GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 BARWON HEADS STRUCTURE PLAN
PANEL REPORT
JANUARY 2010
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 BARWON HEADS STRUCTURE PLAN
PANEL REPORT
Michael Kirsch, Chair
Ian Gibson, Member
JANUARY 2010
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.1 The Amendment...... 1 1.2 The Panel ...... 2
2. BACKGROUND...... 5 2.1 Barwon Heads...... 5 2.2 Barwon Heads Structure Plan, December 2007...... 5
3. PLANNING CONTEXT...... 9 3.1 Policy framework ...... 9 3.2 Planning scheme provisions ...... 12 3.3 Relevant strategies, policies and other documents...... 14
4. IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES ...... 18 4.1 Summary of issues ...... 18 4.2 Issues dealt with in this report ...... 18
5. THE BARWON HEADS SETTLEMENT BOUNDARY...... 19 5.1 What is the issue? ...... 19 5.2 Submissions and evidence ...... 20 5.3 Discussion...... 23 5.4 Conclusions and recommendations...... 44
6. THIRTEENTH BEACH RESORT ...... 46 6.1 What are the issues?...... 46 6.2 Submissions and evidence ...... 47 6.3 Conclusions and recommendations...... 53
7. URBAN ISSUES ...... 54 7.1 The Mixed Use Zone...... 54 7.2 Design and Development Overlay Schedule 19 (Barwon Heads Town Centre) ...... 55 7.3 Car parking and traffic ...... 56 7.4 Stephens Road...... 58 7.5 Bridge Road...... 59 7.6 Barwon Heads Motors...... 60
8. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ...... 62 8.1 Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 9 (Barwon River Environs Barwon Heads) ...... 62 8.2 Environmental Significance Overlay...... 64 8.3 Climate change ...... 65 8.4 Heritage ...... 67
9. DRAFTING AND OTHER ISSUES...... 68 9.1 Revisions proposed by Council...... 68 9.2 Revisions in relation to the Macafee property ...... 69
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010
10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 70 10.1 Conclusions ...... 70 10.2 Recommendations...... 71
Appendices
APPENDIX 1 DOCUMENT LIST...... 74
APPENDIX 2 SUBMITTERS ...... 78
APPENDIX 3 PANEL DIRECTIONS...... 90
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010
Abbreviations
BHSP Barwon Heads Structure Plan
BHUDF Barwon Heads Urban Design Framework
BPSP Bellarine Peninsula Strategic Plan
B1Z Business 1 Zone
CASS Coastal Acid Sulfate Soils
CDP Comprehensive Development Plan
CDZ Comprehensive Development Zone
DDO Design and Development Overlay
DPCD Department of Planning and Community Development
DPI Department of Primary Industries
ESO Environmental Significance Overlay
FZ Farming Zone
LDRZ Low Density Residential Zone
LPP Local Planning Policy
LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework
MSS Municipal Strategic Statement
MUZ Mixed Use Zone
RCZ Rural Conservation Zone
R1Z Residential 1 Zone
SLO Significant Landscape Overlay
SPPF State Planning Policy Framework
VCS Victorian Coastal Strategy
VPP Victoria Planning Provisions
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 1
1. Introduction
1.1 The Amendment
Amendment C159 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, as exhibited, seeks to implement the Barwon Heads Structure Plan, December 2007.
The elements of the Amendment include: . replacing the existing Clause 21.35 in the Municipal Strategic Statement with a new Clause 21.35; . rezoning land along both sides of Hitchcock Avenue, between Ozone Road and Clifford Parade, to the Mixed Use Zone; . rezoning land along Stephens Parade to the Low Density Residential Zone; . rezoning Stage C of the Thirteenth Beach Resort from Comprehensive Development Zone to the Rural Conservation Zone (Council indicated in the Explanatory Report that it intended to change the zoning of this land to Farming Zone during the processing of the Amendment); . applying the Road Zone Category 1 to Golf Links Road – Bridge Road and remove the Road Zone Category 1 (and replace it with appropriate surrounding zones) from Geelong Road – Hitchcock Avenue to reflect the relocation of the Declared Arterial Road through the town; . applying a Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO9) to properties in the Barwon River environs, north of Ozone Road to the western end of River Parade; . applying a Design and Development Overlay (DDO19) to land zoned Business 1 Zone and existing and proposed Mixed Use Zone forming part of the Barwon Heads town centre; and . deleting the existing Design and Development Overlay (DDO14) from those areas being rezoned from Residential 1 Zone to Mixed Use Zone in Hitchcock Avenue as described above.
The planning authority is the City of Greater Geelong and the Amendment was authorised by the Minister for Planning on 26 November 2008.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 2 1.2 The Panel
This Panel was appointed under delegation on 9 September 2009 pursuant to Sections 153 and 155 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to hear and consider submissions in respect of the Amendment.
The Panel consisted of: . Mr Michael Kirsch (Chairperson); and . Mr Ian Gibson (Member).
Hearings and inspections
A Directions Hearing was held on 8 October 2009 at Geelong. The Panel Hearings were held between 25 November and 2 December 2009 at Geelong.
The Panel inspected the sites affected by the Amendment and the surrounding areas before and during the Hearing. The Panel also undertook an accompanied inspection of the Macafee Investments property during the Hearing. All parties to the Hearing were invited to attend this inspection.
A list of documents tabled during the Hearing is included at Appendix 1.
Exhibition
The amendment was exhibited between 5 February and 23 March 2009. Notices were placed in the Geelong Advertiser, The Echo, Talking Heads and the Government Gazette on 5 February 2009. Landowners directly affected by any zoning or overlay changes and those surrounding the proposed Mixed Use Zone in Hitchcock Avenue were directly notified.
Submissions
The Panel has considered all written submissions, as well as submissions presented to it during the Hearing. In addressing the issues raised in those submissions, the Panel has been assisted by the information provided to it as well as its own observations from inspections of specific sites.
The Panel heard the parties listed in Table 1 below.
Table 1 Submitter Represented By City of Greater Geelong I McCartney, Senior Strategic Planner T Hellsten, Coordinator Planning Strategy P Schembri, Strategic Planner
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 3
Submitter Represented By Department of Planning and Community A Garrett, Planning Coordinator Development H Forsythe, Regional Planner Save Barwon Heads Alliance M Quigley (Counsel) and E Porter (Counsel) instructed by the Environment Defenders Office who tabled and/or called evidence from: A McMahon (Ecology Australia Pty Ltd); and N Rosengren (Environmental Geosurveys Pty Ltd) Macafee Investments Pty Ltd P Bisset (Minter Ellison) who tabled and/or called evidence from: B Lane (Brett Lane and Associates Pty Ltd); R Mason (Aurecon Australia Pty Ltd); M Stuckey (Environmental Earth Sciences); C Fadgyas (Fadgyas Planning Associates Pty Ltd); P Berry (Peter Berry and Associates Pty Ltd); M Jempson (BMT WBM Pty Ltd); and R Milner (CPG Australia Pty Ltd) Friends of the Bluff J Duthie Barwon Heads Association A Dennett Committee for Geelong M Betts and P Dorling J Brooks R Schoff D Jansen P Angelovich D, M, Z and J Fisher D Jansen (presented a written submission) C Crowe G Wallace-Smith J Robinson J Butler The Planning Group J Katz Geelong Environment Council J Lindross Birds Australia B Sydes (Environment Defenders Office) M Anderson (Birds Australia)
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 4
Submitter Represented By Barwon Heads Traders Association H Lonsdale and B Napthine
A list of all written submissions to the Amendment is included in Appendix 2.
Panel Directions
A number of procedural and timetabling issues were raised at the Directions Hearing. The Panel’s directions in relation to these issues are included in Appendix 3.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 5
2. Background
2.1 Barwon Heads
Barwon Heads was described in Council’s submission as ‘a seaside town located at the mouth of the Barwon River, some 18 km south east of the centre of Geelong. It has a permanent population of around 3,300 people which can grow to well over 10,000 people during the peak summer period.’
Many of the submissions to the Panel added that Barwon Heads is a village, a designation reinforced by signage throughout the town – ‘Village by the Sea’.
This notion of ‘village’ was explored throughout the Hearing, largely because the protection of the village character was considered by a number of submitters to be central to the intent of Amendment C159. The characteristics that defined Barwon Heads as a village included its relatively small size (in terms of population and physical scale compared to other settlements), friendliness, feeling of community, involvement of residents in community activities, and range of active community groups. In addition, its distinctive coastal and estuarine location determines the nature of the village, with an awareness of the significance of the physical environment, and an emerging understanding of the implications of climate change for Barwon Heads. The village character is also reinforced by an understanding of the town’s heritage, and a desire to retain links with the past.
2.2 Barwon Heads Structure Plan, December 2007
2.2.1 Content
The Barwon Heads Structure Plan (BHSP) forms the basis of Amendment C159. The exhibited replacement Clause 21.35 (Barwon Heads) includes a number of refinements to land use directions and policies resulting from the preparation of the BHSP.
The BHSP builds on the 1996 Barwon Heads Structure Plan and the 2003 Barwon Heads Urban Design Framework (BHUDF). Its purpose was: ... to identify the key strategic planning issues facing the township, including community aspirations and needs, and to articulate the preferred future directions including the location of a settlement boundary and identification of appropriate planning controls.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 6
Figure 1 Barwon Heads Structure Plan map
The BHSP reaffirmed the two main roles of the town as a commuter residential area for Geelong and a holiday destination. It concluded that: . the existing urban boundary should be retained; . measures were required to protect the unique character of Barwon Heads;
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 7
. the town centre should be consolidated with a diverse mix of uses and activities; and . the surrounding rural landscape and its coastal and river setting must be protected.
The BHSP is presented in three parts: the Structure Plan; Implementation and Review; and the Background Report. The Implementation and Review section lists a range of Planning Scheme amendment recommendations, most of which are included in Amendment C159. The Amendment also includes the BHSP as a Reference Document.
2.2.2 Background
The 2007 BHSP was prepared as an update of the 1996 Barwon Heads Structure Plan, building on strategic planning conducted for the BHUDF and BPSP.
Like many structure plans, the BHSP experienced an iterative process of development, and three separate versions of the plan were provided to the Panel: . A version prepared by Council officers and considered at the Council meeting of 24 July 2007. This version retained the existing western boundary of the town. The Council resolution of 24 July 2007 amended the draft document by modifying the settlement boundary to include land to the west of the town at 1920 Geelong Road, owned by Macafee Investments Pty Ltd. . An August 2007 version that was prepared following the Council meeting, which was exhibited for consultation between 20 August and 15 October 2007. This version included the Macafee land within the town boundary. The consultation on the draft structure plan generated 873 submissions ‐ 771 of which opposed the inclusion of the Macafee land within the settlement boundary. . The December 2007 version that was adopted by Council when it considered the outcomes of the consultation process at its meeting of 11 December 2007. This version returned the boundary to its current location by excluding the Macafee land from within the boundary, identified a further traffic and parking plan to be developed for the town centre, and added some refinements relating to the Barwon Heads bridge approaches, caravan parks, parking and the content of some maps.
The status of the August 2007 version was explored during the Hearing. Council submitted a letter to Barwon Heads residents from Cr McMullin dated 7 September 2007, stating that:
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 8
...the draft Barwon Heads Structure Plan is a draft document which I want the community to provide input and comment on. It needs to be clearly understood that the Council has resolved to release a draft Plan for exhibition purposes; for a non statutory exhibition process... The draft Plan does provide a direction for urban expansion on the south side of Barwon Heads Road, however no commitment has been made regarding any possible expansion of the western boundary. The purpose of including the land as area for possible expansion was to ensure that the issue was considered and debated by the community.
Amendment C159 was prepared and exhibited based on the December 2007 version of the BHSP.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 9
3. Planning context
This section of the report provides a brief appraisal of the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF), the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS), Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) and the appropriate zone and overlay controls.
3.1 Policy framework
3.1.1 State Planning Policy Framework
The key references within the SPPF that are relevant to the Amendment include: . Clause 11.03‐2 – Environment . Clause 14.01 – Planning for urban settlement . Clause 15.01 – Protection of catchments waterways and groundwater . Clause 15.02 – Floodplain management . Clause 15.08 – Coastal areas . Clause 15.09 – Conservation of native flora and fauna . Clause 15.11 – Heritage . Clause 17.01 – Activity centres . Clause 19.03 – Design and built form
Of the various SPPF references that are relevant to the Amendment, the Clause that was most often cited in submissions was Clause 15.08 ‐ Coastal areas.
This Clause includes the objectives: 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.
In relation to ‘Managing coastal hazards and the coastal impacts of climate change’, the Clause establishes that planning should:
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 10 · Plan for sea level rise of not less than 0.8 metres by 2100, and allow for the combined effects of tides, storm surges, coastal processes and local conditions such as topography and geology when assessing risks and coastal impacts associated with climate change. · Apply the precautionary principle to planning and management decision-making when considering the risks associated with climate change. · Ensure that new development is located and designed to take account of the impacts of climate change on coastal hazards such as the combined effects of storm tides, river flooding, coastal erosion and sand drift. · Ensure that land subject to coastal hazards are identified and appropriately managed to ensure that future development is not at risk. · Avoid development in identified coastal hazard areas susceptible to inundation (both river and coastal), erosion, landslip/landslide, acid sulfate soils, wildfire and geotechnical risk.
In relation to ‘Population growth and sustainable development’, the Clause establishes that planning should: · Identify a clear settlement boundary around coastal settlements to ensure that growth in coastal areas is planned and coastal values protected. Where no settlement boundary is identified, the extent of a settlement is defined by the extent of existing urban zoned land and any land identified on a plan in the planning scheme for future urban settlement. · Direct residential and other urban development and infrastructure within defined settlement boundaries of existing settlements that are capable of accommodating growth. · Support a network of diverse coastal settlements which provides for a broad range of housing types, economic opportunities and services. · Encourage urban renewal and redevelopment opportunities within existing settlements to reduce the demand for urban sprawl. · Avoid linear urban sprawl along the coastal edge and ribbon development within rural landscapes and protect areas between settlements for non-urban use. · Ensure development is sensitively sited and designed and respects the character of coastal settlements. · Avoid development on ridgelines, primary coastal dune systems and low lying coastal areas.
In relation to ‘Sustainable use, protection and management of significant environmental and cultural values’, the Clause establishes that planning should:
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 11
· Ensure development conserves, protects and seeks to enhance coastal biodiversity and ecological values by: ‐ Encouraging revegetation of cleared land abutting coastal reserves. ‐ Maintaining the natural drainage patterns, water quality and biodiversity within and adjacent to coastal estuaries, wetlands and waterways. ‐ Avoiding disturbance of coastal acid sulfate soils.
These references are informed by various documents, but most notably the Victorian Coastal Strategy, 2008. These documents are discussed in section 3.3 of this report.
3.1.2 Local Planning Policy Framework
Municipal Strategic Statement
The key references within the MSS that are relevant to the Amendment include: . Clause 21.05 – Planning Principles (Settlements, Population and Housing, Natural Environment, and Design and Built Form). . Clause 21.08 – Urban Growth, which seeks to focus Future urban growth on the Bellarine Peninsula at Ocean Grove and Drysdale/Clifton Springs. . Clause 21.10 – Environmental Management. . Clause 21.11 – Protection of Catchments, Waterways and Groundwater, which highlights the importance of the City’s wetlands, including lake Connewarre, and includes the strategies: · Prevent the loss of any natural and man‐made wetlands within the municipality. · Minimise land use conflicts and development in the vicinity of wetlands through the application of appropriate zoning, identification of buffers and the exercise of discretion. · Identify buffer zones adjacent to existing wetlands which incorporate complementary indigenous vegetation and ensure the protection of inputs from surface water. . Clause 21.13 – Coastal Areas (Coastal Residential Development) which includes the strategies: · Maintain the coastlines between existing settlements in their natural condition and broad‐acre rural holdings.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 12
· Consolidate urban expansion along the coast to existing townships through application of Farming and Rural Conservation zonings between townships. · Contain growth in coastal locations to a non‐linear nature and ensure that inland growth is subject to consideration of direct and indirect impacts (including visual and water quality impacts) upon coasts and estuaries. · Focus development around existing settlements. · Design and develop in a manner that respects and enhances the coastal environment and experience. . Clause 21.14 – Conservation of Native Flora and Fauna. . Clause 21.18 – Housing. . Clause 21.20 – Commercial and Retail Activity Centres. . Clause 21.24 – Agriculture and Rural Land. . Clause 21.30 – Design and Built Form. . Clause 21.32 – Ocean Grove (to the extent that it has been identified for future growth and as a service centre for the surrounding hinterland and other coastal settlements such as Barwon Heads). . Clause 21.35 – Barwon Heads, which is intended to be replaced by a new Clause in Amendment C159. Nevertheless, the current Structure Plan map is notable for being generally consistent with the exhibited Structure Plan, and maintains a similar western boundary to the town.
