I I I I Vr6an qrowtli I I Strategy I I 1996 I I I I I I I I I I I CITY PLANNIII6 I ·~ I INTRODUCTION · "~~j~j~~~~~Njjjf I M0044244 The City of Greater Geelong Urban Growth Strategy was I prepared for Council by planning consultants Perrott Lyon . . I Mathieson Pty Ltd during 1995 and 1996 to provide advice on the areas considered most suitable for urban I development to accommodate Geelong's expected growth up until the year 2020. On the most optimistic population I projections available, the consultants have catered for an I additional 71,000 persons or some 26,000 households. I In undertaking their work, the consultants have had the benefit of many background reports and information I . produceq over past years by the (former) Geelong ' . Regional Commission, together with more recent planning I studies undertaken either by or on behalf of Council (e.g. I North Eastern Area Strategic Land· Use Plan, Mt Duneed Armstrong Creek Urban Development rstudy; Residential I Lot Supply Report and Inventory of Industrial Lots).
I The Urban Growth Strategy was· ·exhibited: for a 4 month period during 1996 at which time wide publicity was given I of its availability including an invitation for interested or I affected persons to make a submission. Preparation of this Strategy and its exhibition was also coordinated with I Council's Arterial Roads Study.
I The exhibition comprised 8 background Discussion Papers and an overall Strategy report which were made publicly I . . available at Council's Service Centres and throughout local
/,.--- -- libraries. --;---·--· --~. I ,-~=:..:: 711. 00106742 4099 452 City, coast, country : City . GEE:P of Greater Geelong urban ·I growth strategy : exhibition document I_ I INTRODUCTION ·I A total of 25 submissions were received to the exhibited Strategy documents. Submissions were considered by · I Council on .11 December 1996 at which time ·Council formally adopted the Urban Growth Strategy with I modifications. I The major .policies contained within the Urban· Growth I Strategy have been summarised in ·the Municipal Strat~gic Statement contained in Council's new Victori~n Planning I Provisions Planning Scheme (Clause 21.6.1 ). I Council's adopted· Urban Growth Strategy· substantially comprises the Exhibition Document· "City, Coast, Country" I prepared by Perrott Lyon Mathieson dated April 1996 which I. follows this Introduction. However, in considering the ' . submissions to the exhibited Strategy, the Council has I made the following changes to the Exhibition Document in adopting the Urban Growth Strategy:- I
.-- ·lncfL.isl'o-h of the · Wandana area as a future urban I . growth area (now subject of an adopted Structure Plan); I • Inclusion of a further small eastern extension· to the I Leopold township;
• Changing the designation of two small areas of land . I adjoining O'.Hallorans Road, Lara from "Long Term Residential Growth" to "Medium Term Rural I Residential".
• Designation of an area at Lovely Banks. as a node for I future rural residential development; and I I II I INTRODUCTION
I • Future urban growth on the Bellarine Peninsula should be focussed at both Ocean Grove and Drysdale/Ciifton I Springs instead of only the latter as recommended in the exhibition document. I Further information about Council's adopted Urban Growth I Strategy can be obtained by contacting Council's City Planning Department. I I I I I I -I I I I .I I I I I I I· 'I I I I
I City of Greater Geelong I Urban Growth Strategy I I
prepared for · I City of Greater Gee/ong
I by Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd I Architects Planners Interior & Urban Designers "Ciendore" 20 Fitzroy Street I St Kilda Victoria 3182 I telephone: (03) 9537-1400 facsimile: (03) 9534-9522 I I I I I EXH.IBITION DOCUMENT -I I I I .lllllllmll""'l'llllllll Urban Growth Strategy
I TABLE OF CONTENTS I 1. INTRODUCTION ...... ;;, ...... 1 I 1 .1 The Task ...... :...... 1 1.2 The Approach ...... 2 1.1.1 Mappable information ...... 2 I 1.2.2 Unmappable Information ...... 3 I 1.2.3 Land Owner Requests ...... ,...... ·...... :···· 4 2.. FACTORS TO CONSIDER ...... 5 I 2.1 How. much land is needed? ..... :...... : ...... :...... : ...... 5 2.2 How can locational demand be satisfied? ...... 7 2.3 What is the optimum size of the City of Greater Geelong? ...... 8 I 2.4 How can infrastructure efficiencies be maxiniised? ...... 10 2.4.1 Social Infrastructure ...... :...... ,...... :...... 10 I 2.4.2 Physical Infrastructure ...... :...... 1l I 3. PlANNING PRINCIPlES ...... ,...... 13 3.1 Natural Environment ...... ~ .... 1 3 3.2 Conservation and Heritage ...... 13 I 3.3 Population and Housing ...... :···· ...... 13 3.4 Settlements ...... 14 I 3.5 Infrastructure ...... 14 3.6 Transport ...... ;...... 14 I 3.7 .Industry/Employment...... 15 3.8 Rural Residential ...... 16
I 4. WHERE IS THE MOST SUITABlE lAND? ...... 17 4.1 Potential Locations for Growth ...... 17 I 4.2 According to land use ...... _...... 18 4.2.1 Traditional Density Residential ...... 19 I 4.2.2 Commercial, High Technology ...... ~ ...... 20 4.3 According to location ...... ~ ...... : ...... 20
I 5. URBAN GROWTH TO THE YEAR 2020 ...... ;: ...... :...... :...... 24
5.1 The Case For Higher Densities ...... 24 I 5.2 The Preferred Growth Strategy ...... 24 I Prepared by Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd Revision: Exhibition Document City of Greater Geelong Urban Growth Strategy Date: 16 April, 1996 CW:95265R01.DOC:3769 Contents Page: i I
Urban Growth Strategy 111111mt"""''1 11111111 I I TABLE OF CONTENTS
5.3 Armstrongs Creek/Mount Duneed- Stage 1 ...... - ...... 26 I
5.4 Drysdale/Ciifton Springs ...... ~ ...... 28 5.5 Urban Geelong ...... : ...... 30 I 5.6 Lara ...... :...... 31 5.7 Wallington ...... ;...... :...... '... :...... :··.······:······ .. 32 I 5.8 Leopold ...... :...... :...... ,...... :: ...... :...... 33 5.9 Lovely Banks ...... :...... '.... ,...... ,...... 34 5.10 Wandana Heights ...... :...... , ...... 35 .· I 5.11 Ocean Grove ...... :...... ' ...... 36 I 6. IMPLEMENTATION ...... :...... 37 6.1 Flexibility within a climate of certainty ...... :...... 3 7 I 6.2 Likely staging of development ...... :...... : ...... 3 7 6.2:1 Stage 1 1996-2000 ...... :...... :...... ;...... 38 6.2.2 . Stage 2 2000-2010 ...... 38 I 6.2.3 Stage 3 201 0-2020 ...... :..... :...... 39 6.3 Summary ...... :...... · ...... 39 I 6:4 Actions/Recommendations ...... :...... 40
7. CONCLUSION ...... :..... ~ ...... ~ ...... ~ ...... 43 I I I I I I I I I Prepared by Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd · Revision: Exhibition Document City of Greater Geelong Urban Growth Strategy Date: 16 April, 1996 CW:95265R01.DOC:3769 Contents Page: ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I llllllllltlllllllllllllllll Urban Growth Strategy
I 1. INTRODUCTION
I 1.1 The Task In March 1995 Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd, in association with DJA Maunsell Pty Ltd, was engaged to I prepare an Urban Growth Strategy for the City of Greater Geelong.
The purpose of the Urban Growth Strategy is to determine the most suitable areas for the I accommodation of urban growth to the year 2020 and to
I • review the assumptions on which the former Geelong Regional Commission's (GRC) Framework for the Future · Development Strategy was based and the final growth option proposed;
.-1 • draw on the attitudes of the local community as expressed in Geelong 2010 A Preferred Future;
• provide a clear policy basis for Council, land owners, developers and the market for future directions I of urban growth in the Geelong Region;
• identify the likely land areas, beyond existing zoned land, required to accommodate the anticipated I future population of Geelong. I The objectives of this project included the following: 1. to work towards creating a future Geelong community as expressed in Geelong 2010 A Preferred I Future; 2. to maintain the diversity of the regional, urban, ~gricultural and environmental land uses for future generations; I 3. to ensure the sound and orderly planning of future urban areas; 4. to promote higher residential densities within established and future urban areas; I 5. to maintain viable and productive agricultural land; 6. to protect natural rural and coastal features and the enhancement of the City's character; I 7. to conserve natural habitats and areas of environmental sensitivity; B. to ensure that development occurs in a manner consistent with environmentally sustainable practices; I 9. to ensure that d_evelopment occurs in a manner that maximises the efficient and effective provision of infrastructure; I 10. to ensure that development caters for the needs of the whole community; 11 .. to identify and promote spatial patterns of development that enhance employment opportunities and encourage the more efficient use of social, economic, environmental and physical resources; to I provide opportunities for equity in access to services, including public transport. I I Prepared by Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd Revision: Exhibition Document City of Greater Geelong Urban Growth Strategy Date: 16 April, 1996 I CW:95265R01.DOC:3 769 Page: 1 I ·mmmt""'''llllllllll Urban Growth Strategy I
Eight discussion papers were prepared to provide a summary of opportunities and constraints relevant to I the designation of growth areas as follows: I Discussion Paper 1 - Settl~ments Discussion Paper 2 - Natural Environment Discussion Paper 3 - Population I Discussion Paper A- Industry and Employment Discussion Paper 5- Transport I Discussion Paper 6 - Infrastructure Discussion Pa.per 7 - Conservation and Heritage I Discussion Paper 8 - Rural Residential
This .. paper summarises all the key planning principles determined in the Discussion Papers and explains .-1 the rationale behind the designation of particular areas as suitable for future growth. I 1.2 The Approach This study has utilised· a series of land use planning techniques to synthesis~ information abo.ut the I physical characteristics of land within the study area to determine those areas most suitable for particular types of land use. In addition to the inherent physical attributes of the land, the study has incorporated social and economic objectives and pa_rameters to aid in the identification of land where urban growth is I most appropriately located. I .Each of these "data sets" is outlined below in terms of data which is able to be translated to plans and that which is not so readily translated onto plans. I
The study has also responded to issues a;ising out of the 1995 Arterial Roads Study, which has been undertaken in parallel with the Urban Growth Strategy. I·
1.2.1 Mappable information I
The mappable information includes predominantly physical characteristics of land such as: slope, solar ·I receipt, wind, . flood prone areas, agricultural land capability, fire hazard, foundation costs, erosion susceptibility, environmental sensitivity, views and noise susceptibility. I I I
Prepared by Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd I Revision: Exhibition Document City of Greater Gee long Urban Growth Strategy Date: 16 April, 1996 CW:95265R01.DOC:3 769 Page: 2 I I I ·· lllll"m11111111111111111 Urban Growth Strategy
I The planning. tool used to analyse the mapped physical information is known as land suitability analysis. The outcome of land suitability analysis is a series of land suitability plans which show, according to the I physical.characteristics considered, which land is most suitable for particular land uses. Land suitability plans are produced by rating the individual effect of each physical factor on certain types of land use as well as by assigning a weighting of the relative importance of each factor in determining the degree of I suitability of areas for various land uses (a separate paper explains in a more technical and thorough · I manner the land suitability analysis). Geographic Information System (G.I.S.) technology was employed to manage the sheer volume of data I for the study. The use of this computer system enabled the:
• management of the amount of data collected for the Greater Geelong Region which covers in ex~~ss I of 1,200 square kilometres of land; ,. I • creation of a database of info~mation in digital format for future use by the City of Greater Geelong; • flexibility to manipulate the data collected in a variety of ways to 'assist in determining the suitability of I land for development;
• production of high quality maps with the highest degree of accuracy possible. I 1.2.2 Unmappable Information I The "unmappable" information includes social and economic parameters. This information also has a spatial component, but is termed "unmappable" as the boundaries on any map produced would be too I vague to input into the formal land suitability analysis.
