Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory Committee

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 111 Committee

Full Name: Dr Phillip Roos Organisation: Live+Smart Research Laboratory Affected property: Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49572 Attachment 2: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49573 Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet

7th July 2021

To: Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory Committee

Email: [email protected]

Dear Committee Members,

Central Geelong Framework Plan – A Biophilic Response

Thank you for the opportunity to complete a submission in response to the draft Central Geelong Framework Plan.

This submission outlines the value of a Biophilic City, precedents, design principles that underpin an integrated Biophilic City. Most importantly this response considers how the Draft Central Geelong Planning Framework can be refined to set Geelong up to harness the benefits of a Biophilic City.

I look forward to the opportunity to discuss our submission further.

Yours Sincerely

Dr Phillip B. Roös RAIA RIBA SAIA MPIA AAIA GSAP ISAP Associate Professor Director Live + Smart Research Lab School of Architecture & Built Environment Faculty of Science Engineering & Built Environment, Deakin University

W: https://livesmartlab.deakin.edu.au

Deakin University Live+Smart Research Laboratory | Page 1

CONTENTS I: INTRODUCTION ...... 2 II: A BIOPHILIC CITY ...... 4 2. 1 WHAT IS A BIOPHILIC CITY ...... 4 2.2 BENEFITS ...... 9 2.3 PRECEDENTS ...... 10 2.4 HOW TO BECOME A BIOPHILIC CITY ...... 12 2.5 A REGENRATIVE FUTURE ...... 14 IV: FRAMEWORK FEEDBACK ...... 15 RECOMMENDATION 1: DELWP MODEL GREEN SCENARIOS IN GEELONG TO INFORM DEVELOPMENT PLANNING ...... 15 RECOMMENDATION 2: ADD BLUE/GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AS A SECTION WTHIN THE URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORK ...... 17 RECOMMENDATION 3: PLAN FOR GREEN PRECINCTS – WHICH MEANS GREEN AND SHARED STREETS ...... 18 RECOMMENDATION 4: FUNDING FOR GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE; IN PARTICULAR, URBAN FOREST OUTCOMES ...... 20 V: CONCLUSION ...... 22 VI: REFERENCES ...... 23

Doc 01-12-06-07-2021 L+Smart Research Laboratory

I: INTRODUCTION

The Live+Smart Research Lab based at Deakin University, Geelong, is focused on enabling a healthy, sustainable, adaptive, and resilient future for Authors: our urban and regional areas. We focus on applied research in biophilia and biophilic design, systems thinking, regenerative-adaptive design, and A/Prof Dr Phillip B. Roös scenario planning to make this vision a reality. Ms Georgina de Beaujeu Associate Professor, Dr Phillip B. Roös is the founder and Director of the Ms Emma Duncan Live+Smart Research Lab, and Associate Head of School - Industry Engagement at the School of Architecture and Built Environment. His work Dr Murray Herron spans architecture, urban design and planning, landscape architecture, environmental design, teaching, and research. A global leader in Dr Ali Jalali Environmental and Biophilic Design, Phillip has worked as a design Dr Paris Sidiqui professional and architect for over 30 years on an extensive range of large- scale projects in Europe, Africa and Australasia. Dr Zaheer Allam

This submission outlines the value of a Biophilic City, precedents, design Dr Simon Kilbane principles that underpin an integrated Biophilic City. Most importantly this response considers how the Draft Central Geelong Planning Framework can be refined to set Geelong up to harness the benefits of a Biophilic City.

This submission is on behalf of the researchers listed below at the Live+Smart Research Laboratory and it does not reflect or represent the opinions and views of the broader Deakin University, its Schools, Faculties, Institutes or any members and staff affiliated with it.

Doc 01-12-06-07-2021 L+Smart Research Laboratory

Acknowledgment of Country

The authors and the Live+Smart Research Laboratory, at the School of THE NEED FOR A BIOPHILIC CITY HAS NEVER BEEN MORE Architecture & Built Environment, Deakin University acknowledges and pays RELEVANT…OR MORE URGENT …IN CONNECTING ITS its respects to the Wadawurrung peoples and their Elders, past and present, COMMUNITY TO THE ENVIRONMENT, ADDRESSING CLIMATE and the rich cultural and intrinsic connections they have in their Country. We CHANGE AND BIODIVERSITY LOSS & DELIVERING A LIVABLE also recognise and acknowledge the contribution and interest of other Aboriginal peoples and organisations in the management of lands, waters, CITY seas, and natural resources in this region.

Doc 01-12-06-07-2021 L+Smart Research Laboratory

II: A BIOPHILIC CITY Visual and Direct Connection with Nature A view of, and direct access to, nature, living systems and natural processes Ensure visual and direct access to nature (gardens, plants and trees, fauna, 2. 1 WHAT IS A BIOPHILIC CITY water, soils, light, views and (fire)*. * Can be symbolic - warm light, colour and thermal elements included in materials, art installations, façade finishes. The psychological and physical wellbeing of humanity, and our quality of life, is intrinsically linked to, and dependent on, nature. Every design decision Examples taken in a Biophilic City seeks to connect its citizens to nature as a mutually - Street closure or partial closures to create a pocket park or increase reinforcing and integrated relationship, thereby delivering multi layered canopy cover by planting double or triple rows of street trees through benefits for its residents and the environment. Biophilic cities elevate and plantings in outstands as well as pavements and private space position nature, wildlife, and its supporting ecological systems first in design, - A diversity of tree species (not a singular boulevard of one tree species) planning, and management aims and activities. They “deliver buildings and to provide a biodiverse canopy to moderate weather, reduce pollution, urban spaces that facilitate direct and indirect experiences of nature for noise and provide habitat and provide a resilient urban forest. This also urban dwellers in their daily lives” (Cabanek, Zingoni de Baro & Newman enables the largest tree possible to be placed in a particular location 2020). rather than all trees being limited in height where powerlines are present The following principles are embedded in Biophilic City design and planning - Plant palette designed to capture and retain airborne particulate matter, policies and practice. Indicators and targets are critical to directing action as often using endemic species that are better adapted to a locations is further outlined in section 2.3 How to Become a Biophilic City conditions. A resilient plant selection according to climate, soil, seasons to maximise biodiversity values, sensory and aesthetic experiences.

- Connected and vegetated walking paths, including in pavements, as well as vertical gardens (creepers or green walls) and roof gardens. Vegetated hedges as protection from traffic and create noise or light buffers. Well-designed and connected public green spaces to fit

Doc 01-12-06-07-2021 L+Smart Research Laboratory

different age groups needs and expectations that create interesting Examples views with greenery - Use of wood and natural materials that patina with age - Biophilic mobile structures such as popup parks, parklets, ‘CityTree’, - Share the name and age of trees across the city, turning the city into an Green bus stop shelters and Mobile Forest extended Botanic garden so residents appreciate what a 50, 100 and - Permanent urban furniture integrated with plant beds, vertical gardens, older tee looks like water features and other biophilic treatments - Adopt plant pallets that illustrates the changing seasons and draw from the Indigenous understanding of the seasons, which extend beyond the Non-Visual Connection with Nature four European seasons

Auditory, haptic, olfactory, or gustatory stimuli that support a deliberate Thermal, Airflow and Dynamic, Variable and Diffuse Light and positive reference to nature, living systems or natural processes Enhance opportunities for full sensory connections (audible, smell, texture, Celebrate natural environments with changes in air temperature, humidity, temperature) to nature through sounds, materials surface treatments surface temperatures. Varying intensities of light and shadow that change (touching), planting, and elements that enhance the senses. over time to illustrate conditions that occur in nature Provide sequential changes in thermal, airflow and light variability with Examples shapes and forms, vegetation, materials, texture, colours and natural - Integrating sounds of nature in public art, buildings and public spaces geometries. Use mixtures of dynamic, diffuse and changeable lighting - Natural materials, shapes and forms (facades and pavements) arrangements and patterns (including illuminance and colour) to evoke - Plant selection that maximises sensory engagement through flowers, movement, time, seasonality, while maximising solar access in and smell, texture and seasonal variety outdoors.

Non-Rhythmic Sensory Stimuli Examples - Combine water features, planting and building treatments / cladding to Stochastic and ephemeral connections with nature create microclimates, as well as dynamic and diffuse lighting that Instil patterns of nature’s movements and seasonality throughout the benefit the planting environment, but delight visitors on a hot day outdoor urban scape, landscape and indoor environments, using formations, - Look to artificial lighting strategies for night-time activation that deliver forms, and shapes, change of time and aging, including artistic these outcomes, as well as building treatments that allow light to representations or installations. permeate in different ways 5

Doc 01-12-06-07-2021 L+Smart Research Laboratory

Presence of Water Biomorphic Forms & Patterns

Enhance the experience of a place by seeing, hearing or touching water Symbolic references to contoured, patterned, textured or numerical Use water as a static, dynamic and or variable design element to achieve arrangements that persist in nature multi-sensory experiences outdoor and indoors. Ensure biomorphic patterns legibility and interest in walls, facades, ground surface places and furniture detail outdoor and indoors Examples - Invest in water sensitive urban design projects, water play areas or frog Examples ponds in rewilded areas - Use textured, patterned materials that draw from patterns in nature in - Apply water treatments within building designs including buildings that and on buildings and at ground level capture and recycle water for internal and external systems. Material Connection with Nature Connection with Natural Systems Materials from nature that, through minimal processing, reflect the local Awareness of natural processes, especially seasonal and temporal changes ecology or geology to create a distinct sense of place characteristic of a healthy ecosystem Include the richness of material colour, warmth, authenticity and tactility Use natural systems (weather, hydrology, geology, in partnership with throughout environments. terrestrial, avian and aquatic wildlife and their diurnal and seasonal patterns) as design inspirations and finishes outdoor and indoors Examples - Use local exposed timber, stone or other natural materials extensively in Examples outdoor and indoor areas. - Include building treatments that provide nesting opportunities for birdlife and habitat for insects and a diversity of plants Complexity & Order

Create a spatial hierarchy like those encountered in Wild Nature. Prioritise pattern compositional and order enabling stimulation through landscapes, vegetation planting variability and artwork that results in spatial hierarchy outdoor and indoors

Doc 01-12-06-07-2021 L+Smart Research Laboratory

Examples Virtual Connection to Nature - Plantings that mimic a wild composition with drifts of self-seeded pioneer plants followed by more established species. Planting that A view to a simulation of natural elements, living systems and natural offers ground covers, under, mid and canopy level processes - Rewild select places in the city as part of connected trails and provide Provide virtual connections with nature viewed through mediated means or wild play areas for children evoked by simulacrums of nature, living systems and natural processes.

Examples Prospect, Refuge and Mystery supported by Risk/Peril − Examples include live streaming of remote habitats (such as wetlands Provide a sense of arrival, prospect, and a clear line of sight for each arrival, and forests) to monitors, projectors, electronic boards in and outdoors exit and transition spaces throughout the landscape. Provide place for including permanent and temporary electronic and light art people to watch nature. Provide opportunities for retreat, contemplation, waiting, meeting, refuge, in priority areas throughout the landscape and Awe indoors. Provide a sense of journey in pedestrian environments that ensures sightlines, permeability, and variability in edges and planes and uses Stimuli including a combination of other biophilic design patterns that defy greenery to create a human scale an existing frame of reference and lead to a change in perception

Examples Create moments of awe by applying a combination of these patterns, including works of art that reflect or represents the innate connection to - Review key pedestrian and cycle paths through the city with these concepts in mind and ensure they are provided for across the journey – nature. Careful consideration of calming and positive effects to be included, including multiple spaces for people to watch nature and watch others surprises that evoke anxiety avoided engaging with nature Indicators/Examples - Call for art representing a Biophilic City on scaffold wraps on developments across the city to engage visitors and residents in Geelong as a Biophilic City , see City of Sydney’s Initiative https://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/cultural-support- funding/woolworths-building-facade-works-scaffold-wrap-artwork

Doc 01-12-06-07-2021 L+Smart Research Laboratory

2.2 BENEFITS

BIOPHILIC CITY DESIGN HAS BEEN PROVEN TO DELIVER A RANGE OF SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS.

Biophilic cities foster resilient and adaptive approaches that have never been so imperative in this time of a changing climate - resilience for nature and humanity. As such the broader, more compelling, imperative to adopt this approach is to secure the health and wellbeing of the planet upon which we depend, which is reliant on us connecting with nature. A stronger connection has been shown to drive action. A cross section of evidenced benefits are outlined in table 1 as drawn from Cabanek, Zingoni de Baro and Newman (2020).

Doc 01-12-06-07-2021 L+Smart Research Laboratory

2.3 PRECEDENTS Singapore – City in a Garden

WITHOUT A SENSE OF URGENCY, IT WILL BE DIFFICULT TO Singapore invested in a comprehensive network of trails that connect parks and green spaces. Residents can move between green spaces without MAKE THE CHANGES NECESSARY TO ADDRESS CLIMATE leaving vegetated areas. Singapore has also invested in integrating nature CHANGE AND BIO-DIVERSITY LOSS IN THE TIMEFRAME into its vertical spaces. High-rise buildings have green roofs and indoor REQUIRED hanging gardens to assist in reducing urban heat island effects and this is A range of cities across the globe have recognised this imperative and managed through their Landscaping for Urban Spaces and High-Rises become a Biophilic City as part of this network: (LUSH) program launched in 2009. LUSH incentivises greenery in https://www.biophiliccities.org. This decision for Geelong would be development projects across the country. Through collaboration with consistent with its positioning as a ‘UNESCO City of Design’ as design intent architects, developers and agencies, LUSH has contributed over 130 is about aligning creativity, innovation, aesthetics and functionality and hectares of greenery island wide. While the city grew in population by over 2 nothing meets these goals more in this time of climate change than a city million between 1986 and 2007, the percentage of green area increased from that fosters environmental sustainability and connection. 36% to 47%.

The following case studies are drawn from the Biophilic Cities Network. Wellington-New Zealand

Since the 1841, when the first town plan set aside land as a green belt an extensive outer green belt has been created to surround the city, including public and private lands. Wellington has also included a blue belt to conserve and restore marine life. The City has adopted a Biodiversity Index to monitor long term trends to achieve the outcomes and includes clear calculation measures and indicators, such as connectivity between ecological sites, proportion of natural areas and native biodiversity in built-up areas (bird species) – see more here.

Doc 01-12-06-07-2021 L+Smart Research Laboratory

Fremantle – Australia

Fremantle in Western Australia at the mouth of the Swan River is aligned to Geelong given its strong economy, port history and natural environment. In 2015 it became the world’s second city to achieve international One Planet certification. As a One Planet Council, the City ensures that the ten One Planet principles of sustainability are integrated into the organisation and community activities. The Land and Nature principle in particular guides the City to protect and restore land for the benefit of people and nature. A “Greening Fremantle: Strategy 2020”, provides the overarching strategy for the detailed Urban Forest Plan. Multiple Planning Scheme and Policy Provisions are in place that encourage and require the retention of vegetation and mature trees on developable land. For example, the City supports residents to ‘green’ their surrounds and promote biodiversity with a Verge Beautification Program.

