PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

DISCUSSION PAPER

MARCH 2010

PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 Contents

1. SUMMARY...... 9 Part A - Background

2. BACKGROUND...... 15 2.1 Terms of Reference...... 15 2.2 Advisory Committee members ...... 16

3. CONSULTATION PROCESSES...... 17 3.1 Approach...... 17 3.2 Issues raised and relationship to ToR...... 17

4. LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK ...... 20 4.1 Legislation ...... 20 4.1.1 Planning and Environment Act, 1987 ...... 20 4.1.2 Port Services Act, 1995 ...... 21 4.1.3 Environment Protection Act, 1970...... 23 4.1.4 Marine Act, 1988...... 24 4.1.5 Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2007...... 24 4.2 State Policies...... 25 4.2.1 State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) ...... 25 4.2.2 Victorian Ports Strategic Framework 2004 ...... 28 4.2.3 Port Futures – New Priorities and Directions for Victoria’s Port System 2009 ...... 28 4.2.4 The Victorian Transport Plan 2008 ...... 31 4.2.5 Freight Futures: Victorian Freight Network Strategy 2008 ...... 31 4.2.6 Victorian Coastal Strategy 2008...... 34 4.3 Local Planning Policies...... 35 4.4 Port Land Use Strategies ...... 40 4.5 Conclusion...... 42 Part B - Overview of Victoria's Ports

5. OVERVIEW OF VICTORIA’S PORTS ...... 44 5.1 Introduction ...... 44 5.2 Port of Melbourne ...... 45 5.2.1 Location and context...... 45 5.2.2 Governance ...... 47 5.2.3 Nature of trade throughput ...... 47 5.2.4 Current infrastructure...... 47 5.2.5 Road and transport issues...... 47 5.2.6 Future development plan...... 50 5.2.7 Key interface issues...... 54 5.3 Port of Hastings ...... 55 5.3.1 Location and context...... 55 5.3.2 Governance arrangements...... 57 5.3.3 Nature of trade throughput ...... 57 5.3.4 Current infrastructure...... 57 5.3.5 Road and transport issues...... 58 5.3.6 Future development plan...... 59 5.3.7 Key interface issues...... 60

1 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 5.4 Port of Geelong ...... 61 5.4.1 Location and context...... 61 5.4.2 Governance ...... 63 5.4.3 Nature of trade throughput ...... 63 5.4.4 Current infrastructure...... 63 5.4.5 Road and transport issues...... 64 5.4.6 Future development plans ...... 65 5.4.7 Geelong Port Structure Plan...... 66 5.4.8 Key interface issues...... 67 5.5 Port of Portland ...... 70 5.5.1 Location and context...... 70 5.5.2 Governance ...... 72 5.5.3 Nature of Trade throughput...... 72 5.5.4 Current infrastructure...... 72 5.5.5 Road and transport issues...... 73 5.5.6 Future development plans ...... 74 5.5.7 Key interface issues...... 75 5.6 Conclusion...... 76 Part C - Ports Environs

6. APPROACHES TO INTERFACE PLANNING IN THE PORT ENVIRONS ...... 78 6.1 Introduction ...... 78 6.2 Approaches to interface planning and management ...... 79 6.2.1 Creating buffer areas ...... 79 6.2.2 Planning controls to create ‘reverse buffers’...... 80 6.2.3 Extend the range of sensitive uses...... 81 6.2.4 Improve environmental and/or operational performance...... 82 6.2.5 Site design and layout ...... 83 6.2.6 Relocation of nuisance or hazardous activities ...... 84 6.2.7 Legal agreements...... 84 6.2.8 Notice of potential detriment...... 85 6.2.9 Acquisition of land and change of use ...... 85 6.2.10 Memorandum of understanding ...... 86 6.2.11 Conclusions...... 86 6.3 Planning tools under the VPPs...... 86 6.4 Stakeholders in interface planning ...... 89 6.5 Advisory Committee discussion ...... 92

7. IDENTIFYING THE PORT ENVIRONS FOR VICTORIA’S FOUR PORTS...... 94 7.1 Introduction ...... 94 7.2 Nature of amenity and risks at the interfaces...... 96 7.3 Port of Melbourne ...... 97 7.3.1 Swanson Dock and Dynon precinct with South Kensington ...... 97 7.3.2 Appleton Dock and Dynon Precinct with e-Gate...... 99 7.3.3 Swanson Dock (Coode Island) with Yarraville precinct...... 101 7.3.4 Webb Dock with Garden City and The Strand...... 108 7.3.5 Station Pier with Beacon Cove and Port Melbourne...... 114 7.3.6 Appleton Dock, Victoria Dock and South Wharf with Lorimer Street and Fishermans Bend ...... 116 7.3.7 Victoria Dock with Docklands...... 118 7.3.8 Holden Dock with Francis Street, Yarraville ...... 121

2 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 7.3.9 Ann Street Pier, Gellibrand Pier and Breakwater Pier with the former Port Phillip Woollen Mill site ...... 125 7.4 Conclusion...... 128 7.5 Port of Hastings ...... 128 7.6 Port of Geelong ...... 130 7.6.1 North Shore residential area with Incitec Pivot and Midway...... 131 7.6.2 Norlane residential area with the industrial area east of Station Street...... 134 7.6.3 Former Ford site with ‘port area of interest’ land ...... 136 7.6.4 Proposed Geelong marine industry project, Osborne Park, Osborne House, and the Rippleside residential area with ‘port area of interest’ land...... 138 7.6.5 Geelong Grammar School with ‘port area of interest land’ ...... 140 7.7 Port of Portland ...... 141 Part D – Planning Framework

8. STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK ...... 145 8.1 Introduction ...... 145 8.2 Advisory Committee discussion ...... 147 8.3 Key issues for consideration ...... 150

9. LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK...... 151 9.1 Introduction ...... 151 9.2 Local Planning Schemes ...... 151 9.2.1 Melbourne Planning Scheme ...... 151 9.2.2 Port Phillip Planning Scheme...... 152 9.2.3 Maribyrnong Planning Scheme...... 154 9.2.4 Hobson’s Bay Planning Scheme ...... 155 9.2.5 Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme ...... 156 9.2.6 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme ...... 158 9.2.7 Glenelg Planning Scheme ...... 159 9.2.8 Status of Port Strategic Land Use Plans...... 160

10. EXISTING PLANNING CONTROLS APPLYING TO THE PORTS ...... 161 10.1 Introduction ...... 161 10.2 Concerns with the current planning controls applying to the Ports of Hastings, Geelong and Portland...... 161 10.3 Issues with the current planning controls applying to the waters of the Ports of Geelong, Portland and Hastings...... 164 10.3.1 Background ...... 164 10.3.2 Advisory Committee discussion...... 165

11. PROPOSED PORT ZONE ...... 167 11.1 Rationale for a new zone ...... 167 11.2 Proposed Port Zone ...... 168 11.3 Schedules to the Port Zone...... 175 11.4 Definition of Port ...... 175 11.5 Key issues for consideration ...... 176

12. WHO SHOULD BE THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY FOR THE PORTS OF HASTINGS, GEELONG AND PORTLAND?...... 177 12.1 Introduction ...... 177 12.2 Issues...... 177 12.3 Advisory Committee discussion ...... 178

3 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 12.4 Key issues for consideration ...... 179

13. INTEGRATING THE PORTS’ LAND USE STRATEGIES WITH THE PLANNING FRAMEWORK...... 180 13.1 Introduction ...... 180 13.2 Advisory Committee discussion ...... 180 13.3 Key issue for consideration...... 181 Part E - Conclusions

14. CONCLUSIONS...... 183

Appendices

APPENDIX A TERMS OF REFERENCE ...... 184

APPENDIX B COMMITTEE MEMBERS BIOGRAPHIES ...... 189

APPENDIX C STAKEHOLDERS THAT MET WITH THE COMMITTEE ...... 191

APPENDIX D STAKEHOLDERS THE COMMITTEE INVITED TO MAKE PRELIMINARY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ...... 195

APPENDIX E STAKEHOLDERS WHO PROVIDED A PRELIMINARY WRITTEN SUBMISSION...... 197

APPENDIX F CURRENT PLANNING CONTROLS APPLYING TO THE PORTS...... 198

APPENDIX G DRAFT PORT ENVIRONS OVERLAY ...... 202

APPENDIX H DRAFT DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY...... 205

APPENDIX I DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN SCHEDULE ...... 206

APPENDIX J DRAFT PARTICULAR PROVISION – PORT ENVIRONS PROTECTION ...... 210

4 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 List of Figures

Figure 1 Port of Melbourne and surrounding areas...... 46 Figure 2: Port of Hastings and surrounding areas ...... 56 Figure 3: Port of Geelong and surrounding areas...... 62 Figure 4: Portland Port and surrounding areas ...... 71 Figure 5 Swanston Dock and Dynon Project with South Kensington...... 98 Figure 6 Appleton Dock and Dynon Precinct with e-Gate...... 100 Figure 7 Swanson Dock (Coode Island) with Yarraville Precinct ...... 102 Figure 8 Webb Dock with Garden City ...... 109 Figure 9 Webb Dock with The Strand (Williamstown) ...... 111 Figure 10 Station Pier with Beacon Cove ...... 115 Figure 11 Appleton Dock, Victoria Dock, South Wharf with Lorimer Street and Fishermans Bend...... 117 Figure 12 Victoria Dock with Docklands...... 120 Figure 13 Holden Dock with Francis Street, Yarraville...... 123 Figure 14 Ann Street Pier, Gellibrand Pier and Breakwater Pier with former Port Phillip Woollen Mill (Williamstown)...... 126

5 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 Abbreviations

CDZ: Comprehensive Development Zone COGG: City of Greater Geelong DIIRD: Department of Innovation, Industry and Regional Development DOT: Department of Transport DPCD: Department of Planning and Community Development EMP: Environmental Management Plan EPA: Environment Protection Authority HPFV: High Productivity Freight Vehicles IMT: Inter-modal terminal LPPF: Local Planning Policy Framework MAEO: Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay MHF: Major Hazard Facility MoU: Memorandum of Understanding MSS: Municipal Strategic Statement NSW: New South Wales PDS: Port Development Strategy PEPF: Port Environs Planning Framework PLUS: Port Land Use Strategy PLUTS: Port of Hastings Land Use and Transport Strategy PoMC: Port of Melbourne Corporation PCRZ: Public Conservation and Resource Zone PSA: Port Services Act, 1995 PSEMP: Port Safety Environmental Management Plan SPPF: State Planning Policy Framework SUZ: Special Use Zone TEU: Twenty-foot equivalent unit ToR: Terms of Reference VCS: Victorian Coastal Strategy VFLC: Victorian Freight and Logistics Council

6 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 VPPs: Victoria Planning Provisions VPSF: Victorian Ports Strategic Framework VTS: Victorian Transport Strategy

7 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 Submissions

The main purpose of this Discussion Paper is to invite written submissions on the issues identified by the Advisory Committee following its consultations with key stakeholders.

To assist submitters respond to the issues, the Committee has identified Key issues for consideration in most sections of this report in a question format. This does not preclude stakeholders raising other issues relevant to the Committee’s Terms of Reference (ToR).

Submissions are invited in writing by close of business Friday, 14 May 2010. Submissions must be sent to:

Chair Ports and Environs Advisory Committee Planning Panels Victoria GPO Box 2392 Melbourne 3001 Vic

Alternatively, submissions can be faxed on 9637 9700 or emailed to [email protected]

The Advisory Committee proposes to commence public hearings after receiving submissions. Further advice will be provided as to when the hearings will be held. The public hearings are intended to provide an opportunity for submitters to clarify information or views as presented by them in their written submissions.

8 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

1. Summary

The Ports and Environs Advisory Committee was appointed by the Minister for Planning in September 2009 to, amongst other matters: . determine whether the existing and proposed planning controls applying to the Ports of Hastings, Geelong and Portland are adequate to ensure the protection of the ports from the encroachment of sensitive uses; . review the issues raised in the draft Port of Melbourne Port Environs Planning Framework (PEPF) and provide recommendations on how the framework can be implemented; and . advise on appropriate and streamlined planning controls that could apply to the use and development of land and waters to the Ports of Hastings, Geelong and Portland.

The need for the review stems from a number of significant issues affecting Victoria’s four commercial trading ports at Melbourne, Hastings, Geelong and Portland, including: . significant increased activity at the ports as a result of increasing international trade and forecasts for continued growth in trade; . concern from port managers about the encroachment of sensitive uses near the ports that may impact on the ability of the ports to accommodate increased growth; . expectations by local communities that the ports operate to high standards of environmental performance; and . concerns by port managers about the effectiveness of planning controls to provide an efficient and streamlined assessment process for development projects identified in the ports’ land use strategies.

The Advisory Committee comprises Mark Marsden (Chair), Des Grogan, Helen Weston and David Whitney.

The Committee is required to produce a Discussion Paper, invite submissions on the Discussion Paper and prepare a final report.

In preparing the Discussion Paper, the Committee has held discussions with the port managers, Council officers, relevant government departments and agencies and some community groups. The Committee also invited these stakeholders to make preliminary written submissions.

9 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 As well as meeting key stakeholders, the Committee inspected the four ports and their surrounds.

This Discussion Paper is divided into the following parts:

Part A – Background (Chapters 2, 3 and 4)

This part includes background on the role of the Advisory Committee, the consultation processes adopted by the Committee and the legislative and policy framework relevant to ports. The chapter on consultation includes a discussion on the scope of the Committee’s task.

Part B – Overview of Victoria’s ports (Chapter 5)

This part provides a summary of Victoria’s four ports in terms of location and context, governance, nature of trade throughput, current infrastructure, road and transport issues, key interface issues and future development plans.

This information has been summarised from a number of State Government policies relating to ports and freight and also from the land use strategies that have been prepared for each of the ports by the port managers pursuant to the Port Services Act, 1995 (PSA).

The ports’ land use strategies provide a useful framework for each of the ports to identify and plan for their future requirements in terms of land needs, infrastructure requirements and addressing existing and potential amenity impacts beyond the ports’ boundaries.

With forecasts of significantly increased international trade and increased activity at each of the ports, it will be even more important that the ports’ land use strategies are further developed and integrated into the statutory planning framework to ensure a transparent and efficient decision‐making framework.

Part C – Port Environs (Chapters 6 and 7)

The first chapter in this part identifies a range of approaches to interface planning that have been applied in various situations to address concerns that can arise when incompatible land uses are neighbours. While ten different approaches to interface planning have been identified, the Committee believes that the environmental performance of the ports and port users should be the starting point to manage the interface between the ports and surrounding areas. However, the Committee has a limited role to play in relation to the ports’ compliance with relevant environmental policies, guidelines and standards. This matter is beyond the Committee’s

10 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 ToR which are restricted to issues associated with the statutory planning framework.

This chapter also includes a matrix which has been developed to identify the relevant agency that would have responsibility for the implementation of the interface treatment and opportunities for stakeholder involvement.

With respect to successfully planning for the reasonable co‐existence of the ports and surrounding areas, the Committee considers it is essential that the planning system recognises that the four commercial trading ports are able to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. As a result, port activities and hours of operations, ports can generate off‐site amenity impacts beyond their boundaries which have the potential to cause nuisance to uses considered ‘sensitive’ such as residential development or certain community facilities.

It is also important that the planning system recognises that there are areas near these long‐established ports which are now sought after residential areas because of their coastal location, and, in the case of the ports of Melbourne, Geelong and Portland, their inner urban setting. Further, planning policy at both the State and local levels which actively promotes intensification of established urban areas also contributes to the demand for residential development close to the ports.

In the second chapter in this part, the Committee provides a detailed examination of the interface areas between each of the ports and surrounding areas that potentially contain sensitive uses having regard to: . the nature of existing uses and developments within each of the ports; . the future plans for each of port as identified in its land use strategy; . the nature of existing and future uses and developments (if known) surrounding each port; and . relevant planning objectives and strategies in the applicable planning schemes.

From these investigations, the Committee is seeking comment as to whether: . the interface area beyond the specific port boundary should be identified as a port environs area that requires some form of interface treatment; . the identified port environs area should be subject to a planning mechanism under the statutory planning framework, such as an alternative zone to restrict the type of uses or an overlay to control the nature of development;

11 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 . the port manager should be a prescribed authority under Clause 66.10 of the VPPs for notice and/or referral of applications in the port environs; or . some other collaborative approach is appropriate between the port manager, relevant authority and other stakeholders.

The Committee has provided a detailed analysis to determine the key interface areas for each of the ports in preference to a more arbitrary approach that would simply delineate a certain distance from the port boundaries to be included in the port environs. In the Committee’s view, an arbitrary approach may not be justified given the significant variation in the nature of activities occurring within different parts of each of the ports and the diversity of surrounding land uses and development. In other words, a ‘horses for courses’ approach is adopted. However, the Committee is seeking responses from submitters on whether a more arbitrary approach may be justified for some or all ports.

Part D – Planning Framework (Chapters 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13)

The first two chapters of this part provide an overview of the clauses pertaining to ports found in the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) and in the local policies of the relevant municipal planning schemes relevant to each of Victoria’s four commercial trading ports and their environs.

Given the strategic importance of the ports, the Committee considers that the SPPF could be enhanced by acknowledging the importance of ensuring the future growth and development of the ports as well as recognising the need for a two‐way consideration of interface issues between the ports and their environs. In addition, the Committee considers that State Government policies relating to ports and individual port land use strategies should all be included in the planning scheme as reference documents.

An overview of the relevant municipal planning scheme local policies relating to ports is then provided, including consideration of the recommendations of the Port Environs Planning Framework (PEPF) prepared for the Port of Melbourne.

In broad terms, the Committee considers that most of the local planning schemes adequately recognise the economic significance of the ports. However, the Committee provides suggestions to improve some local policies particularly in relation to the need for responsible authorities to consider the interface areas between ports and their environs.

Following consideration of State and local policies, the Committee provides an analysis of the existing planning controls applying to the ports of

12 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 Hastings, Geelong and Portland. A number of concerns are identified about the inconsistency between the zoning provisions that apply to these three ports and the opportunities to provide more transparent and streamlined planning controls. In addition, the Committee considers there needs to be stronger integration between local policy and planning controls relating to ports.

To address the deficiencies of the existing planning controls, the Committee suggests a new purpose‐specific Port Zone that should apply to all land within the port boundaries or port area of interest as identified in the respective port land use strategies. A draft of the Port Zone has been prepared for consideration by submitters.

While the Committee’s ToR do not include a review of the planning controls applying to the Port of Melbourne under the Port of Melbourne Planning Scheme, it considers that the Port Zone could also apply to this port.

In addition, the Advisory Committee has developed a definition of Port for inclusion in Clause 74 of the VPPs.

During its consultations, the Committee heard submissions as to whether or not the State Government should be the planning and responsible authority for the ports of Hastings, Geelong and Portland1. Each port land use strategy contains recommendations that the State Government should be the planning and responsible authority for the ports. In the Committee’s view, the more important issue is not who the planning and responsible authority should be, but whether a more effective and efficient planning framework will achieve State and local planning objectives for the ports.

Finally, the Committee provides some analysis on the potential to improve integration between the ports’ land use strategies and the statutory planning framework. In the Committee’s view, there is potential to review the manner in which ports’ land use strategies are prepared so that in the future they could be considered for inclusion as Incorporated Plans or Development Plans in the planning schemes.

Part E Conclusions (Chapter 14)

In this part, the Committee identifies key conclusions relating to its ToR as a result of the first stage of the consultative process.

1 The Minister for Planning is the responsible authority for the Port of Melbourne Planning Scheme 13 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Part A – Background

14 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

2. Background

2.1 Terms of Reference

The tasks of the Advisory Committee are:

Port Environs Matters · Determine whether the existing and proposed planning scheme controls applying to the environs of the Ports of Geelong, Hastings and Portland are adequate to ensure the protection of the ports against the encroachment of sensitive uses. · Review the issues raised in the draft Port of Melbourne Port Environs Planning Framework (Port of Melbourne Corporation) and provide recommendations on how the framework can be implemented, as appropriate. · Make recommendations on appropriate boundaries for the land that would constitute ‘port environs’ for all of the four commercial ports. · Make recommendations that would protect the ports from encroachment of sensitive uses through the use of appropriate planning policy and applications of the Victoria Planning Provisions. · Respond to any other matters that the Advisory Committee considers relevant to planning and development controls of the four commercial ports so that they remain competitive and sustainable.

Port Planning Controls · Advise on appropriate and streamlined planning controls that could apply to the use and development of land and where relevant, the waters of the Ports of Geelong, Portland and Hastings. This should have regard to the current model used in the Port of Melbourne Planning Scheme for which the Minister for Planning is Responsible Authority. (The Advisory Committee is not to consider or make recommendations that separate planning schemes be developed for the ports of Geelong, Hastings and Portland or review the planning controls applying to the Port of Melbourne). · Draft appropriate planning scheme provisions that could apply to the Ports of Geelong, Portland and Hastings.

15 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 The ToR are included in Appendix A.

2.2 Advisory Committee members

The Advisory Committee was appointed by the Minister for Planning on 18 September 2009 and comprises: . Mark Marsden (Chair); . Des Grogan; . Helen Weston; and . David Whitney.

Biographies of the Advisory Committee members are attached in Appendix B.

16 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

3. Consultation processes

3.1 Approach

In accordance with the ToR, the Advisory Committee is pursuing a two stage consultative process:

Stage 1 – Preparation of the Discussion Paper. During this stage, the Committee conducted discussions with port managers, Council officers, government departments and agencies and some community groups, to assist it gain an understanding of the major issues concerning the ports and the port environs.2.

From these lists, the Committee identified key stakeholders it should meet with (Appendix C) and key stakeholders that should be invited to make a preliminary submission (Appendix D). A list of stakeholders who provided a preliminary written submission is found in Appendix E.

Stage 2 – Development of Final report. During this stage, the Advisory Committee will conduct formal public hearings on submissions in response to the Discussion Paper. Its final report will be prepared after the public hearings and submitted to the Minister for Planning.

As well as meeting key stakeholders, the Committee has conducted inspections of the four ports and their surrounds.

3.2 Issues raised and relationship to ToR

In responding to the ToR, the Committee has been mindful that the output of its inquiry is to recommend to the Minister for Planning a policy and statutory planning framework that: . ensures that appropriate recognition is given in planning schemes to the strategic importance of Victoria’s major commercial trading ports to the economy of the State and of the regions in which they are located; . facilitates the future development of the ports in an economically and environmentally sustainable manner; . enables land use and development in both the ports and their environs to co‐exist safely and with reasonable/acceptable levels of amenity;

2 The Committee asked both the port managers and Council officers for a list of stakeholders the Committee should contact. 17 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 . restricts the potential for sensitive uses which might compromise existing and planned port use and development to encroach into port environs; and . facilitates approvals for port use and development in timely and efficient manner.

In preparing this Paper, some stakeholders have raised issues related to the ports which extend beyond statutory planning processes and the Committee’s ToR. Many of these issues, while of interest and importance, are beyond the scope of this inquiry. Nevertheless, in the Committee’s opinion, they are worthy of mention as matters to which the Government could direct its attention in appropriate forums in the future.

These matters include, but are not confined to, the following: . The role of Victoria’s four commercial trading ports in terms of the nature of their respective trade throughputs and whether individual ports should be accepting or refusing certain throughputs to address concerns about amenity and/or community safety and health at the various ports. For example, the Committee considers it is beyond its ToR to make recommendations for the Port of Hastings to accept increased throughput of certain goods in order to address amenity or risk concerns within the Port of Melbourne. . The need to identify strategic transport linkages between the ports and proposed new ‘inland ports’ or freight and logistics centres as well as the need for appropriate planning measures to protect these transport corridors and inter‐modal facilities. . The adverse amenity impacts of port‐related traffic and transport, for example, road traffic noise. While such impacts could be more significant for many local residents than other amenity impacts from port or port‐related activities, road and transport matters are regulated by State policies and controls other than the statutory planning framework. 3 However, it may be possible in some situations where an overlay could be imposed along a transport corridor to mitigate the impacts of traffic noise. For example, there is a Design and Development Overlay in the Hume Planning Scheme that applies adjacent to parts of the Hume Freeway (Craigieburn Bypass) that requires development to be designed to minimise the impact of traffic noise on noise sensitive activities.4 . The Committee’s role in assessing individual development proposals within ports. For example, the Committee has received letters from

3 For example, VicRoads Traffic Noise Reduction Policy 2005. 4 Clause 43.02 of Hume Planning Scheme. 18 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 some residents in The Strand in Williamstown who are concerned that the Committee is not able to determine the port environs without considering the potential impacts of the proposed Webb Dock development within the Port of Melbourne. In the Committee’s view, the ToR require consideration of potential interface issues having regard to the future development of the ports as identified in the ports’ strategic land use plans. However, this does not require or enable the Committee to assess individual future development proposals. . Water‐based conflicts between shipping movements and recreational boating and fishing activities. In the Committee’s view, these issues are addressed through relevant marine safety regulations, not the statutory planning framework.

In addition, some stakeholders addressed the Committee on health and safety risks associated with the storage, handling and transport of hazardous materials such as butadiene. While these concerns are understood, it is not the role of this Committee to assess the performance of industries that store, handle and transport major hazards, nor is it the role of the Committee to assess the performance of the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) or WorkSafe Victoria in monitoring these industries. Furthermore, it is not the role of the Committee to comment on the appropriateness of EPA threshold distances or WorkSafe safety guidelines.

However, the Committee does consider health and safety issues in terms of the statutory planning framework which incorporates as guidelines the EPA threshold distances between uses with potential amenity and risk and sensitive uses.5 Accordingly, the Committee has considered the EPA threshold distances in determining the port environs boundaries.

It is not the Committee’s intention to deal further with these matters and trusts that the responses to this Discussion Paper will be confined to addressing the matters set out in the Committee’s ToR.

5 Refer to Clause 52.10 of the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPPs) 19 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

4. Legislative and Policy framework

In this section of the report, the legislation and policies relevant to the Advisory Committee’s tasks are identified and summarised.

4.1 Legislation

4.1.1 Planning and Environment Act, 1987

The Planning and Environment Act, 1987 provides for the land use planning framework in Victoria. The objectives of planning in Victoria are to: (a) to provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use, and development of land; (b) to provide for the protection of natural and man‐made resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity; (c to secure a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians and visitors to Victoria; (d) to conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value; (e) to protect public utilities and other assets and enable the orderly provision and co‐ordination of public utilities and other facilities for the benefit of the community; (f) to facilitate development in accordance with the objectives set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e); (g) to balance the present and future interests of all Victorians.

The objectives of the planning framework established by this Act relevant to this Inquiry are: (a) to ensure sound, strategic planning and co‐ordinated action at State, regional and municipal levels; (b) to establish a system of planning schemes based on municipal districts to be the principal way of setting out objectives, policies and controls for the use, development and protection of land; (c) to enable land use and development planning and policy to be easily integrated with environmental, social, economic, conservation and

20 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 resource management policies at State, regional and municipal levels; (d) to ensure that the effects on the environment are considered and provide for explicit consideration of social and economic effects when decisions are made about the use and development of land; (e) to facilitate development which achieves the objectives of planning in Victoria and planning objectives set up in planning schemes; (f) …. (g) to encourage the achievement of planning objectives through positive actions by responsible authorities and planning authorities; (h) to establish a clear procedure for amending planning schemes, with appropriate public participation in decision making; (i) to ensure that those affected by proposals for the use, development or protection of land or changes in planning policy or requirements receive appropriate notice; (j) …. (k )… (l) …..

4.1.2 Port Services Act, 1995

Port Development Strategies

Part 6B of the Port Services Act, 1995 (PSA) requires the port authorities to prepare a Port Development Strategy (PDS) every four years. The PDS is to include: (a) projections of trade through the commercial trading port; (b) current and projected land use requirements, including transitional land uses designed to protect the port from constraints on efficient operations and mitigate adverse impacts of port operations on adjacent uses; (c) current and projected infrastructure requirements for land and water in the commercial trading port; (d) current and projected transport infrastructure requirements for land and water in the commercial trading port; (e) any other matters specified in any guidelines.

In addition, a PDS must be prepared and submitted to the Minister in accordance with guidelines.

21 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 Section 91M states that the Minister may issue guidelines in relation to the preparation of a PDS addressing: (a) the form; (b) the content; (c) the method and process for preparation; (d) processes to enable tenants, licensees and service providers in the port to be involved in the preparation; (e) processes for consultation with people affected; (f) publication and availability.

Port of Melbourne

The PSA provides for the establishment and regulation of the Port of Melbourne Corporation (PoMC) and sets out its powers. Section 12 provides that the objectives of the PoMC are to: (a) manage and develop the Port of Melbourne in an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable manner; (b) to ensure that essential port services at the Port of Melbourne are available and cost effective; (c) to ensure, in cooperation with other relevant responsible bodies, that the Port of Melbourne is effectively integrated with other systems of infrastructure in the State; (d) to facilitate in cooperation with other responsible bodies, the sustainable growth of trade through its Port of Melbourne; and (e) to establish and manage channels in Port of Melbourne waters for use on a fair and reasonable basis.

Section 13 of the PSA provides that the functions of PoMC are as follows: (a) to plan for the development and operation of the Port of Melbourne; (b) to provide land, waters and infrastructure necessary for the development and operation of the Port of Melbourne; (c) to develop or enable and control the development by others of the whole or any part of the Port of Melbourne; (d) to manage or enable and control the management by others of, the whole or any part of the Port of Melbourne; (e) to provide or enable and control the provision by others of, services for the operation of the port of Melbourne; (f) to promote and market the port of Melbourne;

22 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 (g) to facilitate the integration of infrastructure and logistics systems in the port of Melbourne with relevant systems outside the Port; (ga) to manage and in accordance with standards developed by the Director of Marine Safety, to dredge and maintain channels in port of Melbourne waters; (gb) to provide and maintain in accordance with the standards developed by the Director of Marine Safety, navigation aids in connection with navigation in port of Melbourne waters; (gc) generally, to direct and control in accordance with the Marine Act 1988, the movement of vessels in port of Melbourne waters; (h) any other functions that are conferred on the Corporation by or under this or any Act.

In addition, the PoMC must carry out its functions in a manner that is safe and secure, effective and efficient, commercially sound and that has regard for persons living or working in the immediate neighbourhood of the Port of Melbourne.

Under the PSA ‘Port of Melbourne land’ includes land that is in the municipal district of the Cities of Melbourne, Maribyrnong, Hobsons Bay and Port Phillip, or any land in the Bay adjoining one or more of those municipal districts.

Port of Hastings Corporation

The PSA also established the Port of Hastings Corporation. The functions of the Corporation are identical in nature to those outlined above for the PoMC.

4.1.3 Environment Protection Act, 1970

The Environment Protection Act, 1970 established the Environment Protection Authority (EPA), outlines its powers, duties and responsibilities and makes provision for the prevention of pollution and the protection of the environment.

In terms of Victoria’s ports, the EPA is responsible for the licensing of certain premises that are responsible for the discharge, emission or deposit of waste to the environment. There are a number of premises operating within Victoria’s ports that require EPA licences and approvals.

23 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

4.1.4 Marine Act, 1988

The purposes of the Marine Act, 1988 are: . to re‐enact with amendments the law relating to the registration of vessels and the pollution of State waters; . to implement certain international conventions; and . to provide for the efficient and safe operation of vessels on State waters.

4.1.5 Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2007

The Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2007 further the objectives of the Occupation Health and Safety Act 2004 by: (i) providing for health and safety in relation to workplaces and hazards, activities and things at workplaces; and (ii) providing for the safe operation of major hazard facilities and mines in order to reduce the likelihood of a serious incident occurring; and (iii) providing for the registration of certain people engaged in construction work at workplaces; and (iv) providing for the licensing of certain people engaged in high risk work at workplaces; and (v) providing procedures for the resolution of health and safety issues at workplaces; and (vi) specifying the information to be included in entry permits issued under Part 8 of the Act; and (vii) providing for other matters that are required or permitted by the Act or that are necessary to give effect to the Act.

The Regulations also seek to further the objectives of the Dangerous Goods Act 1985 by providing for the protection of property from damage from the use of dangerous goods at major hazard facilities.

24 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

4.2 State Policies

4.2.1 State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)

The SPPF policies apply to all land in Victoria and must be taken into account when preparing amendments or making decisions under a planning scheme. Those policies that are most relevant to ports include the following:

Clause 11 – Introduction Goals and Principles – Clause 11.03 ‐ Principles of Land Use and Development Planning identifies the following seven general principles for planning in Victoria; Settlement; Environment; Management of Resources; Infrastructure; Economic well‐being; Social needs and Regional co‐operation. In short, planning must take account of these matters including their underlying policies and strategies, to ensure the best overall outcomes for current and future generations. This inevitably involves judgement on balances between individual principles. It requires that Victoria’s planning objectives are fostered through appropriate land use and development planning which integrates relevant environmental, social and economic factors in the interests of net community benefit and sustainable development.

Clause 11.03‐1 – Settlement requires planning to anticipate and respond to the needs of existing and future communities through provision of zoned and serviced land for housing, employment, recreation and open space, commercial and community facilities and infrastructure. This is relevant in the context of ensuring environment protection and community health and safety in relation to coastal hazards arising from the effects of climate change.

11.03‐2 – Environment relates to obligations under national and state environment policies and strategies. The policy requires planning to: · Adopt a best practice environmental management and risk management approach which aims to avoid or minimise environmental degradation and hazards. · Prevent environmental problems created by siting incompatible land uses close together. · Help to protect the health of ecological systems and the biodiversity they support (including ecosystems, habitats, species and genetic diversity). · Protect areas and sites with significant historic, architectural, aesthetic, scientific and cultural values.

25 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 11.03‐3 ‐ Management of resources requires planning to assist in the conservation of natural resources, to minimise hazards such as flooding and to minimise impacts on estuarine, coastal and marine environments. It also recognises the Department of Sustainability and Environment and Committees of Management as managers of Crown land when making decisions affecting Crown land.

11.03‐5 ‐ Economic well‐being is relevant because it seeks to foster the well being of communities and support economic growth through the provision of land and resolving land use conflicts.

11.03‐6 ‐ Social needs seeks to provide a safe physical and social environment for residents, through the appropriate location of uses and developments.

Clause 12 Metropolitan Development ‐ This clause provides objectives and strategies for Metropolitan Melbourne.

