view Section 6.6 of the Urban Growth Plan is unnecessary, is not supported by rigorous analysis, is unfair, and has the potential to bias an objective net community benefit assessment. It should be deleted in its entirety.

Page 39 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

5.3 Neighbourhood and Local Centres Elsewhere in this report (see Section 7), the Panel has indicated that it supports submissions which have called for the abandonment of the greenways concept and the diagonal connector roads. This has implications for the location of some Neighbourhood and Local Activity Centres.

The submission by the Dennis Family Corporation in relation to the north‐east Neighbourhood Activity Centre was that it should be relocated approximately 300 metres south to the intersection of Boundary Road and Horseshoe Bend Road, particularly if Boundary Road was to be retained as the major east‐west link.

The Panel agrees that one of the corners of this intersection is the appropriate location for the north‐east neighbourhood activity centre. The north‐west corner of the intersection has been purchased by the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne and most of this 16 hectare site will be required for a primary and secondary school. It was chosen because it was adjacent to the designated activity centre site.

The Dennis Family Corporation sought to include the south‐west corner, which it owns, as the activity centre site. The major reason for advocating its site was because it was in one ownership.

The original submission by Woolworths was generally supportive of the Urban Growth Plan and the proposed network of activity centres. Woolworths supported the restriction of growth of the Waurn Ponds shopping centre. In a subsequent letter dated 4 December 2007 sent to Council, Woolworths indicated that it was unlikely to establish a Big W Discount Department Store at Waurn Ponds and therefore it had entered into an agreement with Armstrong Creek Corporation to establish a Big W in the Armstrong Creek Major Activity Centre.

The submission presented to the Panel by Mr Fetterplace on behalf of Woolworths dealt with neither matter but instead concentrated on a two hectare parcel of land that Woolworths has negotiated a purchase contract at 259 Horseshoe Bend Road near the north‐east corner of the intersection. He indicated that the relocation of the neighbourhood centre southwards to Boundary Road was not supported due to the location’s closer proximity to the major centre, the greater separation of such a location in relation to the northern parts of the Horseshoe Bend residential area and the siteʹs closer proximity to the south‐east neighbourhood centre. He supported the location of the neighbourhood centre as exhibited, which he maintained should occupy a band of land within a radius of approximately 140° between Horseshoe Bend Road and the proposed connector road between the two neighbourhood centres.

Page 40 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

The Panel whilst recommending that the north‐east neighbourhood activity centre should be focused on the intersection of Boundary Road and Horseshoe Bend Road agrees with the thrust of Mr Fetterplaceʹs submission that it should occupy the north‐ east quadrant generally for the reasons set out by Mr Fetterplace. Whilst in more fragmented ownership than other parcels of land the existing lots are not that small that they could not be developed in isolation and the degree of fragmentation is relatively small (approximately 7 different lots). The Panel expects that with greater certainty provided by the approval of the Urban Growth Plan there will be an enhanced tendency for prospective developers to seek opportunities to buy out and consolidate land holdings in the Armstrong Creek area as has already been occurring. The Panel does not consider at this very early stage of the process that fragmented land ownership is a particularly difficult issue to overcome as indicated by the vast amounts of land in the area that have already been contracted to purchase by various land development firms.

In relation to the south‐west neighbourhood activity centre, the Panel agrees with the submission by the Dennis Family Corporation that as a consequence of recommending the deletion of the greenways and diagonal collector roads that the south‐east Neighbourhood Activity Centre should be located on Barwon Heads Road. The Panel agrees with the submission that a Barwon Heads Road frontage provides a better opportunity for the development and sustainability of this neighbourhood centre.

In relation to local activity centres, Villawood Properties submitted that the Type B Local Activity Centre that partly straddles its land should be entirely on the Villawood land so that it is in one ownership and given the fact that Villawood is a residential developer with a proven track record for delivering community facilities and infrastructure in a timely way. The Panel considers this submission has merit and with the recommended abandonment of the greenways concept that the south‐ east corner of Boundary Road and Airport Road could be a better location for this activity centre location.

Villawood Properties also indicated that this centre should be a Type A centre (1,000 square metres of shops and services, co‐located with a primary school, local sporting facilities and a family hub) rather than a Type B centre (single multi‐purpose store, primary school and family hub). However, no reasons or justification were given as to why a slightly larger local centre would be better. Reconciliation of this will occur during the detailed planning stage of the neighbourhood.

There were no other specific submissions in relation to the location, distribution and content of the local activity centres. The Panel simply notes that with its recommendation to change some aspects of the Urban Growth Plan that Council may

Page 41 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

need to refine the precise location of some of these centres. The Panel makes no other finding or recommendation regarding the detailed planning of Local Activity Centres, which was not the subject of the amendment.

5.4 Panel Findings The Panel’s findings in relation to activity centres are:

• Designate the Major Activity Centre as the area bound by Burvilles Road to the south, Torquay Road to the west, Boundary Road to the north and the proposed alignment of the rail line to the east. The centre is to accommodate a range of uses including bulky goods retailing. • Designate the remainder of the Major Activity Centre quadrant (between the proposed rail line and Barwarre Road) for high density housing. • Focus the Horseshoe Bend Neighbourhood Activity Centre on the north‐ east quadrant of the Boundary Road and Horseshoe Bend Road intersection. • Focus the Armstrong Creek East Neighbourhood Activity Centre further east so that it fronts Barwon Heads Road. • Relocate the Local Activity Centre B in the Armstrong Creek West Precinct to the west so that it is on the south‐east corner of Boundary Road and Airport Road. • Section 6.6 of Volume 1 of the Urban Growth Plan should be deleted in its entirety.

There will be a need for Council to adjust the precise location of Local Activity Centres as a result of other recommendations made in this report.

Page 42 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

6. INDUSTRIAL/EMPLOYMENT AREAS

The Panel accepts the view of Council that a major challenge for the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan will be to provide for a range of employment opportunities. This will occur through the establishment of two strong and robust industrial precincts (and through the tertiary sector in activity centres, community facilities and the like). In support of this position, Council advised that:

At maturity it is anticipated that Armstrong Creek is expected to accommodate approximately 22,000 households south of the rail line. This equates to a population of 54,000 at that time. It is anticipated that 61.5% of the population will be aged between 15 and 64, equating to a maximum potential labour force of up to approximately 33,000. However, actual labour force rates are usually around 50% of the population when factors like late entry into the labour force (due to schooling and tertiary education) and early retirement are taken into account. This rate generates a probable labour force of approximately 27,000 living within Armstrong Creek at full development.

The growth plan seeks to provide for 22,000 jobs within Armstrong Creek through:

• Provision of a Major Activity Centre; • Provision of niche industrial development opportunities complementing the existing industrial structure of Geelong in the form of: o Locally oriented service industry opportunities in the north‐east of the growth area; and o Export oriented hi‐tech manufacturing opportunities in a business park setting in the west, south of Armstrong Creek. • Provision of a mix of activity centre office and business park spaces; and • Opportunities for advanced business services to establish in home based businesses and activity centres.

Council estimated that the area required to service an estimated population of 55,000 people is approximately 644 hectares of industrial land. However Council intend that Armstrong Creek focus on two industrial segments (manufacturing and service industry), therefore it calculated that 290 hectares is required. This was drilled down to include 187 hectares for manufacturing and 103 hectares for service industry. Ultimately this became 270 hectares allocated to industry across two key precincts. This section of the report explores the proposed industrial precincts, located to the north‐east (Marshall) and the west (adjacent to Ghazeepore Road).

Page 43 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

6.1 North‐Eastern Precinct This precinct includes 130 hectares of land, located in the north‐eastern pocket of the growth area, north of Barwon Heads Road. Much of its boundary is surrounded by flood prone land, while to its west; it sits adjacent to the existing Marshall area. It is intended that the precinct provide for a range of business types with a focus on the service industry needs. Council indicated this area was preferred because:

• It forms an extension of the existing Marshall Industrial Area; • The land is located at the junction of Barwon Heads Road and the future east‐west link connecting to the Geelong Ring Road, and would be served by quality access with high exposure; and • The area is relatively isolated and is of lower amenity value, located proximate to existing Industrial Estates on the north bank of the Barwon River in Breakwater and South Geelong.

The Panel is satisfied this area is appropriate to be used for industrial purposes and supports its designation as an Industrial Precinct on the Framework Plan.

6.2 Western Precinct This industrial precinct comprises approximately 140 hectares of land and is located south of Armstrong Creek though to Whites Road, and between Ghazeepore Road and Airport Road. It provides for the Dedicated Local Transit Route through the site, and the location of two specialised activity centres on a new connector street. Further, a proposed bio‐diversity corridor runs though the site in a slightly skewed north‐south direction (apparently to allow for views to Mt Duneed).

Council advised the Western Precinct is proposed to be a “high amenity business park, designed to accommodate hi tech manufacturing firms and research activity. The precinct is geared towards new economy industrial based land use. Dedicated office facilities will be clustered within activity centres or along the mixed use corridor”. Additionally, this precinct will accommodate office and research space associated with production and/or warehouse functions. Approximately 140 hectares of land has been designated for this precinct. Council indicated the key locational attributes include:

• Proximity to Deakin University; • Consolidated land in a high amenity location; • Proximity to the Geelong Ring Road and future east‐west link; • Provision of a buffer between the quarrying activities on the west side of Ghazeepore Road and residential land; • Opportunity to expand an enlarged (but still consolidated) employment precinct to the west side of Ghazeepore Road should demand dictate this in the future.

Page 44 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

The role that Deakin University’s Geelong Technology Park plays in the region was recognised within the plan and should be acknowledged in the broader framework.

In discussing the extent of land in this precinct, Mr Sheppard made the observation that while the land reserved in this precinct is generous, it could also be seen as land available for further residential development and as a trigger if other residential land is taken up quicker than forecasted.

Mr Underwood, whose client (Carter Electrical) owns a significant portion of land in this precinct, did not support the quantum of land to be set aside in this precinct, and considered it to be “excessive”. He presented a rather convoluted argument in support of this, with the Panel understanding that the principal reasons for this argument including:

• There is an abundance of industrial zoned land in Geelong that is ready for development and many of these areas will compete with Armstrong Creek for development and tenancies; • Most industrial land in Geelong is easily accessible and is within reasonable commuting times both to Geelong and Melbourne; • There was little empirical evidence to support the quantum of land in this particular precinct to be set aside; • The current pattern of industrial land in Geelong suggests that an equal ratio of households and jobs should be applied to Armstrong Creek, i.e. the population profile expected in Armstrong Creek does not match the industry profile proposed by Council; • The long term viability of an “Advanced Manufacturing Precinct” should not be set in stone. There should be a degree of flexibility, particularly as this precinct may take 20 to 25 years to develop; and • Synergies with Deakin University are not substantiated and should not be relied upon.

Council responded to these issues in its closing submission and indicated it did not support the propositions as put forward by Mr Underwood. To an extent, the Panel supports some of Mr Underwood’s contentions about the quantum of industrial land to be set aside in this precinct. It agrees with him in two respects. Firstly, the skewed biodiversity link has no basis and should not be included on the Framework Plan. Secondly, the Panel does not support the full extent of the land in this precinct to be used as industrial purposes, and concurs with Mr Underwood that it does seem to be excessive. The Panel therefore recommends that the industrial precinct follow Armstrong Creek to the south, to Whites Road but not include the eastern most (and largest two) lots of Carter Electrical. A new north‐south road should be provided

Page 45 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

that links with the proposed railway station and as an extension of Rossack Drive through to Whites Road. This is shown on the Panel’s revised Framework Plan in Appendix 4.

Mr Duncan was particularly scathing about the choice of this land for employment purposes, and expressed the view that the best residential land is located along much of Whites Road. Upon a further site inspection, the Panel can understand his opinion in this regard. He was concerned that the whole of the western side of Armstrong Creek had been “… shabbily dealt with”. The Panel accepts his opinion, but considers for reasons expressed earlier, the reduced area of land proposed for this industrial precinct is appropriate.

Blue Circle raised a number of issues about the impact of the Industrial Precinct on its land and operations, and these are dealt with in Section 13.1.

6.3 Other Business Locations and Opportunities Council advised that in addition to the designated activity centres and industrial land, other business locations and opportunities may include:

• Advanced business services that are established by individuals within their homes (Home Based Businesses), that may eventually relocate to enterprises within activity centres; and • Mixed use service precincts within specialised activity centre nodes in or near industrial areas.

In this regard, the Panel has no issue with the Council position that:

The shift towards a service based economy is to be further encouraged within the housing areas of the growth plan. Home based businesses will be provided with opportunities to ‘evolve into and out of’ spaces within a diverse activity centre structure where they provide a range of flexible office tenancies.

One in ten households will accommodate a home based business. Assuming one job per business, this translates into a residential employment base of 2,200 jobs. These are expected to be professional or service business oriented.

Specialised Activity Centres are proposed to service the workforce within the industrial areas with a range of food and drink premises. The nodes are well placed to accommodate activities such as research and development activities. Approximately 2,800 square metres is proposed in the North Eastern Industrial Precinct, whilst two nodes with an aggregate area of 3,800 square metres are proposed within the Western Industrial Precinct. Opportunities for additional

Page 46 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

employment will be dispersed throughout the growth area in locations such as schools, health facilities and recreation nodes, and may provide employment for a further 1,000 people.

The Panel supports the proposition that Armstrong Creek should avoid becoming a dormitory suburb, ie with a high percentage of residents commuting out of the area to work. To this end, the opportunity exists for Council to act on the competitive advantages of the areas selected to grow employment, providing for a level of self containment.

Council acknowledges that there is significant work yet to be undertaken to deliver the proposed employment outcomes, and that it is committed to further advancing this work. Overall, the Panel supports the general direction proposed by Council in relation to employment and industrial growth, except for its reservations about the quantum of land proposed for the Western Industrial Precinct.

6.4 Panel Findings The Panel’s findings in relation to industrial/employment areas are:

• It supports the identification of the two key employment areas, delineated as the North Eastern and Western Industrial Precincts on the Framework Plan. • Further, the Panel recognises that there will be significant employment opportunities in the tertiary (retail and community) sectors, as well as other business and service nodes. • The Panel takes issue with the extent of the Western precinct and recommends that its area be reduced by approximately one third so that it lies between Ghazeepore Road and the continuous lot line to the immediate east. It accepts arguments put that it is an excessively large area. • The Panel cautions the Council not to be overly prescriptive as to what might go into the two main industrial areas, so as not to fetter future employment and development opportunities. Given that Armstrong Creek will develop over the next 25 years, it is possible that new uses may emerge over time, so flexibility is important at this stage of the planning process to ensure ongoing economic sustainability.

Page 47 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

7. ACCESS AND MOVEMENT

7.1 Road Network The Armstrong Creek Growth Area contains a number of existing major roads which are generally laid out on an east‐west and north‐south grid pattern.

Mr Shrimpton presented information on the existing road hierarchy noting that there was one primary State arterial road (the Surf Coast Highway ‐ Torquay Road), two secondary State arterial roads (Barwon Heads Road and Lower Duneed Road), and six major roads in the area (Ghazeepore Road, Whites Road, Mt Duneed Road, Burvilles Road, Horseshoe Bend Road and Charlemont Road).

The Panel was surprised that Boundary Road was not included in the above analysis. Boundary Road provides a significant existing east‐west link through the area, notwithstanding the fact that there is significant remnant native vegetation identified along its reserve.

One of the principles in the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan is:

All native roadside vegetation must be retained and enhanced (some are already covered by VPO’s). This can be achieved by:

• applying the Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO) to native roadside vegetation not currently covered by VPO, and Environment Significance Overlay (ESO) to higher value patches; • limiting the use of roads with native roadside vegetation to passive uses only (walk, cycle, some public transport); • minimising the impact of development (including road widening and other infrastructure); • avoiding additional road crossings through roadside vegetation of high conservation significance; and • revegetation.

As the Armstrong Creek area has generally been rural, remnant native vegetation is concentrated along existing road reserves and creek and stream lines. As a consequence, the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan sought to minimise the use of the existing road network by leaving road reserves as pedestrian and cycle greenways and introduced diagonal roads to take advantage of view lines to natural features and/or provide direct links between identified activity centre nodes.

Page 48 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

The Panel found little support for this concept generally from submittors and during the hearing the Council amended its position in relation to the exhibited proposed road network, as expanded throughout this section of the report.