Doc 01-12-06-07-2021 L+Smart Research Laboratory

2.4 HOW TO BECOME A BIOPHILIC CITY 3. Adopt a Biophilic / Biodiversity /Greening strategy or plan with clear metrics, targets and regular monitoring and evaluation To ensure a city can harness the benefits of this approach it is critical to Dublin, Ireland and Capetown South Africa, among many others have these embed a Biophilic response in a cities institutions and governance and plans in place to ensure that action is prioritised, targeted and outcomes cascade that commitment through policies, plans, actions, budgets and measures and monitored. These bring together open space, urban forest, grant programs and monitor progress. biodiversity, active transport strategies into a unified whole to drive an The following approach should be integrated into the CGFP, as well as integrated whole of city response. This is key as Geelong has a range of pans embedded in a wide range of institutions and their key policy documents, for that need to be brought together under a Biophilic Framework. example the Council Plan, sub strategies and budgets, as well as Heath, Lead indicators provide insight into the number of opportunities a city is Water, Arts, Libraries, and other cornerstone institutions. creating for its residents to connect to nature and for nature to return, such as maximising canopy cover and continuous canopy cover, maximising 1. Locate champions with power and enable them ground / understory cover, planting species diversity, open space provision, access and quality, re wilding select spaces, length and quality of walking Change is slower if leaders with power do not drive the transformation of a trails , size and connectivity of greenspace ecological networks, percentage city to become Biophilic. Community members and private organisations of the land as wild or semi wild places, extent of green rooves and walls, can and do create a ground swell through collective impact approaches, access to community gardens, among others. however a champion at senior Governance levels in cornerstone public institutions like DELWP and Council is critical to making this vision a reality Lag indicators assess how much time residents are spending watching, for Geelong. learning, or exploring nature. The extent to which residents are aware of and engage with the natural world e.g., how many local species residents are 2. Connect to a city network aware of in their city and target, i.e., 1/3 of the city should be able to identify a common bird species - which also talks to the prevalence of species in the Cities across the world from Spain to Canada to Singapore have joined the city. In Wellington households were asked to identify six local bird species Biophilic Cities Network – a global network of cities committed to delivering through photographs and questionnaires. Measures of engagement in on the objectives of a Biophilic City, sharing learnings and approaches. biophilic activities such as clubs, art programs, percentage of the population engaged in nature restoration activities, percentage of residents who garden (balcony or otherwise), among others. 12

Doc 01-12-06-07-2021 L+Smart Research Laboratory

4. Embed in education Launch, fund and integrate Biophilic pilot projects and initiatives

Ensure that the cities education delivers hands on learning about nature, Chicago have experienced great benefits by running a program of biophilic including outdoor classrooms and experiences in nature for professionals tests with financial and technical support to encourage innovative ways to and the younger generation. Biophilic responses need to be incorporated integrate a biophilic response into new areas. At least 5 pilot evidence-based into the renewal and design of new and existing cities by biophilia-literate projects supported by evaluation, with a plan to scale up, should be targeted and motivated designers and that needs to be fostered through education. at any one time. This could also entail partnering with other LGAs, such as the City of Melbourne to ensure the investment goes further. 5. Embed in budgets 7. Create and support local biophilic organisations and network Priorities should be scoped and prioritised, and budget assigned. them together for greater impact

6. Embed in policy, guidelines and codes and use evidence-based Local biophilic organisations include universities, botanic gardens, tools to measure and manage compliance indigenous nurseries, not for profits, health organisations and other actors who are invested in using Biophilic approaches to improve the health and Seattle and Portland in the US have embedded a Biophilic response in wellbeing of the city. There is great benefit in cascading the concept of a planning codes. A plan should have a range of incentives, such as density Biophilic City Network outlined at point 2 to a local city level where a bonus, and requirements such as green space factor to encourage green collective impact approach can be taken to bringing groups together to urban initiatives. The submission is to be commended for suggesting that share approaches, work on common projects and feed into a central Geelong could look at adopting the green factor tool in development by collective Biophilic City action plan. Melbourne City Council to ensure private developers are maximising Biophilic design outcomes, but they also need to look to new ways to incentivise and require biophilic responses in developments, such as the LUSH program in Singapore. Also, the lack of evaluation re the benefit of these rating programs and their variable implementation becomes an issue.

Doc 01-12-06-07-2021 L+Smart Research Laboratory

8. Embed the principles outlined in design decisions 2.5 A REGENRATIVE FUTURE A Biophilic City looks at every planning, landscape and urban design policy and initiative and considers how it can deliver multiple connections to nature A Biophilic City will assist the City of Greater Geelong to move towards a with one decision for example: more sustainable and resilient future, moving beyond the standard sustainable development approach, towards a regenerative future and the - A bus shelter redesign could include natural materials, images of nature, adaptation to climate effects. Biophilic design principles embedded in a green roof, habitat for nesting birds and recycle water and be solar planning frameworks is one of the key ingredients to secure a regenerative- powered. adaptive environment as part of sustainable development for our future - A street redesign or a new building development look at how it can communities (Roös, 2021). integrate a connection to nature and provide for nature, for example using sustainable natural materials that signify nature, including a

diversity of plants in the design, maximising tree canopy cover and selecting these based on their biodiversity and ecosystem service benefits, providing habitat as part of the design and looking to minimise waste, recycling water, managing storm water, among many others.

Doc 01-12-06-07-2021 L+Smart Research Laboratory

placement to create the deep soil and space required to locate a large tree or IV: FRAMEWORK FEEDBACK ground level greening where it will deliver maximum ecosystem services.

One of the main mechanisms the CGFP references to deliver green This section outlines how the draft Central Geelong Framework Plan (CGFP) infrastructure is the implementation of the City of Geelong’s Urban Forest and aligned work could be refined to ensure Geelong is positioned to harness Strategy (Action 30.2.1 CGFP), however the implementation of this plan will the necessary change a Biophilic City can deliver: not deliver the stated aim of 25% canopy cover for urban Geelong within 30 years, or improved biodiversity outcomes as the strategy states :

RECOMMENDATION 1: DELWP MODEL GREEN “No net gain of trees…Each year the City removes around 1,000 public SCENARIOS IN GEELONG TO INFORM DEVELOPMENT street trees in response to a range of factors: PLANNING • Storm damage DELWP indicated that the CGFP was initiated to moderate potential ‘over’ • Pest and disease attacks development in Geelong that would reduce its liveability. The process • Requests from developers to make way for developments entailed modelling building heights, setbacks, and building separation to • Trees failing or reaching the end of their useful lives assess the impact of scenarios on views, sunlight, and wind. Further research • Inappropriate plantings such as those that have outgrown a site was commissioned to understand transport and building space required The City’s budgets currently cover the planting of 1,050 advanced street under various population growth scenarios. DELWP is to be commended on trees per year so there is only a net gain, year on year of 50 trees. City Plan this evidence-based approach to the framework’s development, however stipulates a net increase per year of 400 street trees. This mandate is not this evidence-based approach has not been extended to green infrastructure being met and at this stage has no capacity to be met.” on public and private space. Without this rigor invested in green infrastructure a key pillar of a city’s liveability is not assured. In addition, the Live+Smart Research Lab undertook heatwave and green cover modelling across the greater Geelong region as part of a recent A significant body of literature talks to the issue of placing green research project titled: Climate Change and Heatwave Project: Identification infrastructure last, after grey, in city planning, which then precludes the of high-risk areas across the City of Greater Geelong (Roös et al, 2020). It placement of large trees and other green initiatives. For example, if trees painted a dire picture of the cities liveability unless significant investment is were considered first different decisions may be taken regarding building made now in ground and building greening alongside canopy cover. placements and setbacks, street widening, cross overs and services 15

Doc 01-12-06-07-2021 L+Smart Research Laboratory

Modelling for the UHI and heatwave vulnerability project identified the current deficiency to an acceptable minimum tree cover ratio of 20%, with the analysis results for Geelong indicating that the tree cover ratio is between 7% and 10% of total area demonstrated (approx. 6.7% cover). The This scenario-based approach would assess options for how the targets report also suggested that if a new approach to tree cover and green could be delivered, including where large and /or multiple rows of trees infrastructure was not adopted, the lack of adequate green infrastructure would need to be placed, deep soil and underground trenching required to (trees and open vegetated spaces) will have a direct influence on the network the city ecosystem and water flows, in the street reserve and heatwave vulnerability risk factor and future liveability for the LGA. private space. The work would also assess how these scenarios intersect with the City of Greater Geelong’s Urban Forest, Bio Diversity, Open Space and As such it is recommended that the CGFP include an action for the Environmental Sustainability Plans. Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) to commission a modelling project into options for how the city could lead in The scenarios could be mapped across the area targeted by the CGFP, then the delivery of green infrastructure required to create a liveable city, in opportunities for improvement prioritised. This would include where particular: planning and capital works programs would need to prioritise tree cover and how a network of rooftop and ground level small spaces could be improved, 1. a 40% canopy cover across Central Geelong as consistent with the City or new spaces earmarked e.g. median strips and parklets, as discussed here of Melbourne and City of Sydney. by SGS Economics and Planning (2017). 2. a high % of continuous canopy cover along key pedestrian and cycle routes (target to be defined).

3. % of ground level green cover (target to be defined) along key pedestrian and cycle routes. 4. Diversity of species required in target canopy and ground level green cover to maximise resilience and biodiversity outcomes. 5. a high % of rooftop greening (target to be defined). 6. a high % of vertical wall greening (target to be defined). 7. The contribution of scenarios to reducing the impact of high heat events

Doc 01-12-06-07-2021 L+Smart Research Laboratory

RECOMMENDATION 2: ADD BLUE/GREEN - Position on materials use and permeable surfaces. INFRASTRUCTURE AS A SECTION WTHIN THE URBAN - Position on integrating existing grey infrastructure funding with green infrastructure where they can be shown to be better performing by DESIGN FRAMEWORK providing multiple benefits i.e., Water Sensitive Urban Design. - Appointment of Landscape Architects at the time architects are Alongside built form, amenity, and movement a new section should be appointed at all strategic sites to ensure green outcomes are maximised added to the Urban Design Framework (P158) entitled ‘Blue / Green from project inception. Infrastructure’ to capture collective aspirations and expectations in planning, - Network of linked trenches along the streets and under parking bays designing, and delivering blue/green infrastructure in central Geelong. and pedestrian pathways to ensure that trees can share soil and water Precedents could draw from work by the NSW Government and discussed in resources through their root systems. this AECOM report. Following are a range of additional amendments that could be made to the Akin to the sections on built form it should talk to leading principles in CGFP to ensure biophilic concepts are evident as a guiding principle across landscape design and blue / green infrastructure as distinct from, but the plan: connected and equal to, architecture, and would draw on the biophilic 1. The vision for Geelong in the CGPF (p19) includes ‘Greening principles outlined in this report. These could be developed in consultation Geelong’ . This could be strengthened by becoming a “A leader in with ecologists and landscape architecture specialists, but may include sustainable and biophilic city design” guidance such as: 2. Page 60 discuses drivers for the CGFP but does not reflect issues - Water sensitive urban design and comment on passive irrigation around delivering a cool green city, including issues around canopy opportunities. cover - Position on the desire to maximise large tree canopies and strategies to 3. “Action 1.4.1 Engage with landowners of identified strategic support that goal, such as options to manage the impact of services. For development sites to facilitate investment and renewal consistent an example see the street tree master plan for the Sydney suburb of with precinct objectives and design quality requirements”. This could Marrickville which might entail bundled or underground powerlines, also include the need to create space for Green Infrastructure and positioning underground services in a street to retain deep soil in key would benefit from the output of Recommendation 1 locations, as well as up to three street tree species on a street to enable 4. Akin to “Action 27.1.8 Through development and public works, apply the largest possible at one site, rather than limiting heights across a best practice principles of Universal Design” create a new action that street due to powerlines. says “Apply best practice principles of Biophilic City design” - Position on Biodiversity – use of endemic species. 5. Akin to “Action 27.4.12 “Engage specialists to design safer and - Position on road reserve and pavement greening, such as outstands. welcoming places for all, including for people who may avoid streets

Doc 01-12-06-07-2021 L+Smart Research Laboratory

because of vulnerability or safety concerns throughout the day and A key concept in creating a livable city is activation - generating a city full of night” include an Action that says “Engage Biophilic City experts to life that then becomes a drawcard. To do this a city must create a reason to review opportunities in the city for enhanced adoption of biophilic visit and stay and provide a diversity of transport alternatives that make it principles”, which would also relate to recommendation 1. easy to act on impulse. A city that is bathed in green, with great outdoor 6. Under 8.1 as part of the Urban Design Framework include an dining, provides one of those drawcards. Without this aesthetic it will be additional strategy: Enable green infrastructure and biophilic difficult to attract people to come to, and stay in, the city. design. Create space for ground level planting and large trees to maximise ecosystem services with options considered early in the The notion of green precincts could be strengthened in a range of areas design planning to ensure deep soil, water and light are not limited within the draft CGFP: by the placement of grey infrastructure, including services.

Without this focus on green infrastructure a key pillar of a city’s liveability 1. Indicate that the street reserve will be considered for parklets, pocket cannot be delivered. Currently grey ‘trumps’ green in city planning when parks and to extend the open space areas available through road they must be planned concurrently to deliver the kind of city the CGPF is narrowing and closures. Figure 7 and Figure 28 could indicate Myers and seeking. little Myers Streets and the top of Moorabool street as potential areas for consideration of road-based pocket parks to create a network of RECOMMENDATION 3: PLAN FOR GREEN PRECINCTS – green streets and open spaces, rather than focusing solely on discrete parks. This concept is presented on page 17 through the Moorabool WHICH MEANS GREEN AND SHARED STREETS Green Link concept. 2. Indicate that a double row of trees will be considered using the road There is a growing movement across the world to reclaim streets for people reserve, and triple if private pace can also contribute to canopy cover. and the environment. Barcelona is closing whole precincts to cars, as is Paris 3. Strategy 21.1 and 2 should also include a strategy about reviewing and London. While Geelong is still a driving city the CGFP presents the need streets for mobility and safety, as well as environmental outcomes as to move to alternative and active transport. To achieve high quality and consistent with green street initiatives globally. comprehensive outcomes reclamation of areas of street reserve will need to 4. Action 22.4.1 Improve the surface quality, lighting, footpath width, be part of the modelling outlined in recommendation 1 – particularly as the landscaping and preference at intersections of Primary and Secondary city densifies. This will include road narrowing and road closures to create Pedestrian Links from surrounding suburbs to Central Geelong. This could pocket parks and greenways. This needs to be acknowledged and planned be amended to include reference to continuous canopy cover. for now.

Doc 01-12-06-07-2021 L+Smart Research Laboratory

5. Action 22.5.2 Deliver the Strategic Cycling Corridors by providing 11. Action 27.1. Prepare the Moorabool Street Master Plan. This could be dedicated and separated cycle lanes. This could consider innovative extended to consider innovative options for street closures or partial separation with planting and the role of continuous canopy cover over street closures to extend a network of green radiating out from cycleways. proposed open spaces. 6. Action 23.1.8 Prepare masterplans for Primary Pedestrian Links and 12. Add an Action 27.7.3 that talks to Integrated green cut outs alongside Pedestrian Priority Streets….etc This could be enhanced by adopting a primary pedestrian links to facilitate greater interaction with nature. For 40% tree canopy cover with an agreed continuous canopy cover target, relevant exemplars see the City of Sydney suburb of Darington that has alongside an understory target, considering road closures and narrowing run gardens along the edge of main pedestrian thoroughfares from to make these green shared spaces. Redfern station. 7. Action 24.1. Discusses improvements to primary and secondary pedestrian 13. Action 29.1.4 Implement and update the Central Geelong Utility links. This section could be enhanced by discussing continuous canopy Infrastructure Strategy 2017.This review needs to discuss the impact of cover and green level gardens in pavements and road reserves to utility infrastructure on greening the city outcomes as discussed in illustrate the type of experience that needs to be delivered to encourage recommendation 1 and 2 pedestrian use and moderate urban heat issues. 14. Action 29.3.1 Prepare/update master plans for public open space (parks 8. Action 24.2.4 Encourage the designation and delivery of shared zones, and reserves). This could have a 29.3.1 that suggests consideration be where vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians share a road/ laneway that has given to surrounding streets as potential to extend the existing open low volume and low speeds including..etc. This action is not just about space through road closures or narrowing and to create additional open shared street objectives but green street objectives as well. space where there are gaps in the open space network 9. Strategy 24.5 Promote well-defined streets and laneways with a range of 15. Action 30.2.3 Increase street trees as identified in the public realm strategy activities and design. Enhance visual amenity, window shopping map. This needs to look at ways to maximise tree size, for example the opportunities and pedestrian amenity and safety. This could talk to green City of Wyndham has developed a matrix that brings together tree size, treatments, trees and greenery. Any reference to boulevard treatments deep soil and space with guidance that the maximum tree size must be would be enhanced by reference to maximising tree size, multiple layers selected according to site conditions to maximises ecosystem services. of trees, continuous canopy cover and mix of species.