Under Clause 12.05 – A great place to be, Clause 12.05‐2 – Strategies and under Coastal Areas seeks to improve the environmental health of the bays through reducing the pressures of urban growth through growth area planning, managing waterway and stormwater quality and protecting coastal and foreshore environments, providing public access and recreation facilities around the Bays. Importantly, the policy also requires coastal planning and management to be consistent with the Victorian Coastal Strategy and to manage privately owned foreshore consistently with the adjoining public land.

Under Clause 12.07 – A greener city, Clause 21.07‐2 – Strategies under Native habitat and biodiversity seeks to protect flora and fauna habitat and landscapes such as the coastal areas, Western Port and the Mornington Peninsula.

Clause 14 – Settlement under Clause 14.01‐2 – General Implementation recognises the need to plan to accommodate projected population growth taking account of land capability and natural hazards, environmental quality and the costs of providing infrastructure. The policy also seeks to protect environmentally sensitive areas such as Western Port and Port Phillip Bays and their foreshores, the Gippsland Lakes and its foreshore and coastal areas and their foreshores from development which would diminish their environmental conservation or recreation values.

Clause 15 – Environment under Clause 15.01 – Protection of catchments, waterways and groundwater seeks to: To assist the protection and, where possible, restoration of catchments, waterways, water bodies, groundwater, and the marine environment.

26 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 Clause 15.08 – Coastal Areas is the key policy relating to coastal climate change effects. It was amended under VC52 on 18 December 2008 following the release of the 2008 VCS. Under Clause 15.08‐1 the objectives are: · To protect and enhance the natural ecosystems and landscapes of the coastal estuarine and marine environment. · To ensure sustainable use of natural coastal resources. · To achieve development that provides an environmental, social and economic balance. · To recognise and enhance the community’s value of the coast. · To plan for and manage the potential coastal impacts of climate change.

Clause 18.05 – Ports has the objective of: · recognising the importance to Victoria of economically sustainable major ports(Melbourne, Geelong, Portland Hastings) by planning for appropriate access, terminal areas and depot areas”; and · planning the land resources adjacent to ports to “facilitate the efficient operation of the port and port‐related uses and minimise adverse impacts on surrounding urban development and environment”.

Clause 18.05‐2 states: The land resources adjacent to ports should be protected to preserve their value for uses which depend upon or gain significant economic advantage from proximity to the ports’ particular shipping operations. Port and industrial development should be physically separated from sensitive urban development by the establishment of appropriate buffers which reduce the impact of vibration, intrusive lighting, noise and air emissions from port activities. Planning for the use of land adjacent to ports should aim to achieve and maintain a high standard of environmental quality, be integrated with policies for the protection of the environment generally and of marine environments in particular and take into account planning for adjacent areas and the relevant catchment.

27 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

4.2.2 Victorian Ports Strategic Framework 2004

The Victorian Ports Strategic Framework (VPSF) 2004 is an older strategy that has been superseded by Port Futures (2009). The policy proposed that the four commercial trading ports should focus on reinforcing and developing their existing core trade roles. In the case of the ports of Portland, Geelong and Hastings, these are primarily the handling of dry and liquid bulk cargoes and break bulk cargoes related largely to steel and aluminium products. In the case of the Port of Melbourne, the emphasis was on developing its specialised capacity to handle containerised cargo, acknowledging that it will also continue to play an important role in relation to bulk and break bulk commodities.

The VPSF nominated Hastings as Victoria’s second largest container port, to act as an overflow for this trade once Melbourne reaches its full capacity.

In relation to competition between Victoria’s ports, the policy generally encouraged this for the bulk and break bulk trades but not for international containers which were earmarked exclusively for Melbourne until it reaches capacity around 2035 (based on current trade forecasts and anticipated productivity improvements in stevedoring terminals) and then for Hastings.

The VPSF did not make any explicit statement in relation to competition for service provision within the ports, particularly for container stevedoring. However the policy implicitly favours an approach of deferring a process which might attract a new third entrant until around 2017. It anticipated that, by then, all potential capacity available to the two incumbent stevedores at Swanson Dock would be exhausted and it would be necessary to establish a new terminal at Webb Dock. However, the VPSF noted the need for flexibility, stating that this should be revalidated periodically as commercial and other changes occur.

4.2.3 Port Futures – New Priorities and Directions for Victoria’s Port System 2009

Port Futures (2009) updates the Victorian Port Strategic Framework 2004 and introduces improved policy and strategy settings to maximise the contribution of Victoriaʹs ports to state and national economic prosperity. The goal of Port Futures is to introduce improved policy and strategy settings to ensure that the contribution of Victoria’s ports to state and national economic prosperity and sustainability is maintained and maximised.

28 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Port Futures outlines the following key priorities and actions:

Re‐affirm port trade roles and development

Under Port Futures, the four commercial trading ports will develop their existing core trade roles: . The Port of Melbourne will continue to develop its specialised capacity to handle containerised cargo; . The ports of Portland, Geelong and Hastings will continue to focus on the bulk trades and break bulk cargoes related largely to steel and aluminium production; and . The role of the Port of Hastings to act as an overflow container port for the Port of Melbourne is also reaffirmed, with further assessment of timing of this development to be undertaken.

Accelerate port development at Melbourne and Hastings

Port Futures proposes to meet strong projected medium to long term growth in freight volumes by accelerating the development of an initial module of new stevedoring capacity at Webb Dock and progressing the development of the Port of Hastings. Specifically, the Government will: . Consider bringing forward an initial module of terminal capacity at Webb Dock (up to one million Twenty Foot Equivalent Units (TEUs); . Maintain the existing planning reservation for the Webb Dock Rail Link for future consideration; . Progress planning to increase capacity of the existing East and West Swanson Dock container terminals and wharves; and . Progress planning and environmental investigations for the staged expansion of the Port of Hastings.

Enhance port access, efficiency, productivity and investment

Port Futures details a range of strategies to improve port access, efficiency, productivity and investment, including: . Deepening the Port of Melbourne shipping channels to allow access for 14 metre draft vessels at all tides; . Progressing development of a staged, long term ‘channel improvement program’ for the Port of Geelong; . Implementing the initiatives from the Truck Optimisation Plan (2009) prepared by the Victorian Freight Logistics Council; . Designing and implementing a Road Freight Access Charge for trucks accessing the major terminals at Port of Melbourne;

29 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 . Further developing the Metropolitan Freight Terminal Network; and . Exploring the scope to secure ongoing port productivity improvements through direct negotiations with port service providers.

Secure the provision of essential port services

Port Futures identifies towage and ship lift facilities in the Port of Melbourne as essential port services.

Improve port governance arrangements

The policy confirms the Government’s intention to integrate the governance and management of the ports of Hastings and Melbourne and to review the role of the PoMC ‘beyond the port gate’ in order to maximise the contribution of Victorian ports to the efficiency of the broader freight and logistics network.

Introduce measures to improve planning and buffer protections for ports and local communities

Port Futures identifies the critical need to facilitate port planning and protect ports from encroachment by surrounding sensitive uses as well as protecting neighbouring communities from the impacts of port operations. The policy proposes a range of initiatives be examined to streamline and strengthen planning processes and protections including: . Formally recognising port strategic plans and strengthening policies to separate port activities from residential and other sensitive uses in the SPPF; . Establishing the Minister for Planning as the responsible authority for the land controlled by the regional ports, as is already the case for the Port of Melbourne; . Ensuring that the interests of the ports are explicitly considered in the evaluation of planning scheme amendments involving policy and zoning changes in the environs surrounding the ports controlled land; and . Considering the reinstatement of industrial zones where appropriate and new planning controls to establish two‐way buffer protections for ports.

Improve Port Safety, Security and Environmental Performance

Ports Futures proposes a number of initiatives for building on improvements in safety, security and environmental risk management established through the implementation and operation of Safety Environment Management Plans (SEMPs) in the ports.

30 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 4.2.4 The Victorian Transport Plan 2008

The Victorian Transport Plan outlines the Governmentʹs commitment to invest in key projects outlined in Freight Futures, including: . a Truck Action Plan for the inner west to improve freight access to the Port of Melbourne and remove thousands of trucks off residential streets; . a new interstate rail terminal at Donnybrook/Beveridge, assisting to shift unnecessary truck trips away from the Dynon area and inner suburbs; . designation of a principal freight network, to connect the major freight hubs with the Port of Melbourne and concentrate freight flows on dedicated links; . completion of key east‐west and orbital links in the freeway network that services freight; . a network of metropolitan freight terminals to actively encourage more efficient freight movements within Melbourne by rail and road, with a new international terminal adjacent to the Port of Melbourne forming its central hub; . an extension of the network for High Productivity Freight Vehicles (HPFV) in the Green Triangle region and other limited metropolitan freeways; . additional stevedoring capacity at the Port of Melbourne; . planning for the Port of Hastings expansion, to become Victoriaʹs supplementary container port when Melbourne reaches capacity; . planning for improved transport connections in Gippsland to open up new coal industries; . a truck access charge for the Port of Melbourne, to contribute to infrastructure upgrades, encourage off‐peak truck movements and promote rail freight; and . a trial of hybrid electric freight vehicles, to support a sustainable and lower emissions transport system.

4.2.5 Freight Futures: Victorian Freight Network Strategy 2008

Freight Futures provides the blueprint for a secure and properly planned freight infrastructure network to support the Governmentʹs vision for Victoria, which includes a growing economy and productivity, population growth, growing our regions and building sustainable communities.

The Strategy responds to the many factors that are driving changes in patterns of supply and demand. It aims to provide industry with “long term

31 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 security through a clear statement of what the principal freight network is now and in the future, and a more predictable policy and regulatory environment.”

Freight Futures identifies and addresses a number of priorities, including: . Proactive land use planning – planning for future port and freight facilities and their land use requirements, including buffering strategies; . Effective targeting of infrastructure investment by optimising the use of existing public infrastructure, identifying future infrastructure priorities and, together with the Commonwealth Government, contributing to future infrastructure capacity; . Greater integration of the network – working in close collaboration with industry to deliver new initiatives that promote supply chain efficiency; . Improved regulatory arrangements – providing the right regulatory and institutional settings to foster a sustainable freight and logistics sector; . Effective management of community and environmental impacts – seeking to mitigate the negative impacts of freight growth; and . Continuous improvement of safety and security performance – adopting best practice safety management principles and implementing further measures to mitigate security threats to land, sea and air transport in accordance with relevant legislation.

The document identifies the following as key drivers of change facing the states’ freight infrastructure network:

. Significant growth in the freight task

Freight Futures highlights that world freight trade is increasing with economic growth, the globalisation of supply chains, the use of larger vessels and the implementation of more efficient freight and logistics systems.

. Impacts of increasing congestion on freight costs

The Strategy identifies that managing increasing levels of traffic and associated congestion is a challenge being faced by large cities around the world. Loss of amenity, increasing travel times and environmental damage can have a significant impact on the liveability of cities and the efficiency of the economy.

32 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

. Climate change

The effects of climate change will likely see the environment in Victoria becoming hotter and drier over the coming decades and many of the natural resources upon which the state has relied for transport energy over the past 100 to 150 years becoming increasingly scarce. The Strategy also makes the comment that the Commonwealth Government’s carbon pollution reduction schemes will also lead to rising energy prices. The strategies warns that these developments will result in rising costs for the freight and logistics industry (and other energy users), driving the search for greater efficiencies.

. Increased public awareness of sustainability and liveability issues

Freight Futures stresses that the requirement to balance liveability, mobility and sustainability is becoming a substantial social and industrial challenge for large cities such as Melbourne. Because of its high visibility, the road freight industry is an operational sector that must implement sustainability initiatives – and be seen to be implementing these initiatives.

. Higher security and safety standards

Community expectations about improved safety have increased in recent years. Freight Futures estimates that the annual economic cost of road trauma in Victoria is $3 billion. The policy states that Victoria is recognised nationally and internationally as a leader in road safety policy and programs and the Victorian Government remains committed to continual improvement through strategies such as Arrive Alive 2008 – 2017, the Government’s road safety strategy.

. Victoria’s changing economy

Victoria’s manufacturing sector, and the transport task it generates, will continue to be important to the Victorian and national economies, although it is expected to make up a smaller proportion of overall Gross State Product in the future.

. Increasing oil prices

The Strategy states that global oil production is likely to peak at some time between now and 2030 – within the horizons of Freight Futures. In response, oil prices are predicted to triple or quadruple, even if alternative fuels succeed in powering a significant amount of freight, commercial and personal travel.

33 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 . Labour and skills shortages

The increasing freight task is requiring a greater number of truck, delivery and freight train drivers. However, according to Freight Futures the 2006 Census of Population and Housing disclosed that the average ages of truck and train drivers are higher than that of the workforce in general.

. Changes to industry structure and technology

In addition to external factors, there are a range of internal developments within the freight and logistics industry which are driving change in the way the industry operates. Freight Futures lists these developments as including: . Strategic alliances and amalgamations along supply trains; . Increasing ship and ship container size; . Increased use of intermodal solutions; . Advances in road freight vehicle performance, size and technology; and . Advances in rail rolling stock performance, size and technology.

4.2.6 Victorian Coastal Strategy 2008

The Victorian Coastal Strategy 2008 (VCS) is the State Government’s policy commitment for coastal, estuarine and marine environments in Victoria. It provides a long‐term vision for the planning, management and sustainable use of our coast, and the policies and actions Victorians will need to implement over the next five years to help achieve that vision. It is also a framework to assist in the development and implementation of other locally and regionally specific strategies and plans such as management plans, Coastal Action Plans and planning schemes.

The VCS builds on the principles and actions of the last two strategies and identifies and responds to three significant issues affecting Victoria’s coast that require specific attention: . Climate Change; . Population and Growth; and . Marine Ecological Integrity.

The purpose of the VCS is to provide: a vision for the planning, management and use of coastal, estuarine and marine environments

34 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 the governmentʹs policy commitment for coastal, estuarine and marine environments. a framework for the development and implementation of other specific strategies and plans such as Coastal Action Plans, management plans and planning schemes. a guide for exercising discretion by decision‐makers, where appropriate.

The strategy gives direction for planning and managing the impacts of activities on and in the: . marine environment ‐ includes the near‐shore marine environment, the seabed and waters out to the state limit or 5.5 kilometres; . foreshore ‐ or coastal Crown land 200 metres from the high water mark; . coastal hinterland ‐ on private and Crown land directly influenced by the sea or directly influencing the coastline and land within critical views of the foreshore and near‐shore environment; and . catchments ‐ feeding rivers and drainage systems and including estuaries.

All of these policy directions have implications for the planning, development and management/operation of the ports.

4.3 Local Planning Policies

The Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) of planning schemes usually comprises a Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and Local Planning Policies (LPP). Municipal planning schemes that either include port land in their municipality or are affected by port activities have some reference to ports in their planning schemes.

A brief overview of the relevant planning schemes local policies relating to ports follows:6

Melbourne Planning Scheme

The Melbourne Planning Scheme acknowledges the economic importance of the Port of Melbourne in Clause 21.02. Relevant objectives relating to the Port of Melbourne are in Clause 21.04‐4 Land Use – Advanced Manufacturing and Industry, and include:

6 The Advisory Committee has not provided an overview of the Port of Melbourne planning local policy on the basis the ToR do not require any review of the planning policies and controls in this scheme. 35 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 · Support the ongoing function of the Port of Melbourne (administered by Port of Melbourne Corporation) as Australia’s leading container port, and associated industries. · Support the ongoing function of National Rail Terminal and the redevelopment of the Dynon Rail Hub to support Port Melbourne (Fishermans Bend) and Port of Melbourne by better integrating port operations with the rail network. · Limit the development of commercial and retail uses within Port Melbourne (Fishermans Bend) which are not ancillary to industrial use.

Clause 21.08‐11 includes a policy on Port Melbourne (Fishermans Bend) and Port of Melbourne. Relevant objectives and strategies include supporting new advanced manufacturing and associated research and development enterprises in Fishermans Bend, encouraging a high level of visual amenity along Lorimer Street; and ensuring that development in Fishermans Bend visible from Docklands does not detract from the appearance or visual amenity of the Docklands.

Clause 21.08‐12 includes a policy on the West Melbourne Industrial Area, and acknowledges this area has strong functional links with the port.

In addition, there are planning objectives to ensure residential development take into account the amenity impacts of established and potential uses, including noise impacts and light spill, and take protective steps to minimise these impacts on future occupants.

The Port of Melbourne is located within the City of Melbourne but has its own planning scheme. Obviously, the Port of Melbourne Planning Scheme is based on the role of the Port of Melbourne to provide port facilities.7

Port Phillip Planning Scheme

The Port Phillip Planning Scheme contains few references to the Port of Melbourne. However, Clause 21.03‐1 identifies that a key issue for the municipality is increased traffic in residential areas from the impact of Webb Dock.

7 The Advisory Committee has not provided an overview of the Port of Melbourne local planning policy on the basis that the ToR do not include any review of the planning policies and controls in the scheme. 36 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 Maribyrnong Planning Scheme

The Maribyrnong Planning Scheme acknowledges that a locational advantage of the municipality is its proximity to the Port of Melbourne.

Clause 21.02 identifies the Footscray Wharf precinct as a major mixed use development opportunity. The 2011 vision identifies this area as part of a Major Activity Centre with a connection through to Footscray.

Clause 21.04 The Maribyrnong River and Valley includes an objective to facilitate the construction of 4,000 new quality dwellings on the former industrial areas adjacent to the river, which display a high degree of diversity in size, type and value and are well integrated with existing activity and to establish a wide range of accessible leisure and recreation facilities along the river.

Clause 21.04 Open Space includes an objective to create high quality linear open space systems with safe and attractive pathways along the full length of the Maribyrnong River and Stony Creek, with a large range of leisure and recreation experiences available.

Clause 22.04‐2 is the Footscray Riverside Precinct Policy. Relevant policy is to: Encourage, support and facilitate developments with leasable floor areas designed to provide opportunities for the establishment of a range of small businesses. Encourage, support and facilitate activities which will enhance the precinct’s potential for entertainment and tourism, especially; - cafes and restaurants - retail fish marketing (especially south of Napier Street) - small professional offices - places of assembly, indoor recreation, fitness and entertainment, art galleries and theatres - arts industries, including studios metalworking, advertising and promotional industry, printing and sales industries - education and training - community facilities and services - tourism support activity including retailing - medium to high density housing north of Napier Street, and in association with commercial or business activity.

37 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Clause 22.05 is the Business 3 Zone policy, which applies to the Footscray Riverside Precinct. Relevant policy is: · The establishment of new, mixed industrial and business activity which is compatible with nearby housing. · The retention and expansion of existing industry which is compatible with nearby housing. · Developments which create an office park‐like ambience and provide a high proportion of office space (ie, are suited to a range of activities under one roof).

Clause 22.06 is the Industrial 1 Zone Land Use and Development policy, which acknowledges the large areas of industrial land near the Port. The policy notes that many areas of the industrial land is under utilised, and that there are many opportunities for further development of large value adding export oriented manufacturing.

Clause 22.07‐2 is the Industrial Buffer Areas Policy that applies to Industrial 3 Zoned areas. This zone applies to land in the triangle between Whitehall Street and Moreland Street south of Napier Street.

Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme

Clause 21.05 of the MSS acknowledges that the Port of Melbourne provides a locational advantage for industry in Hobson’s Bay.

Clause 21.06 Residential includes the following strategy: Ensure that future residential development which has an interface with an existing industry implements appropriate mitigation measures to protect amenity, such as noise attenuation measures and the appropriate design and siting of private open space.

The Industry policy in Clause 21.07 includes a number of objectives and strategies to ensure the amenity and safety of local residents is not threatened by industrial activity.

Clause 21.12 The Coast includes the following objective: Encourage the retention of the maritime industry in the future, maintaining links with the history of Williamstown.

Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme

Clause 21.04 of the MSS identifies that one of the four basic land use structures includes Port development areas.

38 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 Key strategic directions include: Identifying areas available for port development, recognising that this area is a unique resource of state significance. Maintaining separation between port development areas and township areas.

Clause 21.10 Managing Port Area Development contains the following objectives: To protect the long term value of Western Port for selected port and industrial purposes that depend upon or gain significant economic advantage from proximity to natural deep water channels. To ensure that port and port‐related development does not adversely affect or compromise the ecosystems and recreational resources of Western Port.

Greater Geelong Planning Scheme

Clause 21.07 Economic Development and Employment acknowledges the Port of Geelong as a major infrastructure asset.

One of the strategies under this policy is to protect existing and designated future industrial areas from encroachment by incompatible land uses.

Clause 21.12 applies to the Port of Geelong.

Objectives are: To provide for the continued growth and development of Geelong Port as a key economic resource to the Victorian community. To maintain and enhance the efficiency of the port. To safeguard the port as a focal point for infrastructure development and economic prosperity within south‐west Victoria. To ensure that development in the port area is environmentally sustainable. To give appropriate weight to the needs of a working port having regard to the amenity of the land uses at the port interface.

Council has prepared a new MSS and the Panel which considered the Amendment made minor recommendations to the policy8.

8 Amendment C129 39 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 In addition, Council has prepared the Geelong Port Structure Plan and has requested the Minister to exhibit an Amendment to introduce the Structure Plan into the planning scheme. However, the Minister has refused to authorise the exhibition of the request given the current port environs review.

Glenelg Planning Scheme

Clause 21.02 acknowledges the deep water of Portland is a key resource in the municipality.

The Vision Statement states that planning for development will: be based on setting aside land for long term residential, industrial and port‐related needs and ensuring that incompatible uses and developments are effectively buffered from each other and that their potential impacts are managed; realise the potential of Portland as a major regional deep water port with associated industries, employment opportunities and value‐added processing;

Clause 22.03‐3 applies to the Port of Portland. The objective is: To ensure that the port’s development is not limited by other land uses and developments in nearby areas either onshore or offshore.

The policies include: Development in and near the port should not prejudice the expansion and operation of the port. Easy road and rail access to the port shall be maintained. The fishing industry and the servicing of the fishing industry is supported.

4.4 Port Land Use Strategies

As noted in Section 4.1.2 above, the Port Development Act, 1995 requires each port manager to prepare a land use strategy for their respective port.

Port of Melbourne

The Port of Melbourne strategy is entitled The Port Development Strategy (PDS) and was approved by the Minister for Roads and Ports in August 2009. The PDS guides the future development of the Port of Melbourne and give the port’s tenants, stakeholders and the wider community a clear picture of the port’s future plans, requirements and responsibilities in terms of:

40 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 . Forecast trade volumes and terminal productivity in the port freight and logistics industry that will have an impact on the port and its development; . The infrastructure improvements required by the port and the implications for land and water use; . The funding strategy the port will use to deliver infrastructure projects; and . The environmental and social principles the port will follow in its development of the port and facilitation of port growth.

Port of Hastings

The Port of Hastings strategy is entitled Port of Hastings Land Use and Transport Strategy (PLUTS) and was approved by the Minister for Roads and Ports in August 2009. Specific objectives of the PLUTS are: . Establish a vision for land use planning in, and transport access to, the Port of Hastings over the next 30 years; . Establish a clear strategic land use plan and land management policy and communicate them effectively to port customers, stakeholders and the neighbouring community; . Define and implement suitable land use designations throughout the port area to provide certainty of land use in the future; . Identify suitable road and rail transport options to efficiently and cost effectively link the port to key regional industrial hubs and the broader State and national freight and logistics networks; . Ensure that appropriate areas of land and transport corridors are preserved to cater for the future development of the port and associated uses; . Effectively integrate planning and development for the port with the social, economic and environmental influences of the surrounding areas; and . Identify the necessary actions and appropriate strategic approaches to achieve strategic vision.

Port of Geelong

The Port of Geelong Port Land Use Strategy 2009 (PLUS) was approved by the Minister for Roads and Ports in August 2009. Key objectives of the PLUS include: . Effectively developing port facilities to accommodate trade growth and change;

41 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 . Transparently planning the development and use of port and adjoining land to support growth; . Improving land use transport access to the port; . Effectively managing the port’s interfaces with the Geelong community, including amenity, safety and environmental impacts; and . Supporting reviews of planning controls to provide more certainty for port‐related developments.

Port of Portland

The Port of Portland Port Land Use Strategy (PLUS) was approved by the Minister for Roads and Ports in August 2009 and seeks to: . identify key assets that support the port ‐ such as transport corridors ‐ and environmental values that will require protection; . take account of land use planning objectives in adjacent areas; . define appropriate buffers around port infrastructure and their transport corridors; and . inform and identify land use and development issues requiring further action, including recognition in state and local planning policy frameworks and implementation in planning schemes.

4.5 Conclusion

The Committee notes that there is a robust and well‐articulated policy and strategic framework that recognises the importance of ports to the State of Victoria. Identifying ways in which this importance can be appropriately reflected into the statutory planning framework is one of the keys tasks of this Committee.

42 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Part B – Overview of Victoria’s ports

43 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

5. Overview of Victoria’s ports

5.1 Introduction

In this Chapter an overview of the four ports of Melbourne, Hastings, Geelong and Portland is provided in terms of: . location and context; . governance arrangements; . nature of trade throughput; . current infrastructure; . road and transport issues; and . future development plans.

In addition, an overview is provided of the main interface areas that are identified in the ports’ land use strategies (PLUSs).9 This overview is followed by a more detailed overview of the key planning and interface issues for each of the ports.

The information in this Chapter has been derived from a number of key reports, including: . Port Futures – New Priorities and Directions for Victoria’s Ports System (2009); . The Victorian Transport Plan (2008); . Freight Futures: Victorian Freight Network Strategy (2008); and . The port land use strategies that have been prepared for each port, as well as the Port Environs Planning Framework (PEPF) prepared for the Port of Melbourne Corporation and the Geelong Port Structure Plan prepared by the City of Greater Geelong.

In addition, discussions have been held with the Department of Transport (DOT), port managers, Council officers and key stakeholders to assist the Committee gain an understanding of the issues.

9 It is noted that the Port of Melbourne land use strategy is called the Port of Melbourne Port Development Strategy (PDS). The Port of Hastings land use strategy is called The Port of Hastings Land Use and Transport Strategy (PLUTS). 44 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 5.2 Port of Melbourne

The Port of Melbourne handles approximately 36% of Australia’s container trade and is the primary mainland port for the transfer of Tasmanian cargo to and from international markets. In 2006, the port generated a total economic output of $2.5 billion, including value added to the Victorian and Australian economies of $1.1 billion and supported 13,748 full time jobs.10 The Port of Melbourne is one of the largest 50 sea ports in the world.

5.2.1 Location and context

The Port of Melbourne is located in the inner urban area of Melbourne to the west of the Melbourne CBD on approximately 510 hectares of land. Figure 1 shows the location of the Port of Melbourne relative to surrounding areas.

The Port of Melbourne is one of Australia’s oldest ports, and was traditionally surrounded by industrial uses including many businesses that relied on port activities.

The PEPF states that urban growth and development in areas surrounding the port is placing increasing pressure on the port, with changing social and environmental expectations of neighbouring communities potentially affecting port operations and future development plans.

Areas of concern identified in the report include Yarraville, Footscray, Garden City and Beacon Cove, Docklands, e‐Gate11, Fishermans Bend and Williamstown.

10 Port of Melbourne Preliminary Submission to the Advisory Committee, page 6 11 e-Gate is a project to redevelop 20 hectares of the Melbourne railway yard area as a mixed use suburb. Preparation of a business case is currently being funded by the State Government. 45 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Figure 1 Port of Melbourne and surrounding areas

46 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 5.2.2 Governance

The Port of Melbourne Corporation was established in 2003 pursuant to the Port Services Act 1995 (PSA). The PoMC is responsible for the efficient, integrated and sustainable development and management of the Port of Melbourne land and waters.

5.2.3 Nature of trade throughput

The majority of the Port’s trade throughput is containerised but it also handles break bulk, liquid bulk, dry bulk, general cargoes and motor vehicles. International containers account for approximately 65% of all freight passing through the port.

A summary of the increase in trade of the various throughputs between 1997 and 2007 follows: . International container trade through the port increased from 838,000 TEU in 1997 to 1.753 million TEU in 2007, an annual average growth rate of 7.7%; . In addition, Tasmanian container trade increased from 176,000 TEU in 1997 to 317,000 TEU in 2007, an average annual growth rate of 6.1%; . New motor vehicles increased from 134,000 in 1997 to 316,000 in 2007, an average annual growth rate of 9.0%; . Break bulk trade increased from 604,000 mass tonnes in 1997 to 859,000 mass tonnes in 2007, an average annual growth rate of 3.6%; . Dry bulk increased from 1,709,000 mass tonnes in 1997 to 2,867,000 mass tonnes, an average annual growth rate of 5.3%; and . Liquid bulk increased from 4,094,000 mass tonnes in 1997 to 4,462,000 mass tonnes in 2007, an average annual growth rate of 0.4%. Most liquid trade is crude oil.

5.2.4 Current infrastructure

Major assets of the Melbourne Port include the shipping channels and 34 commercial berths located at five docks, river wharves and Station Pier. These facilities include two modern, purpose built container terminals and specialised berths for motor vehicles, break bulk, dry bulk, liquid bulk and passengers.

5.2.5 Road and transport issues

Approximately 80% of all Port trade is currently moved by road transport, and so the efficient management and amenity impacts of road transport is a critical issue for Port users and the local community.

47 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 To manage increasing truck traffic, the Port Development Strategy (PDS) includes the following strategies: . Increasing the utilisation and back loading of trucks to reduce the relative number of truck trips; . Optimising truck trips to reduce the distance travelled; . Locating appropriate container management functions including empty container parks, close to the Port; . Optimising the use of existing road infrastructure; and . Improving the road network by increasing its scope, capacity and convenience.

Specific initiatives of most relevance include:

Increased truck utilisation . Encouraging truck fleet enhancements through the wider use of HPFVs (4 TEU per truck) and B‐Doubles (3 TEU per truck); and . Integrating supply chain logistic systems to ensure the proportion of loaded inbound trucks with an outbound load (or vice versa) is increasing.

Improved roads

The Victorian Transport Strategy (VTS) and Freight Futures propose strategies to upgrade the road network servicing the Dynon and Port precincts that may see the development of alternative and improved road links that reduce the impact of road traffic on the surrounding community.

To improve traffic conditions in the Port Melbourne/Webb Dock area, including ameliorating the impacts of existing Williamstown Road traffic on local residents, a network improvement study of the Port Melbourne/Webb Dock area has been completed which has resulted in a number of priority road works including: . Widening of Todd Road and Cook Street and signalisation of Cook Street and the Westgate Freeway eastbound off ramp; and . Development of Plummer Street as an alternative access route to the Westgate Freeway.

Further road works within the Port and at the Todd Road intersection will be undertaken in the short to medium term to provide an integrated solution to Webb Dock access.

Internal road network

48 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 The PoMC has also identified a number of changes and improvements to the internal road network.

Rail transport

The PoMC has identified the following initiatives aimed at promoting increased rail mode share: . Supporting the development of on‐port rail terminals through appropriate land allocation and provision of efficient rail links between the external network and terminal boundaries; . Engaging Australian Rail Track Corporation Ltd (ARTC) to provide management services for rail operations within the Port that maximise the use of available track capacity for port trains; . Actively supporting the concept of common user access to on‐port rail terminals under acceptable commercial arrangements; . Gaining a better understanding of the critical elements of the business models underpinning rail operations servicing the Port; and . Working with various industry bodies to develop rail based logistics between the Port and outer urban areas.

Specific initiatives relating to the port include:

Dynon rail precinct – relocation of the Melbourne Wholesale markets from their Footscray Road location in the short to medium term will facilitate the development of this site for more appropriate port‐related activities.

Webb Dock rail connection – the rail connection to Webb Dock was severed in 1996 to allow for the Docklands development to proceed. However, it is understood that a new reservation has been provided west of and adjacent to the Bolte Bridge to allow for its reinstatement. A new rail connection requires either a bridge or tunnel crossing of the Yarra River.

The PoMC considers the Webb Dock rail connection is a long term project when a business case has been made.

West Maribyrnong rail connection – A broad gauge rail link connects North Dynon to the Port and other properties to the west of the Maribyrnong River with the potential to accommodate future trades or port‐related activities. This track currently terminates near Somerville Road.

A number of improvements to on‐port rail terminals are also identified by the PoMC.

49 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 5.2.6 Future development plan

The PDS prepared for the Port of Melbourne aims to create a clear picture of the short to medium and long term development plans of the Port. The PDS provides a clearer understanding of: . Forecast trade volumes and terminal productivity in the port freight and logistics industry that will have an impact on the port and its development; . The infrastructure improvements required by the Port and the implications for land and water use; . The funding strategy the Port will use to deliver infrastructure projects; and . The environmental and social principles the Port will follow in its development of the Port and facilitation of port growth.

The Port Development Strategy provides forecasts to 2035 for the Port’s throughputs. It is not proposed to repeat the forecasts here, save to say that significant increases of all throughputs are expected.

In terms of future berth and land needs, the PDS identifies the following requirements: International container needs Existing: Berth length: 1,828 metres Terminal area: 77 hectares 2035: Berth length: 3,770 metres Terminal area: 160 hectares

Tasmanian trade terminal needs: Existing: Berths: 2 Terminal area: 14 hectares 2035: Berths: 5 Terminal area: 30 hectares

Motor vehicles: Existing: Berths: 2.5 Terminal area: 31 hectares 2035 Berths: 3 Terminal area: 50 hectares

Break bulk: Existing: Berths: 3 Terminal area: 15 hectares 2035: Berths: 3 Terminal area: 15 hectares

50 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Dry bulk: No additional capacity required, however some minor relocation and consolidation of existing dry bulk trade may be required.

Liquid bulk: No additional berths are required.

Passenger ships: Adequate capacity is available at Station Pier.

In addition, the PDS identifies the following port‐related needs:

Valued added logistics – a range of port‐related activities may be located on‐ port to meet logistics requirements of key users and operators to enhance the Port’s competitive position. These activities include: . Cold stores; . Packing and unpacking depots; and . Distribution centres.

The objective of the PDS is to locate these activities within the Port ‘where possible’, including within the Dynon precinct.

Freight terminals and empty container parks – these facilities provide critical functions including storage and serving of empty containers, providing a time buffer for delivery and receipt of full containers at strategic locations near the Port and outer metropolitan locations.