7.2 Greenways The exhibited plan showed a network of greenways across the area to provide pedestrian and cycle links with some augmentation for public transport and allowances for emergency vehicles. These greenways resulted from the use of existing roads where remnant vegetation was to be protected and enhanced with revegetation to provide for use only by pedestrians, cyclists etc. It was acknowledged by Mr Sheppard in his presentation that there were existing requirements on these roads for access to private property. The concept developed as part of the plan, was that through careful staged construction and perhaps temporary use, these roads could be phased out for use by vehicles and turned over to the pedestrian and cycling community.

Additional greenways would be added to the network to provide links where existing roads were not present, thereby creating a network of green travelways for pedestrians and cyclists.

There was substantial opposition by submittors in relation to the greenways concept. Several were concerned about the additional cost and difficulty of providing appropriate access to residential development. Significantly, the plan overall had drawn concern from submittors that the development contribution costs would be exceptionally high as a result of trying to achieve all the Council objectives and especially that the requirement to duplicate basic road infrastructure would be very expensive.

Under cross‐examination, Mr Shrimpton said that while ARUP had been involved in all the background work to the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan, they did not undertake road costing, noting that it would need to be covered as part of the Development Contributions Plan. The Panel believes that an initial costing at least would have highlighted the costing concerns put forward by submittors, probably leading to a reworking of the original concept.

The Panel was assisted by the evidence of Mr Hancox who noted that the greenway concept was inappropriate for a number of reasons including:

• streets as pedestrian routes are safer when there is a considerable surveillance of activity and vehicular traffic contributes strongly to surveillance, • there are existing streets along much of the proposed greenway network which includes utilities and other facilities,

Page 49 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

• difficulties in staged implementation of access and consolidation of land titles from multiple ownerships, • backing onto greenways and difficulty in having an “address”, and • opportunity for vegetation protection by other means.

Mr Hancox presented some diagrams and typical cross‐sections which showed how vegetation could be retained as part of the upgrade of the local road network.

The Panel agrees that where necessary, significant remnant native vegetation should be retained. The residential development of the Armstrong Creek area will substantially increase the amount of overall vegetation when compared to the existing rural landscape and the opportunity for significant native vegetation will be retained, particularly along reserves adjacent to the water courses. The Panel is mindful of the desire to extend urban Geelong and while it is supportive of the principles behind extensive native vegetation retention, it does not believe that it is necessary to alienate existing roads from the development fabric. Moreover, while bicycle and pedestrian paths in built up areas are common along creeks and railway reservations, there are issues in relation to surveillance from adjacent development such as to maintain safety and amenity of users which significantly detracts from their use as presented in the plan.

In his presentation to the Panel, Mr Sheppard provided an indicative lot layout to illustrate various treatments of lots abutting greenways which did not provide for general public road access. The Panel has concerns with some of these examples in terms of their practicality and efficiency. Some of the problems identified by the Panel in relation to these examples are:

• the requirement for high fencing limiting surveillance of the greenway leading to possible safety/amenity problems where lots have a side boundary to the greenway. Side boundaries to greenways would be common because the public road access to the lots would need to occur at the site frontage on a road other than the greenway; • the need to duplicate or provide additional road reserve and paving to accommodate public road access; • provision of publicly accessible roads parallel to the greenway with lots fronting one side of that road only; • difficulties for visitors, and in particular first‐time visitors, locating those lots which front the greenway if general public vehicle access to the frontage was not available.

The Panel notes that in its closing submission, the Council acknowledged the necessity for a further detailed investigation of the collector/connector road network.

Page 50 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

The Council does however not accept the use of the existing road reservations in their entirety to provide for this network as it is concerned about the loss of vegetation.

7.3 Diagonal Roads The Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan includes diagonal roads linking the major activity centres as well as roads generally pointing to Mt Duneed. The diagonal road concept grew from the removal of the existing orthogonal road network and replacing it with “shortest route” links.

Duncan Elliott, VicRoads’ Regional Manager – South Western Region, noted that the diagonal roads were a “concept” only and that they would present some “challenges for intersection design”.

The Panel agrees with this and the criticism raised in Dr. Wolinski’s evidence that:

The exhibited Armstrong Creek precinct structure plans does not meet the basic requirements for structure plans as an analysis of the overall structure plan shows an unresolved road network system including indicative secondary road links that appear to be “desire lines” rather than proposed future roads.

As part of its closing, Council advised:

Council’s response to the interim directions of the Panel was to remove the diagonal roads east of the Surf Coast Highway. The principal reason was to resolve developer angst in respect to this element of the plan.

To the west of the Surf Coast Highway, diagonal roads linking possible neighbourhood centres and aligned toward Mt Duneed are shown on the plan. The Panel does not believe that Mt Duneed is a sufficiently significant natural feature that it should crest a distant road profile. Telecommunications facilities at its peak are the dominant visual feature, a feature the Panel considers need not be highlighted or the focus of a vista. Significantly, submissions were made that view lines to Mt Duneed would be impeded by development, vegetation and other factors making the view line concept inappropriate. In any event, the Panel believes that it is not necessary at this time to include future road proposals at the local street level on the structure plan.

Additionally, other concerns were expressed about the implications of the diagonal roads and greenways, including from the Catholic Education Office, who said:

The Catholic Education Guidelines for locating schools indicates that there should be at

Page 51 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

least two abutting roads to the site. The parcel of land to the north west of the connector road will only have the one and with two schools, the resultant traffic flows could prove difficult to manage. It would be expected that the appropriate traffic management assessments would be made prior to any decisions on the connector road with due consultation with this Office. This is particularly important now that the portion of Boundary Road abutting 461‐499 is being considered as a Green Way with closure to vehicular traffic and restricting it to a cycle and pedestrian route.

7.4 Public Transport Network The exhibited Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan includes a series of dedicated public transport routes (bus routes but surprisingly considered in the supporting documentation to also be suitable for a network of shuttle vehicles) which would circulate throughout the residential development and link to the Major Activity Centre and public transports nodes. Significantly, these routes are to be dedicated solely to public transport operating independently of the at‐grade road network.

While all submittors seemed to be in favour of enhanced public transport services, there was a general dismay at the duplication of transport corridors, the consequent increase in development costs and the impact on ease and staging of development.

During cross‐examination by Mr Bartley, Mr Shrimpton agreed that there were alternatives such as the provision of separate bus lanes and electronic priority control at signals available now to give adequate levels of service and priority for buses.

The Panel is satisfied that an appropriate provision for a first class level of public transport can be made as part of the collector street network.

The Panel sees a commitment to the provision of services, particularly in relation to frequency and extent of timetabling, as being fundamental precursors to achieving acceptance of public transport use within the developing community. These commitments are significantly more important than having a dedicated bus route and allow flexibility as areas develop, plans change, and community needs are modified.

Page 52 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

7.5 Rail Link A major part of the plan was the identified future rail link from the Geelong‐ Warrnambool railway line to the major activity centre and beyond to service Torquay/Jan Juc. The rail link was supported by most submittors and many urged the Panel to give the link a high level of support.

The Panel notes with disappointment that the Department of Infrastructure in its submission was unable to indicate active support of the proposal or make any meaningful commitment to it. However, the Panel sees the inclusion of major transport infrastructure as a fundamental element in the planning of growth areas and it strongly supports the inclusion of planning for a rail link.

There are two parts to the rail link, the connection initially to the Major Activity Centre and then as possible future connection to Torquay/Jan Juc.

Interestingly, Mr Sheppard differed in his interpretation of the proposed rail link, as he advised the Panel that the Urban Growth Plan does not promote a particular technology for the rail link, and it could very well be a bus link or a light rail link. He said the important matter to focus on was the provision of a dedicated corridor in this location. As a matter of principle, the Panel agrees with him.

In response to questions from the Panel, Council advised that the cost of providing rail as a double track is in the order of four million dollars per kilometre. This does not include electrification or stations. Light rail costs more, approximately six million dollars per kilometre.

(i) Rail Link to the Major Activity Centre

The link to the Major Activity Centre is shown as leaving the Geelong‐Warrnambool line at a logical point terminating at the Major Activity Centre site. The rail corridor would require a width of approximately 45 metres in order that future rail development could be below natural surface, thereby facilitating easy construction of road overpasses for the local road network.

An appropriate rail corridor could be reserved as part of any future development contributions plan, as it is to be located immediately adjacent to a green corridor, the route could be grassed and used for passive recreation until such time as the railway infrastructure were installed.

Council was seeking to have the widest possible width for the rail link and biodiversity corridor, and under cross examination form Mr Morris, Mr Shrimpton conceded that there was “oodles of room” in the proposed reservation.

Page 53 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

(ii) Rail Link to Torquay/Jan Juc

South of the Major Activity Centre, two alternative corridors were identified for a future rail link to Torquay/Jan Juc.

Both corridors run south from the Major Activity Centre to the crossing of Armstrong Creek. Thereafter, a western corridor would run adjacent to the Surf Coast Highway while the eastern corridor would adopt an alignment some 600 metres to the east of the highway. While the Panel does not have a view as to which of these options should be ultimately adopted, it is strongly of the opinion that a route should be identified and when rezoning of the Armstrong Creek area occurs an appropriate reservation should also be set aside so as not to frustrate the possible future connection.

(iii) Future Railway Stations

The Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan shows a future major railway station at Rossack Drive on the Geelong‐Warrnambool line. This would be a local railway station at the western end of the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area which would serve both the existing Rossack Drive residential area and the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area including the Western Industrial Precinct.

Additional benefits of having the station at this location would be:

• its close proximity to the Waurn Ponds Deakin University campus; • the ability to provide for train stabling immediately beyond the growth area in or adjacent to the Blue Circle site; and • the availability of land for a major commuter car park.

As previously mentioned in Section 5.1 above, an alternative location for a railway station (west of the Surf Coast Highway) was suggested by Dr Wolinski in his evidence on behalf of Soritel, so it could serve a possible Major Activity Centre on the Soritel site. While noting that there are issues in relation to the line gradient and proximity to Marshall Station, Dr Wolinski’s view was that design issues can be overcome and there were similar separations between stations in metropolitan Melbourne and it was therefore premature to rule out this location for a future major station.

While the Panel noted Dr Wolinski’s comments in relation to location of the station, it agreed with other submitters that having regard to the existing station at Marshall the exhibited plan gave a better spread of stations being at the proposed Major Activity Centre on Burvilles Road and at Rossack Drive.

Page 54 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

7.6 Ring Road Link to Surf Coast Highway The east‐west link from the Geelong Ring Road to the Surf Coast Highway, and indeed ultimately to the Bellarine Highway, is proposed to run south of and roughly parallel to the Warrnambool – Geelong Railway. This route is in keeping with VicRoads’ investigation area and seems to the Panel to be sensible approach for making a connection from the Ring Road to the Surf Coast Highway.

The Mount Duneed Ring Road Action Group submitted however, that they were concerned that the adoption of the east‐west route and the development of the Armstrong Creek area would put pressure on a southern connection between the Anglesea Road (as the extension of the Ring Road) and the Surf Coast Highway along Mount Duneed Road.

They argued that “the Mount Duneed Road alignment would be unsuitable ….. works to make the existing undulating road suitable would result in problems of property access. It would still deliver traffic to an unsuitable (steep & hidden) intersection with the Surf Coast Highway.” They also expressed concern for the safety of cyclists, horse riders and pedestrians.

The Panel regards the plans showing a southern link from the Anglesea Road to the Surf Coast Highway along Mount Duneed Road as indicative only. Further work will be necessary to determine the best route however, the Panel shares the view of the Mount Duneed Road Action Group that the existing Mount Duneed Road/Surf Coast Highway intersection is not likely to be a suitable joining point. To maintain the safety and amenity of the existing Mount Duneed Road, the Panel notes that only a short part of the existing alignment nearer to the proposed Anglesea Road deviation would be suitable for the link with the connection road to the Surf Coast Highway perhaps following a route along less undulating terrain to meet the Surf Coast Highway further to the south.

This is a matter for further investigation by VicRoads.

Page 55 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

7.7 Panel Findings The Panel findings in relation to access and movement are:

• The Framework Plan should not include greenways and these should be deleted. • While public transport will be a major component for the developing area, dedicated local transit routes are not appropriate, and should be deleted. Local public transport opportunities should be provided for on the collector road network. • Areas of significant remnant native vegetation occurring on existing road reserves should be preserved where practicable using standard design measures so that the connectivity of the existing road network may be maintained. • The proposed heavy rail link from the Geelong‐Warrnambool line to the Major Activity Centre and beyond to Torquay/Jan Juc is a fundamental plank of future planning and should be incorporated in the plan. • The future railway station near to Rossack Drive on the Geelong‐ Warrnambool line and stabling yards nearby together with commuter car parking should continue to be part of the plan. • The diagonal roads to the east of Surf Coast Highway should be deleted from the Framework Plan, likewise the diagonal road focussing on Mt Duneed to the west of the Surf Coast Highway.

Page 56 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

8. SOCIAL AND COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE

The three key aspects of social and community infrastructure to be discussed relate to public open space, education facilities, and other (more general) community infrastructure.

8.1 Public Open Space The proposed provision of open space for Armstrong Creek is summarised as follows:

Description Area (ha) % of growth area Regional sporting facilities 20 1 Neighbourhood sports grounds, within 75 3 or co‐located with government schools Local parks 20 1 Passive parks on unencumbered land 235 10 Passive parks on encumbered land 155 7 TOTAL 505 22

(i) Regional

The Council advised there are commitments to regional sporting facilities to be located west of Armstrong Creek, that is, immediately east of Ghazeepore Road between the forks in Armstrong Creek, and east of Barwon Heads Road immediately adjacent to Armstrong Creek. The overall area of these two regional sporting facilities is approximately 1% of the total land area as defined by the urban growth boundary. This seems to be reasonable in the context of the population to be accommodated within the urban growth area.

Mr Duncan owns a property in the west of the site, which is largely proposed to be used for one of the regional facilities. He submitted the western boundary of the growth plan “… lacks any imagination and finesse. The concept of locating a major recreational area adjacent to a massive employment block demonstrates flawed thinking”. He went on to say that such a facility should be centrally located. He further questioned the various road proposals for the western edge of Armstrong Creek and the future quarry area. Accessibility to a regional facility was particularly important he argued. The Panel considers these are legitimate views, and there is no doubt that until the future of the road reserves become more settled, there will always be some uncertainty.

Page 57 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

However, the Panel does not take issue with the proposed location of the regional facility. It is one of two proposed for Armstrong Creek and it is the very nature of regional open space and major sporting grounds that it caters for a variety of transport options. It is located to the south of a proposed rail station and also has Council’s dedicated transit route bypassing it (notwithstanding the Panel does not support these routes). However, a sophisticated bus or public transport system will access the site over time, and accessibility by private vehicle is also good. Mr Duncan makes an important point when he notes the strategic location of the Mt Duneed Recreation Reserve to the south (outside the urban growth boundary but inside the study area). This reserve will form part of the regional open space network and will be used by new residents to Armstrong Creek. It too could be developed to integrate with the whole of the growth area.

(ii) Neighbourhood

Neighbourhood open space is proposed to be co‐located with the primary school/secondary school facilities across the growth area. Council acknowledged evidence from Mr Panozzo that suggested that the model envisaged in the plan of co‐location with schools needs further refinement, however the Panel agrees that the land area allocated for this element of open space is appropriate.

(iii) Local Parks

Local parks are not depicted visually in the Framework Plan, and it is expected that their specific location will be provided as part of the various Precinct Structure Plans as stages of the growth corridor are progressed. Locations would be defined through Clause 56 (ResCode) provisions in relation to subdivision design/provision of open space.

(iv) Passive Parks on Encumbered and Unencumbered Land

Council advised that the majority of passive parkland (linear parks) is proposed on land encumbered by Floodway and/or Land Subject to Inundation Overlays defined by flood study work, however there are passive parklands proposed on unencumbered land. This resulted in some debate and discussion at the hearing.

One passive park land/biodiversity corridor is proposed to run parallel with Barwarre Road. This link is intended to accommodate a transit route for a possible future rail line, pedestrian paths within or adjacent to this planted biodiversity link. Evidence was provided regarding the necessity for the proposed width of this biodiversity corridor to achieve the intended purpose of a flora/fauna corridor linking Armstrong Creek to the significant stands of indigenous vegetation to the

Page 58 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

north. Council submitted that the biodiversity corridor will provide “enhanced linkages between the remnant vegetation in the north and south of the growth corridor and whilst not driven by biodiversity principles in the first instance it will enhance the likelihood of maintenance of biodiversity in this corridor post‐urbanisation”. The Panel accepts that as a significant passive park land, it provides a break to what will be a significant expanse of urban development and enhance the liveability of this growth corridor.