Social factors include the location of existing community infrastructure, community expectation in relation I to urban form and the community's view of what Geelong will be like in the year 2010 as expressed in 2010 A Preferred Future. Economic factors include the location of existing and programmed I infrastructure such as roads and hydraulic services, the comparative locational costs of providing new infrast~ucture and future employment centres. Another factor that needs to be considered under this heading is drainage from catchments, which has not been included in the land suitability analysis but does I impose constraints to development in particular locations.
I The "unmappable" information detailed above has been factored into the determination of most suitable land for urban growth as qualitative inputs to overlay the physical land suitability maps. Each factor, along I with the outcome of the land suitability analysis is discussed in more detail in the body of this paper. I I Prepared by Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd Revision: Exhibition' Document City of Greater Geelong Urban Growth Strategy . Date: 16 Aprjl, 1996 I CW:95 265~0 1.DOC:3 769 Page: 3 I 111111m~llllllllllllllll1 Urban Growth Strategy I
1.2.3 land Owner Requests I·
Both prior to and during the ·course of this study a number of submissions were received providing detailed information in supp·ort of specific rezoning or development proposals. This information also I provided a further valuable input into the process of deciding upon future strategic growth options. I I I I I I I I I I I I· I I I
Prepared by Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd I Revision: Exhibition Document City of Greater Geelong Urban Growth Strategy Date: 16 April, 1996 CW:95265R01.DOC:3769 Page: 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I llllllllltll,llllllllllllll · Urban Growth Strategy
I 2. FACTORS TO CONSIDER I 2.1 ·How much land is needed? Based on an analysis of projections made by the Department of Planning & Development and the I Australian Bureau of Statistics the City of Greater Geelong will have to accommodate ·an additional permanent population in the order of 41,000 to 71,000 persons up to the year 2020. These projections are based on a number of factors influencing both the composition of population growth and change over I time and the "attractiveness" of Geelong as a destination for both residents and investment. The lower figure is based on a more conservative analysis of the factors potentially influencing growth. This does not. I include non-permanent residents or holiday makers who come to the municipality primarily during the holiday season. For the purposes of determining directions for growth, the highest of these figures has I been used to ensure that enough land has been provided in the event tha~ the population growth does in fact accord with the higher growth projections. Furthermore, being generous in the amount of land considered, flexibility is ensured if non-residential uses, as expected, take up some of the land designated I to accommodate future growth.
I The estimate of future land requirements has taken into account the extent of existing vacant land zoned for residential purposes for its capacity to accommodate part of the future growth. The Urban and Regional Planning Unit of the City of Greater Geelong has undertaken a detailed survey of all vacant I broad-hectare zoned residential land and all vacant residential lots. This information has been assessed against both dwelling building permit figures and future population projections to provide an estimate in I terms of the number of years supply of zoned residential land currently available for development. On a municipality-wide basis there is between 17 and 23 years vacant zoned land available (on the basis of the rate of development determi_ned by building permits issued), the former_figurebeing based on a !ake I up of 10 dwellings per hectare and the latter figure being based on a density of 1 5 dwellings per hectare.
I The assumptions that have been made in the calculation of land required are that the average household size which is declining over time will, on average, be 2.74 persons per household and that only one I household is accommodated per dwelling per lot.
Calculations ~f land requirements have been based on two densities of development; 1 0 and 15 dwellings I per hectare. The number of lots per hectare includes provision of land for local access streets, local open space, neighbourhood shops, primary schools and neighbourhood community facilities. On the basis of I experience with residential subdivision on the fringe of metropolitan Melbourne the resulting individual lot sizes are in the order of 450 sqm for development at 15 dwellings· per hectare and 650 sqm for development at 10 dwellings per hectare. However, sensible planning of any future residential I development will ensure that a range of lots sizes is provided to meet the needs of different households. I I Prepared by Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd Revision: Exhibition Document City of Greater Geelong Urban Growth Strategy Date: 16 April, 1996 I CW:95265R01.DOC:3 769 Page: 5 I 11111m1~11"1111111111111 Urban Growth Strategy I
Table 1 below shows the number of vacant lots in existing ?:Onings at 1995 for the various townships and I urban Geelong areas. Also shown is the expected take up to the year 2020, factoring in anticipated demand.· 1- 'TABLE 1: LOT CAPACITY WITHIN EXISTING ZONINGS AND ANTICIPATED TAKE UP TO 2020 I I I Northern Region ·' Urban Geelong- 5090 14.9 -5090 7372 21.6 7372. I South Western Urban Geelong- 1026. 1 .1 1026 1479 17.5 1479 Eastern I Lara 934 1.8 934 1297 16.4 1297 Leopold 808 7.5 808 1055 9.8 1055 1847 26.4 1847 2290 32.7 2290 I 697' 38.7 327 799 44.4 375 St. Leonards 775 67.4 . ·290 1022 88.9 382 Indented Head 924 243.2 76 1309 344.5 108 I Ocean Grove 1580 18.7 1487 2038 24.1 1918 Barwon Heads -- - .633 22.4 487 873 30.8 .. -- 672 I Point Lo 616 36.2 25 865 50.9 358 I TOTAL NUMBER 16880 14537 23086 19993 OF LOTS Source: City of Greater Geelong, 1995 I
This table shows that land presently zoned for residential purposes is not anticipated to be -fully takeri up at Portarlington, St. Leonards, Indented Head, Ocean Grove, Barwon Heads and Point Lonsdale. This I assumption has been made on the basis of information contained in the Residential Lot Supply Study which showed that in these locations there are between 18.7 and 344.5 years of supply left. I I I.
Prepared by Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd I Revision: Exhibition Document City of Greater Geelong Urban Grov.1h Strategy Date: 16 April, 1996 CW:95 265RO 1.DOC:3 769 Page: 6
------I. I I 11111"m""'''lllllllll1 Urban Growth Strategy
I This study is concerned with the n~mber of lots needed. to cater for growth to the year 2020. The maximum projected future population is 71,289 persons which translates into 26,018 households. On I the basis of development occurring at 1 0 dwellings per hectare, 14,53 7 households can be catered for within existing zonings which leaves 11 ,48llots/households to be created within new growth areas. If development were to occur at 15 dwellings per hectare then only 6025 lots would need to be created I additional to existing zonings.
I The approximate area' of land needed for each of the scenarios described above is represented in Map 1 to illustrate the amount of additional land required relative to the extent of land ·nov,, occupied by I Geelong.
This demonstrates that .the amount of land that needs to be allocated for future ·growth to the year 2020 is
0 0 I not significant when compared to the extent of Urban Geelong at present. It should be noted that this area of land does not take into account any opportunities for consolidation of existing lots within Geelbng I and the townships which may in fact reduce the area of additional land required. As dual occupancies and multi-unit developments replace detached houses, the amount of land needed for future growth will I be further reduced. I 2.2 How can locational demand be satisfied? As has been noted the residential lot supply figures reveal that there are significant differences in the years I of supply availa.ble across different locations. For example, on the basis of 15 dwellings per hectare, Portarlington and Indented Head have 44.4 and 344.5 years of supply left respectively, whilst Lara has 16.4 years arid Leopold 9.8 years. These figures demonstrate that according to demand trends between • 0 0 I 1991-1994, Lara, Leopold and the existing urb.an areas of Geelong City will not .b.e able to meet demand ·I for land well before the year 2020. If this locational demand is not catered for either prices will increase or the demand will be displaced to I another location. Increased prices can re~ult in housing pressur_e at which point "affordability" becomes an issue. Land prices can also become inflated if there is not sufficient available land zoned additional to existing supply. Supply of land can be influenced by owners holding back land from the market for I speculative purposes or simply the unsuitability of existing zoned land for the purpose intended or even a time delay between the intention to develop land and the actual construction of lots. The combination of I these factors and the need to provide the market with choice means that considerably more land than required needs t.o be designated for residential purposes. I I II Prepared by Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd Revision: Exhibition Document City of Greater Geelong Urban Growth Strategy Date: 16 April, 1996 • II CW:95265R01.DOC:3 769 Page: 7 I 11111'"'~""1111111111111 Urban Growth Strategy I
One method of satisfying locational demand can be to direct growth to a selected locality and in doing so I deflect pressure from and "protect" others from the pressure of growth. This approach has been put into practice with a degree of success at Mount Barker in the Adelaide Hills which was environmentally and I aesthetically sensitive but subject to significant demand. Once the growth area has been designated,
policy has to be firm on the remaining are~s as not being suitable for further urban development. This can be not only controlled in a statutory sense but also encouraged through incentives/disincentives such as I rate reductions. Depending on how strong the resolve is, legislative controls other than zoning can also be implemented. Applying this model to Geelong could see townships such as Drysdale-Ciifton Springs or I Leopold .expand to the benefit of the remaining townships. I Another solution may be to alter the housing form of the existing townships where there is significant demand. Geelong and the surrounding townships are overwhelmingly comprised of detached single· dvvellings. If the valued non-urban aesthetics that currently exist betwee'n townships and other urban I areas. are to be maintained, then additional population cannot be accommodated by the same form of housing·. In essence, a denser form of development is necessary to offset pressure for continued sprawl. I This is particularly relevant for the coastal townships on the Bellarine Peninsula. To a large degree though, .this relies on the acceptance of a consolidated urban form. I 2.3 What is the optimum size of the City of Greater Geelong? I In carrying out the Urban Growth Strategy the consultants were asked to address, amongst other issues, the issue of optimum city size. This issue seems to arise from the expressed desire of much of the community to not allow either the urban area of Geelong or the various townships to sprawl endlessly. In I 2010 A Preferred Future concern was raised particularly in relation to the coastal towns: I In 20 10 our coast continues to show a diversity of developmen~ however strict planning strategies developed in the mid-90s ensured no ad hoc planning and limited urban growth to the 1994 /eye/. A· I building height limit is enforced on coastal developmen~ and comprehensive design guidelines have ensured the construction of aesthetically designed buildings which blend into the surrounding environment I
Further, there is a desire to maintain a non-urban break between. Geelong and Melbourne and similar I ·breaks between townships on the Bellarine Peninsula.