Local Planning Policy
Although a number of LPPs will be relevant to permit applications within Barwon Heads, none are directly relevant to the assessment of the Amendment.
3.2 Planning scheme provisions
3.2.1 Zones
The Amendment seeks to apply the Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ), Mixed Use Zone (MUZ) and Rural Conservation Zone (RCZ). The purposes of these zones are as follows.
Low Density Residential Zone To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 13
To provide for low‐density residential development on lots which, in the absence of reticulated sewerage, can treat and retain all wastewater.
Mixed Use Zone To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies. To provide for a range of residential, commercial, industrial and other uses which complement the mixed‐use function of the locality. To encourage residential development that respects the neighbourhood character.
Rural Conservation Zone To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies. To conserve the values specified in the schedule to this zone. To protect and enhance the natural environment and natural processes for their historic, archaeological and scientific interest, landscape, faunal habitat and cultural values. To protect and enhance natural resources and the biodiversity of the area. To encourage development and use of land which is consistent with sustainable land management and land capability practices, and which takes into account the conservation values and environmental sensitivity of the locality. To provide for agricultural use consistent with the conservation of environmental and landscape values of the area. To conserve and enhance the cultural significance and character of open rural and scenic non urban landscapes.
3.2.2 Overlays
The Amendment seeks to apply the Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO) and the Design and Development Overlay (DDO). The purposes of these overlays are as follows:
Significant Landscape Overlay To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 14
To identify significant landscapes. To conserve and enhance the character of significant landscapes.
Design and Development Overlay To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies. To identify areas which are affected by specific requirements relating to the design and built form of new development.
3.3 Relevant strategies, policies and other documents
3.3.1 Victorian Coastal Strategy, Victorian Coastal Council, 2008
The Victorian Coastal Strategy (VCS) was initially published in 2005, with an updated version in 2008. It established the requirement for establishing clear settlement boundaries around coastal settlements to ensure that growth in coastal areas is planned and coastal values protected.
The VCS designates the status of coastal towns in maps titled ‘Coastal Settlement Framework: Spatial Growth Management’. Three categories are described, including High, Moderate or Low Growth Capacity. In each case, the boundary is determined ‘…in accordance with Strategic Planning for the particular settlement’. Barwon Heads is in the Low Growth Capacity category, which is described as ‘Growth contained within existing urban or appropriate zoned land primarily through infill capacity and renewal within defined settlement boundaries’.
The SPPF requires that decision making by planning and responsible authorities should be consistent with the VCS.
3.3.2 Coastal Spaces Recommendations Report, Department of Sustainability and Environment, April 2006
This report defines the role and functions of coastal towns and explores the designation of coastal settlement boundaries.
The Report includes a ‘Coastal Settlements Framework’, outlining six levels of coastal settlements: . Rural district, with population of less than 100. . Hamlet, with population of 100 to 200. . Village, with population of 200 to 500. . Town, with population of 500 to 2,000.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 15
. District town, with population of 2,000 to 10,000. . Regional town, with population of greater than 10,000.
The population level of Barwon Heads warrants designation as a ‘district town’, although the exhibited Clause 21.35 ‐ Barwon Heads describes it as a ‘small coastal village’.
The Recommendations Report provided a series of recommendations for State Government in its role in planning for coastal spaces. For example, recommendations 14 and 15 were: · Develop appropriate guidance through a Planning Practice Note for the planning and evaluation of development outside of existing urban settlements. · Review clause 15.08 ‘Coastal areas’ of the State Planning Policy Framework of planning schemes to provide greater clarity to the strategic intent of the Victorian Coastal Strategy.
3.3.3 Implementing a Coastal Settlement Boundary VPP Practice Note, Department of Sustainability and Environment, October 2006
The VPP Practice Note outlines the purpose of coastal settlement boundaries, the matters to be taken into account in their designation, and the processes to establish and review them. The purpose of boundaries is described as follows: A coastal settlement boundary defines the allowable extent of urban use and development for a settlement. It is a fixed outer boundary of urban development and represents the future growth expectations for a settlement... The location of a coastal settlement boundary should be established through a strategic planning process with a 10 year planning horizon. This process should identify the: · desired future vision for a settlement · role and function of the settlement in comparison with other settlements within the region · constraints on development such as topography, native vegetation, rural land‐use activity and areas of environmental or landscape significance and sensitivity · areas with susceptibility to flooding (both river and coastal inundation), landslip, erosion, coastal acid sulfate soils, salinity, wildfire or geotechnical risk
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 16
· supply/demand of land within a 10 year planning horizon and opportunities for future growth (if any).
The Practice Note is significant for the BHSP in that it lists the factors to be considered in establishing and reviewing the settlement boundary.
3.3.4 Barwon Heads Structure Plan, City of Greater Geelong, 1996
The 1996 Barwon Heads Structure Plan was the inaugural structure plan, setting a framework to reinforce the concept of ‘village by the sea.
Amongst the aims of the Structure Plan were to articulate the character and identity of Barwon Heads, define the western limit to urban expansion and consolidate the commercial centre.
The 1996 Structure Plan forms the basis of the current MSS provisions relating to Barwon Heads, including the existing settlement boundary.
3.3.5 Barwon Heads Urban Design Framework, Planisphere, September 2003
The BHUDF developed a vision for the town, and prepared a range of objectives and strategies to protect and enhance the quality of the town’s physical environment.
The vision for Barwon Heads aimed to describe what the urban design framework should achieve: · A place that is defined by the natural landscape features that surround it – the Bellarine Peninsula’s ‘island’ community. · A town of diverse character where development is largely nestled into the coastal vegetation, or if development is not tucked away, it is honestly expressed and well designed. · A place where the informal qualities are retained, because it is these elements that give the town its special character, and where the interface of the town with the ocean, wetlands, river and rural land demonstrates an environmental sensitivity. · A township where people can walk safely, and experience a strong sense of nearness to the water through buildings and vegetation that highlight the coastal environment and unique landforms. · A place where a diverse and environmentally aware community want to live and visit.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 17 3.3.6 Bellarine Peninsula Strategic Plan 2006-2016, City of Greater Geelong
The BPSP clarified visions and action plans for each of the Bellarine Peninsula towns, summarised the policies relating to the Peninsula, assessed land use and residential lot supply, and outlined a community service plan for the area.
With regard to Barwon Heads, the Plan adopted the vision outlined in the BHUDF. It confirmed the limits to urban expansion in Barwon Heads, and aimed to promote innovation in subdivisions, a variety of dwelling types, more energy efficient design and creative residential developments.
3.3.7 Other Reports
The Panel has also had regard to the following reports. . City of Greater Geelong Urban Growth Strategy, 1996. . City of Greater Geelong Biodiversity Strategy, 2003. . Barwon Heads Drainage Flood Management Plan – Final Report, November 2005, WBM Oceanics Australia. . Barwon Heads Traffic and Parking Study (draft) March 2009, GTA Consultants. . Conservation Statement No 15, Australia’s Important Bird Areas: Key Sites for Bird Conservation, Birds Australia (RAOU), October 2009, Guy Dutson, Stephen Garnett and Cheryl Gole. . The Effects of Climate Change on Extreme Sea Levels along Victoria’s Coast, CSIRO, November 2009, Kathleen L McInnes, Ian Macadam and Julian O’Grady.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 18
4. Identification of issues
4.1 Summary of issues
4.1.1 Key Issues for Council . The need to implement the strategic work that had been completed since the previous Structure Plan. . Retention of the settlement boundary in the location shown in the BHSP. . Rezoning of Stage C of the Thirteenth Beach resort to the RCZ. . The proposed MUZ at Hitchcock Avenue and the DDO19 proposed for the town centre are strategically justified (with minor amendments to the DDO Schedule). . Traffic and parking issues raised by submitters are being addressed in separate strategic work being conducted by Council. . The exhibited SLO9 is strategically justified but would benefit from refinements to the exhibited Schedule.
4.1.2 Key Issues raised by submitters . Whether the exhibited settlement boundary should be extended to include the Macafee land. . Future development of Stage C of the Thirteenth Beach Resort and whether it should retain the current CDZ or be rezoned to allow for greater protection of environmental and other values. . Whether the application and content of various zones and overlays are appropriate (including the MUZ, the DDO19, and the SLO9). . Parking and traffic congestion. . Various site‐specific issues including Stephens Road and Bridge Road. . The lack of suitable land/premises for light industrial businesses.
4.2 Issues dealt with in this report
This report deals with these issues under the following themes. . The Barwon Heads settlement boundary (Section 5). . The Thirteenth Beach Resort (Section 6). . Urban issues (Section 7). . Environmental issues (Section 8). . Drafting and other issues (Section 9).
The Panel’s conclusions and recommendations are provided in Section 10.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 19
5. The Barwon Heads settlement boundary
This section of the report discusses issues associated with the Barwon Heads settlement boundary.
5.1 What is the issue?
The issue is whether the Barwon Heads settlement boundary should be modified to include land to the west of the exhibited boundary.
The Amendment includes a settlement boundary in the Barwon Heads Structure Plan map within a new Clause 21.35 (Barwon Heads) in the MSS. This is supported by the proposed strategy: Ensure that urban development does not occur outside of the defined Settlement Boundary as shown on the accompanying Structure Plan Map
The settlement boundary is drawn from the exhibited BHSP which includes the boundary on the Structure Plan map (refer to Figure 1 in Section 2.2 of this report) and provides discussions of various issues associated with the boundary.
There have been a number of iterations of the proposed BHSP, reflecting various revisions that were made by Council during the formal and informal exhibitions of the document.
The Public Discussion Draft of the BHSP (August 2007) included a settlement boundary that included 51 hectares of land at 1900‐1920 Geelong Road, known as the “Macafee land”.
Following significant community opposition to the inclusion of this land within the boundary, Council amended the BHSP to realign the boundary to exclude the Macafee land.
Amendment C159 was then prepared and exhibited with the revised boundary, generating numerous supporting submissions. The Amendment also produced a limited number of submissions supporting the inclusion of the Macafee land within the boundary.
Notably, the settlement boundary is generally consistent with the boundary included in the 1996 Barwon Heads Structure Plan which is represented in the existing Clause 21.35 in the MSS. The only difference is that the exhibited
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 20
boundary extends south of Hopwood Place and includes the Stephens Parade area, whereas the current boundary does not extend further south than Hopwood Place.
5.2 Submissions and evidence
Council opposed extending the settlement boundary to include the Macafee land for the reasons summarised below: . Contrary to State planning policies including the Victorian Coastal Strategy (in particular, the shift in settlement boundary would be contrary to Clause 15.08, relating to development proposals in coastal townships and to the VCS). . Contrary to Council’s Strategic Planning Policies (the strategic planning policies for the Bellarine Peninsula for the past 20 years have identified Ocean Grove, Drysdale/Clifton Springs and Leopold as growth areas, while smaller towns including Barwon Heads are not designated growth areas. Further, the retention of farming land between the townships for rural land use is encouraged, areas of environmental sensitivity including flora, fauna, wetlands and coastal areas are protected from urban development, and non‐urban breaks between settlements to be retained). . Environmental constraints (the western edge of Barwon Heads forms part of a highly significant wetlands system, which is best protected by retaining the land outside the settlement boundary in its existing rural zoning and land use). . Undesirable precedent (any support for shifting the town boundary to include the Macafee land would create a precedent for similar changes on the north side of the Geelong ‐ Barwon Heads Road between the existing settlement boundary and the overflow channel. Greater Geelong City Council argued that such expansion would be a ‘significant extension’ to the size of the town, and has not been strategically justified). . Residential lot supply (Council considered that the argument that the boundary change and subsequent rezoning would boost the dwindling lot supply within the township is flawed, because Barwon Heads is not a designated growth area, and there is no need to provide for an increased lot supply). . Loss of “village” atmosphere and undermine the “vision” of the town (the shift in boundary to include the Macafee land would challenge the small and relatively compact size of the town and lead to the loss of ‘village’ atmosphere. Further, it would undermine the vision of the town, as described in the BPSP and the BHUDF). . Structure Plan boundary vs natural boundary (the argument presented by the Macafee family that the channel provides a natural boundary of
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 21
the town is not convincing, because roads or property boundary can also be used to delineate a boundary). . Community benefit (Council supported submitters who considered that there would be no community benefit in extending the town boundary. Further, the Macafee family’s proposal to include a range of community services and facilities on their land has not been justified).
A significant majority of written submissions supported the exhibited settlement boundary and opposed the inclusion of the Macafee land within it. These submissions generally argued that: . Barwon Heads is not a designated growth area. . Any expansion would set an undesirable precedent for urban sprawl along the entire western boundary on both sides of Barwon Heads ‐ Geelong Road. . Any expansion would cause environmental destruction of internationally significant wetlands. . Expansion would cause congestion, over‐crowding and over‐burdened services and infrastructure. . There is no community benefit. . State and Local Planning Policies prohibit township growth in sensitive coastal environments. . There is no rationale for moving the boundary on the basis of lot supply. . Barwon Heads is particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change.
These concerns were also echoed by various submitters who made presentations to the Panel in support of the exhibited settlement boundary.
The Save Barwon Heads Alliance (represented by Ms Quigley and Ms Porter) made detailed submissions at the Hearing, and called expert evidence relating to geomorphology and the environment. The submissions and evidence detailed the ecological, geoscience and landscape values of the Murtnaghurt Lagoon and channel and argued that there was no strategic policy basis or need to extend the settlement boundary.
Various other submitters such as Birds Australia provided specific and/or technical submissions in support of retaining the exhibited settlement boundary.
Macafee Investments Pty Ltd (represented by Mr Bisset) advocated for an extension of the settlement boundary to include the Macafee land. Mr Bisset called and tabled evidence covering planning, economic, environmental and infrastructure issues. In summary, Mr Bisset stated that:
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 22
236 The Macafees support the preparation of a Structure Plan for Barwon Heads, but contend that the Structure Plan prepared by Council does not accord with State policy. The Macafees also acknowledge the need to protect and enhance the coastal, riverine and wetland environment surrounding the Barwon heads township, but submit that the extension of the town boundary to the western edge of the proposed urban area on the Macafee property is consistent with this objective. 237 The extension of the boundary in this manner will still allow the maintenance of a non‐urban break between settlements due to the significant buffer zone proposed on the Macafee Property and the relatively low intensity development on the Thirteenth Beach Property. 238 State and local policy clearly provides that Barwon Heads is not a designated growth area. However, the fact that a town has a ‘low growth’ capacity does not mean that no growth can and should be permitted in that town. 239 State policy mandates that when determining a settlement boundary for a coastal settlement one must first consider the vision for the town, and the role and function of the town. One must then assess the natural features surrounding the town to determine whether it is possible to align the settlement boundary with a natural feature, whilst still retaining the desired vision, role and function of the town. If a settlement boundary can be designated along a natural feature, it will be a more enduring boundary and it will be less susceptible to further growth pressure.
Mr Bisset concluded that the Amendment should not be approved in its current form and suggested that the options for the Panel were to recommend that: . the Amendment be abandoned and that Council commence the Structure Plan process again; . the Amendment (and Hearing) be deferred until further work is done by Council; or that . the Amendment proceed with Panel support for an expansion of the settlement boundary or support for the exhibited boundary.