The PDS identifies the following precincts:

Williamstown – Ann Street Pier

Ann Street Pier is currently used for the storage and mooring of marine equipment, such as tugs, barges, pontoons, workboats and survey vessels. The precinct will continue its multi‐purpose role for the foreseeable future.

Williamstown – Gellibrand Pier

Gellibrand Pier will be retained for liquid bulk (crude oil) pack type.

51 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Williamstown – Breakwater Pier

Breakwater Pier will be retained to ensure the security and safety of the adjacent Gellibrand Pier. Breakwater Pier is also considered to be a strategic port asset for use as a future liquid bulk berth or for special purposes such as visiting naval ships, vessel lay up and large plant storage.

Newport

The Newport precinct includes oil pipelines and jetties used by adjacent oil companies. The precinct will be retained as a key asset for the petroleum industry and as a park, managed in partnership with Parks Victoria.

Webb Dock

Webb Dock can be developed in stages and could potentially handle a similar capacity to Swanson Dock if required. The first stage of the proposed development in the short to medium term will involve a portion of the east side of the dock being converted to international containers to accommodate terminal capacity of 1 million TEU. In the longer term to around 2025, the remainder of the east side of the dock may be converted to containers and the west side of the dock will become the Port’s major coastal terminal precinct. Displaced motor vehicles will be relocated elsewhere within the Port or to another Victorian port. Break bulk trades will be accommodated elsewhere in the Port.

The reconnection of rail to Webb Dock will be considered consistent with trade demand and the longer term.

It is envisaged that by 2035 this precinct could handle a similar number of containers to Swanson Dock.

Yarraville

The Yarraville precinct will retain its multi‐purpose dry and liquid bulk functions in the short to medium term and appropriate development of acquired PoMC properties.

Coode Island

The precinct is used as a storage facility for importing and exporting bulk liquids. Because it serves a vital State role, Coode Island is to be retained for bulk liquid operations in the long term.

52 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Holden Dock

Holden Dock will be retained for bulk liquid operations for the long term.

Swanson/Appleton/Victoria Dock

Swanson Dock East and West will continue to be used for international carriers for the long term. This will involve an intensification of trade through the dock with some expansion to the north possibly being necessary to cater for future shipping needs.

Trade through Victoria Dock will also increase in the short to medium term, with substantial new investment currently underway. The eastern edge of Victoria Dock is reserved for the future Webb Dock rail link, if required.

This precinct will be integrated with the Dynon rail precinct to the north of Footscray Road following relocation of the Melbourne Wholesale Fruit & Vegetable market.

Intensive development of the Swanson/Appleton/Victoria Dock precinct for international containers and general cargo is planned to take place during the short to medium term to ensure sufficient capacity and productivity to accommodate forecast demand.

South Wharf

South Wharf is used for a range of activities, including break bulk and dry bulk cargos, bulk cement imports and ancillary services. The limited width of the wharf area, particularly with the Webb Dock rail corridor, makes the wharf area ideally suited for its current activities and will continue to be used for these activities for the long term.

Station Pier

Station Pier is used as the Melbourne Sea Passenger Terminal and is the only cruise liner facility in Melbourne. The precinct will continue to be used by TT‐Line, cruise liners and naval vessels visiting Melbourne.

53 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

5.2.7 Key interface issues

While there is some general reference to the interface issues in the PDS, the PEPF provides a more detailed analysis of these matters.

The PEPF identifies the following land use challenges for Melbourne Port: . Protecting the amenity of residential development and foreshore areas in locations such as Docklands, Garden City, Port Melbourne, Williamstown and Footscray; . Providing for continued operation of major hazard facilities at Coode Island and Gellibrand Pier; . Ensuring that future development in neighbouring areas does not impede long‐term port development; . Protecting arterial land transport connections and Freight Activity Centres from adjoining development with unrealistic amenity expectations; . Continuing operation of South Wharf and recommissioning of the Webb Dock rail link whilst balancing land use changes in Fishermans Bend; and . Balancing development pressures in sought‐after Williamstown with the needs of the Port and the BAE ship building facility.

The PEPF makes the following principal recommendations: . Strengthening the land use planning objectives for the Port and its future development which are expressed by both the PoMC and the Victorian Government; . Adopting an approach to management of land use change that aims to protect both the interests of the Port and its neighbours; and . Ensuring that planning frameworks provide a basis for consideration of environmental, amenity and safety management issues in land use decisions by proponents and responsible authorities.

The PEPF also makes recommendations for: . Enhancements to the SPPF to provide greater recognition and protection of the Port and to particular provisions relation to defining caretaker houses in the VPPs; . Administrative and procedural improvements to the planning system; . Policy changes to the Port of Melbourne Planning Scheme; . Policy changes to the Local Planning Policy Frameworks of the Melbourne, Port Phillip, Hobson’s Bay and Maribyrnong Planning

54 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 Schemes to provide policy support and protection for the Port of Melbourne; and . Changes to the business zones abutting the port in Melbourne and Maribyrnong Planning Schemes.

Specific zoning and overlay changes recommended in the municipal planning schemes include: . Melbourne Planning Scheme – the schedule to the Business 3 Zone in Fishermans Bend be amended to include a floor space limitation for offices which restricts the intensification of such uses in proximity to the operational port; . Maribyrnong Planning Scheme – land in the Business 2 Zone between Lyons Street, Moreland Street and Footscray Road be rezoned to Industrial 3 to address amenity interface issues with the port, particularly the major hazardous facilities; . Hobson’s Bay Planning Scheme – with the exception of the possible changes near Gellibrand Pier, the existing zoning and overlay framework is considered appropriate; and . Port Phillip Planning Scheme – no changes are recommended.

5.3 Port of Hastings

5.3.1 Location and context

The Port of Hastings is located on the western arm of Western Port, approximately 60 kms south east of Melbourne’s CBD. Over 3,500 hectares is zoned for port‐related uses, however the area currently used for port and port‐related uses is much smaller.

Figure 2 shows the location of the Port of Hastings relative to surrounding areas.

The Port of Hastings has two main areas: Crib Point and Stony Point, located south of the Hastings township; and Long Island located to the north of the Hastings township.

Land to the east and south of Crib Point and Stony Point is developed with a mixture of residential, rural residential, industrial and farming purposes.

Land to the east and north of Long Island is developed for rural residential and farming purposes.

The Port of Hastings area of interest land is located within a designated Ramsar site.

55 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Figure 2: Port of Hastings and surrounding areas

56 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 5.3.2 Governance arrangements

The Port is managed by the Port of Hastings Corporation, which has a Port Management Agreement with Patrick Port Hastings (a division of Asciano Ltd) to manage the port land, jetties and channels. This lease expires in 2012, with the option of a 5 year extension.

In July 2010, the Port of Melbourne Corporation will replace the Port of Hastings Corporation as the authority responsible for the Port.

5.3.3 Nature of trade throughput

The major trades at Hastings Port include: . Steel – slab steel is brought to Hastings by BlueScope for the manufacture of various sheet metal products including corrugated iron, zincalume and flat steel supplied to car manufacturers. The steel is primarily for the domestic market with some exported from the Port; . Oil and gas – Bass Straight crude is pumped to the former Esso storage facility at Long Island Point from Longford (Gippsland) via a 180 km pipeline. Some of this is exported as gas or oil via the Long Island Jetty, and some is piped to Altona/Geelong; and . Petrol – fuel is imported through Crib Point and piped to United Terminal’s storage and distribution facilities north of Hastings.

In the 2007/08 financial year, trade volume reached 2.95 million tonnes, comprising: . 1.79 million tonnes of petroleum products; and . 1.16 million tonnes of steel products.

5.3.4 Current infrastructure

The main facilities at the Port include State‐owned infrastructure at Long Island Point, Crib Point and Stony Point, as well as privately owned land and infrastructure at the BlueScope Steel Wharf.

Long Island Point Jetty. This jetty is a single oil/gas berth, with a design capacity to accommodate vessels 300 metres long.

Crib Point Jetty. This jetty has two bulk liquid berths. Berth No 1 has a design capacity to accommodate vessels 300 metres long, and is used to import ULP which is then piped to Hastings. Berth No 2 was constructed as part of the BP refinery development located adjacent to the jetty. Both the refinery and jetty have been decommissioned, however the berth can provide temporary lay‐up facilities for vessels.

57 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 Stony Point Jetty. This jetty is 190 metres long and is used as the headquarters for port control and harbour services. The jetty also handles passenger ferries to Cowes and French Island and small commercial vessels up to 60 metres long.

5.3.5 Road and transport issues

As evident by the title of the Port of Hastings Land Use and Transport Strategy, a significant element of the plan relates to transport issues.

Currently, the Port is connected to the broader network by rail (Stony Point Line) and via local and regional road networks.

Key road routes include Western Port Highway linking Hastings with Dandenong and Melbourne’s south eastern suburbs; Tyabb‐Tooradin Road, South Gippsland Highway and Koo Wee Rup Road linking Hastings to Gippsland; and Frankston Flinders Road linking Hastings to the proposed Frankston Bypass and East Link.

A target of the PLUTS is to have freight split 50% between road and rail, which is acknowledged as a ‘stretch target’.

Regional access actions include: . Develop Western Port Highway to freeway standard from the north to Tyabb—Tooradin Road; . Support the construction of Frankston Bypass; . Improve Tyabb‐Tooradin Road, South Gippsland Highway and Koo Wee Rup Road with a local bypass of Koo Wee Rup Road; . Encourage appropriate east‐west freight routes such as Thompsons Avenue and Greens Road through to East Link; . Establish port‐related road freight routes; and . Upgrade McKirdys Road to provide direct access to Western Port Highway.

Local road access actions include: . Establish specific port‐related local road traffic routes; . Extend Bayview Road to provide a direct connection with Western Port Highway; . Create a connection between Western Port Highway and Watts Road (with a grade separation over the Frankston‐Stony Point rail line) and widen Watts Road through to Reid Parade; and

58 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 . Improve local roads required to link Hastings with Mornington Peninsula Freeway corridor and Frankston thus avoiding built‐up residential areas.

Rail improvement actions include, at the regional level: . Further detailed assessment of rail corridor capacities and options for a preferred rail corridor; and . In the long‐term, connect the port with Dandenong and Gippsland regions along a preferred route.

At the local level, actions include: . A rail connection between the existing BlueScope/Esso spur and “Old Tyabb Reclamation Area”; . Upgrade signalling/safe working environments on the Hastings to Frankston section to allow off‐peak freight train operations; and . Enhance the capacity of Hastings‐Frankston corridor by either providing crossing facilities at selected locations or by duplicating the entire track length.

5.3.6 Future development plan

The Port of Hastings will be a secondary port to the Port of Melbourne after 2035 once the Port of Melbourne reaches capacity. It is this context that provides an understanding of the future growth of this Port.

The PLUTS includes development plans for the three precincts of Long Island, Crib Point and Stony Point.

Long Island Point – this is the preferred site for a new port operations centre, and three stages of development have been proposed: . Stage 1 – a multi‐purpose berthing facility in a 50 hectare reclamation area between the Long Island and BlueScope jetties. The facility will accommodate 3 berths of 300 metres each, capable of handling bulk, break bulk, cars and general cargo. . Stage 2 – development of a series of container berths and associated landside infrastructure in a 400 hectare site to be reclaimed north of the existing BlueScope jetty. . Stage 3 – Expansion and integration of Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the development.

Crib Point – this precinct will continue to be used as a liquid berthing facility, however not all land may be required and scope exists for community, recreational and environmental uses for this area. The areas of

59 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 State owned land between Crib Point and Stony Point are identified for environmental rehabilitation and management.

Stony Point – this precinct is currently used as a port operations centre, it is expected that this precinct will become available for community, tourism and recreational uses, including a continuation of passenger ferry services and potentially a car ferry service.

The PLUTS is underpinned by a number of principles to ensure the natural environment is protected and its activities are environmentally sustainable. Many areas of the port and surrounds have environmental significance, including the Ramsar wetlands.

5.3.7 Key interface issues

The Port of Hastings is a largely undeveloped port, however Port Futures identifies it as having a major role once Melbourne Port reaches capacity in about 25 years time. Currently the main freight activity involves oil and gas and steel.

Accordingly, the PLUTS’ overall objective is to create a comprehensive framework and process for enabling the timely and sustainable expansion.

With respect to planning and interface issues, the planning principle is: · To implement land use frameworks which can balance the port’s operational and efficiency needs with the need to protect the amenity and natural environment of the surrounding area and provide clear guidance to existing and potential port users, the community and regulators.

The PLUTS notes that local government has a critical role to play in administering the Special Use Zone that applies to the Port, however suggests that given the State significance of the port that it may be appropriate that planning decisions are taken at the State level for port and infrastructure development within the defined port precincts, particularly the Long Island precinct.

In addition, the Port representatives tabled a Land Use Assessment Report for the Stage One (Long Island) development, which was prepared for the Port by AECOM. The report states there is a need to: . Prepare a specific zoning control to facilitate the Port of Hastings (Stage One) Core Development Precinct, which supports the use and development of the land for port development; . Introduce planning provisions to manage safety with regards to locating new facilities near the former Esso plant;

60 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 . Reserve land for the development of a road and rail access corridor with appropriate zones and overlays to be determined following more detailed design; . Identify private land which may need to be acquired to facilitate the development of the road and rail access corridor; and . Consider the most appropriate responsible authority of the Port of Hastings – Core Development Precinct.

The PLUTS does not refer to issues concerning the port’s interface with surrounding land uses, other than to recognise the significance of the natural environment and the need to minimise amenity impacts through its transport initiatives.

5.4 Port of Geelong

5.4.1 Location and context

The Geelong Port is located 75 kms south west of Melbourne and 15 kms north of the Geelong CBD.

The port area included in the Special Use Zone is approximately 90 hectares, and there is also a wider adjoining ‘port area of interest’ of approximately 226 hectares in the Industrial 2 zone.

The ‘port Area of interest’ also includes the Shell Refinery of 119 hectares.

The Princes Highway and Corio Bay provide the boundaries to the west and east respectively.

A substantial residential area exists between the southern and northern parts of the port, which contains approximately 200 houses and 480 people. This area is the suburb of North Shore.

There is also a substantial residential area to the west, on the west side of the Geelong‐Melbourne railway line. This is the suburb of Norlane.

The port area also adjoins a residential area to the south.

Figure 3 shows the Geelong port and surrounding areas.

61 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Figure 3: Port of Geelong and surrounding areas

62 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 5.4.2 Governance

The State Government sold the port land and port based structures at the Port of Geelong to Ports Proprietary Ltd in the late 1990s. The port is now managed by GeelongPort on behalf of three shareholders, Hastings Funds Management (35%), Reef Infrastructure ((35%) and Asciano (30%). GeelongPort owns approximately 29 hectares of vacant industrial land adjacent to Lascelles Wharf. The balance of the land is owned by other private port operators or industries.

5.4.3 Nature of trade throughput

The port’s major trading products are: . Crude and oil petroleum products – 60 percent; . Woodchips – 15 per cent; . Fertiliser – 12 per cent; . Grain – 1 per cent; and . Aluminium products – 4 per cent.

There has been a relatively steady increase of the trading products over the past five years, with total trade of 10,875,533 tonnes in 2007/08.12 Expansion and improvements to existing infrastructure is expected to lift trade by 35%.13

5.4.4 Current infrastructure

The port’s infrastructure includes: . Berths, piers and wharves; and . Cargo handling facilities, on the back‐up land behind the berths.

Specialised berths are provided to handle the different cargo types traded through the Port. The commercial shipping berths include: . Lascelles Wharf ‐ 3 berths, break and dry bulk; . Corio Quay North and South ‐ 4 berths, break and dry bulk; . GrainCorp Grain Pier ‐ 1 berth, dry bulk; . Refinery Pier ‐ 4 berths, liquid bulk; and . Point Henry Pier ‐ 1 berth, dry bulk.

12 Trade Through the Port of Geelong: Economic Indicators 2007/08 – Planning Strategy & Economic Development – City of Greater Geelong 13 GeelongPort Information Brochure 63 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 5.4.5 Road and transport issues

Roads

Access to the Port of Geelong from the State’s arterial road system is available from local arterial road networks. The principal north‐south route is Corio Quay Road/Seabeach Parade/Shell Parade. Connections are also available to the Princes Freeway and Geelong Ring Road at its northern end. The Ring Road will be able to service the majority of port‐related traffic travelling to and from western Victorian and South Australia.

In 2008, VicRoads prepared the Geelong Freight Linkages Study, which identifies the principal freight routes, short‐term improvements and possible future road connections.

Major recommendations are: . Geelong‐Bacchus Marsh Road should be recognised as the main route from the Geelong Ring Road to the Port. . Cox Road will provide a support function to Geelong‐Bacchus Marsh Road for access to the Port, this route is less attractive to heavy vehicles due to the geometry of the Princes Highway/ Geelong‐Bacchus Marsh/Cox Road intersection. The Cox Road area is also the subject of an urban renewal project which would be incompatible with high levels of heavy vehicles. . Existing access to the Heales Road Estate from Geelong ‐Bacchus Marsh Road, Broderick Road and the Princes Freeway/Forest Road off/on ramps is adequate for current levels of development. The Geelong Ring Road project includes provision for future access ramps oriented towards Melbourne at Broderick Road, which will support future capacity needs between the Heales Road industrial area and Melbourne. . Geelong Bacchus Marsh Road and Bayside Main Road (Shell Road) have been identified as the key port freight routes for future planning.

Rail

The Port of Geelong is connected to the State’s standard and broad gauge rail network by rail lines running northward (to Melbourne) and westward (to western Victoria and Adelaide). There are also local rail connections to a number of the Port’s facilities, including Corio Quay North, Corio Quay South, GrainCorp’s grain receivable facility, Lascelles Wharf, Incitec Pivot fertiliser works and Midway site.

The PLUS identifies a number of operational constraints associated with the rail network servicing the port. These include the level crossings at

64 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 Thompson Road and Separation Street which limit the length of trains accessing the GrainCorp facility and shunting into Corio Quay requires the use of the main line to Melbourne.

Recent improvements have been made to the rail infrastructure, including the dual gauge Corio Independent Goods Line, off the Geelong Grain Loop to North Shore, connecting Midway Pty Ltd to the standard gauge network. The PLUS identifies future improvements, as follows: . Australian Government has committed up to $50 million towards upgrading the standard gauge rail access to the Port; and . Preliminary finding that an inter‐modal terminal (IMT) could be established providing a shuttle service for containerised freight, on standard gauge, between the Port of Geelong and Melbourne. Location options for an IMT are Lara and the Heales Road Industrial Estate.

5.4.6 Future development plans

The PLUS identifies a number of precincts for the future planning of the port and port area of interest, and are summarised as follows:

Liquid Bulk Precinct – this precinct is located in the northern parts of the Port, and includes the Shell refinery and Terminals Pty Ltd. Land to the west of the railway line serves as a buffer to the residential areas further west. The available area for liquid bulk is considered adequate and no extension to the precinct is proposed. However, some of the main planning opportunities for this precinct include: . Investigating new industry opportunities for the undeveloped land at Oyster Cove, including potential biodiesel operations; . Investigating the potential opportunities for foreshore initiatives, and bicycle and pedestrian paths subject to addressing security and public risk issues; . Improving the environmental values of Cuthbertson and Cowies Creeks.

Bulk and Break Bulk Precinct – this precinct is located in the central parts of the Port, and is designated for the use of dry bulk and break bulk activities and consist of two key port areas, Corio Quay and Lascelles Wharf. Significant users in this precinct are Incitec Pivot (fertiliser production/storage)14; One Steel (steel products) and a range of small service industries not necessarily connected with the Port.

14 The Advisory Committee was advised by GeelongPort that Incitec Pivot has ceased operations at its site. It is not known whether this is a temporary or permanent closure. 65 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 Main planning opportunities for Lascelles Wharf include: . Expanding the facilities at Lascelles Wharf to meet capacity requirements to 2025, including provision of crane facilities at No 1 berth; extend the existing wharf at the southern end by about 150 metres and construction of one new berth; and . Development opportunities for vacant or available land at OneSteel and Incitec Pivot;

Main planning opportunities for Corio Quay include: . Support the development of port and port‐related industries on the former Ford site; . Expand the facilities at Corio Quay to meet capacity requirements for 2020 by providing additional berths to be constructed at both the north and south sides of the Quay; . Investigate opportunities to extend Moorpanyal Park to the south of the developed park area.

Dry Bulk Precinct – this precinct is located in the southern part of the port, and is designated for the use of dry bulk activities. Major features of this precinct include two Grain piers, one owned by GrainCorp and the other by Geelong Port. This precinct also contains the former Classweave Textile factory (Mill Market) and Osborne House which now houses the Geelong Maritime Museum.

The PLUS does not identify potential development opportunities in this precinct, but notes that the City of Greater Geelong has developed the Geelong Marine Industry Project, which is to provide boating related industries.

Point Henry precinct – this precinct is located on the other side of Corio Bay, some distance from the main Port area. It is used by Alcoa for shipping aluminium product. Planning opportunities identified include: . Investigate the potential new industrial and/or value adding industries that may be sited in the undeveloped industrial land that would be compatible with Alcoa.

5.4.7 Geelong Port Structure Plan

The Geelong Port Structure Plan, prepared by the City of Greater Geelong, has been developed primarily as a tool to be used by the Council to determine the application of local planning policy, planning zones and overlays and the consideration of applications for planning permits and rezoning.

66 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 The Structure Plan was adopted by Council in October 2007 and includes objectives and strategies relating to: . Port economic role and function; . Land use needs; . Health and safety; . Environment and recreation; . Amenity buffers; . Transport; and . Physical infrastructure.

The Structure Plan identifies four precincts, including: . Precinct 1 – Refinery . Precinct 2 – Lascelles . Precinct 3 – Corio Quay . Precinct 4 – Grain Piers

The Structure Plan does not include Point Henry.

Council has requested that the Minister for Planning authorise an Amendment to implement the Structure Plan. The Minister has advised Council that it would be inappropriate for the Amendment to be exhibited while the Advisory Committee was reviewing the planning controls on ports and their environs.

Notwithstanding the Minister’s advice that it would be inappropriate to exhibit an Amendment to introduce the Geelong Port Structure Plan, the Committee has given detailed consideration to many of the Structure Plan’s recommendations. The Committee considers that because the Structure Plan has provided a more detailed consideration of many of the interface issues than the land use strategy prepared for GeelongPort, it has been a helpful document in determining the port environs and the nature of planning controls that may be appropriate for the interface areas. However, the Committee considers that having two different strategies relating to the port’s future creates confusion and can lead to unjustified expectations. In the future, it is preferable that there is only one land use strategy plan for the Port of Geelong, not two.

5.4.8 Key interface issues

The Port of Geelong PLUS identifies four directions relevant to planning and interface issues:

67 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 . Ensure the continuing availability of appropriately located sites for future port and port‐related industries which support economic growth in Geelong; . Establish effective buffer arrangements around the port to ensure the future development of sensitive land uses does not unreasonably constrain its development and operation, and that the port’s impacts on neighbouring communities are minimised; . Ensure that effective safety, security and environmental management practices are adopted so that the port and port‐related activity does not unreasonably impact on the surrounding areas; and . Support future reviews of planning provisions aimed at providing more certainty for particular developments, within a transparent process, while also ensuring that community and environmental interests are identified and protected.

Strategies of most relevance under these four directions are as follows:

Availability of appropriately located land: . Ensure that existing industrially zoned land in the ‘port area of interest’ is retained for port‐related and industrial uses, as well as providing a port buffering role; . Investigate opportunities to utilise vacant or currently available industrial land within the ‘port area of interest’ including the former Ford site, the OneSteel site and potentially the Incitec Pivot site, for port‐related or associated value adding industries; and . Ensure protection of the Heales Road Industrial estate as a priority location for port‐related or associated value adding industry outside, but accessible to, the ‘port area of interest’.

Effective land use buffers . Develop a comprehensive port buffer strategy to address existing and potential interface issues between the operating port, industrial land uses and more sensitive land uses; . Retain all existing industrial zoned land within the ‘port area of interest’ to maintain its integrity as a land use buffer between the port and sensitive land uses; . Review the area south of Mackey Street (Geelong Marine Industry Project) to provide a land use transition, whilst retaining all the existing industrial zoned land in an industry zone; . Retain the industrial land between the railway line and the Princes Freeway as a buffer to the Shell Refinery; and

68 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 . Develop a specific local plan designed to protect the amenity of the North Shore residential area.

Effective safety, security and environmental management practices . Promote integrated environmental management planning for all sites currently within the ‘port area of interest’ including those not subject to SEMP or EPA approvals requirements; and . Restrict ‘Controlled Port Activities’ to the Liquid bulk precinct.

Effective land use planning and approval framework . Provide greater transparency in port planning by adopting a precinct based approach within the ‘port area of interest’, identifying discrete precincts each of which has its own characteristics and issues; . Support the port precinct planning approach in Council’s Port Structure Plan, and appropriate amendments to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme; . Strengthen planning policy frameworks to provide clear strategic support for future port operations in a manner that achieves sustainable development outcomes; and . Consider and advocate changes to the existing zone provisions in the ‘port area of interest’ to better accommodate port‐related development and reduce the likelihood of the port’s future development being unreasonably constrained by inappropriate or ad hoc development.

The Port of Geelong Structure Plan prepared by Council contains many detailed strategies that address the same issues as the PLUS. However, there are some points of difference, including: . The Structure Plan excludes Point Henry; . The Structure Plan identifies three precincts, the PLUS identifies four; . The Structure Plan includes proposals for pedestrian/cycle paths and future connections and environmental improvements to creeks; . The Structure Plan seeks to limit the Liquid Bulk Storage precinct role of storage of hazardous goods to the Terminals’ site lease; and . The Structure Plan identifies a range of application requirements for bulk liquid storage, whereas the PLUS relies on existing processes (e.g. Clause 52.10, EPA works approval).

In addition, the proposed Amendment prepared by Council to implement the Structure Plan includes a number of rezonings. Council understands that GeelongPort does not oppose the rezonings, other than a small parcel of Reserved Crown land near Mackay Street from Industrial 2 to Public Conservation and Resource Zone.

69 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 However, the Advisory Committee notes that in GeelongPort’s submission it states that all current industrially zoned land should be retained within its current zoning. Further, GeelongPort is concerned that the Council’s maritime precinct proposal includes tourism accommodation and the potential for a Special Use Zone which it believes would not be compatible with the Port of Geelong operations.

As noted previously, the Minister has advised Council that it would be inappropriate for the Amendment to be exhibited while the Advisory Committee is reviewing the planning controls on ports and their environs.

5.5 Port of Portland

5.5.1 Location and context

The Port of Portland is located within the coastal town of Portland, about 360 kms south‐west of Melbourne. It is located in the area known as the ‘Green Triangle Region’, which has a strong economic base in agriculture, timber, fishing and manufacturing industries.

The port covers an area of approximately 65 hectares occupying two separate parcels of land with the main area extending from Henty Beach (Trawler Wharf) to the southern end of the Incitec Pivot plant.

The Port also owns a parcel of land separate from the port located between the Henty Highway and Canal Court. This parcel of land is known as Canal Court and covers an area of approximately 8 hectares.

Figure 4 shows the Portland Port and surrounding areas.

70 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Figure 4: Portland Port and surrounding areas

71 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 5.5.2 Governance

The Port and associated land tenures were purchased from the State Government in March 2006. The Port is owned and operated by the Port of Portland Pty Ltd, a private company managed by Hastings Funds Management.

5.5.3 Nature of Trade throughput

The Port of Portland specialises in the storage and handling of bulk commodities. Trade volumes to the year ending 30 June, 2008 were: . Forestry products – 1,407,000 tonnes; . Smelter products – 1,085,000 tonnes; . Grain – 10,000 tonnes; . Fertiliser – 452,000 tonnes; . Mineral sands – 201,000 tonnes; and . Other 98,000 tonnes.

This represented an increase of 7% from the previous year.

Recent trade volumes have been impacted by very low grain exports caused by drought. However, it is expected that trade will grow significantly due to new export trade volumes from maturing hardwood plantations and the mining and processing of mineral sands.

5.5.4 Current infrastructure

The port is divided into six separate precincts: . Bulk commodities and smelter; . Lee Breakwater; . Marine; . Canal Court; . Incitec Pivot; and . Portland foreshore.

The bulk commodities and smelter precinct comprises: . Fisherman’s wharf; . Storage and berth areas for bulk forestry (soft and hardwood chips and logs); . Mineral sand, grain and overflow storage areas; . Storage and berths for Portland smelter imports; . Livestock berths;

72 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 . Liquid pitch storage facilities; and . A conveyor belt for alumina.

The Lee Breakwater is 1179 metres long and contains the berths for two harbour tugs. It is open to the public for both vehicular and pedestrian access (except during bad weather) and provides an opportunity for recreational fishing in relatively deep water.

The marine precinct comprises Trawler Wharf, slipways and various marine businesses. The wharf accommodates Portland’s trawler fishing fleet as well as itinerant vessels.

Canal Court comprises storage space and distribution facilities for port‐ related freight. A rail marshalling yard is located along the southern boundary of the site.

The Incitec Pivot precinct accommodates the Incitec Pivot plant, which is a large industrial facility for the processing and storage of fertiliser products.

The foreshore precinct includes the Portland foreshore between the western edge of the port and the Lee Breakwater.

5.5.5 Road and transport issues

The PLUS states that improved road and rail infrastructure within the region and in the approaches to the Port are essential to support increased business and associated industrial development of the Port.

The PLUS notes that the construction of the Cliff Street overpass has been essential in improving access to the Port.

Specific strategies to improve road and rail infrastructure include the following: . Develop proposals to manage heavy vehicle traffic access for other local and arterial roads that lead to the Port. This would include the implementation of the Access Management Policy for the Henty Highway ‘Ring Road’ and dedication of 24 hour/7 seven day curfew free access to the Port; . Based on the outcomes of the Port master plan, prepare a detailed traffic management plan to manage the throughput of trucks through the Port to accommodate estimated delivery volumes of timber and other commodities from 2009 onwards; . Review operations and identify the need for a truck marshalling area to be developed within close proximity to the Port;

73 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 . Advocate for the re‐opening of the Heywood to Mount Gambier railway line reservation; and . Lobby the federal and state governments to improve the rail network and infrastructure in accordance with a number of completed studies.

5.5.6 Future development plans

The PLUS contains a number of strategies for the future planning of the six precincts. The strategies are predicated on a proposal to prepare a port master plan to assist the ongoing planning and development of the port incorporating: . Storage and handling areas for all tenancies; . Revised access arrangements (road and rail); . Security arrangements; . Location of administrative functions; . Environmental obligations; . Future development zones; . Land use arrangements for Canal Court; and . New berth developments.

Bulk commodities and smelter . Investigate opportunities to relocate Port services not dependent on being within close proximity to berths to alternative sites, such as Canal Court, in order to provide additional space for activities dependent on locations near berths; and . Ensure product handling activities which have the potential to generate dust, noise and light spill occur away from the precinct’s land side boundaries where possible.

Lee Breakwater . Pending on‐going security and operational requirements, continue to provide public access to Lee Breakwater for recreational and tourism pursuits.

Marine . Review opportunities to improve: . Slipway; . Cray fisherman berths; . Urban design and amenity enhancements for the Fisherman’s Wharf interface; and

74 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 . Commercial opportunities on land between the Trawler Wharf and west of the Fisherman’s Wharf.

Canal Court . Investigate opportunities to relocate the Port administration building and other non‐Port‐dependent activities; and . Investigate opportunities to rearrange the rail sidings to incorporate an area for truck queuing.

Incitec Pivot

No development opportunities are identified, however the PLUS states that the Port should continue to liaise with Incitec Pivot on environmental management issues and to manage development pressures adjacent to their site.

Portland foreshore

No development opportunities are identified, however the PLUS states that it needs to ensure the protection of the Port’s assets and that the port manager must be made aware of any issues with the potential to impact upon its operations.

5.5.7 Key interface issues

The PLUS includes the following key planning principles and strategies relating to planning and interface issues: Effective planning for adjoining urban areas · Identify and manage any adverse consequences to people, the environment and property in the future planning for the Port and its environs. · Planning for areas adjoining the Port environs area needs to: - Recognise the lifestyle values and amenity expectations of residents in the areas; - Take into account the effect of the Port operations on the affected land; and - Avoid introduction of activities that would prejudice the efficient and effective operations of the Port.

Specific changes recommended to the land use planning framework and approvals process include: . Recognition of the State significance of the Henty Highway as a major transport route servicing the port in the State Planning Policy Framework; 75 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 . Managing land use changes to prevent the encroachment of sensitive land uses around the port’s boundaries; and . Managing land uses changes to prevent the encroachment of sensitive land uses adjoining freight networks.

5.6 Conclusion

While there are differences in the size, function and geographic location of Victoria’s four commercial ports, the Committee notes a number of similarities which have implications for their strategic and statutory frameworks. These similarities include that all ports: . are experiencing continued growth in throughput and forecasts expect growth to continue; . are comprised of different precincts catering for different port functions; . have documented plans for infrastructure development and other improvements to increase efficiency and cater for forecast growth; and . have interface issues that require/would benefit from appropriate recognition in the planning framework.

76 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 Part C - Port Environs

77 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

6. Approaches to interface planning in the port environs

6.1 Introduction

The strategic role of Victoria’s ports means that they need to be able to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This need is related to international and national shipping schedules and the efficient use of landside loading/unloading facilities and transport infrastructure. As a result of these activities and hours of operations, ports can generate amenity impacts beyond their boundaries which can cause nuisance to uses in the port environs considered ‘sensitive’ such as residential development or certain community facilities.

The coastal location of ports and, in the case of Melbourne, Geelong and Portland, the inner urban setting means that areas near these long‐ established ports are now sought‐after residential areas. In addition to the waterfront location of such residential areas, there are aspects of living near a commercial port that some residents find attractive such as the movement of ships, tugs and other vessels or the visual dynamics and night time lighting of wharf infrastructure.

The Advisory Committee considers that recognition of the strategic and economic importance of ports at the national, state and local levels needs to be predicated on awareness of the context in which long‐established ports are located. The planning and management of this interface between ports and their neighbours is, arguably, as important as planning and management within the ports themselves.