The other major passive parklands proposed across the growth corridor are on land either encumbered by proposed Floodway or Land Subject to Inundation Overlays defined by Council’s flood study work (Water Technology evidence) or by existing significant stands of remnant vegetation.

Another area is Hoopers Paddock, a 16 hectare allotment located on the corner of Lake Road and Horseshoe Bend Road, north of the Armstrong Creek alignment. Golder Associates provided evidence that this allotment has a significant stand of remnant vegetation which could be potentially compromised by urban development. The evidence suggested that to develop the land to below 4,000 square metre allotments (1 acre lots) would result in remnant vegetation being considered as lost under DSE Best Practice Approach. Council argued that “retention of Hoopers Paddock as a passive park land would provide an opportunity for ongoing re‐ growth from existing remnant stock and would reinforce the significant biodiversity benefits delivered from the adjacent riparian zone of Armstrong Creek and the Stewarts Reserve”. Council stood its ground on this issue and argued that its evidence about the ecological/biodiversity value of this site “ought to influence strongly the Panel’s position in relation to the maintenance of this area as passive park land”.

This argument further extends to the linkage up Horseshoe Bend Road to the passive parkland proposed on encumbered land running diagonally east from Horseshoe Bend Road.

Council’s proposal for other passive parkland on encumbered land is defined by the Floodway and Land Subject to Inundation Overlays. Council considered this to be a justified approach, given its evidence tendered in relation to the riparian zone adjacent to Armstrong Creek and the lesser natural drainage lines. Mr Demeo argued this “will achieve the multi purposes of maintenance of the flood capacity, preserve opportunities to maintain biodiversity linkages along the riparian zone and adjacent areas, and obviously provide opportunities for linear parks/passive recreation”.

Page 59 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

(v) Panel Findings

Council acknowledged that an overall open space requirement of 22% could be perceived as high, but questioned whether it is beyond reason to require this level of open space for Armstrong Creek. Mr Demeo advocated that it is not unreasonable, given the encumbered nature of a significant portion of the land to be set aside as public open space.

The Panel was advised the Waurn Ponds/Grovedale area (approximately 20,000 people in an area of around 1,000 hectares) has an open space allocation of approximately 18%. Council saw this as comparable “to the proposed growth area with two regional park areas (the baseball centre on Pioneer Road – opposite Waurn Ponds Shopping Centre) and the Grovedale/Breakwater Road multi‐field complex, along with the Waurn Ponds Creek alignment and the scattering of local park land/recreation facilities across the suburbs”.

Council submitted that “the requirement for public open space in this corridor is not beyond reasonable in the context of existing open space provision in adjacent areas”.

Many submittors disagreed. Most of the developer representatives argued that 22% in totality was too much, and suggested that the unencumbered land requirement should be significantly less.

Mr Bisset submitted that “Council has not established the basis for the proposed open space requirements under the urban growth plan and the present Amendment.” He reminded the Panel of the extensive work required to establish an open space figure for incorporation into the planning scheme to meet the requirements of clause 52.01 or the criteria under section 18 of the Subdivision Act 1988. In this regard he said:

The effect of mandating an open space contribution into the planning scheme is significant. Such an approach removes the operation of section 18 of the Subdivision Act 1988 and the ability of affected landowners to challenge open space contributions on future subdivisions.

It is submitted that while open space policy objectives can be specified, there should not be a prescribed open space contribution included as part of the planning scheme at this stage of the process.

The Panel was not convinced by the Council’s case that 22% of potential developable land should be used as open space. The preferred figure should be in the 12 to 15% range, based on the fact that there are few natural features that ought be retained, the growth area will form part of a much wider locale, the area to the east of the

Page 60 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

urban growth boundary forms part of the extensive Barwon River flood plain, and the inherent value and accessibility of the Mt Duneed Recreation Reserve was not taken into account. Council’s final allocation will be reduced in any event by the Panel’s later recommendation that the Floodway and Land Subject to Inundation Overlays be abandoned at this stage of the planning process.

The Panel has not undertaken any further analysis of where the open space should be provided as this will occur during the detailed planning for Armstrong Creek. However, retention and enhancement of interesting and diverse linkages between and thorough the various precincts is critical.

8.2 Education Facilities The Panel was advised the requirements for public school facilities across Armstrong Creek have been informed in consultation with the Department of Education and Training. Key principles include co‐location of schools with activity centres, and the shared use of community facilities. This is a concept which is considered generally appropriate, however the specific details of this implementation is a matter which will require refinement when development of Armstrong Creek moves forward.

A key principle is that the education facilities should be located so they are directly accessible to public transport, a pedestrian and/or cycle network throughout the growth corridor.

As far as the Panel is aware, at least three non‐Government school sites are identified for Armstrong Creek. A Lutheran School is about to commence building and this is located on the south east corner of Burvilles Road and the Surf Coast Highway, immediately adjacent to the proposed Major Activity Centre. Planning for this is complete and it is anticipated that the school will open in 2009.

The Roman Catholic Trust Corporation has secured a site at 461‐499 Boundary Road within the proposed Horseshoe Bend Neighbourhood Activity Centre. Mr Love, who appeared for the Corporation was critical of the diagonal road proposed in this location and cautioned of the planning implications of this. He said that while the site can be utilised for a primary and secondary school located on opposite sides of the connector road:

It is possible that they could be established as one Prep to Year 12 school of two campuses. The division of the site by the proposed connector road will not allow the location of a full Prep to Year 12 school totally on one parcel of land of approximately 8 hectares on one or other side of the connector road, especially given the triangular shape of the resultant allotment.

Page 61 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

The Panel agrees and it has recommended against the diagonal road system.

In addition, the Anglican Diocese is also seeking a site to establish a school within Armstrong Creek, but it is yet to identify a specific site. The Panel acknowledges that the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development will provide advice about the appropriate location of primary and any additional secondary schools at a later time.

8.3 Other Community Infrastructure The Volume 1 report provides a general overview of social/community issues, and the Panel recognises there are some limitations to the level of detail provided in respect to the ultimate delivery of social infrastructure. Council highlighted the report covers broad indications with respect to the likely needs for maternal and child health/day care through to education, general practitioners, library, aged care and a youth nightclub. Mr Panozzo gave evidence that more detail on a wide range of community infrastructure is needed, a position difficult to argue with at this stage of the planning process, however, this should occur as part of the preparation and development of precinct plans.

In undertaking this further work, the Panel notes that the Barwon Health Aged Care facility is currently being built on the east side of Torquay Road, approximately 800 metres north of Boundary Road. It is due for completion in 2008. A “Local Centre B” is planned to locate close‐by. It is considered this local centre should locate in a more northerly direction and be complementary to the aged care facility, particularly as the Major Activity Centre is now proposed to extend up to Boundary Road.

The Panel believes that the development of social infrastructure is a critical issue for the new community at Armstrong Creek. All parties should work together to ensure that in building the “community” at Armstrong Creek, it is not just about providing the physical infrastructure, but rather, ensuring that people within the community are fully involved and engaged in building and developing their new community. Ownership of Armstrong Creek by the people who live there will be important, and excellence in community building will assist to ensure a vibrant and robust community, fully engaged in all aspects of its development. Making Armstrong Creek a socially cohesive place, rather than merely providing the space, should be a key objective. Armstrong Creek could set new benchmarks as a vibrant and a truly liveable community.

In discussing community infrastructure, it should be noted that provision of social and affordable housing, while not canvassed to any great extent at the hearing, should be considered by all involved in development of Armstrong Creek. This

Page 62 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

presents a real opportunity for Council, the Government and developers to achieve and deliver on a range of housing types and options.

8.4 Panel Findings The Panel’s findings in relation to social and community infrastructure are:

• While the Framework Plan is reasonably broad brush, the Panel considers it prudent to clearly delineate some key facilities. • The Panel is generally comfortable with the outline of community services and facilities proposed, but the detailed planning for these will occur through the Development Contribution Plans and Precinct Structure Plan process. • The Lutheran and Catholic school sites and the Aged Care facility should be marked on the Framework Plan, as their location is already established and future planning of community infrastructure must occur with this in mind. If there is a road proposed along the south side of the Aged Care facility, the proposed Local Centre B should be located on the same side of the road. • With regard to the provision of open space, the Panel is less comfortable. The Reference Document should reflect a total allocation of 12 to 15% of land to be set aside for public open space purposes as being realistic and achievable. Further work needs to be undertaken to ensure that the optimum locations are set aside for these purposes, including proving good linkages throughout the area. • Overall, the provision of community and education facilities is a matter for more detailed planning once rezoning occurs and the Precinct Structure Plans are being prepared. It is a laudable objective, and one which no issue was taken with, so that all areas have access to well planned and appropriate social infrastructure. • The Panel is confident that this will occur across the board with the finalisation of Development Contributions Plans and the Precinct Structure Plans, and in consultation with Council, the appropriate government departments, key providers and the land developers. • The principles of co‐location of key facilities in the Major and Neighbourhood Activity Centres is now a well entrenched planning outcome and Armstrong Creek provides an excellent opportunity to lead the way in this regard.

Page 63 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

9. BIODIVERSITY CORRIDORS

The Urban Growth Plan includes the delineation of extensive areas as biodiversity corridor/passive parkland. This occurs in three main areas:

• along Armstrong Creek and its tributaries; • adjacent to Barwarre Road (main north‐south biodiversity corridor); and • Hoopers Paddock.

9.1 Armstrong Creek and its Tributaries The delineation of the biodiversity corridor along Armstrong Creek and its tributaries has been largely based on the delineation of the proposed Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (compare Figures 4.1.2 and 4.2.1 in the exhibited Urban Growth Plan). This is also borne out in the evidence of Mr Sheppard.

Page 35 of the Urban Growth Plan calls for the habitat values alongside Armstrong Creek and its tributaries to be protected. This is to be achieved by:

• ensuring the extent of public open space along Armstrong Creek and its tributaries aligns with the 1‐in‐100 year flood event extent (as shown in figure 4.1.2); and • avoiding clearing within the riparian buffer distance around certain wetlands or in or within 70 m of a prescribed stream.

Mr Underwood was critical of the width of the open space corridor proposed on both sides of Armstrong Creek, and the delineation of a 70 metre buffer distance from a prescribed stream. He stated:

Reserving land within the 1 in 100 year flood extent is agreed and that land will be given up. But there is no support for taking additional land to an arbitrary distance of 70 metres on each side of all streams and wetlands where there is no substantiation based on specific study that gives reason for that buffer.

The protection of catchments, waterways and groundwater policy provisions of the State Planning Policy Framework at Clause 15.01‐2 state that ‘vegetated buffer zones at least 30 metres wide…’ should be provided to assist in the protection and enhancement of the waterway and features.

The Panel is critical in Section 10 of this report of the delineation of the flooding overlays and the fact that the flooding regime may alter after more detailed studies of the post‐development drainage conditions are undertaken. However, in the case

Page 64 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

of Armstrong Creek, which is a significant waterway, the Panel considers that the post‐development 1 in 100 year flood level is an appropriate standard to apply for defining the flood plain and therefore for defining proposed passive parkland. Such delineation may or may not include an existing or future biodiversity corridor depending upon the existing vegetation or proposed revegetation that exists or is planned. However, the Panel sees no reason to define an arbitrary 70 metre buffer distance where any part of that buffer occurs outside of the flood plain. Rather, there should be consistency with the State Planning Policy Framework minimum 30 metre width of the whole corridor. The one exception would be where there is significant native vegetation of at least a medium level of significance contiguous with but outside of that 30 metre width.

That is, the extent of the biodiversity corridor along Armstrong Creek and its tributaries should be defined by:

• the 1 in 100 year flood plain in the anticipated post‐development situation; • where the flood plain is less than 30 metres width, a minimum width of 30 metres should be provided; and • where the flood plain adjoins remnant native vegetation of at least a medium level of significance outside of but contiguous with the flood plain, that area of remnant vegetation should also be included in the corridor.

Mr Duncan, a local landholder questioned Mr Conole on the biodiversity values of the western area of Armstrong Creek, and was concerned that underlying values might be compromised if the proposed recreation area was degraded by users “wandering around” with little respect for the area. Mr Conole responded by indicating that management plans would assist to enhance the overall value of the area as part of development of the growth area.

A biodiversity corridor is proposed to cross Armstrong Creek, though the Western Industrial Precinct. Its sole purpose was to provide a visual link between the proposed Rossack Drive Railway Station and the summit of Mt Duneed. The Panel considers it should be deleted. The view to Mt Duneed is not particularly significant. In any event, the view would be restricted as new development is constructed and the corridor is landscaped. Much of the proposed corridor passes through the industrial precinct and would have limited utility as passive open space.

Page 65 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

9.2 Main North‐South Corridor The exhibited version of the Urban Growth Plan depicted a biodiversity corridor extending southwards from the northern boundary of the Urban Growth Area to the Geelong Crematorium. It was not shown passing through the crematorium to connect to Armstrong Creek, apparently on the presumption that the corridor would be maintained in an informal manner through the crematorium to the creek. As exhibited the alignment of the corridor was approximately midway between Torquay Road and Barwarre Road on the east side of the proposed railway line from Marshall Station. The railway line is proposed to be 40‐45 metres wide and the biodiversity corridor is proposed to be in the order of 80 metres width immediately adjacent to it.

Some submissions to the originally submitted amendment sought to have the main north‐south biodiversity corridor aligned with Barwarre Road, because of the presence of remnant native vegetation in that road reserve. Council agreed with these submissions and resolved at its July 2007 meeting to amend the structure plan to relocate the biodiversity corridor to the east so as to be aligned with Barwarre Road.

This addressed to some extent some concerns raised in submissions. However, a number of submittors and witnesses considered that the width of the corridor was excessive given the importance of ensuring there was sufficient land for urban purposes and the absence of significant vegetation already existing within the corridor.

The report prepared by Mr Conole includes a plan plotting areas of high and medium roadside vegetation and areas of remnant vegetation. The only vegetation mapped in the vicinity of the proposed north‐south corridor is medium level roadside vegetation along parts of Barwarre Road. This was confirmed by the Panelʹs inspections and by a review of aerial photography along the corridor route, which indicates that the corridor comprises cleared pasture almost in its entirety.

The width of the corridor is based on a study of bird communities in urban areas of Sydney. Apparently birds reach 30 metres into the vegetation, indicating that corridors 60 metres wide have no core habitat for specialist forest and woodland birds. Therefore, an 80 metre wide corridor provides a minimum 20 metres width of core habitat. That is, the wider the corridor the richer the fauna diversity will be.

Whilst the corridor has little existing vegetation along it, the Panel considers that its retention on the Urban Framework Plan is warranted, as it will provide a significant north‐south vegetated link in the future, centrally located through an extensive built‐ up area.

Page 66 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

The Panel is also mindful that if the 40‐45 metre wide strip adjacent to the corridor is developed for rail purposes that there may be considerable opposition in the future to the development of the rail line if it involves the removal of native vegetation that may develop along its course between now and the time that it is required for that purpose. Retaining an 80 metre wide area for a dedicated linear urban forest adjacent to the rail line alignment could be regarded as a dedicated native vegetation offset provided in 2008 in anticipation of that future tree removal.

9.3 Hoopers Paddock Hooperʹs Paddock is a site controlled by the Dennis Family Corporation. It is bound on three sides by roads: Burvilles Road to the north, Horseshoe Bend Road to the west and Lake Road to the south. It is identified as having a higher ecological value than many other sites in the Armstrong Creek area because it has a denser occurrence of native vegetation, including a number of River Red Gums and Studley Park Gums.

Under the Urban Growth Plan it is proposed to include the site as biodiversity corridor/passive parkland.

Under cross examination from Mr Bartley, Mr Conole conceded the following points:

• Hoopers Paddock is not a site of uniform quality; • It is not covered in trees; • It has little or no ground cover; • There are a number of options that would allow the site to be used for development.

In response to re‐examination by Mr Demeo, Mr Conole agreed that interruptions to the ecological corridor present a far greater challenge.

Mr Conole indicated that if the site was developed at lots of less than 4,000 square metres, the advice that he has received from the Department of Sustainability and Environment is that the long term prospects of the remnant scattered trees would be poor. Apparently, this is because the trees are expected to be lost through natural means or it is expected that they will be removed for safety reasons. Part of the rationale for this approach also appears to be that because a planning permit is not required to remove vegetation from a site of less than 4,000 square metres, the absence of control over native vegetation removal is lost and therefore the vegetation is deemed to be lost.