In relation to the third option, Mr Bisset suggested that the Panel could recommend that the Amendment be modified to recognise the potential for the Macafee land to be included within the settlement boundary (for example, by designating the property as an ‘investigation area’).
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 23
Other submitters supported the extension of the settlement boundary to include the Macafee land citing perceived benefits that it would bring to the town.
5.3 Discussion
5.3.1 The Macafee Proposal
Macafee Investments Pty Ltd owns the property at 1900‐1920 Geelong Road (the Macafee land) which consists of approximately 51 ha of cleared land that includes two dwellings (refer to Figure 2 below). The owners have proposed to develop approximately 24 hectares for urban residential purposes, with the balance of 27 hectares to be used for open space and as a buffer between the development and the Murtnaghurt Lagoon and channel.
Figure 2 Macafee land (Source: Statement of evidence of Mr Ron Mason, Aurecon Australia Pty Ltd, p4)
The area identified for development includes the elevated land in the central and eastern area of the site that is removed from the interface with the Lagoon and channel.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 24
A proposed development plan and rezoning application were lodged with Council in October 2004. Mr Bisset tabled a copy of the development plan during the Hearing. It is important to note that this plan is not part of the Amendment and has no formal status. Although the Panel has considered the plan, it has not formed any definitive views about its merits and has only relied on it as one example of potential development of the site.
5.3.2 Community response
The Panel has reviewed the various iterations of the BHSP and noted the community response to them. This included versions that initially excluded the Macafee land from within the settlement boundary, then included it in a version that was released for consultation (August 2007), and finally excluded it in a further version following consultation and a flood of opposing submissions. Amendment C159 was subsequently prepared, generating 377 submissions, of which 367 supported the settlement boundary and four objected because it did not include of the Macafee land.
The Panel is required to consider the planning arguments presented in submissions, and not the number of submissions. As discussed elsewhere, it has considered the ‘vision’ for the town, on the basis that it reflects community aspirations as presented in the BHUDF and BPSP. The Panel has concluded that the vision is a reasonable representation of documented community aspirations, and it is not the role of the Panel to suggest an alternative vision.
Despite the difficulty in measuring community support, it is apparent to the Panel that the inclusion of the Macafee land within the settlement boundary would not accord with any community consensus or acceptance. If the Panel recommended a change to the settlement boundary to include the Macafee land it would not reflect the outcomes of the extensive consultation that has been undertaken over a long period. While the Panel acknowledges submissions that the ‘silent majority’ of residents support the expansion of the settlement boundary, no evidence was submitted to support this proposition.
Although community support for the exhibited boundary does not preclude a recommendation to modify it, it is a factor that the Panel must consider.
5.3.3 The adequacy of the Barwon Heads Structure Plan
Before discussing the substantive planning issues associated with the settlement boundary, it is necessary to address submissions relating to the adequacy of the BHSP.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 25
Mr Bisset submitted that: … the Structure Plan is a fundamentally unsound document, due to Council’s failure to adequately address key issues such as coastal hazards and CASS, and its failure to ascertain the proper settlement boundary for Barwon Heads in accordance with State policy.
Mr Bisset relied on the evidence of Mr Milner relating to the process and investigations in preparing the BHSP, and in particular the adequacy with which various issues were considered.
Mr Milner identified two ‘shortfalls’ of the structure planning process: . it did not include an assessment of the options relating to the expansion of the settlement boundary; and . it failed to consider environmental issues that might impact on growth options.
He concluded that: …these matters are critical to the creation of a Structure Plan in a coastal location, and therefore the Barwon Heads Structure Plan should be reviewed and potentially recast having regard to these matters.
Growth options
The Panel agrees with Mr Milner that an assessment of growth options is at least a desirable, if not a fundamental component of a structure plan. This is particularly so in terms of informing community understanding and debate. However, the Panel does not agree that the BHSP is devoid of such an assessment.
The BHSP includes a discussion of potential growth opportunities at section 3.3.1 of Part A (Urban Growth). This section specifically considers the Macafee land, the land to the north of the Barwon Heads ‐ Geelong Road and Stage C of the Thirteenth Beach Resort. Following an assessment of the issues associated with the development of these areas it concludes that: Fundamentally, it is not the physical capability of the land which is at question but the lack of strategic imperative for Barwon Heads to be subject to further growth and development.
This assessment is based on the background analyses contained in Part C of the BHSP.
Although this material can be characterised as an assessment of growth options, the Panel agrees that the scope of the assessment is limited and that
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 26 it fails to consider potential benefits that might accrue from expanding the settlement boundary.
Importantly however, there is no policy imperative for Barwon to grow, and to therefore consider opportunities for growth. It has been designated as having ‘Low Growth Capacity’ and the exhibited settlement boundary reflects an on‐going policy position of Council. These issues are adequately discussed in the BHSP.
For these reasons the Panel believes that Council is entitled to determine that the settlement boundary should not be expanded, and that it is legitimate to do so on the basis of the material contained in the BHSP.
Environmental constraints
Mr Milner submitted that the failure of the BHSP to consider the implications of sea level rises and storm tide inundation is a fundamental deficiency. Mr Bisset also noted possible constraints associated with coastal acid sulfate soils (CASS). Mr Milner concluded that: The failure to identify these issues means that the conclusion to continue to consolidate growth within the existing town boundary may ultimately not be the wisest or safest decision for the residents of Barwon Heads.
Council acknowledged that the BHSP had not involved a consideration of the potential implications of climate change but indicated that this would be done as part of the next review. Council also outlined the various projects that were committed or proposed in relation to assessing the impacts of sea level rises on its coastal communities. In relation to CASS, Council indicated that it had reviewed DPI’s CASS Hazard mapping during the preparation of the BHSP but not considered the issue in detail.
The Panel agrees with Mr Milner’s observation that an assessment of coastal hazard issues could potentially lead to the conclusion that parts of the existing town will be under threat from rising sea levels and storm tide inundation, and possibly be unsustainable.
The issue before the Panel is whether the Amendment should proceed without this assessment having been undertaken. If the Amendment had provided for the development of non‐urban land, the Panel could not support them without being satisfied that they would not be affected by coastal hazards. In fact such action would potentially trigger Ministerial Direction 13 (Managing Coastal Hazards and the Coastal Impacts of Climate Change). However, this is not the case – the Amendment does not provide for the conversion of non‐urban land for urban purposes. In fact the BHSP and Amendment C159 essentially retain the status quo and only introduce
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 27
relatively modest and uncontroversial refinements to the existing planning framework.
The Panel is also mindful that Council has a program to address coastal hazard issues and has acknowledged the need to address these issues for all of its coastal settlements, including Barwon Heads.
For these reasons, the Panel does not believe that there is anything to be gained by delaying or deferring the Amendment until these issues are addressed or the BHSP reviewed. Nevertheless, it encourages Council to expedite this work.
Finally, the Panel does have concerns about various elements of the Amendment that encourage medium density housing. To do so without a proper understanding of which areas of the town might be subject to coastal hazards is poor planning. This issue is discussed in section 5.3.8 of this report.
5.3.4 Coastal settlement boundaries
The Amendment attracted detailed submissions and evidence relating to the policy context for coastal settlement boundaries and the implications for Barwon Heads and the Macafee land. These issues are discussed in the following sections.
State policy context
Barwon Heads is identified in the VCS as having ‘Low Growth Capacity’ which is described as: Growth contained within existing urban or appropriate zoned land primarily through infill capacity and renewal within defined settlement boundaries.
The Coastal Spaces Recommendations report which informed the development of the VCS categorises Barwon Heads as a ‘Town’ with the following ‘role and function’: Population levels vary against general services but settlements of this type tend to exhibit diversity of demography and housing. Coastal settlements of this type have moderate to high levels of holiday home ownership with those settlements closer to metro‐Melbourne being more popular retirement/lifestyle destinations. All are connected to reticulated water and sewerage services. Dominant town centre with variety of retail services, post office, schools, police stations and some basic medical facilities. Accommodation stocks comprising of hotel/motel, caravan
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 28
parks and other smaller establishments also exist. Settlements in this category usually have strong employment relationships with larger settlements nearby.
The SPPF implements the VCS and Clause 15.08‐2 requires that: Decision‐making by planning authorities and responsible authorities should apply the hierarchy of principles for coastal planning and management as set out in the Victorian Coastal Strategy 2008, which are: 1. Provide for the protection of significant environmental and cultural values. 2. Undertake integrated planning and provide clear direction for the future. 3. Ensure the sustainable use of natural coastal resources. When the above principles have been considered and addressed: 4. Ensure development on the coast is located within existing modified and resilient environments where the demand for development is evident and the impact can be managed.
Specific guidance for determining a coastal settlement boundary is provided in the VPP Practice Note: Implementing a Coastal Settlement Boundary, which includes: The location of a coastal settlement boundary should be established through a strategic planning process with a 10 year planning horizon. This process should identify the: · desired future vision for a settlement · role and function of the settlement in comparison with other settlements within the region · constraints on development such as topography, native vegetation, rural land‐use activity and areas of environmental or landscape significance and sensitivity · areas with susceptibility to flooding (both river and coastal inundation), landslip, erosion, coastal acid sulfate soils, salinity, wildfire or geotechnical risk · supply/demand of land within a 10 year planning horizon and opportunities for future growth (if any).
Council submitted that the exhibited settlement boundary was consistent with the VCS and SPPF, and had been reviewed in accordance with the Practice Note. Many submitters who supported the exhibited boundary also
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 29 relied on the policy framework in support of the contention that there was no policy imperative to accommodate additional growth beyond the exhibited settlement boundary.
Ms Quigley supported Council’s submissions on the boundary, highlighting that there was no imperative to accommodate growth in Barwon Heads given that opportunities for growth were provided in locations such Ocean Growth and Armstrong Creek. She also submitted that to extend the settlement boundary would be contrary to the ‘hierarchy of principles’ in the SPPF.
DPCD supported the exhibited boundary and noted the town’s designation as a having ‘Low Growth Capacity’.
Mr Mason submitted that ‘Low Growth Capacity’ meant that some growth could take place. Further, he argued that the proposed shift in the boundary to include the Macafee land was consistent with State policy because: · It is consistent with the vision for Barwon Heads as expressed in both the Urban Design Framework and the Bellarine Peninsula Strategic Plan and does not alter the urban character of Barwon Heads as a “coastal village”. · The growth opportunity presented by the additional land is modest in the context of the existing population and number of dwellings in Barwon Heads. · The land available for development is strategically located in relation to existing schools, retail and commercial facilities and service infrastructure and is closer to the town centre than approximately 40% of the existing subdivided area of the town… · The settlement boundary would adopt a defined physical feature rather than untidy and unsightly rear boundaries of the small residential lots fronting Thompson Drive and Mooroopna Court. · Additional land could be permanently reserved for conservation and buffer purposes adjacent to significant environmental features strengthening the environmental green break bordering the town precinct. · The proposed development area is located in the coastal hinterland and is well buffered from the important coastal activity precinct. · Development of the subject land would not constitute linear coastal development and in fact would complete the development of Barwon Heads up to its logical geographic limit, reinforcing the “island community” expressed through public consultation.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 30
Local planning context
Council’s submission outlined the background to the settlement boundary and noted that: For more than 20 years the strategic planning policies for the Bellarine Peninsula have remained substantially consistent… It is Council’s submission that with respect to the western boundary issue there has been a long‐standing and consistent policy position, backed by strong community support, that there should be no westward expansion of the town into the adjoining rural land potentially resulting in the encroachment into environmentally significant areas.
Mr Mason concluded that a shift in the boundary would be consistent with local policy: The plan assumes that “low spatial growth” means “no growth” and proceeds to rely on community attitudes gathered during the preparation of the UDF, pre 2003, to justify retention of the existing urban edge as the settlement boundary. Adjusting the settlement boundary to include the subject land would, in my view be consistent with both the vision expressed in the Bellarine Peninsula Strategic Plan (BPSP) and the UDF, which are adopted by the Structure Plan.
Modifying a settlement boundary
The Panel agrees with the general proposition that there is no State or local policy imperative to accommodate additional growth in Barwon Heads outside the exhibited settlement boundary.
However the Panel does not agree that the designation of ‘Low Growth Capacity’ necessarily precludes any expansion of the settlement boundary. There is scope to modify the settlement boundary in accordance with the processes described in the Practice Note which establishes that: There may be a need to review a coastal settlement boundary over time due to emerging information about the environmental values of an area, increased infrastructure capacity or other strategic considerations. Any change to a coastal settlement boundary should be the product of a comprehensive strategic review. This will involve assessment of progress against the established coastal settlement boundary in the context of other planning issues arising across the municipality. The extent of the review will depend on the issues to be addressed. There must be adequate recognition and consideration of the Victorian Coastal Strategy including an analysis of the hierarchy of principles for coastal
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 31
planning and management and consistency with the Strategy’s objectives.
The Panel interprets the Practice Note as anticipating situations where a settlement boundary might be expanded or might be contracted. The Panel also notes that the analysis underpinning a change to a boundary must be rigorous and should address the requirements of the Practice Note discussed earlier. It should also address the ‘hierarchy of principles’ drawn from the VCS and SPPF.
The Panel does not believe that the policy framework precludes the expansion of the town boundary. Nevertheless, the assessment of whether all or part of the Macafee land should be included in the settlement boundary involves the analysis of many complex and often interrelated issues that were raised in submissions and evidence. These issues are discussed in the following sections.
5.3.5 The ‘Vision’ for the Barwon Heads
The BHSP relies on the vision for the town that was developed during the preparation of the BPSP): In the year 2016 Barwon Heads will be a unique, sustainable, residential and environmental hub; a landlocked community surrounded by pristine, river coast and wetlands. An intimate community which supports all age groups and provides a place of belonging for residents and visitors alike; where human impact is managed to support the fragile surroundings by: · Clearly defined limitations on urban development · Protecting and nurturing natural surroundings by managing human footprint · Supporting walking, cycling, fishing, sailing, swimming and generally enjoying what our coastal village has to offer in an environmentally sensitive way.
Council submitted that the vision could be compromised if the settlement boundary was extended: The small and relatively compact size of the town, its topography and layout provide tremendous opportunities for Barwon Heads to become a town which operates as a ‘sustainable village’, where protection of the sensitive environmental features and walking and cycling are parts of everyday life.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 32
People are attracted to the town by the surrounding landscape, its river and coastal setting and scenic pedestrian environment, which are important features that need to be protected, to ensure that the very essence of the town’s attractiveness is not lost. The State and Local Planning Policies previously referred to are deliberately aimed at restricting growth in Bellarine Peninsula towns such as Barwon Heads to ensure they retain their small‐scale coastal character. Any substantial outward expansion would erode the generally peaceful village atmosphere by physically increasing the town’s size, increasing activity both pedestrian and vehicular whilst at the same time seriously impacting on the sensitive open landscaped setting of the town’s western edge. These potential impacts are certainly not consistent with the community’s expressed vision for the town as set out above.
These views were echoed by many submitters who referred to the importance of retaining the ‘village’ atmosphere of Barwon Heads and who argued that a shift in settlement boundary would undermine it.
The Panel agrees with Mr Mason’s evidence that the additional population and increased ‘urban footprint’ resulting from the development of the Macafee land would be relatively modest in light of the existing population and size of Barwon Heads. Depending on the scale, location and configuration of development, the Panel is satisfied that it could be consistent with the vision for the town and not diminish its ‘village’ character.
Nevertheless, the Panel acknowledges concerns about incremental growth and the potential for what Ms Crowe described as ‘creeping change’ in the character of the town. This is an understandable concern; however, the Panel believes that the scope to incrementally ‘grow’ Barwon Heads is extremely limited. The only possible growth option is to the west, but even this would ultimately be constrained by the channel which provides an obvious point of separation between the town and its hinterland to the west. It is inconceivable to the Panel that urban growth to the west of the channel could be entertained as even a remote possibility under the current policy framework.