10. Action 26.2.3 and Action 26.7.2 discuss the consolidation of driveways and at grade driveways or parking decks. Could an incentive be given for shared driveways to reduce driveways and underground car parking.

Doc 01-12-06-07-2021 L+Smart Research Laboratory

RECOMMENDATION 4: FUNDING FOR GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE; IN PARTICULAR, URBAN FOREST OUTCOMES

The 2021/22 Victorian Government provided $5 million to plant 500,000 trees in Melbourne's west. This follows the recognition that current approaches and investment have not been sufficient to bridge the gap. It is evident in the City of Greater Geelong’s Urban Forest Strategy and Live+Smart Lab’s modelling that central Geelong’s green outcomes will not deliver a livable city without additional investment. If the CGFP does not address these issues, and central Geelong continues on the same path, a heat trap will be the likely result.

As part of recommendation 1 it is critical that DELWP partner with Council around Green Infrastructure and that includes unlocking additional funding.

The CGFP indicates that (p118): “Further implementation of the Framework Plan may consider mechanisms for collecting development contributions for the provision of upgraded infrastructure – including improved public realm and open spaces. This could include the future preparation of a Development Contributions Plan”

A contributions plan must be mandated as a matter of urgency and brought together with additional state funding to bridge this green infrastructure gap.

Doc 01-12-06-07-2021 L+Smart Research Laboratory

V: CONCLUSION

To foster a sustainable future, we must connect people to the natural environment. The imperative is upon us to act. A Biophilic City does just that. For the health and wellbeing of future generations we must embed the Biophilic principles outlined into the CGPF. These decisions do not entail a density trade off; it is about density done well - an approach that integrates these principles into every design decision taken.

Without this focus the CGFP will struggle to deliver a healthy city for its residents - the key aim of this critical initiative.

The Live+Smart Lab team look forward to the opportunity to discuss this paper with DELWP and Geelong City Council as part of the panel and work with Geelong City Council, developers, and other stakeholders to build a sustainable and heathy Biophilic Geelong for the community and the environment.

Doc 01-12-06-07-2021 L+Smart Research Laboratory

R. Louv, Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit VI: REFERENCES Disorder, Algonquin Books, New York, (2008).

J. Söderlund, and P. Newman, Biophilic architecture: a review of the T. Beatley, Biophilic Cities, Island Press, Washington DC, (2010). rationale and outcomes, AIMS Environmental Science, 2, no. 4, 950–969, (2015), 10.3934/environsci.2015.4.950. W.D. Browning, C.O. Ryan, and J.O. Clancy, 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design, Terrapin Bright Green, LLC, New York, (2014). E.O. Wilson, Biophilia, Harvard University Press, Harvard, USA, (1984) Cabanek, A, Zingoni de Baro, ME & Newman, P 2020, 'Biophilic streets: a P. Downton, D.S. Jones, P. Roös, and J. Zeunert, Creating Healthy Places, design framework for creating multiple urban benefits', Sustainable Earth, Melbourne Metro, Docklands, Melbourne, (2016). vol. 3, no. 1.

Roös, P.B., Sidiqui, P., Herron, M., Jones, D.S., and Duncan, E., Climate City of Greater Geelong, (2021), Urban Forest Strategy, Accessed 17/6/21 Change and Heatwave Project: Identification of high-risk areas across the https://geelongaustralia.com.au/urbanforest/article/item/8d3018277833663. City of Greater Geelong, A Report to the Department of Environment, Land, aspx Water and Planning (DELWP) and the City of Greater Geelong (COGG), Live+Smart Research Laboratory, School of Architecture & Built NSW Government Architect, (2020), Greener Places Urban Design Environment, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, (2020). Framework, Accessed 17/6/21 , https://www.governmentarchitect.nsw.gov.au/policies/greener-places Roös, P. B., Regenerative-adaptive design for sustainable development: a pattern language approach, 1 ed., Springer, Cham, Switzerland, doi: AECOM, (2017), Green Infrastructure, Accessed 17/6/21 , https://dev- 10.1007/978-3-030-53234-5, (2021). aecom.pantheonsite.io/content/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Green- Infrastructure-vital-step-brilliant-Australian-cities.pdf S. Kellert, and E. Calabrese, The Practice of Biophilic Design. www.biophilic- design.com, (2015). SGS Economics and Planning, (2017), Planning for High Quality and Well Used Public Open Space, Accessed 17/6/21 S. Kellert, J.H. Heerwagen, and M.L. Mador (eds), Biophilic Design: The https://www.sgsep.com.au/publications/insights/planning-for-high-quality- Theory, Science & Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life, John Wiley & Sons, and-well-used-public-open-spaces Hoboken, NJ, (2008). Biophilic Cities Network, UD, City Case Studies, Accessed 17/6/21 , S. Kellert, and E.O. Wilson, The Biophilia Hypothesis, Island Press, https://www.biophiliccities.org Washington, (1993).

Doc 01-12-06-07-2021 L+Smart Research Laboratory Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 112 Committee

Full Name: Sarah Vithleem Sleigh Organisation: The Geelong Phantom Pty Ltd Affected property: 76 Yarra Street Geelong 3220 Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49580 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet • Central Geelong DRAFT Framework Plan (May 2021)

• This submission is made in response to the draft Framework Plan and proposed planning controls for Central Geelong.

• We consider that some of the proposed controls and implementation objectives sought as part of the draft Framework Plan could place constraints on land use and development opportunities in Central Geelong, particularly around the proposed height controls which seek to reduce the scope of development potential.

• We think that there could be a conflict between some existing controls (eg. Heritage Overlays) and proposed controls (eg. ACZ Schedule and a Design and Development Overlay), along with the ability to accommodate and respond to growth pressures within the centre and the commercial realities of development generally.

• The proposed reduced height controls are likely to impact on the ability to develop some land in the centre and could create uncertainty for future development opportunities. As a result, the implementation of any growth strategy or to encourage intensive development potential, as stated in the purpose of the ACZ’s Purpose, could continue to represent a significant challenge, and in some cases compromise development.

• The provision of car parking for example, in particular basement car parking, for larger developments represents a significant cost on projects and where a height limit is reduced or unreasonably limited, the commercial viability of the project can be compromised.

• Furthermore, the alignment of new development with adjacent heritage buildings also represents a significant constraint – in some cases protecting heritage seems to override the broader objectives of the activity centre.

• The proposed reduced height controls are likely to impact on the ability to develop some land in the centre and could create uncertainty for future development opportunities and in some cases compromise development.

• There are already existing constraints to develop land for example the provision of car parking, the size of the lots, heritage, land value, etc. Where a height limit is proposed to be reduced the commercial viability of the project can be compromised.

• Allowing increased height on heritage places can in fact ensure their protection through adaptive re-use and allowing sites to be re-developed and there are a number of successful examples of this in Geelong.

• Any new planning controls, such as reducing height controls, that have the effect of losing significant opportunities for Central Geelong should not be introduced.

• In relation to the application of preferred building heights, it appears that the nominated heights are often incompatible with surrounding land parcels and in some circumstances have been applied based upon the size of the land parcel instead of the broader strategic principals associated with the precinct. The ability for smaller parcels to be combined by developers to achieve larger scale development outcomes is not recognised by the framework plan. Consolidation of smaller parcels within the Geelong CBD is likely prior to their redevelopment and the framework plan should consider and respond to this potential outcome.

• We think that allowing increased height on heritage places can in fact ensure their protection through adaptive re-use and allowing sites to be re-developed. This has been successfully proven on developments such as the Worksafe Office, Thomas Jewellers redevelopment and the NDIA office in Malop Street. Heritage sites adjacent to taller buildings can also comfortably co-exist in a streetscape without adverse impacts and there are a number of examples of this in Geelong, Melbourne and across the country.

• Responding to the heritage attributes and/or the existing low scale character should not automatically mean that height and other onerous controls are imposed. There needs to be a greater recognition of the evolution of Central Geelong and its role over the next 30, 50+ years, not only due to the growth projections for the City, but also for the region and the state as a whole – noting the region is one of the fastest growing regions in the country.

• We think there needs to be a greater balance between facilitating new and innovative development (including intensive development as required by the ACZ and the policy framework) and respecting heritage and character.

Image 1 Proposed Height Controls (Page 160 - Draft Framework Plan)

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 113 Committee

Full Name: Nicholas K Sleigh Organisation: NISA Holdings Pty Ltd Affected property: 180 Moorabool St and 208 Moorabool Street Geelong 3220 Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49581 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet • Central Geelong DRAFT Framework Plan (May 2021)

• This submission is made in response to the draft Framework Plan and proposed planning controls for Central Geelong.

• Any new planning controls, such as reducing height controls, that have the effect of losing significant opportunities for Central Geelong should not be introduced.

Image 1 Proposed Height Controls (Page 160 - Draft Framework Plan)

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 114 Committee

Full Name: Paul Vasilios Votsaris Organisation: Bellarine Storage Affected property: 78 Yarra Street, Geelong 3220 Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49582 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet • Central Geelong DRAFT Framework Plan (May 2021)

• This submission is made in response to the draft Framework Plan and proposed planning controls for Central Geelong.

• Any new planning controls, such as reducing height controls, that have the effect of losing significant opportunities for Central Geelong should not be introduced.

Image 1 Proposed Height Controls (Page 160 - Draft Framework Plan)

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 115 Committee

Full Name: Clair Yates Organisation: New Telecom Pty Ltd Affected property: 156-162 Moorabool Street Geelong 3220 Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49583 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet • Central Geelong DRAFT Framework Plan (May 2021)

• This submission is made in response to the draft Framework Plan and proposed planning controls for Central Geelong.

• Any new planning controls, such as reducing height controls, that have the effect of losing significant opportunities for Central Geelong should not be introduced.

Image 1 Proposed Height Controls (Page 160 - Draft Framework Plan)

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 116 Committee

Full Name: Liam Prescott Organisation: Affected property: Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49584 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet L Prescott

Geelong 3220 6 July 2021

Submission via website

DRAFT CENTRAL GEELONG FRAMEWORK PLAN

Dear Sir/Madam

I am making a submission as a landowner and resident immediately adjacent to the proposed amended ACZ boundary. Central Geelong is an appealing regional centre with significant and exciting potential for growth and development which has been recognised through this draft structure plan. The draft structure plan is a large and complex document and many of the eventual implications may not be evident to myself or other residents. With this in mind, the default position of the ACZ to remove third party notice, decision or review rights is of particular concern in relation to surrounding residential areas outside the structure plan area.

Limited consideration appears to have been given to how the Central Geelong study area sits within the broader inner Geelong region, with no discussion of the identified renewal areas of Gordon Avenue and South Geelong Station precinct and how these would be integrated into the study area. Their proximity to Central Geelong provides an opportunity for the future residents and workforce proposed within Central Geelong to be distributed across a larger spatial area forming an enviably accessible 20 minute neighbourhood. Further focusing major road transport routes to the periphery of the Central Geelong area will retain the significant barriers to safe and pleasant active transport which currently segregate the West and South Geelong communities from the Central Geelong area. As the intent of the Structure Plan is to provide a long term framework for several decades, ensuring that existing significant barriers are not exacerbated between these activity centres seems an important consideration.

Similarly the CGFP provides no direction on managing built form transitions to existing residential areas immediately south of Mckillop Street, which have been identified by the CoGG as having limited development potential due to restrictions such as heritage overlays. The proposed increased ACZ area removes all of these transitional areas which were either directly identified in the 2007 Central Geelong Structure Plan, or operated as transitional buffers in a de- facto manner through the existing non-ACZ zoning.

The draft CGFP provides support for increased commercial and residential developments, which are balanced by proposed improvements to urban streetscapes, connectivity, planning works and other measures.

While it is not the role of a framework plan to address, it remains unclear how these significant public realm improvements and other works are to be funded, without which the vision contained within the draft structure plan is unlikely to be satisfactory.

Submission to Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory Committee 6 July 2021 Page 2 Structure Plan/ACZ boundary

The draft CGFP provides the following justification for the expansion of the ACZ boundary within the study area: ACZ boundary The current boundary excludes areas at the southern periphery (south of Myers Street) that are strategically important in supporting key anchors with mid-rise mixed-use and inner-urban living. These areas should be included to ensure an integrated and synergistic response to future development to strengthen these anchors.(pg148) The ‘key anchors’ identified in figure 5 of the CGFP in the immediate area south of Myers Street include Matthew Flinders Secondary College, St John of God hospital, St Mary’s Primary School, St Mary’s Housing, Army Barracks and Old Geelong Gaol. With the exception of the army barracks and gaol, which have re-use potential, the significant user catchments of the schools and hospital are unlikely to require ‘support’ provided by mixed use and inner-urban living, and it is more likely that these important community uses will be negatively impacted by increased development in these areas, with an impact on their ability to service their existing catchments. I draw the Committee’s attention to the guidance contained within the Planning Practice Note 56: Activity Centre Zone which, while it encourages the inclusion of residential land (which areas proposed to be included largely are currently), also provides the direction to generally exclude ‘residential land encumbered by significant constraints (such as a Heritage Overlay) located at the edge of the activity centre.’ I have provided figure 1 which overlays the existing heritage overlays contained in the Geelong planning scheme (pink shaded areas) across the new areas proposed for inclusion within the ACZ (grey and yellow shaded areas). Once areas further constrained by the Matthew Flinders Secondary College and Geelong railway line and tunnel entrance (indicated with stars) are added to the area covered by heritage overlays, it becomes clear that a very limited area of the ACZ expansion area to the east is unconstrained. While not proposing that this area remain undeveloped, I submit that the draft CGFP does not provide a sufficiently nuanced and considered assessment of the expansion areas that justifies that their inclusion within the ACZ, or that their inclusion would not result in the loss of the heritage values identified in this area under the heritage overlay. The proposed 13.5 metre maximum height increase is likely to result in significant development pressures on existing heritage properties, which is bound to result in their eventual decline and replacement as has been seen within other major activity centres such as Moonee Ponds. If the appropriate weight is given to heritage overlays within the study area, in particular on small lots with minimal sympathetic development potential, than a more detailed property-by-property assessment of development potential within heritage overlays should guide the applying of the ACZ controls and boundary, rather than the rather broad-brush application currently used.

Submission to Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory Committee 6 July 2021 Page 4 Transition to residential area south of McKillop St

The 2007 Central Geelong Structure Plan (image above) identified a transition precinct to ensure that an appropriate development response on the periphery of central Geelong. The draft Central Geelong Urban Design Framework provides extremely limited requirements for appropriate transitions to residential interface areas. I note that figure 107 within the CGFP identifies that overshadowing will be restricted on the south footpath of east-west streets, with sunlight to be preserved between 11am-2pm at the spring equinox. While this may be satisfactory to preserve the utility and public realm aspects of streets within central geelong, it is not suitable guidance to manage impacts on residential areas on the ACZ boundaries.

The existing residences on the south of Mckillop Street would be significantly impacted by a reduction in sunlight to north facing areas. Lots and dwellings within the HO1641 precinct (between Latrobe Tce. and Gheringhap Street) on the south side of Mckillop street predominantly adopt a long and skinny single storey built form, with minimal east and west facing windows on lot boundaries capturing indirect light. Adding to overshadowing impacts, land falls away to the south of Mckillop street, and the heritage overlay restricts the ability of residents to respond to surrounding changes by otherwise increasing window area, removing wooden window awnings and installing skylights, by requiring a permit for any changes to the building exterior. The proposed increased height limits, removal of third party notification and appeal, and minimal transitional interface guidance in the CGFP have the combined strong potential to result in overshadowing extending across larger areas of properties and having significant impacts on the liveability and enjoyment of residents within the area.