Page 67 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

That may occur in some or many cases, but it certainly cannot be postulated as a general proposition. There is a variety of tools, such as the Vegetation Protection Overlay, possibly in combination with specific provisions scheduled into a Development Plan Overlay to protect vegetation on lots of less than 4,000 square metres. Council can apply these tools to overcome the site area exemption provided by the Native Vegetation Particular Provisions.

The Panel inspected Hoopers Paddock from all of its existing road frontages and examined aerial photography provided to it of the area. The Panel observes that the density and coverage of the vegetation is not particularly high. An innovative, site‐ responsive subdivision design could protect almost all of the significant and healthy native trees that exist on the site. That may result in wider and more curved road reserves in which trees could be located, the provision of larger lots, requirements for building envelopes outside of tree protection zones and other techniques used in other similar situations to protect and maintain significant vegetation.

Mr Bartley drew the Panelʹs attention to the Morningside Estate in Gisborne, the site of which was initially the subject of an unsuccessful applicant review to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The Dennis Family Corporation subsequently secured the site, and was able to obtain planning permission by provision of lots of up to 3,500 square metres and extensive areas of open space in which to accommodate existing vegetation as well as the provision of extensive revegetation.

There are numerous other well treed residentially zoned sites where similar outcomes have been successfully achieved. Sustainable residential development of well treed sites is not without precedent, and the Springthorpe Estate near LaTrobe University immediately comes to mind as an exemplar in environmental excellence.

In so far as Hoopers Paddock may provide a biodiversity link between Armstrong Creek and a narrow link on the east side of Horseshoe Bend Road, this could be depicted as a notional link through the land with its precise location to be determined at the development plan approval stage.

The Panel considers that it is unnecessary to withdraw Hoopers Paddock from residential development and that there is a suite of tools available to protect and maintain the native vegetation currently on the site and to provide for further revegetation. Moreover, the site offers residential development amenity and conservation values that could result in a particularly special residential development sub‐neighbourhood within Armstrong Creek. Such diversity may well add to the overall character of Armstrong Creek.

Page 68 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

9.4 Panel Findings The Panel’s findings in relation to the biodiversity corridors are:

• The extent of the biodiversity corridor along Armstrong Creek and its tributaries should be defined by: − the 1 in 100 year flood plain in the anticipated post‐development situation; − where the flood plain is less than 30 metres width, a minimum width of 30 metres should be provided; and − where the flood plain adjoins remnant native vegetation of at least a medium level of significance outside of but contiguous with the flood plain, that area of remnant vegetation should also be included. • The biodiversity corridor between the proposed Rossack Drive railway station and Mt Duneed should be deleted. • The main north‐south biodiversity corridor should be retained. • Hoopers Paddock should be made available for site‐responsive residential development, including a suite of controls that provides for the protection and maintenance of the native vegetation that presently exists and for further revegetation.

Page 69 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

10. FLOODING/DRAINAGE CONTROLS

The amendment seeks to update the flooding controls that apply to the Armstrong Creek area, including a review of the Floodway Overlay and the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay over undeveloped areas and the inclusion of a Special Building Overlay over existing developed areas at Marshall. In addition, the Urban Growth Plan shows the location of detention basins/wetlands. At the July 2007 Council meeting, Council resolved that this designation of detention basins/wetlands be qualified by the word “Indicative”.

10.1 Flood Mapping Dr McCowan and Mr Muncaster of Water Technology provided evidence on behalf of Council. They prepared the flooding and drainage studies that were then fed into the Urban Growth Plan. There was considerable debate about the methodology used to identify wetlands and the proposed planning controls designating areas subject to flooding.

The main basis of the flooding controls was a report prepared by Water Technology in February 2006, Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan: Flooding and Drainage ‐ Existing Conditions Assessment. Whilst a subsequent report was prepared in July 2006 as a preliminary assessment of mitigation measures, this appears not to have influenced the extent of the flood areas nominated in the earlier report prepared but did result in the definition of the wetlands/detention basins.

Page 2 of the February 2006 report is quite explicit that it deals with existing conditions only. Pages 26‐27 acknowledge that any development within the study area may change flooding behaviour and in turn the flood prone delineation, if appropriate mitigation measures are not undertaken.

Dr McCowan indicated that the methodology his firm used was consistent with that used by Melbourne Water for determining planning controls associated with flooding. However, as accurate as that statement may be, under cross‐examination from Mr Gobbo it was evident that the flooding that was plotted at least on the Coles land was not associated with any flooding relating to the flooding of Armstrong Creek. The flooding on the Coles land rather appears to be a localised and a relatively minor (in terms of its depth being less than 0.2 metres) flood path that was plotted as banking up where the land met Burvilles Road, despite the land itself being more elevated than Burvilles Road. No account had been taken of existing culverts that existed under the road for dispersing those floodwaters from the site. Inspection by the Panel indicated that a culvert was located under Burvilles Road

Page 70 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

which apparently was not factored into the designation of the flood prone area. The Panel has concerns about the accuracy of the flood mapping that occurred on the Coles land.

10.2 Impacts The Victoria Planning Provisions Practice Note: Applying the Flood Provisions in Planning Schemes differentiates between mainstream flooding which is water that overflows river banks onto adjacent low‐lying land causing flooding and stormwater flooding, which occurs when the rainfall run‐off exceeds capacity of the drainage system to accommodate overland flows. In the former case the Urban Floodway Zone, Floodway Overlay and Land Subject to Inundation Overlay are to be applied. For stormwater flooding the Special Building Overlay is to be applied, however the Special Building Overlay is applied to urban areas only. Whilst “urban areas” are not defined, one would expect this would mean zoned urban areas. Therefore, in relation to the Coles land none of the overlays should apply to the flood prone land. The Special Building Overlay might apply once the land is zoned for urban purposes.

Mr Gobbo on behalf of Coles was the only person who raised this issue and the Panel is not in a position to check every parcel of land that is proposed to be affected by one of the flooding overlays. This situation may have occurred elsewhere. There can be little confidence in the accuracy of the planning scheme maps relating to flooding in reflecting actual rather than a possibly incorrect theoretical flooding regime. There can also be little confidence that the overlays have been properly applied.

The evidence of Mr Hunter who reviewed the flooding and drainage reports was critical of the flooding and drainage studies that resulted in the flooding overlay controls and the identification of retarding basins on the Urban Growth Plan in that they were primarily based on existing conditions. Urban development will significantly change the hydraulic regime and the introduction of modified drainage systems and mitigation measures that will significantly change the extent of inundation and land required for flood storage.

Mr Hunter was particularly critical that the retarding basins identified in the Urban Growth Plan had been identified prior to the preparation of a drainage scheme or strategy for each catchment. Such a strategy should consist of functional designs for regional and local drainage assets, including works such as pipelines, overland flow paths, retarding basins, wetlands and identification of land set aside for these purposes. He maintained that such a drainage scheme had not been prepared and therefore the identification of wetland areas on the Structure Plan has been based on little detail and investigation of the post development conditions. As a result far

Page 71 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

more potentially developable land may be designated for wetlands than may be actually required.

Mr Demeo indicated that such a flooding and drainage study had not been undertaken to model the post development conditions apparently on the basis that it was very expensive to do so but would be undertaken at the next stage of the planning process as part of the formulation of the infrastructure requirements for the preparation of development contribution plans.

The Panel came out of the hearing with little confidence in the accuracy of both flooding overlays (Land Subject to Inundation Overlay and Floodway Overlay) and the relevance of the detention basins, even if depicted as indicative, on the Local Structure Plan. It was less concerned about the Special Building Overlay proposed over the existing developed Marshall area because that area is already developed.

A suggestion made during the hearing was that the Framework Plan could be modified to show indicative locations of the wetland/detention areas as small dots without prescribing their areal extent so that there is at least an indication of their location. However, the Panel questions whether such an approach would serve any purpose in properly informing decision‐making. Until such time as a proper drainage study has been undertaken to determine the likely wetland/detention basins in the post‐development scenario, the reference to them should be deleted.

Similarly, given the uncertain accuracy of the Floodway Overlay and the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay in both the existing rural condition and future post‐ development condition, the Panel considers there is insufficient justification at this stage for their inclusion. In any event, there will be no urban development at Armstrong Creek until the land is zoned to urban zones. By that stage Council would have formulated its infrastructure requirements including drainage and will have a much clearer idea of where flood prone areas in the post‐development stage will be. The Panel sees no reason why these flooding overlays cannot be included in planning scheme amendments at a later stage or that areas subject to flooding and their engineering treatment can be included as a further refinement required by proposed Development Plan Overlays, which would be expected to apply to all or the vast majority of the proposed Armstrong Creek urban area.

Page 72 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

10.3 Panel Findings The Panel’s findings in relation to the proposed flooding/drainage controls are:

• The Floodway and Land Subject to Inundation Overlays should be deleted from the amendment and introduced at a later stage, when greater certainty about their post‐development extent is known. • Similarly, the designation of indicative wetland/detention basins should be deleted from the Framework Plan at least until further infrastructure studies have been undertaken.

Page 73 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

11. NON‐URBAN AREAS

The Panel has observed that there were very few landowner submissions arguing that the Armstrong Creek area should not be developed for urban purposes. However, an issue that attracted many submissions was in relation to the location of the Urban Growth Boundary.

11.1 Overview Submittors who were included within the Urban Growth Plan area generally did not seek to be taken out of the area, but rather made submissions about how their land or area should be developed under the plan. Other submittors were excluded from the Urban Growth Plan area, but included in the study area. Most of these either sought to have the boundary extended to include their land or called for a review of the planning policy and control regime to allow a more intense form of development. A small number of submittors who were located outside of the Urban Growth Boundary and who had become aware of submissions from others seeking an extension of the boundary, desired to remain in a non‐urban area.

The submissions relating to the Urban Growth Boundary can therefore be considered under the following sub‐headings:

• Councilʹs basis for selection of the urban growth boundary; • The Mt Duneed area; • The south‐east boundary; • The Echin and Beca client land; and • The Panelʹs view as to how the southern non‐urban area should be developed.

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

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

Page 74 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

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

In his evidence to the Panel, Mr Sheppard stated that the limitation of development in the south of the growth area was based on the following objectives:

• establish a permanent and natural edge to development; • maintain the green skyline viewed from within the growth area and from land to its north; • maintain an attractive green edge to Geelong when approached from the south, south‐east and south‐west; and • protect the existing character of Mt Duneed.

Using a view line analysis from a number of key vantage points, the Urban Growth Boundary was established to limit development to the lower northern slopes of Mt Duneed and its ridgeline so as to maintain a green character for the bulk of Mt Duneed.

The analysis identified that development might be able to encroach slightly south of Whites Road in places without significantly adversely affecting the green skyline when viewed from the Ghazeepore Road area. However a neater alignment following property boundaries would occur by following Whites Road. Elsewhere the Urban Growth Boundary passes through properties rather than following property boundaries. The rationale for not following property boundaries in those other cases was because of the perceived loss of developable land that would result from stepping the boundary to the property boundary below the view line. There appears to be no consideration of stepping the boundary in the up‐slope direction of the opposite property boundary presumably on the basis that it would create development above the desired green skyline.

At the hearing, the Panel questioned Council about the desirability of following property boundaries for determining the Urban Growth Boundary (the Panel observes that this is the general situation in relation to Melbourneʹs Urban Growth Boundary). Such an approach removes the problem for property owners that only a portion of their land holding could be developed for urban purposes.

In his closing submission, Mr Demeo defended the alignment of the Urban Growth Boundary but acknowledged that there were valid reasons to suggest that use of cadastral boundaries which present a more pragmatic approach for defining the

Page 75 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

Urban Growth Boundary. He provided a detailed review of the boundary and presented a “without prejudice” review, realigning the boundary along cadastral boundaries, as shown below:

Figure 4: Council Amended Urban Growth Boundary

The Panel generally concurs with Mr Demeo’s realignment with some modifications. The main reason for those modifications is that whilst acknowledging that the visual impact assessment undertaken by Mr Sheppard is a legitimate and valid method of establishing the southern growth boundary, the Panel is of the opinion that the prominence, importance and visual contribution made by Mt Duneed is somewhat overstated by Council and its consultants. The Panel understands that there are view lines to Mt Duneed at present, but once Armstrong Creek is developed these view lines will be very restricted due to the presence of intervening buildings, new vegetation and the fact that Mt Duneed is not particularly high and prominent above the horizon.

Mr Duncan was of the opinion that the visual impact of Mt Duneed was not well explained and he said “The sight lines are a nice idea in theory but when it comes down to it Mount Duneed is no more significant than Mount Waverley and the views from the sight lines are insignificant”. He suggested the weight given to this issue was out of proportion to the landscape significance of Mt Duneed.

Page 76 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

The Panel has therefore generally opted to extend development to the nearest property boundary on the Mt Duneed side of lots that were shown as being bisected by the boundary. However, there are some exceptions to this.

11.3 The Mt Duneed Area Messrs Calaby (Submitter 20), Chester (22), Shea‐Simonds (118) and Clarke (23) are located south of Whites Road and supported the Whites Road Urban Growth Boundary. They do not desire to be in the urban area.

Some submittors from the Mt Duneed area argued that the Urban Growth Boundary should not follow Whites Road and should extend as far south as Russells Road so that the urban area could integrate with the Mt Duneed Recreation Reserve (eg. Messrs Kelly (58), Harvey (53), King (60)). Many of these submittors belonged to the Western Armstrong Creek Property Owners Group (WACPOG), led by Mr Kelly. It is understood that as a group, they provided their opinion on where the Urban Growth Boundary should be located to Council in August 2006, and it followed Russell Road from Ghazeepore Road though to Simpson Road.

In his submission on behalf of Mr Kelly, Mr Trickey acknowledged that “... Mt Duneed is a geographic feature in the locality, it is our submission that the strategic basis for the drafting of the southern boundary along Whites Road is limited in its application. It does not, for example, have the same prominence as say a Mt Macedon or Mt Dandenong”. It is difficult for the Panel to disagree with that argument, however, that does not mean that there is no basis for the growth boundary.

The Panel considers that in the context of the ridgeline identified by Mr Sheppard, Whites Road represents a logical existing boundary between proposed urban and non‐urban development. Whilst the ridgeline is not prevalent along the entire length of the Urban Growth Boundary, and some lots outside of the boundary are at a lower elevation (e.g. Ms Wardrop (99)), it represents a generalised line of reference utilising an existing feature to define the boundary.

Other submittors (e.g. Mr and Mrs Blyth (12), Mr and Mrs Rossack (75)) argued that because of farming viability issues and potential for conflict with urban development, and in particular because their land was located opposite a Low Density Residential Zone to the south, the Urban Growth Boundary should extend to Lower Duneed Road. The Panel makes the observation that whenever a growth area is defined, those immediately outside of the growth area often wish to be included within the area. The Panel regards the rural residential area south of Lower Duneed Road in the Surf Coast Shire as a past poor planning decision given this area’s isolation from urban services and infrastructure. It does not regard it as a precedent for extending the Urban Growth Boundary further southwards, particularly given

Page 77 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

the length of the Blyth and other nearby lots is in excess of 600 metres. The Council has articulated how it defined the Urban Growth Boundary, and subject to modification of it to follow cadastral boundaries rather than have lots bisected by the boundary, the Panel generally supports its approach.

Some submittors were concerned that the Urban Growth Boundary traversed their property and rather than including part of their property, all of the property should be included within the Urban Growth Plan area (e.g. Mr and Mrs Julien (57), Mr Brdar (16)). The Panel agrees that this is a far more pragmatic approach to adopt and has generally followed this principle in redefining the southern Urban Growth Boundary.

However, there is one instance where the Panel considers that the Urban Growth Boundary should be extended a greater distance. Submission No 31 was originally a joint submission by four landowners at 10‐50 Feehans Road and 649 Torquay Road, Mount Duneed. At the hearing, three of these landowners were represented by Mr Marshall of the TGM Group, but the Panel considers that the particular circumstances of all four lots are common. These four contiguous lots are each less than four hectares in area, and are only marginally outside of the Urban Growth Boundary (649 Torquay Road is partly within the boundary, although the other three lots are completely outside of the exhibited boundary and not bisected by it). These properties front the north side of Feehans Road.