5.3.6 Environmental issues
Numerous submissions referred to the potential environmental impacts associated with an expansion of the settlement boundary to the west, and in particular, the Macafee proposal.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 33
Environmental impacts
Ms Quigley and Ms Porter opposed the expansion of the settlement boundary and expressed concern about the potential impact on Murtnaghurt Lagoon and the channel. They called evidence from Mr McMahon in support of their submissions.
The Geelong Environment Council submitted that: ..the values of Lake Murtnaghurt and associated wetland values will be put at risk if further development occurs adjacent to the Lake as a result of more people disturbances, animals and drainage and salinity changes. · The Lake is linked to its surrounding landscape and is dependent on and affected by changes in land use in its buffer zone. There are many unknowns with how the lake and its wetland function as a total system and the degree of fragility within the system is also unknown. · The Lake has increased fragility and the potential for edge effects as it [is] isolated from the large components of the other Ramsar lakes in the system… · It would be unacceptable to have a housing development adjacent to the boundary of the Lake. We believe it would contravene Australia’s responsibility under the Ramsar Treaty. The prospect of changed drainage in to the Lake is unacceptable.
Several submissions referred to the importance of Murtnaghurt Lagoon and Lake Connewarre as significant areas for bird conservation. In particular, Mr Sydes on behalf of Birds Australia stated that Murtnaghurt Lagoon is: …an integral part of the Port Phillip Bay (Western Shoreline) and the Bellarine Peninsula Ramsar site…From a bird conservation perspective, Murtnaghurt Lagoon has very significant values and these are recognized internationally, nationally and at the State and local level.
He argued that State policy gives priority to protecting the wetland, adding that: …any expansion of the boundary to allow development on the McAfee land would have an adverse impact on the lagoon as a result of impacts such [as] increased disturbance by people and domestic animals, increased or altered runoff and pollution from runoff. To allow this to occur would be contrary to the clear requirements of clause 15.08 and clause 15.09…
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 34
The Panel was also presented with expert evidence relating to flora and fauna impacts from Mr McMahon on behalf of the Save Barwon Heads Alliance Inc and Mr Lane on behalf of Macafee Investments Pty Ltd.
Mr McMahon described the threats to the ecological character of the wetlands: The Lagoon and Tidal Channel are currently subject to a number of stresses which threaten the wetlands Ecological Character. These include: · Significant hydrological change – the Barwon Heads Road and Plummer Bank severely restrict any tidal/estuarine flooding of the Lagoon. This has two possible consequences: - Firstly, an altered salinity regime. This is poorly understood but would probably have included tidal, atmospheric and ground water inputs, and - Secondly, less frequent and extensive flooding. · Existing perimeter development – approximately 74% of the Lagoon’s immediate perimeter – or 53% of the Lagoon and Tidal Channel combined – is already developed, including: - the Thirteenth Beach Residential Estate and Golf Course, and - the Barwon Heads Golf Course. Further development: the development of the Macafee land would increase the total perimeter development to 70%, and the extension to Thirteenth Beach Golf Course to 77%. If both were to proceed 94% of the perimeter of Murtnagurt Lagoon, and the Tidal Channel – south of Barwon Heads Road – would be developed. In addition, there are no perimeter buffers and the developments are situated in close proximity to the Lagoon. Township expansion ‐ the development on the western side of the township ‐ mostly west of Golf Links Road and from 1990’s onwards, has moved residential areas to within 100 m or so of the eastern section of the Lagoon. To our knowledge, there are few if any measures that effectively manage this interface. While these existing developments would already challenge the concept of “Wise Use”, further development, particularly juxtaposed to the strategic Ramsar Tidal Channel, would result in the Ramsar site becoming an enclave within development. This would appear to be in clear contravention of Wise Use.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 35
Mr Lane also provided an analysis of the environmental characteristics of the Murtnaghurt Lagoon and channel, but reached different conclusions based on his assessment of the Macafee proposal: In view of the proposed general development plan layout, and the scope this provides for the implementation of effective buffers and stormwater management measures, it is considered that development of the study area will not result in significant impacts on important flora and fauna attributes on and adjacent to the site. For this reason, inclusion of the study area to facilitate a sensitive urban development, such as the general plan proposed, will not prejudice the maintenance and enhancement of ecological values in the Ramsar wetland.
The Panel accepts that the environmental values of the Murtnaghurt Lagoon and channel are of international significance as evidenced by their Ramsar status. The Panel also accepts that the ecological processes within the area are highly sensitive to human activity and residential development, and notes Mr McMahon’s view that these processes are not well understood – making it difficult to predict the potential impact of development with any certainty.
On the other hand, the Panel notes Mr Lane’s evidence that an appropriately designed, constructed and managed development could proceed without there being any adverse impacts on the environmental values of the area.
Having considered this evidence, the Panel concludes that the environmental values of the area do not necessarily preclude some form of development of the Macafee land. However it is clear that the design, construction and management of any development would require careful thought.
Mitigation measures
Mr Lane submitted that environmental impacts could be addressed by various mitigation measures, including: · Avoid removal of native planted trees where possible… · Provide for effective stormwater retention and treatment measures to prevent any increase in runoff or nutrient input to adjacent wetlands; · Any stockpiling of soil should occur outside areas of native vegetation… · Weed control, by an experienced bush regenerator, should be carried out along disturbed areas after construction…
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 36
· A significant buffer of open space should be retained between any development and the Ramsar wetland (Murtnagurt Lagoon drain); · The buffer area should be revegetated with appropriate indigenous plants of local genetic provenance… · All machinery bought on site should be weed and pathogen free, and avoid areas of native vegetation and wetlands… · The use of local indigenous plant species, of local genetic provenance, should be considered in the landscaping of any development on the site; and · Construction contractors should be inducted into an environmental management program for construction works and all environmental controls should be checked for compliance on a regular basis.
While Mr McMahon acknowledged the benefits and necessity of mitigation measures he noted that in practice they often fail to deliver the anticipated benefits and protections.
The Panel agrees that development of the Macafee land would require some level of mitigation depending on the scale, location and nature of development. However, the Panel believes that any development of the land should be predicated on avoiding adverse impacts rather than mitigating them.
Buffer distances
Mr McMahon tabled a plan of the area (document 35) that identified buffers of varying distances around the lagoon and channel. In response to questions from the Panel about the preferred buffer distance to residential development he advised that there was no accepted standard that he could apply in this situation given the complexity of ecological processes that were involved. He agreed however, that the widest of the buffers shown on his plan (350m) included a significant area of existing residential development, but excluded a substantial area of the Macafee land.
In response to similar questions from the Panel, Mr Lane indicated that a 40m ‘separation’ between residential development and the Lagoon and channel would be appropriate.
The Panel believes the determination of a suitable buffer requires further analysis including its width and the extent to which it might be revegetated or used as public open space. In the absence of such an analysis the Panel is
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 37 unable to determine a precise buffer width or configuration that would be appropriate. However, the depth of the Macafee property and the distance of the central‐eastern section from the Lagoon and channel suggest that a significant buffer could be provided while retaining the opportunity to develop some of the land.
Achieving a net environmental benefit
The Macafee proposal includes the transfer of approximately 24 ha of land along the Lagoon and channel interfaces to public ownership for buffer and open space purposes.
The Panel asked Mr McMahon and Mr Lane whether the creation of such a buffer as part of a development plan for the land could result in a net environment benefit.
Mr Lane indicated that the opportunity to secure a permanent buffer would be a very positive outcome, and would provide a more effective buffer than is possible under the present zoning and ownership. He also indicated that the impacts of development (subject to mitigation measures) would be ‘benign’.
Mr McMahon agreed that a net environmental benefit was conceivable, but reiterated that the lack of understanding of the ecological process within the area made it difficult to predict outcomes with any certainty. He concluded that such a proposal would warrant further consideration.
Given the environmental significance of the Lagoon and channel, the Panel believes that any development of the Macafee land should achieve a net environment benefit, rather than simply seek to mitigate impacts. This approach would be consistent with the SPPF objectives in relation to coastal areas and waterways, which seek not only their protection, but also their restoration and enhancement. This ‘higher’ test is appropriate for the Macafee land given that the significance of the Lagoon and channel and the lack of any demonstrable need or policy requirement to develop any of the land for residential purposes.
Geoscientific values
Ms Quigley called evidence from Mr Rosengren relating to the geoscientific significance of Murtnaghurt Lagoon and channel and the broader Bellarine Peninsula. Mr Rosengren gave evidence on the geological history and significance of the site and submitted that: The site is unusual in a state coastal context. It has no comparative past or modern analogue in Port Phillip Bay and the palaeochannel has no
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 38
analogue on the Victorian coast. It is an excellent site to display coastal features clearly related to past sea levels and processes.
Mr Rosengren proposed a ‘geoheritage conservation zone of low intensity land use’. This was supported by Ms Quigley who cited a number of examples in Planning Schemes where geologically significant features had been identified and protected by specific zone and overlay schedules.
While the Panel notes Mr Rosengren’s evidence and the geoscientific significance of the area, further analysis of his proposed ‘zone of low intensity land use’ would be required before relying on it as a basis for precluding development of the Macafee land. It is conceivable, for example, that limited development of the Macafee land with the remainder being transferred into public ownership might be a more suitable management framework than exists under the current ownership, land use and zoning arrangements.
5.3.7 Residential land supply
The Panel was presented with detailed evidence and submissions relating to the supply of residential land within Barwon Heads.
Council submitted that the availability of residential lots was not a relevant factor in assessing whether the boundary should be extended: For the record, there are currently 214 vacant residential lots (existing or capable of being created) in Barwon Heads. Based on an average of 47 building approvals per annum since 1997/8, there is currently a 4½ year supply of vacant residential land. This is likely to be a conservative figure because it does not account for the demolition of older houses on large sites which can accommodate multiple dwellings. However, the important point which Council wishes to make is that as Barwon Heads is not a designated growth area, it is one of the coastal townships which will at some stage in the future exhaust its residential lot supply (the same as Point Lonsdale, Breamlea, Anglesea, Aireys Inlet/ Fairhaven/Moggs Creek, Lorne, etc). In other words, there is considered to be no planning imperative to regularly make more land available by further township extensions just to achieve some pre‐determined continuous (5 or 10 year) lot supply figure.
Mr Bisset tabled evidence from Mr Fadgyas relating to residential land supply. On the basis of his assessment of the availability of lots and building permit activity, he estimated that there was sufficient supply to accommodate development for 5 to 5.5 years.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 39
The evidence of Mr Fadgyas was criticised by Ms Quigley who considered that Mr Fadgyas had under‐estimated the availability of lots, particularly because of the trend towards the subdivision of existing lots. She concluded that the current lot supply in Barwon Heads would sustain at least another 12 years of growth. In addition to this, she supported Council’s submission that there is no strategic imperative to provide for additional growth.
The Panel notes that the evidence of Mr Fadgyas and Council’s data on the availability of land for residential development within the existing settlement boundary were roughly similar, indicating a supply of around four to five years if current levels of demand continue. Whether or not this understates the level of supply as suggested by Ms Quigley is not a significant factor.
The Panel agrees with Council’s submission that the supply of residential land is largely irrelevant to the assessment of whether the settlement boundary should be extended. However, the Panel also notes that land supply might be relevant to the timing of any rezonings that accompanied a boundary extension, given the general presumption that the level of land supply should be managed to avoid an oversupply.
5.3.8 Climate change
The potential impacts of climate change on residential development were raised in many submissions and explored at length during the Hearing.
Climate change and rising sea levels were relied upon as arguments against the development of the Macafee land, yet as submitted by Mr Bisset the Macafee land is less susceptible to sea level rises than other areas within the existing town.
Mr Bisset relied on the evidence of Dr Jempson who concluded that the Macafee property was not at risk from coastal processes or storm tide inundation either now or under a future sea level rise scenario of 0.8 m. Dr Jempson also concluded that the property would not be inundated by a 100 year ARI river flood either now or under a future sea level rise scenario of 0.8m.
Ms Quigley noted that although the Macafee land was at a higher elevation and therefore less susceptible to inundation, ‘…we cannot be certain how the land will be affected over the next century’. For this reason it was argued that the ‘precautionary principle’ should apply and that the existing settlement boundary and low population levels should be retained, at least until a review of the BHSP in five years time, by which time there will be improved knowledge about the potential impacts of climate change.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 40
Council tabled the CSIRO Report, ‘The Effects of Climate Change on Extreme Sea Levels along Victoria’s Coast’ (November 2009), which showed areas within Barwon Heads that were potentially subject to the impacts of sea level rise and storm tide inundation. Some of the possible scenarios that were assessed suggested that large areas of the existing town would become vulnerable to inundation in the future.
Council also outlined the various projects that were committed or proposed in relation to assessing the impacts of sea level rises on its coastal communities. Mr McCartney indicated that a realistic timeframe for undertaking a coastal vulnerability assessment for Barwon Heads was 3 – 4 years.
Notably, the relatively high elevation of the central eastern section of the Macafee property indicates that it would be significantly less likely to be inundated than substantial areas of the existing town. On this basis at least, the Macafee land might be a more suitable option for accommodating population growth than urban consolidation and higher density residential development within vulnerable areas of the existing town.
For these reasons, the Panel has concluded that climate change and sea level rises do not preclude the possible development of the elevated section of the Macafee land. This is certainly the case in terms of the current policy framework that requires planning to take account of sea level rises of not less than 0.8m by 2100.
Perhaps more importantly, the discussion of climate change and inundation raised issues about development within the existing settlement boundary, and strategies that seek urban consolidation and higher density residential development. These issues are discussed in section 8.3 of this report.
5.3.9 Precedent for further boundary expansion
Many submitters expressed concern that allowing development of the Macafee land would set an undesirable precedent for further development to the west of the exhibited settlement boundary.
Council submitted that: The Macafee family has always argued that their land is physically capable of accommodating residential development in that it has similar topographic features and similar or higher elevation above sea level than areas within the developed township. The plan… showing elevations at 0.5 metre contour intervals indicates:
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 41
· the Macafee land has similar topographic features and elevation as much of the developed township, and · other land outside the town boundary, north of Barwon Heads Road is also at a similar height to the Macafee land and to substantial areas which have been developed inside the township boundary. On the basis of substantially similar land suitability, it is Council’s view that any support for rezoning of the Macafee land would create a substantial precedent for similar rezoning applications on the north side of Barwon Heads Road between the existing settlement boundary and the overflow channel. The Council has already received expressions of interest to more intensive urban development from the owners of properties to the north of Barwon Heads Road…
Mr Butler submitted that: This expansion of the town boundary would arguably allow many property owners to capitalise on the precedent set if the land at 1920 Geelong road was re‐zoned for development. Although this panel is dealing with one main objector in relation to the town boundary, this is not just about 1920 Geelong Road. It is about the future of the rural land in general to the west of the township and the future of the township as it presently stands.
Mr Mason gave evidence that the proposed boundary change would not create a precedent: Barwon Heads has limited growth opportunities, being surrounded on three sides by water and the Murtnaghurt Swamp and drain to the west. This ensures that infill development between the drain and the urban edge is the only viable option for additional development in the town and does not create a precedent for further expansion beyond the subject land. The opportunity presented by including the subject land in the Settlement Boundary is modest in terms of the total land supply and available lots in Barwon Heads and will not change the character, hierarchical status or sense of place of Barwon Heads as a Township, which are important considerations in determining the growth needs of a township. Inclusion of the subject land in the Settlement Boundary will not impact on the outcomes for Geelong’s major regional growth areas at Armstrong Creek and Horseshoe Bend because both these growth areas are separated from Barwon Heads by the adjoining golf developments and significant tracts of rural land that form part of the Connewarre wetlands.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 42
The Panel does not agree that development of the Macafee land would necessarily create a precedent for further expansion of the settlement boundary. As discussed earlier in relation to the ‘vision’ for Barwon Heads, it is inconceivable to the Panel that urban development to the west of the channel could be entertained within the current policy context (including Stage C of the Thirteenth Beach Resort). This only leaves the strip of land north of the Barwon Heads – Geelong Road discussed earlier. If the Macafee land is developed, it will be developed because it is suitable for development and because it would be sensible to develop it. A similar assessment would need to be made of the land to its north and clearly there is no guarantee that it would pass these tests.