The Committee notes that the Port of Melbourne’s draft Port Environs Planning Framework (2009) identifies a range of mechanisms that may be considered appropriate to address the adverse amenity impacts of incompatible land uses. The Committee has used that material as a starting point for the identification of conceptual approaches to interface planning for the port environs. In addition, there are a range of stakeholders involved in the management of interface issues including the ports themselves, state and local government and the community. The approaches and stakeholders are discussed in the following sections.

78 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 6.2 Approaches to interface planning and management

The range of approaches to interface planning which may be relevant to the port environs are summarised in the following sections. References to examples of these approaches currently used in the ports under consideration or included in the VPPs are included where relevant.

6.2.1 Creating buffer areas

Separating incompatible land uses by means of physical distance, in other words, by means of a buffer area, is a common land use planning mechanism that is used to allow a use which generates adverse amenity impacts to operate without causing unreasonable nuisance to adjoining or nearby sensitive uses. With this approach, an area of sufficient width or other characteristics such as topographical features is identified between the impact‐generating use and other uses to mitigate adverse impacts. This separation may also be enhanced by controls on the intensity, form and location of incompatible activities.

Where an existing use does not have sufficient space within its existing boundaries to provide a buffer, it could purchase land beyond its boundary, particularly where there may be a small area of a sensitive use whose continuance may otherwise constrain efficient operations of the impact‐ generating activity. This land could be incorporated into the boundary of the impact‐generating activity or be made available for development for compatible uses.

Under contemporary planning practice, buffer areas are usually contained within the boundaries of the landholdings of the impact‐generating use. For example, in the VPPs, Clause 52.10 Uses with Adverse Amenity Potential which has as its purpose:

To define those types of industries and warehouses which if not appropriately designed and located may cause offence or unacceptable risk to the neighbourhood.

This clause sets out the minimum threshold distance from any part of the land of the proposed use or buildings and works to land (not a road) in a residential zone, Business 5 Zone, Capital City Zone or Docklands Zone, land used for a hospital or an education centre or land in a Public Acquisition Overlay to be acquired for a hospital or an education centre.

For the longer‐established ports of Melbourne, Geelong and Portland, the Committee considers that there are few opportunities to develop buffer areas within existing port boundaries. However, in the case of Hastings, the

79 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 extensive areas included in the Special Use Zone provide the potential for the planning of future port development and port‐related uses to incorporate buffer areas as appropriate.

6.2.2 Planning controls to create ‘reverse buffers’

With this approach, an area external to the site boundaries of the impact‐ generating use is identified in which the type of uses are limited and/or the nature of built form is controlled to allow the impact‐generating use to operate without restriction. In effect, the onus is on any new nearby use to demonstrate that it would not compromise the operation of the existing use.

A clear expression of the ‘reverse buffer‘ concept included in the VPPs is the Airport Environs Overlay. This overlay applies in several planning schemes including: . Hume Planning Scheme around Melbourne Airport as the Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay (MAEO) with two schedules which control use and development relative to forecast levels of aircraft noise exposure. The purposes of this overlay as it applies around Melbourne Airport include:

To ensure that land use and development are compatible with the operation of Melbourne Airport in accordance with the relevant airport strategy or master plan and with safe air navigation for aircraft approaching and departing the airfield.

To assist in shielding people from the impact of aircraft noise by requiring appropriate noise attenuation measures in dwellings and other noise sensitive buildings.

To provide for appropriate levels of noise attenuation depending on the level of forecast noise exposure. A key intention of this overlay is to control the number of people and dwellings adversely affected by aircraft noise. The extent of this overlay is usually related to either forecasts of the extent of specified levels of exposure to aircraft noise or the nature of the underlying zone. This overlay is a statutory planning tool to give effect to a ‘reverse buffer’. . Kingston Planning Scheme applying to areas around Moorabbin Airport ‐ Schedule 1 to this Overlay prevents the granting of a permit for a range of nominated ‘sensitive’ uses despite the provisions of the underlying zone. Policy basis for this overlay is provided in Clause 22.05‐1 of the MSS which recognises ‘….the need to ensure that the use and

80 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 development of land around the Moorabbin Airport is sensitive to the long term operation of the airport’. . Strathbogie Planning Scheme applying to areas around Mangalore Airport where it controls subdivision and includes as a decision guideline the ‘views of the airport owner’ along with other considerations including compatibility with airport operations and whether the proposal incorporates noise attenuation measures.

A similar overlay if applied to port environs ‐ however determined ‐ could introduce an administrative process under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to enable the port to be: . a referral authority in relation to planning permit applications for certain types of uses or developments – this role would require the port to respond and defend its position in relation to proposals within its environs which it perceives have the potential to adversely constrain operations or development; . given notice about certain categories of applications and the onus is on the ports to respond if the applications are of interest. If no response is received, the responsible authority could reasonably assume that the application is of no interest or concern to the port; . or both roles as allowed for under Clause 66.10 of the VPPs.

6.2.3 Extend the range of sensitive uses

In this approach, the identification of uses considered to be ‘sensitive’ is extended beyond residential accommodation to include other uses such as child care centres, educational establishments, hospitals and, possibly, offices, cafes and shops.

As a result, the establishment and/or expansion of such sensitive uses would be considered through the prevailing planning controls in relation to either the on‐going operation and/or forecast expansion of the impact‐generating use. Expanding the range of ‘sensitive uses’ could progressively constrain the operations and future development of existing impact‐generating uses.

A port is generally not a ‘footloose’ activity, i.e. a port cannot readily relocate to another location as can many industrial activities. As a result, allowing a wider range of sensitive uses in the port environs could have serious ramifications for the future development of a port ‐ particularly those in established urban areas.

The Committee was advised by Port of Melbourne representatives that an example of this situation could be emerging in the Lorimer Street area in Fishermans Bend. Office development in this area is attracting supporting

81 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 uses such as cafes with outdoor areas with certain amenity levels that may be inconsistent with a location in close proximity to operating port areas. The PEPF also referred to this situation.

6.2.4 Improve environmental and/or operational performance

With this approach, the impact‐generating use improves its environmental performance through, for example, reducing its emissions which have adverse effects beyond its boundaries such as noise levels, light spill, or the generation of dust or odours. As a result, this improved environmental performance could reduce the need for other interface management approaches such as buffer zones within or beyond the boundary of the impact‐generating activity. Such emission reductions may also have benefits for the port operator such as improved occupational health and safety conditions or reduced energy usage.

An example of this approach is the Port of Melbourne’s Safety and Environmental Management Plan (2005). This Plan applies a ‘whole of port’ approach to improving the safety and environmental performance of all operations in the port – both those under direct control of the PoMC as well as over other uses where it has influence only.

The North Shore Residents Group, representing residents of the North Shore area within the ‘port area of interest’ in Geelong (as discussed in Section 5.4.1), in preliminary consultations with the Committee, acknowledged that there had been improvements in the environmental performance of the operation of Geelong Port and key port‐related uses within the port area such as Incitec Pivot. The Committee noted that there are perhaps no residents better placed to comment on the environmental performance of a port operator than this group which participates in regular consultations with Geelong Port through the Geelong Port Community Consultative Committee.

In addition to improvements in environmental performance, port operators can also institute a range of operational improvements that may have multi‐ faceted benefits of achieving efficiency improvements as well as amenity improvements in neighbouring areas. An example of such measures include improved time management of truck movements to assist loading and unloading of ships which may reduce congestion on approach roads to the port through ‘just‐in‐time’ arrivals.

The PoMC recently funded the Truck Optimisation Plan in order to better understand and maximise efficiencies in landside container logistics (Annual Report 2008‐09, p48). The Committee was advised that there is potentially considerable scope for operational enhancements through the application of

82 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 technological advances such as automated guided vehicles and cranes within ports and high productivity freight vehicles and GPS monitoring beyond ports.

The Committee notes that ports must also be aware of obligations to plan for and manage their ‘waterside’ as well as their landside environs.

Parks Victoria, in its preliminary submission to the Committee, noted that: While there are mandatory Safety and Environment Management Plans in place for the commercial ports under the Port Services Act, any planning for Port environs must continue to take account of the seaward activities and risks as well as land‐based activities.

Another approach to enhancing environmental performance is the implementation of improvements for the impacted recipient. Examples include noise attenuation measures implemented in existing dwellings which experience increases in noise levels above specified levels as a result of projects such as road upgrades, airport expansions or nearby industrial development. For example, the Commonwealth Government administered programs to insulate residences near Adelaide and Sydney Airports where increases in exposure to aircraft noise were experienced after capacity enhancements at the airports. Levies on the tickets of aircraft passengers using these airports funded these programs – an example of the ‘polluter pay’ principle.

6.2.5 Site design and layout

Many impact‐generating uses are now required to prepare master plans for their sites and operations – either at the establishment stage and/or at regular intervals. Beneficial outcomes of such master planning activities for new uses can be that more intrusive activities are located away from adjoining or nearby sensitive uses and less intrusive activities, such as storage and warehousing, closer to adjoining sensitive uses.

For long‐established uses, the scope for major site rearrangement may be limited but the master planning process can assist, initially, in identifying ‘interface’ issues and ways in which progressive site improvements can be made – usually involving a combination of interface management approaches.

The requirement under the Port Services Act 1995 for operators of commercial trading ports in Victoria to prepare a Port Development Strategy (commonly known as a Port Land Use Strategy [PLUS]) at four yearly intervals is an example of this approach. Under Section 91K (2) (b) of this Act, one of the requirements a Port Development Strategy must include is:

83 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 current and projected land use requirements, including transitional land uses designed to protect the port from constraints on efficient operations and mitigate adverse impacts of port operations on adjacent uses; (emphasis added)

As discussed in the relevant sections of Chapter 4, the ‘first generation’ of these land use strategies has been prepared for all four commercial trading ports in Victoria. However, as yet, there is no explicit recognition of these planning documents in the applicable planning schemes through mechanisms such as acknowledgement in the SPPF or LPPF and/or inclusion as an Incorporated Document or Reference Document. Such a nexus, if achieved, could enhance certainty for all parties with responsibility for or interest in interface planning for port environs.

6.2.6 Relocation of nuisance or hazardous activities

With this approach, nuisance or hazardous activities, often long‐established, are relocated to a suitable site away from sensitive uses. A challenge with implementing this approach is usually the ability to gain approval for new sites for nuisance or hazardous activities. In the light of this difficulty, existing nuisance or hazardous activities often remain in locations that may be considered suboptimal relative to contemporary planning practice. As a result, their interface issues need to be managed through other approaches.

Traditionally, areas within or adjacent to ports have been attractive for the location of uses which are now identified as Major Hazard Facilities (MHF) by virtue of the imported materials processed and/or stored prior to transport/transfer elsewhere. On the one hand, there are strong logistical reasons for such uses to be located within ports to facilitate materials handling. However, actual incidents such as the explosion at Coode Island in August 1991 or contemporary risk assessments have identified interface issues.

Both the Coode Island facility in the Port of Melbourne and the Terminals Pty Ltd facility within Geelong Port are identified as MHFs.

6.2.7 Legal agreements

Legal agreements can be made between the impact‐generating use and occupiers or operators of sensitive uses to prevent complaints and legal action being taken against the detrimental use. An example could be to indemnify new owners from taking action against or complaining about the impact‐generating use – assuming that impacts meet relevant standards or fall within specified limits. This approach may be of limited utility in dealing with port environs issues.

84 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 6.2.8 Notice of potential detriment

A notice of potential detriment can alert potential buyers to an existing nuisance associated with the off‐site impacts generated by an existing nearby activity such as agricultural production. An example of this approach is the inclusion of a specific notice under the Vendor’s statements provided as part of a contract of sale for land under Section 32 of the Sale of Land Act 1962. Under Section 32 (2) (cb) of this Act, one of the elements to be included in a Vendor’s notice is: a warning to the following effect— ʹImportant notice to purchasers: The property may be located in an area where commercial agricultural production activity may affect your enjoyment of the property. It is therefore in your interest to undertake an investigation of the possible amenity and other impacts from nearby properties and the agricultural practices and processes conducted there.ʹ

There may be potential for a similar notice to be applied in certain situations in the port environs.

6.2.9 Acquisition of land and change of use

This approach would involve the voluntary acquisition of a sensitive use on adjacent land by the impact‐generating land use and then achieving a change of use and/or zoning to enable development of compatible uses. While this approach can potentially achieve desirable outcomes, it has the disadvantages of the high costs involved, the potential long timeframes to achieve area‐wide outcomes and the perception by the community of ‘land use creep’ by the impact‐generating land use.

The Committee understands that this approach has been used in relation to heavily noise‐affected areas near airports or the purchase of individual properties near wind farms to prevent on‐going complaints.

85 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

6.2.10 Memorandum of understanding

A memorandum of understanding (MoU) can be made between the port authority and other parties involved in managing interface areas such as the local Council. A MoU is usually a non‐enforceable agreement about certain actions to be undertaken by the respective parties to achieve specified outcomes. MoUs are usually formalised expressions of good faith and rely on other underlying measures for implementation and enforcement.

An example of this approach is the MoU that was agreed between Port of Melbourne Corporation and Maribyrnong City Council in November 2006 in relation to planning issues for the Footscray Wharf area on the western bank of the Maribyrnong River. This MoU set out an agreed planning direction for the port environs in Yarraville and included a statement of general planning outcomes (principally amendments to the respective Planning Schemes) as well as planning outcomes for specific areas. According to the preliminary submission by the Council, the MoU has guided Council’s work and approach in this area since then. However, the MoU is not mentioned in the recommendations of the Draft PEPF for the Port of Melbourne. This omission perhaps raises questions as to the utility of this mechanism for interface management.

6.2.11 Conclusions

The Committee concludes that this wide range of approaches to interface planning provides a useful guide to port operators to consider in their planning and management to achieve appropriate outcomes in the port environs. However, none of these approaches can or should be implemented without appropriate consultation so the role of stakeholders in interface planning needs to be considered – as discussed in the following section.

6.3 Planning tools under the VPPs

The Committee notes that the VPPs already incorporate several policy settings and controls related to planning for interface areas to achieve land use compatibility, namely:

The State Planning Policy Framework at Clause 17.03‐2 in relation to industrial development states: Industrial activity in industrial zones should be protected from the encroachment of unplanned commercial, residential and other sensitive uses which would adversely affect industry viability.

86 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 Planning authorities should zone land for industrial development in urban growth areas where good access for employees and freight transport is available and where appropriate buffer areas can be provided between the proposed industrial land and nearby sensitive land uses. . Industrial 3 zone (IN3Z) which has as its purposes: To provide for industries and associated uses in specific areas where special consideration of the nature and impacts of industrial uses is required or to avoid inter‐industry conflict. To provide a buffer between the Industrial 1 Zone or Industrial 2 Zone and local communities, which allows for industries and associated uses compatible with the nearby community. To ensure that uses do not affect the safety and amenity of adjacent, more sensitive land uses. . Clause 52.10 ‐ Uses with Adverse Amenity Potential which has as its purpose: To define those types of industries and warehouses which if not appropriately designed and located may cause offence or unacceptable risk to the neighbourhood. This clause, which applies to new uses or buildings and works, specifies the minimum distance from any part of the land of the proposed use or buildings and works to land (not a road) in a residential zone, Business 5 Zone, Capital City Zone or Docklands Zone, land used for a hospital or an education centre or land in a Public Acquisition Overlay to be acquired for a hospital or an education centre.

Examples of location‐specific applications of other aspects of the VPPs which assist with planning and management of ‘interface’ areas are discussed in the following Chapter.

In the Committee’s view, the various planning tools under the VPPs could be strengthened to address interface issues between sensitive and non‐sensitive uses that would be relevant to apply to ports and their environs. Opportunities to strengthen the VPP tools are as follows:

SPPF

The SPPF provides the opportunity to ensure that the strategic and economic importance of Victoria’s four major commercial trading ports is given statutory recognition. It can also outline the policies of the State with respect to interface issues. Existing State policy could be retained or strengthened.

87 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 LPPF

The LPPF of each of the planning schemes that control land in and around ports provides the opportunity for the significance of the ports to the local area to be given appropriate recognition. It can also set out policies with regard to port development and interface issues from a local perspective. Existing policies could be retained or strengthened.

Zones

Zones set down planning scheme requirements regarding the use, development and subdivision of land as well as the requirements for applications, decision guidelines and notification and review. At present ports are included in Special Use Zones which group them with other uses which do not fit into a specific class of land uses. Existing zones could be retained or a new specific Port Zone could be introduced.

Overlays

Overlays supplement zone provisions to control the manner in which certain uses or development may occur or to reinforce the importance of particular circumstances which may apply to a specific area. Overlays cover a variety of matters such as design and development issues, environmental matters, native vegetation, flooding, wildfire, and heritage. In addition they can refer to development plans or incorporated plans.

One option could be to apply the Design and Development Overlay (DDO) in the identified port environs. An example of a DDO that could be applied in identified port environs areas is included in Appendix H.

There may be potential for a specific port environs overlay to be introduced to relate to areas around ports as a means to specifically address interface issues at the development approval stage. There may also be the potential for Port Master Plans to be the subject of an appropriate overlay as a mechanism to facilitate the approvals process within ports. A draft of the Port Environs Overlay has been prepared and is included in Appendix G.

Particular Provisions

Planning schemes contain a number of particular provisions which relate specific matters. These include provisions relating to uses with potential amenity impacts, car parking, residential development (ResCode), outdoor advertising, petrol filling stations and the like. There may the opportunity to introduce new particular provisions relating to port environs. An example of a port‐specific clause is in Appendix J.

88 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 Definitions

There may be shortcomings in the definitions included in the planning scheme which give rise to ambiguities or confusion. There may be confusion regarding the respective definitions of ‘port’, ‘wharf’, ‘jetty’ and ‘pier’ for example or to uses which may be ‘port‐dependent’ on the one hand or ‘port‐ related’ on the other. The definition of ‘sensitive uses’ may also need to be expanded.

Incorporated Documents

Incorporated Documents are documents which must be taken into account during the consideration of applications for use and development. These may include Government, Council or Port prepared documents but are usually documents that have involved a consultative process in their preparation. There could be the opportunity to have Port Land Use Strategies included as Incorporated Documents to give greater status to new development foreshadowed in these strategies if the preparation of these strategies were shown to have been through a consultative process.

Reference documents

Reference documents are documents referred to in planning schemes to provide background or context for the consideration of particular use and development applications. They do not have the status of Incorporated Documents but are nevertheless useful additions to a planning scheme to assist in the decision making processes. These may include Government, council or port prepared documents.

6.4 Stakeholders in interface planning

The Advisory Committee is aware that, in addition to the range of approaches to interface planning for port environs, there are a range of agencies and stakeholders variously involved in the implementation of most of these interface planning approaches. These agencies and stakeholders are: . The port operator – through lease conditions as well as interaction with external parties; . Port lessees – through lease obligations as well as interaction with external parties; . State Government – through policy formulation at the state level and enacting enabling legislation; . State government agencies – through implementation of specific statutory responsibilities;

89 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 . Local government authorities – as responsible planning authorities and through specific enforcement responsibilities as well as representatives of the local community; . Community and interest groups – through participation in formal or informal consultation opportunities; and . Individual property owners or occupiers ‐ through participation in formal or informal consultation opportunities.

Opportunities for these stakeholder groups to participate in the implementation of various approaches to the planning and management of port interface areas is indicated in Table 5.1. Some of the opportunities for stakeholder involvement have a statutory basis such as notice of Planning Scheme amendments or referral of Planning permit applications to prescribed agencies. Other opportunities are at the discretion of the port operator.

Table 5.1 indicates that, as would be expected, the port operator has a primary role to play in the implementation of many of these interface management approaches. The State Government has a key role to play through policy formulation and enacting legislation which sets the framework for implementation of relevant mechanisms, usually undertaken by particular government agencies such as the Environment Protection Authority, Work Safe or VicRoads.

Opportunities for involvement by the community or individuals in these interface management approaches varies. There is potentially little or no involvement where the approach is largely one internal to the operation of the impact‐generating activity. However, there are generally more opportunities for stakeholder involvement when external (and often statutorily‐required) processes such as approval processes are involved.

Good practice for port operators is to engage other stakeholders through opportunities including, but not limited to, consultation on draft port land use strategies, participation in Community Reference Groups and discussion on particular issues.

90 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Table 5.1 Involvement of stakeholders in interface management approaches

STAKEHOLDERS INTERFACE MANAGEMENT APPROACH Port State Government State Government Local Government Port Operator 1 Community Individuals Lessees (Policy) Agencies Authority Creating buffer areas        (EPA/WS) Reverse buffers        (VicRoads) Extend range of sensitive uses        Site design and layout: - Future planning (PDS)        - Refitting        Improved environmental        performance (EPA/WS) (Enforcement) Relocation of nuisance or        hazardous facilities Legal agreements        Notice of potential detriment        Acquisition of land and change        of use (VicRoads) Memorandum of        understanding  primary involvement  Involvement  No involvement EPA Environment Protection Authority PV Parks Victoria WS WorkSafe 1 also as representatives of the local community

91 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

6.5 Advisory Committee discussion

The preceding discussion clearly indicates that the management of interface issues between impact‐generating activities and sensitive uses can involve a combination of approaches which have differing opportunities for involvement by stakeholders. As a result, interface management in locations such as port environs can be a multi‐dimensional process that varies according to particular circumstances and requires a complex interaction with stakeholders.

One of the mechanisms identified in the Port of Melbourne’s PEPF report is for the operator to improve the environmental performance of the port which could have the effect of eliminating or reducing the need for other interface management measures. The Committee notes that, in the land use strategies prepared for each of the four ports, the port operators are committed to improving their environmental performance to reduce any adverse impacts on amenity. In the Committee’s view, improving environmental performance of the ports should be the starting point for interface planning particularly given that the ports operate to some, albeit varying, degree in existing urban environments.

Further, the Committee considers that any reasonable scope to improve the design, layout and efficiency of the ports is also an important opportunity to eliminate or reduce adverse amenity impacts. This is preferable to an approach where neighbouring land may be sterilised to provide an inactive or, at least, a less active buffer.

With the pressure to intensify development of existing urban land and reduce urban sprawl, greater emphasis needs to be placed on co‐existence between potentially incompatible land uses rather than simply separating incompatible land uses to the maximum extent possible. In relation to strategically important ports, this approach requires that people residing or working in neighbouring land uses to the ports have reasonable expectations about the level of amenity which take into account the benefits of living in or near waterfront and inner city locations.

In the Committee’s view, expectations are best managed when the environmental performance of the ports are able to be measured in tangible terms. There needs to be clear, and preferably quantifiable, standards in terms of the environmental performance that must be met by the port operators.

92 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

The Committee concludes that further consideration of the following approaches to interface planning and management is not warranted for the following reasons: . Relocation of MHFs is beyond the scope of the ToR. Regulation of these facilities is undertaken by the EPA and the Victorian WorkCover Authority under relevant legislation; . Legal agreements which prevent adjoining or nearby sensitive uses from lodging complaints and taking legal action against a detrimental use are not appropriate because they are legally questionable in terms of reducing a person’s right to take action and, even if not legally questionable, could result in a detrimental use pursuing inappropriate activities; . Relocating of a port per se is beyond the scope of the Advisory Committee’s terms of reference.

In the next chapter, the Committee identifies the boundaries that would constitute the port environs for each of the ports. From this analysis, the Committee then considers whether the application of a planning tool under the VPPs is appropriate to address the interface issues and if so, the actual VPP tool that may be appropriate.

Key issues for consideration . Are there other approaches to interface management that should be identified? . Have all the relevant stakeholder categories been identified? . What approaches to interface management are particularly useful in the port environs?

93 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

7. Identifying the port environs for Victoria’s four ports

7.1 Introduction

The ToR include the following task: Make recommendations on appropriate boundaries for the land that would constitute ‘port environs’ for all of the four commercial ports.

In approaching this task, the Committee has undertaken a detailed examination of the interface areas between each of the ports and surrounding areas that potentially contain sensitive uses having regard to: . the nature of existing uses and developments within each of the ports; . the future plans for each of the ports as identified in its land use strategy; . the nature of existing and future uses and developments (if known) surrounding each port; . relevant planning objectives and strategies in the various planning schemes; . issues raised by key stakeholders; and . site inspections of the ports and surrounding areas.

From these investigations, the Committee is seeking comment as to whether: . the interface area beyond the specific port boundary should be identified as a port environs area that requires some form of buffer treatment; . the identified port environs area should be subject to a planning mechanism under the statutory planning framework, such as an alternative zone to restrict the type of uses or an overlay to control the nature of development; . the port manager should be a prescribed authority under Clause 66.10 of the VPPs for notice and/or referral of applications in the port environs; or . some other collaborative approach is appropriate between the port manager and the operators of a sensitive use.

94 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

The Committee has provided a detailed analysis to determine the key interface areas for each of the ports in preference to a more arbitrary approach that would simply delineate a certain distance from the port boundaries to be included in the port environs. In the Committee’s view, an arbitrary approach (Appendix J) may not be justified given the significant variation in the nature of activities occurring within different parts of each of the ports and the diversity of surrounding land uses and development. In addition, an arbitrary approach may capture uses that are compatible with port activities and do not require a buffer.

In determining the port environs for each port, it should be noted that in the cases of the ports of Hastings and Geelong there are significant amounts of land beyond that controlled by the port manager. However, in determining the port environs for these two ports the Committee has considered the Port of Hastings ‘boundary’ to include all the land in the Special Use Zone and the Port of Geelong ‘boundary’ to be all the land identified as ‘Port Area of Interest Land’ in the Port of Geelong Land Use Strategy.

For the ports of Melbourne and Portland, the Committee has referred to all land directly controlled by the port manager as well as land included in a port‐related Special Use Zone to determine the port boundary.

The Committee has noted that in the various documents relating to ports there is reference to ‘port‐dependent’ and ‘port‐related’ uses. However, there does not appear to be a standard definition of each. For the purposes of this Paper, the Committee considers port‐dependent uses to be solely or critically reliant on a port for its location and existence and port‐related uses to be uses that have some business or functional connection to a port.

Key issue for consideration . Is a more detailed investigation of the interface areas of each of the ports to determine the port environs more preferable than an approach which arbitrarily identifies the port environs based on a certain distance?

95 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

7.2 Nature of amenity and risks at the interfaces

The Committee considers it is appropriate that the nature of amenity and risks associated with ports and port‐related uses are identified.

From the information provided to the Committee, existing amenity impacts from the operation of the four ports variously include: . Noise from port operations such as cranes, gantries, reversing vehicles and movement of containers; . Airborne emissions from dust, fugitive odours and industrial activity processes; . Vibrations from port and port‐related activities; . Light spill and glare; and . Appearance of and views to and across the port.

Local community concern about adverse amenity impacts from road traffic noise is a vexed issue for the Committee. While such impacts could be more significant for many local residents than other amenity impacts from port or port‐related activities, road and transport matters are regulated by other State policies and controls than the statutory planning framework. 15 However, it may be possible in some situations where an overlay could be imposed along a transport corridor to mitigate the impacts of traffic noise. For example, DDO1 in the Hume Planning Scheme requires development to be designed to minimise the impact of traffic noise on noise sensitive activities.16

With respect to risk, the main concerns relate to the handling and storage of hazardous material such as oil and petroleum, fertilisers and various chemicals within or adjacent to ports as well as the transportation of such material to and from ports.

The Committee has considered the issue of risk in the context of Clause 52.10 of the VPPs, which sets out the EPA threshold distances for uses with adverse amenity potential and risk. It is not the role of the Committee to assess the performance of the industries that store, handle and transport major hazards, nor to assess the performance of the EPA or WorkSafe Victoria in monitoring the industries. Furthermore, it is not the role of the

15 For example, VicRoads Traffic Noise Reduction Policy 2005 16 Clause 43.02 of Hume Planning Scheme 96 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Committee to comment on the appropriateness of the EPA threshold distances or WorkSafe safety guidelines.

Key issue for consideration

Are there other amenity impacts that should be identified in relation to port operations?

7.3 Port of Melbourne

With its location in central Melbourne, the Port of Melbourne is the most complex of Victoria’s four commercial trading ports in terms of the number and diversity of sensitive interfaces.

From the PEPF and discussions with both PoMC and Council officers, the Committee considers the important sensitive interfaces to be investigated are: . Swanson Dock and Dynon precinct with South Kensington; . Appleton Dock and Dynon precinct with e‐Gate; . Swanson Dock (Coode Island) with Yarraville precinct; . Webb Dock with Garden City and The Strand, Williamstown; . Station Pier with Beacon Cove; . Appleton Dock, Victoria Dock and South Wharf with Lorimer Street and Fishermans Bend; . Victoria Dock with Docklands; . Holden Dock and Francis Street with Newport and Yarraville; and . Ann Street Pier, Gellibrand Pier and Breakwater Pier with the former Port Phillip Woollen Mills site (Williamstown).

The Committee notes that these nine interface areas account for almost all of the Melbourne Port landside boundary.

7.3.1 Swanson Dock and Dynon precinct with South Kensington

Background

The Swanson Dock precinct includes the Swanson Dock international container terminals, the Coode Island Major Hazard Facility (MHF) as well as road and rail transport connections to the Dynon precinct and beyond.

Currently the land to the north of this precinct is zoned Industrial 1 and Public Use 27 (Other Public Use) and the land to the north west is zoned

97 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Public Use 4 (Transport). The PoMC considers these zones may provide adequate buffers, however it notes that complaints about rail operations have been received from the South Kensington residential area north of the North Dynon rail yards. Figure 5 Swanston Dock and Dynon Project with South Kensington

98 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Advisory Committee discussion

While there is a potentially sensitive interface between the North Dynon railway yards and the South Kensington residential area, the Committee notes that this residential area is at least 500 metres from the northern port boundary (at Footscray Road). JJ Holland Park also provides a buffer between the North Dynon railway yards and a significant part of the South Kensington area. The Committee does not consider there is any need to include the South Kensington residential area within the port environs which could be subject to some form of interface treatment.

Key issues for consideration . Given the approximately 500 metres distance between the South Kensington residential area and the northern boundary of the Port of Melbourne, is there any need to include the South Kensington residential area within the port environs?

7.3.2 Appleton Dock and Dynon Precinct with e-Gate

Background

The Victorian Government is currently investigating whether a 20 hectare site located between North Melbourne train station and Footscray Road in West Melbourne should be considered for a range of land uses including sporting, commercial and residential development. This project is known as e‐Gate.

The PoMC has stated that the project on the railway land will require a planning and design outcome that minimises impact on the port’s operations.

The City of Melbourne supports the e‐Gate project as a mixed‐use area, but notes that any development in this precinct will need to take into consideration the existing surrounding uses, including the port and railway uses.

99 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Figure 6 Appleton Dock and Dynon Precinct with e‐Gate

Advisory Committee discussion

The Committee notes that the nominated e–Gate site is surrounded by industrial and public use (transport) land which also separates this site from the port. However, the Committee agrees with both PoMC and City of Melbourne that any potential residential development will need to be carefully planned to address potential impacts from the port and to ensure that such development does not curtail port activities. Given the project is at an early investigation stage, it is perhaps too early to recommend that e‐Gate should be included within the port environs. However, it is important that there is a collaborative approach between Major Projects Victoria, City of Melbourne and PoMC during the investigative and feasibility processes.

Key issues for consideration . Is it too early to include the nominated e‐Gate project site in the port environs? . What role should PoMC and other key stakeholders play in the investigative and feasibility processes for the e‐Gate project?

100 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

7.3.3 Swanson Dock (Coode Island) with Yarraville precinct

Background

Coode Island lies to the west of Swanson Dock and east of the Maribyrnong River and contains the Coode Island MHF.

Terminals Pty Ltd owns and operates a bulk liquid hazardous chemical storage facility on land leased from the PoMC. Chemicals handled at Coode Island fall into three main groups based on their Dangerous Goods Classification and on their potential to produce off‐site effects. In decreasing order of this potential, they are: . Group 1 ‐ Acrylonitrile and propylene oxide; . Group 2 ‐ Flammable and toxic chemicals (e.g. benzene and ethyl acrylate); and . Group 3 ‐ Combustible and corrosive chemicals and other low hazard chemicals.

Terminals Pty Ltd receives liquid products by pipeline from ships and stores these products in tanks. The chemicals are transferred by either bulk road tankers or in 200 litre drums for transport off‐site. Many of the chemicals are used in the production of paints, plastics, lubricating oils, detergents, pharmaceuticals and health care products.

DP World operates the largest facility (a container terminal) on the Island, handling about 400,000 containers of non‐hazardous goods each year, together with some 12,000 containers and isotainers of dangerous goods from Groups 1, 2 and 3. The 12,000 containers equate to approximately the same volume of hazardous goods handled by Terminals Pty Ltd. Other operators are King Transport who maintain a container storage area, and Pacific Terminals and Gordon Brandon who operate low hazard storage facilities.17

On the west side of Maribyrnong River, there is an area between Footscray Road to the north and Lyons Street to the south that is zoned Business 2. This area is identified as Area A in a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between PoMC and City of Maribyrnong. Further to the south of this Business 2 area, the land is zoned either Industrial 1 or Industrial 3.

17 http://ciccc.org/coodeisland.htm 101 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Figure 7 Swanson Dock (Coode Island) with Yarraville Precinct

102 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

The application of the Business 2 Zone reflects Maribyrnong Council’s objectives to rejuvenate the area. Following a decline of riverfront industrial businesses about 20 years ago, the stretch of waterfront between Lyons Street and Dynon Road was earmarked for significant redevelopment as a business, tourist and residential area offering new opportunities for business investment and employment. Through land purchasers, capital works investment, development facilitation and planning, Council set out to encourage the redevelopment of this area and realise its potential as an attractive waterfront location and gateway to the municipality.

There have been a number of projects that have helped achieved Council’s vision for this precinct, including the reuse of the Port Phillip Mills building and the development of the Lonely Planet headquarters. There was also a proposal to establish a public marina and café/restaurant at Footscray Wharf, however, this has not eventuated.

Council’s planning objectives to rejuvenate this area are a major concern for the PoMC. In the PoMC’s view, the Coode Island MHF should be a major consideration in defining the ‘port environs’ and providing a suitable buffer between the MHF and sensitive uses. It notes that under Clause 52.10 of the planning scheme, the threshold distance between the chemicals stored at Coode Island and sensitive uses is one kilometre. Further, it notes that WorkSafe Victoria’s draft outer risk area extends into the Business 2 zoned land.