The motivation behind these desires appears to be a combination of the following: I
• recognition that the amenity of the Bellarine Peninsula in particular is a tourist drawcard in its current I form; and is attractive as a residential/retirement locality; I
Prepared by Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd Revision: Exhibition Document I City of Greater Geelong Urban Growth Strategy Date: 16 April, 1996 CW:95265R01.DOC:3 769 Page: 8 I I I lllllllmlllllllllllllllll Urban Growth Strategy
I • identification with a definable place; I • recognition that continuing sprawl can have negative effects for the surrounding environment; and • retention, where appropriate, of valuable agricultural land.
I The determination of optimum city size relates both to the size of population and the amount of land I taken up by a city. In relation to population size, there have been varying theses on the population carrying capacity of Australia as a nation and continent. Estimates vary between a conservative 8 million to the assumption I that given a similar land mass to the United States, Australia can absorb a population in the order of 100 · million. The limitation of this approach is that there is no commonly agreed upon figure and for many it is I assumed that technological advances will e·nable the global population to continue to expand·· and physical constraints particular to each locality. I The relevance of these various national population estimates to Geelong' s future population :·lies in the rationale behind the figures. For instance, the conservative estimates of Australia's ultimate carrying I capacity are based on the limited amount of prime agricultural land and water resources, whilst the optimistic estimates are based on the significant land mass and relative low density of population.
There is the opportunity for the City of Greater Geelong to approach its future development keeping in I mind both estimates. This can be achieved by avoiding development in, and protecting, areas of prime agricultural value, ensuring that any ultimate population can be served with water and by increasing the density of development. Each of these should be achievable without compromising the anticipated I growth to the year 2020 and beyond. The City of Greater Geelong has engaged consultants to undertake a Rural Land Use Strategy which will seek to identify locally and regionally significant agricultural I resources and ways in which land can be used and managed·for a sustainable future. This study should be complet~ before the public exhibition process of this document is complete; thereby enabling any I updated information to be incorporated into the Growth Area Strategy. In relation to the amount of land taken up by urban development within Geelong it seems that the I primary concern of the broader community is to protect the identity (size) of the· coastal townships. This is very different to limiting the amount of population living in any one settlement and can be addressed to I a significant extent through increased densities. Indeed, many of the coastal settlements are of a size whereby if "urban village" principles were applied on a consistent basis, the change in urban form could I be positive for both existing and new residents. I
·I Prepared by Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd Revision: Exhibition Document City of Greater Geelong Urban Growth Strategy Date: 16 April, 1996 I CW:95 265RO 1.DOC:3 769 Page: · 9 I '"''''''~''''1111111111111 Urban Growth Strategy I
It is necessary to set limits to the physical expansion of the coastal settlements to achieve the following I planning gains: I • the protection of the idef"!tity of each township; • the management of growth in an environmentally sustainable manner; I • the recognition of the townships as tourism assets;
• the encouragement of a sustainable social fabric in terms of service provision and "sense of I ·community". I It should be recognised that growth pressure is common to most coastal towns, not just the Bellarine Peninsula. Optimu~ township size can therefore only really be discussed in the context of the role.. of I each settlement, the attitudes of the community, the reality of population growth and physical constraints particular to each locality. I The approach taken by the consultants has been to identify the natural boundaries to each of the coastal · settlements and work from there as to how much growth could be accbmmodated in light of the planning I gains listed above. This then sets an ultimate physical limit within which various types of development . . . r and densities can take place.
2.4 How can infrastruct~re efficiencies be maximised? I 2.4.1 Social Infrastructure
Substantial resources have already been directed into existing community services in Urban Geelong and I the surrounding townships. It is therefore necess~ry to consider. where educational, open space, community and commercial facilities are locate;d within the study area. I
There are three obvious points to make. First, as would be expected, the majority of facilities are located I in urban Geelong as opposed to the townships with an obvious concentration in the CBD. Secondly, · regional facilities outside the CBD such as tertiary education campuses, sports stadia and shopping centres tend to be located on the northern or south-western periphery of urban Geelong. Thirdly, the I area east' of Drysdale-Ciifton Springs is poorly serviced by anything but local facilities (as could be expected given the existing population) and is furthest away from Urban Geelong. I I I
Prepared by Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd Revision: Exhibition Document I City of Greater Geelong Urban Growth ~trategy Date: 16 April, 1996 CW:95265R01.DOC:3 769 Page: .10 I I I llllllllltlllllllllllllllll Urban Growth Strat~gy
I This relates to the designation of future growth areas in that accessibility to such facilities is desirable. Where possible, it therefore follows that the location of future growth areas in proximity to existing I regional and sub-regional services would both serve to maximise the efficient use of those facilities and enhance the quality of life of the future population. I 2.4.2 Physical Infrastructure I Physical infrastructure includes both transportation demands generated by increased population growth and the provisions of hydraulic services to accommodate new development. I 2.4.2.1 Transportation
On a macro scale the most significant transportation issue is which, if either, of the proposed Geek>ng bypass options will proceed - the outer freeway reservation or the eastern bypass of a bridge over c'orio I Bay, The final growth option pursued will have a direct impact on transportation, needs and patterns. The scale of this impact needs to be put into perspective in that only an additional 71,000 people need to be catered for to the year 2020. Furthermore, the majority of this population increas'e will be I a<;:commodated within existing zonings for which the various infrastructure authorities have already planned. Also of importance in terms of transport planning ·is the impact of tourists/day trippers and I industrial traffic.
The consultants for the Urban Growth Strategy have worked closely with the consultants preparing the I Arterial Roads Study. The growth options proposed have been developed with an awareness of the ,I implications in terms of cost of road infrastructure provision and trips generated. It is important to emphasise that transport solutions should respond to the preferred urban growth option rather than dictating the direction of further development. Whilst to a degree the relationship is two-way" I the future urban form of Geelong should not be infrastructure-led.
I It is not the role of this study to indicate a preferred option in terms· of transport solutions. Rather, the implications of both can be highlighted. If the Corio Bay Bridge goes ahead, thel') development pressure I for land on the Bellarine Peninsula will increase substantially. Given the curre'nt desire to maintain the existing amenity on the Bellarine Peninsula this could ~ell present a conflict of outcomes in that the very qualities of the Bellarine Peninsula which are held as precious by the Geelong community could well be I threatened by the inevitable development pressures which would result. I I I Prepared by Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd Revision: Exhibition Document City of Greater Geelong Urb~n Growth Strategy Date: · 16 April, 1996 I CW:95265R01.DOC:3 769 Page: 11 I 11111"m""111~111111111 Urban Growth Strategy I
Finally, in terms of the ideals and aspirations expressed in 2010 A Preferred Future and the objectives of I the Urban Growth Strategy Brief, to continue to invest in road infrastructure is to ignore alternative and arguably more sus.tainable methods of transportation such as fast rail linkages. I
In relation to the outer freeway reservation, it is understood that_ the northern section between Lara and the Hamilton Highway is needed to cater for industrial traffic travelling between Geelong and Melbourne I whilst it has been indicated in the Arterial Roads Study that the southern section between the Hamilton Highway and Princes Highway may not be able to be justified. If the southern section does not proceed I the existing artificial western boundary to urban grO\vth created by the reservation may in the longer term be removed. This has significant implicatio.ns in that land use planning has for some time been dependent I on this reservation as providing the ultimate western boundary to expansion of Geelong. The land particularly affected at Wandana Heights will be discussed in more detail in Section 5.
2.4.2.2 Hydraulic Services I There are two clear ways in which efficiencies can be maximised in the provision of both sewer and water infrastructure. First, development should proceed on an incremental basis from the edge of existing urban development outwards. Secondly, growth to the south ofGeelong City is known to be less expensive to I service than to the north by in the order of millions of dollars in upfront expenditure. I I I I I I I I
Prepared by Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd Revision: Exhibiiion Document City of Greater Geelong Urban Growth Strategy Date: 16 April, 1996 CW:95265R01.DOC:3769 Page: · 12 .I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 111111mt11 111111111111111 Urban Cr0\".1h Strategy
3. PlANNING PRINCIPLES
The planning principles listed below have been derived from the Discussion Papers and effectively state I the consultant's position in relation to each of the topic headings in terms of the designation of future I growth areas. I 3.1 Natural Environment • High quality agricultural land should be protected from urban development and proximate land uses that constrain the use, or potential use, of the land for agricultural· purposes. Its intrinsic value as a I resource for the future sustainability of Geelong should be protected. Regard should be had for the technical viability of land as distinct from its current "economic" viability.
I • Areas of environmental sensitivity, including flora, fauna, wetlands and coastal areas should be .protected from urban development.
I • Urban development should be restricted in catchments which drain into sens.itive ecosystems such as Swan Bay, Lake Victoria and Lake Connewarre.
I • Areas of extreme fire haza·rd, subject to flooding, or exposed to unacceptable levels of aircraft noise should not be developed for residential development.
• Within broadly suitable areas for residential development, priority should be given to locations with I good solar access, low exposure to extreme winds and gently undulating land. 3.2 Conservation and Heritage
I • Landscapes which have aesthetic values should be protected from development which may compromise those values.
I • Sites and areas of significant endemic vegetation should be protected from inappropriate I development. I 3.3 Population and Housing • The majority of the future population growth to the year 2020 should be accommodated within the extent of land already zoned for residential purposes. New subdivisions should proceed to yield a. I density of 15 dwellings per hectare.
• A broader variety of housing options, including medium density, should be encouraged to reduce the I overwhelming proportion of single detached houses in Geelong, thereby assisting urban consolidation I objectives. ·I Prepared by Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd Revision: Exhibition Document City of Greater Geelong Urban Growth Strategy Date: 16 April, 1996 I CW:95265RO 1.DOC:3769 Page: 13 I lllllmltlllllllllllllllll Urban Growth Strategy I
• As Ceelong increasingly becomes a·.destination for retiring baby boomers and average household size decreases there must be an awareness of the changing requirements both in terms of service provision and urban form. I
• Future growth areas should be located to maximise accessibility to existing social and comm~nity infrastructure and minimise investment required in additional physical infrastructure and hydraulic I services.
• Th~ City should work towards a target of 25% of all its housing being made up of dwelling forms I other than detached dwellings by 2020. I 3.4 Settlements
• The long standing planning policy of . maintaining a non-urban break between Geelong and · I Melbourne should be upheld.
• The long standing planning policy of maintaining non-urban breaks between settlements should be I upheld to foster a sense of physical identity for each of the townships outside Urban Geelong and protect the intrinsic qualities of the environs surrounding the settlements. I • Where possible, natural boundaries should form the edge of urban areas to assist in reinforcing the edge of urban centres and resisting development pressure on the fringe of existing townships and 1- Urban Geelong.
• Urban consolidation should be actively encouraged to enable existing boundaries of townships to be 1· maintained and increased densities that will support the provision of upgraded services. I 3.5 Infrastructure • Urban growth should be located so as to optimise access to existing infrastructure and service I ·provision and minimise additional costs of service provision,, • . Urban. development should occur on an incremental basis from existing urban areas and services, I utilising land already zoned for residential purposes, to maximise efficiency in service provision and minimise costs of development. I 3.6 Transport I • It should be recognised that the construction of new roads or expansion of existing roads results in locational development pressure and increases demand on the road capacity. I • It should be recognised that any additional urban growth will increase demand for road capacity. I I Prepared by Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd Revision: Exhibition Document City of Greater Geelong Urban Growth Strategy Date: 16 April, 1996 CW:95265R01.DOC:3769 Page: 14 I I I IIIIIIIWIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Urban Growth Strategy
I • Each of the Geelong by-pass options being pursued will result in different but significant land development pressures.