Mr Marshall, through a combination of topographic and photographic evidence demonstrated that the land south of Feehans Road is substantially steeper compared to the land between Whites Road and Feehans Road, and in this regard urban development of those properties would have little if any effect on the green skyline to Mt Duneed. The Panel considers that the combination of factors, these being close proximity to the exhibited Urban Growth Boundary, the small size of the lots, their contiguous arrangement and their specific topographic conditions indicate that the Urban Growth Boundary should be extended to Feehans Road to include these lots.

The Geelong Environment Council considered that Armstrong Creek itself should be the southern boundary of the urban area so as to provide a significant buffer zone between the Surf Coast Shire Council northern boundary and the Geelong urban area. The Panel disagrees with this submission on the basis that it would further limit the amount of available urban land. The policy imperative is not to maintain a non‐urban buffer between Geelong and its municipal boundaries, but rather between Geelong and other townships such as Torquay.

Overall, the Panel supports the method used to define the Urban Growth Boundary in the Mt Duneed area. However, as a general principle the Urban Growth

Page 78 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

Boundary should follow cadastral boundaries, and with some exceptions generally supports the revised boundary contained in Councilʹs closing submission. The Panel has refined this and recommends its preferred Urban Growth Boundary as part of the Framework Plan in Appendix 4.

11.4 The South‐East Boundary The background Indigenous Cultural Heritage Report identified an Aeolian sand dune, and which was shown as a very minor ridgeline on topographic maps provided to the Panel, as being culturally significant. The Urban Growth Plan also describes this area as visually prominent from Mount Duneed Road and Lower Duneed Road. However, in a broader setting it is far less prominent and far less elevated than say, Mount Duneed.

It was for these two reasons that the Urban Growth Boundary was located where it was in the south‐east of the Urban Growth Plan area.

The original submission by the then owners whose properties were bisected by the boundary was that there was no evidence to suggest that the site identified was of any heritage significance. The land apparently later came under control of Armstrong Creek Corporation, who through Mr Morris made similar submissions to the Panel.

At its July 2007 meeting the Council resolved to amend the plan to delete the reference to Aboriginal heritage on the area to the east and west of Charlemont Road, directly south of the Urban Growth Boundary. The discussion in the officer’s report refers to “the level of evidence provided in the background report to support this notation”, which the Panel finds ambiguous as to whether the author thought there was a large or only a small amount of evidence. Nevertheless, the decision to delete the reference (also because it was outside of the Urban Growth Boundary) suggests that the author thought there was insufficient evidence to support the designation.

The extent of the investigations contained in the background report is rudimentary and identifies the site as being of significance only because of the presence of the Aeolian sand dune. There appears to be no follow‐up investigation as to whether or not the sand dune is actually significant. Aerial and ground photographs provided to the Panel indicate that the land is presently used for cleared pasture and does not appear significantly different to its surrounds.

The Panel therefore finds that there is insufficient justification for the exhibited south‐east Urban Growth Boundary on either indigenous heritage or topographic grounds. The Panel agrees with the submission of Mr Morris that the Urban Growth Boundary should be extended southwards to align with cadastral boundaries.

Page 79 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

11.5 Farming Land to North of Growth Area The Echin land (Submission 76) and the client (name not provided) of Beca (8) are located outside of the Urban Growth Plan area, east of Anglesea Road and north of the Geelong‐Warrnambool railway line. Hams Road separates both from residential development to the immediate north. Both lots are located in a Farming Zone, despite being located north of the railway line and opposite urban development. The land is also affected by a proposed interchange over part of it to accommodate the realigned Anglesea Road connection to the future Princes Highway bypass of Geelong.

Ms Turner presented a submission to the Panel which identified that the land is blighted by its Farming Zone and by the uncertainty associated with the interchange proposal. Beca sought the inclusion of their client’s land in the Urban Growth Plan area.

The Panel does not regard this land as forming part of the Armstrong Creek area because of its physical separation from the area, but nevertheless sympathises with the submissions made. The Panel suspects that due to a likely desire to minimise compensation for any future acquisition for road purposes, the land is likely to remain in its present zone, although its location seems to be suitable for urban purposes. Whether or not the land is suitable for a residential purpose would need to be the subject of further investigation in terms of residential amenity impacts associated with the quarry to the south and the proposed freeway interchange.

The Panel notes that the construction of the Geelong Ring Road has commenced at its northern end and it may be some time before acquisition procedures are instituted for the southern end. That is a matter which is beyond the scope of this Panel. Nevertheless, the Council should turn its mind to the type of future urban uses which could be accommodated on this land once the road proposals are confirmed, and take appropriate steps to bring the balance of this land into an urban zoning.

11.6 Future Development Potential in Southern Non‐Urban Area A number of submissions, rather than seeking an extension of the Urban Growth Boundary to include their land sought a review of the planning policies and controls that apply to it. This would provide for a Rural Living or Rural Activity Zone that allowed more intense development than is presently permitted, and would provide a soft urban edge to the Geelong urban area rather than a hard edge (eg. Messrs Dyer and Hoggart (43), Keirl (89), Uphill & Bradford (14), Dekker (34), Macaulay (62), Peel & others (104 and 105)). These submissions highlighted that the Mt

Page 80 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

Duneed area is not a viable farming area, with lots being too small, comprising poor soils and experiencing low rainfall.

Some of these submittors sought a study, strategy or development of a master plan to determine a future strategy for the non‐urban area, presumably in the hope that such a process might recommend an increased area of the minimum subdivision size (eg. Mt Duneed Residents Group (42), Messrs Branagh (15), Ashton (4), Burchell (18), Danckert (29)).

The Panel tested Mr Demeo about whether a Rural Living Zone would be more appropriate for this area, given that the area is used for a combination of farming and rural living uses already.

Mr Demeo provided the Panel with two responses. The first of these was that the existing policy framework identifies that the preferred nodes for rural residential and rural living development are at Lara, Lovely Banks, Batesford, Wallington and Drysdale/Clifton Springs (MSS, Clause 21.09). Clause 21.05 identifies that rural residential development will be directed to these preferred nodes. He also provided the Panel with a copy of the 1996 Urban Growth Strategy which identifies that new areas of rural residential development on the urban edge of Geelong should not be encouraged (page 16). Further, he provided the Panel with a copy of the recently completed and adopted 2007 Rural Land Use Strategy which confirms rural residential development should be confined to the above nodes (page 21) and no further nodes should be developed (page 51).

The Rural Land Use Strategy identifies that it is not proposed that any areas in the City should be zoned Rural Activity Zone at this time. The strategy envisages that the zone may be used to provide for a small number of “one off” developments within the rural areas as part of a strategic rezoning proposal, such as a select range of strategically justified tourism developments. Therefore, this matter has already been dealt with by the strategy, and the Panel does not consider it necessary for it to revisit this or recommend a further review.

The latter strategy acknowledges that some rural land, although zoned for agriculture, is or will, in reality be used for large‐scale rural living. That appears to be the case in the Mt Duneed/Lower Duneed area.

On this basis, the Panel finds that there is no strategic support for a rural living designation for areas south of the proposed Urban Growth Boundary. The Panel also finds that there is no reason for it to recommend a further strategic review given that the Rural Land Use Strategy was undertaken as recently as 2007.

Page 81 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

The second reason by Mr Demeo for not supporting rural living development south of the Urban Growth Boundary was totally at odds with the first. Council considered that in the future, once Armstrong Creek was fully developed there might be a need then to extend the Urban Growth Boundary further southwards to accommodate additional growth:

… a Rural Living type zoning would inevitably limit potential to accommodate the contingency for any urban expansion in the future.

If this were the case it calls into question the validity of the Urban Growth Boundary that is presently proposed. Certainly, Mr Demeo’s contingency plan is not supported by the content of the Urban Growth Plan or by the evidence of his consultants, notably Mr Sheppard. In the Panelʹs view if it was intended that areas south of the presently designated Urban Growth Boundary might form some future urban development stage, then they should be so designated on the plan.

11.7 Panel Findings The Panel’s findings in relation to the non urban areas are:

• In general terms, the Panel supports the methodology used to establish the Urban Growth Boundary. • The Urban Growth Boundary should be modified to follow cadastral boundaries. The Panel’s recommended boundary is depicted in Appendix 4 of this report. • In relation to the Echin and Beca client land in the Farming Zone, once the proposed road proposals are confirmed, Council should take appropriate steps to bring the balance of this land into an urban zoning. This suggestion is independent of the Armstrong Creek future processes and should be treated as a separate task by Council. • The Panel does not support proposals for a Rural Living or Rural Activity Zone south of the proposed Urban Growth Boundary, and in light of the recently adopted Rural Land Use Strategy does not consider that a further review is required for this area.

Page 82 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

12. LAND SUPPLY AND STAGING

The Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan is premised on the development of inter‐ connecting walkable neighbourhoods, each of which provide good access to a range of lower order goods and services, and also to be well connected to the major regional facilities. The Panel supports that principle. The key issues in relation to land supply related to availability of residential zoned land, staging, and development contributions.

12.1 Residential Land Supply Council submitted that there are unique circumstances currently facing Geelong, with the likely take up of urban zoned land, when it is available, likely to exceed previous growth figures for the Geelong region. The reasons put for this are as follows:

• The very limited land supply for the Geelong region (in particular urban Geelong) ‐ which is unprecedented. • The enhanced infrastructure to provide linkages to this growth corridor (the Geelong Ring Road). • The constrained nature of growth in the metropolitan fringe as a result of Melbourne 2030. • The presence of major developers in this growth corridor which have not previously been active in Geelong, with their enhanced ability to meet high demand and to market the product beyond that which has been experienced in Geelong previously.

All parties to the hearing acknowledged that growth in Geelong over the past 10 years has exceeded all projections, and the municipality is facing a serious shortage of residential zoned land. Initially, the Council proposed a 10 year time frame for release of residential and urban zoned land, but accepted the evidence and submissions in the hearing that a 15 year supply of residentially zoned land was not only needed, but was also Government policy.

Both Mr McNeill and Mr Wadeson, for various landholders, presented compelling evidence that an adequate supply of residential land was absolutely essential. Reference was made to the State Government’s Urban Development Program (UDP), which is administered by the Department of Planning and Community Development. As Mr McNeill said, “the UDP is the primary tool used to advise the state government about the supply and demand of residential and industrial land within metropolitan Melbourne and the Geelong Region”. In this regard, the 2006 UDP identifies 36,295 broadhectare lots in the Geelong Township (which includes

Page 83 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

Armstrong Creek), of which only 4,694 are zoned with the balance of 31,601 identified in various structure plans as future supply but not yet zoned for residential purposes. Taking into account dwelling demand, Mr McNeill concluded there is a serious undersupply of zoned land in Geelong.

He concluded that broadhectare lot demand at Armstrong Creek is in the order of 900 lots per annum, and noted “consequently the provision of a 15 year supply of zoned residential land in the Armstrong Creek UGA would require a rezoning of approximately 13,500 broadhectare lots or around 85% of the total broadhectare lots …”

In presenting evidence for the Council, Mr Sheppard was asked by Mr Bisset whether he undertook any analysis on the potential yield of the growth corridor and affordability, and whether, in assessing yield, had he undertaken comparative analysis on consequence of land delivery. He replied he had not, and conceded it would not have been difficult to do. Further, he agreed that it would have been a useful exercise. The Panel makes the observation that this type of work should have been done, especially as it would have assisted the Panel and all parties to understand the consequences of some of the elements of the plan.

The Panel supports the provision of a 15 year supply of zoned residential land in Armstrong Creek, accepting that this may result in all of the residential land being rezoned at the one time.

12.2 Staging of Development Council advised the proposed development staging plan will nominate a sequence of development to achieve orderly provision of infrastructure. In its opening submission, Council said “A staging concept plan proposes the first stages of development to focus on two growth nodes. One node allows the building of a new Armstrong Creek community in the Torquay Road area, while the other node allows expansion of the urban area at Marshall”. It recognised that subsequent amendments are proposed to ensure land is reserved for strategic road linkages (application of the Public Acquisition Overlay) and that development contributions are levied for the provision of works, services and facilities before development can commence (Development Contributions Plan Overlay). In this regard, Mr Bartley argued:

DFC submit that staging of development within the Armstrong Creek Growth Area should not be prescriptive, and development on multiple fronts should be supported and encouraged to ensure that innovation, competition, affordability and variety are achieved early in the development of the area.

Page 84 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

Mr Bisset had similar views and noted the many factors that will influence the pattern and timing of staged development with the urban growth plan area. He submitted:

It would be entirely premature for the policy to express a preferred or required order of staging. The policy should properly identify the benefits which derive from staging on a number of fronts subject to the efficient and co‐ordinated delivery of infrastructure.

There may be very specific issues which influence particular staging outcomes, such as the advantages of linking the aged care facility currently under construction adjacent to the Richardson property into an established urban environment.

The Panel does not support the proposed staging plan, which is detailed in Section 7 of Volume 1. It considers it places an artificial ceiling on what could be developed and where, and it constrains market forces and possibly innovation. Further, it does not take account of the potential for a 15 year supply of zoned residential land. It is simply not necessary for Armstrong Creek. With the opening of the Geelong Ring Road and further extensions to it, Armstrong Creek could develop far more quickly than earlier anticipated by Council’s consultants. The area will have good accessibility to Melbourne and the Surf Coast, as well as inner Geelong.

Armstrong Creek may itself become a dormitory suburb of Melbourne, as well as Geelong, particularly if access into Melbourne via the West Gate Bridge is upgraded and enhanced. At the same time, many townships along the Surf Coast are becoming increasingly attractive, and Armstrong Creek could act as a good location for those who want to live closer to the coast, but not necessarily live immediately adjacent to it. Further, if Geelong continues to increase its industrial development opportunities, demand for new residential development will continue to be strong.

Additionally, one of the key determinants with regard to housing affordability is supply, in that good supply results in healthy competition, which assists in choice and thus affordability. If there is a limited supply, competition for housing is greater and it has the potential to then increase prices. It will be important that Armstrong Creek provide a range of affordable housing options to the community, so that entry into the housing market is optimised. In this regard, the Panel shares the opinion of Mr Bartley who noted:

We are concerned that the ACUGP identifies that a maximum of 10 years supply of zoned land will be provided and that only once land supply falls below 10 years will further land be rezoned. This does not accord with the Council and State Government objective to provide a minimum of 15 years land supply. DFC submits that a reduced

Page 85 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

land supply negatively impacts on housing affordability and will artificially inflate land prices.

Mr McNeill said “the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth area will in due course provide the majority of the broadhectare land supply in the Geelong Township. Importantly it is expected to become home for many thousand average families”. It is critical that the area is developed in such a way that will accommodate a range of opportunities for all socio‐economic and household types, but especially the first home buyer market. Having an adequate supply and choice is critical to this.

Finally, Mr Hunter agreed that from an engineering/servicing perspective, there was no engineering reason for having a staging plan.

12.3 Development Contributions One other matter that many submittors expressed concern about was the lack of a Development Contributions Plan (DCP). While Council estimated that development contributions are likely to be in the order of $8,000 to $15,000, this seems to be based on preliminary work. Submittors considered the upper end of this amount to be high, and it may well be that if Council adopts the thrust and extent of the Panels’ recommendations, this amount could be significantly reduced. The Panel itself has not even contemplated undertaking any calculations, but does express the view that $15,000 is certainly the high upper end of any contributions of which it is aware and seem to adversely impact on affordability.

Council made it quite clear that it had never intended that this part of the planning process consider a DCP, and many were critical of that position. The Panel considers that development of a DCP is an urgent matter that needs to be brought forward, so that the future planning of Armstrong Creek can proceed expeditiously. In this regard, the Panel recognises that both the staff and funding resources of Geelong (and most other municipalities) are stretched, and perhaps as a suggestion (but not a formal recommendation) the key landholders/developers could assist Council by funding a suitably qualified (independent) consultant to undertake this work for/with Council.

In any Development Contributions Plan for Armstrong Creek, the Panel urges that the plan be transparent, easily understood and able to provide an easy audit trail that can be followed over time as the plan is implemented. The Panel advocates that a flat rate contribution may be the most appropriate approach to ensure efficiency and certainty, especially in a broadhectare development such as this where the imminent release of urban zoned land has reached a critical stage.

Page 86 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

12.4 Panel Findings The Panel’s findings in relation to land supply and staging are:

• It is generally acknowledged that there is a chronic shortage of residential land available in Geelong; • Council should ensure that there is a 15 year supply of zoned residential land for development purposes; • There is no need for a staging plan to be included in the Urban Growth Plan; and • There is an urgent need for Council to define and refine Armstrong Creek’s future infrastructure requirements and to develop Development Contribution Plans as the next stage of the planning process.