The PoMC considers Council should be promoting more intensive development at the recently designated Footscray Central Activities District (CAD), and that to promote major office development outside this CAD is contrary to both State and local policy.

The PoMC’s position is that the Business 2 land in the northern part of the Yarraville precinct should be rezoned to Industrial 3.

While Council has developed a long‐term strategy to rejuvenate the northern section of the Yarraville precinct currently zoned Business 2, it considers that the current controls are not effective and need strengthening.

In its preliminary submission to the Advisory Committee, Council officers stated that Council is seeking to: . apply planning controls that do not quarantine the port environs; . allow uses and development that are able to co‐exist with the port; and

103 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

. allow uses and development that are ‘fair and reasonable’ to other property owners and that offer ‘a proportionate’ response to the buffer issues.

Further, Council considers that an evidence‐based approach is required to understand the necessity for buffers and any changes to the planning controls. The main interface issues have been identified as noise, light spill, air emissions and risk/health, and that most concern relates to air emissions and risk/health. For each of these elements, Council has sought an approach that identifies whether the element requires buffering, the nature and extent of the impacts and ways of mitigating the impacts.

Specifically, Council officers have advised that Council has in the MoU proposed the following changes to the planning controls: . A new local policy based on the following principles: - Residential uses will not be supported in the area; - A preference for development similar to existing scale of developments within Area A; - All future development to acknowledge the proximity of the port and port‐related uses and the need for on‐going efficient operations of the port; - The potential risk and amenity impacts of port operations on this area and the interface role of this precinct given its proximity to the port; and - Appropriate management of historic contamination. . Rezoning of the Business 2 area to Business 3; . Use of a Design and Development Overlay; and . Potential for a floor space limitation.

Officers had previously recommended that an overlay control similar to the Airport Environs Overlay be applied over the Area A land, however they have been advised by the Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD) that such an approach is not supported.

Council officers consider the industrial zoning in the remainder of the Yarraville precinct has prevented the encroachment of residential uses into the buffer area. However, they note that, with the increasing value of residential land, there is pressure from owners and occupiers of non‐ conforming dwellings in the Industry 3 Zone in Frederick Street and Earsdon Street on Council for rezoning this small precinct to residential.

104 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Council officers have also expressed concern with establishment of ‘Caretaker’s houses’ in the Yarraville precinct. ‘Caretaker’s houses’ are a permitted use subject to a permit in industrial zones and are as of right in the Business 2 zone.

Under the VPPs, a Caretaker’s house is defined as follows: A dwelling on the same site as a building, operation or plant, and occupied by a supervisor of that building, operation or plant.

The concern is that some Caretaker’s houses which have been developed in the area have no legitimate association with a building, operation or plant, and have been a means to achieve residential development to take advantage of the Yarraville address and the views to the city skyline. Council has had some success in having such developments refused by VCAT.18

Both PoMC and City of Maribyrnong have sought to resolve the issues through the signing of the MoU and the preparation of the PEPF Report. The PEPF was preceded by a buffer strategy that had been prepared jointly for the two organisations. 19 This strategy recommended that the Industrial 3 Zone and the Business 3 Zone be carefully considered to be applied to Precinct A.20 It further recommended that a Design and Development Overlay be introduced that includes design objectives, outcomes and standards, including preferred building heights and setbacks as well as measures to respond to and minimise risk from Coode Island.

Despite the attempts to resolve the issues, agreement has not been reached between the two organisations on the statutory planning controls on the northern part of the Yarraville precinct currently zoned Business 2.

Advisory Committee discussion

While the Yarraville precinct is identified in the various documents as port environs, the Committee considers that not all the existing Industrial 1 and Industrial 3 land south of Lyons Street and west of Hyde Street is a sensitive interface.

It is clear that most of this land is used by major industry, which also includes some large sites that are owned by PoMC. These industrial zones provide an appropriate buffer between the port operations and the extensive

18 Collins v Maribyrnong CC [2009] VCAT 366 and Ogilvie v Maribyrnong CC [2008] VCAT 1920. 19 Issues Paper: Yarraville Port Environs Local Planning Policy 2008. 20 Precinct A includes the northern section of area and is bounded by Napier Street, the Maribyrnong River, Moreland Road and Lyons Street. 105 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 residential west of Hyde Street. Other than the City of Maribyrnong officers’ comments on Earsdon Street and Frederick Street, the Committee is unaware of any suggestion to rezone these areas from industrial.

The Committee does not consider there is any justification for Council to accede to pressure from residents in Earsdon Street and Frederick Street within the Industrial 3 Zone to consider rezoning to residential. These properties are within the one kilometre threshold distance of the Coode Island MHF and are surrounded by existing industries to the north, east and south.

Accordingly, the only area that requires any consideration for some form of interface treatment is, in the Committee’s view, the Business 2 zoned land at the northern end of the precinct (Area A in the MoU). While there is a difference of view between the PoMC and City of Maribyrnong over the future zoning of this area, the Committee notes that there has been some movement by both parties to attempt to resolve the matter and that Council has suggested some additional measures that seek to strengthen the nature of the buffer by providing greater restrictions under their preferred Business 3 Zone.

In terms of whether the land should be rezoned to Business 3 or Industrial 3, the Committee notes that, despite the different purposes of the two zones, that there is very little difference between them as to the type of uses that are prohibited. However, it is noted that the Industrial 3 Zone restricts office use to 500 square metres and this appears to be a major concern of Council. While the Committee does not have any information on the size of the offices in this precinct, it has observed that many uses appear to be small scale office use. Should these offices be less than 500 square metres, they would not become non‐conforming uses in an Industrial 3 Zone. It would be helpful if Council could provide more information about the nature and size of the office uses in this precinct.

Despite the differences between the PoMC and City of Maribyrnong on the future zoning of this part of the Yarraville precinct, it appears that with the existence of the Coode Island MHF within the 1 kilometre threshold distance under Clause 52.10 of the VPPs that there is no disagreement that this part of the precinct should be included in the port environs.

Accordingly, further consideration needs to be given to the nature of planning controls and processes that would be appropriate at this interface. Specifically, these include whether:

106 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

. The northern part of the precinct should be zoned Business 3 or Industrial 3; . A Design and Development Overlay should be introduced to address potential amenity and risk impacts from the port in any development proposals; . The floor space of individual developments should be limited; and . There is a need for the notice or referral of applications to the PoMC under Clause 66.10 of the VPPs.

Further, the Advisory Committee understands PoMC’s concerns that Council appears to be promoting major office development in the northern parts of the Yarraville precinct outside the Footscray Activity Centre contrary to State and local policy.

Finally, with respect to ‘Caretaker’s houses’, it would appear that both PoMC and City of Maribyrnong share the same concern with applicants seeking to exploit planning scheme provisions by establishing dwellings that have no caretaker function. The Committee notes that a more stringent policy such as that prepared by the City of Yarra may be appropriate to apply in the Yarraville precinct.21 A further option may be to produce a particular provision in the VPPs so that it has application across the whole of the State.

Key issues for consideration . Should the northern part of the Yarraville precinct currently zoned Business 2 be included in the port environs? . If this northern precinct is included in the port environs, should: . it be zoned Business 3 or Industrial 3; . a Design and Development Overlay be introduced to address potential amenity and risk impacts from the port; . floor space of individual developments be limited; and . the PoMC receive notice or referral of applications under Clause 66.10 of the VPPs. . Should major office development be promoted in this precinct outside the Footscray CAD? . Is there any justification to rezone the existing dwellings in Earsdon Street and Frederick Street to residential? . Should a local policy be prepared for ‘Caretaker’s houses’ similar to the policy in Clause 22.06 of the Yarra Planning Scheme? Alternatively, should there be a particular provision on ‘Caretaker’s houses’ be prepared for the VPPs?

21 See Clause 22.06 of Yarra Planning Scheme 107 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

7.3.4 Webb Dock with Garden City and The Strand

Background

Webb Dock is currently used as a multi‐purpose facility with berths for motor vehicles and break bulk cargoes.

Environmental and amenity issues are addressed through the EPA legislation and guidelines and through the implementation of the PoMC’s Webb Dock Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and the Port Safety and Environmental Management Plan (PSEMP). The Webb Dock Environmental Effects Statement and the EMP were approved by the Minister for Planning in 1999.

The development of Webb Dock is the next major project proposed by PoMC. In the short to medium term, the east dock is proposed to be converted for container handling with 1 million TEU capacity. In the longer‐ term, the west dock will also be developed and it is anticipated that the capacity of Webb Dock will match current capacity at Swanson Dock. Break bulk would be relocated elsewhere within the port and motor vehicles could be relocated either within the port or to another Victorian port.

The PDS recognises the need to maintain an effective transition and buffer zone between the community and the port.

Garden City is a residential area developed from the 1920s, and comprises semi‐attached double‐storey houses arranged around a series of public open spaces modelled on the Garden City Movement. It is covered by a Heritage Overlay.

Garden City abuts the port’s boundaries at the corner of Todd Road and The Boulevard. On the south west corner of this intersection is the 4 hectare Perce White Reserve, developed as a nature reserve providing some passive recreation. The reserve is within the port’s boundaries, however the reserve is publicly accessible and is maintained and managed by Port Phillip City Council.

In its preliminary submission to the Committee, City of Port Phillip officers considered that the existing amenity impacts from Webb Dock to Garden City include: . Air and noise emissions; . Light spill; and . The environmental impacts of water runoff.

108 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Figure 8 Webb Dock with Garden City

With any proposed development of Webb Dock for containerisation, Council officers considered that there is a strong potential that there would be an increase of air and noise emissions and light spill to Garden City.

It was submitted that: . The PoMC needs to be specific about the full range of likely impacts from the proposed Webb Dock development; . There is a need for tangible performance standards to address air emissions, noise emissions from the port, road traffic noise, light spill and stormwater runoff that are clear to the community and are regularly monitored and reported; and . The Environs Planning Framework Working Paper (2007) provides a table of performance standards and solutions from the Webb Dock EMP. The status of the proposed solutions should be updated and the effectiveness of the solutions reviewed.

In addition, the Council officers submitted that a landscaped buffer and acoustic wall on Port of Melbourne land is essential to ameliorate the off‐site impacts of the port’s activities.

109 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

It was noted that the Webb Dock Conceptual Development Plan in the Port of Melbourne Planning Scheme indicates a 22.5 metre landscape buffer along the western boundary of Todd Road, however the buffer is not included in Design and Development Overlay 2 (DDO2).

Further, it was stated that the Panel that considered the Port of Melbourne new format planning scheme in 2006 noted that neither the Conceptual Plan nor the statutory controls were being modified at the time and suggested that, in time, the buffer should be reflected in the schedule to the DDO.

Council officers sought the following outcomes: . DDO2 in the Port of Melbourne Planning Scheme enshrine the buffer and provide specific details about its construction standards for planting, height and quality; . All buffers should be designed, constructed and maintained fit for purpose; . Planting must commence well ahead of development to ensure it is well established before development commences; and . DDO2 in the Port of Melbourne Planning Scheme provide limits about height of container storage, however, there is a let‐out clause for ‘temporary storage’. A definition of what is a temporary or short term timeframe needs to be provided in the Scheme.

In its preliminary submission to the Committee, City of Hobsons Bay officers expressed concern with the impact of the proposed development of Webb Dock on views to the city skyline from Williamstown. They submitted that any future development should not have a detrimental impact through excessive mass, bulk or light. Similar to the City of Port Phillip, Council officers considered that more information is required to assess the potential impacts of the proposed Webb Dock development.

A number of Williamstown residents along The Strand have also expressed concern in letters addressed to the Committee about the potential impact of the proposed Webb Dock development and believe that the PEPF is deficient because it does not include details of the Webb Dock development and its potential amenity and risk impacts. These residents have also questioned how the Advisory Committee is able to fulfil its tasks under the ToR without considering the proposed Webb Dock development and its impacts.

110 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Figure 9 Webb Dock with The Strand (Williamstown)

111 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Advisory Committee discussion

Garden City

Given the close proximity between Webb Dock and Garden City, it is reasonable for Port Phillip City Council to be concerned about the potential amenity impacts of the Webb Dock development on Garden City residents. Accordingly, it would appear appropriate that Garden City should be included within the port environs.

The Committee does not have a role in assessing the proposed Webb Dock development nor in reviewing the provisions of the Port of Melbourne Planning Scheme. However, it supports Port Phillip City Council officer comments that there is a significant opportunity for the PoMC to identify the full range of amenity impacts from the proposed development in the planning and design stage and that appropriate measures preferably with tangible performance standards should be developed to mitigate potential amenity impacts.

Further, the Committee supports the Council officer comments that the landscape buffer along Todd Road provides a significant opportunity to address potential adverse amenity impacts from the proposed Webb Dock development. However, the Committee considers the nature of the buffer and the timing of its development are matters that need to be considered as part of the assessment process for the Webb Dock development.

The Committee notes that there a number of provisions in the Design and Development Overlay (Schedule 2) of the Port of Melbourne Planning Scheme that restrict the height of buildings, stored goods and materials in the Webb Dock precinct. It would appear such controls have been designed to address visual impact of port development from outside the port boundaries, including from Williamstown. Any change to this control or any development that exceeds these requirements should, in the Committee’s opinion, be subject to consultation with the relevant Councils and communities.

Despite the Committee’s opinion that Garden City should be included in the port environs, it is not convinced that any additional planning controls designed to restrict the type of uses to protect the port from the encroachment of sensitive uses or control the nature of built form to reduce potential amenity impacts from port activities will have any significant benefit in addressing amenity concerns at this interface. Nor is the Committee convinced that there would be any significant benefit in

112 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 introducing a requirement for the notice or referral of applications to the PoMC.

The Committee has adopted this stance because Garden City is a well established residential area that is unlikely to go through significant change in terms of the nature of uses or the type of built form. There are no development sites that would allow significant new development and the Heritage Overlay that applies to the area is likely to discourage intensification of residential development. In other words, with little prospect of new sensitive uses or the intensification and change to built form, what purpose would additional planning controls and notice or referral requirements have in addressing concern with the encroachment of sensitive uses and potential amenity impacts from the proposed Webb Dock development?

In relation to traffic and transport issues, the Committee notes that there is little prospect that port‐related traffic will have a significant impact on Garden City. However, the PDS has identified opportunities to address adverse traffic impacts in the wider area, including the potential closure of the Williamstown Road access and the re‐establishment of the Webb Dock railway line. It is understood that the Plummer Street link also seeks to provide a direct link to the freeway network.

The Strand

With respect to The Strand in Williamstown, the greater distance that separates Webb Dock and The Strand compared to Webb Dock and Garden City should assist with the reduction of potential amenity impacts of noise and light spill of the proposed Webb Dock development.

In relation to concerns with visual impact from The Strand, the Committee notes that residents on The Strand are living in a major capital city close to Australia’s largest commercial trading port and should therefore accept the existence and growth potential of the port subject to appropriate development standards. Further, the Committee notes that there are a number of examples of recent development on The Strand which have been designed to capture the views to the Melbourne Skyline, including Webb Dock.

Similar to Garden City, the Committee is not convinced that introducing new planning controls and requiring the notice or referral of applications will provide any significant benefit in protecting the port from the encroachment of sensitive uses and addressing potential amenity impacts from the port at this interface.

113 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Key issues for consideration . Should the onus be on PoMC to address potential amenity impacts of the future development of Webb Dock as part of the future planning and design process? . Is there any significant benefit in introducing additional planning controls and/or requiring the notice or referral of applications in Garden City to the PoMC to protect the port from the encroachment of sensitive uses and to address potential amenity impacts from the proposed Webb Dock development? . Is there any significant benefit in introducing additional planning controls and requiring the notice or referral of applications along The Strand to the PoMC to protect the port from the encroachment of sensitive uses and to address potential amenity impacts from the proposed Webb Dock development?

7.3.5 Station Pier with Beacon Cove and Port Melbourne

Background

Station Pier is used as the Melbourne Sea Passenger Terminal and is the only cruise liner facility in Melbourne. It is estimated that the Pier has over 500,000 local, interstate and overseas visitors per annum, with the peak season of passenger cruisers occurring between November and April.22 In addition, the Spirit of Tasmania provides a daily passenger, vehicle and freight service between Melbourne and Devonport.

Beacon Cove is a residential subdivision constructed from the mid 1990s on former industrial land that is directly opposite Station Pier. It comprises approximately 1,100 dwellings in a mixture of low‐rise medium density and high‐rise housing with a small supermarket, some commercial space, a small number of cafes, restaurants and a gym.

The main amenity impacts of the operation Station Pier relate to traffic and transport issues when the Spirit of Tasmania docks at the pier. According to the City of Port Phillip officers, the main traffic issue relates to the significant queuing back along Waterfront Place and Beach Street by Spirit of Tasmania patrons waiting to access the Pier and board the vessel at times of peak activity in the area. This congestion interrupts the use of the local road network for residents, the general public, restaurant patrons and emergency vehicles needing to access Waterfront Place. Access by large trucks to the

22 http://www.portofmelbourne.com/cruiseshipping/stationpier.asp 114 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 freight yard adjacent to the Pier for the Spirit of Tasmania causes congestion on the local road network. The processing of these vehicles occurs at the front gate causing queuing back along Beach Street. The situation is exacerbated by the growth in cruise ship visitation at Station Pier for five months over the summer cruise ship season. Parking supply and management is also an issue.

The PoMC considers any future intensification of non‐port‐related development in the Station Pier precinct needs to be appropriately balanced with the current and future operations of Station Pier for cruise ships and the Tasmanian ferry service. Figure 10 Station Pier with Beacon Cove

115 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Advisory Committee discussion

Station Pier is not a ‘built‐for‐purpose’ facility for either the Spirit of Tasmania or cruise ships, so it is not surprising that there are significant traffic issues associated with the Pier.

However, the traffic congestion issues are an operational matter for Council rather than issues that can be addressed through the statutory planning framework. Accordingly, the Committee considers it does not have a role to play in addressing such issues.

The Committee also considers that Beacon Cove residents should expect a high level of activity occurring around Station Pier given its historical role as Melbourne’s shipping passenger terminal. It would not surprise that some Beacon Cove residents are attracted to the area for this very reason.

With respect to the PoMC’s comments that future intensification of non‐port‐ related development in this precinct is ‘appropriately balanced’, the Committee notes that such an expectation appears to conflict with other planning objectives that has seen the development of Beacon Cove with a mix of high and medium density dwellings.

Key issue for consideration . How should future intensification of non‐port‐related development in the Station Pier precinct be appropriately balanced with the current and future operations of Station Pier for cruise ships and the Tasmanian ferry service?

7.3.6 Appleton Dock, Victoria Dock and South Wharf with Lorimer Street and Fishermans Bend

Background

Appleton Dock and Victoria Dock are currently used for general cargo and PoMC proposes to develop these docks in the short to medium term for international containers.

South Wharf is used for a range of activities, including break bulk and dry bulk cargoes, bulk cement imports and ancillary services. The PDS does not propose any changes occurring at this wharf.

Amenity impacts from these parts of the port include air and noise emissions and light spill.

116 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Lorimer Street and Fishermans Bend were once a major industrial precinct, however there are now many offices and warehouses, a number of which appear to have a connection to international trade through the port.

Concern has been raised by the PoMC that the office development is eroding the Fishermans Bend ‘buffer’, and that any expansion of business zones will ‘seriously damage’ the ability of land use buffering protecting the port. The PEPF states that additional office development results in higher amenity expectations which could not be met in proximity to port activities, both existing and planned. The proposed reconnection of rail to Webb Dock is also cited as an activity that could cause loss of amenity in this precinct.

In its preliminary submission to the Committee, the City of Melbourne officers consider that the area will continue to attract more industrial‐related activities and will intensify its advanced manufacturing and research and development function, leading to a demand for additional office supply and businesses in the precinct.

Council officers do not consider it necessary to limit office floor space in the Business 3 Zone beyond the current provisions in the Melbourne Planning Scheme. They note that sensitive uses are prohibited or discouraged from this zone via the planning provisions. Figure 11 Appleton Dock, Victoria Dock, South Wharf with Lorimer Street and Fishermans Bend

117 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Advisory Committee discussion

The Committee inspected Appleton Dock, Victoria Dock and South Wharf and the Lorimer Street and Fishermans Bend precinct and noted the relatively new office and warehouse development that is occurring in the area.

In the Committee’s view, such development is improving the built form of the area and would appear to be providing significant employment opportunities in accordance with City of Melbourne’s planning objectives to establish the area as the preferred location for clean, high profile, value‐ added advanced manufacturing. The Advisory Committee notes the purpose of the Business 3 Zone is To encourage the integrated development of offices and manufacturing industries and associated commercial and industrial uses.

The Committee does not agree with PoMC’s submission or the PEPF’s statement that the recent office development is incompatible with current or future port activities and sees no justification for limiting the floor space of new buildings or requiring a Design and Development Overlay requiring buildings to address potential amenity impacts of the port. It notes that, unlike Coode Island, these parts of the port do not contain major hazard facilities.

Accordingly, the Committee does not consider the Lorimer Street and Fishermans Bend precinct need be included in the port environs that should be subject to any additional planning controls and the requirements for the notice or referral of applications to the PoMC.

Key issue for consideration . Should Lorimer Street and Fishermans Bend be included in the port environs given the Business 3 Zone and nature of office and warehouse development that is occurring in the area?

7.3.7 Victoria Dock with Docklands

Victoria Dock is approximately 21 hectares and the PoMC invested approximately $10 million in 2002 to prepare the site for future development. In 2004, the State Government awarded a tender to develop the site to Westgate Ports.

Westgate Ports is currently developing the site as a freight and logistics centre, including a 17,500 square metres warehouse with a 50,000 square metres container hardstand storage area together with a separate 5,400 square metres warehouse.

118 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

From the 1880s, the Docklands were used for docks, rail infrastructure and industry but mostly fell out of use following the containerisation of shipping traffic. The space remained vacant and unused during the 1980s and it fell in to disrepair.

From the 1990s, a major urban renewal of Melbourne Docklands commenced, with construction of a moveable roof sports stadium followed by a number of both commercial and residential high and medium rise developments.

Docklands is an area extending up to 2 km west of and adjacent to Melbourneʹs CBD and, according to the 2006 Census, had a population of 3,939.

The brief for the Docklands master plan was for wide open water‐side promenades and road boulevards with contributions of landscaping and public art commissions to be made by each developer. It is estimated that the population of Docklands will reach 20,000 by 2015.

The Victoria Dock and Docklands interface occurs just west of the Bolte Bridge. It is understood that the Docklands Act 1991 actually includes part of Victoria Dock east of Bolte Bridge and that, despite the gazettal of this land as Docklands area, it is owned by the PoMC.

Currently much of the eastern end of Victoria Dock and the outermost western end of Docklands are undeveloped.

The PEPF states that potential interface issues have been addressed through the Victoria Dock development assessment process, including a requirement to assess noise impacts and provide attenuation if required. It further states that these requirements are complemented with overlay and policy provisions in the Port of Melbourne Planning Scheme.

It is the PoMC’s understanding that the Docklands area closer to the Bolte Bridge will include parkland/recreation use, which would reduce potential adverse amenity impacts from the port.

The PoMC also noted that Docklands has the potential to constrain the Webb Dock precinct because of concerns of Docklands residents about potential noise and exhaust emissions, visual impacts, vibrations and boating access.

119 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Figure 12 Victoria Dock with Docklands

Advisory Committee discussion

The development of Docklands to promote inner city high density residential development has been a major government initiative, notwithstanding the existence of the Port of Melbourne to the west. It is against this context that future planning for both Docklands and the port needs to be considered.

Given the Victoria Dock development by Westgate Ports, it would appear that there is sufficient certainty for VicUrban to prepare future plans having regard to the port and the parameters set by the Victoria Dock Precinct Environmental Management Plan January 2001.

The Committee notes that the presence of Bolte Bridge and the associated traffic noise is a barrier to residential development occurring in close proximity to Victoria Dock.

Notwithstanding, as Docklands develops further west, an effective working relationship between VicUrban, City of Melbourne, PoMC, Westgate Ports and other stakeholders will be essential to resolve development at this important interface.

120 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Further, any proposal to construct the Webb Dock rail connection through Docklands will require a collaborative planning approach between PoMC and VicUrban.

Accordingly, the Committee considers there is strong merit in identifying the western part of Docklands as a port environs area that should be subject to additional planning controls particularly relating to siting and design requirements to reduce the potential impacts of the activities occurring at Victoria Dock. Notice and referral of applications to the PoMC would also appear to be appropriate.

Key issues for consideration . Should the western part of Docklands be included in the port environs and be subject to additional planning controls to take account of the potential amenity impacts of Victoria Dock?; . Should applications within the port environs be subject to notice or referral to the PoMC? . Are there other mechanisms that should be developed to ensure an effective working relationship between VicUrban, City of Melbourne, PoMC and Westgate Ports as Docklands develops further westwards?

7.3.8 Holden Dock with Francis Street, Yarraville

Background

Holden Dock is used for the storage and transfer of refined petroleum products. The Port’s PDS states that this dock will be used for bulk liquid products stored in large tanks for the long‐term.

It is understood there is widespread concern about the potential environmental and community safety impacts of any incident occurring at this location. Concern about such incidents was recently highlighted with the petroleum spill at the Mobil oil refinery in Millers Road, Altona on 9 February 2010.

As well as concern about environmental risk and community safety, there is significant concern in this precinct in relation to high traffic volumes of heavy vehicles using Francis Street.

The Committee notes that a Mixed Use Zone applies west of the Holden Dock precinct on the western side of Hyde Street. This area contains a number of dwellings.

121 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Further, the Committee notes that the Maribyrnong Planning Scheme includes an objective to encourage the transition in this area from residential to non‐residential activity in the long term. It is anticipated that this precinct will be rezoned Industrial 3 in the future.23

PoMC notes that in Spotswood residential development is located in close proximity to the oil terminals which are connected by pipeline to Holden Dock. Further, residential development is contrary to the industrial buffer objectives in Clause 17.03 of the planning scheme and would erode the ongoing viability of these uses.

23 Clause 22.02-3 of the Maribyrnong Planning Scheme 122 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Figure 13 Holden Dock with Francis Street, Yarraville

123 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Advisory Committee discussion

Given the location of the refined petroleum products in close proximity to the Mixed Use Zone and the existence of a number of dwellings, this area should be included in the port environs.

While the Maribyrnong Planning Scheme encourages non‐residential uses in this area and aims to eventually rezone the land to Industrial 3, it may be prudent to consider rezoning this land to Industrial 3 in the short‐term. Rezoning the land to Industrial 3 would be the most effective response to prohibiting further sensitive uses from encroachment at this interface.

Further, consideration should be given as to whether an overlay should be introduced that requires development at this interface to take account of the storage of refined petroleum products as well as to whether notice or referral of applications to PoMC should occur.

It is understood that there is strong local community concern in relation to transport and traffic issues in this precinct. In response, VicRoads has developed the Truck Action Plan which aims to reduce truck traffic on the residential streets and improve freight access from the west to the Port of Melbourne. In the Committee’s view, traffic concerns will be more effectively addressed through such measures than any additional controls in the statutory planning framework.

Key issues for consideration . Should the Mixed Use Zone applying to the land on the west side of Hyde Street in the Holden Dock precinct be included in the port environs? . Should the land zoned Mixed Use be rezoned to Industrial 3 in the short‐term as the most effective buffer treatment because that zoning prohibits sensitive uses? . Should an overlay be introduced that requires development to take account of the storage of refined petroleum products? . Should there be a requirement for the notice or referral of applications to PoMC?

124 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

7.3.9 Ann Street Pier, Gellibrand Pier and Breakwater Pier with the former Port Phillip Woollen Mill site

Background

The PDS states that the Ann Street Pier in Williamstown is currently used for the storage and mooring of marine equipment, such as tugs, barges, pontoons, workboats and survey vessels and there are no proposed change to these activities.

The PDS also states that the Gellibrand Pier will be retained for liquid bulk (crude oil) pack type and Breakwater Pier will be retained to ensure the security and safety of the adjacent Gellibrand Pier. The crude oil tanks (Mobil Oil) are a MHF.

It is noted that the Port of Melbourne Planning Scheme includes a notation on the plan at Clause 21.03 that states Increase capacity for liquid bulk berth.

Breakwater Pier is identified as a strategic port asset for use as a future liquid bulk berth or for special purposes such as visiting naval ships, vessel lay‐up and large plant storage.

BAE Systems is located on the north side of Nelson Place between Gellibrand Pier and Ann Street Pier opposite the former Port Phillip Woollen Mill site. The PoMC notes that a threshold distance of 300 metres is required between the site and sensitive land uses. The PoMC considers that future uses adjacent and opposite Gellibrand Pier need to be carefully considered and any rezoning of existing industrial land would erode the buffer to more sensitive land uses.

In its Industrial Land Use Management Strategy 2008, the City of Hobsons Bay has identified the former Port Phillip Woollen Mill site at the corner of Nelson Place and Kanowna Street as a ‘strategic redevelopment site’, and has a preference that it be developed for residential purposes. Accordingly, Council considers that retention of an industrial zone as proposed in the PEPF is not appropriate and that measures other than a traditional distance buffer should be considered.

Council is also concerned that retaining the site in an industrial zone does not address the interface to existing residential properties to the south and that leaving the site in an industrial zone may render its use and development impossible and result in urban blight. However, Council is concerned with high density residential development of this site and in

125 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

December 2009 refused to adopt proposed Amendment C75 which would have facilitated a 12 storey residential development.

At the time of writing, the Committee was informed that the Minister for Planning has approved Amendment C75 which rezones the Woollen Mill site to Residential 1 and applied an Environmental Audit Overlay. The Minister has also appointed an Advisory Committee to provide: . An assessment of the suitability of the proposed redevelopment of the site; . An assessment of relevant planning issues relating to the proposed developments; and . An assessment of the planning scheme Design and Development Overlay and Heritage Overlay, and if necessary, recommendations as to any changes to the proposed controls. Figure 14 Ann Street Pier, Gellibrand Pier and Breakwater Pier with former Port Phillip Woollen Mill (Williamstown)

126 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Advisory Committee discussion

Given the interface between the Mobil Oil tanks, the port activities at the three piers and BAE Systems and the industrial areas on the south side of Nelson Place that are subject to pressure to rezoning to allow sensitive uses, it is appropriate to include these areas in the port environs.

While Council has its own strategic planning reasons for supporting a potential residential development on the former Port Phillip Woollen Mills site, the Committee has observed that the BAE Systems building fronting Nelson Place is a substantial building that provides a significant barrier between the industrial activities occurring behind this building and south of Nelson Place. In the Committee’s view, this could provide some justification to allow sensitive uses such as residential development to be considered for the site. However, the Committee acknowledges there is no obligation of the site’s owners to retain this building to screen operations.

Any proposal to redevelop the Woollen Mills site for residential purposes would need to be sited and designed to avoid potential adverse amenity impacts. Accordingly, the Committee considers that there is a case to be made for a site‐specific overlay to be introduced for this site that would specifically address potential impacts from the port area and for a requirement for notice or referral of applications to the PoMC.

Finally, the Committee notes that the former Woollen Mill site appears to be just outside the 300 metre buffer distance for petroleum storage under Clause 52.10. If this is the case, this would also provide some justification for a residential development to be considered.

Key issues for consideration . Should the former Port Phillip Woollen Mills site and other industrial zoned land south of Nelson Place be included in the port environs? . Is there scope for appropriate residential development to be approved on the former Port Phillip Woollen Mills site given the substantial barrier provided by the BAE Systems building and operations to the north and the distance of the site from the MHF (Mobil Oil tanks)? . Should an overlay to require a design response that would mitigate potential amenity impacts from the port area be introduced on the former Port Phillip Woollen Mills site? . Should there be a requirement for the notice or referral of applications in the current industrial zoned land to the PoMC?

127 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

7.4 Conclusion

As can be seen from the preceding analysis, there is a variety of land uses and developments and planning objectives and controls that apply to land at the different interfaces with the Port of Melbourne. It is because of the variety of land uses at these interfaces that a site specific response is required to identifying whether the area under investigation should be included within the port environs. This response could be additional planning controls and/or whether applications at these interfaces should be subject to the notice and referral requirements of Clause 66.10 of the VPPs.

7.5 Port of Hastings

Background

The Port of Hastings is located to the south‐east of Melbourne in the Shire of Mornington Peninsula. The total amount of land included in the Special Use Zone 1 (SUZ1) for port‐related purposes is approximately 3,500 hectares. However, current port and port‐related activities cover a relatively small area and much of the land in the SUZ1 is currently not used or developed for port‐related purposes.

The Port of Hastings Land Use and Transport Strategy (PLUTS) identifies three precincts of the port. The future planning is summarised as follows: . Long Island precinct – will be significantly developed for container and multi‐purpose trade; . Crib Point ‐ will continue to be used as a liquid berthing facility, however not all land may be required and scope exists for community, recreational and environmental uses for this area; and . Stony Point ‐ is expected to become available for community, tourism and recreational uses, including a continuation of passenger ferry services and potentially a car ferry service to Phillip Island.

The Port and SUZ1 is surrounded by extensive rural, rural living and public use land as well as Western Port. In contrast to the Port of Melbourne, the encroachment of sensitive uses into the port environs has not given rise to the same level of concern.

Further, the storage of hazardous materials on the former Esso land accommodating the tanks and the fractionation plant in the Long Island precinct is located a considerable distance from any sensitive uses including the Hastings township.

128 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

The Port of Hastings commissioned a report to review existing development, land tenure, planning studies and planning provisions to determine the planning controls required to facilitate Stage 1 of the proposed Long Island development and recommends a specific zoning control be introduced.24

The Shire of Mornington Peninsula supports the development of the Hastings Port, however considers there are critical environmental, social and economic questions which need to be addressed. Local community groups have also identified the need to protect the sensitive coastal environment.

In terms of the PLUTS, Council notes that it focuses primarily on the land required for the establishment of a port facility and associated transport infrastructure, which is in the order of 300 hectares. However, approximately 3,500 hectares is contained within the SUZ1 zone and the Strategy does not contain any substantive review of the extent of land required for port‐related purposes and the appropriate boundaries.