I • Future growth areas should be located to maximise accessibility to existing facilities and services and where possible, minimise travel time, between new development and facilities and employment I opportunities. • The existing and future land use needs of Avalon Airport should not be compromised by the location I of inappropriate development in its vicinity in order that this economic asset can be' protected as a resource.
I • The role of the Geelong Airport should be recognised and its ongoing use in the short to medium time frame acknowledged. I 3.7 Industry/Employment I • The future land requirements o.f existing industries must be protected so that the key stone industries have the opportunity to maximise operations. I • Additional industrial/employment land of high amenity needs to be provided, to accommodate the changing needs of industry towards more office/showroom space, quality warehousing and "clean" . , I manufacturing. • The ongoing change occurring in employment will result in modification of journey to work patterns and the move away from traditional manufacturing activities towards those which have less off-site I impact will eventually see a closer merge between place of work and home. This is consistent with . objectives of sustainable planning wherein overall trips may be. reduced.
I • Land use planning should recognise these opportunities and encourage a finer grain of land uses across the urban area. "Employment" land uses should be provided for within newly developing I areas to allow for clean industries/offices to establish. The shift in employment towards the service sector should similarly be recognised and provided for in new urban areas.
I · • There is sufficient "industrial" land. to cater for economic growth in the traditional manufacturing sector and it is unlikely that there would be any need for further major new industrial areas in the I foreseeable future. I I I I Prepared by Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd Revision: Exhibition Document City of Greater Geelong Urban Growth Strategy Date: 16 April, 1 996 . I CW:95265R01 .DOC:3 769 Page: 15 I ·llllllllltll" 1111111111111 Urban Growth Strategy I
3.8 Rural Residential I
• Rural residential development is a recognised legitimate living opportunity; however, the provision of this form of l.and use may be considered extravagant. in terms of sustainable development principles. .I • There is a need to balance housing choice objectives with sustainable development objectives. I ' . • Alternative rural living opportunities should be investigated including re-subdivision and cluster farming proposals. I • lnfill development in the preferred ·nodes should Qe permitted, where the costs of appropriate . servicing are attributable to the developer.
• There are sufficient stocks of vacant rural residential land in existing nodes to cater for demand together with existing developed stock which may be exchanged on the market.
• New areas of rural residential development on the urban, edge of Geelong should not be encouraged. I I I I I I I I I I I I Prepared by Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd Revision: Exhibition Document City of Greater Geelong Urban Growth Str;llegy Date: 16 April, 1996 CW:95265RO 1.DOC:3 769 Page: 16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ''''''"'~11111111111111111 Urban Growth Strategy
I 4. WHERE IS THE MOST SUITABLE LAND?
I 4.1 Potential Locations for Growth Within the City of Greater Geelong there are many natural and desired constraints to development that to I a significant extent dictate the potential locations for growth. It is from this broad analysis that· the potential locations have been derived which include the following: I • Lovely Banks I • Ocean Grove • Armstrongs Creek/Mount Duneed I • Wandana-Heights • Leopold I • Drysdale/Ciifton Springs I • Wallington I. • Lara The capacity in terms of future population of each of the potential areas for future growth given the natural constraints and preferred urban form are detailed in Table 2 below. It should be noted that, apart I from Urban Geelong, these figures refer to areas which would .be in addition to land already zoned for residenti~l d~velopment I ·I I I I I I ·I Prepared by· Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd Revision: Exhibition Document City of Greater Geelong Urban Growth Strategy Date: 16 April, 1996 CW:95265R01.DOC:3769 Page: 17 I llllllllltlllllllllllllllll Urban Growth Strategy I
TABLE 2: CAPACITY OF LOCATIONS TO CATER FOR GROWTH I I I
Lovely Ban 22,000 191.6 365.1 I Ocean Grove 2000 17.4 33.2 Armstrongs Creek I Mount Duneed I
• Stage 1, 2 & 3 12,750 21,597 252.5 358.5 • Stage 1 450 7,390 64.4 122.6 I Wandana Heights 240.9 1,800-2,000 17.4 33.2 14 210 1.8 3.5 I Springs 200 3,000 26.1 49.8 I Con ation 500 4.3 8.3 I 56.5 400-493 1.9 3.5. TOTAL REQUIRED 6,025-11,481 522.4 873.0 I As can be seen the capacity of these locations together provide much more land than is required to cater for growth to the year 2020. The purpose of this report is to designate a preferred growth option by selecting a cqmbination of the above locations. Sections 4.2 and 4.3 below assess each of these locations I in terms of their land suitability and locational advantages and disadvantages. I 4.2 According to land use •... I Land suitability maps showing the location of the most suitable land are included and described for the following land uses: I • . traditional density ·residential - primarily detached dwellings with an average density (including road reserv"es etc,) of 10-15 dwellings per hectare; I • commercial, high technology, office - commercial and clean industry. uses that require attractive sites in terms of aesthetics and proximity to services. I I I I Prepared by Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pt~· Ltd Revision: Exhibition Document City of Greater Geelong Urban Growth Strategy Date: 16 April, 1996 CW:95265R01.DOC:3 769 Page: 18. I I I .lllllllmlllllllllllllllll Urban Growth ·Strategy ·
I Maps 2 and 3 represent the outcome of the land suitability analysis only and need to be considered alongside the "unmappable" parameters. Land use maps were also prepared for medium density I residential, rural residential, industrial and regional passive open space uses. I 4.2.1 Traditional Density Residential Map 2 shows that the land most suitable for traditional density residential use is found in the following. locations:
I • on the northern side of the Bellarine Peninsula west of Drysdale/Ciifton Springs • west of the Barwon River around Mount Duneed/Armstrongs Creek
• an area bounded by the ·western edge of the municipality, the Moorabool River and the Barwon River I .~·. • around Lovely Banks, west of the escarpment
I • north west of the You Yangs I • the south eastern section of the Bellarine Peninsula between Portarlington and Point Lonsdale • east and west of the township of Lara I • west of Barwon Heads towards Breamlea
There are significant physical constraints to development, mainly relating to drainage issues, in' several of I the locations that have not been brought out by the suitability maps.
The south eastern side of the Bellarine Peninsula lies within the Swan Bay catchment which would be particularly sensitive to any increased urban runoff: Some of the land immediately adjacent to Swan Bay I is protected under the Planning Scheme by a Rural Natural Features Zone.
The land around Lara deemed "suitable" has significant drainage problems. Lara is constrained to the I north by the Serendip Wildlife Research Station and existing rural residential development, to the south west by the Heales Road Industrial Estate and to the east by the Princes Freeway and further rural I residential development. This leaves south west as the only residential growth option around Lara. I The area of suitability north west of the You Yangs is not a realistic option for urban growth as it is located. too far away from existing infrastructure and services. Further it is partially designated a preservation .I order and partially an area of interest or landscape value under the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme. I
I Prepared by Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd Revision: Exhibition Document City of Greater Geelong Urban Growth Strategy Date: 16 April, 1996 CW:95265R01.DOC:3769 Page: 19 I I llllllmmlllllllllllllll Urban Growth Strategy I
The land nestled between the Barwon and Moorabool Rivers is the site of an existing limestone quarry I which has sufficient reserves for production until the year 2020. The elevation of this land is very low and is inappropriate for residential uses. I This leaves part of the Mount Duneed/Armstrongs Creek area, the Lovely Banks area and an area south I east ofDrysdale/Ciifton Springs as the most suitable areas remaining for future residential development. I 4.2.2 Commercial, High Technology
VVhilst the majority of land required to the year 2020 will be for residential development, capacity should I also be allowed "for other commercial and quasi-industrial uses that the City of Greater Geelong may seek to encourage. I Map 3 shows commercial land suitability within Geelong. Interestingly, amongst other locations, this designates land around Grovedale and Stage of Mount Duneed and a small area in the vicinity of I Deakin University as "most suitable". I 4:3 According to location ....
Table 4 shows a locational breakdown of "advantages" and "disadvantages" to development for each of I these areas and draws on all the information contained in the Discussion Papers. It should be noted that the use of the term "disadvantages" implies only that due to a particular characteristic, land is less suitable I for development. It can refer to a negative constraint in the case of fire and flooding or a positive constraint in relation to an opportunity to protect areas of environmental value. I TABLE 4: ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF POTENTIAL URBAN GROWTH LOCATIONS I
Lovely Banks • second grade agricultural land • infrastructure costs higher • northern option - demand, close • incremental d~velopment not I to Melbourne possible • potential for high tech • aesthetic appeal • arterial road coasts marginally • accessibility to community I lower facilities . • provides opportunity for major • all or nothing option area I I I I Prepared by Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd Revision: Exhibition Document City of Greater Geelong Urban Growth Strategy Date: 16 April, 1996. CW:95265RO 1.DOC:3769 Page: 20 I I I 111111111~11111111111111111 Urban Growth Strategy
I TABLE 4 (CONT.) I Ocean Grove· • low grade agricultural land • accessibility to services in urban • provides good quality residential Geelong • incremental development • environmental sensitivity I possible drainage to Lake Victoria • loss of non-urban break to Wallington/Drysdale/Ciifton I · Springs • loss of sense of townsh· Armstrongs • incremental servicing' costs lower • high grade agricultural land I Creek/Mount Duneed than Lovely Banks • have to move airport • potential for high tech • urban sprawl onwards to .. potential to maximise proximity Torquay of railway line • repeats existing urban form of I • all encompassing the one option incremental sprawl (60,000 people) • increase traffic congestion ''nn • relatively close to CBD roads to the north ~ I. • the airport does not have to be moved to develop Stage 1 • provides opportunity for major I area Wandana Heights • provides high quality residential • exceeds natural boundary of • close to centre of Geelong and ·ridge line other services eg. Deakin Uni • will require arterial road upgrade I • logical extension of Urban to increase capacity of Barwon Geelong if and only when River crossings western by-pass is constructed • prime agricultural land I • opens up development to the west particularly if western bypass not pursued I • infrastructure costs·· Leopold • good access via existing roads • drainage problems to the west, • potential for high tech prime agricultural land to east, • close to urban Geelong Lake Connewarre to , south, I • potential for consolidation undesirable to cross highway to. • potential to make use of railway north line t~at is currently disused I • h land suitabil I I I I
·I Prepared by Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd Revision: Exhibition Document City of Greater Geelong Urban Growth Strategy Date: 16 April, 1996 I CW:95265R01.DOC:3769 · Page: 21 I lllllllll~lllllllllllllllll Urban Growth Strategy I
· TABlE 4 (CONT.) I I Drysdale/Ciifton Springs • consolidate ex1stmg rural • to the west the creek provides a residential (south) natural boundary • · potential to extend tourist . • further out from Geelong railway between therefore less accessibility I Drysdale/Ciifton Springs and • ability to find southern boundary · Urban Geelong along disused • prime agricultural land reservation I • incremental growth development possible • no threat to non-urban break I • caters for demand ori Bellarine especially aging population • eastern bypass would divert commuter traffic I • d road access to Geelon Wallington • already zoned rural residential (5 • not sewered acre lots) • need to protect trees I • opportunity to increase density • prime agricultural land of rural residential • remote from· all community facilities and services I Lara • north of urban Geelong • natural constraints prevent much therefore reduce travel further . growth eg. flood, time/trips/cost to Melbourne industry, aircraft . noise, rural • low grade agricultural land residential I • · opportunity for some rural • remote from services in Urban residential consolidation Geelong • opportunity for incremental I
Urban Geelon·g • existing zoned residential land • timing of redevelopment • higher density opportun~esunkn6wn I • consolidation • demand transferred to coastal • existin infrastructure lnr:~T"'""
This table demonstrates that there is a r:ange of . development opportunities for growth in Geelong, I although most locations have costing or environmental implications (thresholds) associated with urban development. I In an attempt to narrow the locational options for growth· a further matrix has been prepared (see · I Appendix A) which assesses each of the locations in terms of its ~ompatibility with the planning principles outlined in Section 3.