Page 87 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

13. OTHER MATTERS

There were a number of discrete matters raised both through submission and at the hearing that warrant further commentary and discussion.

13.1 Blue Circle Southern Cement Blue Circle Southern Cement (Blue Circle) in its original submission to Council sought a number of changes to the Urban Growth Plan, which were considered and generally accepted by Council at its July 2007 meeting.

The Blue Circle quarry is a significant quarry that extracts marl and limestone for cement manufacturing. Mr McComas provided a background of the quarry’s existing and future staged quarrying operations, and its work authorities, extractive industry licences and planning approvals.

The quarry is located west of the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth area, separated by Ghazeepore Road. Primarily because of the presence of the quarry, the western end of the Urban Growth Plan has been identified as the Western Industrial Precinct which will not accommodate residential and associated uses such as schools.

The Urban Growth Plan designates the Western Industrial Park to be a high amenity business park designed to accommodate hi‐tech manufacturing firms and research activity with a focus on industrial land uses that require a higher amenity environment, rather than a traditional manufacturing area. It is proposed to include offices in association with the warehouse and production functions. In addition, a Specialised Activity Centre is proposed along Ghazeepore Road. This activity centre is envisaged under the Urban Growth Plan to include cafes and restaurants to serve the needs of the workforce, along with higher density job activities such as research and development.

Mr McComas indicated that under the Environment Protection Authorityʹs (EPA) Recommended Buffer Distances for Industrial Residual Air Emissions (AQ 2/86, July 1990), which is referenced in the State Planning Policy Framework, a 300 metre buffer distance to sensitive uses is specified for quarrying activities such as those that occur on the Blue Circle land. He provided a cross‐section which indicated a 200 metre distance between the edge of the extractive industry area and the western edge of the Western Industrial Precinct. Applying the EPAʹs recommended 300 metre buffer distance he argued that the remaining 100 metre buffer area should be provided within the Urban Growth Plan area. He proposed that whilst warehouses and industry would be allowed within the 100 metre buffer area, offices, shops,

Page 88 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

cafes, restaurants and research facilities which he said are sensitive to the amenity impacts of limestone and marl extraction and reinstatement works, should be excluded.

The problem with this submission is that in relying upon the EPA publication that specifies a buffer distance between a quarry and a sensitive use, it ignores the publicationʹs own definition of what constitutes a “sensitive use”. A sensitive use is identified in the publication as:

Residential areas and zones (whether occupied or not), hospitals, schools, caravan parks and other similar uses involving the presence of individual people for extended periods, except in the course of their employment or for recreation.

None of the uses identified by Mr McComas as requiring a buffer fall within this definition. Moreover, the publication identifies land uses that do not require protection from other land uses that do generate significant residual air emissions. These specifically include open space, commercial and business zones, public roads, and industrial operations which meet the “light industry” definition of having no amenity‐reducing off‐site effects. That is, the land uses that Mr McComas identifies as requiring a buffer are specifically identified in the publication as not requiring one.

Indeed, the rationale for the location of the Western Industrial Precinct was that it was located opposite the quarry, and therefore no sensitive uses would be affected by the quarry operations, and a buffer would be provided by the Western Industrial Precinct between the quarry and sensitive uses further east.

The Panel proposes no change in response to this submission.

In a related submission, the EPA noted within the Urban Growth Plan area that there was no buffer between land set aside for industrial use and residential development and that adequate buffers protecting residential amenity from unwanted noise should be taken into consideration as well as the types of industry or commerce allowed to operate in industrial zones. The Panel notes the submission but considers that it is a matter for Council to deal with at a later stage.

Page 89 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

13.2 Department of Primary Industries Part of the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) submission includes a map which indicated that much (greater than 50%) of the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area is identified as an Extractive Industry Interest Area in the Melbourne Supply Area.

Other than identifying that the designation of this land within the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan would restrict the future use of this land for future extraction, the submission did not say what action it wanted Council to take in response. DPI did not appear before the Panel.

The Armstrong Creek area has been identified as the future major urban growth area for Geelong for many years. In the Panelʹs view, providing for the future growth of Victoriaʹs second largest city represents a greater community benefit than protection and utilisation of the stone resource, the nature and quality of which was not provided to the Council or to the Panel. It was not indicated that any party had any interest in extracting any of the stone, noting that only DPI, and not landowners or other parties seeking to extract the stone resource, had made such a submission.

The Panel therefore makes no recommendation in relation to this submission.

13.3 Country Fire Authority The Country Fire Authority (CFA) generally supported the location of a proposed fire station at the corner of Mount/Lower Duneed Road and Torquay Road, although at this stage the precise site has not been determined.

The main thrust of the CFA submission was to inform the Panel of the advantages of home sprinkler systems, which the CFA maintains will be mandated in building regulations in the near future. That may be so, but it has nothing to do with the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan. It is essentially a building control matter and not a planning matter.

The CFA sought from the Panel a reference in the Urban Growth Plan that the CFA seeks to be involved in the design of the water mains at Armstrong Creek so as to ensure that the potential for home sprinkler systems is catered for in the design.

The Panel questioned whether there was any change required to the existing standard for new water mains in order to accommodate home sprinklers. The Panel was advised there was not. The Panel therefore finds it unnecessary to include such a reference.

Page 90 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

The Panel makes no recommendation on the matter. However, the Panel observes that irrespective of the benefits of homes sprinkler systems, the CFAʹs resources might be better spent making such representations to forums where consideration of such matters is relevant, rather than to planning scheme amendments directed to the broad future planning of large urban areas.

13.4 Geelong Crematorium The Geelong Cemeteries Trust sought to ensure the cemetery is retained where it is, including that the proposed rail line along its western boundary has a well established plantation along the boundary. The Trust therefore suggested that the rail line be established to the west of its boundary. It is unnecessary for the Panel to be prescriptive about the precise location of the rail line at this stage. However, the Panel foreshadows there may be a future dispute between the Trust and the Lutheran College proposed to its west over the precise location of the rail line. The Panel notes the comment made to it by Mr Eichler for the Geelong Lutheran College Association that whilst their planning permit makes provision for the rail route, the College did not want to lose any land as a result.

The second part of the Trustʹs submission was that they desire to maintain access from both Burvilles Road and Stewarts Road. The Panel notes that the Urban Growth Plan proposed a greenway along Burvilles Road and along part of Stewarts Road and that the Panel has recommended that the greenway concept be abandoned.

Finally the Trust made recommendations about provision of turning lanes at the Torquay Road/Burvilles Road intersection, which the Panel considers Council will take into account when it assesses its infrastructure requirements.

The Panel therefore makes no recommendation with respect to this submission.

Page 91 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

14. WHERE TO FROM HERE?

14.1 Form of the Amendment The Panel has extensively discussed the key issues as they relate to this amendment. While it considers the future direction of development of Armstrong Creek to be sound, it considers that the way Council has proposed to achieve this needs further refinement. Council itself acknowledged this during the course of the hearing, so the final recommendations of the Panel should not come as any great surprise. Indeed, Council has no doubt foreshadowed many of these and the Panel anticipates that it has already commenced some of the recommended work.

The Panel made it clear during the course of the hearings, and in its own closing, that it would be recommending adoption of the amendment, subject to substantial modifications. It was important to state this and to ensure that all parties knew the exact position of the Panel. Panels rarely hand down their primary recommendations verbally, but this case warranted such an approach. One of the key reasons for taking this approach was because the Council itself could see there were serious deficiencies with some key aspects of the amendment and the Panel believed it was important to reassure parties that notwithstanding, the amendment would be adopted in one form or another. The Panel accepts that there is an urgency attached to this matter. All parties are keen for the development of Armstrong Creek to be properly advanced and for it to move forward in a positive way.

The Panel has reviewed in detail Clause 21.40 and it has taken on board comments made by the Council, and various submittors, including the extensive submissions made by Dennis Family Corporation and Villawood Properties/Carter Electrical. The Panel has reviewed these submissions and Council’s response to them and it has provided its revised Clause 21.40 as Appendix 3. The Panel has removed reference to some of the sustainability strategies, particularly as they relate to individual dwellings as these are dealt with by other controls such as the Building Regulations.

While it may seem that the Panel has made wholesale changes to the amendment, this is not the case. Essentially it has recommended refinement of the policy at Clause 21.40, deletion of some overlays as they are considered to be premature and may place an onerous burden on landholders, simplification of the Framework Plan, and removal of the cumbersome Incorporated Document to a revised Reference Document.

It was disturbing to the Panel that Mr Sheppard, who was essentially responsible for preparing the growth plan, did not understand the planning and legal implications

Page 92 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

of including Volume 1 as an Incorporated Document. It was clear when he was questioned on this by the Panel, and also under cross examination that he had little idea of what an Incorporated Document is meant to achieve and how it should sit in the Planning Scheme. Council advised that it did not seek legal advice on this issue, and the Panel considers that much angst could have been avoided if this aspect of the amendment had been thought through in more detail. Thankfully, Mr Demeo responded positively to the concerns of the Panel and submittors in this regard and later advised the Panel that Council agreed that a further modified Volume 1 should be retained as a Reference Document.

14.2 Process for Future Rezoning Many submittors were critical of Council in that the amendment did not include a rezoning component. Council however made it quite clear that the amendment did not result in any rezoning, nor was it ever intended to. It was exhibited on that basis. Submissions from the Dennis Family Corporation and Delfin Lend Lease were made at the Directions Hearing which called for the hearing to be deferred so that further work could be undertaken in relation to the likely zoning of land (amongst other things). Both the Council and the Panel rejected these requests.

Notwithstanding this, there is compelling evidence that Geelong is fast running out of zoned residential land, and rezoned land in Armstrong Creek needs to come on‐ stream sooner rather than later. The Panel has heard the common argument that it takes “five years from farm door to front door” and the Panel would be concerned if future rezoning of Armstrong Creek was to take anywhere near that long to achieve. As mentioned, this Panel process was not adversarial. Indeed the Panel did not receive or hear any substantive submission that called for the amendment to be abandoned. The Panel is of the view that future rezonings should be fast tracked, so long as they were consistent with the key outcomes of this amendment and the final Framework Plan. This is particularly the case for two key areas.

Firstly, the proposed Major Activity Centre. The Panel raised early on in the hearing that the site area for this should be considerably larger than shown on the original Structure Plan, and also, that to accommodate a full range of uses, a Priority Development Zone could be considered. Council and the relevant landholder parties (with the exception of Soritel) agreed and supported such a concept in principle. The Panel holds the opinion that the Major Activity Centre site should be rezoned as part of a Ministerial amendment for the whole of the land as shown on the Framework Plan. This will enable all landholders to commence the integrated planning for this most important area. The Priority Development Zone requires the preparation of a Priority Development Plan prior to development, and this should commence to enable key infrastructure to come on stream as residential development occurs.

Page 93 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

The Panel also considers that much of the land in the Armstrong Creek area will ultimately be zoned Residential 1 (recognising there is currently a review of residential zones underway by DPCD). It therefore is of the view that significant parcels of land could be rezoned to Residential 1, (possibly with a Development Plan Overlay), to enable the concurrent preparation of Precinct Structure Plans for large areas where the developers are ready and keen on getting started. Such land could include those areas generally surrounding or abutting the Major Activity Centre and areas to the north of Armstrong Creek.

The Planning and Environment Act 1987 allows for an amendment process to be fast tracked through the use of the provisions of Section 20, particularly part (4). It allows a planning authority to apply to the Minister for Planning, seeking exemption from notice. The Panel is of the opinion that both the Major Activity Centre and significant parcels of land proposed for residential development warrant such a process.

During the course of the hearing, Council informed the Panel that a Geelong Task Force is to be established by the Minister for Planning, but no other details were available. While the Panel is unable to comment on this, it believes there is a compelling case for whole of Government support to fast‐track rezoning and subsequent development in Armstrong Creek. This may be a matter that could be pursued by the Council and the Task Force.

A matter that the Panel considers to be important is the formation of a “Development Coordination Committee” whereby those developers who will be taking Armstrong Creek further, meet regularly with Council to coordinate development activities, especially in the early and most important stages of planning to ensure that there is properly coordinated and managed social and physical infrastructure.

The various parcels of land that make up the growth area should not be developed in isolation, and there needs to be a high level of coordination in planning for the whole of Armstrong Creek. Planning for community infrastructure should be properly coordinated and development of Armstrong Creek should be undertaken as a whole, rather than in parts. The responsibility for all aspects of its development should be acknowledged by all developers.

Various submittors such as the Committee for Geelong and UDIA urged the Panel to “think big” in its consideration of this amendment, and to look to the long term in assessing the amendment. This view was shared by many others, and the Panel considers that it has framed its response to the amendment in a way that will assist Council and others to progress the development of Armstrong Creek in a timely and cohesive manner.

Page 94 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

14.3 The Way Forward The Panel considers the following steps can provide the way forward for Council to progress development of Armstrong Creek:

• Approve Amendment C138 (as adopted by Council at its July 2007 meeting), and subject to the further modifications and recommendations outlined by this Panel; • Continue with preparation of the Development Contributions Plan; • Commence preparation of Precinct Structure Plans for the above precincts; • Prepare a Ministerial amendment to rezone the land identified for the Major Activity Centre to Priority Development Zone; and • Prepare a Ministerial amendment to rezone land within Armstrong Creek West, Activity Centre, Horseshoe Bend and Armstrong Creek East Precincts.

Page 95 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

15. PANEL CONCLUSIONS

In forming its conclusions and recommendations, the Panel has had regard to the Strategic Assessment Guidelines and the principles of net community benefit.

Strategic Assessment Guidelines are included as a General Practice Note in the VPPs and should be used by Councils and Panels during the consideration of amendments (or proposals), as revised in August 2004. The Strategic Assessment Guidelines include a number of matters that should be considered to ensure that planning is strategic and policy based. The broad issues to be considered in assessing an amendment include the following:

• Why is an Amendment required? • Does the Amendment comply with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act? • Does the Amendment support or implement the State Planning Policy Framework? • How does the Amendment support or implement the Local Planning Policy Framework, and specifically the MSS? • Does the Amendment make proper use of the Victoria Planning Provisions? • How does the Amendment address the views of relevant agencies? • What impact will the new planning provisions have on the resources and administrative costs of the responsible authority?

Apart from the specific matters raised in this report, the Panel is comfortable that Amendment C138 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme has strategic merit and that it is consistent with State and local planning policy. Subject to the specific recommendations of the Panel, it uses the appropriate tools of the VPPs.

In relation to net community benefit, Clauses 11.01 and 11.02 of the SPPF states:

It is the State Government’s expectation that planning and responsible authorities will endeavour to integrate the range of policies relevant to the issues to be determined and balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development.

The State Planning Policy Framework seeks to ensure that the objectives of planning in Victoria (as set out in Section 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987) are fostered through appropriate land use and development planning policies and practices which integrate relevant environmental, social and economic factors in the interests of net community benefit and sustainable development.

Page 96 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

These are important State policy considerations. The development of Armstrong Creek will result in a net community benefit in that it will provide significant opportunity for new residential development for new households, supported by a range of social and community, and other infrastructure.

At the commencement of the hearing, and as outlined in Section 1.4 of this report, the Panel observed that it raised what it saw as some key issues that needed to be resolved. The issues, and the conclusions of the Panel in relation to these, include:

• The location and quantum of the area required for the proposed sub‐ regional centre

Apart from submissions from Soritel Pty Ltd, there was little issue about the general location of this centre. The Major Activity Centre, including bulky goods retailing, should be included on land bound by Surf Coast Highway, Burvilles Road, the proposed rail transit route and Boundary Road.

• The allocation of land for residential areas and various land supply issues

The Panel considers that residential land should be made available to ensure a 15 year supply.

• The allocation of land for employment areas

The land proposed to be set aside for employment (industrial) areas is generally supported, but the area of land designated for the Western Precinct should be reduced in size.

• The hierarchy and layout of roads and other infrastructure (including the proposed “greenways”)

The Panel has concluded that the road layout should be based upon the existing grid system already evident. The greenways, the diagonal roads and the dedicated local transit routes should be deleted from the Framework Plan.

• The function and purposes of the proposed Incorporated Plan Overlay

The Panel has concluded that the (former) Structure Plan be modified and revised as a Framework Plan, with accompanying text, to be incorporated into the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme pursuant to Clause 81. Volume 1 (as modified) of the

Page 97 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan should be included as a Reference Document.