Accordingly, Council considers that it would be inappropriate to apply the proposed zone for the Long Island precinct as a replacement for the SUZ1 that currently applies over all the port purposes land. In addition, Council considers the transfer of planning authority to a specialist port agency would risk a less balanced approach to decision‐making.

Advisory Committee discussion

The major challenge for the Port of Hastings will be to develop as Melbourne’s second commercial trading port in a manner that will result in appropriate co‐existence with surrounding and adjoining land uses, including the internationally significant coastal environs.

A further challenge will be to develop the road and rail linkages and ensure these corridors will not have an unreasonable adverse impact on adjoining residential areas and sensitive uses. It may be appropriate for relevant authorities to investigate applying a DDO along these transport corridors to protect sensitive uses similar to DDO1 in the Hume Planning Scheme.

Given that the Port of Hastings is largely undeveloped, there is a significant opportunity to ensure that land identified for port and port‐related development areas currently in the SUZ1 are planned to adequately address amenity and risk impacts. In the Committee’s view, this will require a collaborative approach involving relevant stakeholders including the port

24 Port of Hastings Stage One Scoping Land Use Planning Assessment Review, AECOM, June 2009 129 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 manager, relevant government departments and agencies, Council and the local community.

The Committee supports Council officers’ comments that it would be appropriate for the port authority to undertake a review as to whether the 3,500 hectares of land will be necessary in the long‐term for port and port‐ related uses. The Committee notes that total land area of Port of Melbourne Port is approximately 510 hectares.

At this stage, the Committee does not consider there is a need to identify any port environs areas that require an interface treatment. However, interface issues will need to be an integral element of further planning and development.

Responses to other issues raised by Council concerning the zoning of the land and the role of the Minister for Planning are made in Chapters 11 and 12 in this report.

Key issues for consideration . Is there a need for a study that reviews the extent and boundaries of land for port and port‐related purposes before the port environs can be identified? . Should there be an investigation whether a DDO along the proposed transport corridors to the Port of Hastings similar to the DDO1 in the Hume Planning Scheme be undertaken to protect sensitive uses along these transport corridors?

7.6 Port of Geelong

The Port of Geelong has a number of sensitive interfaces, including: . North Shore residential area with Incitec Pivot and Midway; . Norlane residential area with industrial land east of Station Street; . Former Ford site with ‘port area of interest’ land; . Proposed Geelong marine industrial project, Osborne Park, Osborne House, and the Rippleside residential area with ‘port area of interest’ land; and . Geelong Grammar School with Shell Refinery.

While the Point Henry Alcoa aluminium smelter is also identified as part of the ‘port area of interest’, the Port of Geelong Land Use Strategy (PLUS) does not identify any interface issues between Point Henry and surrounding

130 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 areas. The Committee agrees with this view given that the interface areas are Cheetham Salt Works and land within the Farming Zone.

As noted in Section 5.4.7, the Committee considers that the Geelong Port Structure Plan prepared by Greater Geelong City Council has provided a useful framework which has assisted the Committee identify the key interface issues at this port.

7.6.1 North Shore residential area with Incitec Pivot and Midway

Background

North Shore is a long‐established residential enclave of about 200 dwellings within the ‘port area of interest’ and has two major industrial neighbours ‐ Incitec Pivot to the north and Midway to the south. Incitec Pivot stores and mixes fertilisers and it is understood that the company ceases operations when there is an easterly breeze to prevent emissions blowing over North Shore. Midway operates a woodchip facility.

Both GeelongPort and the City of Greater Geelong readily concede that a residential development in such close proximity to a major port would not be contemplated under contemporary planning practice. However, both parties also concede that North Shore is a well‐established residential area and highly sought after given its location to the Geelong CBD and views across Corio Bay to the Geelong CBD skyline. There are no proposals to rezone North Shore from its current residential zoning.

On its tour of the port and surrounding areas, the Committee observed that North Shore contains a mix of older dwellings and more recent medium density housing developments.

The PLUS recommends a specific local plan be developed to protect local amenity for North Shore.

Council’s Geelong Port Structure Plan includes a number of suggestions to address the impacts of the port and port‐related activities on North Shore, including: . Discourage further development of privately owned sites on the south side of Sea Breeze Parade, and Incitec Pivot purchase the remaining dwellings to augment the role of the buffer; . Maintain and enhance the Incitec Pivot landscape buffer on the south side of Sea Breeze Parade;

131 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

. Maintain a low intensity housing development acknowledging the ongoing incompatibility between industrial and residential uses; and . Work with the North Shore community in partnership with relevant government departments and agencies and GeelongPort to develop a comprehensive buffer strategy and development plan for the North Shore residential area.

GeelongPort advised that there is a North Shore community reference group, which provides an opportunity to raise issues of mutual concern.

The North Shore Residents Group advised that it has a good working relationship with GeelongPort. The Group accepts that residents should not expect the same level of amenity that would be appropriate in greenfield situations. It considers there are opportunities to acquire land and establish land buffers on the fringes of the residential area. The Group also considers there should be no high rise residential development that could result in increased conflict between the port and future residents. The Group also noted that the construction of the ‘port bypass’ road has been significant in reducing amenity and safety concerns.

Advisory Committee discussion

Given the location of North Shore between the northern and southern precincts of the general port area, it has a direct interface and should be included in the port environs area.

The most sensitive interface is to the north at Sea Breeze Parade. This road appears to carry significant volumes of heavy vehicle traffic that access the Incitec Pivot plant which is located on the north side of this road.

To reduce the adverse impacts of its operations on North Shore, it is understood that Incitec Pivot have purchased all but one of the residential allotments on the south side of Sea Breeze Parade and that it has removed all the houses except one. Accordingly, there are only two houses remaining on this side of the street.

It would appear there is an opportunity to formalise this landscape buffer by introducing a planning control that would prohibit any further development and by creating a landscape plan that would provide more effective buffering to the residential properties to the south.

Development could be prohibited by introducing an alternative zone such as Public Park and Recreation Zone or by preparing a site specific control under

132 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Clause 52.03 of the VPPs. There is no overlay control in the VPPs that would prohibit all development.

An alternative option could be to encourage a development on the south side of Sea Breeze Parade that would provide a built form element reducing the amenity impacts to the south. However, any such development would be constrained by the residential zoning that currently applies to the land.

There may also be opportunities for more substantial landscaping on the north side of Sea Breeze Parade within the Incitec Pivot site.

In addition to these measures, the Committee notes that strong potential exists for future development to occur in the area. As a result, it may be appropriate for additional planning controls to apply in North Shore which limits further intensification of residential development and height of development. This could be achieved by preparing a purpose‐specific overlay.

Consideration should also be given to requiring applications for use and development to be subject to notice and referral to GeelongPort as a means for the port manager to keep abreast of developments and ensure their views are considered.

Key issues for consideration . Should North Shore be included in the port environs? . Should a planning control be introduced which prohibits any further development on the residential zoned land on the south side of Sea Breeze Parade? . Should a development on the south side of Sea Breeze Parade be encouraged to provide a built form element to protect the amenity of the area to the south? . Should a more detailed landscape plan be prepared and implemented which provides better protection of the residential area to the south? . Should a planning control be introduced which limits the density and height of residential development in North Shore? . Should applications for use and development be subject to the notice and referral requirements to GeelongPort pursuant to Clause 66.10 of the VPPs?

133 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

7.6.2 Norlane residential area with the industrial area east of Station Street

Background

Norlane is a long‐established residential area located to the north and west of the port. Norlane’s housing was mainly constructed for workers of the port and industrial areas of Geelong, including Ford, in the 1950s and 1960s.

Norlane is separated from an industrial area to the west by Station Street. While this industrial area is included in ‘port area of interest area’ in the PLUS and within the Geelong Port Structure Plan area prepared by Council, the Committee notes it is a considerable distance from the core port activities occurring closer to the foreshore.

The PLUS notes that while the Shell Refinery and Terminals Pty Ltd have substantial buffers, they remain a concern to members of the Norlane community. It further notes that new land use proposals within the ‘port area of interest’ can present interface issues. It is also suggested that siting and design guidelines may be appropriate for industrial development at the interface.

Council’s Geelong Port Structure Plan includes a general objective to reduce the amenity conflicts between existing industrial and port uses and nearby residential areas.

In addition, there is a notation on the Lascelles precinct plan that states that the land between Station Street and the Melbourne‐Geelong railway line should be rezoned from Industrial 2 to Industrial 3 as part of the Norlane Redevelopment Project.25

The Geelong Port Structure Plan states that the Port of Geelong includes the use, storage and manufacture of products that have health and safety impacts on the local community. The Structure Plan includes two principles to manage this issue, namely: · To promote the growth and development of Geelong Port that supports the health and wellbeing of the Geelong community, consistent with the principles of Council’s Strategic Health Plan. · To ensure future use and development within core Port industry and Port use areas require the preparation and maintenance of plans to

25 It is understood that the project referred to in the Structure Plan is the Norlane and Corio Urban Renewal Project. 134 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

appropriately manage risks from off site impacts to the local community and environment.

Presentations by representatives of the Community for Good Life and Geelong Environment Council were made to the Committee regarding the potential health impacts associated with the storage of petroleum, fertilisers and chemicals, particularly butadiene, at the Port of Geelong.

Advisory Committee discussion

There is a considerable distance between the main port activities near or at the foreshore and the Norlane residential area. However, there is a direct interface between the industrial zoned area on the east side of Station Street and the residential area on the west side.

From the Committee’s observations, a number of the industrial lots on the east side of Station Street are vacant and many of the industries appear to be local service industries that have little or no connection with the port.

The Committee notes that the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme already includes this industrial zoned land in DDO20, which requires all development to comply with design objectives relating to visual appearance, amenity, setbacks, architectural interest and landscaping. These requirements address potential amenity impacts from industrial developments, whether or not they are associated with the port.

The Committee considers Council’s recommendation that the land between Station Street and the Melbourne‐Geelong railway line be rezoned to Industrial 3 is an appropriate response to address the interface with Norlane. Should the Committee’s recommendation that a Port Zone be introduced for the ports be supported, a schedule could be developed for application in this area that that could restrict uses similar to the Industrial 3 zone.

In the Committee’s view, the proposal to rezone the land between Station Street and the Melbourne‐Geelong Railway Line to Industrial 3 and the existing requirements in DDO20 provide an appropriate treatment at this interface and that further planning tools are not required to protect Norlane.

The Committee also sees little benefit in identifying Norlane as a port environs area in order to protect the port or industrial area from the encroachment of sensitive uses. Norlane is a long‐established area, and while it is subject to a State Government urban renewal project, it is unlikely to go through substantial change in terms of intensification of residential development or high‐rise built form.

135 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

In response to the concerns about health impacts of hazardous materials at the Port of Geelong, the Committee believes its role is limited to considering the threshold distances in Clause 52.10 of the VPPs in order to determine the port environs. The Committee does not consider it has a role in assessing the adequacy of the threshold distances, the performance of these industries or the performance of the EPA and other agencies in assessing the performance of the industries.

Key issues for consideration . Would the proposal to rezone the land between Station Street and the Melbourne‐Geelong Railway Line from Industrial 2 to Industrial 3 as well as the existing DDO20 that requires new industrial development to address potential amenity impacts provide an adequate interface treatment to Norlane? . Should Norlane, particularly the properties on the west side of Station Street, be included in the port environs in order to protect the port and industrial areas from the encroachment of sensitive uses?

7.6.3 Former Ford site with ‘port area of interest’ land

Background

The former Ford site is located south of the existing Ford site fronting Princes Highway, to the west of the ‘port area of interest’ land.

In 2006 an Amendment to rezone the site from Industrial 1 to Comprehensive Development Zone (CDZ) was proposed to facilitate a bulky goods retail development. The Amendment was strongly opposed by GeelongPort. The Amendment was referred to a Panel that recommended it be abandoned for a number of reasons including that the site should be seen as an opportunity for further development of the port.

With respect to the site’s location to the port, the Panel found that:26 The Port of Geelong is major infrastructure of State significance. The Greater Geelong Planning Scheme recognises this. The Planning Scheme also recognises opportunities for retail growth and development, but these should not compromise higher order objectives. The Panel considers the clear objectives about the port are of a higher order and should remain so.

26 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C98 Panel Report, page 5 136 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

GeelongPort consider the Amendment would have eroded the land that is available for port‐related uses potentially constraining growth and current operations.

The Department of Innovation, Industry and Regional Development (DIIRD) also expressed a concern that the loss of the former Ford site from a port‐ related use would have an adverse economic outcome, because it would be a lost opportunity for a major firm to establish an efficient supply chain management system.

Council’s Structure Plan contains an objective that industrial and other permitted uses along Princes Highway should provide visual interest and not conflict with port operations and it includes a notation on the Corio Quay precinct plan that a DDO be applied over the site for ‘highway interactive uses and buildings’.

Further, Council has proposed a DDO to apply on all the land between Princes Highway and Corio Quay Road south of North Shore Road, including the former Ford site, as part of the Amendment it requested in December 2009. The purpose of this Overlay is to ensure a higher standard of design of development in this gateway precinct.

Advisory Committee discussion

While the former Ford site should be considered as part of the wider port precinct given its location on the east side of Princes Highway and its industrial zoning, the Committee notes that there are some constraints for setting aside the site exclusively for port‐related uses.

First, the site has no direct access to the port area, as the Melbourne‐Geelong railway line runs directly to the east the site. Access to the site is only available from Princes Highway. Any infrastructure to connect the site to the other side of the railway line would be at a considerable cost.27

Second, in response to DIIRD’s concern about the economic importance of establishing port‐related uses near the port, the Committee observes that there is a significant amount of vacant and under utilised land in the port area that could be developed for port‐related uses, including land closer to the dock areas.

27 It is noted that the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C98 Panel Report referred to a Connell Wagner report that estimated that the cost of a two lane bridge was $2.5m. 137 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Notwithstanding these concerns, the Committee notes the very strong views expressed by GeelongPort and DIIRD about retaining the site in the port environs, and that Council’s key concern is not about the use of the site but about the quality of the development.

Key issue for consideration . Should the former Ford site be confined to a port‐related use and continue to be identified within the ‘port area of interest’ given the site’s gateway location into Geelong and the lack of direct access to the port area?

7.6.4 Proposed Geelong marine industry project, Osborne Park, Osborne House, and the Rippleside residential area with ‘port area of interest’ land

Background

The proposed Geelong marine industry project is to be located on the former power station site, located within the wider port area south of the GrainCorp site. This project proposes to offer facilities for boat‐manufacturing, maintenance and repairs, storage and slip/lift facilities.

Further south is Osborne Park which contains Osborne House, a Victorian era homestead currently occupied by the Geelong Maritime Museum. South of Osborne Park is the Rippleside residential area.

The PLUS states that the proposed Geelong marine industry project is a suitable land use transition between the port and the residential area to the south, however it also states that the existing industrial zone applying to the site should be retained.

GeelongPort is concerned that any potential tourist accommodation within the marine industry project would be an encroachment of a sensitive use, and that may affect what could occur on port‐related land.

Others stakeholders including the Victorian Regional Channel Authority and DIIRD also questioned the wisdom of allowing accommodation in the marine industry project.

Council’s Structure Plan acknowledges the need to address the interface between the port and surrounding area, and recommends that: . Applying a Special Use Zone to the marine industry project and Osborne Park to provide an appropriate interface to ensure future use and development does not detrimentally affect the port;

138 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

. Retention of existing industrial zones in Mackey Street; . Ensuring the entire 300 metre Barrett Burston buffer is within an industrial zone (involves extending IN1 south by approximately 12 metres); and . Limiting residential/accommodation use to Osborne House, and ensuring design of accommodation components consider potential impacts from the port and port‐related activities.

Advisory Committee discussion

Other than the concern with proposing tourist accommodation in the proposed marine industry project, it appears that GeelongPort considers the project would be an acceptable land use transition between the port area and non‐port uses.

In response to GeelongPort’s comment that it may be appropriate to retain an industrial zone over the proposed project site, the Committee considers that such a zone may be too restrictive and that either the proposed Port Zone with an appropriate schedule or a Special Use Zone specifically tailored for the development would be more appropriate.

The Committee does not have a major concern with promoting tourist, short‐ term accommodation in the proposed development on the basis that such accommodation does not generate the same amenity expectations associated with permanent accommodation.

Key issues for consideration . Is the proposed Geelong marine industry project a suitable land use transition between the Port and other uses? . Should the proposed Geelong marine industry project site be retained within the Industrial 1 Zone, or rezoned to the proposed Port Zone with an appropriate schedule or rezoned to a specifically tailored Special Use Zone? . Should tourist accommodation be prohibited within the marine industry project to ensure there is no impact on the port or port‐related uses?

139 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

7.6.5 Geelong Grammar School with ‘port area of interest land’

Background

Geelong Grammar School is located to the immediate north of the port area that is currently zoned Industrial 2.

The PLUS does not make any specific recommendations about the interface with the school. However, there are general recommendations about retaining all industrial zoned land within the ‘port area of interest’.

Council’s Geelong Port Structure Plan contains an objective that any applications for use and development in the Refinery Pier precinct should be assessed having particular regard to nearby sensitive land uses, including the school. The Structure Plan also includes a notation on a map “to maintain visual and amenity between Shell and Geelong Grammar”.28

It is also recommended that the school site should be rezoned from Farming to Special Use to better identify and clarify the sensitive use of this land.

Geelong Grammar representatives advised the Committee that the existing buffer area between Shell Refinery and the school was an important mechanism to provide a safe environment for its students. They considered there could be an improvement to the traffic management of the area, and that more investment on rail would be an important contributor to reducing potential conflict between port‐related traffic and school generated traffic. They also preferred Council to remain the responsible authority for the Port of Geelong because they considered Council would be more likely to give greater weight to local issues.

Advisory Committee discussion

Given the School’s location near the port, the school site should be included in the port environs. On this basis it should be subject to a planning control to ensure future use and development does not have an impact on the port and port‐related activities, and that applications for use and development are subject to notice and referral to GeelongPort.

However, the Committee notes that the school is well aware of the existence of the port and does not propose to construct new buildings closer to the port.

28 Refer to Map 2, page 18 140 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Instead of an additional planning control, an appropriate course of action could be for the school to prepare a master plan for the site and for it to be incorporated into the planning scheme. With such an approach, all parties including the GeelongPort and other port stakeholders such as Shell would have a very clear understanding of the future development of the school site. Any significant variation to develop outside the parameters of the master plan would trigger a planning scheme amendment and public notice.

It may also be appropriate that the school consider applying for a Special Use Zone as an outcome of a master plan for the site.

Key issues for consideration . Should Geelong Grammar School be included in the port environs? . Should a planning control be introduced to ensure future use and development on the school site does not have an impact on the port and port‐related activities? . Should applications for use and development on the school site be subject to notice and referral to GeelongPort? . Should the school be encouraged to develop a master plan involving stakeholders including GeelongPort and Shell for the site that could be incorporated into the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme?

7.7 Port of Portland

Background

The Port of Portland has one main sensitive interface, which is the residential land to the south of the main port area and west of Incitec Pivot.

This interface features a steep escarpment that would reduce some adverse amenity impacts of port activities on the residents.

Main adverse amenity impacts from the port are noise, dust, odour and light spill. Problems of odour have occurred from the Incitec Pivot site, and there is a requirement of the EPA Works Approval for the plant to be closed when there is an easterly breeze.

In 2008, the Minister for Planning approved Amendment C39 that facilitated expansion of the woodchip storage and handling facilities at the port. The Amendment was approved subject to an Environmental Management Plan being incorporated into the Glenelg Planning Scheme which contains requirements relating to construction noise and vibration, road traffic noise, operational noise, air emissions and traffic.

141 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

There are also concerns with the impact of port‐related traffic noise on residential properties, particularly along the Ring Road and Madeira Packet Road which both serve as major transport corridors to the port. The Port of Portland expressed strong concerns that any restrictions on the transport corridors to the port could have a significant impact on the port’s potential to grow.

Some of the Port’s concerns were addressed with the rezoning of parcels of land from residential to industrial near Madeira Packet Road with the approval of Amendment C40 in May 2009.

The PLUS does not contain any specific recommendations to address the interface between the port and the residential area to the south. However, it is recommended that the port manager implement an internal review process to ensure that land use changes within the port consider potential impacts on adjoining land uses. It is also recommended that the port manager should work with Glenelg Shire Council and DOT to prepare a detailed buffer strategy to address interface issues between the port and adjoining land uses.

Council considers that scope exists at the port to mitigate adverse amenity impacts, and supports the proposal for a detailed buffer strategy.

The PLUS also contains a recommendation that the Canal Court precinct be included in the Special Use Zone to ensure that the Zone is consistent with the existing SUZ4 and port‐related purposes.

Advisory Committee discussion

The Committee agrees that the residential area south of the port and east of Incitec Pivot should be included in the port environs. This area includes land bound by Henty Highway to the north, Madeira Packet Road to the east, Wellington Road to the west and Edgar Street to the south.

Given the size of this area and the potential for further development, the Committee considers there is merit in introducing a planning control that requires development to be sited and designed to reduce potential amenity impacts from the port and Incitec Pivot and for applications to be subject to the notice or referral requirements of Clause 66.10.

The Committee agrees with the Port of Portland’s comments that restrictions on the use of Ring Road and Madeira Packet Road as a result of concerns raised by residents regarding traffic noise could have a significant impact on the port’s growth opportunities. Accordingly, the Committee considers that an overlay that required new development to be sited and designed to

142 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 reduce the impact of traffic noise similar to the DDO1 in the Hume Planning Scheme is worthy of investigation.

Given the port manager owns Canal Court and it is identified in the PLUS as required for port‐related uses, it would appear appropriate that it be considered for inclusion within the port area and subject to the proposed Port Zone recommended by this Committee.

Key issues for further consideration . Should the residential area to the south of the port and east of Incitec Pivot and bounded by Henty Highway to the north, Madeira Packet Road to the east, Wellington Road to the west and Edgar Road to the south be included in the port environs? . Should a planning control that requires development to be sited and designed to reduce potential amenity impacts from the port be introduced? . Should applications for use and development be subject to the notice or referral requirements of Clause 66? . Should Canal Court be included in the proposed Port Zone recommended by the Committee? . Should an overlay along the main transport corridors adjacent to residential areas be introduced to require development to be sited and designed to reduce the impact of traffic noise?

143 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Part D – Planning Framework

144 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

8. State Planning Policy Framework

8.1 Introduction

The terms of reference require the Advisory Committee to: Make recommendations that would protect the ports from the encroachment of sensitive uses through the use of appropriate planning policy and applications of the Victoria Planning Provisions (Advisory Committee emphasis)

The starting point for assessing any planning proposal is to determine whether or not that proposal can be justified strategically. In making any assessment the overriding strategic context is found in the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) which is common to all planning schemes in Victoria. It is this section of the planning scheme which sets out relevant policies of the State. The SPPF provides for ports specifically under Clause 12.04‐2 Transport and freight and Clause 18 Infrastructure.

Under Clause 12.04‐2, ports are referred to where it is stated that key transport and freight links are encouraged to develop as the nation’s premier logistics centre through protecting options for access to, and future development at ports and by ensuring port areas are protected by adequate buffers to minimize land‐use conflict.

Clause 18 deals with a range of infrastructure items including (in order): . Declared highways, railways and tramways; . Car parking and public transport access to development; . Bicycle transport; . Airfields; . Ports; . Health facilities; . Education facilities; . Survey infrastructure; . Water supply, sewerage and drainage; . Waste management; . High pressure pipelines; . Developer contributions to infrastructure; and

145 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

. Telecommunications.

Within this Clause sub‐clause 18.05 Ports has two objectives as follows: · To recognise the importance to Victoria of economically sustainable major ports (Melbourne, Geelong, Portland, Hastings) by planning for appropriate access, terminal areas and depot areas. · To plan the land resources adjacent to ports to facilitate the efficient operation of the port and port‐related uses and minimise adverse impacts on surrounding urban development and the environment.

In addition Melbourne 2030, a reference document in the SPPF, proposed the strengthening of the State’s ports as one of its key initiatives and it noted that the ports and their associated rail and road networks are crucial elements of the State’s competitive capability.

In this regard Initiative 4.3.2 stated: Protect options for access to, and future development at, the ports of Melbourne, Geelong and Hastings, and ensure all port areas are protected by adequate buffer areas to prevent land‐use conflicts at the perimeter. *

*Portland was beyond the scope of Melbourne 2030.

Melbourne 2030 clearly recognized the importance of the ports as key drivers of the State’s economy and the role they play in shaping the State and national freight networks. Ports handle over 99% of Victoria’s international import and export trade valued at over $100 billion annually and they contribute 15,000 direct jobs.

Despite the general support given to port development and buffer requirements in the SPPF, the PEPF called for the SPPF to be strengthened to give greater support to the two way amenity impacts for development in areas close to the port. In this regard it recommended the SPPF provide: · policy statements that identify the need to apply a two way approach to managing land use change within the port and its environs, with the aim of protecting existing and future port operations and the safety, amenity and environmental qualities of surrounding communities; and · policies that seek to protect the port from encroachment from residential and other sensitive uses by expanding the scope to cover commercial development and other inappropriate land uses for which amenity expectations cannot necessarily be met in the port environs.

146 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

8.2 Advisory Committee discussion

While ports are a strategically vital element of the State’s infrastructure, the Committee believes that their importance to the State’s economy, as well as that of the nation and the local areas within which the ports are located, appears somewhat understated in the SPPF. Ports are referred to in a clause dealing with matters of lesser significance to the State such as car parking, bicycle transport and developer contributions. Further, reference to port access and buffering under a separate and less transparent clause has the impact of diffusing important policy which would be given greater impact if placed under a specific clause relating to ports.

The first objective in Cause 18.05 begs the question ‘What is the importance of the ports to Victoria?’ The Advisory Committee can see no reason why Clause 18.05 could not be expanded upon to give context to this objective.

The Committee notes that the VPPs require statements of environmental significance when controlling land that is of environmental importance. However, no such statements exist where land is of economic significance other than paragraphs that might be hidden away in a Municipal Strategic Statement (or Port Strategic Statement in the case of the Port of Melbourne).

The second objective in Clause 18.05, while under the heading of ports, refers to planning for land adjacent to ports. This raises the question ‘Why would a responsible authority making a decision on land adjacent to a port refer to a provision in its planning scheme relating to ports?’

The Advisory Committee has noted that a current departmental review has led to the release of a revised version of the SPPF for discussion purposes. The revision has modified the existing arrangement of Clauses which have an ‘objective’ followed by ‘general implementation’ and ‘geographic strategies’ sub‐clauses to have an ‘objective‘ followed by ‘strategies’ and ‘policy guidelines’ sub‐clauses.

This revision has placed all policy relating to ports in a revised Clause 18.06 Transport. In the Committee’s opinion ports in this revised SPPF are now coupled more appropriately with Integrated transport, Movement networks, Airfields and Freight.

In this version of the SPPF the two existing objectives have been split with the result that a new Clause 18.06‐1 relates to planning for ports and a new Clause 18.6‐2 relates to planning for land adjoining ports. Being a ‘policy‐ neutral’ revision, the wording of the objectives has not changed and the

147 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 strategies under each sub‐clause simply replace what is currently found in the SPPF.

However the revised SPPF provisions appear more logically formatted and by splitting the objectives and creating the specific sub‐clause 18.06‐2 Planning for land adjoining ports, they give slightly enhanced emphasis and transparency to the need for decisions regarding land adjoining ports to take into account possible impacts on port activities.

The existing Clause 18.05‐2 General implementation states: The land resources adjacent to ports should be protected to preserve their value for uses which depend upon or gain significant economic advantage from proximity to the ports’ particular shipping operations. Port and industrial development should be physically separated from sensitive urban development by the establishment of appropriate buffers which reduce the impact of vibration, intrusive lighting, noise and air emissions from port activities. Planning for the use of land adjacent to ports should aim to achieve and maintain a high standard of environmental quality, be integrated with policies for the protection of the environment generally and of marine environments in particular and take into account planning for adjacent areas and the relevant catchment.

In the Committee’s opinion, this clause does not articulate the possibility of uses which legitimately seek proximity to a port such as offices and warehouses (and supporting uses such as restaurants and cafes) may inappropriately place concentrations of people in areas where there is the potential for exposure to risk and/or amenity impacts. Such uses, if permitted in port environs/interface areas, may give rise to pressures to curtail or restrict port use or port development proposals. The Committee believes that there are mutual obligations if ports and the surrounding land uses are to successfully co‐exist and reflect the strategic importance of ports.

The revised SPPF embraces the above ‘general implementation’ provisions and includes them under an expanded section headed ‘strategies’. This expanded section draws some related provisions from elsewhere in the SPPF and is suggested to be worded as follows:

Protect the land resources adjacent to ports to preserve their value for uses which depend upon or gain significant economic advantage from proximity to the ports’ particular shipping operations [18.05‐2].

148 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Physically separate port and industrial development from sensitive urban development by the establishment of appropriate buffers which reduce the impact of vibration, intrusive lighting, noise and air emissions from port activities [18.05‐2].

Identify and protect options for access to, and future development at, the ports of Melbourne, Geelong and Hastings [12.04‐2].

Ensure port areas are protected by adequate buffers to minimise land‐use conflict [12.04‐2].

Improve rail freight access to ports [12.04‐2].

Ensure that planning and development of the Fishermans Bend precinct does not jeopardise the needs of the Port of Melbourne as a working port and as one of the State’s most important transport gateways [12.04‐2].

Retain the Port of Hastings as a long‐term option for future port development should the ports of Melbourne and Geelong no longer meet the State’s needs [12.04‐2].

(Note: The existing SPPF origin of the various sub‐clauses is shown in brackets.)

Finally, the Committee notes that the only documents listed as references in the current Clause 18.05‐3 Geographic strategies are Statement of Planning Policy No 1 ‐ Western Port (1970‐varied 1976) and the Hastings Port Industrial Area Land Use Structure Plan (Department of Planning and Development 1996). These references are retained in the revised SPPF under the heading ‘Policy guidelines’.

Nowhere is there reference to each port’s Port Land Use Strategy prepared under the Port Services Act 1995 nor important State Government strategies such as Melbourne @ 5 Million, Victorian Ports Strategic Framework (2004), Port Futures – New Priorities and Directions for Victoria’s Ports System (2009), The Victorian Transport Plan (2008) and Freight Futures: Victorian Freight Network Strategy (2008).

The Committee believes that the revised SPPF as it relates to ports and adjacent lands is an improvement on the existing SPPF. However some of the existing weaknesses remain in the revised version.

It needs to be accepted that changes to the SPPF seldom happen in a piecemeal manner and that the SPPF is written in a standard format. It is simply not possible to have the provisions relating to ports and adjacent lands adopt a different format. The current revision, however, offers an opportunity to introduce some modifications which may overcome some of

149 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 the existing shortcomings which will remain if the SPPF is modified in the revised form circulated for discussion.

The Committee considers that the brief statement at the introduction of Clause 18 Transport in the revised SPPF which reads as:

Planning should ensure an integrated and sustainable transport system that provides access to social and economic opportunities, facilitates economic prosperity, contributes to environmental sustainability, coordinates reliable movements of people and goods, and is safe. might be strengthened to read along lines as follows:

Planning should ensure an integrated and sustainable transport system that provides access to social and economic opportunities, facilitates economic prosperity, contributes to environmental sustainability, coordinates reliable movements of people and goods, and is safe. The State’s ports and airports and their associated road and rail networks are crucial elements of Victoria’s competitive capability and their potential for future development is to be protected and enhanced.

In the Committee’s opinion, such a modification if coupled with the inclusion of the relevant Port Land Use Strategies as well as Melbourne @ 5 Million, Victorian Ports Strategic Framework (2004), Port Futures – New Priorities and Directions for Victoria’s Ports System (2009), The Victorian Transport Plan (2008) and Freight Futures: Victorian Freight Network Strategy (2008) as reference documents in the proposed future Clause 18.06 would provide a strengthened and more transparent SPPF as it applies to ports and adjacent lands.

8.3 Key issues for consideration . Does the existing SPPF (when coupled with local policy) provide a sufficient policy basis for ensuring the future growth and development of Victoria’s ports? . Does the revised version of the SPPF provide an enhanced policy basis to assist facilitate the future development of Victoria’s ports and for the consideration of the need for a two‐way consideration of interface issues? . Should the various port land use strategies and key State Government policies be listed as reference documents in the SPPF?

150 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

9. Local Planning Policy Framework

9.1 Introduction

The terms of reference require the Advisory Committee to: Make recommendations that would protect the ports from the encroachment of sensitive uses through the use of appropriate planning policy and applications of the Victoria Planning Provisions (Advisory Committee emphasis).

A summary of existing relevant policies in the local planning schemes is provided in Section 4.3 of this report.

9.2 Local Planning Schemes

The PEPF prepared for the PoMC provides recommendations on the nature of changes that should be made to the local planning schemes that have some reference to the Port of Melbourne. Given the terms of reference requirement that the Advisory Committee review the issues raised in the PEPF and provide recommendations on how the framework can be implemented, it is considered appropriate to provide comment on the PEPF’s recommendations on this matter.

9.2.1 Melbourne Planning Scheme

The PEPF recommends changes to the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and local policy to strengthen existing strategies for dealing with port interface issues between sensitive uses and surrounding industrial uses, by application of the buffer distances in Clause 52.10 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme, and extension of existing amenity principles.

Specifically, the recommended changes are: . Update the MSS where it refers to policy for the Docklands area to strengthen co‐existence and integration with the port at the interface with Victoria Dock and South Wharf; . Update the MSS to include statements that address the land use change around the Fishermans Bend and Port Melbourne areas and their interface with the port, particularly in regard to protection of existing

151 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

separation buffers for land uses consistent with Clause 52.10 Uses with Adverse Amenity Potential; and . Update the MSS to reflect the Port Development Strategy.

Advisory Committee discussion

The Committee notes the extensive reference to the Port of Melbourne in the MSS and to the support to be given by the City of Melbourne to the port and its continued operation as Australia’s leading container port.

The Committee considers the PEPF’s recommendations regarding the strengthening of sections of the MSS to have merit, particularly in relation to the Docklands policy at Clause 21.08‐2. However, this clause makes no reference to the fact that Docklands abuts the Port of Melbourne. It encourages a high level of residential use as well as advocating water based activities without reference to the need for these activities to co‐exist with the ongoing 24‐hour functions of the port. In this regard the Committee notes that Figure 13 in Clause 21.08‐2 emphasises links with the central city area at the eastern edge of Docklands but is silent about the port at its western edge.