I acknowledge that the CGFP does contain guidance on responding to surrounding constraints, including street setbacks, street wall heights, heritage features etc. Once all these considerations have been taken into account in interface areas of precincts to the level intended, assuming a good-faith application of this guidance, it seems that there are an extremely limited number of sites which would be developed to a greater density than existing applicable planning controls allow. In this light it seems unclear what significant benefit is to be Submission to Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory Committee 6 July 2021 Page 5 gained from not specifically including transition buffer considerations within the urban design guidance, in order to assure the intent of the CGFP is upheld.

These concerns should be addressed in the CGFP by strong guidance on appropriate interfaces with residential areas bounding the ACZ, retention of existing maximum heights on the north side of McKillop street (excepting areas with no existing minimum), and requiring third party notification and appeal rights to be retained for these areas on precinct boundaries.

Heavy vehicle traffic redirection to McKillop St

I do not support the position in the CGFP to direct heavy vehicle traffic to move from Ryrie Street to Mckillop Street. Beyond the direct impact on the significant number of residential dwellings along Mckillop Street, this action does not consider the collective impacts of the significant number of heavy vehicles expected to be required to support construction works within Central Geelong over the life of the framework plan which are likely to ensure that Central Geelong is never ‘truck free’, the functioning of Mckillop Street and Latrobe Terrace as barriers to integration of West, South and East Geelong via active transport into central Geelong which will be further entrenched through this direction, and the South Geelong to Waurn Ponds Rail Upgrade - Stage 3 which will likely result in significant works and temporary closures to Mckillop Street at some point in the next 10 years. Council’s position that the Bellarine Link is the preferred long term solution to removing unnecessary freight movements through Central Geelong is more forward looking and consistent with the preferred long-term vision contained in the CGFP and should be adopted in the CGFP in place of Mckillop Street.

Transport

I support the actions outlined in the CGFP in relation to instituting maximum parking requirements for residential and commercial developments within the ACZ through a parking overlay. Increasing the number of private vehicles entering the Central Geelong area and a commensurate increase in the need for off-street parking will not result in a desirable outcome in terms of pedestrian and cycle accessibility, built form at street level or the ability to sympathetically integrate heritage buildings into new developments. Parking maximums and ‘market-driven’ parking supply disconnected from the planning scheme requirements have been shown to reduce the price of apartments and encourage reduced private vehicle ownership. For office and commercial uses any de-coupled parking supplies would need to be supported by funded improvements in public transport to result in successful outcomes.

Thankyou for the opportunity to provide a submission on the draft Central Geelong Structure Plan.

Sincerely,

L Prescott

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 117 Committee

Full Name: Cameron Hamilton Organisation: Newcomb Homemaker Centre Affected property: Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49585 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 118 Committee

Full Name: Vasilios (Bill) Votsaris Organisation: Paragon Property Investments Pty Ltd Affected property: 66-78 Little Malop Street, Geelong 3220 Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49586 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet • Central Geelong DRAFT Framework Plan (May 2021)

• This submission is made in response to the draft Framework Plan and proposed planning controls for Central Geelong.

• Any new planning controls, such as reducing height controls, that have the effect of losing significant opportunities for Central Geelong should not be introduced.

Image 1 Proposed Height Controls (Page 160 - Draft Framework Plan)

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 119 Committee

Full Name: Julia White Organisation: Affected property: Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments: Thank you for the opportunity to be a part of this process. This has only come to our attention within the past 24hrs, so we are still trying to understand what this might all mean. My name is Julia White. I have moved to Geelong, to care for my Grandparents who own and reside in their home in and aim to enjoy the home that they have created for all their days. This is why I moved my immediate family to Geelong to support my Grandparents to continue to live positively in their home. And now this precinct/neighbourhood and its community members are our home, where we enjoy visits with Neighbours, meals out at the bistro and trusted medical support nearby. I know my Grandparents to be very supportive of the Greater Geelong community, the Hospital precinct and the neighbourhood community of residents and businesses. They are not known to stand in the way of others, or the progression of the community. One example of this is when they express their positive feeling towards the top-notch Hospitals and specialists whom surround them, and are generous in their thinking/well-wishing when the Helicopter Ambulance flies over head. They are generous sorts, and don't like to be a bother or ask for help. They love their home, and are at their healthiest, most productive and positive when at home and sharing what they have built over a number of decades. We have very briefly discussed our limited understanding of the Draft Plans, in the short time we've had, and would just ask that you please keep us in the loop moving forward. We appreciate that our considerate and caring neighbours brought this to our attention. Please consider: - this home has windows and sky lights - installed to enable vision quality throughout the house, and also for wellbeing. - Groundworks/Earthworks and building in this Hospital precinct and nearby development may affect the liability and happiness of my Grandparents and neighbours being able to see all their days in their home. - Being kept informed and considered is highly valued, appreciated and does wonders for a feeling of community, purpose, dignity, autonomy and wellbeing. Yours Sincerely, Julia White

Submission Cover Sheet Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 120 Committee

Full Name: Cameron Hamilton Organisation: Hamilton Group Affected property: Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49587 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 121 Committee

Full Name: Cameron Hamilton Organisation: Mayfair Geelong Affected property: Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49589 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 122 Committee

Full Name: Vasilios (Bill) Votsaris Organisation: Chronos Property Investments Pty Ltd Affected property: 83 Ryrie Street, Geelong 3220 Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49588 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet • Central Geelong DRAFT Framework Plan (May 2021)

• This submission is made in response to the draft Framework Plan and proposed planning controls for Central Geelong.

• Any new planning controls, such as reducing height controls, that have the effect of losing significant opportunities for Central Geelong should not be introduced.

Image 1 Proposed Height Controls (Page 160 - Draft Framework Plan)

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 123 Committee

Full Name: Cameron Hamilton Organisation: Seven Five Six Five Unit Trust Affected property: Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49592 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 124 Committee

Full Name: Paul Vasilios Votsaris Organisation: Xronos Investments Pty Ltd Affected property: 63 Yarra Street, Geelong 3220 Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49593 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet • Central Geelong DRAFT Framework Plan (May 2021)

• This submission is made in response to the draft Framework Plan and proposed planning controls for Central Geelong.

• Any new planning controls, such as reducing height controls, that have the effect of losing significant opportunities for Central Geelong should not be introduced.

Image 1 Proposed Height Controls (Page 160 - Draft Framework Plan)

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 125 Committee

Full Name: Jarrah Lukjanov Organisation: Human Habitats Pty Ltd Affected property: 245 LATROBE TERRACE, GEELONG Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49591 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 126 Committee

Full Name: Cameron Hamilton Organisation: The Regent Geelong Affected property: Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49594 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 127 Committee

Full Name: Steve Gras Organisation: Affected property: Geelong Victoria Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments: We propose the following submission for the above property Geelong. The property is located in the boundary are of Fenwick street, Ryrie street, little Ryrie street and Latrobe Terrace and proposed west village precinct with Ryrie street being a main entrance into the cultural precinct and city centre. We feel after looking at the proposal and existing developments in place being constructed, such as on the corner of Ryrie and Fenwick streets being 15 levels on a 1000m2 site. Reducing the height in the mentioned boundaries above from 28 meters to 21 meters, may leave the entrance into Ryrie street with a very tall stand alone structure, rather than a gradual building height nature that is still set back and also utilising the city boundaries and creating a better overall scale in design to the eye for entry along Latrobe Terrace and entrance to the city centre via Ryrie street. We also look at the height reduction from a site development aspect, with quite large commercial sites with in the mentioned boundaries. is 640m2, with adjacent properties of similar and larger portions the could be individually developed or combined development sites. Reduced height would also impact site development for the potential of retail ground floor, with above ground second and third level car park if required, leaving limited levels for precinct objectives listed in the proposed west village, being housing, employment, office use. Reducing the height to 21 meters taking the above into consideration, will also potentially impact the option to push architectural boundaries in design and creativity with height restrictions. There are other advantages that the mentioned boundaries areas have to there position. Is views of the city scape below being a higher level to precincts below, left to right and then across the waterfront through to the You Yangs in the distance. This make an attractive part of the precinct for enticing more people/families to live close to the cultural and stations precinct with in a very short distance, with quick easy access to Latrobe Terrace if commuting is required. We appreciate the time and effort that has been taken so far, to make Geelong a great place to live, work, play for the future generations and we hope our input will be appreciated feedback to help achieve this.

Submission Cover Sheet Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 128 Committee

Full Name: Chun Guo Organisation: Badenada Pty Ltd Affected property: 144-150 Myers Street, Geelong Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49590 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 129 Committee

Full Name: John Stevens Organisation: Tourism Greater Geelong and The Bellarine Affected property: 1/48 Brougham Street Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49596 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet INCORPORATED Level 1, 48 Brougham St Geelong VICTORIA Australia 3220

T: 03 5223 2588 F: 03 5223 2069 I: 61 3 5223 2588

ACN: A00 286 22D ABN: 26990 691 173

7 July 2021

Dear Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory Committee,

RE: Central Geelong Framework Plan and draft Amendment C431 Thank you for this opportunity to contribute to review of the draft Central Geelong Framework Plan and draft Amendment C431 prepared by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP), which sets out a vision and guidance for land use and development in Central Geelong over the next 30-years. With thanks to the depth, diversity and quality of experiences within Central Geelong, this precinct is a significant driver of tourism to Greater Geelong and The Bellarine and contributor to the competitive strength of the local visitor economy. It is for this reason that Tourism Greater Geelong and The Bellarine as the official regional tourism organisation is submitting this response. Our submission has been developed on behalf of and in support of the local tourism and events industry represented by our 850-member base, all of whom are benefactors in various capacities from the prosperity and appeal of this is inner city, waterfront precinct. Pre-COVID the $1.15 billion Greater Geelong visitor economy, representing close to 25% of total spend in the region and supporting 1 in 10 jobs, attracted over 6 million visitors who spent 5.7 million nights within the region in 2019. Delivering over a quarter of the region’s direct visitation expenditure, Central Geelong drew $302 million in direct expenditure from visitors outside of the region while a further 28% was spent by residents within the region from other suburbs on dining and entertainment ($119 million) and a further $200 million on shopping experiences. While in general support of the draft Central Geelong Framework Plan 2021 and applaud the specific objectives of four, five, six and seven that aim to strengthen the visitor economy offering and international appeal of the precinct, the Board of Tourism Greater Geelong and The Bellarine have some concerns on the lack of detail across the following, and urge the Plan to consider strengthening the position on these. - Strategy 7.1: Lack of detail on supporting infrastructure and services for business events attraction including the hotel complex adjoining the Geelong Convention and Exhibition Centre which may be impacted by proposed height restrictions. - Strategy 7.2: Exclusion of supported tourism enabling infrastructure developments in the framework including Geelong Mineral Springs and cruise ship port infrastructure. - Strategy 7.2: Lack of detail on the opportunity to grow and support major sporting, arts and leisure events which are a signature experience and driver of visitation to the precinct. INCORPORATED Level 1, 48 Brougham St Geelong VICTORIA Australia 3220

T: 03 5223 2588 F: 03 5223 2069 I: 61 3 5223 2588

ACN: A00 286 22D ABN: 26990 691 173

- Strategy 7.3: Focus on monitoring accommodation demand and supply needs. Exclusion of detail to acquiring high quality accommodation. - Strategy 7.3 & 7.4: Lack of foresight beyond masterplan developments.

Through long-term planning, Tourism Greater Geelong and The Bellarine have identified the following as the key challenges our regions visitor economy is set to face as we progress through recovery:

• A weakened mid-week market and over-demand for weekend resulting in profitless volume. • Poor internal transport connectivity • A limited workforce within the hospitality sector with both availability and capability • Events pipeline slow to return due to capacity demand and revised procedures.

It is also expected that the regions visitor profiles will significantly change over the next three years. The fastest markets to recover will be the lower yielding markets of domestic day trips and visiting friends and relatives travel while corporate and incentive markets will be some of the slowest markets to return.

It will be critical that all long term plans that impact and guide the future of the region encompass and aim to address these challenges and provide a path forward for all.

The board of Tourism Greater Geelong and The Bellarine encourage the Central Geelong Framework Advisory Committee to consider and address the concerns and these challenges through the 30-year Central Geelong Framework Plan.

If you would like to discuss our submission in detail, I welcome you to contact me on XX.

Regards

John Stevens

Chair

Tourism Greater Geelong and The Bellarine [email protected] Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 130 Committee

Full Name: Rob McKendrick Organisation: Montgomery International Pty Ltd Affected property: 20-28 Brougham Street, Geelong Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49570 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet

7 July 2021

Chair, Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory Committee Planning Panels Victoria 1 Spring Street MELBOURNE 3000

By way of email: [email protected]

Dear Madam Chair

Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C431GGEE Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory Committee 20-28 Brougham Street, Geelong

We act for Montgomery International Pty Ltd, the landowner of 20-28 Brougham Street, Geelong (the ‘Subject Site’) in relation to the draft Planning Scheme Amendment C431ggee (the ‘Amendment’) and the draft Central Geelong Framework Plan (the ‘Draft Framework Plan’) currently undergoing public exhibition.

Subject Site

The Subject Site is affected by the Amendment.

It is currently located within ‘Precinct 5 – Inner Western Edge’ of the Activity Centre Zone, Schedule 1 (the ‘ACZ1’) and is affected by Heritage Overlay, Schedule 2013 (Former Dennys Lascelles Woolstore).

The Subject Site has three frontages, being Brougham Street (north), Gheringhap Street (east) and Bayley Street (south) and comprises a total site area of approximately 2,100 square metres.

The Subject Site benefits from Planning Permit PA15/00062 (the ‘Permit’), which was issued by the Minister for Planning and authorises:

- Buildings and works for development of a multi-storey building and partial reduction in car parking.

More specifically, the approved works include:

- An 11-storey building with an overall 55 metre building height (excluding rooftop plant and architectural features);

- 13,100 square metres of commercial floor space comprising retail and office space; and

- 116 car spaces.

Works have not commenced under the Permit, which has been extended to a commencement date of 19 June 2022.

The image below demonstrates the existing context of the Subject Site.

Planning & Property Partners Pty Ltd 13/1 Collins Street, Melbourne VIC 3000 ABN 63 343 015 948 Telephone: +61 3 8626 9000 Legal Directors: Mark Naughton, Chris Taylor & Nicholas Sutton Email: [email protected] Non-Legal Directors: Paul Little, Zoe Cochrane, Nicholas Touzeau, Johan Moylan & Sue Zhang www.pppartners.com.au

Submissions

Having reviewed the Amendment and the proposed changes to the Activity Centre Zone, Schedule 1 (the ‘Draft ACZ1’), noting that the Subject Site is proposed to be included in ‘Precinct 6 – Knowledge and Enterprise’, our client submits as follows:

1. The Draft ACZ1 should include transitional provisions that acknowledge existing permits, and live permit applications.

a) Significantly, the Draft Framework Plan fails to acknowledge the existing permit for the Subject Site (Figure 13).

2. The proposed preferred building height for the Subject Site of 28 metres fails to have regard to the existing Permit in place and the emerging built form of the Precinct.

3. The proposed mandatory built form controls proposed to affect the Subject Site should be discretionary.

a) There is insufficient justification for the imposition of mandatory controls in the Draft ACZ1, including in relation to proposed overshadowing & upper-level setback requirements which are otherwise unnecessary and overly restrictive.

b) The proposed mandatory setbacks above heritage street walls do not have appropriate regard to site specific context.

c) The proposed setback requirements above retained side and rear heritage street walls are unclear.