• The need or otherwise for an indicative zone plan

The Panel has not recommended an indicative zone plan through this process, however, it does recommend that rezoning of much of the land within Armstrong Creek occur as a matter of priority, and as part of a Ministerial amendment. Most of the land in Armstrong Creek can be zoned as residential, with the Major Activity Centre suitable as a Priority Development Zone.

• The extent of the urban growth area and rationalisation of its boundary, especially in the south

The Panel has recommended that the southern area of the Urban Growth Boundary be amended to follow cadastral boundaries.

As an overall summary, the Panel generally concurs with the Council’s broad strategic intent for the future development of Armstrong Creek. The general intent of the amendment supports State and local planning policy, and will contribute to the implementation of the objectives of planning in Victoria.

The amendment is necessary to provide new urban land and give effect to the orderly development of future growth within the City of Greater Geelong where it can best be accommodated and serviced. Importantly, the amendment will result in positive social and economic effects by providing appropriate housing opportunities, including housing choice, in an area designated as a major growth area. The mix of future land uses is envisaged to create local employment opportunities, particularly with the inclusion of industrial land and the Major and Neighbourhood Activity Centres.

Notwithstanding the shortcomings of the amendment, the Panel commends the Council for its work to date and urges all with an interest in Armstrong Creek to support Council in commencing the detailed planning for the area and to enable it to develop as a significant urban settlement in the immediate and long term.

Page 98 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

16. PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS

For the reasons outlined in this report, the Panel appointed to consider Amendment C138 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme (and as adopted by Council in July 2007) recommends that it be adopted, subject to the following:

1. Policy

The amendment proposes to:

• Amend Clause 21.08 “Urban Growth” of the Municipal Strategic Statement; • Introduce a new Clause 21.40 “Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area” into the Municipal Strategic Statement.

1.1 The Panel recommends that Clause 21.08 be adopted as generally exhibited, and Clause 21.40 be adopted as revised (see Appendix 3).

2. Overlays

The amendment introduces and/or modifies several overlays:

• Amend Schedule 1 to the Environmental Significance Overlay • Apply Schedule 1 to the Environmental Significance Overlay • Apply Schedule 2 to the Environmental Significance Overlay

• Amend Schedule 1 to the Vegetation Protection Overlay • Apply Schedule 1 to the Vegetation Protection Overlay

• Apply the Floodway Overlay

• Apply the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay

• Apply the Special Building Overlay

2.1 The Panel recommends that the Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 1 and 2, the Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 1 and the Special Building Overlay be adopted, as generally exhibited.

2.2 The Panel recommends that the Floodway Overlay and the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay both be deleted.

Page 99 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

3. Incorporated Plan

The amendment:

• Introduces and applies Schedule 1 to the Incorporated Plan Overlay; • Amends Clause 81.01 Table of Documents Incorporated in this Scheme; • Adds the “Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan Volume 1 October 2006” to the list of incorporated documents in the Scheme.

3.1 The Panel recommends that Schedule 1 to the Incorporated Plan Overlay be deleted, and the “Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan Volume 1 October 2006” not be included as an Incorporated Document in the Planning Scheme.

3.2 The Panel recommends that the “Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan Volume 1 October 2006” (as recommended to be revised and modified) be included as a Reference Document in the Planning Scheme.

3.3 The Panel recommends that the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Framework Plan (formerly the Structure Plan), as revised and modified, be included in the Planning Scheme pursuant to Clause 81 (see Appendix 4).

3.4 The Panel recommends that the Council revise its MSS and LPP to ensure consistency of language with metropolitan planning schemes – and in particular, develop a consistent language of retail centres commensurate with that outlined in Melbourne 2030, and growth area plans commensurate with the metropolitan Growth Area Plans.

3.5 As part of the review of the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan Volume 1, the following specific amendments be made:

• Revise and simplify the Reference Document to enhance its relevance and readability; • Delete second paragraph of Section 2.9 (Utility Services) on page 22; • Revise all references to Sub Regional Centre by calling it a Major Activity Centre; • Revise the land use budget (page 26) in accordance with issues raised at the hearing and the Panels overall recommendations; • Delete references to “Greenways”; • Delete references to the diagonal road system; • Delete the final paragraph on page 33 in Key Concept: A Green Setting;

Page 100 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

• Delete the reference to the 70 metre buffer from stream banks in Section 4.1.3 (page 35). The extent of the biodiversity corridor along Armstrong Creek and its tributaries should be defined by: o the 1 in 100 year flood plain in the anticipated post‐development situation; o where the flood plain is less than 30 metres width, a minimum width of 30 metres should be provided; and o where the flood plain adjoins remnant native vegetation of at least a medium level of significance outside of but contiguous with the flood plain, that area of remnant vegetation should also be included. • Delete references to detention basins (and indicative detention basins) where they specifically refer to specific sites; • Revise the industrial land budget and commentary for the Western Industrial Precinct; • Delete the reference to “dry and drug free” in relation to a youth nightclub on page 93 under 4.6.3; • Revise the land budget composition of the Major Activity Centre in accordance with the Panels overall recommendations; • Revise Table 4.7 (and all associated commentary) to provide for a public open space allocation in the order of 12 to 15%; • Revise the discussion of the transitways, especially on page 126; • Revise and possibly delete the discussion relating to Key Concept: Underground Transmission Lines on page 140; • Revise and possibly delete the discussion relating to Key Concept: Renewable Energy on pages 142 ‐ 146; • Delete the paragraph relating to Fire Fighting on page 147; • Delete all of Section 6.6 relating to the Waurn Ponds Shopping Centre on pages 162 and 163; • Delete all of Section 7 relating to Staging on pages 164 – 173; and • Ensure that there are consequential changes to the Reference Document as a result of the Panels overall recommendations, including the specific recommendations relating to the Framework Plan (Appendix 4).

Kathryn Mitchell Andrew Clarke Henry Turnbull 27 February 2008

Page 101 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

APPENDIX 1: LIST OF SUBMITTORS

Page 102 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

SUBMITTORS:

1 DL & PE Adams 2 Anglican Diocese of Melbourne 3 WLH Armstrong 4 Peter & Lyn Ashton 5 Australian Greens Australia ‐ Geelong Branch 6 Australian Labor Party ‐ Geelong West Branch 7 Barwon Health 8 Beca Planning 9 AR & GL Beechey 10 E & B Bingham 11 Mandy & Michael Bishop 12 Geoff & Carolyn Blyth 13 Bosco Johnson Pty Ltd 14 Bradford VA & Uphill JA 15 David & Glennis Branagh 16 Michael Brdar 17 Greg Bryant 18 Richard & Janne Burchell 19 P, J, N, B & T Burley 20 R & J Calaby 21 GMM Causon 22 N & J Chester 23 Heather & Rodger Clarke 24 GJ & CM Coates 25 Committee for Geelong 26 Stephen Cooke 27 Coomes Consulting for Landowners Consortium ‐ Ref No 133084 28 Coomes Consulting for Landowners Consortium ‐ Ref No 133086 29 R Danckert 30 David Curtain Consulting 31 David Curtain Consulting for Van Berkel, McCoy, Logan & Brdar 32 AJ Davies 33 FT & GE Davis 34 H & M Dekker 35 Delfin Lend Lease 36 Dennis Family Corporation 37 Department of Primary Industry 38 Dimopoulos K & M & Marcoftsis C 39 NC & JF Drayton 40 Driftwood Consulting 41 John & Anne Duncan 42 Mount Duneed Residents Group 43 Dyer I & Hoggart J 44 EPA Victoria 45 RB & WM Fletcher 46 Friends of the Mount Duneed Recreation Reserve 47 Geelong Environmental Council Inc

Page 103 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

48 Geelong Lutheran College Project 49 Geelong Town Planning Services Pty Ltd 50 Geelong Town Planning Services Pty Ltd for S Swanborough 51 C & D Grimmer 52 Barbara & Others Groves 53 Glenys & Barry Harvey 54 Greg & Fiona Hider 55 Hodge M & Woodyard C 56 Daryl & Heather Jennings 57 RW Julien 58 Vincent Kelly 59 Geoffrey Kenyon 60 Louise & Michael King 61 LH & SK Lim 62 C & J Macaulay 63 MacLeod Consulting 64 CA & KF McFarlane 65 Tony McGiness 66 DC Mitchell 67 Mount Duneed Ring Road Action Group 68 Stephen Naismith 69 LP & K Nowak 70 Karen & Danny Oritz 71 Graham B Perkins 72 Powercor 73 HG Roebuck 74 Cynthia Rossack 75 KG & MJ Rossack 76 SJB Planning 77 G & S Smith 78 Southern Surveys Pty Ltd 79 SPI Powernet 80 Malcolm H Sprague 81 Peter Sprague 82 John Stewart 83 Stockland 84 St Quentin ‐ G O Drew Pty Ltd 85 St Quentin ‐ Armstrong Creek Pty Ltd 86 St Quentin ‐ GNM Developments Pty Ltd 87 Surf Coast Shire 88 Team Platypus 89 TGM Group Pty Ltd 90 The Urban Partnership 91 Dean Thompson 92 Tract 93 SA & JL Turner 94 Uniting Church in Australia 95 Urbis JHD 96 VicTrack

Page 104 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

97 VicRoads 98 Villawood 99 Susan Wardrop 100 Woolworths Limited 101 PTUA ‐ Geelong Branch 102 SKM 103 Geelong Cemeteries Trust 104 W & J Peel 105 South Side Feehans Road Group 106 Horst Pfeifer 107 Colin Wallace 108 Catholic Education Office 109 Watsons 110 Mark Harwood 111 KLM Spatial 112 Deakin University 113 Mutual Trust Pty Ltd 114 Alla McMahon 115 Mt Duneed Progress Association Inc 116 Minter Ellison 117 Country Fire Authority 118 George & Van Shea Simonds 119 Urban Development Institute Australia (Victoria)

Page 105 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

APPENDIX 2: DOCUMENT LIST

Page 106 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

DOCUMENT NO. DESCRIPTION Panel: P1 Letter from the Chair, dated 06/12/07 Planning Authority: PA1 Revised UGP 2 Powerpoint presentation: hard copy 3 A4 PowerPoint 4 Canole Presentation: hard copy 5 Storrie PowerPoint 6 Storrie Presentation 7 VicRoads Submission 8 Best Hooper Letter 9 Shrimpton PowerPoint 10 Mark Sheppard PowerPoint 11 Train Station, DOI 12 Land Ownership Map 13 Dr McCowan PowerPoint 14 Bus Tour Map 15 Letter from Woolworths, dated 07/11/07 16 Email from John Duncan 17 Hrelja PowerPoint 18 Panozzo PowerPoint 19 Essential Economics Report July 07 20 Revised 6.6, Stuart Morris 21 Baker PowerPoint 22 Council Submission 23 Summary Brochure: Directions 1998 24 Directions Main Document 25 Growth Area Framework Plans 2006, DSE 26 Precinct Structure Plan Guidelines 2006, DSE 27 Waurn Ponds Open Space Map 28 Extract: Whittlesea Planning Scheme Amendment C41 Panel Report 29 Cross‐sections, Arup 30 Crematorium Plan 31 Letter from Best Hooper, dated 26/11/07 32 Letter from Delfin Lend Lease, dated 30/10/07 33 Letter from VicRoads, dated 22/11/07 34 Extract: Urban Stormwater Best Management Guidelines 35 Plan for Options for Grade Separation, VicRoads 36 Safer Design Guidelines for Victoria 37 Hoopers Paddock etc 38 Topographic/Coastal Plan 39 Letter dated 12/12/07 40 Council Right of Reply 41 Council Right of Reply Attachments

Page 107 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

Submittors: 2/1 Anglican Diocese of Melbourne Submission 4/1 Lyn and Peter Ashton Submission 5/1 Bruce Lindsay Submission 12/1 G and C Blyth Submission and photos 15/1 Branagh Submission 20/1 Calaby Submission 27/1 Richardson and others Submission 27/2 Incorporated and Reference Docs – VPP Practice Note 27/3 Writing a Local Planning Policy Practice Note 27/4 Villawood Properties vs. Greater Bendigo CC 28/1 Coomes Submission 30/1 David Curtain Submission (for Dallman) 31/1 Chris Marshall Submission 31/2 Chris Marshall Appendices 36/1 Dennis FC and Mason Submission 36/2 Aerial Photos 36/3 Wadeson Summary 36/4 Chris McNeill – Spade Consulting PowerPoint 36/5 Waurn Ponds: Flood Level 36/6 Mernda Strategy Plan – Flooding 36/7 Hunter Photos of ex drainage works 36/8 Hancox Road Cross‐sections, Aurora Projects 36/9 Hancox Railway cross – section, Aurora Projects 36/10 Bartley Submission 36/11 Morningside Estate Submission 36/12 Response to tabled document #39, Dennis Family Consulting 40/1 Casey Consulting Services Opening Submission 40/2 Day PowerPoint 40/3 Morris PowerPoint, Casey Consulting Services 40/4 Response to tabled document #39, Casey Consulting Services 41/1 John and Anne Duncan Submission 42/1 Mount Duneed Residents Group Submission 43/1 Hoggart Submission 45/1 Fletcher Submission 47/1 Geelong Environment Council Submission 48/1 Geelong Lutheran College Association Submission 49/1 Raewyn Hansen “notes” 55/1 Urbis Submission (for Hodge and Woodyard) 57/1 RW Julien Submission 58/1 Lester Trickey Submission (for Kelly) 64/1 McFarlane Submission 67/1 Mount Duneed Ring Road Action Group Submission and Photos 75/1 Rossack Submission 76/1 Echin Submission 89/1 B & K Keirl Submission 95/1 Waurn Ponds SC Market Assessment Oct 2005, Dimasi

Page 108 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

95/2 MU Nominees Submission 95/3 Govenlock Summary 98/1 Underwood Submission (for Villawood and Carter) 98/2 Underwood Attachments 98/3 Underwood Aerial Photo 98/4 Page 20 “A Plan for Melbourne’s Growth Areas” Nov 2005 98/5 Pages 60‐61 of SGS Background Report 98/6 Geelong Economic Development Strategy 2005‐2010 98/7 Response to Tabled Document #39, Underwood 99/1 Wardrop Submission 100/1 Woolworths Submission 100/2 Letter from Woolworths, dated 04/12/07 100/3 Response to Tabled Document #39, Woolworths 101/1 Public Transport Users Association Submission 102/1 SKM Submission (Blue Circle) 102/2 SKM Attachments (Blue Circle) 104/1 Peel Submission 107/1 C. Wallace Submission 107/2 C. Wallace Attachments and Maps 108/1 Catholic Education Office Submission 108/2 Catholic Education Office Supplementary Submission 109/1 Soritel Submission (Gadens) 109/2 Wolinski Summary Brochure 109/3 Response to Tabled Document #39, Soritel 116/1 Coles Submission (Minter Ellison) 116/2 Casey Consulting Services Submission 116/3 Letter from Davis Langdon 116/4 VPP Practice Note: Flood Provisions 116/5 Response to Tabled Document #40, Coles (Minter Ellison) 117/1 CFA Submission 119/1 UDIA Submission (Steve Copland)

Page 109 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

APPENDIX 3: REVISED CLAUSE 21.40

Page 110 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

21.40 ARMSTRONG CREEK URBAN GROWTH AREA

Importance and Key Issues

The Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan provides the development framework for Geelong’s primary future growth area. It aims to concentrate the majority of the urban growth of Geelong into a comprehensive community in an area south of the Melbourne to Warrnambool railway line and includes parts of the suburbs and localities of Grovedale, Marshall, Connewarre and Mount Duneed. For the purpose of this policy, this growth area is known as ‘Armstrong Creek’.

The vision is for Armstrong Creek to be developed into a sustainable community that sets new benchmarks in best practice urban development. Natural and cultural features will be protected and enhanced to create a distinct urban character. Armstrong Creek will become a highly sought‐after location for living, working and recreation, forming an attractive addition to Geelong.

The Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Framework Plan (Incorporated Document pursuant to Clause 81 of the Scheme) summarises the proposed development framework for the area, defines an urban growth boundary, and sets the long term direction of growth. Areas of visual sensitivity along the Mount Duneed ridgeline and flood prone areas east of Barwon Heads Road are excluded from urban development. The remaining area within the urban growth boundary is the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area consisting of approximately 2,350 hectares of land with an estimated capacity of 22,000 dwellings, and a potential population of 54,000 persons.