In the Committee’s opinion there is merit in revising Clause 21.08‐2 to recognise the need for development at Victoria Dock and South Wharf to co‐ exist and integrate with the port.

The Committee does not consider any changes are required to the policies applying to Fishermans Bend and Port Melbourne. The Committee notes that Clause 21.08‐11 actively supports the 24 hour operation of the port and given the previous comments in this report that this area is not a sensitive interface and that office development is not incompatible with current or future port activities no change is needed.

Key issues for consideration . Should the Melbourne Planning Scheme LPPF be amended generally in accordance with PEPF’s recommendations? . Is there a need for local policy to address the impact of the Port in the Business 3 Zone area of Fishermans Bend and Port Melbourne?

9.2.2 Port Phillip Planning Scheme

The PEPF states there is scope to enhance the MSS and LPPF to better reflect the State policy relevant to the port, the role of the port (including current and future port development) and interface relationships. It is recommended that the MSS include statements that:

152 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

. Support the existing policy and zoning framework as applied to the port throughout the MSS; . Strengthen the MSS to address residential interface issues in Garden City and Port Melbourne; . Strengthen tourism policies for Station Pier and recognise the significant role Station Pier plays in Bass Strait freight transport and cruise shipping; and . Recognise and strengthen the role of public transport and road freight in providing access to Station Pier.

Advisory Committee discussion

There is little reference in the Port Phillip Planning Scheme to the Port of Melbourne. Reference is limited to the issue of traffic that might arise from the future development of Webb Dock and the inclusion of Station Pier in a ‘civic node’ and tourism centre.

On the issue of Webb Dock, Clause 21.05‐1 which deals with the municipality’s residential areas requires the consideration of any proposed expansion of Webb Dock and any other Dock activities or other water based activities against the potential impact on local residents and the needs of business.

At Clause 21.05‐9 the MSS notes that a strength of Port Phillip’s industrial areas is their proximity to Webb Dock but concern about the traffic that will flow from future development of Webb Dock is amongst the key issues facing the municipality set down in the MSS in Clause 21.03.

With regard to Station Pier, the LPPF is almost silent referring only to its heritage status and its nomination as part of a tourism centre. The Committee is surprised that there is no reference to it as one of the main gateways to the State for both visitors and freight.

The Committee agrees that traffic associated with the future development at Webb Dock is a key issue but believes that it is an issue that will be best addressed through the requirements on future development applications rather than through policy statements.

Given there is very little reference to the impact of the Port in the planning scheme, the Advisory Committee generally agrees with the PEPF’s recommendations that there is scope to enhance the LPPF to better reflect the State policy relevant to the port, the role of the port (including current and future port development) and interface relationships.

153 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Key issue for consideration . Should the Port Phillip Planning Scheme LPPF be amended generally in accordance with PEPF’s recommendations?

9.2.3 Maribyrnong Planning Scheme

The PEPF recommends changes to the MSS and LPPF to acknowledge the ongoing operations of the Port, the draft PDS and the need for ancillary port activities in the area. Specific recommendations are: . Enhancing the references in the MSS in relation to residential, industrial and transport development. This will assist in protecting the industrial areas, especially in Yarraville, so that they are retained as buffers for the Port and protected from encroachment by sensitive uses. . Strengthen policy statements in the MSS regarding the Maribyrnong River and Valley to address interfaces with the port and associated access corridors. . Include policy statements in the MSS in relation to industrial use to ensure that existing buffer separation distances, including any threshold distances consistent with Clause 52.10 uses with Adverse Amenity Potential, are maintained and protected. . Update local policies in the LPPF to promote retention of industrial and port‐related uses, and appropriate zoning, and to ensure new development does not impede current and future operations of the Port. . Create a new local policy for Yarraville to limit commercial office development and prohibit new residential use. The policy would also ensure future development considers the potential risk and amenity impacts of port operations on those specific areas.

Advisory Committee discussion

From the Committee’s perusal of the Maribyrnong Planning Scheme, there is acknowledgement of the significance of the port to encourage industrial use and development and provide employment opportunities. However, there is no reference to actual interfaces with the port or the need to buffer future sensitive uses from the off‐site impacts of the port other than to improve arterial road links from industrial areas to the port.

The MSS makes clear Council’s commitment to facilitating mixed‐use development and to changing the Maribyrnong River frontage from an industrial orientation to mixed use. In this regard there is a fundamental

154 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 conflict between the PoMC and Maribyrnong City Council over the Footscray Wharf precinct.

The Committee considers that given the existence of the major hazardous facilities at Coode Island, it is not appropriate to encourage use and development that will attract large numbers of people that are within the EPA and WorkSafe Victoria’s buffer requirements. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee generally supports the PEPF recommendations to introduce policy to limit commercial office development and prohibit new residential use within those areas subject to the potential for amenity impacts and exposure to risk.

The Committee also acknowledges that the Memorandum of Understanding between the PoMC and Maribyrnong City Council provides a positive way forward with respect to some of the interface issues encountered in the Yarraville/Footscray area.

Key issue for consideration . Should the Maribyrnong Planning Scheme LPPF be amended generally in accordance with PEPF’s recommendations, particularly in relation to the Footscray Wharf precinct?

9.2.4 Hobson’s Bay Planning Scheme

The PEPF recommends changes to the MSS and LPPF in the Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme to: . Strengthen the MSS coastal policies to acknowledge the interface with the Port and the need to consider proximity to the port in land use decisions; . Strengthen Local Planning Policy for industry to require a two‐way approach to managing land use change and amenity to protect interests of the Port and industry, as well as more sensitive non‐industrial uses within the port environs area; and . Continue to protect industrial zoned land within the environs of Gellibrand Pier from residential encroachment.

Advisory Committee discussion

While the Advisory Committee considers there may be scope to specifically acknowledge the interface of the port in different parts of the municipality in the MSS, it considers the existing Industry Policy in Clause 21.09 is adequate in addressing the interface between industry and sensitive uses.

155 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

The Advisory Committee notes that this policy includes a strategy to: Protect core and secondary industrial areas as identified within the Hobsons Bay Industrial Land Management Strategy June 2008 from the encroachment of residential and other noise sensitive land uses. Require residential and other new noise sensitive land uses to include appropriate measures to protect their amenity including noise attenuation measures within new buildings and the appropriate design and siting of private open space, to protect occupants’ amenity’s view, this approach recognises the importance for industry to be able to operate.

Accordingly, the Committee does not consider it is necessary to make further amendments to the Hobson’s Bay LPPF to strengthen policy for industry to require a two‐way approach to managing land use change and amenity to protect interests of the port and industry.

As noted previously, the Committee considers there may be justification for rezoning the existing Industrial 1 Zone land south of Gellibrand Pier (the former Port Phillip Woollen Mill site) to facilitate a mixed use or residential development. Therefore, the Committee does not agree with the PEPF recommendation that all this land to remain zoned industrial. This matter is discussed in section 7.3.9.

Key issues for consideration . Should there be more specific reference in the Hobson’s Bay MSS that recognises the interface of the Port? . Is the current Industry Policy in Clause 21.09 adequate to address the interface between industrial and sensitive uses?

9.2.5 Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme

The land use strategy prepared for Hastings Port states that there is a need to revise existing policies in the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme and include the land use strategy as a reference document in the SPPF. No detail is provided on the nature of revised policies considered appropriate.

The scoping report prepared by AECOM for the Port of Hastings recommends that the MSS is amended to reference the planning objectives of the land use strategy.

156 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Advisory Committee discussion

The MSS at Clause 21.03‐1. The regional role of the Mornington Peninsula notes that Western Port boasts major deep‐water port facilities, including Victoria’s largest bulk liquid cargo port. It then links the MSS to the State Planning Policy Framework noting that the SPPF directs that: . Land resources adjacent to ports should be protected to preserve their value for uses which are dependent upon or gain substantial economic advantage from proximity to the port’s particular shipping operations. . Planning for the use of land should aim to achieve and maintain a high standard of environmental quality, be integrated with policies for the protection of the environment generally and of marine environments in particular and take into account planning for adjacent areas and the relevant catchment. . Port and industrial development should be physically separated from sensitive urban development by the establishment of appropriate buffers, which reduce the impact of vibration, intrusive lighting, noise and air emissions from port activities.

This Clause also notes that State policy requires that planning for the Hastings port area should have regard to the Statement of Planning Policy No 1 ‐ Western Port and is to be undertaken in accordance with the Hastings Port Industrial Area Land Use Structure Plan.

In addition, the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme contains a specific policy Clause 21.10 Managing Port Area Development dealing with the Port of Hastings. This policy provides strong recognition of, and commitment to the Port and recognises its economic significance to the State. At the same time it recognises the sensitivities of the port being located in an area containing internationally recognised ecosystems and to the need to provide major infrastructure including main road improvements to support port‐ related development.

Despite the strong local policy related to the port there may be merit in updating this policy having regard to the role the port will play in the future as Melbourne’s second container port and the strategic directions of the land use strategy including the proposed development of the Long Island precinct.

157 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Key issue for consideration . Is there a need to update Clause 21.10 of the Mornington Peninsula MSS to recognise the role the Port will play in the future as Melbourne’s secondary port and the strategic directions of the PLUTS including the proposed development of the Long Island precinct.

9.2.6 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme

The LPPF includes reference to the Port of Geelong in its clauses relating to Economic Development and Employment and Infrastructure as well as containing a specific clause related to the port – Clause 21.12 Geelong Port.

General references promote the need to support industry through the maintenance and improvement of infrastructure including the port and associated facilities; through minimising land use conflicts; and by focussing new industry around infrastructure. In addition it aims to protect industry from the encroachment of incompatible uses.

Clause 21.12 indicates Council commitment to the port though its objectives which aim to: . provide for the continued growth and development of Port of Geelong as a key economic resource to the Victorian community; . maintain and enhance the efficiency of the port; . safeguard the port as a focal point for infrastructure development and economic prosperity within south‐west Victoria; . ensure that development in the port area is environmentally sustainable; and . give appropriate weight to the needs of a working port having regard to the amenity of the land uses at the port interface.

The land use strategy includes a strategy to: Strengthen planning policy frameworks to provide clear strategic support for future port operations in a manner that achieves sustainable development outcomes.

Greater Geelong City Council has requested the Minister for Planning to replace the existing Geelong Port policy in Clause 21.12 of the MSS with a new policy based on the precincts, principles and directions of the Geelong Port Structure Plan. The Minister has advised Council that it would be inappropriate to exhibit the Amendment while the Advisory Committee is undertaking its review.

158 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Advisory Committee discussion

From the Advisory Committee’s perusal of the Greater Geelong MSS, Clause 21.12 recognises the economic importance of the Port to the region.

While the port land use strategy recommends that the local policy be strengthened to provide strategic support for the Port, it does not contain any specific proposals to change the local policy framework.

However, the Committee notes that the proposed Amendment on the Geelong Port Structure Plan contains a very detailed policy for the Port and considers that provided the conflicts between the port land use strategy and the Structure Plan are resolved, it would form a very useful starting point for a local policy.

Key issues for consideration . Provided the conflicts between the land use strategy and the Structure Plan are resolved, would the proposed local policy for Geelong Port prepared by the Greater Geelong City Council be a useful starting point to prepare a new a local policy? . Is there a need for a new local policy?

9.2.7 Glenelg Planning Scheme

The LPPF includes a number of references to the Port of Portland and indicates quite strong support for its continued development. The port is noted as being one of the Shire’s major assets with the capacity to serve western Victoria and south‐east Australia being the only deep‐water port between Geelong and Adelaide. Further, the MSS notes that land for residential, industrial and port‐related uses needs to be identified and protected by appropriate zonings and policies.

The LPPF also includes a specific policy at Clause 22.03‐3 Port of Portland which states that the long term development of the Shire is linked to the use, development and expansion of the Port. The objective of this clause is to ensure that the port’s development is not limited by other land uses and developments in nearby areas either onshore or offshore. To meet this objective it is Council policy that: . development in and near the port should not prejudice the expansion and operation of the port; . easy road and rail access to the port shall be maintained; and . the fishing industry and the servicing of the fishing industry is supported.

159 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

The land use strategy does not include any recommendations to amend the Glenelg Planning Scheme LPPF relating to the Port of Portland.

Advisory Committee discussion

From the Advisory Committee’s perusal of the MSS, it would appear the local policy framework is adequate in terms of recognising the economic significance of the Port and the managing the interface between port and port‐related and sensitive uses. However, it appears the policy should be updated to reflect the strategic directions of the port land use strategy.

Key issue for consideration . Is there a need to update the Glenelg MSS to reflect the strategic outcomes of the Portland PLUS?

9.2.8 Status of Port Strategic Land Use Plans

A number of the port land use strategies and the PEPF contain a recommendation that the relevant land use strategy should be included in the planning scheme as a reference document.

The Committee considers there is merit in this suggestion, particularly if local policy is to be amended and updated to reflect the strategic directions of the port land use strategy. However, this matter should be considered as part of any proposal to amend the local policy rather than as a separate initiative.

Key issue for consideration . Should the relevant port land use strategy be considered for inclusion into the relevant planning scheme as a reference document as part of any future amendment to review and update the local planning policy?

160 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

10. Existing planning controls applying to the Ports

10.1 Introduction

One of the Advisory Committee’s tasks is to: Advise on appropriate and streamlined planning controls that could apply to the use and development of land and where relevant, the waters of the Ports of Geelong, Portland and Hastings.

The ToR explicitly exclude consideration of the planning controls applying to the Port of Melbourne, however they require the Advisory Committee to have regard to the current model used in the Port of Melbourne Planning Scheme.

Appendix F provides a summary of the existing planning controls applying to the four ports.

In this chapter, the Committee provides a brief analysis of the issues associated with the current planning controls as well as the planning controls applying to the waters of the three ports.

10.2 Concerns with the current planning controls applying to the Ports of Hastings, Geelong and Portland

The Committee has identified a number of short comings with the existing planning controls applying to the ports of Hastings, Geelong and Portland. These concerns include:

Lack of transparency – the generic SUZ provisions give little clue as to the purpose of port use given this type of zoning.

Lack of consistent purposes – the current purposes of the SUZ applying to the three ports are not consistent and do not reflect contemporary government policy to recognise the economic significance of the ports, the need to protect the ports from the encroachment of sensitive uses, the need to ensure the ports do not have unreasonable amenity and risk impacts on surrounding land uses and the need to protect environmental values.

161 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Table of uses not appropriate – there are a number of both Section 1 and Section 2 uses in the SUZs that are not compatible with port‐related uses – for example, Section 1 uses, Apiculture, Crop raising, Home occupation, Informal outdoor recreation and Section 2 uses, Residential hotel, Retail premises and Office. Further, the SUZ applying to Hastings Port appears to be much more restrictive than the other SUZs applying to Geelong and Portland. For example, Industry is a Section 2 use in Hastings and a Section 1 use in the other SUZs.

Use of land requirements not consistent ‐ there are some differences between the application requirements and the decision guidelines in the SUZs applying to the three ports. For example, an assessment of the environmental significance of the site and proposals relating to the maintenance of significant conservation values are a requirement in the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme, but not the Greater Geelong or Glenelg Planning Schemes.

Subdivision requirements not consistent – the Committee notes that in the Mornington Peninsula and Greater Geelong Planning Schemes any new lot may only be created for port‐related uses, however, no such provision exists in the Glenelg Planning Scheme. Further, exemptions from notice and appeal apply in the Greater Geelong and Glenelg Planning Schemes, but not the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme.

Buildings and works requirements not consistent – there are inconsistencies between the three SUZs in relation to the exemptions for buildings and works, and the exemption from the giving of notice and appeal. For example, there are extensive exemption requirements for buildings and works in the Glenelg Planning Scheme, less in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme and very few in the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme.

Lack of integration between policy and planning controls – in general terms, the Committee considers that there is an opportunity to strengthen the integration between State and local policy and planning controls relating to ports.

Definitions

Greater Geelong City Council raised some issues about the VPP definitions relating to port uses. Firstly, it raised the question as to what is a port and how should it be categorised in the planning scheme definitions.

162 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Further, Council questioned whether the major port facilities at the Port of Geelong (for example, Corio Quay and Lascelles Wharf), while having existing use rights, would be defined as Wharf or Transport terminal in the planning scheme.

It noted that a wharf is typically a structure that runs parallel to water’s edge – does this include facilities for loading and unloading, docking rather than loading?

Council officers also noted that Wharf is also part of a broader definition of Transport terminal which includes in the definition ‘land used to distribute goods and passengers’ and presumably, therefore, would include substantial buildings.

In the Council officers’ view, the broader definition would include structures and facilities ranging from warehouses, equipment buildings, offices, external storage, loading equipment etc related to the operation of the facility.

Council officers also made comments regarding the definitions of Warehouse, Shipping container storage and Store. It was also noted a Pier is nested under Marina then Pleasure boat facility which are permit required uses in the Zone. Would this mean that the Grain Piers and Refinery Piers at the Port of Geelong would require permits under the SUZ?

Key issues for consideration . Are the problems identified with the SUZs applying to the three ports of Hastings, Geelong and Portland a barrier to effective and streamlined decision‐making? . Is there a need to develop a purpose specific Port Zone that provides a more effective, streamlined and consistent decision‐making framework with scope to take into account local factors? . Is there a need to develop a definition for Port? . Are there other issues associated with the definitions for port‐related uses that require review?

163 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

10.3 Issues with the current planning controls applying to the waters of the Ports of Geelong, Portland and Hastings

10.3.1 Background

Each of the four ports have zones extending into the waters from the port foreshore. The situation is as follows:

Hastings . Special Use Zone 1 (SUZ1) – this extends some distance into the water at the Long Island precinct; and . Public Use Zone 27 (PUZ27) – this applies south of the Long Island precinct west of the Esso site.

In addition, it is noted that abutting the Special Use Zone 1 (SUZ1) on the foreshore is the Public Conservation and Resource Zone (PCRZ) north of the Long Island precinct, south and west of the former Esso site as well as to the north of Crib Point.

At both Crib Point and Stony Point, abutting the SUZ1 is the PUZ27.

A small area zoned Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ) applies close to the foreshore to the north of Crib Point.

Geelong

The Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ) extends into the water along the port’s foreshore boundaries for varying lengths, with the exception of the Refinery Pier and Grain Pier wharfs, which are zoned Special Use 6 (SUZ6).

Portland

It appears SUZ6 applying to the reclaimed area of the port and Incitec Pivot does not extend into the waters.

Melbourne

While the Advisory Committee does not have a role in reviewing the planning controls applying to Melbourne Port, it is noted that Special Use Zone 4 (SUZ4) covers the rivers adjacent to the port land (Maribyrnong River and Yarra River) and also extends some distance into Hobsons Bay. The zone has been created to specifically control development in the waters, and has two main purposes:

164 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

To provide navigable channels and access for shipping to the Port of Melbourne as a key area of the State for the interchange, storage and distribution of goods. To provide for boating and recreational uses within the waters of the Port of Melbourne.

Some foreshore land in Port Melbourne and Williamstown abutting the SUZ is zoned PPRZ.

10.3.2 Advisory Committee discussion

As can be seen from the various zones that extend into the waters adjacent to Victoria’s four ports, there is an inconsistent approach.

Whereas Melbourne Port and the main area of Hastings Port have zones to facilitate port or port‐related development that extend into the water, the same does not apply to Geelong or Portland.

In the case of Geelong, all the waters adjacent to the port or port area of interest land is zoned PPRZ. GeelongPort expressed concern about the time and cost involved in seeking a rezoning for the new ship bulk loader and berth at Corio Quay North, which took over two years at a cost of $500,000.

At Portland, there are no zoning controls that extend into the waters.

A key issue for consideration is whether the zoning controls that extend into the waters at the ports of Hastings, Geelong and Portland are appropriate.

With respect to Hastings, it appears that the Special Use Zone at Long Island is complementary for port and port‐related development.

Given the largely undeveloped nature of the remainder of the port, it would appear any extension of the Special Use Zone into the water is not required at this stage. The PCRZ also appears to play an important role in protecting sensitive areas of the coastline.

With respect to Geelong, the PPRZ does not appear to be compatible with future port development. The purpose of the PPRZ is to recognise areas for public recreation and open space. This appears to be at odds with the security issues now associated with international transport terminals such as airports and sea ports. However, it is not clear whether there is any need to extend a port‐related zone into the waters and the Committee also notes that within the port area of interest to the north and south of the main port areas there are opportunities for recreation, such as fishing.

165 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

The Port of Portland also needs to give consideration as to whether there is a need to extend the Special Use Zone into the waters beyond its land boundaries.

Key issues for consideration . Should the Special Use Zones currently applying to the ports or the proposed Port Zone extend into the waters adjacent to the port areas? . What should be the justification for applying the Special Use Zone or Port Zone into the waters adjacent to the port areas? . How far should the Special Use Zone or Port Zone extend into the waters? . What should be the nature of the planning controls applying to the waters adjacent to the port areas?

166 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

11. Proposed Port Zone

11.1 Rationale for a new zone

The Committee has identified the following reasons why a purposes‐specific Port Zone should be developed: . A Port Zone would give enhanced status to ports by not including them in the Special Use Zone (SUZ) which is a zone that provides for a ‘grab‐ bag’ of uses that do not sit comfortably in the basic suite of land use zones.29 . The generic SUZ provisions give little clue as to the purpose of use given this zoning. The zone instead relies on schedules to inform what particular type of land use is the subject of control. . The current use of the SUZ does not lend itself to consistency in the provisions relating to ports. . A Port Zone can provide transparency and consistency and, where necessary, include schedules to allow variations within and between ports to cater for differences in port activities and particular local circumstances. . Common and clear zone purposes can ensure that the strategic and economic importance of each of Victoria’s commercial trading ports to the State and the regions within which they are located can be clearly expressed. . A Port Zone can require consistent application requirements and decision guidelines. . As with existing zones, a new zone can be combined with overlays or other planning scheme controls.

29 This accepts that, for the present, the Port of Melbourne will maintain its current Special Use Zones 167 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

11.2 Proposed Port Zone

The Committee has developed a Port Zone, as follows: xx.01 PORT ZONE Shown on the planning scheme map as PZ

Purpose

To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement or Port Strategic Statement and local planning policies. To recognize the significance that commercial trading ports have to the economic well- being of the State of Victoria. To provide for the development of each of Victoria’s commercial trading ports as key areas of the State for the interchange, storage and distribution of goods. To provide for uses which derive direct benefit from co-establishing with a major commercial trading port. To provide for the development of a port in a manner which does not pose any unacceptable risk to the safety of local communities. To provide for development which does not unreasonably impact on the amenity of neighbouring land uses. To protect the environmental values of the port’s adjacent coastline and waters. To provide for use and development that generally accords with any Port Development Strategy prepared pursuant to Section 91K of the Port Services Act 1995.

xx.01-1 Table of uses

Section 1 - Permit not required USE CONDITION Industry (other than Materials recycling, Must be directly associated with and reliant refuse disposal, refuse transfer station, upon the port. rural industry) Must not be a purpose shown with a Note 1 or Note 2 in the table to Clause 52.10.

The land must be at least the following distances from land (not a road) which is in a residential zone, Business 5 Zone, Capital City Zone or Docklands Zone, land used for a hospital or an education centre or land in a Public Acquisition Overlay to be acquired for a hospital or an education centre:

• The threshold distance, for a purpose listed in the table to Clause 52.10.

• 30 metres, for a purpose not listed in the table to Clause 52.10.

Informal outdoor recreation

168 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

USE CONDITION Mail centre

Minor utility installation

Natural systems

Pleasure boat facility

Railway

Road

Service station The land must be at least 30 metres from land (not a road) which is in a residential zone, Business 5 Zone, Capital City Zone or Docklands Zone, land used for a hospital or an education centre or land in a Public Acquisition Overlay to be acquired for a hospital or an education centre.

Shipping container storage Must be directly associated with and reliant upon the port.

Must not be for the storage of bulk volatile organic compounds or the temporary storage of industrial wastes.

The land must be at least 100 metres from land (not a road) which is in a residential zone, Business 5 Zone, Capital City Zone or Docklands Zone, land used for a hospital or an education centre or land in a Public Acquisition Overlay to be acquired for a hospital or an education centre:

The site must adjoin, or have access to, a road in a Road Zone.

Shipping containers must be setback at least 9 metres from a road in a Road Zone.

The height of shipping container stacks must not exceed 6 containers or 16 metres, whichever is the lesser.

Telecommunications facility Buildings and works must meet the requirements of Clause 52.19.

Tramway

Transport terminal (other than Heliport and Wharf)

Warehouse (other than Mail centre and Must be directly associated with and reliant Shipping container storage) upon the port.

Must not be a purpose shown in the table to Clause 52.10.

The land must be at least 30 metres from land (not a road) which is in a residential zone, Business 5 Zone, Capital City Zone or

169 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

USE CONDITION Docklands Zone, land used for a hospital or an education centre or land in a Public Acquisition Overlay to be acquired for a hospital or an education centre.

Wharf

Note: In this draft the following uses which are generally Section 1 uses in all zones under the VPP have been omitted as none is appropriate in any circumstances in a commercial trading port: Apiculture, Carnival, Circus, Home occupation, Mineral exploration, Mining, Search for stone.

Section 2 - Permit required

USE CONDITION Heliport

Leisure and recreation (other than Informal outdoor recreation, Major sports and recreation facility and Motor racing track)

Office The leasable floor area must not exceed 500 square metres

Any other use not in Section 1 or 3

Section 3 - Prohibited

USE Accommodation (other than Caretaker's house)

Child care centre

Cinema based entertainment facility

Hospital

Intensive animal husbandry

Market

Shop (other Convenience shop) xx.01-2 Use of land

Application requirements

An application to use land must be accompanied by the following information, as appropriate: . A report which demonstrates a need or significant benefit for the use to establish close to the port or associated uses. . The purpose of the use and the types of processes to be utilised.

170 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

. The type and quantity of goods to be stored, processed or produced. . How land not required for immediate use is to be maintained. . Whether a Works Approval or Waste Discharge Licence is required from the Environment Protection Authority. . Whether a licence under the Dangerous Goods Act 1985 is required. . The likely effects, if any, on the neighbourhood, including: - Noise levels. - Air-borne emissions. - Emissions to land or water. - Traffic, including the hours of delivery and despatch. - Light spill or glare. - Risk. . A Site Environmental Management Plan for the management of environmental issues associated with the operation of the use. . An assessment against the relevant Port Development Strategy and the policies of the Local Planning Policy Framework. . A report indicating the hourly and daily volumes of traffic, by vehicle type and the capacity and suitability of the road network to accommodate the anticipated volumes. This report should also include details of any mitigating works required to achieve the required capacity. The report should also address the adequacy of truck parking, loading and truck queuing areas to accommodate truck movements at peak periods as well as employee parking on the land.

Decision guidelines

Before deciding on an application, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 65, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate: . The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies. . The effect that the use may have on land in a residential zone, Business 5 Zone, the Capital City Zone, the Docklands Zone, land used for a hospital or education centre or land in a Public Acquisition Overlay to be acquired for a hospital or education centre, having regard to any comments or directions of the referral authorities. . Whether there is a demonstrated need or significant benefit associated with any proposed industry, transport terminal, utility installation (other than a minor utility installation) or warehouse, in it being located near or associated with port facilities or uses. . The effect that the use may have on nearby existing or proposed uses for or associated with the port. . The effect that nearby existing or proposed uses for or associated with the port may have on the proposed use. . The drainage of the land. . The availability of and connection to services. . Provision for fire protection and other emergency services. . The adequacy of the transport network to achieve safe, efficient vehicle movement to and egress from the land.

171 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

. The interim use of those parts of the land not required for the proposed use. . The requirements of any Strategic Framework Plan contained in the Port Strategic Statement if applicable. xx.01-3 Subdivision 19/01/2006 Permit requirement

A permit is required to subdivide land. A lot may only be created if the land is to be used for a port or a port-dependent or port- related use.

Exemption from notice and review

An application is exempt from the notice requirements of Section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d), the decision requirements of Section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of Section 82(1) of the Act. This exemption does not apply to land within 30 metres of land (not a road) which is in a residential zone, Capital City Zone, Docklands Zone or Business 5 Zone, land used for a hospital or an education centre or land in a Public Acquisition Overlay to be acquired for a hospital or an education centre.

Decision guidelines

Before deciding on an application, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 65, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate: . The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies. . The ability of the land as subdivided to accommodate future port-related uses. . The ability of the land to be combined with other lots for use as a port-related use. . Any natural and cultural values on or near the land. . The purpose of the zone. . The use intended. . The extent of any existing or proposed reclamation works. . The topography of the land. . The availability and standard of road access, drainage, sewerage and other infrastructure available to the site. . Whether the frontage is adequate to provide for industrial traffic requirements. . Any easement or rights of way which may be required to convey public or private goods or services to or across the land. xx.01-4 Buildings and works

15/09/2008 Permit requirement

A permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works. This does not apply to a building or works which: . Provide for navigational beacons and aids and associated facilities.

172 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

. Rearrange, alter, renew or maintain plant if the area or height of the plant is not increased. . Comply with a direction or licence under the Dangerous Goods Act 1985 or a Waste Discharge Licence, Works Approval or any notice under the Environment Protection Act 1970. . Provide for a railway, road or tramway. . Provide for informal outdoor recreation. . Alter electrical or gas services or telephone lines. . Alter plumbing services which do not affect the drainage of other land.

Application requirements

An application to construct a building or construct or carry out works must be accompanied by the following information, as appropriate: . A plan drawn to scale which shows: - the boundaries and dimensions of the site; - adjoining roads; - relevant ground levels; - the layout of existing and proposed buildings and works; - the locations of the proposed use of all existing and proposed buildings; - the provision of on-site vehicle parking; - loading and unloading areas; - internal vehicle movements; - site entrance and exit points; - proposed landscape areas; external storage and waste treatment areas; - features above or below water. . Elevation drawings to scale which show the colour and materials of all buildings and works. . Construction details of all drainage works, driveways and vehicle parking and loading areas. . A landscape layout which includes the description of vegetation to be planted, the surfaces to be constructed, a site works specification and the method of preparing, draining, watering and maintaining the landscape area. . Where development involves reclamation, information concerning the type and amount of material to be used to carry out the reclamation works and the uses to which the reclaimed land can be put. . Details relating to the staging of development and an appropriate time scale in which each stage of development should be completed. . A Site Environmental Management Plan for the management of environmental issues associated with the construction of the development or carrying out of works. . A traffic impact report outlining the volume of traffic anticipated to be generated by the proposed development, the ability of the road network to cater for the proposed volumes and the mitigating works required to accommodate the desired capacity. The report should also address the adequacy of on-site

173 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

parking areas required to accommodate truck parking, loading and queuing areas and employee parking.

Exemption from notice and review

An application is exempt from the notice requirements of Section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d), the decision requirements of Section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of Section 82(1) of the Act. This exemption does not apply to an application for a building or works within 30 metres of land (not a road) which is in a residential zone or Business 5 Zone, land used for a hospital or an education centre or land in a Public Acquisition Overlay to be acquired for a hospital or an education centre.

Decision guidelines

Before deciding on an application, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 65, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate: . The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies. . Any natural or cultural values on or near the land. . Streetscape character. . Built form. . Landscape treatment. . Interface with non-industrial areas. . Parking and site access. . Loading and service areas. . Outdoor storage. . Lighting. . Stormwater discharge. . Traffic implications on the surrounding road network.

Maintenance

All buildings and works must be maintained in good order and appearance to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. xx.01-5 Advertising signs

Advertising sign requirements are at Clause 52.05. This zone is in Category 2. Notes: Refer to the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement, for strategies and policies which may affect the use and development of land.

Check whether an overlay also applies to the land.

Other requirements may also apply. These can be found at Particular Provisions.

174 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

11.3 Schedules to the Port Zone

The Committee considers that with the diversity of uses and development within the port areas, there needs to be scope for schedules to be developed which provide greater flexibility over the type of uses and nature of development that may be appropriate within the different port precincts.

Ideally, the schedules should be based on the precincts identified in the port land use strategies.

The Committee is seeking responses from stakeholders on the nature of the controls that may be appropriate in the schedules.

11.4 Definition of Port

It may be appropriate to provide a definition of Port given that no definition currently exists in the VPPs and the concern that activities normally associated with a port are already defined (for example, ‘Wharf’, ‘Pier’, ‘Warehouse’, ‘Shipping container storage’ and ‘Store’).

The Committee notes that the New South Wales (NSW) standard instrument for Local Environmental Plans contains the following definition: port facilities means any of the following facilities at or in the vicinity of a designated port within the meaning of section 47 of the Ports and Maritime Administration Act 1995: (a) facilities for the embarkation or disembarkation of passengers onto or from any vessels, including public ferry wharves, (b) facilities for the loading or unloading of freight onto or from vessels and associated receival, land transport and storage facilities, (c) wharves for commercial fishing operations, (d) refuelling, launching, berthing, mooring, storage or maintenance facilities for any vessel, (e) sea walls or training walls, (f) administration buildings, communication, security and power supply facilities, roads, rail lines, pipelines, fencing, lighting or car parks.

The NSW definition may provide a useful starting point to examining an appropriate definition for Port in the VPPs.

175 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

In preparing a definition, it may also be necessary to distinguish between the four commercial trading ports of Melbourne, Hastings, Geelong and Portland from other ports such as local fishing and recreational ports.

In addition, the Committee is interested in responses about whether definitions can or should be developed for ‘port‐dependent’ and ‘port‐ related’ uses or whether it is more appropriate to provide directions about such uses through decision guidelines in the Port Zone provisions.

11.5 Key issues for consideration . Is the proposed Port Zone appropriate? . What changes should be made to the draft provisions of the Port Zone? . Should schedules to the Port Zone be developed to apply to the different precincts within the ports? . What should be the nature of the controls that apply in the schedules? . Should a definition of Port be developed for inclusion in the VPPs? . Does the NSW definition of Port facilities provide a useful guide for a definition that would be appropriate in the VPPs? . Should definitions be developed for ‘port‐dependent’ and ‘port‐related’ uses or should directions be provided about such uses through decision guidelines in the Port Zone provisions?