4. The land uses ‘bar’ and ‘hotel’ should be included in ‘Section 1 – Permit not required’ of the table of uses at Clause 3 of the Draft ACZ1.

a) As drafted, ‘bar’ and ‘hotel’ are both ‘Section 2 – Permit required’ land uses under the Draft ACZ1 which conflicts with the Precinct 6 objectives:

‘To facilitate the precinct as the primary location for office, education and convention centre uses, along with short term accommodation uses and tourist focused uses facing the Geelong waterfront.’

5. The notice and review provisions at Section 7 should remove the reference to ‘bar’ and ‘hotel’ in line with the above.

Page 2 of 3

Conclusion

Our client wishes to be heard at any future public hearing in respect of the Amendment and reserve the right to add to or expand on the above, as required.

Should you have any queries in relation to the submissions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned or

Yours sincerely,

MARK NAUGHTON Planning & Property Partners Pty Ltd

Page 3 of 3

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 131 Committee

Full Name: Marshall Sullivan Organisation: Context Planning P/L Affected property: Torquay Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments: We support DELWPs initiative to prepare a framework plan which has been designed to guide the use and development in the city centre for the next 30 years. However, while we support the initiative, we wish to further understand the detail on implementation particularly regarding the use of Overlay controls (ie. DDO), the implications of mandatory controls, changes to the land use table in the Schedule to the ACZ, the rationale of the height controls, changes to application requirements, changes to car parking controls, etc.

Submission Cover Sheet Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 132 Committee

Full Name: Reginald Philip Eagles Organisation: Affected property: Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49597 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet I wish to draw your attention to my misgivings concerning-

5. Central Geelong Framework Plan: Transport Strategy – Intersection Improvements The Central Geelong Framework Plan: Transport Strategy – Intersection Improvements (as shown in figure 18 page 34) highlights the reprioritization of the intersection of Bellarine and Brougham Streets (intersection 5) with a suggested change.

Already in 2021, the Cunningham Pier/Steam Packet Gardens/Transvaal Square/Yacht Club precinct on weekends or public holidays has shown it to be hopelessly incapable to coping with the volume of day-trippers and or tourists passing through Geelong. Frustrating long delays and traffic jams resulting from visitors looking for scarce car parks are de riguer along Ritchie Boulevard/Eastern Beach Road but also Brougham Street. It’s therefore puzzling, confusing and mystifying, to see a recommendation suggesting the encouraging of funnelling even MORE vehicles through this sensitive, unique and beautiful area of Victoria and further afield along Garden Street to Portarlington etc.

Already existing traffic attempting to negotiate the Garden/Malop Streets intersection at certain times on week days and special weekends can only be described as headache. Planning to increase this volume would certainly lead to nothing short of creating a nightmare.

Knock-on effects of the implementation of this short-sighted, ‘Micky Mouse’ band aid solution would certainly have profound implications on the safety of pedestrians transiting to and from the city to Eastern Park -a matter STILL today that hasn’t been addressed satisfactorily. Geelong now and in the future, pedestrians need to be the priority.

As in 2020 and 2021, come hot weekends, public holidays days etc, hundreds of ‘out-of- towners’ including some Geelong residents, with nowhere to park ‘close to the action’, are leaving local streets and roads to drive off into the Eastern Park parkland, and leaving their cars on the grass. Regrettably, this response flies in the face of any regard for compaction imposed upon delicate below ground eco-systems, (not to mention the deliberate dumping of rubbish before heading home). It only takes a quick look overseas to reveal a more sustainable and enlightened solution. Minimizing or KEEPING AWAY (on those special days) all vehicles from a city, a town, or a village’s historic centre. Provision of shuttle services from parking hubs, to our waterfront (not to mention our beautiful Barwon River’s 20 odd kilometres of walking trails) is a no brainer!

Major cities overseas close-off main thoroughfares at weekends (and or Sundays) encouraging pedestrians and families to walk, stroll, chat with neighbours and strangers, flirt, rollerblade and even cycle.

What’s there to stop the City of Greater Geelong in creating our own passeggiata? Planning to encourage even more traffic to our waterfront precinct in the future, is to say quite ill-informed.

I urge, to whom it may concern, discard this misguided notion of wishfully hoping transiting tourists to Portarlington (etc) will ‘stop-and-spend’, in an area already renowned for limited parking options. The future will be a nightmare …unless!

Thanking you in anticipation of accepting this submission.

Yours Sincerely

Reg P Eagles

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 133 Committee

Full Name: Robbie McKenzie, Ratio Consultants Organisation: Morphy-Birrell Property Group Pty Ltd Affected property: 81-101 Mercer Street, Geelong Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49598 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 134 Committee

Full Name: Juan Nunez-Iglesias Organisation: Affected property: Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments: I am gratified to read in the Central Geelong Framework Plan: Transport Strategy that pedestrian access, cycling, and public transport will be prioritised across all areas. Geelong is a beautiful small town, but traversing it on foot or on a bicycle can be unpleasant and frustrating due to the high volume of car and truck traffic — exacerbated by the popularity of large and noisy twin-cab utes [1]. It was surprising as a traveller to find that navigating Tokyo on foot is much more pleasant, despite its 37 million-large population. There is much analysis on why this is the case but three major factors are: - the lack of on-street parking [2][3] - streets that prioritise humans over cars [4][5] - an extensive and convenient public transport network [6] The report seems to take these into account, so my letter is written to lend my support for those goals and ideals, which have not been adequately prioritised in the past. I will also add that it is important to make alternate modes of transport not only feasible but *as attractive or more* as driving. For example, I can reach the Waurn Ponds LeisureLink and the Waurn Ponds Shopping Centre by bike using the Barwon River trail and connecting to the meandering bike path along Waurn Ponds Creek. However, it is much faster to drive along High Street and Colac Road. Ideally, I would be able to ride all the way across Moorabool, High Street, and Colac Road to those amenities, but the prevalent car and truck traffic along those roads, in some cases at high speed, make this risky and unpleasant. Similarly, it is impossible for me to travel to Torquay by bike while avoiding traffic. Finally, improving the friendliness of traffic lights along Central Geelong to bicycles and pedestrians would also go a long way towards making that corridor more attractive to navigate on foot than in a car. Car traffic and traffic lights can more than double how long it takes to get from South Geelong to the Waterfront on a bicycle. In short, though there will be detractors to a plan that prioritises pedestrians, bicycles, and public transport, I hope if anything that those provisions will be strengthened. We are in a climate emergency, whether the Council wishes to declare it or not, and further, pedestrian- friendly environments are more pleasant and healthier for all. Thank you. References: [1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/26/taxes- on-electric-vehicles-will-slow-australias-progress-its-not-complicated [2] https://twitter.com/geographyjim/status/1042619780232953856 [3] https://twitter.com/irapolis/status/1292241716099952642 [4] https://devonzuegel.com/post/japanese-street-networks [5] https://twitter.com/modacitylife/status/1322083762725888001 [6] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/why-japanese-kids-can- walk-to-school-alone/408475/

Submission Cover Sheet Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 135 Committee

Full Name: Ellen McGann Organisation: Affected property: Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments: It is my wish that any potential infrastructure/buildings are sensitive to heritage of Geelong and would like to see lots of green spaces intermingled within the City.

Submission Cover Sheet Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 136 Committee

Full Name: Joel McGuinness Organisation: Geelong Arts Centre Affected property: Geelong Arts Centre Cultural Precinct - 50 Little Malop Street Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49603 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 137 Committee

Full Name: Nicole Alesios Organisation: Alesios Fishing Company Pty Ltd Affected property: 34 Malop Street Geelong, 36 Malop Street Geelong, 24 Malop street, 22, Malop Stre Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49604 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet SUBMISSIONS IN RESPECT OF AND OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED CENTRAL GEELONG DRAFT FRAME WORK MAY 2021

Objector: Alesios Fishing Company Limited, 520 Bellarine Highway, MOOLAP, VIC. 3221

(hereinafter called “the Objector”)

Proprietor: 36 Malop Street, GEELONG, VIC. 3220

34 Malop Street, GEELONG, VIC. 3220

24 Malop Street GEELONG, VIC. 3220

22 Malop Street GEELONG, VIC. 3220

20 Malop Street GEELONG, VIC. 3220

Central Geelong DRAFT Framework Plan (May 2021)

RE: Central Geelong Draft Framework May 2021.

1. The Objector objects to the proposed controls and implementation objectives sought as part of the Central Geelong draft Framework Plan May 2021, to impose height controls which reduce development potential as this dramatically restricts Geelong’s Development Potential and subsequent economic activity and community amenity.

2. The Objector submits that the proposed reduced height controls directly impact significant land holdings and are likely to impact on the ability to develop key landholdings in the city centre, compromising growth opportunities for Investors in Geelong and also the community at large.

3. The objector submits that to meet the objective of Geelong becoming a lifestyle city, with open green spaces, a thriving waterfront precinct, an exciting laneways network and vibrant retail and hospitality scene (as proposed by the Draft Framework), development in Central Geelong must be viable for Land Owners and Developers in order for expansion to occur.

4. The proposed of restricted height controls in this City Precinct, does not support this. For context, the provision of car parking (basement) required for larger developments represents a significant cost to any development project. Where a reduced height limit is imposed, the viability of investment in large scale development Geelong City Centre becomes unviable. The result of this approach will cause undue harm to the community at large due to a significant reduction in growth and economic activity in the Geelong City. A reduction in growth and development in the Geelong City Centre, will also result in a reduction in employment opportunities, a subsequent reduction in income and a subsequent reduction in spending for the local economy.

5. The Objector submits that nominated height restrictions are limited and do not take into consideration that individual land holders may consolidate their land holdings for development. Not considering this is a limitation of the Draft Framework and significantly impacts the Geelong community at large.

6. The Objector submits that allocating extensive preferred heights (42 meters) to Northern Facing sites such as Westfield which faces the north facing bay, does not support one of the Key objectives of the draft Framework which is wind controls considering the proximity of Geelong’s City Centre to the waters edge. Applying this planning approach means directly subjecting taller developments to the Northern winds, yet having height restrictions applied to development sites which are of further proximity to the Bay.

7. To Objector objects to any new planning controls, such as reducing height controls in the City Centre, which would negatively impact the future of the Geelong City Community, as the cost to the community if such controls are imposed will result in a significant and quantifiable Economic loss to the Community and amenity Geelong.

Image 1 Proposed Height Controls (Page 160 - Draft Framework Plan)

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 138 Committee

Full Name: Anne Conrick Organisation: Affected property: Geelong Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49605 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet Submission to the Central Geelong Draft Structure Plan

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the draft structure plan. We welcome the idea of making the city of Geelong more vibrant and well designed, while maintaining its character and history. Including the Wadawurrung people in how their Country is cared for along with valuing their culture and connection to Country is most important.

Our comments relate to the area where we own a property at It is currently tenanted however we are planning on rebuilding so its façade, front fence and garden will be that of a Federation cottage to complement the streetscape of the older neighbouring houses.

The concerns we have are as follows:

Precincts Our area is not named as a precinct, along with other residential parts of the city such as Swanston Street and Corio Street. Residential houses appear to be a forgotten section of central Geelong, yet some of the changes suggested in the draft plan will have a major impact on our neighbourhood. Especially in our street where the northern side is not named as being in a precinct and the southern side is named as the Health Precinct.

Laneways and Small Streets It is wonderful to read about wanting to make the city easier to move around and cycle/pedestrian friendly. Little Malop Street from Swanston Street to Bellerine Street and beyond is a major pedestrian link from East Geelong and the streets of Geelong around Park Street and Garden Street. Yet our section of Little Malop Street has not been named as a pedestrian priority street. Students from Geelong High and other secondary schools along with Deakin University, plus workers commuting to the NDIS, WorkSafe, Deakin, Geelong Hospital, law firms etc walk/cycle along our section of Little Malop Street on a daily basis.

However, the footpaths are quite narrow, not well maintained and dominated by power poles and bitumen. Street trees/greenery are absent, we understand this is challenging to achieve in such a narrow street. However, if the power was placed underground and the poles removed this would allow for the footpaths to be slightly widened and indigenous vegetation planted; it would become a much more natural and attractive environment for people to enjoy as they walk/cycle into the city centre and fits with Strategy 22.4 ‘Improve Walking Connections to Central Geelong on page 89 of the draft plan. Another consideration to make it safer and more pleasant for those walking and riding might be for Little Malop Street to become one way where it is at its narrowest, from Swanston Street to Bellerine Street. Has the foot traffic been measured along Little Malop Street from Swanston Street to Yarra Street? If one of the issues is safety then make it safer to walk along night and day. Residential houses occupied 24 hours a day allow an area to feel safer rather than a business opened for shorter hours, therefore please encourage the concept of houses in central Geelong remaining as residential properties and not being turned into commercial spaces. Making an area more amenable day and night for people to walk or cycle is better for safety. The strategy to put power underground (while expensive) in smaller streets and laneways and replace with vegetation/seating/street art would enhance all the narrower streetscapes around the city.

Zones From our reading of the draft plan, houses close by in Swanston Street between Little Malop and Ryrie Street, on the south side of Little Malop between Swanston and Bellerine Street along with Board Place and parts of Bellerine Street will become Activity Growth Zone, whereas they are currently in the Residential Growth Zone. No explanation that we can see has been provided regarding why these residential homes would have their zoning changed and how it affects those homes which also have Heritage Overlays. This is very concerning because so much effort and money has been placed into this draft plan yet it feels as if one section of the city has been ignored. It would alleviate some of our concerns if there was more information provided about what types of heights and styles will be approved for residential homes which become ACZ around Little Malop, Swanston Street, Board Place and Bellerine Streets, along with the reasons for changing the zoning in a residential area.

We understand that in some situations one side of a street may be zoned differently to the other, however our query is the impact this has on melding an area and making the landscape fit together cohesively. Especially when we are not completely clear what the ACZ means now and into the future. Having read the draft plan we find it difficult to comment about the ACZ because we do not believe it is being clearly described. Our concern is that small narrow streets such as Little Malop can be easily dominated by high and bulky buildings such as the Deakin Medical School building fronting Little Malop Street. Objective 1 in Land Use and Economy on page 60 states:

‘It is proposed to update and extend the ACZ to the north-west portion of the study area where it is currently within the Residential Growth Zone to provide for a streamlined implementation of the Structure Plan and to simplify the existing zoning regime and achieve desired outcomes.’

We would like to know what consideration has been made of the potential negative impact this may have on adjoining RGZ zones and clarity about the ‘desired outcomes’.

On page 80 Figures 64-66 are not clear representations of what is proposed, they tend to show the zones closer to the bay, but it is difficult to visualise the areas around our property.

We note the impact of wind tunnels in the city has been often mentioned in the plan but what consideration has been made for the impact of wind tunnels, overshadowing, overlooking and removal of Heritage Overlay in our section of the 3220 postcode which border the proposed ACZ?

Increased number of residents living in the city We cannot see in the plan, provision for primary schools or allowance for the expansion of current ones such as South Geelong Primary School. Pedestrian and bike access needs to include families able to travel to schools within or close to the CBD. Parking does not appear to be reported upon fully to show how the increased number of residents will park their cars.

View to Corio Bay and the You Yangs Yes, please protect the views to the bay and the You Yangs it makes Geelong unique and accentuates the amphitheatre mentioned in the draft plan.

Traffic Trucks travelling through the city of Geelong needs appropriate consideration, it appears the draft plan is looking into this which is good news.

Questions: What are the plans for Little Malop Street from Swanston Street to Bellerine Street? Has the foot/bike traffic been measured along Little Malop Street from Swanston Street to Yarra Street? As a pedestrian priority street highlighted on page 91 in fig 76, why not show Little Malop Street from Swanston to Bellerine as a pedestrian priority as well? Are they changing the RGZ zoning along Little Malop Street, Board Place, Swanston Street to expand the hospital? If so, what consideration has been taken of local residents?