5.3.10 Other development issues
A number of other issues affecting the potential development of the Macafee land were raised in submissions and evidence and are discussed below.
Coastal Acid Sulfate Soil
Mr Bisset tabled expert evidence from Mr Stuckey regarding the presence of coastal acid sulfate soil (CASS) on the Macafee property. Mr Stuckey’s evidence report concluded that: It is my conclusion that the site does not contain coastal acid sulfate soil (CASS), either potential or actual (PASS or AASS), and there is no perceived potential for their generation in the future. As such, there is no detectable potential for soil acidification as a result of natural soil sulfides (S). As a detailed assessment has been performed, no further consideration of the issue is necessary for this site.
Mr Stuckey also noted that there is a high probability that CASS occur in other areas of Barwon Heads and that this should be considered in planning the future development of Barwon Heads.
Mr Stuckey’s evidence was not contested and the Panel accepts his findings in relation to the Macafee property.
Drainage and services
Mr Bisset tabled a Drainage and Services Report from Mr Berry in relation to the Macafee land.
Mr Berry concluded that: From our enquiries all services can be made available to this as a developed site and indeed in some instances have been allowed for.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 43
A drainage response has been proposed which indicates that a successful engineering outcome is achievable, even applying the maximum rise in sea levels due to climate change. Water Sensitive Urban Design conditions can be satisfied as part of the stormwater detention systems, following which either via filtration or pumping, the resultant treated runoff can either pass into the sub strata below Murtnaghurt Lagoon and Lake Connewarre, or transferred for reuse elsewhere. Alternatively there may be an opportunity to develop an improved management strategy for the wetland using part of the treated stormwater to replenish traditional volumes not being delivered by the Barwon River.
Mr Berry’s evidence was not contested and the Panel accepts his findings.
Connectivity
The only opportunity for vehicular access to the Macafee property is via the Barwon Heads ‐ Geelong Road. While this might not be an ideal outcome in terms of connectivity with Barwon Heads there are no obvious impediments to addressing intersection and road capacity issues.
The Panel also notes that the Macafee land is more proximate to the town centre than the established residential areas in the north of the town.
The western entrance to Barwon Heads
It is clear from submissions that the visual impacts of development in this area have the potential to affect perceptions about Barwon Heads ‘village’ character and the size of the town. The Panel agrees that these are reasonable concerns, but does not believe that they are insurmountable. Visual impacts could be addressed by limiting the extent of development and providing a substantial landscaped buffer along the Barwon Heads – Geelong Road.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 44
5.4 Conclusions and recommendations
5.4.1 Conclusions
The Panel is satisfied that planning policy does not preclude an extension to the Barwon Heads settlement boundary, but also acknowledges that there is no policy imperative to do so.
Barwon Heads has not been identified as a location for growth, and retaining the current settlement boundary is a legitimate option. The situation would be different in a settlement that had been identified for growth and where there was a local or regional imperative to provide for that growth.
This is not the case in Barwon Heads, and because of that, it is not the role of the Panel to dictate that Barwon Heads should accommodate further growth. This is an issue that should be determined by Council and the Barwon Heads community. The Panel is satisfied that there is substantial community opposition to any development of the Macafee land and this is not something that the Panel can dismiss.
For these reasons the Panel does not recommend that the settlement boundary be extended.
However, the Panel believes that much of the opposition to developing the Macafee land, while well intentioned, is ill‐considered. The Panel is satisfied that the land is capable of supporting limited residential development and possibly in a manner that provides a net environmental benefit.
While the environmental importance of Murtnaghurt Lagoon and the channel was clearly demonstrated to the Panel, the possible environmental implications of developing the Macafee land were contentious and in dispute. Nevertheless, the policy framework seeks to protect and enhance those values, and the Panel believes that the potential to facilitate this through some form of development should not be discounted.
The Macafee land is currently well managed, although its private ownership, potential agricultural use and current zoning are a poor framework for protecting the environment values of the area, let alone enhancing them.
Limited development of the land, together with the creation of an effective revegetated buffer in public ownership would potentially provide a significant opportunity to restore and enhance the environmental features that were valued in many submissions.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 45
For these reasons the Panel encourages Council (and the Barwon Heads community) to reconsider its opposition to the development of this land and to further consider the environmental benefits that might accrue from it.
5.4.2 Recommendation
The Panel makes the following recommendation for further action by Council:
Council should consider the potential for limited residential development of 1900 – 1920 Barwon Heads Road as a means of achieving a net improvement to the environmental values of the Murtnaghurt Lagoon and channel. This assessment should also address the issues raised in this report.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 46
6. Thirteenth Beach Resort
This section of the report discusses issues associated with Stage C of the Thirteenth Beach Resort (the Resort).
The Amendment seeks to rezone Stage C of the Resort from the CDZ to the RCZ, although the explanatory report that accompanied the Amendment indicated that the FZ would be substituted for the RCZ during the processing of the Amendment. This substitution was intended to reflect Council’s revised position about the use of the RCZ and FZ following its consideration of Amendment C129. Council subsequently submitted that it preferred the RCZ.
The Resort is an integrated golf course resort that currently provides for two 18 hole golf courses, practice facilities, associated maintenance facilities, a clubhouse, a 120 seat restaurant and function centre, and accommodation for up to 600 persons in the form of 281 golf villa lots and 150 apartments. These facilities are contained within Stages A and B of the resort.
6.1 What are the issues?
The key issue is whether Stage C of the Resort should be developed as part of the existing resort or retained as farming land. This in turn raises issue of what is the most appropriate zone for the site.
Stage C of the Resort consists of a 68 ha site to the east of Lings Road and to the south of the Barwon Heads – Geelong Road. The site is predominantly cleared farming land and is adjacent to the existing Thirteenth Beach Resort located to the west of Lings Road. Notably, the southern boundary of the property abuts the Murtnaghurt Lagoon, while the eastern boundary abuts the associated channel.
A development proposal for this land (proposed Amendment C192) has been prepared on behalf of the landowner and submitted to Council for consideration and processing. Key elements of the proposal include an 18 hole golf course, club house and well‐being centre. Council has deferred making a decision about whether to proceed with Amendment C192, pending the outcome of the C159 process.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 47 6.2 Submissions and evidence
Council’s submission provided an overview of the current planning scheme provisions affecting Stage C of the Resort and the background to Council’s position on the preferred zoning. Although the Explanatory Report indicated that the exhibited RCZ would be replaced by the FZ, Council indicated at the Hearing that it now intended that the RCZ be applied.
Council resolved to support the RCZ on the basis that: 1 It reflects historical long term plans for the Stage C land; 2 It gives effect to the decisions taken by Council and the Minster for Planning in approving the Stage B development (Amendment C54); 3 It provides the highest level of protection as a buffer to environmentally significant wetlands and ensures retention of the open farmland landscape; and 4 It provides the clearest long‐term planning intention for the site and gives effect to Council’s adopted Barwon Heads Structure Plan.
Ms Katz represented the owners of Stage C (I and P McNaughton) and provided an overview of the existing planning controls, the history of the Resort and its local and regional benefits. She also outlined the development proposal for Stage C and the discussions that had been held with Council regarding proposed Amendment C192. The Panel understands that this Amendment involves the retention of the CDZ1 and the introduction of a revised Comprehensive Development Plan for Stage C.
Ms Katz opposed the ‘back‐zoning’ of the land to either the FZ or RCZ on the basis that neither zone provided for an ‘integrated golf resort’. She noted that while the current CDZ1 (as it applies to Stage C) is essentially a ‘holding zone’ and very restrictive, its ‘purposes’ provide strategic support for a future planning scheme amendment (such as proposed Amendment C192) which would facilitate the development of Stage C.
Ms Katz also submitted that the opportunity to secure finance for a Stage C development would be hindered by the uncertainty associated with the application of the FZ or RCZ.
For these reasons Ms Katz concluded that the current CDZ1 should be retained and that Council should proceed with preparing and exhibiting Amendment C192.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 48
The DPCD submission provided an overview of relevant state policy and discussed the approval of Amendment C54 (which modified the schedule to the CDZ in relation to Stage B and was approved in 2007). The submission concluded that the Resort (including Stage C) should remain outside of the ‘Barwon Heads coastal settlement boundary’.
In relation to zoning, DPCD concluded that: With respect to the proposed application of the Farming Zone to the Stage C area (in lieu of the exhibited Rural Conservation Zone), it is DPCD’s view that the Comprehensive Development Zone (CDZ) should be retained for the resort land in question as CDZ is the most appropriate VPP zoning tool to manage land use and development in this environmentally sensitive location which is in close proximity to the Murtnaghurt Lagoon wetlands and the western perimeter of the township. Continued application of the CDZ is in line with the Coastal Spaces Recommendations Report R5 and the primary purpose of the subject land. Furthermore, the CDZ does not prejudice the maintenance of the non‐urban break to the Barwon Heads township and also enables any future resort associated development proposal to be considered on its merits through a planning scheme amendment process.
A number of submissions, including that from Save Barwon Heads Alliance Inc, supported the rezoning of Stage C to the RCZ and its location outside of the settlement boundary. These submissions expressed concerns associated with over‐development of the site, environmental impacts on Lake Murtnaghurt and the channel, and the loss of the Barwon Heads ‘village’ character.
Other submissions highlighted the local and regional importance of the Resort and supported the development of Stage C.
6.2.1 Discussion
Background
The history of planning scheme controls and approvals relating to the Resort date back to 1993 when the original rezoning application was received by Council. This became Amendment R45 which was approved in 1994 and introduced the Tomara Resort Zone. In 2000, the Tomara Resort Zone was converted into a Comprehensive Development Zone and schedule. This was subsequently amended by Amendment C54 which was approved in 2007 and which related to Stage B of the Resort.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 49
It is not necessary to repeat the detailed history and content of the past zoning provisions relating to the Resort in this report. The Panel notes that the Amendment C54 Panel report provides a detailed history of the zoning provisions up until the exhibition of Amendment C54, and that the submissions from Council, DPCD and Ms Katz also describe the subsequent approval of that Amendment and the current provisions.
The Comprehensive Development Zone Schedule 1 (CDZ1)
The Purposes of the CDZ1 are: To provide for the development and use of an integrated golf and recreational tourist resort with conference and accommodation facilities. To ensure that use and development is in accordance with the Thirteenth Beach Resort Comprehensive Development Plan. To ensure that the development of the land within the zone is undertaken and staged in an orderly manner. To ensure that the development of land does not prejudice the amenity of the surrounding area. To ensure that the land is developed in an orderly manner. To ensure the development and use of land east of Lings Road reinforces the non‐urban break between the Barwon Heads township and the Thirteenth Beach Resort.
The CDZ1 requires that the use of land must be generally in accordance with the Thirteenth Beach Resort Comprehensive Development Plan (Thirteenth Beach Resort CDP). This Plan identifies the Stage C land and applies the notation: Land East of Lings Road: No development or building to be used as accommodation or commercial purpose.
Various submitters made observations about the extent to which the current and past planning provisions conferred expectations about the future development of Stage C. Council, for example, submitted that Stage C had only ever been intended for farming use, and noted the references to a ‘model farm ‐ agriculture’ included on the original Tomara Resort Concept Plan (1993). Ms Quigley supported Council’s assessment and quoted various extracts from the C54 Panel report as a basis for arguing that there had never been any proposals for, or expectations of, development of Stage C.
Ms Katz, on the other hand, submitted that earlier references to Stage C being used for farming were consistent with her view that the CDZ1 (and earlier provisions) was a ‘holding’ zone and that there was an implied
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 50 expectation that the Thirteenth Beach CDP would be progressively amended to provide for resort development of Stage C.
The Panel has reviewed these submissions and the relevant background material. While the differing views about this issue are noted, the Panel and has not formed a definitive view about whether Stage C was ever intended to be developed as part of the Resort or whether this could be reasonably inferred by the current or past planning provisions. Nevertheless, the Panel wonders why the land was not rezoned to a rural zone as part of the Amendment C54 process if there was a view that it had no prospect of being developed as part of the Resort.
Setting this issue aside, the Panel believes that it is more relevant to assess whether some form of golf‐related development might be appropriate in a strategic sense, and whether there is any prospect that the development issues that affect the site are capable of being addressed.
Strategic Justification for the Development of Stage C
The Panel does not doubt that the Resort is a significant local and regional asset. This was highlighted by Ms Katz and supported in various submissions such as that from the Committee for Geelong. The economic contribution that the Resort makes locally and within the region was not contested by other submitters.
The Panel is satisfied that the development of Stage C has the potential to build on the existing Resort infrastructure and to provide a broader mix of facilities and tourism opportunities. The Panel is satisfied that, at least in a general sense, this would be consistent with the Victorian Coastal Strategy, the Coastal Spaces Recommendations Report and the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.
The caveat for this strategic support is whether the development issues that affect the site are capable of being satisfactorily addressed.
Issues affecting the development of Stage C
The possible development of Stage C presents a number of challenges and difficulties. These include protecting the environmental values of the Murtnaghurt Lagoon and the channel, protecting the non‐urban buffer to the west of Barwon Heads, maintaining the ‘village character’ of Barwon Heads and avoiding incremental ‘urban’ development on the site.
The relevance of these issues will vary depending on the nature and intensity of use and development that might be proposed, although even seemingly
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 51 benign uses such as agriculture and golf courses can potentially have negative impacts on the environmental values in the area.
Although the Panel has not been presented with detailed submissions or evidence in relation to specific development proposals (and has not considered the content of proposed Amendment C192), it is conceivable that some form of golf‐related development, based around a third 18 hole golf course, could be accommodated in a manner that addresses the various issues raised in submissions.
In this context the Panel notes that this land is affected by some of the issues that were discussed in relation to the Macafee land in section 5 of this report.
In forming this view, the Panel considers that potentially suitable development proposals would need to: . be principally focussed on an 18 hole golf course; . have a strong link with the existing Resort; . provide a demonstrable net environmental benefit for the Murtnaghurt Lagoon and the channel; . avoid any de‐facto residential development; and . maintain the non urban appearance along the frontage to Barwon Heads Road.
In this context the Panel notes recommendation R5 contained in the Coastal Spaces Recommendation Report, 2006: Encourage tourism investment and products that are sensitive to coastal settings and meet regional needs. Tourism proposals outside settlements must be of high quality, well designed and sited, add value to the coastal experience and be distinguishable from residential proposals.
The Panel believes that the Planning Scheme should facilitate Stage C proposals being prepared, considered and tested, at least over the short term. This is best done by retaining the CDZ1 rather than applying the FZ or RCZ. The CDZ1 provides an established mechanism to approve development of the site through revisions to Thirteenth Beach Resort CDP and, appropriately, requires an amendment to the Planning Scheme.
Retaining the CDZ1
While the Panel supports the retention of the CDZ1, there should not be an expectation that this zone will necessarily be retained over Stage C in perpetuity if it is not acted upon. If a suitable development proposal is not advanced in the short term (perhaps 2 years), it would be reasonable for Council to revisit the zoning of the land and potentially remove the CDZ1.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 52
In this context, the Panel notes that the DPCD submission supported the CDZ1 ‘…as it is the most appropriate VPP zoning tool to manage land use and development in this environmentally sensitive location…’. This seemed to imply that the CDZ1 could legitimately be retained for the long term, regardless of whether there was any prospect of Stage C being developed. Ms Quigley rightly criticised this observation about the CDZ1 and wondered what purpose the RCZ was intended to serve in protecting environmentally sensitive areas in light of DPCD’s views about the CDZ.
The Panel does not have a view about whether the proposed Amendment C192 constitutes a ‘suitable development’ proposal; however it encourages Council, in consultation with the proponent, to determine whether that proposal, a modified version of it, or an alternative proposal should proceed.
The Rural Conservation and Farming Zones
Council and many submitters advocated the rezoning of Stage C to the RCZ. Even if the Panel had supported the removal of the CDZ1, it would not have supported its replacement with the RCZ. The Panel believes that the application of the very restrictive RCZ (in contrast to the FZ) requires greater analysis and justification than that provided by Council in its submission.