176 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

12. Who should be the responsible authority for the ports of Hastings, Geelong and Portland?

12.1 Introduction

While the ToR have no specific requirement that the Advisory Committee make a recommendation as to whether the State Government should be the responsible authority, it is an issue that has been raised by a number of parties including the port managers, Councils and other stakeholders.

In broad terms, the port managers and port users consider the State should be the planning/responsible authority for the ports, while Councils and community groups consider the responsibility for administering the planning controls for ports should remain with the Councils.30

Given the issue has been raised, the Committee considers it is appropriate that it address this matter in the Discussion Paper.

12.2 Issues

The PLUSs prepared for both the Port of Hastings and Portland suggest that, given the State significance of the ports, it may be appropriate that planning decisions are taken at the State level.

While the Port of Geelong PLUS did not contain a similar suggestion, GeelongPort stated in its preliminary submission that it has concerns with the timelines for approvals under the existing planning framework. It stated that these timelines do not create: ….an ideal planning outcome for land specifically designated for port uses which is such a significant contributor to the local and State economies. It is for this reason that it is considered appropriate that the Minister become the responsible authority for the Port and its area of interest so that the operations of State significant infrastructure can be more appropriately recognized and to avoid every planning application becoming bogged down in localized issues and unnecessary procedure.

30 As noted previously, the Minister for Planning is already the responsible authority for the Port of Melbourne Planning Scheme. 177 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

On the other hand, Councils and other stakeholders expressed concern with any proposal that decision‐making should be at the State level.

For example, Mornington Peninsula Shire Council considers that in relation to the Port of Hastings successive councils have recognised the responsibility to maintain port development options under the framework provided by State policy and have demonstrated an ability to assess applications within the SUZ1 having regard to the full range of values that apply to land in particular locations. According to Council, the transfer of planning authority to a specialist port agency would risk a less balanced approach to decision‐ making.

Greater Geelong City Council raised similar concerns and stated that it would not be supportive of accepting any recommendation which would in any way diminish the Council’s role in town planning processes for the Port of Geelong.31

12.3 Advisory Committee discussion

As can be seen from the preceding comments, there are strongly held views on both sides of the debate as to the whether the State should become planning/responsible authority for the ports.

In response to concerns raised by the port authorities/operators and major users of the ports, it is the Committee’s opinion that the relevant councils have largely recognised the economic significance of the ports and have included local policies in their planning schemes that provide statutory recognition of the economic significance of the ports.

While there have been complaints by the port managers about the time it has taken to obtain approval for permits, there are statutory mechanisms in place to ensure decisions are made within a certain time‐frame, such as the right of review for failure to make a decision within the statutory time period.

Options also exist in relation to ‘calling‐in’ applications of State significance by the Minister for Planning under section 151 of the Planning and Environment Act, 1987.

With respect to planning scheme amendments, the Committee notes the proposed changes to the Planning and Environment Act, 1987 which would provide a mechanism for consideration of amendments not supported by the planning authority as well as mechanisms to expedite the amendment

31 Letter from Cr John Mitchell Mayor of COGG to Minister for Planning dated 4 February, 2010 178 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 process. If this mechanism is introduced into the Act, it would provide an ability for port authorities/operators and any other proponent to initiate a planning scheme amendment to facilitate specific development proposals.

It is the Committee’s view that the more important issue is not which level of government is responsible for administering planning controls for the ports, but rather, developing an effective and efficient planning framework that achieves the planning objectives relating to ports and surrounding areas. The proposed Port Zone developed by the Committee combined with location‐specific schedules or overlays seeks to achieve this outcome.

While there was no view expressed as to whether it should be the Minister for Roads and Ports or the Minister for Planning that should become the responsible authority for the ports, the Committee considers that, if there was any consideration for State involvement, it would be more appropriate that it is the Minister for Planning who should be the planning/responsible authority.

12.4 Key issues for consideration . Is there any or sufficient justification for the State Government to be the responsible authority for the ports of Hastings, Geelong and Portland? . If there was a proposal for State involvement, should the Minister for Roads and Ports or the Minister for Planning be the planning/responsible authority?

179 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

13. Integrating the ports’ land use strategies with the planning framework

13.1 Introduction

One of the issues raised by stakeholders is that there needs to be more effective integration between the port land use strategies and the statutory planning framework. However, it appeared to be common ground that the existing port strategic land use plans do not provide sufficient detail for them to be considered as Incorporated Plans or Development Plans for inclusion into the planning scheme. Some Council officers also criticised the ports for the lack of consultation in preparing the land use strategies.

13.2 Advisory Committee discussion

In the Committee’s view, integration of the ports’ land use strategies with the planning framework could be achieved by the following steps: . Consistency of approach by the four ports in the consultation, preparation and structure of the ports’ land use plan strategies; . Sufficient detail and levels of consultation in the land use strategies for the plans to guide planning decisions; . Incorporating the strategic plans as either Incorporated Plans or Development Plans into the relevant planning schemes; and . Allowing development to proceed in accordance with the Incorporated Plans or Development Plans consistent with or derived from the ports’ land use strategies without public notice or appeal, or requiring a planning scheme amendment and/or notice of applications for development that is not generally in accordance with the approved plan.

The Committee notes that the Port Services Act, 1995 provides scope for the Minister for Roads and Ports to prepare guidelines in relation to PDS addressing: (a) the form; (b) the content; (c) the method and process for preparation;

180 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

(d processes to enable tenants, licensees and service providers in the port to be involved in the preparation; (e) processes for consultation with people affected; (f) publication and availability.

Preparation and implementation of the guidelines would be a good starting point to achieve more consistency between the strategic plans for each port and integration with the planning framework. In the Committee’s opinion, the preparation of guidelines would benefit from the Minister for Roads and Ports consulting with the Minister for Planning.

Appendix I includes a sample Development Plan Overlay that provides a framework for the issues and level of detail that could be applied in the port areas.

13.3 Key issue for consideration . Should the port land use strategies be integrated with the statutory planning framework? . If the port land use strategies are integrated with the statutory planning framework, how should this be done? . Should port land use strategies be included in the statutory planning framework as Incorporated Documents or Development Plans?

181 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Part E – Conclusions

182 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

14. Conclusions

In response to the ToR, the Advisory Committee has: . Identified potential boundaries for the land that should constitute port environs to address interface issues for each of the four commercial ports; . Considered whether additional planning controls should be introduced in the identified port environs to address the interface issues; . Considered whether the notice or referral of applications in the identified port environs to the relevant port manager should be required; . Identified improvements that could be made to the SPPF to strengthen the provisions relating to the role of ports in Victoria; . Identified improvements that could be made to some of the local planning policies of municipal planning schemes that contain clauses relating to ports; . Developed a Port Zone that could apply to the ports of Hastings, Geelong and Portland as well as be considered for the Port of Melbourne; . Suggested a definition for Port that could be included in the VPPs; and . Discussed whether the State Government or Councils should be the responsible authority for the ports.

In addressing the tasks in the ToR, the Committee has held discussions with port managers, Council officers, relevant government departments and agencies and some community groups. These discussions have been very helpful to the Committee in understanding the issues various stakeholders have in relation to the planning framework for ports and surrounds.

The Advisory Committee looks forward to receiving written submissions on the issues raised in the Discussion Paper and conducting further discussions during the public hearings.

183 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Appendix A Terms of Reference

184 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Advisory Committee PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT 1987 (S151)

REVIEW OF PLANNING CONTROLS PORT ENVIRONS Ports of Melbourne, Geelong, Portland and Hastings

1. Background

Victoria’s four commercial trading ports at Melbourne, Geelong Portland and Hastings are the State’s key trade gateways to the world and contribute directly to approximately $3 billion in economic output; $1.5 billion in value add and 15,000 direct jobs. The Port of Melbourne is the largest container and general cargo port in Australia and accounts for over $75 billion of trade annually. It will continue to develop its specialised capacity to handle containerised cargo. The Port of Geelong remains Victoria’s most important bulk cargo port handling about $5.6 billion worth of imports and exports annually. As well as being a vital contributor to the Victorian economy, the port is a valuable asset of the Geelong community, providing a gateway to the world for local industries, businesses and farmers from across the region as well as supporting 6,100 jobs. The Port of Portland is a deep-water bulk port and serves the needs of the Green Triangle Region, a region that crosses state boundaries and handles an estimated $1.5 billion in annual trade. Over the next five to ten years, the Port’s volume is expected to double, adding approximately $1 billion in trade value per annum. Each year around four million tonnes of petroleum product (oil and gas) is handled through the Port of Hasting with a further one million tonnes of steel product handled through the BlueScope Steel wharves. The State Government has nominated the Port of Hastings as the preferred site for a second container port to supplement the Port of Melbourne when it reaches capacity.

2. Policy Settings

Recently the State Government released Port Futures (2009), which builds on and advances policy and strategy settings established in the Victorian Ports Strategic Framework (2004) to ensure that the ports remain competitive and sustainable over the next 10 years and beyond. A key priority in Port Futures is the Government’s

185 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 commitment to introduce measures to improve planning and buffer protection for the ports. These measures include: . Formally recognising port land use strategies in the Victorian Planning System and the requirement under the Port Services Act 1995 for port managers to review these strategies every four years. . Protecting ports from encroachment of residential and other sensitive uses, while acknowledging that existing residents and sensitive uses in the vicinity of a port must be afforded reasonable amenity and safety protection from the operations of the port. . Considering establishing the Minister for Planning as the ‘Responsible Authority’ for administering planning permit applications to use and develop port land. . The consideration of a planning framework, including appropriate zones and controls for effective two-way buffer protection for ports. . Ensuring that the interests of the ports are explicitly considered in the evaluation of planning scheme amendments involving policy or zoning changes in the environs of the port controlled land. Given the critical role of the commercial ports to Victoria’s economy, it is important to ensure that: . future developments on port land and port environs are protected by adequate buffer areas to prevent land use conflicts at the perimeter (Direction 4.3, Melbourne 2030 – planning for sustainable growth 2002). . planning controls that apply to port land are generally consistent and not unduly onerous.

3. Tasks

The tasks of the Advisory Committee established under section 151 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 include, but are not limited to the following: 3.1 Port Environs Matters a. Determine whether the existing and proposed planning scheme controls applying to the environs of the Ports of Geelong, Hastings and Portland are adequate to ensure the protection of the ports against the encroachment of sensitive uses. b. Review the issues raised in the draft Port of Melbourne Port Environs Planning Framework (Port of Melbourne Corporation) and provide recommendations on how the framework can be implemented, as appropriate. c. Make recommendations on appropriate boundaries for the land that would constitute ‘port environs’ for all of the four commercial ports. d. Make recommendations that would protect the ports from encroachment of sensitive uses through the use of appropriate planning policy and applications of the Victoria Planning Provisions. e. Respond to any other matters that the Advisory Committee considers relevant to planning and development controls of the four commercial ports so that they remain competitive and sustainable.

186 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 3.2 Port Planning Controls f. Advise on appropriate and streamlined planning controls that could apply to the use and development of land and where relevant, the waters of the Ports of Geelong, Portland and Hastings. This should have regard to the current model used in the Port of Melbourne Planning Scheme for which the Minister for Planning is Responsible Authority. (The Advisory Committee is not to consider or make recommendations that separate planning schemes be developed for the ports of Geelong, Hastings and Portland or review the planning controls applying to the Port of Melbourne). g. Draft appropriate planning scheme provisions that could apply to the Ports of Geelong, Portland and Hastings.

4. Matters to be considered

The Advisory Committee must have regard to: . The State Government’s policy and strategies on ports: - Victorian Ports Strategic Framework (2004) - The Victorian Transport Plan (2008) - Freight Futures: Victorian Freight Network Strategy (2008) - Port Futures – New Priorities and Directions for Victoria’s Ports System (2009) . Port Development Strategy 2035 Vision (Port of Melbourne Corporation, 2009) . Port of Geelong Port Land Use Strategy 2009 (GeelongPort, 2009) . Port of Portland – Port Land Use Strategy (Port of Portland Pty Ltd, 2009) . Port of Hastings Land Use and Transport Strategy (Port of Hastings Corporation, 2009) . Draft Port Environs Planning Framework (Port of Melbourne Corporation, 2009) . The views of stakeholders including the relevant councils, port managers, departments and agencies and communities affected by the ports. . The Victoria Planning Provisions . The port related planning provisions in the Greater Geelong, Glenelg, Mornington Peninsula and Port of Melbourne Planning Schemes . Geelong Port Structure Plan (City of Greater Geelong, 2007) . Advisory Committee/Panel reports including: - Greater Geelong Planning Scheme - Amendment C98 (Hometown Geelong) - Glenelg Planning Scheme - Permit Applications P07076, P07077 and P07078, 62 Victoria Parade, 2 Jones Street / 48 Victoria Parade and 3 Hartwich Street - Glenelg Planning Scheme - VCAT Application for Review P3175/2005 Permit Application P05146 - Rossdell Court Subdivision. . Any other documents or matters the Advisory Committee considers relevant.

187 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 5. Consultation

It is expected that the Advisory Committee will consult with key stakeholders, including relevant councils and departments and agencies, affected communities, and respective managers of the ports. The Advisory Committee should also have regard to the legislative requirements and commitments made in the port land use strategies to consult with communities. Written submissions should be the principal means of providing input to the committee process. Following the release of the Discussion Paper, a public hearing should be conducted and is intended to provide an opportunity for submitters to clarify information or views as presented by them in their written submissions and to raise issues with respect to information, approaches and views presented by other submitters or publicly disclosed by the Advisory Committee.

6. Outcomes

The Advisory Committee will prepare a Discussion Paper following consultation with key stakeholders. The Discussion Paper will address the land use planning issues on port land and port buffer areas and will include recommendations on these matters. A Final Report is to be provided for the Minister for Planning’s consideration.

7. Timelines It is expected that the Advisory Committee will submit the Discussion Paper to the Minister for Planning within six months from the date of its appointment or from the date of its Terms of Reference, whichever applies, and the Final Report within 11 months from these dates.

8. Conduct of Hearings The Advisory Committee may act as a quorum of one at any time during the course of its proceedings.

9. Fees The members of the Advisory Committee will receive the same fees and allowances as a panel chair appointed under Division 1 of Part 8 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

10. Project Support Day to day policy support for the Advisory Committee will be through the Planning Policy Unit of the Department of Planning and Community Development.

188 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Appendix B Committee members biographies

Mark Marsden‐ Chair

Mark Marsden is a Senior Panel Member with Planning Panels Victoria. Mark has a Bachelor of Arts (Honours) and a Graduate Diploma in both Urban Planning and Business Administration. Mark has over 20 years experience in planning, which has included extensive work in research, policy and advocacy at the Municipal Association of Victoria and senior management positions in a number of Councils in both metropolitan Melbourne and regional Victoria.

As a Senior Panel Member, Mark has chaired significant hearings including the Heywood Pulp Mill, the Rossdell Court Portland call‐in applications, planning scheme reviews and major development proposals, including high rise buildings in the central city, golf course resorts and major mixed use developments.

Mark is an occasional sessional lecturer at RMIT University, and was president of the Local Government Planning Association between 1997 and 1999. He is also a Fellow of the Planning Institute of Australia and a Member of the Victorian Planning and Environmental Law Association.

Des Grogan

Des Grogan has a Diploma of Civil Engineering and a Master of Engineering Science, Traffic and Transportation, commenced work in February 1965 at the Country Roads Board Victoria and retired in June 2005 as Managing Director of Grogan Richards Pty Ltd., Consulting Engineers. During that 40 plus years, Des has been involved in the investigation and design of major roads and freeways in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom. In addition he has been involved in the assessment of traffic generation characteristics of a range of land uses and determination of road design and traffic management solutions to accommodate the forecast volumes.

Des also has expertise in the forecasting of car parking demand for a range of land uses and the planning and design of large surface and multi‐storey car parking facilities to serve shopping centres, sporting and entertainment venues and office buildings. He has frequently appeared as an expert witness in VCAT and its predecessors, at Panel Hearings and in the Supreme Court. Des has been a sessional member of Planning Panels Victoria for three years.

189 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Helen Weston

Helen Weston is an experienced environmental and social planner with considerable experience in social impact assessment, community consultation, urban planning, and environmental assessment. Since 1992, she has been Director, Environmental Affairs Pty Ltd, a specialist urban and environmental planning practice.

Helen has undertaken social impact assessment studies for a range of transport and urban development proposals and has prepared and implemented community consultation strategies for a number of major projects. She has been a Sessional Member of Planning Panels Victoria since 2002 and has chaired or been a member on over 25 Panel matters.

She is a member of the Liquor Licensing Panel (appointed by the Minister for Consumer Affairs) and conducts hearings when objections are lodged to liquor licence applications on grounds relating to amenity impacts or consistency with objectives of the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998.

Helen is a Fellow of the Planning Institute of Australia. She holds Certified Practising Planner status with the Planning Institute and is registered by the Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand as a Certified Environmental Practitioner.

David Whitney

David Whitney has had over 40 years experience in all aspects of town planning. He is recognised as being skilled in both strategic and statutory planning and in planning policy formulation.

Throughout his career David has provided advice to State and local government, statutory authorities, educational establishments, the development industry and community groups and has appeared regularly as an expert witness in hearings before VCAT, Planning Panels and the Supreme Court of Victoria. David is a sessional member of Planning Panels Victoria and is a member of the Priority Development Panel. He is a Life Fellow and former State President of the Planning Institute of Australia and a Fellow of the Victorian Planning and Environmental Law Association.

190 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Appendix C Stakeholders that met with the Committee

The Advisory Committee would like to thank the representatives of the following organisations who met and raised issues with the Committee. Organisation Representatives Port of Melbourne Corporation Stephen Bradford Chief Executive Officer Caryn Anderson Executive General Manager Business & Planning John Riley Manager Land Use Planning Janelle Donnolly Manager Statutory Planning, Sustainability and Risk Port of Melbourne Board Bill Scales Chairman Des Powell Deputy Chairman Paula Benson Director David Cranwell Director Elizabeth Parkin Director Ian Robins Director Meredith Sussex Director Frank Williamson Director

191 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Organisation Representatives

GeelongPort Shane Collins Port Business Manager David Kenwood Property Manager Ross Newcombe Asset Manager Julie Katz Planning Consultant Port of Hastings Ralph Kenyon Chief Executive Officer Anna Kilborn Project Officer Rod McLellan Project Director, Department of Infrastructure Port of Portland Scott Paterson Chief Executive Officer Ian Dawson Operations Manager Jim Cooper General Commercial Manager Jerome Coleman Chief Finance Officer Peter Gracias Harbour Master/Business Development Manager Brian Murphy Operations Manager, Incitec Pivot Melbourne City Council Sandra Wade Coordinator Integrated Urban Planning Port Phillip City Council Steve Scott Place Manager Port Melbourne Hobsons Bay City Council Natalie Walker Manager City Strategy Kathleen McClusky Coordinator Strategic Planning

192 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Organisation Representatives

Maribyrnong City Council David Walmsley Manager – Strategy and Economic Development Adam Parker Senior Strategic Planner VicUrban Simon Wilson Docklands Development Director Amanda Roberts Senior Urban Designer City of Greater Geelong Kate Sullivan General Manager – Economic Development and Planning Tim Hellsten Coordinator – Planning Strategy Mornington Peninsula Shire Council Dr Michael Kennedy Chief Executive Officer Alex Atkins Director Sustainable Environment Alan Cowley Manager Strategic Planning Glenelg Shire Council Syd Deam Manager Strategic Planning and Development Department of Transport Marianne Richards Senior Policy Manager Freight Activity Planning Mark Curry Director Freight Network Planning Dianne Stewart Director Freight Network Management and Regulation Department of Innovation and Geoff Millar Regional Development Project Manager Tina Sheldon Project Manager Economic Infrastructure Worksafe Victoria Geoff Cooke

193 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Organisation Representatives

EPA Quentin Cook Team Leader Statutory Facilitation Unit VicTrack Mark Williams General Manager, Property Department of Sustainability and Rebecca Price Environment Senior Project Officer Victorian Regional Channel Authority Peter McGovern Chief Executive Officer Kas Szakiel Commercial Manager North Shore Residents Jim Anderson Group Inc President Bruce Cohen Vice President Dale Jennings Secretary Community for Good Life Sue McLean Secretary Western Port and Peninsula Protection David Minton Council Inc President Geelong Community Forum Sue Kelly Turner

Geelong Environment Council Peter Linaker Westgate Ports Michael Haines Chief Executive Officer Department of Infrastructure, Richard Farmer Transport, Regional Development and General Manager, Policy Planning and Local Government Development Geelong Grammar School Mark Yeates Risk Manager Andrew Moore Commercial Director

194 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Appendix D Stakeholders the Committee invited to make preliminary written submissions

Port of Melbourne Corporation

Port of Hastings

GeelongPort

Port of Portland

City of Greater Geelong

Maribyrnong City Council

City of Port Phillip

Mornington Peninsula Shire Council

Hobsons Bay City Council

City of Port Phillip

Australian Conservation Foundation

Australian Rail Track Corporation

Environment Defenders Officer

Parks Victoria

Shipping Australia Limited

VicRoads

Victorian Farmers Federation

Victorian Freight and Logistics Council

Victorian National Parks Association

Victorian Transport Association

Committee for Geelong

Geelong Community Forum Inc

Geelong Chamber of Commerce

Geelong Environment Council Inc

Geelong Manufacturing Council

Alcoa of Australia Ltd – Victoria Operations

Graincorp Operations Ltd

DP World

Patrick Stevedores

195 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Terminals Pty Ltd

BlueScope Steel Limited

Tyabb Ratepayers, Business and Environment Inc

Western Port Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Port Phillip and Western Port CMA

196 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Appendix E Stakeholders who provided a preliminary written submission

Port of Melbourne Corporation

Port of Hastings

GeelongPort

Port of Portland

City of Greater Geelong

Maribyrnong City Council

City of Port Phillip

Mornington Peninsula Shire Council

Hobsons Bay City Council

City of Port Phillip

VicRoads

Geelong Chamber of Commerce

Department of Transport

Tyabb & District Ratepayers

Shipping Australia Limited

BlueScope Steel

Parks Victoria

Victorian Farmers Federation

Victorian Freight and Logistics Council

Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government

197 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Appendix F Current planning controls applying to the Ports

With the exception of Geelong Port, Victoria’s four ports and port areas of interest are included in a Special Use Zone.

However, much of the land identified within Geelong Port’s boundaries but not in Port ownership is zoned Industrial 2.

The table below identifies the purposes of each schedule of the Special Use Zone applying to the ports.

Table 1 – Special Use Zone purposes applying to Victoria’s four ports

Port of Port of Port of Port of Melbourne – Melbourne Melbourne – Melbourne ‐ schedule 2. – schedule 3. schedule 4. Mornington Greater schedule 1. Glenelg Marine The Strand Waters of Peninsula Geelong Port of Engineering & Nelson the Port of Melbourne Area Place Melbourne

Zone To provide To recognise To provide To provide To provide a To provide for To provide for purposes for the the areas in the navigable location for the the ongoing importance vicinity of channels and selected port development development of operation of the Port of Port Phillip access for and industrial of the Geelong the port as a and Melbourne Bay for small shipping to uses which Port as a key key area of the development and its boat the Port of depend upon area of the State for the of the environs as a building and Melbourne or gain State for the interchange, Melbourne focus for associated as a key area significant interchange, storage and Port as a key major marine uses. of the State economic storage and distribution of area of the industrial for the advantages distribution of goods. State for the development. To provide interchange, from the goods. interchange, for storage and natural deep To provide for storage and To support development distribution water channels To provide for uses which distribution the special that protects of goods. in uses which derive direct of goods. importance the amenity, Westernport. derive direct benefit from co‐ of safety and To provide benefit from establishing

shipbuilding character of for boating To enable the co‐establishing with a port. To provide operations nearby and effective with a port. for uses and its areas. recreational implementatio which derive contribution uses within n of the direct benefit to State the waters of Hastings Port from co‐ economic the Port of Industrial establishing development Melbourne. Area Land Use with a port. and Structure Plan employment. (Department of Planning To provide and for Development

198 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Port of Port of Port of Port of Melbourne – Melbourne Melbourne – Melbourne ‐ schedule 2. – schedule 3. schedule 4. Mornington Greater schedule 1. Glenelg Marine The Strand Waters of Peninsula Geelong Port of Engineering & Nelson the Port of Melbourne Area Place Melbourne

development 1996). which protects the To protect the amenity, environmental safety and values of the character of waters, nearby areas. coastline and intertidal areas of Westernport and adjoining land.

To provide for the interim rural use of land to the extent consistent with maintaining land resources for future port and port‐ related development.

To protect the towns of Tyabb, Hastings, Crib Point and Bittern by ensuring that no port industrial development which may have an adverse affect on the amenity or safety of residents occurs in proximity to residential areas.

199 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Other zones that apply in port and port area of interest land include:

Table 2: Other zones that apply in port and port area of interest land Port Zones Melbourne Public Park & Recreation Zone Road Zone 1 Hastings Public Use Zone Public Use Zone 7 (Other public use) Public Use Zone 4 (Transport) Public Use Zone 1 (Service & Utility) Geelong Industrial 1 Zone Industrial 2 Zone Public Park & Recreation Zone Public Use Zone 4 (Transport) Public Conservation & Resource Zone Portland Public Park & Recreation Zone

Overlay controls that apply in port and port area of interest include: Table 3: Overlay controls that apply in port and port area of interest land Port Overlay Melbourne City Ling project Overlay 2 Design & Development Overlay 2 Design & Development Overlay 4 Design & Development Overlay 5 Design & Development Overlay 7 Heritage Overlay 7 Heritage Overlay 8 Heritage Overlay 9 Special Building Overlay 3 Hastings Design & Development Overlay 1 Design & Development Overlay 7 Land Subject to Inundation Overlay Public Acquisition Overlay 2 Public Acquisition Overlay 4 Vegetation protection Overlay 1

200 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Port Overlay Geelong Design & Development Overlay 14 Design & Development Overlay 20 Environmental Audit Overlay Environmental Significance Overlay Heritage Overlay 1648 Heritage Overlay 1722 Heritage Overlay 1728 Portland N/A

201 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Appendix G Draft Port Environs Overlay

202 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 PORT ENVIRONS OVERLAY

Shown on the planning scheme map as PEO with a number.

Purpose

To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies. To ensure that land use and development are compatible with the operation of a commercial trading port as detailed in the relevant Port Development Strategy approved under the Port Services Act 1995. To recognise that the 24-hour, 7 day a week operation of commercial trading ports may have off-site amenity impacts on sensitive uses proposed to be located on adjacent lands. To ensure that the establishment of sensitive uses on land adjacent to a commercial trading port do not impact on the ability of the port to operate on a 24-hour, 7 days a week basis. To assist in shielding people from the impact of port generated noise by requiring appropriate noise attenuation measures in dwellings and other noise sensitive buildings. To limit the number of people residing in the area or likely to be subject to significant levels of port generated noise. To provide for the minimisation of exposure to risk to health or life of persons living in, working in or visiting the area. Use of land Any requirement in a schedule to this overlay must be met. Construction of buildings Any new building accommodating a sensitive use must include noise attenuation measures to the satisfaction of the responsible authority taking into account any comment from the Roads Corporation or EPA. Subdivision A permit is required to subdivide land. An application to subdivide land must be referred to the commercial port operator under Section 55 of the Act unless in the opinion of the responsible authority the proposal satisfies requirements or conditions previously agreed in writing between the responsible authority and the commercial port operator. Exemption from notice and review An application under this overlay is exempt from the notice requirements of Section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d), the decision requirements of Section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of Section 82(1) of the Act. Decision guidelines Before deciding on an application, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 65, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:  The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.  Whether the proposal is compatible with the present and future operation of the commercial trading port as detailed in a Port Development Strategy approved under the Port Services Act 1995.

203 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010  Whether the proposal will result in an increase in the number of dwellings and people affected by noise from port operations or road or rail traffic.  Whether the proposal will result in an increase in the number of dwellings and people affected by exposure to risk to health or life.  Whether the design of the building incorporates appropriate noise attenuation measures.  The views of the port operator.

Notes: Refer to the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement, for strategies and policies which may affect the use and development of land. Check the requirements of the zone which applies to the land. Other requirements may also apply. These can be found at Particular Provisions.

204 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Appendix H Draft Design and Development Overlay

205 [NAME] PLANNING SCHEME

‐‐ /‐‐/20— SCHEDULE NUMBER TO THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY C‐‐ Shown on the planning scheme map as DDOnumber

PORT ENVIRONS

1.0 Design objectives ‐‐/‐‐/20— C‐‐ To ensure that the development of land near the ---- Port is undertaken with appropriate noise attenuation measures to mitigate the impact of port related noise on noise sensitive activities. (Comment: I presume we are talking about more than just traffic noise)

2.0 Buildings and works

Any development within the area defined on Maps ? DDO? which is associated with a use listed below must include noise attenuation measures to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. In considering whether any measures proposed are to its satisfaction, the responsible authority will consider any appropriate Australian Standard in relation to noise, the comments of the Roads Corporation and/or the EPA or a report prepared by a competent acoustic engineer.  Accommodation  Child care centre  Education centre  Indoor recreation facility  Office  Place of assembly  Retail premises  Warehouse  Art and craft centre  Brothel  Funeral parlour  Hospital  Research centre  Veterinary centre

3.0 Subdivision

‐‐/‐‐/20— C‐‐

4.0 Advertising signs ‐‐/‐‐/20— C‐‐

5.0 Decision guidelines ‐‐/‐‐/20— C‐‐

DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY - SCHEDULE [NUMBER] PAGE 1 OF 1

PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Appendix I Draft Development Plan Schedule

207 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010 SCHEDULE xx TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERLAY

Shown on the planning scheme map as DPO ??

PORT OF xxxxx DEVELOPMENT PLAN  The development plan provides criteria for any future use and development of land within the Port of ?.

1.0 Requirement before a permit is granted  No specific requirements

2.0 Conditions and requirements for permits  No specific requirements

3.0 Requirements for development plan  The development plan must include:

 Site Analysis Plan

 Surrounding land uses and development

 Vehicle and pedestrian links

 Public transport

 Topography and relationship to high water mark

 Landscape features

 Development concept plan  the proposed layout and use of each site,

 any buildings and works to be demolished;

 the location, appearance, height dimensions and floor area of all new buildings and works;

 a schedule showing the materials, finishes and colours of all external buildings and structures;

 the number, location, dimensions, and layout of all car parks and access ways to and from them;

 a management plan for the operation and maintenance of the car and heavy vehicle parking areas;

 the location and dimensions of all bicycle, vehicle and pedestrian ways;

 a traffic management plan which must show any traffic management and traffic control works considered necessary in adjoining and nearby roads when the development is completed;

 the means of vehicular and pedestrian ingress to and egress from the land;

208 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010  the impact on any areas of environmental significance, particularly sensitive coastal environments.

 a landscape plan which includes details on furniture, lighting and the location, quantity and size at maturity of all proposed plants, and the botanical names of the plants, the location of all areas to be covered by lawn or other surface materials and provides a specification of works to be undertaken prior to planting; and a management plan for controlling and maintaining the open space and landscaped areas.

4.0 Display of Development Plan

 The development plan shall be made available for public inspection at ?????? for 14 days prior to its consideration by the responsible authority.

5.0 Decision guidelines  Before deciding on application, the responsible authority must consider in addition to the matters set down in Clause 65 and the zone:  any written comments received in response to the display of the development plan;

 the impact of the proposed development and use on adjacent and nearby properties, roads and

 other physical infrastructure;

 the impact of traffic generated by the proposal and whether it is likely to require special traffic management or control works in the neighbourhood;

 points of access to and from the land and whether they are suitably located;

 the layout and management of car and heavy vehicle parking areas and accessways to and from them;

 any relevant Council policy;

 whether the location, bulk, height and appearance of any proposed buildings or works will be in keeping with the character and amenity of the area.

209 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

Appendix J Draft Particular Provision – Port Environs Protection

210 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

NEW PARTICULAR PROVISIONS CLAUSE: ‘PORT ENVIRONS PROTECTION’

Rationale for a new clause.

A new Particular Provisions Clause is a technique to ensure applications for use or development in the environs of ports are required to take into account the activities of the port for the protection of the amenity of occupants of the intended use or development as well as for the protection of the port.

The Particular Provisions of the planning scheme provide for a range of matters such as ‘uses with adverse amenity potential’, ‘advertising signs’, ‘service stations’, ‘wind energy facilities’, ‘shipping container storage’ and the like. These provisions have the advantage of ensuring that the impacts of a particular land use or issue can be adequately managed.

The clause simply requires that in addition to the provisions of the prevailing zones that surround ports, the activities of the port must be taken into account before any use or development application is determined.

The clause is an alternative to a Port Environs Overlay. While not as transparent as zone provisions or the use of an overlay it can provide for the general area around a port without having to specifically or scientifically identify that area.

211 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

52.XX PORT ENVIRONS PROTECTION

Scope

This clause applies to all land within the environs (not less than 200 metres) of land zoned for the purpose of port and port‐ related activities.

Purpose

To ensure that the use and development of land within the environs of a port takes account of the potential risk from the storage and handling of dangerous goods and the potential amenity impacts of noise, residual emissions, light‐spill and traffic generated by port and port‐related activities.

To take into account the need to minimize the use and development of land for purposes which would lead to high concentrations of people within the environs of a port who may be unnecessarily exposed to potential risk and adverse amenity impacts.

To take into account the potential of any proposed use or development to impact on the existing or proposed activities of the port.

52.XX‐1 Decision Guidelines

Before deciding on an application to use land for a sensitive use, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 65, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:

 Whether the proposed use or development is appropriate to the site by virtue of the proximity of the port.  Whether the proposed use or development has the potential to expose people unnecessarily to the off‐site impacts of the port.  Whether the proposed use or development might result in people being exposed unnecessarily to risk.

212 PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

 Whether the proposed use or development might lead to pressure to impede the long term development of the port.

In deciding any application the responsible authority may, as appropriate, take into account the views of the Environment Protection Authority, WorkSafe, the relevant port manager and the relevant Port Development Strategy prepared pursuant to the Port Services Act 1995.

For the purposes of this clause, sensitive uses include Accommodation, Arts and craft centre, Child care centre, Education centre, Food and drink premises, Hospital, Office, Place of assembly, Restricted recreation facility and Retail premises.

213