Yours Sincerely Anne Conrick and David Vinegrad Owners of Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 139 Committee

Full Name: Matt Hughes Organisation: Scentre Group Trust 1, Scentre Group Trust 2 and Perron Investments Pty Limited Affected property: 95 Malop Street, Geelong Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49606 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments: Please see attached submission and follow the link below to download supporting material: https://docstore.hallandwilcox.com.au/Go.ashx?id=1103cd13-e78d-4df3- b08f-bba26fb6bbf5

Submission Cover Sheet

Wednesday, 7 July 2021

Ms Sarah Carlisle Chair, Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory Committee Planning Panels Victoria GPO Box 2392 MELBOURNE VIC 3001

Lodged via Engage Victoria portal

Dear Ms Carlisle,

GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C431 CENTRAL GEELONG FRAMEWORK PLAN

This submission is made on behalf of Scentre Group Trust 1, Scentre Group Trust 2 and Perron Investments Pty Limited (the owners) who are the owners of the land known as ‘Westfield Geelong’. It has been prepared in response to the exhibition of proposed Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C431.

Amendment C431 proposes to implement the draft Central Geelong Framework Plan, and in summary the draft changes to the Planning Scheme are:

• Amendments to Clauses 21.09 and 21.10 to reflect the Central Geelong Framework Plan 2021;

• A substantial re-write of the Activity Centre Zone provisions, and extension of the Zone to include parts of the central Geelong area that are currently outside the Activity Centre Zone boundary;

• Amendment of DDO17 and DDO46 (neither of which apply to the Westfield land) to reflect the Central Geelong Framework Plan 2021; and

• Amendment of the Schedule to Clause 72.08 (Background Documents) to insert the Central Geelong Framework Plan 2021.

This submission provides: a) A description of the Westfield Geelong site and its location within the Geelong CBD; b) The planning context for Geelong; c) The opportunities we have identified for the centre in the short, medium and long term; and d) Our submission in response to Amendment C431.

This submission is made following a video conference with representatives from the ‘Revitalising Central Geelong Partnership’ within DELWP on 21 June, 2021.

Page 1 of 15

Scentre Group Limited Level 30, 85 Castlereagh Street, Sydney NSW 2000 Australia +61 (02) 9358 7000

ABN 66 001 671 496 CPO Box 4004, Sydney NSW 2001 Australia

Westfield Geelong

Westfield Geelong comprises 4.2ha of land within the retail core of the Geelong CBD and includes the following Certificates of Title:

• Volume 11082 Folio 856 • Volume 11107 Folio 323 • Volume 11249 Folio 699 & 700 • Volume 11249 Folio 701 & 702

This excludes the Yarra Street bridge component which is held under a leasehold interest.

Broadly, the land is located either side of Yarra Street, between Malop Street to the south and Brougham Street to the north.

The centre has four anchor retail tenants – Myer, Target and Coles located on the western side of Yarra Street, and Big W located on the eastern side of Yarra Street. The centre is connected across Yarra Street via a bridge that was constructed as part of the most recent major expansion and upgrade of the centre in 2005.

Cumulatively, the centre currently includes approximately 53,699sqm of gross lettable area and more than 150 individual tenancies.

Parts of the existing buildings are included in a Heritage Overlay, and in some cases are also on the Victorian Heritage Register.

Car parking for the site is accessed from Malop, Yarra, Brougham and Moorabool Streets, and loading bays are accessed from Malop Street, Yarra Street and Corio Street (linking to Emerald Place, Limerick Place, Blair Place and O’Connell Place).

Figure 1 Locality Plan

Page 2 of 15

Scentre Group Limited Level 30, 85 Castlereagh Street, Sydney NSW 2000 Australia +61 (02) 9358 7000

ABN 66 001 671 496 CPO Box 4004, Sydney NSW 2001 Australia

Figure 2 Aerial Photograph

Context

Since the most recent expansion of Westfield Geelong was completed, there have been a number of matters that have influenced planning and development within Geelong: a) The approval of the Geelong Structure Plan 2007; b) The downsizing and ultimate closure of the major Ford manufacturing plant in 2013 – 2016, leading to a major loss of employment;

c) The rezoning of land that was in the former ‘Business 1 Zone’ to the Activity Centre Zone in 2013 (Amendment C223); d) The Minister for Planning becoming the responsible authority for specified planning permit applications in the Central Geelong area (Amendment C355) in 2015;

e) The establishment of the Revitalising Central Geelong (RCG) Partnership (between the State Government and City of Greater Geelong (COGG)) and the Geelong Authority (GA) to prepare and implement the Revitalising Central Geelong Action Plan 2016;

f) The relocation of a number of State Government departments to headquarters in Geelong, including Worksafe and TAC, as well as a major redevelopment proposed for Council’s offices;

Page 3 of 15

Scentre Group Limited Level 30, 85 Castlereagh Street, Sydney NSW 2000 Australia +61 (02) 9358 7000

ABN 66 001 671 496 CPO Box 4004, Sydney NSW 2001 Australia

g) The ongoing expansion of major health, education and arts uses within the central Geelong area;

h) The ongoing expansion of Geelong’s growth areas, including Armstrong Creek, leading to increases in population;

i) The completion of a number of major infrastructure projects both within the central area and wider Geelong region (eg. the ring road); and

j) Issuing of a number of planning permits for major redevelopment sites, and in some cases completion of the approved development.

In addition to this, and more specific to retail, Council has recently adopted a new Retail Strategy for the City. This strategy was approved as part of Amendment C393 in May 2021.

The Retail Strategy contemplates a population increase of more than 114,000 people from 2016 to 2036 across the municipality, and notes that in 2018 the central Geelong area contained ~187,000sqm of retail floorspace. An increase in floor-space of 132,500sqm is supported by the strategy for 2016 – 2036 in the Geelong central area.

The above matters give rise to unique opportunities for the Westfield Geelong land.

Opportunities

Retail centres have historically been enclosed, mall-based environments with high dependence on car parking. They are typically large in footprint, accommodate a high density of tenancies with key anchors, and serve as the dominant employment and retail base of an activity centre.

Contemporary retail development is evolving, and large retail sites in particular are now increasing focus on transforming into ‘living centres’ which connect and enrich the surrounding communities. To this end, the following key themes for retail and activity centre planning are becoming increasingly important:

a) Land use diversification – centres are typically dominated by traditional retail floor-space, but this is changing, and there is a renewed focus on accommodating a broader range of uses such as:

• Office and commercial uses (including accommodation for Government agencies);

• Serviced accommodation uses (Residential hotel) with ancillary facilities;

• Housing, including ‘build-to-rent’ typologies; and

• Community services (Government offices / agencies; local government community hubs; education centres etc). b) Health and Wellness – a renewed focus on health and wellbeing, with the need for associated services and amenities such as:

• Outdoor dining;

• Gymnasiums and allied health (pilates, yoga, meditation, relaxation);

• Places for meeting (eg. forecourts, plazas, rooftop gardens); and

• Sustainability in building design (including natural light, ventilation etc). c) A 24 hour city – where customers demand availability of services across a longer period of time, seeking opportunities for a night-time economy, leisure and entertainment uses, and support for shift-workers, including:

Page 4 of 15

Scentre Group Limited Level 30, 85 Castlereagh Street, Sydney NSW 2000 Australia +61 (02) 9358 7000

ABN 66 001 671 496 CPO Box 4004, Sydney NSW 2001 Australia

• Food and beverage outlets;

• Cinemas and amusement parlours;

• ‘Late night’ shopping; and

• Access to key tenants at convenient times (eg. 24 hour gyms). d) Management of anchor tenants – these large tenants are typically ‘loss leaders’ but due to the foot-traffic they generate are critical to the overall success of the centre. Their location within the mall is confirmed through long lease tenure with associated options. Accordingly, future use and development needs to be integrated around these tenants. e) Technology and accessibility – consideration of matters such as:

• App-based information sharing;

• In-centre wifi, charging stations, and concierge services;

• Installation of infrastructure associated with car parking management;

• End-of-trip bicycle parking and facilities; and

• Electric vehicle charging stations. f) Online retail – this is an evolving aspect to shopping centre planning and design, with agility and flexibility required to ensure that built form and land use responses are well-considered and benefits the long term centre objectives. Examples include click & collect, delivery frequencies, storage of additional goods, and last mile distribution. g) Over the last 18 months the Covid-19 pandemic has brought unexpected changes to retail planning, and the ability to adapt and respond to changes – whether they occur over the space of a few weeks, a few months or over a few years – is critical to the long-term success of the centre. h) The competition for investment amongst a large retail portfolio, both within Victoria but also at a national level. Certainty and confidence generate investment, and it is imperative that the planning controls are enabling and flexible to allow suitable approvals to be obtained in a timely manner.

Specifically for Westfield Geelong, there are a number of opportunities that arise having regard to the above context: a) Retaining and enhancing the existing anchor tenants and adapting to new formats of retail, including responses to online shopping demands and changing retail needs; b) An increase in floor-space, particularly having regard to population growth and the increase in demand identified in the Retail Strategy 2016 – 2036; c) A diversification of land uses across the centre, and an increase in the density and intensity of development; d) An ongoing focus on the external appearance of the centre and creating opportunities for active frontages and connections to the existing street network; and e) Reviewing the car parking and loading bay access arrangements to ensure safe and convenient access continues to be provided, including new car parking provision associated with new land uses and expansion.

Page 5 of 15

Scentre Group Limited Level 30, 85 Castlereagh Street, Sydney NSW 2000 Australia +61 (02) 9358 7000

ABN 66 001 671 496 CPO Box 4004, Sydney NSW 2001 Australia

In this context, the following submission is made in relation to Amendment C431.

Submission to Amendment C431

The submission is separated into four parts:

• Part 1 – The overarching approach to the provisions

• Part 2 – Master Plan and Plot Ratio

• Part 3 – Built Form and Development

• Part 4 – Land Use

At the time of making this submission, we have not sought to prepare a detailed ‘tracked changes’ version of the Activity Centre Zone or Local Planning Policy Framework provisions. We anticipate that such a document will form part of submissions and evidence presented to the Advisory Committee hearing and will be fine-tuned throughout the course of the hearing.

Part 1 – Overarching approach to the provisions

Overall, we are supportive of the land use and economic objectives for Central Geelong that are sought to be created through the Framework Plan:

• Objective 1 - Develop Central Geelong as the pre-eminent urban centre for the Geelong and Barwon South West region with a wide range of uses and activities

• Objective 2 - Develop a philosophy and framework to guide Geelong’s/Djilang’s built environment that embraces Wadawurrung Traditional Owners’ values of place-care and placemaking towards crafting culturally relevant and enriching design outcomes and places

• Objective 3 - Strengthen Central Geelong as a state significant precinct for health, wellbeing and recovery

• Objective 4 - Develop Central Geelong into Australia’s leading regional centre for education and life-long learning

• Objective 5 - Support the development of Geelong as a clever and creative city through increased business investment and local employment opportunities

• Objective 6 - Develop Central Geelong as a vibrant hub for retail, hospitality, arts and culture

• Objective 7 - Strengthen Central Geelong as a destination for visitors and major events

• Objective 8 - Provide timely delivery of high-quality, accessible and integrated community infrastructure to meet the needs of residents, workers and visitors

The opportunities identified above for the Westfield Geelong complex are broadly aligned with these objectives, and the centre will continue to play a major role in the Geelong CBD in terms of land area, future development potential and growth, density of employment and its significant contribution to the economic base of the region.

With a need for certainty and confidence to facilitate investment, and for agility and flexibility to respond to evolving retail needs, it is critical that the proposed Activity Centre Zone (ACZ) provisions must be enabling.

However, the provisions, exhibited, seem highly regulated and specific in terms of the manner in which future land use and development can proceed. Overlaying the provisions onto an existing

Page 6 of 15

Scentre Group Limited Level 30, 85 Castlereagh Street, Sydney NSW 2000 Australia +61 (02) 9358 7000

ABN 66 001 671 496 CPO Box 4004, Sydney NSW 2001 Australia

shopping centre, and the constraints that brings (such as existing long-term leases with anchor tenants; existing mall layouts; existing vehicle entries and loading docks) is inconsistent with creating an environment where investment and innovation is realised.

In order to achieve the objectives, the ACZ provisions should be revised to provide more performance-based outcomes, with flexibility in how those outcomes are delivered in terms of land use and built form.

Consideration should also be given to introducing a more site specific control that recognises and responds to the particular characteristics, constraints and opportunities that the Westfield complex presents.

Part 2 – Master Plan and Plot Ratio

The Westfield Geelong site is listed as one of a number of ‘Strategic Redevelopment Sites’ in the ACZ and Framework Plan – typically being sites with more than 4,000sqm in area. This designation brings the following requirements:

For Strategic Development Sites identified in Maps 10 – 17, a permit must not be granted to construct a building or construct or carry out works until a masterplan has been prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The requirement for a masterplan may, with the agreement of the responsible authority, be waived for minor building and works or prepared and implemented in stages.

A masterplan must:

• consist of an existing site conditions plan, showing surrounding land uses and development, sensitive interface areas, adjoining heritage places, adjoining roads and pedestrian links, public transport routes, topography, existing canopy trees, vegetation and social infrastructure. • consist of concept plans for the layout of the site which show the proposed location of buildings, type and location of proposed uses, proposed floor areas/number of dwellings, response to onsite heritage places, car parking, access arrangement for vehicles, pedestrian and cyclist, areas of public and private open space, stormwater and drainage management treatments, type and location of landscaping, three dimensional building envelope plans including indicative building heights and setbacks, and a proposed staging plan. • include a design response report that identifies how the concept plans respond to the objectives and requirements of this Schedule and existing site conditions. • be prepared in consultation with the landowner, any Minister or public land manager having responsibility for the care or management of the land or adjacent land, and the Greater Geelong City Council (where not the responsible authority).

Development shown in the masterplan should have a plot ratio in accordance with the preferred plot ratio in the precinct requirements.

The expectation in the ACZ and Framework Plan is that the Strategic Redevelopment Sites in the retail core will be developed with exemplary architecture that responds to the predominant streetscape character and very high quality contribution to the public realm including pedestrian links and active frontages to all streets. The preferred plot ratio is 4.0:1.

We understand from our meeting with DELWP Officers on 21 June, 2021, that:

• the basis for the inclusion of a “Master Plan” in the ACZ provisions is to enable a better understanding of “when and how” the objectives of the Zone will be delivered, noting that Planning Practice Note 56 (Applying the Activity Centre Zone 2015) contemplates including what might otherwise be Development Plan Overlay provisions into the Zone; and

• the basis for the inclusion of a Plot Ratio in the ACZ provisions is to ensure that the Department’s capacity analysis for floorspace in Central Geelong is not disproportionately absorbed by some sites over time.

Page 7 of 15

Scentre Group Limited Level 30, 85 Castlereagh Street, Sydney NSW 2000 Australia +61 (02) 9358 7000

ABN 66 001 671 496 CPO Box 4004, Sydney NSW 2001 Australia

We have a number of concerns in relation to the requirement for a Master Plan through the ACZ provisions and the use of a Plot Ratio.

Firstly, it is acknowledged that Planning Practice Note 56 (Applying the Activity Centre Zone 2015) contemplates the opportunity for a Development Plan Overlay to be absorbed into the ACZ provisions with a view to streamlining and simplifying the planning process. However, this is not a mandatory requirement, and consideration needs to be given to how this is implemented.