I
Prepared by Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd Revision: Exhibition Document I City of Greater Geelong Urban Growth Strategy Date: · 16 April, 1996 CW:95265R01.DOC:3 769. Page: 22 I I .lllllllmlllllllllllllllll . Urban Growth Strategy I ------~--~------~~------
I Indeed in narrowing the locations to a preferred option the consultants found it quite difficult to choose between locations and determine. which was most suitable for· urban growth. Rather it was a process of I elimination and trade-offs between values considered more important than others. It would be fair to. say that in the final analysis the most influential factors were as follows:
I • exi.sting natural.and man-made constraints; I • desire to maintain non-urban buffers between settlements; • protection ofprime agricultural land; and I • cost of infrastructure provision and ability to cater for incremental growth. I I I I I I I I I I I I
Prepared by Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd Revision: Exhibition Document City of Greater Geelong Urban Growth Strategy Date: 16·April, 1996 I CW:95265RO l.DOC:3 769 Page: 23 ------I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I lllllllmlllllllllllllllll Urban Growth Strategy
I 5. URBAN GROWTH TO THE YEAR 2020
I 5.1 The Case For Higher Densities In order to achieve greater infrastructure efficiencies and social and environmental sustalnabilit)i it is I recommended that a density target of 15 dwellings per hectare is sought in . all future residential development within the municipality, including the periphe~al townships. It is only in this way that the I identity of the Geelong region, with its non-urban breaks between townships, can be p~otected.
Higher density development does not have to result in a loss of individual or collective amenity. It is extremely Important though that as densities increase, more public open space networks are provided along with local facilities. Furthermore, both subdivision design and dwelling design. must be responsive I and responsible to the needs of future residents. In this respect there is an important role for both local government and the private sector to play. I 5.2 The Preferred Gro.wth Strategy I The preferred growth strategy involves a selection of the locations investigated as outlined in Table 5. I In brief, the recommended growt~ strategy includes the following, as shown in ·Map 4: I • continued growth of the various townships in accordance with the existing structure plans; • · consolidation within Urban Geelong; and I • designation of.S_tage.J __of Armstrongs Creek/Mount Duneed as the direction foduture.urban growth.
The following table sets out the allocation of growth across the areas designated to accommodate the . I future expansion of Geelong. I I I I I ·I Prepared by Perrott Lyon Mathie~on Pty Ltd Revision: Exhibition Document City of Greater Geelong Urban Growth Strategy Date: 16 April, 1996 I C'vV:95:!&5R01.DOC:3 769 Page: 2~ 111111!lmlllllllllllllll.l Urban Crovvth Strategy
TABLE 5: lOCATIONAl BREAKDOWN OF PREFERRED GROWTH OPTION I I 450 6,750 60% 112% 200 3,000 2 50% 1,080 dwellings 10% 18% I Lara 56.5 565 5% 9% Wallington 500 4% 7% I Leopold 14 210 3% TOTAL REQUIRED 6,025 107% 199% (15 dwellingsjha) .I 11,481 . (10 dwellingsjha) I "Assumes one dwelling per lot
.. The actual land area may be reduced to allow protection of any prime agricultural land covered in part I by the stage one component of the plan. I I I I I I I I I I Prepared by Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd City of Greater Geelong Urban Growth StrJtegy CW:95265RO l.DOC:J 769 I I lllllllmlllllllllllllllll Urban Growth Strategy
I 5.3 Armstrongs Creek/Mount Duneed - Stage 1 I The urban growth of Geelong should, in the long term, be directed to the area of land identified as "Stage 1" of Mount Duneed.
The Geelong Directions Strategy (1988) designated the Armstrongs Creek/Mount Duneed locality as an I area in which future urban growth should be accommodated. A subsequent consultant study undertaken for the City of Greater Ceelong investigated the area in detail and identified areas for development and I their staging.
I The area identified as Stage 1 of the Armstrongs Creek/Mount Duneed area is recommended to accommodate the bulk of the long term growth for Geelong above that which is able to be accommodated within land presently zoned for residential purposes: Map 5 outlines the general area to be subject of a future overall development plan.
I This area is bounded by the Surf Coast Highway, Boundary Road, Barwon Heads Road. and the Warrnambool Railway line and has the capacitY to accommodate in the order of 6,750 households or bet\'Yeen 60%-112% of total land needed depending on whether the density of development is 10 or 15 I dwellings per hectare; respectively.
I However, Stage 1 is zoned Intensive Farming although it is not used as such. Part of the land identified as Stage 1 may be prime agricultural land which should be reviewed as part of Council's Rural Land Use I Strategy tO. determine whether steps should be taken to protect this land and provide. a suitable interface to protect its resource value. The extent of land ultimately required for the future growth of Geelong will I not require the full extent of the land identified as Stage 1. Stages 2 and 3 have not been nominated due to the incompatibility of devele.pment within the area I affected by the use· of the Geelong Airport. Stages 2 and 3 are also noted as incl.uding land of prime agricultural quality. The appropriateness of these designations will be addressed in the Rural Land Use I Strategy.
In spite of these constraints to the development of land in Stage 2 and 3, it is considered that the land in I Stage 1 is actually better suited for growth to the year 2020. It is closer te. the centre of Geelong and immediately adjacent to the proposed railway station on·the south-east corner e.f the Surf Coast Highway I and the Warrnambool Railway line which will provide excellent public transport access to Geelbng central area and Melbourne. The land is gently undulating with several stands of remnant vegetation. With a I sensitive subdivision design it is considered that the land would provide medium to high quality residential
PrepJred by Perrott Lyon MJthieson Pty Ltd Revision: Exhi_bition Document City of GreJter Gee.long Urban Growth StrJtegy 0Jte: 16 Awil. 1996 I CW:95:165R01.DOC:3 769 PJge: :16 I llllllllmllllllllllllllll Urban Growth Strategy I I l~nd in the middle range price bracket. That it is adjacent to existing urban development means that servicing can be incremental in line with the pace of development. This is a major advantage over the. option of large scale development at Lovely Banks. Furthermore, development within Stage 1 itself can be I. staged so that if demand slacke~s resources have not been spent should the remainder of the land not be developed. I
Stage 1 of Armstrongs Creek/Mount Duneed has not been designated for growth on the assumption that Stage 2 and 3 will subsequently go ahead. It is not the i8tention that urban Geelong sprawl incrementally I southwards as themaintenance of a significant non,urban break is critical be'tween Geelong and Torquay. . . At the same time however, it is an attribute of the Armstrongs Creek/Mount Duneed land that it does not I close off any options for further development should Geelong experience a greater than anticipated demand. I
In light of the uncertainty with which forward projections can be made, it is recommended that all development aim to achieve a density of 15 dwellings per hectare. If this is achieved, the total land I ·designated in this stra.tegy should accommodate growth well beyon.d 2020. Both the ·ecological and social sustainability of the Armstrongs CreekjMountDuneed direction of growth depends significantly on I the structure plan and subdivision design and it is important that Council looks beyond traditional forms of development if it is to succeed on these accounts. I I
I I I I .I I I Prepared by Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd Revision: Exhibition Document City of Greater Geelorlg Urban Growth Strategy Date: 16 April, 1996 CW:95265RO l.DOC:3 i69 Page: 2i I :II I
i I .lfllllllftlllllllllllllllll · Urban GroWth Suategy ·
5.4 Drysdale/Ciifton Springs
The bulk of additional residential demand on the Bellarine Peninsula should be accommodated within Drysdale/Ciifton Springs. However the I location of this groWth should notbe finalised until the Rural Land Use· 'I Strategy is released. Drysdale/Ciifton Springs has to date been designated for growth in planning policies with the townships I being permitted to link together. In several regards the future growth of the township to the west into the land currently zoned.future urpan is a given. A major consideration is the decision by the Department of I Education to establish a primary school on the western periphery of the existing township. In many ways the township is well-suited to cater for future demand on the Bellarine Peninsula given its I proximity to the designated Bellarine Peninsula Civic Precinct Furthermore by concentrating population in one location pressure on other more sensitive areas is averted.
I The only hesitation in . allowing growth to occur in this direction would be its designation as prime agricultural land. For this reason it is recommended that this area be subject offurther detailed analysis as part of the Rural land Use Strategy. If it is confirmed in this Strategy that the land is of prime agricultural I value, then it is recommended that growth to the west of Drysdale/Ciifton Springs be avoided and replaced with a concerted reconsolidation of rural residential zonings on the periphery of Drysdale/Ciifton I Springs. Map 6 shows the potential area for growth to the west and nominates rural residential areas that could be consolidated.
I Residential development around the Bellarine Peninsula Civic Precinct seems most logical given the concentration of regional services to be located there including a secondary school. The concern with . . I this location is that once development expands south of the Drysdale/Ciifton Springs bypass road, there will be little to stop it linking up with Wallington.