An appropriate analysis would also include an assessment of the other land in the immediate area currently zoned FZ (potentially including the Macafee land). It makes little sense to undertake a ‘spot rezoning’ of Stage C to RCZ while other rural landholdings that also abut or are in proximity to the Murtnaghurt Lagoon, the channel and/or the Lake Connewarre Reserve (immediately north of the Barwon Heads Road) would retain the FZ. Such an analysis would also need to consider the RCZ schedule provisions that might be applied to this area and whether a preferred zone should be accompanied by an overlay such as the ESO.
If Council resolves to remove the CDZ1 as part of Amendment C159, the FZ would be the preferred replacement zone, at least on an interim basis.
The Barwon Heads settlement boundary
A number of submissions noted that the Resort (and Stage C) is outside the exhibited settlement boundary and strongly supported this element of the Amendment. Although there were no submissions proposing that the Resort be included within the boundary, the Panel agrees that regardless of how Stage C is ultimately zoned as part of this Amendment process, there is no justification for including it (or Stages A and B) within the settlement boundary.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 53 6.3 Conclusions and recommendations
6.3.1 Conclusions
The Panel is satisfied that the current CDZ1 should be retained over Stage C of the Thirteenth Beach Resort. The Resort is an important local and regional facility and Stage C represents an opportunity to enhance and build on this asset.
The Panel encourages Council to further discuss the development potential of Stage C with the proponent to determine whether a suitable proposal can be agreed. Such a proposal would need to comprehensively address the range of issues that affect the site and the immediate area, particularly the environmental impacts on the Murtnaghurt Lagoon and the channel. As the Panel concluded in relation to the Macafee land, any development should achieve a net environmental benefit.
The Panel is satisfied these issues are well documented and understood, and that the processing of a planning scheme amendment would provide suitable mechanism to test whether they can be suitably addressed.
6.3.2 Recommendations
The Panel makes the following recommendations in relation to Stage C of the Thirteenth Beach Resort:
Retain the Comprehensive Development Zone Schedule 1 over Stage C of the Thirteenth Beach Resort.
Amend the Barwon Heads Structure Plan map at Clause 21.35 to delete the reference ‘Rezone to Rural Zone’ that applies to Stage C of the Thirteenth Beach Resort.
Amend Clause 21.35‐3 (Strategies) to delete the 4th strategy ‘Rezone Stage C of the Thirteenth Beach Golf Resort to the appropriate rural zone applicable on the Bellarine Peninsula’.
Amend Clause 21.35‐4 (Implementation) to delete the 4th dot point ‘Applying the Rural Conservation Zone to Stage C of the Thirteenth Beach Golf Resort’.
Amend the Barwon Heads Structure Plan by deleting the plan and text references that relate to rezoning Stage C of the Thirteenth Beach Resort.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 54
7. Urban issues
This section of the report discusses urban issues raised in submissions.
7.1 The Mixed Use Zone
The Amendment seeks to rezone land along both sides of Hitchcock Avenue, between Ozone Road and Clifford Parade to the MUZ.
7.1.1 What is the issue?
The issue is whether the Council‐owned Community Hall on the south‐west corner of Hitchcock Avenue and Ozone Road should be rezoned to the MUZ from the R1Z, as proposed in the Amendment.
7.1.2 Submissions and Evidence
The submission from Mr Hastings opposed the rezoning on the basis that the Community Hall was a community asset, while the submission from Mr Mitchell expressed concern about the potential intrusion of commercial development along the residential area of Ozone Street.
Council’s submission provided a detailed background to the MUZ proposal and supported the application of this zone to the Community Hall.
7.1.3 Discussion
The Panel is satisfied that the MUZ should be applied to the Community Hall site. The current R1Z is not a preferred zone given the non‐residential use of the site and its location within a broader ‘mixed use’ strip along Hitchcock Avenue. The proposed rezoning will not affect the ownership of the land or necessarily affect the continuation of its current use. The MUZ also requires that a planning permit be obtained for most commercial uses – particularly those that might have off‐site amenity impacts. This provides an opportunity for residential interface and amenity issues to be considered and addressed.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 55 7.2 Design and Development Overlay Schedule 19 (Barwon Heads Town Centre)
The Amendment seeks to apply the DDO19 to land zoned B1Z and to land currently and proposed to be zoned MUZ within the town centre. It also proposes to delete the existing DDO14 from those areas being rezoned from the R1Z to MUZ in Hitchcock Avenue.
7.2.1 What are the issues?
The issues are whether the DDO19 is justified and whether the provisions are appropriate.
7.2.2 Submissions and Evidence
Various submissions raised issues with or opposed three‐storey development along Hitchcock Avenue.
Council noted that the DDO19 contained the ‘design response’: Respect the predominant building height in the street and of adjacent buildings.
Council submitted that three‐storey buildings would not be encouraged or desirable within the town centre, and that they would be contrary to the ‘design response’. Nevertheless, Council submitted that the ‘design response should be strengthened by adding the words: …by generally restricting buildings to a maximum height of 2‐storeys.
Submissions also opposed the ‘exemption from notice and review’ contained in the DDO19.
Council noted that the ‘exemption’ only applied to subdivision and was therefore appropriate.
The submission on behalf of Monea Bros Pty Ltd opposed the DDO19 on the basis that it is unnecessarily restrictive, repeats the requirements of the BHUDF and BHSP that will become reference documents, and seeks design styles and building forms that are inappropriate for Hitchcock Avenue.
Council’s submission outlined the background to the DDO19 and noted that it had been drawn from design objectives and responses in the BHUDF. Council also submitted that the use of a DDO was preferable to simply relying on material contained in a reference document.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 56 7.2.3 Discussion
The Panel acknowledges the concerns that were expressed in relation to building heights in the town centre and Council’s view that additional certainty should be provided by including a reference to a 2 storey building height.
While the Panel is generally reluctant to support more prescriptive ‘design responses’, the additional words advocated by Council are not unreasonable given the overarching strategy of retaining a ‘village character’ within the town, the need to respond to residential interfaces, and the small size and narrow frontages of lots which would potentially make 3 storey development more problematic.
The Panel is satisfied that providing an ‘exemption from notice and review’ in relation to subdivision applications is appropriate.
In relation to the submission that the DDO should be abandoned, the Panel is satisfied that there is adequate justification for the content of the DDO and that it is an appropriate VPP tool to implement the design related material contained in the BHUDF.
7.2.4 Recommendation
The Panel makes the following recommendation in relation to the Design and Development Overlay 19 (Barwon Heads Town Centre):
Amend the third Design Response under the first Design Objective within the ‘Building Form’ Streetscape Element to read: Respect the predominant building height in the street and of adjacent properties by generally restricting buildings to a maximum height of two storeys.
7.3 Car parking and traffic
7.3.1 What are the issues?
The issues are the adequacy of car parking, increased traffic congestion and the designation of the arterial road route.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 57
7.3.2 Submissions and evidence
A number of submissions expressed concern about the lack of car parking particularly during peak holiday times and the potential implications of allowing further development in the absence of parking issues being addressed. Issues of particular concern were the lack of a ‘parking plan’ and a perception that Council typically waives parking requirements in the town centre. Some of these submissions identified parking issues outside of the town centre.
Some submissions expressed concern about the levels of traffic congestion being experienced in the town centre and throughout the town, and the impacts on its ‘village’ character.
Council provided a detailed submission that described the investigations and processes that were underway in order to address parking and traffic issues. In summary, Council commissioned the Barwon Heads Traffic and Parking Study which was completed in March 2009 and subsequently placed on public exhibition. At the time of the Hearing, Council officers were considering submissions on the Study and the Panel was advised that officers would report to Council in January 2010. Council submitted that this process was the appropriate mechanism to address the parking and traffic issues referred to in submissions to Amendment C159.
Other submissions opposed the designation of the Declared Arterial Road along Golf Links Road and Bridge Road and the associated application of the Road Zone Category 1 to that route as part of the Amendment.
Council advised that the application of the Road Zone Category 1 reflected the VicRoads declaration of Golf Links Road and Bridge Road as the arterial road route through Barwon Heads replacing Hitchcock Avenue and Geelong Road. The new alignment was gazetted in December 2007 and the Amendment reflects this.
7.3.3 Discussion
While the Panel acknowledges the concerns raised in relation to parking and traffic issues, these matters are not directly relevant to Amendment C159. Council is aware of these issues and is seeking to resolve them through a separate process.
In relation to the application of the Road Zone Category 1, this simply reflects past decisions regarding the route of the arterial road and is not something that can be usefully revisited as part of this Amendment process.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 58 7.4 Stephens Road
The Amendment seeks to rezone land along Stephens Parade to LDRZ from the R1Z.
7.4.1 What is the issue?
The issue is whether the subdivision and native vegetation controls for this area are appropriate.
7.4.2 Submissions and evidence
A number of submissions supported the proposed rezoning, however the submission from H and R Vague raised a number of issues relating to future subdivision, the status of the unconstructed Golf Avenue and vegetation clearance (Coastal Ti‐tree).
Council’s submission highlighted the background to the LDRZ rezoning proposal and noted that the vegetation clearance controls were contained within the existing SLO8 that applies to the land.
7.4.3 Discussion
The application of the LDRZ will preclude opportunities for future subdivision except where lots are greater than 0.4 ha. The BHSP indicates that the average lot size along Stephens Road is approximately 0.15 ha.
Golf Avenue and Links Avenue appear to be unconstructed road reserves that are currently zoned R1Z and proposed to be rezoned LDRZ under the Amendment. The Panel is not aware of the status of this land, and whether they are road reserves vested in Council, freehold land, or land associated with the Barwon Heads Golf Course. Setting aside the issue of ownership, the opportunity for this land to be developed is limited by its configuration, and the requirements of the LPP at Clause 22.04, the ESO1, the SLO8 and the proposed LDRZ. While the Panel is satisfied that the LDRZ rezoning should proceed, it would be prudent for Council to consider the status and appropriate zoning of Golf Avenue and Links Avenue.
The native vegetation clearance controls are within the existing SLO8 and are therefore outside the scope of this Amendment. Nevertheless, the issues associated with clearing Coastal Ti‐tree are matters that Council might give further consideration to as part of a future review of the SLO8.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 59 7.5 Bridge Road
7.5.1 What is the issue?
The issue is whether the B1Z should be extended to include a property on Bridge Road.
7.5.2 Submissions and Evidence
The submission from Mr Angelovich sought to have the B1Z applied to his residential property at 6 Bridge Road. The property is currently zoned R1Z and has a single detached dwelling. Mr Angelovich highlighted a number of issues that affect the residential amenity of the property including its proximity to the Barwon Heads Hotel and vehicular traffic along Bridge Road. He also noted the increasing commercial development in the immediate area as further justification for a business zoning of his property.
Council highlighted that the BHSP provides for the commercial expansion of the town centre to the north along Hitchcock Avenue, which is identified as the focus of commercial development in Barwon Heads. This position is also reflected in the BHUDF. Council concluded that applying a commercial zone to the property would be at odds with the orderly planning of the town centre.
7.5.3 Discussion
Council has a clear strategy to consolidate commercial development along Hitchcock Avenue (between Bridge Road and Ozone Road) and the south side of Bridge Road (between Hitchcock Avenue and Ewing Blyth Drive). As submitted by Council, this strategy is drawn from the BHSP and BHUDF.
While the Panel supports this strategy, it is clear that the area along the north side of Bridge Road, between Hitchcock Avenue and Flinders Parade, (including 6 Bridge Road) is not ideally suited to single dwelling residential development for the reasons set out by Mr Angelovich. The Panel expects that this section of Bridge Road will either be progressively developed for higher density residential development (under the current zoning) or be subject to increasing pressure for commercial development and rezoning (as is the case with 6 Bridge Road). Either way, this section of Bridge Road is an area in transition.
While the Panel does not discount the possibility that this area might have a longer term commercial future, it would be premature to apply a commercial zoning at this time. The Panel supports Council’s strategy to consolidate development within Hitchcock Avenue and does not believe that this would
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 60
be assisted by additional commercial zoning along Bridge Road at this time. Nevertheless, this is an area that should be revisited during the next structure plan review.
7.6 Barwon Heads Motors
7.6.1 What is the issue?
The issue is whether the Amendment should provide an opportunity (suitably zoned land) for the existing Barwon Heads Motors business to relocate to another site within the town.
7.6.2 Submissions and evidence
Mr Jansen (the owner/operator of this business) advised the Panel that his lease on the property in Barwon Heads expires at the end of 2010 and that there was no opportunity to extend it. He also advised that he had been unsuccessful in seeking to purchase the property and that there were no other suitably zoned properties available in Barwon Heads to which his business could relocate. He submitted that the Amendment should provide zoned land suitable for light industrial development, and commented that a suitable site might be provided within the Macafee land if it was identified for urban development.
Council provided a detailed response to this submission, including an assessment of the Planning Scheme provisions relevant to a relocation of this business within the town. Council acknowledged that because of various zoning, land size, land value and locational issues, there was no reasonable prospect of a suitable site being found within the town. However, Council submitted that this was not inconsistent with various strategies that Barwon Heads should be serviced by industrial and service businesses land located elsewhere (particularly Ocean Grove) rather than within the town itself.
7.6.3 Discussion
While the Panel has sympathy for Mr Jansen’s position, it notes Council’s position and acknowledges that the BHSP includes a specific direction that land should not be rezoned for ‘service business or industrial uses’. A consequence of the BHSP is that Barwon Heads will increasingly become a residential suburb of Ocean Grove as it relies upon it for a range of services.
Setting aside this strategic context, the Panel also notes that identifying affordable land within Barwon Heads for light industrial development would be difficult (if not impossible) given the lack of suitably large areas of
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 61 vacant land that would be adequately buffered from existing or future residential development. Even if additional urban land was made available to the immediate west of the current settlement boundary, it is likely that this would be developed for residential rather than industrial purposes.
For these reasons, the Panel is unable to accommodate Mr Jansen’s submission.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 62
8. Environmental issues
This section of the report discusses the environmental issues raised in submissions.
8.1 Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 9 (Barwon River Environs Barwon Heads)
The Amendment seeks to apply the SLO9 to properties in the Barwon River environs, north of Ozone Road to the western end of River Parade.
8.1.1 What are the issues?
The issues are whether the SLO9 is justified and whether the provisions are adequate and appropriate.
8.1.2 Evidence and submissions
There was general support for the SLO9 although some submissions sought changes to the provisions and one believed that its coverage should be extended to include a new subdivision off Barwon Terrace.
Specific concerns included the permit exemptions for removing vegetation depending on height (<3m) and trunk circumference (<0.5m) (eg Coastal Beard‐heath and regenerating Moonah), as well as dead vegetation.
Council acknowledged these concerns and advocated that the permit exemption (height and trunk circumference) should be removed in relation to Moonah and Coastal Beard‐heath.
One submission opposed the SLO9 on the basis that it was unreasonable to regulate garden landscaping and to require another level of control over building.
Council noted that only one objection to the SLO9 had been received although approximately 150 landowners were affected. This was cited as an indication of overwhelming community support. Council submitted that the SLO was a legitimate VPP tool and its application was appropriate given the landscape and environmental values of the area.
Council also noted that the exhibited Amendment did not seek to remove the existing DDO14 from areas that were proposed to be subject to the SLO9.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 63
Council submitted that the DDO14 over these properties was made redundant by the SLO9 and that the Amendment should provide for the deletion of the DDO14 from those areas subject to the SLO9. Council’s submission noted that they contain similar controls and both require a permit to construct a building over 7.5m in height.
Finally, Council sought a modification to the permit exemption (height) for buildings in Clause 3.0. The modification would clarify that the permit exemption would only apply where the proposed building or extension (rather than an existing building) was less than 7.5m.
8.1.3 Discussion
From its inspections of the Barwon River frontage and the area proposed for the SLO9 the Panel is satisfied that applying the SLO is an appropriate response to the landscape values of the area. Having said that, it seemed to the Panel that some submitters misunderstood the purpose of the SLO and saw it as a ‘native vegetation’ rather than ‘landscape’ protection tool.