By setting the long term direction of growth for Armstrong Creek, the Framework Plan will guide further planning through the preparation of Precinct Structure Plans, Development Plans and other work. The Framework Plan will assist infrastructure planning and decision making by government departments and agencies such as the Department of Infrastructure and VicRoads as well as other authorities such as Barwon Water.

The following objectives and strategies will assist to implement the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan and guide the area’s development:

Objective 1

To provide a wide range of housing types and densities in an urban structure based on walkable neighbourhoods, public transport and mixed use activity centres.

Strategies • Plan for residential development to be as a series of ‘walkable neighbourhoods’, each centred around a mixed use activity centre, with each neighbourhood having a distinct identity. • Provide for a comprehensive mix of lot sizes, housing types and affordability within each neighbourhood and promote adaptability to ensure that people can ‘age in place’. • Provide for a greater concentration of medium and high density housing and aged care housing towards the centre of the neighbourhoods. • Plan for a minimum average residential density of 15.5 dwellings per hectare of gross developable land in residential areas across the growth area, including:

Page 111 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

o a minimum of 30 dwellings per hectare in ‘higher density housing’ areas – being those areas within 400 metres of existing and planned public transport interchanges. o a minimum of 20 dwellings per hectare in ‘medium density housing’ areas being those areas beyond the ‘higher density’ areas within 800 metres of existing and planned public transport interchanges, and within 400 metres of the edge of sub regional and neighbourhood centres o a minimum of 14 dwellings per hectare in the remaining ‘conventional density housing’ areas. • Encourage residential lots within 400 metres of the major, neighbourhood and local activity centres to have layouts designed to enable future intensification of development. • Require medium and high density housing areas to have additional street trees to compensate for the loss of planting opportunities in private gardens.

Objective 2

To establish a network of mixed use activity centres providing retail, community and educational facilities for the incoming Armstrong Creek community.

Strategies

• Provide for a Major Activity Centre, on the east side of Torquay Road between Boundary Road and Burvilles Road, with a public transport link, to include a full range of retail, community, entertainment, business and (higher density) residential uses. • The Major Activity Centre should generally be based on “Main Street” principles, with a key feature including an east west Main Street strategically positioned within the activity centres, with retail uses located on either side of the street. • Provide for two Neighbourhood Activity Centres, each with a supermarket, primary school and a ‘family hub’ of health, community and medical services. Limit retail leasable floor area in the north eastern Neighbourhood Activity Centre on Horseshoe bend Road to 7,000 square metres. • Identify a series of Local Activity Centres, each containing local shops, a primary school, local sporting facilities, and a ‘family hub’ including a kindergarten, child care, maternal and child health services. • Plan for additional multi‐purpose ‘corner’ stores, co‐located with local parks, to be provided within 400 metres of all dwellings which are not within 400 metres of activity centres. • Provide for three Specialised Local Activity Centres at the edges of the proposed industrial areas containing services such as cafes and restaurants to serve the needs of the workforce along with floor area for higher job density activities such as research and development. • Plan for the provision of at least two (government and/or private) secondary schools: one towards the west of the growth area and one towards the northeast co‐located with a Neighbourhood or Local Activity Centre. • Locate all activity centres and schools on the Public Transport Network, and ensure schools have appropriate street frontages. • Plan for all activity centres to be orientated and designed to support active street frontages, street based community interaction and pedestrian safety. • Plan for community services required at the local and neighbourhood level, such as a multi‐purpose facility, to be available at the outset of development in each neighbourhood. • Plan for a mixed‐use corridor along Torquay Road to contain predominantly offices and higher density residential accommodation.

Page 112 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

Objective 3

To create an economic and employment structure that complements the broader Geelong region while providing employment areas, business opportunities and local jobs.

Strategies

• Ensure development of the Armstrong Creek area complements and supports the existing activity centre and industrial structure of Geelong. • Provide for niche industrial development opportunities including locally oriented service industry in the northeast, and hi tech manufacturing in a business park setting in the west. • Promote opportunities for advanced business services to establish as home based businesses and grow into activity centre based businesses. • Promote a mix of activity centre office spaces and business park spaces that showcase the latest and most advanced forms of commercial and industrial development. • Encourage synergies with Deakin University and regional research and commercial businesses. • Aim to provide approximately 22,000 jobs within the Armstrong Creek area including provision of ‘higher order’ professional, managerial and advanced technical jobs.

Objective 4

To protect and enhance the natural environmental features and cultural heritage values of the Armstrong Creek area and provide a distinct urban character and a green setting.

Strategies

• Maintain the floodplains along the Barwon River, Armstrong Creek and its tributaries. • Protect the habitat values and water quality of Armstrong Creek and its tributaries by providing public open space within the 1‐in‐100 year flood extent. • Create and strengthen vegetation linkages along creeks, rivers and roadsides through strategic revegetation using the key iconic local native tree species. • Protect and enhance areas of remnant native vegetation in the growth area including significant roadside vegetation and areas of Bellarine Yellow Gum and River Red Gum woodland located on private land. • Protect places of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance in consultation with the Wathaurong community. • Undertake Aboriginal archaeological assessments and flora and fauna surveys to inform the preparation of Development Plans and prior to subdivision within the growth area. • Protect the recognised (37) post contact (European) cultural heritage places listed in the Urban Growth Plan that do not already have statutory protection. • Protect significant view lines associated with indigenous and post contact heritage places and establish cultural heritage interpretation trails throughout the growth area.

Objective 5

To ensure the provision of a comprehensive and well connected network of open space and recreation facilities.

Page 113 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

Strategies

• Achieve a minimum public open space contribution in the range of 5 to 8% of unencumbered, subdividable land within the growth area. • Encourage the establishment of major indoor recreation facilities at the Major Activity Centre and the proposed secondary schools. • Provide for a comprehensive range of playing fields and local parks including two regional sporting facilities and sports grounds within each government primary and secondary school site, co‐located with an additional oval on adjoining Council reserves. • Provide for local parks of at least 0.5 hectares in area, within 400 metres of all dwellings across the residential areas. • Provide for at least one major, high value, conservation park at a regional scale in the vicinity of Stewarts Reserve. • Provide for a network of linear open space focussed on Armstrong Creek and the Barwon River. • Plan for recreational walking and cycling trails to provide direct links to activity centres, schools and major parks, which are well lit and are overlooked by development.

Objective 6

To provide a sustainable movement and access network within the Armstrong Creek area.

Strategies

• Identify three main public transport interchanges including the existing Marshall Railway Station and new interchanges at Rossack Drive and the Major Activity Centre. • Plan for a high quality sub‐regional public transport link between the existing railway line and the sub‐regional centre, with provision for it to be extended beyond towards Torquay. • Plan for a comprehensive local public transport system to link all activity nodes to comply with the requirements of Clause 56 and ensure that public transport services are provided at the outset of development. • Plan for new pedestrian bridges across the existing railway line and proposed eastwest link road at Rossack Drive, Bieske Road and Bickford Road. • Plan for improved local vehicle access in the western section of the growth area by extending Rossack Drive across the railway line. • Plan for a network of connector streets across the growth area. • Plan for a new east ‐ west link road to connect the Geelong Ring Road with the Surf Coast Highway, Barwon Heads Road and ultimately, Portarlington Road. • Plan for primary and improved connection between Torquay and the Geelong Ring Road by upgrading Mt Duneed Road and Anglesea Road. • Plan for potential widening of Barwon Heads Road to two lanes in each direction. • Plan for grade‐separated crossings of the existing rail line at Barwon Heads Road, Torquay Road, Rossack Drive and the east‐west link road. • Plan for existing and proposed arterial roads as urban boulevards.

Objective 7

To provide utility services that meet current best practice standards and are environmentally sustainable.

Page 114 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

Strategies

• Seek to employ gravity systems for the sewer network and align trunk sewer lines with public open space where possible. • Require water sensitive urban design including minimising direct connections between impervious areas and the underground stormwater system. • Provide a range of integrated flood storage measures to limit 1.5 year and 100 year peak flow to pre‐development conditions. • Explore the potential for leading edge water supply strategies and alternative water supplies, such as recycled water (including a ‘3rd Pipe’ system) and the use of stormwater. • Encourage the latest telecommunications technology in the growth area.

Objective 8

To ensure the orderly and controlled development of Armstrong Creek.

Strategies

• Limit urban expansion to the Urban Growth Area as defined by the Urban Growth Boundary. • Encourage development to proceed on a variety of growth fronts, in accordance with approved Precinct Structure Plans, to ensure adequate diversity in product, a sufficient development rate to meet forecast demand, and appropriate delivery of physical and community infrastructure. • Ensure a fair, transparent and accountable system of development contributions is put in place to fund and deliver infrastructure in a consistent, equitable and timely manner. • Require the preparation of detailed Precinct Structure Plans, based on an area of ‘walkable neighbourhoods’ of 1.6 kilometres in diameter detailed in the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Framework Plan. • Ensure Development Plans respect the vision and principles of the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan and the location of land uses and infrastructure are generally in accordance with the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan – Framework Plan.

Implementation

These strategies will be implemented by:

Using policy and the exercise of discretion

• Ensure use and development meets the objectives of this Clause in accordance with the Armstrong Creek Framework Plan and respects the vision and principles of the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan Volume 1, October 2006 (as amended).

Applying zones and overlays

• Applying Schedule 1 to the Environmental Significance Overlay to areas along the Armstrong Creek and stands of significant remnant vegetation. • Applying Schedule 2 to the Environmental Significance Overlay to the Barwon River floodplain as a buffer to the wetlands of Reedy Lake and Lake Connewarre. • Applying Schedule 1 to the Vegetation Protection Overlay to areas of significant roadside vegetation.

Page 115 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

• Applying the Special Building Overlay to land in existing urban areas that are subject to inundation by surcharge flows from urban drainage systems. • Applying the Heritage Overlay to significant heritage sites. • Applying the Development Contributions Plan Overlay. • Applying the Development Plan Overlay.

Undertaking further strategic work

• Prepare a detailed Implementation Plan including a rezoning strategy. • Prepare a Development Contributions Plan and Overlay for the Urban Growth Area. • Complete an Infrastructure Plan. • Coordinate the preparation of detailed Precinct Structure Plans for development areas within the Urban Growth Area.

Other Actions

• Prepare cultural heritage management plans for significant European and Aboriginal heritage places within the Urban Growth Boundary. • Investigate the establishment of a Cultural Heritage Interpretation Trail.

Incorporated Document

Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Framework Plan (comprising the Plan and supporting text).

Reference Document

Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan ‐ Volume 1, October 2006 (as amended, with new date).

(Please note that the Panel has not tracked changed this Clause or the text accompanying the Framework Plan)

Page 116 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

APPENDIX 4: REVISED FRAMEWORK PLAN

Page 117 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

Armstrong Creek Growth Area Framework Plan

The Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area as depicted in the attached Framework Plan provides for the principal urban growth of the City of Greater Geelong and the broader Geelong Region. The vision for this area is detailed as follows:

The Armstrong Creek urban growth area will be developed into a sustainable community that sets new benchmarks in best practice urban development. Natural and cultural features will be protected and enhanced to create a distinct urban character. Armstrong Creek will become a highly sought‐after location for living, working and recreation, forming an attractive addition to Geelong.

Below is a detailed summary of the Framework Plan:

Population and Job Growth:

The Armstrong Creek growth area is located to the south of existing urban Geelong and includes the communities of Marshall, Connewarre and Mt Duneed.

The Armstrong Creek Growth Area is anticipated to:

• provide housing for 54,000 people, accommodated in 22,000 households; and • provide employment for 22,000 people in industries and local businesses.

Environment:

The Plan protects from development:

• the high landscape and conservation value of Armstrong Creek and Barwon River and their associated floodplains; • the high landscape value of Mt Duneed which will form the backdrop to urban development in the Armstrong Creek Growth Area; • roads with significant vegetation; and • areas of environmental sensitivity, in particular those containing significant vegetation.

Housing:

The Plan provides for a variety of housing needs by:

• basing development on walkable neighbourhoods of approximately 1.6km across, centred on local centres; • ensuring each neighbourhood provides for a mix of housing types, sizes and prices; • ensuring that housing achieves a minimum gross residential density of 15.5 dwellings per hectare across the whole growth area; and • providing higher density housing (30 dwellings per hectare) clustered around activity centres, the existing Marshall train station and the proposed new Rossack Drive train station.

Activity Centres:

The Plan provides for vibrant activity centres by:

• providing for a new Major Activity Centre centrally within the growth area;

Page 118 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

• supporting the primacy of Geelong Central Activities Area to the region; • provision of a bulky goods retailing precinct within the Major Activity Centre; • providing two new Neighbourhood Activity Centres, one in the north eastern and one in the south eastern part of the growth area; and • provision of a (non‐retail based) mixed use corridor along Torquay Road.

Employment:

The Plan provides for economic and employment growth by encouraging development of:

• an employment precinct (industrial) in the Tannery Road, Marshall area located in the north east portion of the growth area, which provides a service business function; • an employment precinct in the western part of the growth area in close proximity to the Geelong Ring Road and future East‐West link road, with a focus on hi tech‐manufacturing; and • a mix of employment opportunities within the new activity centres.

Open Space:

The Plan provides for regional open space by:

• providing a network of recreational walking and cycling trail across the entire growth area through the provision of linear open space corridors along Barwon River, Armstrong Creek and its tributaries and Waurn Ponds Creek, vegetated rural roads and other new routes that provide direct links to all activity centres, schools and major parks; • providing a vegetated corridor alongside the public transport link to the new Major Activity Centre; • nominating two regional sports facilities consisting of multi purpose sports reserves one located on Ghazeepore Rd at the western extent of the growth area and the other close to Barwon Heads Rd at the eastern extent of the growth area; • provision of a regional scale conservation park at the eastern end of Armstrong Creek around existing Stewarts Reserve; and • Small local parks of at least 0.5 hectares provided throughout the residential areas.

Transport:

The Plan provides for the transport needs of the growth area by:

• providing a new public transport interchange at Rossack Drive, including a park and ride facility; • providing for the long term provision of a high quality public transport link between the existing rail line and the proposed new Major Activity Centre, and to areas to the south beyond the Growth Area; • providing a new east‐west link road between Anglesea Road and the Barwon River with potential link to the Bellarine Hwy beyond; and • identifying the arterial road network.

Page 119 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

Figure 5: Framework Plan, with Panel Recommendations

Page 120 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

The Panel adopts the above plan as the basis for the Framework Plan. It has shown some of these changes on the plan, but relies on the below text for the full recommendations.

Title:

• Rename the plan as “Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan – Framework Plan”.

Activity Centres:

• Designate the Major Activity Centre as the area bound by Burvilles Road to the south, Torquay Road to the west, Boundary Road to the north and the proposed alignment of the rail line to the east. The centre is to accommodate a range of uses including bulky goods retailing. • Designate the remainder of the Major Activity Centre quadrant (between the proposed rail line and Barwarre Road) for high density housing. • Focus the Horseshoe Bend Neighbourhood Activity Centre on the north‐east quadrant of the Boundary Road and Horseshoe Bend Road intersection. • Focus the Armstrong Creek East Neighbourhood Activity Centre further east so that it fronts Barwon Heads Road. • Relocate the Local Activity Centre B in the Armstrong Creek West Precinct to the west so that it is on the south‐east corner of Boundary Road and Airport Road.

Industrial/Employment Areas:

• Reduce the Western Industrial Precinct by approximately one third, so that it lies between Ghazeepore Road and the continuous lot line to the immediate west.

Access and Movement:

• Delete the “Dedicated Local Transit Route”. • Designate local public transport opportunities on the collector road network. • Delete the “Greenways”. • Delete the proposed diagonal roads.

Social and Community Infrastructure:

• Designate the location for the Lutheran College and the Roman Catholic School site as “Schools”.

Page 121 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme: Amendment C138 Panel Report: 27 February 2008

• Designate the location of the Barwon Health Aged Care facility on the plan as “Community”. • If there is a road proposed along the south side of the Aged Care facility, the proposed Local Centre B should be located on the same side of the road.

Biodiversity Corridors:

• Delete the biodiversity corridor that traverses the Western Industrial Precinct. • Delete the biodiversity corridor/passive parkland designation from Hoopers Paddock.

Flooding/Drainage:

• Delete the “Indicative Detention Basins/Wetlands”.

Non‐Urban Areas:

• Amend the southern Urban Growth Boundary to follow the revised boundary as shown.

Page 122