I Much thought has ·been given to the issue of "non-urban" buffers between townships and indeed how pressure for development beyond the designated land can be resisted. Whilst many argue that the only I effective buffer is land in public ownership an understanding of Geelong's development to date reveals that the planning controls themselves have indeed been effective boundaries. In general, growth has only proceeded in accordance with strategy documents and policies as implemented through the planning I scheme. This given, it is considered that similar faith should be put in planning control~ to .guide future I development. I
Prepared by Perrott Lyon MJthieson Pty Ltd Revision: Exhitiition Documeni City of Greater Geelong Urban Growth Str.:ltegy Date: 16 ,>,pril. 1996 I CW:95265R01.DOC:3769 P.lge: 28 I lllllllll~l/1/lllllllllllll Urban Growth Strategy I
In relation to the Bellarine Peninsula Civic Precinct, should growth to the west of DrysdalejClifton Springs I be unsuitable, it is considered that as a long term option land in immediate proximity to the Civic Precinct be developed as a high density extension to Drysdale, after the rural residential zones have _been m~re I fully utilised. I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I
Prepared by Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd Revision: Exhibition Document I City of Greater Geelong Urb.ln Growth Strategy Date: 16 April, 1996 CW:95265ROl.DOC:3 769 Page: .29 I I I 11111111/tl/1/lllllllllllll Urban Growth Strategy I 5.5 Urban Geelong I The concentration of services, infrastrudure and facilities in .the existing I urban area should be utilised through a targeted consolidation effort. A target of 10% of all new households should be direded to Urban Geelong. This should be complemented with a target to increase the I proportion of ineditim density dwellings within Urban Geelong to 25% of I total dwelling stock by the year 2020. The average annual rate of growth in all suburbs of Urban G.eelong except Corio, Grovedale, Highton, I North Shore, Whittington, Wandana Heights/Ceres and East Geelong declined between 1986-199l due substantially to declining household size. This reflects the widespread trend in cities throughout Australia whereby the peaks of population within established urban areas, particular in the inner and middle I suburbs of cities, are not being sustained and indeed declining reiatively rapidly.
I The. consolidation of existing urban areas will provide the opportunity for existing infrastructure, both physical and social, to be better utilised. The process whereby sites are (re)developed for housing at higher densities may yield a greater number of dwellings and therefore households within established . . I areas. Whilst it is acknowledged that such initiatives will not arrest population decline. being experienced in inner areas they may provide the impetus for further development and, importantly, provide for greater I housing and locational choice for households within and seeking tC> locate in Geelong. I In Urban Geelong, 84.7% (38,612) of dwellings at 1991 were detached houses _and 14% (6,386) were either semi-detached, row, terrace, flats or other medium density. It is considered that a reasonable target for -consolidation to the year 2020 would be to increase the proportion of medium density dwellings in I Urban Geelong to 25% . of total dwellings. This would result in approximately an additional 1080 dwellings by the year 2020 over and above that which would have occurred if current percentag-es were I projected forward. I I I I I PrepJred by Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd Revision: Exhibition Doc~ment City of Greater Geelong UrbJn Growth StrJteoy 0Jte: 16 April, 1996 I CW:95:!65R01.DOC:3769 "' PJge: 30 I
11111111/rl/111111111111111 Urb.an Growth Strategy I ·I 5.6 lara I To cater for high levels of demand in Lara, existing rural residential. zonings closest to the township centre should be reconsolidated for I traditional residential development. I As with Leopold, Lara is also bounQ_ed by physical constraints, both natural and man-made. These leave the only direction for further· growth being a· relatively small area of land to the south of the existing township on the western side of Forest Road (see Map 7). I
In many respects it is unfortunate that there is not more land available for development at Lara particularly ·I given its proximity to Melbourne ·and arterial road benefits that would result ·from residential growth occurring to the north. Lara has only 16.4 years of supply left at current levels of demand and one of the higher average annual growth rates. It is recommended that the rural residential zonings closest to the I township centre be reconsolidated to open up additional land for urban development. I . I If this recommendation is adopted, Council should immediately undertake a review of the Lara Structure Plan to investigate these opportunities in greater detail. I I I I I I I I I I Prepared by Perrell Lyon MJthieson Ply Lid . Revision: Exhibition Document City of Greater Geelong Urban Growth SI(Jtegy Date: · 16 April, 1996 CW:95 265.RO 1.DOC:3 769 PJge: 31 I I
I . 1111111!1tlllllllllllllllll urban Growth Strategy I 5.7 Wallington I There is an opportunity at Wallington to create more rural residential lots I by setting a maximum as well as minimum lot size. I Wallington is a rural residential settlement located centrally on the Bellarine Peninsula between Ocean Grove and Drysdale/Ciifton Springs. Much of the land ·is still used as broad acre farming and undeveloped as rural residential lots. That which is developed is generally subdivided into 5 acre lots. I The area is not sewered preventing more-intensive development from occurring.
I It seems however, that there is an opportunity. to increase the density of the rural residential settlement without requiring s·ewerage, thereby providing additional lots to accommodate future growth within Geelong. At the same time a greater variety of lots can be made available throughout the Greater I Geelong area. If strict siting guidelines and tree removal controls are put in place the inherent aes!hetics of the settlement can be maintained to a significant degree whilst allowing more people access to· this I tYpe of living environment and at the same time protecting other areas from the pressure of additional rural residential subdivision. I In total, it is estimated that Wallington can contribute approximately 500 additional lots or 4% of the total I required .. I I I I I
I
Prepared by Perrott Lyon MJthieson Pty Ltd Re~ision: Exhibition Document City bi Greater Geelong UrbJn Growth Str,ltegy DJte: 16 April, 1996 I CW:95:?65R01.DOC:3769 PJge: · 32· I 111111111tlllllllllllllllll Urban Crovvth Strategy I
5.8 Leopold I I Whilst Leopold could well serve as an expanded commuter settlemen~ growth should not occur to the east until the agricultural quality of the I land is confirmed.
Positioned between the Bellarine Highway and Geelong-Portarlington Road, Leopold is well located in I terms of proximity to Urban Geelong to serve an expanded role as a commuter settlement. There are however severe physic~! constraints to expansion with drainage problems to_ the west, Portarlington Road I to the north .and Lake Connewarre to the south. Accordingly no growth further to that designated in the existing structure plan for Leopold should occur in these directions (see Map 8). I
The physical constraints to the north, west and south are fixed and unlikely to change. However, if subsequent to the Rural land Use Strategy it is found that the land to the east is not of prime agriculturar · I value, then there may be an opportunity to expand in this direction. I I I I
I I I I I I Prepared by Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd Revision: Exhibition Document City oi·Greater Geelong Urban Growth Strategy Date: 16 .->.pril, 1996 CW:95265R01.DOC:3769 Page: 33 I I llll/111ltl IIIII IIIII /IIlli Urban Growth Strategy
I 5.9 lovely Banks I If Lovely Banks was designated to cater for Geelong's future population ·a!l growth would have to be directed there to ensure viability. It is not . . I considered that this would provide sufficient diversity of land to cater for the breadth of demand present in Geelong and could indeed shift · I demand elsewhere.
I Urban growth at Lovely Banks has not been included in the preferred direction of growth to the year 2020 primarily because if·growth were to ·be directed there, then it would not be practical to direct growth anywhere. else within the same time frame. A constant consideration in choosing the preferred locations I for growth has been to provide a range of land types so as most sectors of the housing market can be catered for. If Lovely Banks were the only direction for growth, then only one location and therefore type I of land would be available. Given that much of the future demand is expected to come from retiring "baby boomers" seeking a lifestyle choice close to the coast, the demand generated within Geelong could I be significantly affected should all growth be directed to Lovely Banks. This would require a massive injection of capital prior to any returns being made. This presents a substantial economic disadvantage when compared with incremental growth opportunities that exist on the periphery of existing urban areas. I Thrs·is'not in the_ long term interests of Geelong's.housing market.
I As the subject land is above the escarpment which means that servicing would have to be provided upfront rather than on an incremental basis.
A ·further disadvantage of growth at Lovely Banks is. the poor quality of much of the land from an aesthetic perspective. There is no worth in designating a growth area where existing and future populations would I not want to live. ·
I Whilst there is a marginal cost benefit in terms of reduced transport time and fuel Lise for trips· to Melbourne this it is not considered a sufficient basis alone for the designation of Lovely Banks as a future I direction of growth. I· I
I Prepared by Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd Revision: Exhibition Document City of Greater Ceelong Urban Growth StrJtegy Date: 16 April, 1996 · I CW:95265R01.DOC:3 769 Page: 34 · · IIIIIIJ!ltl/1/lllllllllllll Urban Crowtb Strategy I
5.1 0 Wan dana Heights I
Wandana Heights should not be considered for development within the I time frame of this study and only then subject to the agricultural value of the land and the funding of the road and fedculated infrastructure costs I by the developer. I Historically it has been anticipated that Geelong's westwards development would extend to the outer freeway reservation which has acted as a logical western boundary. In light of analysis undertaken in the I Arterial Roads Strategy which raises questions about the construction of the freeway, the logic of I .·· . extension further westwards is put in some doubt. In many ways the ridge line which extends almost along Scenic Road is the best boundary for urban growth, both visually and economically. in terms of I reticulated infrastructure provision. . . · Prospective developers have indicated their capacity to fund the reticulated infrastructure costs for the I development of Wandana Heights which has the capacity to cater for in the· order of _1,800-2,000 lots .. Urban development has already crept over the ridge line north of the Barwon and Moorabool Rivers. Whilst the outlook created is not one of rolling paddocks as with the Barrabool Hills, the urban I development is shielded in the most part by substantial plantings of trees that have now reached maturity. · A similar outlook could be expected should the Wandana Heights area proceed. I There are however two most serious concerns with Wandana Heights. First, with the unlikely construction of the Outer Freeway Bypass, there is no longer a "natural" boundary to western growth. It is not I considered that incremental growth to the west of Geelong is desirable either in terms of the take up of prime· agricultural land (this will be confirmed or otherwise in the R~ral Land Use Strategy) or the · 'I· continued development to the west- of urban Geelorlg. There is concern that once infrastructure services are provided it will be difficult to limit the continued expansion to the west and further into the Barrabool Hills. I Secondly, the Arterial Roads Strategy suggests that there are significant financial costs of development in the Wandana Heights area as access to and from the location is currently not sufficient to handle the I traffic that would be generated by an additional 1,800 households, particularly with respect to the two river crossings at Queens Park and Shannon Avenue. Furthermore, there is no obvious transport solution that would be in keeping with the geometry and character of the area. The recommendation of the I Arterial Roads Strategy is therefore "to restrict future urban development in this area ... alternatively, if
urban development were to proceed, then the development itself should pay for the conside~able arterial road costs." As it is unlikely that development margins could justify the cost of the road infrastructure, it is recommended that the Wandana Heights area be excluded from the preferred development option for · I the duration of the study period. I I Prepared by Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd Revision: Exhibition Document City oi Greater Geelong Urban Growth Strategy Date: · 16 April. 1996 CW:95265R01.DOC:3769 Page: 35 I I I lllllll!W///IIIllllllllll Urban Growth Strategy
5.11 .Ocean Grove I Th'e current physical limits of Ocean Grove should remain and growth in I this location to the year 2020 catered for within existing zonings.
On the basis of existing demand and the take iw of land at 1.5 dwellings per hectare there is 24.1 .years of I sup.ply left at Ocean Grove. This means that within the time frame of the study no additional land is I needed. On this basis no further growth has been designated at Ocean Grove. The overriding concerns about further growth· at Ocean Grove include the prox1m1ty to Lake Victoria I given existing drainage problems which have resulted in blue-green algae outbreaks and the ability to stop development from extending north beyond Wallington towards Drysdale/Ciifton Springs·.
I The consultants spent some time searching for a logical boundary· to northern expansion withou.t any clear solution. The most obvious limit is in line with either the northern or southern boundary of the Ocean . .. •. I Grove Wildlife Reserve. However there are concerns with allowing urban development too close to the Reserve. For this reason it is recommended that the· existing planning zonings remain without further . zoning for residential uses. In this way the zoning itself becomes the effective boundary to future urban I development.