In this context, the Panel has concerns about Council’s proposed revisions to the SLO9 that remove the permit exemptions (height and trunk circumference) relating to Moonah and Coastal Beard‐heath. These changes would arguably shift the emphasis of the control from ‘landscape’ protection to ‘vegetation’ protection – a situation where a Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO) might be a more appropriate tool. On balance the Panel is prepared to support Council’s proposed changes on the basis that the two species contribute to the landscape values of the area and in that context it is appropriate to support their regeneration/re‐establishment. The Panel does not support the removal of the exemption relating to dead vegetation on the basis that this is not a ‘landscape’ issue.
The proposed change to the exemption relating to buildings and extensions will provide necessary clarification and is supported.
The Panel does not support the extension of the SLO9 to cover the area off Barwon Terrace at this time. It was not exhibited as part of Amendment C159 and is a matter that Council should pursue through a future amendment if warranted.
Finally, the Panel agrees with Council’s submission that the existing DDO14 is made largely (if not entirely) redundant by the proposed SLO9 and that it should be removed from the area to be covered by the SLO9. The Panel also notes that the DDO14 includes a ‘sunset’ provision and expires on 30 June 2011.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 64 8.1.4 Recommendations
The Panel makes the following recommendations in relation to the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 9 (Barwon River Environs Barwon Heads):
Amend the first dot point under clause 3.0 to read: The height of any part of the building to be constructed or extension to an existing building, excluding any television antenna, chimney or flue, is less than 7.5 metres in height above natural ground level;
Amend the sixth and seventh dot points under clause 3.0 by adding: This exemption does not apply to Moonah (Melaleuca lanceolata) and Coast Beard‐heath (Leucopogon parviflora);
The Panel makes the following recommendation in relation to the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 14 (Dwellings Over 7.5 Metres):
Delete the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 14 (Dwellings Over 7.5 Metres) from areas to which the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 9 (Barwon River Environs Barwon Heads) is to be applied.
8.2 Environmental Significance Overlay
The Amendment introduces a ‘Further Work’ reference in Clause 21.35‐4 of the MSS that commits Council to: Investigate the application of an Environmental Significance Overlay along coastal areas.
8.2.1 What are the issues?
The issues are the scope and extent of the proposed ‘investigation’.
8.2.2 Submissions and Evidence
A number of submissions supported Council’s commitment to investigate the application of an ESO along coastal areas but advocated that the scope of the study be expanded to include wetlands and associated buffers, the Barwon River and estuarine environments, and the protection of indigenous vegetation and fauna habitat.
During the course of the Hearing the Panel sought advice from Council about the status and scope of this work, particularly in the context of
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 65
whether it would include wetlands. Council indicated that it would provide an update on these matters and following the conclusion of the Hearing provided the Panel with copies of the existing ESO2 (High Value Wetlands and Associated habitat Protection), Clause 21.05 (Natural Environment) from adopted Amendment C129 and a draft ESO schedule (Coastal Areas) of unknown provenance.
8.2.3 Discussion
It is uncertain what Council intends by the exhibited ‘Further Work’ reference at Clause 21.35‐4, although the Panel assumes that refers to the draft ESO schedule that was supplied following the Hearing.
Regardless of this, it is clear from the Panel’s assessment of issues associated with the settlement boundary, Murtnaghurt Lagoon and the channel, that a number of issues require further investigation. The Panel also notes that the BHUDF recommended that Council undertake a detailed study of the Murtnaghurt Lagoon to establish whether the current boundaries of the ESO are appropriate.
Rather than specify the precise scope of work that is required in the MSS ‘Further Work’ reference, the Panel encourages Council to consider the issues that have been raised in response to Amendment C159 and identify those that should be addressed within the life of the exhibited BHSP.
8.3 Climate change
8.3.1 What is the Issue?
The issue is whether the Amendment adequately responds to climate change issues.
8.3.2 Submissions and Evidence
As discussed in section 5.3 of this report, the Panel considered various submissions and evidence that raised issues associated with climate change. These issues were discussed during the Hearing, including the possible implications of sea level rise and storm tide inundation within the existing urban areas of Barwon Heads. This raised the issue of whether it is appropriate to seek urban consolidation and higher density residential development within Barwon Heads in the absence of a detailed understanding of which areas might be affected by sea level rise and storm tide inundation, and the possible extent to which they might be affected.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 66 8.3.3 Discussion
The principle statutory expression of the BHSP is through Clause 21.35 in the MSS yet this clause makes no reference to climate change issues and the potential implications for Barwon Heads.
The Clause includes the strategy: Encourage appropriate infill residential development and medium density housing in residential zones where drainage and servicing issues can be addressed and which ensures urban development that respects the low scale character of the town.
In a general sense this is an appropriate strategy, however it fails to anticipate that there may be some candidate areas for higher density development that will potentially be affected by sea level rises and storm tide inundation in the future. It is important that the Planning Scheme identify this, particularly in the interim period before Council undertakes the coastal vulnerability assessment discussed earlier and prior to the next review of the BHSP.
For these reasons the Panel believes that an additional strategy should be included in this Clause that at least highlights this as an issue to be considered.
The Panel also believes that Council should undertake a preliminary analysis of the implications of potential sea level rises and storm tide inundation for Barwon Heads. More detailed information relating to Barwon Heads is contained in the CSIRO report ‘The Effects of Climate Change on Extreme Sea Levels along Victoria’s Coast’ that was released in November 2009. This report, together with existing information, would enable Council to identify the possible extent of these constraints, at least on a broad level. This would assist in the interim application of Clause 21.35 prior to the next review of the BHSP and potentially inform the timing and content of that review.
The Panel understands that Council has programmed a more comprehensive review of these issues within the next 3 to 4 years; however, the Panel believes that an immediate preliminary assessment is warranted. In forming this recommendation, the Panel notes Mr Bisset’s advice regarding similar work that has been undertaken by other Councils including the Borough of Queenscliffe. Although the Panel is not familiar with this work, it might be of assistance to Council to review it as a basis for undertaking its own assessment.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 67 8.3.4 Recommendations
The Panel makes the following recommendation in relation to Clause 21.35 (Barwon Heads):
Amend Clause 21.35 by including the additional strategy:
Ensure that higher density urban development does not occur in areas that will potentially be affected by sea level rises and storm tide inundation associated with climate change.
The Panel makes the following recommendation for further action by Council:
Council should undertake a preliminary identification of areas within Barwon Heads that might be impacted by sea level rises and storm tide inundation associated with climate change. This analysis should be undertaken as a basis for determining whether there are areas where higher density urban development should be avoided. This analysis should be undertaken by the end of 2010.
8.4 Heritage
The Amendment does not propose any changes to the heritage related provisions of the Planning Scheme.
8.4.1 What is the issue?
The issue is whether the current heritage related provisions should be reviewed.
8.4.2 Submissions and evidence
The submission from the Barwon Heads Association Inc requested that Council review the current heritage overlays and provide more stringent requirements for the retention of historic buildings.
Council indicated that the most recent heritage controls were introduced in 2003 and that there were no plans to review them at this time. A quick review of the Heritage Overlay maps for Barwon Heads suggests that approximately 50 sites are subject to the overlay.
8.4.3 Discussion
The Panel notes that the current controls are reasonably recent and cover a relatively large number of sites. Although it is prudent for Councils to monitor the performance of these and other planning controls, the Panel was not provided with any evidence that they need to be reviewed at this time.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 68
9. Drafting and other issues
This section of the report discusses drafting and editorial issues affecting the Amendment and the BHSP.
9.1 Revisions proposed by Council
9.1.1 Discussion
In its closing submissions Council tabled a consolidated list of proposed revisions to the BHSP (document 41). These revisions were intended to correct errors and to clarify material. An example is the ‘Significant Landscape and Environmental Features Map’ which had been inadvertently replaced with the draft Structure Plan Map.
The Panel considered that the revisions do not change the intent of the Structure Plan and therefore supports them where they are consistent with the other recommendations contained in this report, such as the removal of references to the rezoning of Stage C of the Thirteenth Beach Resort.
In supporting these changes, the Panel notes that the statutory expression of the BHSP is through the Planning Scheme and that the status of the BHSP is confined to that of a Reference Document. It is not necessary that the BHSP ‘mirror’ the content of the Planning Scheme and for that reason the Panel does not believe that it need be comprehensively revised.
9.1.2 Recommendation
The Panel makes the following recommendation in relation to the Barwon Heads Structure Plan.
Amend the Barwon Heads Structure Plan to include Council’s proposed editorial changes where they are consistent with the other recommendations of the Panel.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 69 9.2 Revisions in relation to the Macafee property
9.2.1 Discussion
Mr Bisset referred the Panel to a number of references in exhibited Clause 21.35 that he submitted should be changed in the event that the Amendment proceeded.
The Panel has reviewed these recommendations and agrees with his comments in regard to the first ‘objective’ in Clause 21.35‐2: To protect the unique character of Barwon Heads as a small coastal village located within a sensitive environmental and significant landscape setting.
While the Panel notes the aspiration that Barwon Heads should have a ‘coastal village’ character, it is not a small coastal village. Breamlea is a small coastal village, Barwon Heads is not. The reference to ‘small’ is misleading and unrealistic, and should be deleted.
The Panel has reviewed Mr Bisset’s other suggested changes and concluded that they are neither necessary nor warranted.
9.2.2 Recommendation
The Panel makes the following recommendations in relation to Clause 21.35‐ 2 (Objectives):
Amend Clause 21.35‐2 (Objectives) by replacing the first objective with:
To protect the unique character of Barwon Heads as a coastal village located within a sensitive environmental and significant landscape setting.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 70
10. Conclusions and recommendations
10.1 Conclusions
The Panel supports Amendment C159 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme and is satisfied that the Amendment should be adopted with relatively minor modifications. Many of these modifications were suggested by Council following its consideration of submissions, while others that have been recommended by the Panel are intended to improve the performance of the Planning Scheme.
However, the Panel does not support Council’s position in relation to Stage C of the Thirteenth Beach Resort and believes that the existing Comprehensive Development Zone Schedule 1 should be retained. The Panel believes that Council should hold further discussions with the proponent in order to determine whether a suitable development proposal for the land can be agreed upon. If such a proposal cannot be agreed then it is open to Council to apply an alternative zone, but it should only do so following a more rigorous analysis of the zone and overlay options for the site, as well as the other agricultural land in the immediate area.
The Panel supports Council’s position in relation to settlement boundary and the exclusion of the Macafee property. Nevertheless, the Panel believes that limited development of this land is feasible and could be supported if it provided a net environmental benefit for the Murtnaghurt Lagoon and channel. The Panel does not agree that limited development of this land need have a negative impact on the aspiration to retain a ‘village’ character for Barwon Heads. For these reasons Council is encouraged to further consider the potential environmental improvements that might result from development of this land, and if appropriate, to prepare a suitable planning scheme amendment.
Finally, the Panel believes that the Amendment raises a number of unresolved climate change related issues such as sea level rises and storm tide inundation. It seems likely that some areas of Barwon Heads will be impacted by these issues and it is important that they be identified as quickly as possible. This is particularly so given that Council is seeking to apply strategies of urban consolidation and higher density urban development.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 71 10.2 Recommendations
For the reasons set out in this report the Panel makes the following recommendations for further action by Council.
C1 Council should consider the potential for limited residential development of 1900 – 1920 Barwon Heads Road as a means of achieving a net improvement to the environmental values of the Murtnaghurt Lagoon and channel. This assessment should also address the issues raised in this report.
C2 Council should undertake a preliminary identification of areas within Barwon Heads that might be impacted by sea level rises and storm tide inundation associated with climate change. This analysis should be undertaken as a basis for determining whether there are areas where higher density urban development should be avoided. This analysis should be undertaken by the end of 2010.
For the reasons set out in this Report, the Panel recommends that Amendment C159 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme be adopted subject to the following changes.
Clause 21.35 (Barwon Heads)
1 Amend the Barwon Heads Structure Plan map at Clause 21.35 to delete the reference ‘Rezone to Rural Zone’ that applies to Stage C of the Thirteenth Beach Resort.
2 Amend Clause 21.35‐3 (Strategies) to delete the 4th strategy ‘Rezone Stage C of the Thirteenth Beach Golf Resort to the appropriate rural zone applicable on the Bellarine Peninsula’.
3 Amend Clause 21.35‐4 (Implementation) to delete the 4th dot point ‘Applying the Rural Conservation Zone to Stage C of the Thirteenth Beach Golf Resort’.
4 Amend Clause 21.35 by including the additional strategy:
Ensure that higher density urban development does not occur in areas that will potentially be affected by sea level rises and storm tide inundation associated with climate change.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 72
5 Amend Clause 21.35‐2 (Objectives) by replacing the first objective with:
To protect the unique character of Barwon Heads as a coastal village located within a sensitive environmental and significant landscape setting.
Zoning
6 Retain the Comprehensive Development Zone Schedule 1 over Stage C of the Thirteenth Beach Resort.
Design and Development Overlay Schedule 19 (Barwon Heads Town Centre)
7 Amend the third Design Response under the first Design Objective within the ‘Building Form’ Streetscape Element to read: Respect the predominant building height in the street and of adjacent properties by generally restricting buildings to a maximum height of two storeys.
Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 9 (Barwon River Environs Barwon Heads)
8 Amend the first dot point under clause 3.0 to read: The height of any part of the building to be constructed or extension to an existing building, excluding any television antenna, chimney or flue, is less than 7.5 metres in height above natural ground level;
9 Amend the sixth and seventh dot points under clause 3.0 by adding: This exemption does not apply to Moonah (Melaleuca lanceolata) and Coast Beard‐heath (Leucopogon parviflora);
Design and Development Overlay Schedule 14 (Dwellings Over 7.5 Metres)
10 Delete the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 14 (Dwellings Over 7.5 Metres) from areas to which the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 9 (Barwon River Environs Barwon Heads) is to be applied.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 73
Barwon Heads Structure Plan.
11 Amend the Barwon Heads Structure Plan to include Council’s proposed editorial changes where they are consistent with the other recommendations of the Panel.