To this end, we have identified a number of implementation and statutory issues with respect to the Master Plan requirement through the ACZ provisions: a) A planning permit cannot be granted until a Master Plan has been approved, other than with the agreement of the Responsible Authority for “minor buildings and works”. Clarification is required as what is intended to constitute “minor” buildings and works for the purpose of this Clause. Further, it should not be the extent of buildings and works that should determine whether or not a Master Plan is required. For example, the following types of applications should be facilitated without a Master Plan:

• The display of new signs;

• A change in land use;

• A car parking waiver associated with an as-of-right or permit-required land use;

• An application to sell or consume liquor pursuant to Clause 52.27;

• Subdivision of land; and

• Other similar applications that do not involve significant buildings and works. b) The required content for a Master Plan is set out in the Zone in a highly abridged and generalised manner, and there is limited detail on what is sought to be achieved.

c) There is limited detail as to what is meant in the ACZ by “prepared in consultation with” the Minister, Council and any relevant public land manager.

d) There is a lack of certainty in relation to the Responsible Authority. More specifically:

• Whether the Minister for Planning remains as the Responsible Authority for the Master Plan if it relates to matters already listed in the Schedule to Clause 72.01 of the Planning Scheme (which is not being amended as part of C431);

• A scenario where the Council may be the Responsible Authority for the Master Plan if it relates to matters that fall outside the Minister’s Responsible Authority status in the Schedule to Clause 72.01; and

• Conceivably multiple Master Plans prepared for one site but endorsed by different Responsible Authorities over time depending on the scope of each plan that is prepared.

e) There is limited detail as to the process by which a Master Plan is required to be considered and determined, including:

• The decision guidelines that will be used to determine whether or not a Master Plan is approved;

• How the “exemplary architecture” requirement will be measured and determined, noting that it is not the role of the Master Plan to provide detailed elevations for assessment;

Page 8 of 15

Scentre Group Limited Level 30, 85 Castlereagh Street, Sydney NSW 2000 Australia +61 (02) 9358 7000

ABN 66 001 671 496 CPO Box 4004, Sydney NSW 2001 Australia

• Whether the threshold that “all” streets have active frontages is achievable having regard to the heritage listing of parts of the site and the functional need for loading bays and back-of-house areas; and

• The timeframes associated with any decision (with an expectation that the appeal rights available under s149 would apply in the absence of any other defined test).

f) When a Master Plan is approved, decision guidelines then require a planning permit application to consider the extent to which the development on a Strategic Development Site identified on Map 10 – Map 17, aligns with the approved Master Plan for the site. Questions arising from this include:

• Whether a planning permit must align with an approved Master Plan?

• Whether there is scope to grant a planning permit that does not align with an approved Master Plan?

• The degree to which a misalignment can be tolerated before a new Master Plan is requested?

• What is the test for “alignment”? Is this intended to be a “generally in accordance with” test, or some other criteria? g) When a Development Plan is approved under a stand-alone DPO provision, there is a benefit derived for all future planning permit applications that are generally in accordance with the approved Development Plan being exempt from third party notice, decision and review rights. This acts to provide the certainty and confidence that is critical to achieving investment. The same outcome is not available under the Master Plan embedded through the ACZ. Whilst the ACZ allows for exemption from notice, decision and review rights, the same does not extend to applications that are triggered by provisions other than the ACZ – for example, a car parking waiver; an application to sell or consume liquor etc.

There are other sites where the application of a Development Plan Overlay works in concert with the ACZ provisions. For example, see Manningham Planning Scheme Amendment C104 (approved in 2019) where the DPO was applied to Westfield Doncaster in place of the Incorporated Plan Overlay.

Other examples include: the DPO15 in the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme associated with the Dandenong Plaza Shopping Centre (approved by the Minister for Planning in November 2020 – Amendment C222) which is overlaid with the Comprehensive Development Plan; the DPO5 in the Stonnington Planning Scheme associated with the large housing estates in the Chapel Street activity centre that is zoned ACZ; and the DPO16 in Maribyrnong associated with the Ryco precinct development in the Footscray activity centre that is zoned ACZ.

Where there is a provision available within the VPPs to achieve the intended outcome – that is, approval of a ‘Master Plan’ – it is our submission that the provision should be utilised, rather than a new statutory framework or approval regime being developed. Again, the use of a known provision affords a level of certainty and confidence that enables investment and realisation of the wider activity centre objectives over time.

The use of a DPO provision is also supported by the draft Framework Plan. We note:

• Strategy 1.4 Facilitate the redevelopment and renewal of major sites

There are a number of major redevelopment sites within Central Geelong that could accommodate significant growth or provide a significant anchor role. Most sites have a completed master plan or are in the master plan process. An integrated government approach and engagement with private landowners is required to unlock investment while ensuring development aligns with the shared vision for Central Geelong.

Page 9 of 15

Scentre Group Limited Level 30, 85 Castlereagh Street, Sydney NSW 2000 Australia +61 (02) 9358 7000

ABN 66 001 671 496 CPO Box 4004, Sydney NSW 2001 Australia

Given the strategic and unique nature of each site, specific planning controls such as Development Plan Overlays will help guide development to ensure they contribute to the liveability of Central Geelong.

• Action 6.4.1

Apply a Development Plan Overlay to major retail centres to facilitate future investment and growth, and work closely with landowners to support masterplanning.

Having regard to the above strategy and action, it is submitted that Amendment C431 provides the appropriate opportunity and statutory process to apply a DPO to the Westfield Geelong site and we are in the process of preparing a draft Schedule to the Overlay.

The introduction of a DPO would also allow for a more site specific control to be crafted, having regard to the fact that there is an existing retail complex on the site. The DPO could properly respond to the site’s existing uses and development, its characteristics, constraints and opportunities in a more appropriate and targeted way than would be realised under the generic master plan approach under the ACZ.

The trigger points for preparation and approval of a DPO need to be considered, together with the content of a future Development Plan.

As is the case at Westfield Doncaster (supported by the Minister recently as part of Amendment C104, and previously when the ACZ was first introduced into the Doncaster Hill Activity Centre as part of Amendment VC59), the ACZ adopts a minimalist approach to the specific design and built form outcomes sought to be achieved on the site, and translates the key qualitative requirements to the DPO provision for consideration and approval. For example, there are no preferred or mandatory building heights or setbacks in the ACZ for the Westfield Doncaster land. The same approach is considered appropriate at Geelong, given:

• The need for flexibility in terms of how the qualitative outcomes are realised having regard to the complex retail planning factors outlined earlier in this submission; • The scale of the land holding and the significant opportunities that it delivers in terms of realising the centre objectives; • The significant contribution that the site makes to the economic base of the CBD.

We submit that the ACZ should be amended to transfer the necessary performance-based and qualitative provisions for the Westfield Geelong site into the Development Plan Overlay Schedule, and to remove the various ‘requirements’ (eg. height controls, plot ratio, setbacks etc) as they apply to the Westfield Geelong site from the Zone.

We agree with the principle set out in the exhibited Amendment that a ‘Master Plan’ should be accommodated in stages as required.

In terms of the plot ratio, Page 177 of the Framework Plan advises as follows:

The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for each Strategic Development Site (SDS) has been derived from 3D testing of the capacity of each site. This took into consideration the proposed controls and guidelines, including the following:

— Overshadowing

— Preferred maximum building height

— Street wall height

— Side, rear setbacks and building separation

Page 10 of 15

Scentre Group Limited Level 30, 85 Castlereagh Street, Sydney NSW 2000 Australia +61 (02) 9358 7000

ABN 66 001 671 496 CPO Box 4004, Sydney NSW 2001 Australia

3D testing also accounted for the need to deliver new pedestrian links and open space as part of development contributions in a manner that is commensurate with the scale and capacity of the site. Furthermore, 3D testing also considered the relative building depths and dimensions for residential and commercial floor plates as well as corresponding floor-to-floor heights varying accordingly, aligned with each precinct’s land use aspirations.

The resultant FAR for each SDS represents a high-level assessment of the site’s capacity to accommodate development that complies with the Central Geelong Framework Plan.

As noted earlier in this submission, there is a complex range of factors that contributes to the successful development of a shopping centre. Overlaying the built form outcomes on the site to achieve a generic floor area ratio is not a sufficiently sophisticated process to inform the implementation of a plot ratio. The 3D testing has not adequately considered:

• The existing floor plan of the centre;

• The existing long-term leases that are in place (with options) to anchor tenants;

• The specific manner in which retail development occurs having regard to mall layout;

• The range of potential future land use options identified for Westfield Geelong;

• The need to accommodate expansions to or create new car parking areas in association with new or expanded land use; and

• The existing pedestrian linkages and how these might integrate in the future with the local street network.

We calculate the existing centre plot ratio as approximately 2.4:1 which under the proposed plot ratio of 4.0:1 would allow for circa 45,500sqm of additional gross floor area which includes undercover car parking. This significantly and unreasonably impacts the development potential of the site and consequently the realisation of the objectives sought to be achieved. Having regard to the above, the requirement for a Master Plan through the ACZ and the use of a Plot Ratio should be removed as there are alternative mechanisms available to guide the future height and built form at the site.

In support of this submission, we have commissioned a review of the site opportunities by Rothe Lowman Architects having regard to the ACZ qualitative provisions. Central to this review was the protection of the nominated street network from shadowing between 11am and 2pm at the equinox. The review identifies the evolution of the planning controls that applied to the land, being:

• Up to 2012, a Business 1 Zone and DDO2 which set out a preferred height limit of 6 storeys for the CBD; • In 2013, a new ACZ provision which set out a preferred height limit of between 32m and 40m for the site; • In 2021, an interim ACZ provision arising from Amendment C424 which set out new requirements for wind, overshadowing and separation between built form; and • The exhibited controls in Amendment C431.

We have extrapolated a built form envelope that is compliant with the shadow outcomes sought by Amendment C431, and then further interrogated the ‘compliant envelope’ having regard to a range of other considerations, including:

• The existing retail mall layout and the location of anchor tenants; • The need to achieve a “frontage” for new uses / built form (e.g. street presence and access to lobbies); • How the eastern and western parts of the site would relate to each other; • How new tower elements might be spaced to provide visual interest in the skyline and afford views;

Page 11 of 15

Scentre Group Limited Level 30, 85 Castlereagh Street, Sydney NSW 2000 Australia +61 (02) 9358 7000

ABN 66 001 671 496 CPO Box 4004, Sydney NSW 2001 Australia

• The need to consider heritage fabric, including buildings on the Victorian Heritage Register; and • Opportunities to deliver new car parking associated with an increase in floor-space.

The analysis demonstrates that there is not only significant potential that exists on the site to respond to the objectives of Amendment C431, but that this can be achieved in a variety of ways.

Application of rigid and specific built form and plot ratio controls through the Zone will stifle opportunities, limit the realisation of development and investment, and ultimately will not deliver the outcomes that are sought for Geelong.

Part 3 – Built Form and Development

The proposed ACZ at Clause 4.4 sets out ‘Design and Development’ requirements for buildings and works applications. The requirements include:

• Building height • Architectural expression • Building scale • ESD • Building adaptability • Overshadowing • Street wall height • Wind effects • Street wall setback • Car parking and vehicle access • Building setbacks • End of trip • Building separation • Laneway widening • Street activation • Street views • Glazing

Some of the requirements are mandatory (for example, street wall setbacks in HO areas, overshadowing and wind) and others are discretionary.

In response to these requirements, the following submissions are made: a) We are in agreement that the public realm outcomes for the Central Geelong area should be enhanced and improved, and that management of matters such as solar access and wind is an important component in this. b) The Amendment has not adequately demonstrated the appropriateness of the nominated preferred building heights, and the preferred heights fail to recognise opportunities that may arise in the future and the innovative management of site constraints; c) The preferred heights for the land have been marginally increased on the western site (from 40m to 42m) but substantially decreased for the eastern site (from 32m to between 21m and 28m), and it is requested that both sites have performance-based and qualitative outcomes for building height implemented as part of a DPO provision rather than a quantitative measure through the Zone that is derived from incomplete 3D modelling; d) The building scale requirement is unnecessary to achieve good urban design outcomes in accordance with the Zone objectives; e) The street wall height and setback requirements are unreasonably limiting when applied to retail land uses and the existing centre conditions; constrain building design and innovation; and are not required to achieve the Zone objectives; f) The street activation requirements fail to take into account heritage matters and necessary back- of-house areas of a centre; g) The existing centre provides secure pedestrian links to all surrounding streets which we believe is the intention of the Framework Plan. The existing pedestrian links as documented in the ACZ are inaccurate, and the proposed pedestrian links are considered unreasonable having regard to the existing retail mall layout and identified site constraints (e.g. heritage and long lease tenures); and Page 12 of 15

Scentre Group Limited Level 30, 85 Castlereagh Street, Sydney NSW 2000 Australia +61 (02) 9358 7000

ABN 66 001 671 496 CPO Box 4004, Sydney NSW 2001 Australia

h) The glazing requirements and car park / vehicle access requirements need to be tempered against the existing conditions, heritage constraints and the functional and practical needs of a centre with respect to safe car parking and loading bay access.

The impact of the proposed built form controls requires further review and consideration, and more detailed submissions will be made to the Advisory Committee hearing.

Part 4 – Land Use

The recently-approved Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C393 set out various policy changes arising from Council’s Retail Strategy 2016 – 2036. The Strategy notes:

“Whilst there is currently a strong retail and business focus in Central Geelong there is strong competition from surrounding centres, including Pakington St (Geelong West), Belmont and Waurn Ponds.

An additional 132,500 square metres of floor space could be supported within Central Geelong by 2036. It is considered that this growth could be accommodated within existing zoned land with support for higher and more dense development.” (Appendix 2, p. 88)

Amendment C431 is accompanied by a “Land Use and Market Assessment Update” prepared by SGS Economics which suggests that of the 132,500sqm of retail floorspace by 2036, approximately 62,000sqm would be “shop” use.

Under the draft ACZ provisions, ‘Department store’ and ‘Supermarket’ land uses continue to be as-of- right in the retail core and require a planning permit outside of the retail core. ‘Shop’ land uses are as- of-right in any location where the ACZ applies.

We support the ‘Department store’ and ‘Supermarket’ land use permit triggers.

The retail core is the “primary” retail destination within the Geelong CBD as set out the draft ACZ provisions which at Clause 5.5-2 includes an objective to facilitate the precinct as the primary location for shops…”

Given the quantum of land that sits outside the retail core but is included in the ACZ, the number of large sites and the significant additional retail floorspace proposed over the next 15 years, we recommend that ‘Shop’ land use be as-of-right in the retail core, but require a planning permit for the balance of land in the ACZ above a threshold amount (for example, 500sqm). This approach would ensure the primacy of the retail core within the CBD is maintained, and avoid an outcome where there is disaggregation of shop floorspace in other parts of the CBD. The use of floorspace controls is a common approach in regional areas, noting that the Schedule to the Commercial 1 Zone enables such provisions to be included.

The permit trigger for the use would enable a decision to be made about whether the use was consistent with the purpose of the Zone and the range of policies that apply (including Clause 22.03).

This approach is consistent with the approach in other precincts where their dominant land uses have been accommodated in this way (with an as-of-right use for the core precinct, and permit triggers in the balance of the ACZ) – for example, medical centre use in the Health Precinct; office use in the Waterfront Precinct.

Page 13 of 15

Scentre Group Limited Level 30, 85 Castlereagh Street, Sydney NSW 2000 Australia +61 (02) 9358 7000

ABN 66 001 671 496 CPO Box 4004, Sydney NSW 2001 Australia

Summary

Conclusively, our submission proposes the following:

1. A review of the ACZ with a focus on creating enabling provisions for Westfield Geelong to create certainty with respect to the future implementation of the controls and confidence in future development and investment in the centre;

2. Deletion of the Master Plan and Plot Ratio requirements in the ACZ as they apply to Westfield Geelong;

3. Application of a Development Plan Overlay to the Westfield Geelong land and development of a Schedule to the Overlay that appropriately transfers the key qualitative outcomes for the site and precinct from the ACZ and construction of the Schedule to allow for performance-based outcomes;

4. Development of a threshold by which planning permits can be granted before a Development Plan has been prepared, and confirmation through the DPO Schedule that the Development Plan could be prepared in stages;

5. Clarification through the Planning Scheme as to the Responsible Authority for the approval of a Development Plan.

6. Deletion of the detailed design and built form requirements from the ACZ as they apply to Westfield Geelong;

7. Amendment of the ACZ to remove inaccurate and redundant provisions as they relate to Westfield Geelong; and

8. An amendment to ‘Shop’ land use to become a permit-required use outside the Retail Core where the floor-space exceeds an area of 500sqm;

The preparation of a draft Development Plan Overlay Schedule is underway and we would welcome the opportunity to meet with representatives from the Revitalising Central Geelong Partnership within DELWP to discuss this submission in more detail in advance of the Advisory Committee Hearing.