I This recommendation in part contradicts ~he existing Ocean Grove Structure Plan which promotes development to the north on the eastern side of Grubb Road. The consultants are aware of this but . believe it is in the interests of. both the township and the Bellarine Peninsula to foc'='s -growth in one I coastal settlement - Orysdale/Ciifton Springs, thereby retaining the remainder of ·settlements within their traditional limits. At the same time however, ·population growth can be encouraged through the provision I of a greater variety of housing types and densities. I
I I I I Prepared by Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd· · Revision: E.xhibition Document City of Greater Geelong Urban Growth Strategy Date: 16 April, 1996 I CW:95265R01.DOC:3 769 Page: 36 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I llllllmtll/11111111111111 Urban Growth Strategy I 6. IMPLEMENTATION
I 6.1 Flexibility within a climate of certainty
As can be seen in the final column of Table 4 almost double the amount of land required to 2020 can be I accommodated within the chosen locations of the preferred growth option at a density of 1 5 dwellings I per hectare. There are two reasons for this. First, .the consultants gave much thought to what the preferred urban form I within Geelong would ·be now and in the future, the m·ost obvious alternatives being continued sprawl or consolidation through higher densities. It was felt that the existing urban form of Geelong, particularly the townships, is. a social and economic asset that would diminish if the majority of growth in the region was I directed to the Bellarine Peninsula through continue_d sprawl. Given this, in the order of 87% of the future growth can be accommodated through urban consolidation opportunities and the following through of I existing structure plans. So, an additional area for growth was req~!red. C?nsidering the amount of work ·undertaken~ the consultants felt it was critical to recommend a di,rectlon (or long term growth, even if the nominated area c·ould accommodate far more lots than would be. required within the time frame of the I study. This has several benefits, including the creation of a climate of ·certainty in terms of strategic I· planning which can be used as a basis for both private and public sector decision making. Secondly, given the hypothetical nature of population projections, it is impossible to accurately predict . . . future extent of growth. Circumstances may change within the Geelong region or indeed at a national or I international level which directly affect growth at the local level.. For this reason the Growth _Strategy must be applied with some flexibility. By knowing where growth will be directed in the .long term that land is I then available to be brought online earlier if necessary or delayed in accordance with need. throughout the region. I The fundamental requirement for the implementation of the strategy plan is the establishment of a system for the ongoing monitoring of development as it occurs together with population change. The Urban and I Regional Planning Unit of the City of Greater Geelong has already undertaken a detailed analysis of the supply and take-up of residential land. It is essential that this is updated on an annual basis with the data I used as a feedback loop into the monitoring of the strategy's progress.
I 6.2 likely staging of development Three stages have been defined within the time frame of the study as shown in Table 6. The projected I proportion of total growth to the year 2020 to be catered for in each stage and the number of lots that translates into is also included in this table. An explanation of the recommended staging of develo"pment I is provided overleaf. I Prepared by Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd ' Revision: Exhibition Document City of Greater Geelong Urban Growth Strategy . Date: 16 April, 1996 I CW:952&5R01.DOC:3769 Page: 37 llllliiiWI/11111111111111 Urban Growth Strategy I I TABLE 6 -IMPLEMENTATION STAGES I
2000-201.0 8826 Stage 3 2010-2020 52% 13499 I "Or dwellings I' 6.2.1 Stage 1 · 1996-2000 I • incremental growth within existing zonings • consolidation within urban Geelong I
It is important to emphasise that Geelong is not running out of land to accommodate growth. Indeed, between 1996-2000 approximately 3,650 lots can be provided within existing zonings in Urban Geelong I
and the coastal and inland settlements. This means tha~ existing zonings can cater for all growth to the year 2000. The locational distribution of lots will be in accordance with the fluctuations of market I demand and the availability of zoned land. In general, growth will occur incrementally on the periphery of all locations. In addition infill development "Viii start to occur within existing urban areas as encouraged I by the City of Greater Geelong. Within this time frame no additional land needs to be rezoned. I 6.2.2 Stage 2 2000-2010
• minor expansion _ofleopold in accor.d~nce with .StJJ,J_ctur~ Plan.~'-='-· ... '·. I • minor expansion of Lara in accordance with Structure Plan
• consolidation within urban Geelong • consolidation within rural residential zonings at Drysdale/ Clifton Springs, Lara and Wallington I • incremental growth within existing zonings
Between 2000-2010 in the order of 8,800 lots can be provided within existing zonings, meaning that no I additional land need yet be zoned. By the year 2000, however, there will only be between six to eleven years of supply left at Leopold and Lara respectively. In order to ·allow more choice of locations, it is I recommended that at some time in. Stage 2 the additional 800 lots available at leopold and Lara be rezoned: By Stag_e 2 it is anticipated that infill development within Urban Geelong will start to result in more medium density units on the ground; working towards· the target of 25% -of all dwellings being I medium density by the year 2020. I I Prepared by Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd · Revision: Exhibition Document City oi Greater Geelong Urban Growth Strategy Date: l6· .. ~pril, 1~96 CW:95265R01.DOC:3 769 Page: 38 I I I 1111111!1~//1/lllllllllllll Urban Growth Strategy
I 6.2.3 Stage 3 2010-2020 I • Stage 1 of Armstrongs Creek/Mount Duneed • expansion of Drysdale/Ciifton Springs
I • consolidation within urban Geelong I • consolidation within rural residential zonings at Drysdale/Ciifton Springs, Lara and Wallington • incremental growth within existing zonings
I In terms of the time frame of the study, substantial areas of land additional to existing zonings are only likely to be required beyond 2010. Once again, some existing zonings would still be available (in the I order of 7,450 lots). ·However, at this point additional land will be r-equired. Approximately 9,750 lots could be provided; Armstrongs Creek/Mount Duneed (6,750)' and Drysdale/Ciifton Springs (3,000). This - .. would provide enough land for growth well beyond 2020 and could be staged in accordance with I demand. Alternatively, subject to the findings of the Rural Land Use Strategy, the limits of Drysdale Clifton Springs could remain the same. Consolidation would continue to occur within urban Geelong:and ' I surrounding settlements.
I 6.3 Suminary
I~ summary, in the order of 25,950 lots (dwellings) are needed to cater for growth to the year 2020. Of I these, 19,100 can be catered for in existing zpnings excluding land at Portarlington~ St. Leonards, Indented Head and Point Lonsdale. An additional 11,600 lots on new land are proposed to be cre·ated. Therefore, I this Strategy provides for approximately 30,700 dwellings to cater for growth betw~en 1995.-2020. T:his is well in excess of the "best case" projections and shoLJid therefore provide Geelong with a long term I strategic framework to. work towards. In implementing this strategy it is recommended that the zoned land supply in growth areas should not I exceed 7-1 0 years. This will allow adequate lead time between the rezoning process being instigated and the construction of lots to ensure an adequate supply is available for the market. I I I I • This assumes use of prime agricultural/and and will in fact be lower in order to protect the land. ·I Prepared by Perrott Lyon Mathieson Ply Ltd Revision: Exhibition Document City of Greater Geelong Urban Growth Strategy Date: 16. April, 199.6. I CW:95265R01.DOC:3769 Page: · 39 I 1111111mlllllllllllllllll Urban Growth Strategy I
6.4 Actions/Recommendations I There· are many individual tasks to be undertaken in order for this Growth Stra.tegy to be implementeo. I These are listed below along with an indicative timing for their completion. In general, they can be defined as either further studies, planning scheme amendments, preparation of Council Policy or entrepreneurial planning. I I 1. Planning Scheme Amendment - Adopt Urban Growth Strategy and . 1996/97 incorporate into Planning Scheme I Once the public exhib_ition period concludes and comments are taken into consideration an amendment needs to be prepared so as the Strategy has statutory force. and effect. In this way the Strategy can be legitimately I considered under Section 60(1 )(b)(ii) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (as amended). This is the most effective way .to ensure growth I throughout Geelong proceeds in accordance with the· preferred direction as the Strategy can then be relied on at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal if/when Cour:'cil decisions are challenged. The local section of the Planning I Scheme should be amended to include specific reference to the nominated areas for future groWth and include specific references to the targets for I medium density housing and the requirement for ayield of 15 lots per· hectare ~o be achieved in new subdivisions. I 2. Review Interim Rural Residential Policy 1996/97 I Update policy to. reflect recommendations of Urban Growth Strategy.
3. Reassess land to East of leopold 1996/97 I . . The land to the immediate east of Leopold should be reassessed in light of the recommendations of the Rural Land Use Strategy .. I
4. · Council Policy- "Urban Consolidation" 1997 I In accordance with the underlying principle of the Strategy to increase densities within existing urban areas, the City of Greater Geelong needs to I formulate a policy that sets out the specific targets within different localities . and seeks to facilitatejencourpge medium density development This can be I .. done by identifying potential infil~ sites and permitting the resubdivision of rural residential allotments adjacent to existing townships.
I Prepared by Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd Revision: Exhibition Document City of Greater Geelong Urban Growth Str;uegy Date: 16 April. 1996 CW:95265RO 1.DQC:3 769 P;:~ge: ~0 I I
I 1111 mmll/1 IIIII II 111111 Urban Growth Strategy I 5 .. Study· Outline Development Plan for Wallington 1998
I This study would investigate what opportunities exist for the creation of smaller rural residential allotments within the township and prepare an ODP I and necessary statutory controls for same including planning scheme amendment I 6. Stuch- detennine optimum spatial limits of townships ·1998 I This study would investigate the optimum.spatiallimits of each of the township within Geelong, with particular· attention being given to those where there is growth pressure such as DrysdalejCiifton Springs, Ocean Grove, Lara and I Leopold and _to consolidation opportunities within rural residential zonings. This would then enable the development of strategies to cater for future I demand within the optimum spatial boundaries of these locations through the provision of different types of housing. P.lanning scheme amendments as I appropriate should be prepared. 7. Entrepreneurial planning · High Technology/Research and Development up to 1999 I ·Precinct To designate the· land between Deakin University and Marcus Oldham College as having potential for a high technology/research and development I . . precinct will not mean the land is actively used as such. The opportunity exists for Council's Strategic Planning and Economic Development Departments to I bring the various parties involved together and seek interest from potential te·nants.