12 Amend the Barwon Heads Structure Plan by deleting the plan and text references that relate to rezoning Stage C of the Thirteenth Beach Resort.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 74
Appendix 1 Document list
DOCUMENT DATE DESCRIPTION PRESENTED BY NUMBER Submission by City of Greater 1 25/11/09 Mr Ian McCartney Geelong to Panel: Package 1 Submission by City of Greater 2 25/11/09 Geelong to Panel: Package 1 - Mr Ian McCartney Attachments Submission by City of Greater 3 25/11/09 Mr Tim Hellsten Geelong to Panel: Package 2 Submission by City of Greater 4 25/11/09 Geelong to Panel: Package 2 – Mr Tim Hellsten Appendices Submission by City of Greater Geelong to Panel: Package 2 – 5 25/11/09 Mr Tim Hellsten Addendum relating to Traffic and Parking CSIRO Report, The Effects of Climate 6 25/11/09 Change on Extreme Sea Levels along Mr Ian McCartney Victoria’s Coast (November 2009) Map of site features of Macafee 7 25/11/09 Mr Phil Bisset property to assist with site inspection Submission by City of Greater 8 25/11/09 Mr Peter Schembri Geelong to Panel: Package 3 Submission by City of Greater 9 25/11/09 Geelong to Panel: Package 3 - Mr Peter Schembri Attachments WBM Oceanics Australia, Barwon 10 26/11/09 Heads Drainage Flood Management Mr Ian McCartney Plan: Final Report (November 2005) City of Greater Geelong, Urban 11 26/11/09 Mr Ian McCartney Growth Strategy (1996) City of Greater Geelong, Biodiversity 12 26/11/09 Mr Ian McCartney Strategy (undated) Submission by Committee for Geelong 13 26/11/09 Mr Michael Betts to Panel 14 26/11/09 Submission by Rick Schoff to Panel Mr Rick Schoff 15 26/11/09 Submission by David Jansen to Panel Mr David Jansen Submission by Phillip Angelovich to 16 26/11/09 Mr Phillip Angelovich Panel
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 75
Submission by Jennifer Robinson to 17 26/11/09 Ms Jennifer Robinson Panel 18 26/11/09 Submission by John Butler to Panel Mr John Butler Written submission by D, M, Z and J Presented by Mr David 19 26/11/09 Fisher to Panel Jansen Submission by The Planning Group, 20 26/11/09 Ms Julie Katz representing 13th Beach Resort Copy of letter from Paul Mainey, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources to Antony 21 26/11/09 Ms Julie Katz Cashmore and Associates regarding Tomara property, dated 11 March 1993 Package of correspondence from Greater Geelong City Council to The 22 26/11/09 Planning Group regarding 13th Beach Ms Julie Katz development, dated from 17 May 2002 to 15 July 2009 Copy of City of Greater Geelong Council paper regarding “Amendment 23 26/11/09 C159 Barwon Heads Structure Plan – Ms Julie Katz Consideration of Submissions”, for Council Meeting of 28 July 2008, Submission to the Panel by Geelong 24 27/11/09 Ms Joan Lindross Environment Council Submission to Panel by Birds Australia 25 27/11/09 Mr Brendan Sydes – Victoria Conservation Committee Dutson, G, Garnett, S and Gole, C, Conservation statement No. 15, 26 27/11/09 Australia’s Important Bird Areas: Key Mr Mark Anderson Sites for Bird Conservation, Birds Australia (RAOU), October 2009 Map of predicted areas of inundation 27 30/11/09 Mr Ian McCartney from sea level rise in Barwon Heads Submission to Panel by Barwon Heads Mr Hamish Lonsdale and 28 30/11/09 Traders and Tourism Association Inc Mr Bernard Napthine Submission to Panel by Minter Ellison, 29 30/11/09 on behalf of Macafee Investments Pty Mr Phil Bisset Ltd Concept Plan of proposed development at 1920 Geelong Road, 30 30/11/09 Mr Phil Bisset Barwon Heads, from Mr Mason’s evidence
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 76
Five VCAT Decisions Gippsland Coastal Board v South Gippsland Shire Council [2008] VCAT 1545 Owen v Casey City Council [2009] 31 30/11/09 VCAT 1946 Mr Phil Bisset Ronchi & Campbell v Wellington Shire Council [2009] VCAT 1206 Myers v South Gippsland Shire Council [2009] VCAT 1022 Myers v South Gippsland Shire Council (No. 2) [2009] VCAT 2414 Series of structure plans relating to coastal towns – “Low Spatial Growth 32 30/11/09 Mr Ron Mason Towns with Growth Areas outside current zoned land” Barwon Heads Population and 33 2/12/09 Mr Ian McCartney Dwellings 2001 -16 data Extract from Hale, J., and Butcher, R., Ecological Character Description of the 34 2/12/09 Port Phillip Bay (western shoreline) Mr Andrew McMahon and Bellarine Peninsular Ramsar Site, Draft, June 2009 McMahon, A., Murtnaghurt Lagoon 35 2/12/09 and Paleo Channel: Summary of Ms Emily Porter Potential Impacts Submission to Panel by Environment 36 2/12/09 Defenders Office, on behalf of Barwon Ms Michelle Quigley Heads Alliance Annexure to submission to Panel by 37 2/12/09 Environment Defenders Office, on Ms Michelle Quigley behalf of Barwon Heads Alliance Various Planning Scheme Schedules referring to protection of geomorphological or geological features Bass Coast Planning Scheme, Schedule 2 to the ESO 38 2/12/09 Ms Michelle Quigley Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, Schedule 1 to the ESO Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, Schedule 13 to the RCZ Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, Schedule 12 to the RCZ Initial draft of Barwon Heads Structure 39 2/12/09 Mr Ian McCartney Plan, dated July 2007 Exhibited draft of Barwon Heads 40 2/12/09 Mr Ian McCartney Structure Plan, dated August 2007
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 77
City of Greater Geelong proposed 41 2/12/09 editorial changes to adopted Barwon Mr Ian McCartney Heads Structure Plan Track changes versions of proposed changes to exhibited documents of: Schedule 9 to SLO 42 2/12/09 Schedule 19 to DDO Mr Ian McCartney Explanatory Report to Amendment C159 Amendment documents
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 78
Appendix 2 Submitters
Submission No Submitter 1 Addison, J & Stewart, E 2 Ainsworth 3 Algie 4 Allan 5 Allen 6 Angelovich 7 Anker 8 Apted 9 Armstrong 10 Aspinall 11 Atkin 12 Atkins 13 Austin 14 Austin 15 Austin 16 Bailey 17 Barker 18 Barwon Coast Committee of Management Inc 19 Barwon Heads Association Inc 20 Barwon Heads Golf Club 21 Barwon Heads Traders & Tourism Association Inc 22 Barwon Water 23 Beeby 24 Bennett 25 Bent 26 Bingley 27 Bingley 28 Birds Australia 29 Birrell 30 Borthwick
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 79
31 Brasier 32 Brasier 33 Brasier 34 Brooks 35 Browell 36 Brown 37 Brown 38 Brown 39 Browning 40 Brumby 41 Buckley 42 Bull 43 Burgess 44 Butler 45 Butler 46 Butler 47 Butler 48 Byrne 49 Cairns 50 Cannon 51 Carpenter 52 Carr 53 Carter 54 Cass 55 Cass 56 Cathcart 57 CFA 58 Chalk 59 Champion de Respigny 60 Claringbold 61 Clark 62 Clarke 63 Clarke 64 Clarke
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 80
65 Clifton-Jones 66 Cole 67 Cole 68 Collings 69 Collins 70 Committee for Geelong 71 Connors 72 Considine 73 Corangamite CMA 74 Corinaldi 75 Cornes 76 Cornes 77 Cox 78 Cromwell 79 Cross 80 Crowe 81 Crowe 82 Crowe 83 Crowe 84 Dennett 85 Dickson 86 Dickson 87 Druce 88 Duke 89 Duke 90 Dunoon 91 Durrant 92 Edgar 93 Edge 94 Edlund 95 Edwards 96 Edwards 97 Edwards 98 Edwards
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 81
99 Edwards 100 Edwards 101 Edwards 102 Ekstedt 103 Elkington 104 EPA - Victoria 105 Fadgyas Planning Associates 106 Fadgyas Planning Associates 107 Farley 108 Ferris 109 Filby 110 Fisher 111 Ford 112 Fox 113 Frahm 114 Friends of the Barwon River Inc. 115 Friends of the Bluff 116 Gallagher 117 Gatehouse 118 Gatehouse 119 Geelong Environment Council Inc 120 Gill 121 Glover 122 Gordon 123 Gorman 124 Green 125 Greskie 126 Grgic 127 Grieve 128 Gubbins 129 Gubbins 130 Gubbins 131 Guy 132 Halnon
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 82
133 Halnon 134 Hamilton 135 Hamilton 136 Hanrahan 137 Hanrahan 138 Harrison 139 Harrison 140 Harvey 141 Hastings 142 Haymes 143 Herbison 144 Herbison 145 Hernon 146 Hess 147 Hess 148 Hobbs 149 Hocking 150 Hocking 151 Hocking 152 Howard 153 Hughes 154 Humphris 155 Humphris 156 Hutchins 157 Hutton 158 Ingram 159 Ingram 160 Inkster 161 Isom 162 Jacoby 163 James 164 James 165 James 166 Jansen
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 83
167 Johns 168 Johnston 169 Johnstone 170 Jones 171 Jones 172 Jones M & Stephenson C, G & B 173 Kebbell 174 Kebbell 175 Kebbell 176 Kebbell 177 Kebbell 178 Kebbell 179 Keith 180 Kelly 181 Kempe 182 Kennedy 183 Kibbis 184 King 185 Kucz 186 Kuebler 187 Kuebler 188 Lamb 189 Lardner 190 Lawler 191 Learmonth 192 Leschke 193 Leslie 194 Libbis 195 Littleton 196 Livermore 197 Livingstone 198 MacDonald 199 Magill 200 Maloney
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 84
201 Manderson 202 Mangelsdorf 203 Marshman 204 Martin 205 Martin, & Diepgron, S 206 Matthisson 207 Mattschoss 208 Mayer 209 McArthur 210 McCarthy 211 McCormack 212 McDavell 213 McGlynn 214 McIntosh 215 McKay 216 McKechnie 217 McKechnie 218 McKeon 219 McLeod 220 Meehan 221 Merewether 222 Mexted 223 Mexted 224 Michell 225 Michelson 226 Middleton 227 Middleton 228 Middleton 229 Middleton 230 Middleton 231 Middleton 232 Middleton 233 Middleton 234 Mignani
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 85
235 Millear 236 Millward 237 Mitten 238 Monte 239 Nagle 240 Nagle 241 Neale 242 Niall 243 O'Brien 244 O'Conner 245 O'Connor 246 O'Donnell 247 Oliver 248 Olliff 249 O'Meara 250 O'Neill 251 Paisley 252 Palmer 253 Parker 254 Paskas 255 Paterson 256 Paterson 257 Paterson 258 Patrick 259 Pithie 260 Pollard 261 Porter 262 Potkonen 263 Potkonen 264 Prytz 265 Ray 266 Rayner 267 Reese 268 Reeve
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 86
269 Rew 270 Richardson 271 Richardson 272 Robertson 273 Roberts 274 Robinson 275 Robinson 276 Roe 277 Roe 278 Roe 279 Roe 280 Roe 281 Romeril 282 Ronaldson 283 Roper 284 Rosin 285 Rosin 286 Ruwolt 287 Ryan 288 Sanderson 289 Sandnell 290 Sawers 291 Schapper 292 Schoff 293 Schoff 294 Scott 295 Seignor 296 Sheehy 297 Sheehy 298 Smith 299 Smith 300 Smith 301 Smith 302 Smith
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 87
303 Somerville 304 Sorensen 305 SP Ausnet 306 Spinks 307 Stenner 308 Stephens 309 Stephenson 310 Stevens 311 Stewart 312 Stewart 313 Stewart 314 Stinson 315 Stubs 316 Suter, K & Dott, R 317 Swinton 318 Tallis 319 Taylor 320 Testro 321 Thiessen 322 Occupant 323 Occupant 324 Occupant 325 Occupant 326 Occupant 327 Occupant 330 Thiessen 331 Thirteenth Beach Golf Links Ltd 332 Thomas 333 Thomas 334 Tippett 335 Tomlinson 336 Toppin 337 Torpey 338 TPG
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 88
339 Teserder 340 Tribe 341 Urqhart 342 Vague 343 Van Berkel 344 Vawdrey 345 VicRoads 346 Victorian National Parks Association 347 Vincent 348 Vinecombe 349 Waddell 350 Wallace Smith 351 Wallis 352 Walmsley 353 Wark 354 Watson 355 Webb 356 Weir 357 Weir 358 Wettenhall 359 Whitlock 360 Wickham 361 Wilkinson 362 Wilson 363 Wilson 364 Wilson 365 Wishart 366 BT Finance Group 367 Diepgrond 368 Hensey 369 Hess 370 Jameson 371 Manuell 372 McLennan
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 89
373 Syme 374 Stinson 375 Walmsley 376 Save Barwon Heads Alliance 377 Ashton-Smith 378 Department of Sustainability 379 Central Coastal Board
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 90
Appendix 3 Panel Directions
RE: GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME: AMENDMENT C159
A Panel has been established to consider submissions to the above amendment. The Panel has been appointed under the provisions of sections 153 and 155 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, and consists of Mr Michael Kirsch (Chair) and Mr Ian Gibson.
As an outcome of the directions hearing held on Thursday 8 October at Geelong, the following directions are made.
Hearing Timetable
1 The hearing will commence on Wednesday 25 November 2009. A copy of the timetable for the Hearing is enclosed for your information.
Would you please make a note of when you are scheduled to be heard. You are requested to arrive at least 30 minutes before your scheduled time of commencement. If for any reason you are unable to be present at the appropriate time, it would be appreciated if you would contact Ms Nicole Maloney on 9637 9690 or
Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD) Submission
DPCD requested the opportunity to make a submission at the Hearing relating to planning issues for coastal communities. DPCD did not make a submission during the exhibition of the Amendment.
This request was discussed at the Directions Hearing and concerns were raised about the lack of opportunity to consider and respond to matters that might be raised in the submission.
The Panel indicated that while it would agree to the request, the DPCD submission would be scheduled for day 1 of the Hearing in order that other submitters would have the opportunity to consider and respond to it. The Panel also indicated that it would request DPCD to provide an overview of the matters it intends to raise prior to the Hearing. This material will be circulated to parties scheduled to make submissions at the Hearing.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 91
2 DPCD is to provide Planning Panels Victoria with a written overview of the submission it intends to make at the Hearing by close of business Friday 23 October. Planning Panels Victoria will circulate this material to other parties scheduled to make submissions at the Hearing.
Written Submissions at the Hearing
3 Any further material presented to the Panel which is not part of your original submission (for example, a PowerPoint presentation) must be available to all parties at the Hearing.
4 At least six copies of written submissions to the Panel should be provided.
It assists the Panel if written material presented at the hearing is two‐hole punched and stapled (not bound). If possible, lengthy submissions should be provided on disc, preferably in Word format.
Expert Witness Reports
5 Submitters calling expert evidence must advise the Panel of the type of evidence being called and the proposed order of that evidence by close of business on Friday 23 October 2009.
6 If you intend to call any expert witnesses you must comply with the attached Planning Panels Victoria Guideline No 1–Expert Evidence.
7 Witness reports must be circulated by close of business on Tuesday 17 November 2009. Reports must be sent to Council, the Panel and other parties listed below.
8 Council must make the expert evidence reports available for inspection at its office and post copies of the reports on its website.
Copies of expert reports will also be available at Planning Panels Victoria.
Information to be supplied
9 Council is to supply 2 hard copies of the following documents to Planning Panels Victoria: . Barwon Heads Structure Plan, 1996 . Barwon Heads Urban Design Framework, 2003 . The Bellarine Peninsula Strategic Plan . The current Incorporated Plan for the 13th Beach Golf Resort . The most recent Traffic and Parking Study for Barwon Heads
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 92
. The Minister’s letter of authorisation for Amendment C159 . The Minister’s letter of approval for Amendment C54
Hearing Arrangements
10 Council will provide a lap top computer and data projector during the Hearing
Submission from Minter Ellison (on behalf of Macafee Investments Pty Ltd)
Minter Ellison lodged a written submission (dated 25 September 2009) relating to: . Whether the Panel would consider submissions on the content of the Barwon Heads Structure Plan. . The need for other submitters to be notified of submissions that propose alterations to the Amendment and/or Barwon Heads Structure Plan. . The scheduling of the Hearing.
These matters were discussed at the Directions Hearing and the Panel sought the views of other parties in attendance.
The Panel will consider submissions relating to the content of the Barwon Heads Structure Plan. This position was supported by Council.
The Panel will not require Council to notify other submitters of submissions that propose changes to the Amendment and/or the Barwon Heads Structure Plan. The Panel does not consider that such action is warranted and notes that: . The Amendment has attracted a large number of submissions, some of which have sought changes to the Amendment. . Any additional process of further notification would need to apply to all submissions that opposed or sought changes to the Amendment, not just the Minter Ellison submission. . This would be a departure from the usual practice. . The content of submissions indicates that there is a general community understanding of the issues associated with the proposed town boundary and awareness of the proposal to include the Macafee Investments land within it. . Issues associated with recommendations that might ‘transform’ the Amendment are understood by the Panel. These issues will be monitored by the Panel during the course of the Hearing and it is open to the Panel
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010 Page 93
to recommend additional notification at a later time if it is considered appropriate.
This position was supported by Council.
The Panel is satisfied that commencing the Hearing on Wednesday 25 November (rather than the scheduled commencement on Monday 16 November 2009) gives submitters sufficient time to organise representation and expert evidence.
If you have any inquiries about any matter connected with the hearing or directions hearing, please contact Nicole Maloney on 9637 9690.
Yours sincerely
Michael Kirsch Panel Chair
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C159 PANEL REPORT: JANUARY 2010