8. Planning Scheme Amendment· rezone land at lara and leopold 2000 I The rezoning of the remaining growth areas within the Lara and Leopold Structure Plans needs to be facilitated. I 9. S~udy • Reassess land to west of Drysdale/Ciifton Springs 2006 I . In the light of the recommendations of the Rural Land Use Strategy and the . "Optimum Spatial Limits of Townships Study", the substantial portion of land to the west of Drysdale/Ciifton Springs should be reassessed as to its appropriateness for urban growth. I I Prep 11. Study-- Prepare Outline Development Plan for Armstrongs Creek/Mount 2008 I Duneed At _some stage between 2010-2020 it is likely that an outline development plan I would need to be prepared for the Armstrongs Creek/Mount .Ouneed lan9 prior to an amendment being prepared to facilitate the rezoning. I Rezonings to residential should not occur in this area until the urban· form has been determined via the ODP process. This will assist in developing I integrated and more sustainable urban systems. 12. Study- Review Ocean Grove Structure plan 2010 ..I In light of the "Optimum Spatial Limits of Townships Study", the Ocean Grove . . . Structure Plan should be reviewed and the Planning Scheme amended I accordingly. I I I ·I I I I I Prepared by Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd Revision: Exhibition Document City of Greater Geelong Urban .Growth StrJtegy Date: 16 .->.pril, 1996 CW:95265RO l.DOC:3 i69 Page: 42 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11111111mllllllllllllllll Urban Growth Strategy I 7. CONClUSION I The designation of areas for future growth is complex as physical, ~conomic and social factors all influence how urban areas function. Both economic and social factors change over time and it is critical I that this Strategy be reviewed and its implementation monitored periodic!3-lly to ensure its relevance. I The three most significant recommendations of this Strategy are as follo":"s: • future development should occur at higher densities; · • consolidation of existing urban development should be encouraged; and • long term growth should be directed to Armstrongs Creek/Mount Duneed. In general these recommendations confirm. the current policy c·ontext both of the State Government in I terms oJ .urban. consolidation principles and previous Strategies prepared for the Geelong region which have de?ignated Armstrongs CreekjMoL:Jnt Duneed as a long term growth area. I However, the strength of this Strategy has been its co-ordination with the Arterial Roads Strategy and its development within the. context of an understanding of the wishes and desires of the broader community I through 2010 A Preferred future. This has enabled past planning policy to be reviewed and in the main, confirmed as relevant to the future needs of Geelong. I The opportunity is now available for the broader community to comment on the Urban Growth Strategy as supported by th~. Discuss_io~ Pape~, _~~ior to _adoption by Council. The Strategy documents . I will be on public exhibition for three months. I I ~I I I I I Prepared by Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd Revision: Exhibition Document City of Greater Geelong Urban Growth Strategy Date: 16 ,>.pril, 1996 I CW:95 265RO 1.DOC :3 769 PJge: .:3 .I APPENDIX A: ASSESSMENT OF URBAN GROWTH OPTIONS ACCORDING TO PLANNING PRINCIPLES I ., ., !l '1:1 r:: ..,f! .r. ., "'> Cl 0 0"' "" "" 0 :;, PLANNING PRINCIPLES "iii .J ; ~ e Q. ., ID "iii"' u (!) 0 -=~ :§ J: II) I (!) >. ., c: C> ...J"' iii r:: "iii ..r:: r:: "' r:: .. > "'.., 0 3: .J:J 0 .. '1:1 e 0 ~ ...J r:: :5 ... ~ 3:.. e ., < "iii I :c '1:1., .. ~ "'r:: 0 :I 0 'E :I I 0 :::E NATURAL ENVIRONMENT I High quality agricultural land should be protected from urban development and proximate land uses that constrain the t/ t/ t/ X x t/ X X t/ use of the land for viable agriculturaljlyrposes. Areas of environmental sensitivity, including flora, fauna, wetlands and coastal areas should be protected from urban t/ t/ t/ t/ X development. "" "" "" "" I Urban development should be restricted in catchments which drain into sensitive ecosystems such as Swan Bay, Lake t/ t/ t/ t/ X X X Victoria and Lake Connewarre so that urban run off does not have a neaative impact. "" "" I Areas of extreme fire hazard, subject to flooding, or exposed to unacceptable levels of aircraft noise should not be X .; ·II' 1., developed for normal or medium density residential development. "" "" "" "" .. "" Within broadly suitable areas for residential development, priority should. be given to locations with good solar access, t/ t/ X t/ low exposure to extreme winds and qently undulatina land. · "" "" "" "" "" I GONSERVATJON AND HERITAGE Landscapes which have aesthetic values should be protected from development which diminishes this aesthetic value: t/ "" t/ X "" "" t/ t/ X I Residential land with high amenity is likely to be more aitractive to the market and would provide an improved quality of t/ X X t/ t/ t/ t/ life. "" "" Sites and areas of indiaenous sia~ificance should be protected from inappropriate development. v t/ "" t/ "" "" "" "" "" I POPULATION AND HOUSING Future growth areas sh_ould be located, where possible, to maximise accessibility to existing social and community t/ t/ X t/ t/ X X X infrastructure. ""· SETTLEMENTS . ~ long standing· planning policy of maintaining a non-urban break between Geelong a~d.Melboume should be t/ t/ t/ t/ t/ ., .t/ upheld. - I - "" "" The long standing planning pol1cy of maintaining non-urban breaks between settlements should be upheld to foster a t/ t/ t/ t/ t/ X t/ t/ X sense of spatiaUphvsical identitY for each of the townships outside Geelong City. · · I Where possible, natural boundaries should form the edge of urban areas to assist in reducing development pressure t/ t/ X X X X X X X on the frinqe of existinq townships and Geelonq City. Urban consolidation should be encouraged as an urban form that enables existing boundaries of townships to be t/ t/ X X X X X t/ maintained and increased densities that will justify the provision of additional services. . "" I INFRASTRUCTURE Urban growth should be located so as to be economically efficient in terms of construction costs, infrastructure and t/ t/ . X X t/ t/ X service provision. "" "" TRANSPORT Future growth areas should be located to maximise accessibility to facilities and services as a crucial component of t/ t/ t/ X t/ X t/ X X I _quality of life. The existing and future land use needs of Avalon Airport should not be compromised in ()rder that this economic asset t/ t/ t/ t/ t/ t/ t/ can continue to benefit Greater Geelona. "" "" I INDUSTRY/EMPLOYMENT The future land requirements of existing industries must be protected in order that particularly the key stone industries t/ "" "" t/ "" t/ t/ have the opportunih' to maximise operations. "" "" I Additional industriaUemployment land of high amenity needs to be provided to accommodate the changing needs of X X t/ t/ X t/ X X industry towards more office/showroom space. quality warehousing and manufacturing, "" I 1- I Map 1 Indicative size of land needed to accommodate growth in Greater Geelong to the year 2020 beyond · existing zonings .D 15 Dwellings Per Hectare D 10 Dwellings Per Hectare ·.:-- Corio Bay . I N I City of Greater Geelong ~~---..~ ~. URBAN GROWTH STRATEGY . a 2 • ...., t '"'''"m'''''''''''''''' Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd ------~1 Map2 I Normal Density Residential I Ill REJECTED I· II LEAST SUITABLE Ill I •~ MOST SUITABLE I I I I ·· .... I Corio Bay ~...,"·"'· . I .. I, I· . ' I N .City of Greater Geelong . I ftftmmmllllllllllllll . URBAN GROWTH STRATEGY ~~---, ~ Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd a 2 4 a km t l·f I Map3 Commercial I Ill REJE GTE D II LEAST SUITABLE II Ill ~ MOST SUITABLE I Corio Bay "'1·······-·· I N I City of Greater Geelong& l URBAN GROWTH STRATEGY L--JifJ---~-~.1 L,- I '""""m"''~'tflllf~ Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd a 2 4 .... I Map4 I Growth Areas Mount Duneed/ Armstrong Creek I (see Maqp 5 for greater detail) I( Drysdale/Ciifton Springs (see Map; 6 for greater detail) Urban Geelong I Lara I (see Map 7 for greater detail) Leopold I (see Map 8 for greater detail) I I I I I Corio Bay -I I I I .I I N 1- If\ City of Greater Geelong I 1111111WIIIIIIIIl II II II II URBAN GROWTH STRATEGY D a km t Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd l_j I II MapS I Mount Duneed/Armstrong Cre~k II Area for Future Growth. I LEGEND • • AREA FOR FUTURE GROWTH - rL... ·I ~.. .. (to be finalised subject to findings of - _ Rural Land Use Strategy) • f \. I I I ...... I Reserve Road . ·.../ . "/. ·;v-\' ( "l I "i ·- '· ...,, .• \ I [ .. "0. l- £L.:·~-i ... " \ I .. ,.- •. I !I I I --a ...1 • x J __..../o l ~ / ··n I _..,- . "-·t·b --1. ;:·· . • I 1_ /' / -::-tIf ~ . I ..---·1;:::.::.- ..-- I ...... ·1. I ··.\. ~ __j/ .. . ·. f I , ... ·i \•:S ;·.: ~... . _, _.. . . :... ..:~. .I ::-: ...... I ,:_···~ ~- ... b..s,. ·! 1"' -~ • \ ••• •• \ .• -- ··~--- I I Source: Mount Duneed/Armstrong Creek Urban Development Study I City of Greater Geelong lllllfllftl/111111111111111 URBAN GROWTH STRATEGY I Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd I Map 6 Drysdale/Ciifton Springs I Areas for Future Growth I L.EG END A REA SUITABLE FOR HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LIVING A EXISTING PRIMARY SCHOOL e;. TownhOusu, Flott, etc. I RESIDENTIAL E PROPOSED POST PRIMARY EDUCATION SITE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SUGGESTED COLLECTOR ROADS RURAL RESIDENTIAL ••• PROPOSED PRIMARY ARTERIAL I PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL m .PUBLIC PURPOSES WATER SUPP~Y I ·.. I.OCAL SHOPPING +.EXISTING PRIMA_RY ARTERIAL AREA TO BE CONSIDERED FOR .FUTURE EXTENSION TO COMMUNITY CENTRE e & e PROPOSED BIKE/PEDESTRIAN PATH I -·. EXISTING COMMUNITY CENTRE e e e BIKE PATH EXISTING SERVICE INDUSTRIAL AREA •-• EXISTING SECONDARY ARTERIAL PROPOSED SERVICE BUSrNESS ESTATE ·~- BEL LARINE TOURIST RAILWAY I RURAL FUTURE URBAN * PROPOSED EXTENDED TOURIST AREA EXISTING OPEN SPACE PROPOSED OPEN SPACE I EXISTING TOURIST AREA AND . COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTRE EXISTING MUNICIPAL PURPOSES. I PROPOSED MUNICIPAL PURPOSES OPPORTUNITY FOR CONSOUDATION AREAFORFUTUREGRO~ I I I I I I I I 0 I I Source: Drysdale/C/ifton Springs Structure Plan City of Greater Geelong I II Ill,,, m,, 11111111111111 URBAN GROWTH STRATEGY Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd I I .I Map 7 Lara I Areas for Future Growth I I I I I I I I I ,I I I I LEGEND I Scale I·;!~ . AREAS FOR FUTURE GROWTH URBAN I • OPPORTUNITY FOR CONSOLIDATION RURAL RESIDENTIAL l1lllGlllllll~fo::1 INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVE AREA I Source: North-East Area Land Use Strategy City of Greater Geelong I ,,,,,,t/1111111111111111 URBAN GROWTH STRATEGY I Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd I Map 8 1 Leopold · Area for Future Growth I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LEGEND I ••• • AREA FOR FUTURE GROWTH 100 I Scale met City of Greater Geelong URBAN GROWTH STRATEGY I Perrott Lyon Mathieson Pty Ltd ''''"''m'''''''''''''''' I