This submission does not otherwise limit or restrict our future representations to the Advisory Committee or expert evidence that is to be called.

We trust that the above submission is of assistance to the Advisory Committee in the consideration of the Amendment.

Yours sincerely,

Ric O'Connell

General Manager, Development & Asset Management

Scentre Group

Page 14 of 15

Scentre Group Limited Level 30, 85 Castlereagh Street, Sydney NSW 2000 Australia +61 (02) 9358 7000

ABN 66 001 671 496 CPO Box 4004, Sydney NSW 2001 Australia

APPENDIX A - PRELIMINARY PLANNING CONTROL AND SITE OPPORTUNITIES ANALYSIS

Page 15 of 15

Scentre Group Limited Level 30, 85 Castlereagh Street, Sydney NSW 2000 Australia +61 (02) 9358 7000

ABN 66 001 671 496 CPO Box 4004, Sydney NSW 2001 Australia

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 140 Committee

Full Name: Adam Montgomery Organisation: Raffles Chatter Gheringhap P/L Affected property: Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments: Hello, i would like to say First and foremost that i think its very important that all existing permits granted with height are honoured. Second, i think that the proposed changes to height limits are not warranted in Geelong. Geelong can cope with height moving forward in the CBD and should be allowed to grow based on market forces. I feel it it is more important to concentrate on well thought out designs to buildings rather than whether a building is 5 levels or 50 levels. Set backs are important but these need to be in context to a site size and scale, putting mandatory set backs across all sites etc doesn't makes any sense at all and seems like a road block to many sites ever being developed in the future. Kind regards Adam

Submission Cover Sheet Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 141 Committee

Full Name: Environment Protection Authority Victoria Organisation: Environment Protection Authority Victoria Affected property: Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49608 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet

7 July 2021

Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning Level 13 8 Nicholson St EAST MELBOURNE

Our Ref: 5011755

Attention: Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory Committee

RE: GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C431 - CENTRAL GEELONG FRAMEWORK PLAN

We refer to Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C431 currently available for public consultation on Engage Victoria.

EPA was not referred the proposed amendment under Ministerial Direction 19, but came across the matter of our own accord.

Our Understanding of the Proposal EPA understands the Minister for Planning has referred the draft Central Geelong Framework Plan (draft Framework Plan) and draft amendment to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme to the independent Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory Committee (the Committee).

EPA understands the amendment seeks to insert the draft Framework Plan into the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme and implement its findings.

Whilst the amendment includes various consequential changes, including the replacement of the existing Activity Centre Zone – Schedule 1 (ACZ1) to be consistent with the findings of the draft Framework Plan, of specific interest to EPA is the proposal to rezone land within the Residential Growth Zone 1 (RGZ1), Mixed Use Zone (MUZ) and Commercial 1 Zone (C1Z) land within the redefined draft Framework Plan boundary to ACZ1.

For this reason, the below comments focus on potentially contaminated land only.

Potentially Contaminated Land Given that this rezoning allows the land to be used for a sensitive use, agriculture or public open space the planning authority should consider whether any of the land within the precinct that meets the definition of "potentially contaminated land" under Ministerial Direction No. 1. Where land is potentially contaminated and the amendment would have the effect of allowing (whether or not subject to the grant of a permit) sensitive uses, the requirements of Ministerial Direction No. 1 must be met.

Although EPA does not have any specific knowledge of potentially contaminating activities that have occurred on the land, the amendment documentation does not appear to address Ministerial Direction No. 1.

To address this, the planning authority may undertake or commission an evaluation of the historical uses of land within the precinct to determine the potential for contamination for each parcel of land, consistent with Planning Practice Note 30 - Potentially Contaminated Land (DELWP, 2021). The potential for contamination assigned to each parcel of land should be used to inform the application of the Environmental Audit Overlay. Planning Practice Note 30 - Potentially Contaminated Land (DELWP, 2021) states: • The EAO is a mechanism provided in the VPP and planning schemes to ensure that requirements under Ministerial Direction No. 1 are met before the commencement of a sensitive use (or children’s playground or secondary school), or the construction or carrying out of any buildings and works associated with those uses. • Applying the overlay ensures the requirements will be met in the future but does not prevent the assessment and approval of a planning scheme amendment.

Whilst EPA does not object to the amendment and does not wish to be heard in support of our submission, in this case, EPA considers potentially contaminated land as a potential outstanding risk.

EPA recommends the previous uses of the land are considered to confirm whether land is potentially contaminated given the zoning allows sensitive uses to establish.

If our assessment is not aligned with your view of the environmental risk, or if the proposal is amended, please contact , Senior Planning Officer on 1300 EPA VIC (1300 372 842), or at [email protected].

Yours sincerely,

Nick Kennedy Planning Team Lead – Strategic (Acting) Major Projects & Planning EPA Victoria

Page 2

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 142 Committee

Full Name: Frances Diver Organisation: Barwon Health Affected property: University Hospital Geelong Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49555 Attachment 2: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49610 Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet

Ms Sarah Carlisle Chair Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory Committee

Via engage.vic.gov.au

7 July 2021

Dear Ms Carlisle,

Draft Central Geelong Framework Plan

Barwon Health is pleased to make the attached submission on the draft Central Geelong Framework Plan.

I note that a copy of the submission will be published on the Engage Victoria website.

If you have any questions in regard to the submission, please contact , Executive Director Strategy & Planning, on or

Kind regards,

Frances Diver Chief Executive

• Action 8.1.1 Review and update the Central Geelong Community Infrastructure Report 2017 to align with the objectives and outcomes of the Framework Plan, and an implementation framework to coordinate delivery partners (pg 70).

• Actions proposed to improve transport planning and pedestrian use: o Action 21.2.1 Upgrade streets to encourage people to walk around Central Geelong (pg 84). o Action 21.2.2 Manage the impacts of vehicles to maintain the amenity of streets in Central Geelong (pg 84). o Action 21.2.3 Provide a transport network and services that supports an increase of visitors, workers and residents in Central Geelong (pg 84).

• Strategy 23.4 Limit trucks on Ryrie Street to those that have Central Geelong as their destination, otherwise redirect trucks beyond Central Geelong (pp 94-6). Ryrie Street between Bellerine and Swanston Streets is an important link for Barwon Health staff crossing between facilities on the north and south sides of Ryrie Street and heavy traffic impacts on vehicular access to and egress from the Emergency Department.

Barwon Health notes: • On page 11 of the draft Framework Plan, the site to the north of Ryrie Street between Swanston and Bellerine Streets is identified as the Deakin University School of Medicine. This site includes a number of building including the Deakin University/Barwon Health shared Health Education and Research Building (HERB), Kitchener House (Barwon Health) and a number of other facilities owned by Barwon Health.

• The current PUZ3 zoning for hospital sites only applies to the east of Bellerine Street and to the Kitchener House/ HERB site (page 63). Barwon Health properties and facilities on the west side of Bellerine Street, including Building B, the adjacent carpark and the Outpatients Annexe are zoned as ACZ1. These facilities and properties operate as an integral part of the University Hospital Geelong and are key to the future planning and development of the University Hospital Geelong site. Barwon Health is keen to engage with relevant stakeholders including the City of Greater Geelong on the masterplan for Bellerine Street between Ryrie and Myers Street.

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 143 Committee

Full Name: Iain Dickson Organisation: Iproperty developments Affected property: 118 Corio St and 2 Hays Place Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49612 Attachment 2: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49613 Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet Aus-Global Projects Pty Ltd

Tel: mob: abn 17 615 020 249 email:

Submission to Geelong Framework Strategy Plan

118 Corio Street Geelong

Our Concerns

There is little evidence that the general public is concerned about building heights in Geelong. The action to change the strategy is primarily driven by Council and Delwp.

The Public are not marching in the streets as they have with other recent planning changes that have occurred in Williamstown.

This only 3 sites in a massive area and this is not even 1% of total CBD area, not really ‘an out of control’ situation causing the need for a total overhaul of the CBD area Activity Zone.

One should ask why is this happening and what is the justification for the change. Is it the need to correct the errors of the past or a desire to completely change the course of Geelong’s development.

A review of newspaper articles reveals the duplicity of the Delwp planners.

On the 9th Jan 2021 the lead storey in the local Geelong Advertiser stated the Victorian minister was flexing his powers to reign in the over development in the Geelong CBD by establish new planning controls. Any applicant will tell you that any building proposal over 4 storey’s is under the direct control of Delwp. You can only assume the minister has been misled by the department because all major over development approvals to date have been approved by the Delwp.

There is no evidence that the development is out of control apart from the 6 building that Delwp have approved 2 residential apartments built in an unrestricted height limit area in the west located near the railway station the acclaimed heritage development for the government NDIS building and which have been built and the 1-3 Hays Place development that is 14.3m past its height limit

The Delwp planners are not even adhering to the current controls they have in place and are giving planning approval for projects 14m in excess of the stipulated height limit.

For Delwp to claim planning is out of control is hypocrisy in its own right, because they alone control the scheme and have given these approvals.

The New Strategy

The proposed strategy change addresses some specific areas of unlimited development. But the net effect is history repeating itself, namely an over correction of planning policy.

1/4

Aus-Global Projects Pty Ltd

The speed of the change is also of concern because it is the very easy to make mistakes. This will immediately effect progress and future investment in the area. We don’t think the quick process change the controls is being done in an orderly matter with little publicity to general public, so only people ‘in the know’ will contribute. There is no consideration for a transition process for projects that are currently in design or under consultation with Delwp, with out a formal application being tendered.

We believe the strategy change is driven by a desire by Delwp planners to correct a mistake they made by encouraging unrestricted development in the CBD.

Our Journey

We initially contacted Council, then Dwelp about our site at 118 Corio St / 2 Hays Place in late 2017 prior to purchase to discover what we could do with development on the site.

Since purchasing the site in 2018 we appointed consultants and have negotiated with Delwp about development of the site.

Delwp advised we needed to present to the OVGA for a review of the proposal concept and design .

We’ve redesigned the building to meet the OVGA recommendations of the OVGA

We’ve discovered an adjoining site on the other side of the lane was given a permit in early 2020 while Delwp was considering our position and providing us with advice.

Information about the other site was clearly hidden from us, because the final approval was in excess of the 40 m height control.

To that end Delwp have deliberately stalled our process for an application on our site for some time while approving excessive development on another site.

Our next phase was to consider the adjoining impacts the approval at 1-3 Hays Place . so we reconsidered an number of proposals with a number of massing diagrams being submitted for consideration and mid October 2020 we participated in a zoom meeting to discuss the massing options of the building We correctly received a negative response on height and then a direction that 7 stories will be sufficient for this site.

This advice given was clearly directing us to this new strategy plan although there was no mention of this to us at this stage of our design process.

We find these tactics deliberately misleading especially since only months earlier approval had been given for an over zone height proposal at 1-3 Hays Place and Delwp were controlling planning and design by interfering and delaying our proposal toward their desired outcome than the guidelines rather than assessing the proposal against the scheme.

To date we have spent in the order of $150,000 trying to agree a plan of action and still we are trapped in a bubble of uncertainty. Certainty and pragmatism must rule here. If it doesn’t we will abandon the site.

The very concept of a planning scheme is to provide certainty for development because planners come and go and all have different ideas about how development should proceed. Once a planning scheme is released, improvements can and should be made but made incrementally and wholesale changes should be avoided particularly when continuity is required to continue to promote Geelong.

2/4

Aus-Global Projects Pty Ltd

There aren’t that many new buildings in Geelong to say Geelong has established sufficient economic momentum to continue with out a direct push with the current planning scheme. This change will halve building activity and negatively effect development momentum. Although the issued permits will still proceed at their approved heights and the process of a new strategy plan will be rendered ineffective because of the approvals in the pipeline.

So Delwp is gambling that a building downturn will result in approvals reach their expiry time limit in the hope the new strategy will be effective. Is this the wise move of experience or a just a passing phase? Will it last a term of government or be volleyed back only to create more uncertainty and confusion.

Other planning issues in Geelong are more important than building heights. Planning of the Moolap ‘Green Spine” concept which has failed and planning of the Traffic circulation through and around Geelong need more consideration. Businesses at street level are struggling even before the Covid downturn. The only bright point of activity is the foreshore and anything withing an initial block of the foreshore.

Having a CBD plan is different to a rezone od say a rural area where a wholesale change incorporates new uses and direction for the community.

Rather than huge change in strategy, we think gradual adjustment of the existing planning scheme zone is a better way to manage the process, e.g.; cap the height for un-restricted areas.

This would mean, controlling the rate of change in any one area to say 2 specific changes per year.

Consistency is the way forward

Alternative Options

Gradual amendment.

This is the most preferred method of changing a planning scheme where change is incremental in correcting anomalies and making improvements

Plot Ratio

In some ways we believe the core principle of the strategy is flawed and that is declaring a specific height limit. For his basically sets a development limit where every site will maximise its limit. While its intention is theoretically OK it just achieves a block area that is a set height.

This may be a return to the past but a more varied skyline will be achieved when development is controlled by a plot ratio. Popular years ago it was abandoned because it failed to address streetscape with adequate controls. Many buildings in the city were built as towers straight out of the ground, but corrected later when the 4-5 storey podium addressing street frontages were encouraged. It was a subtle improvement which enhanced the streetscape experience that happened over a 20 year period.

Plot Ratio control gives each site the option to be short and wide or tall and thin

3/4

Aus-Global Projects Pty Ltd

If everyone decide tall and thin was suited to their sites this would encourage vistas between buildings, sunlight penetration between towers and a varied skyline. Or if a mix of heights was the outcome there would be an even greater variation to the skyline vista

It was a concept that started with the ‘South bank’ precinct developed 30 years ago with the “landmark building and the corner of city Rd and Southbank Boulevard developed under a 7: 1 plot ratio with a bonus of 1 for an extra level if setback from the boundary. Obviously things have changed in terms of development there, over the subsequent 30 years but the changes have been incremental and are not drastic changes. I understand the most recent change to that site has seen a doubling of its height and size with an 8 storey extension.

We propose a plot ratio of 8 Gross or 7 Nett, be considered as a acceptable control for development of each site. Further enhancement of the plot ratio concept could be enhanced by incentivizing developers to build affordable social housing by giving a bonus plot ratio of say 1 if say 10% of nett lettable is used for this purpose or say a bonus of 2 depending on desired location if say 20% is used for affordable social housing. The bonus system could vary depending upon councils desire to encourage specific outcomes like office space apartments entertainment etc in certain areas. It still fits with the table of uses in the planning scheme, just prioritizes and encourages preference for more or less for one use or another in certain areas.

A simple site assessment in every CBD site could develop a better framework that a blanket height limit and we will submit drawings to show impact along the eastern section of Corio street at our presentation.

The Correction Proposal in response to 118 Corio Street

If there is a change to the planning strategy, it should also go hand in hand with corrective action on permits issued but not yet constructed.

The permit issued for 1-3 Hays Place at 60meters should be revoked and limited to the current building height limit of 40 m as it will have a dramatic overpowering presence against our proposed height limit of 21 meters.

If the permit cannot be revoked and the strategy change goes ahead then our site at 118 Corio and 2 Hays Place will be buried at 21 meters between sites that are taller, namely the 54.3 meter site at 1-3 hays Place and the Westfields East site at 28 meters and become the missing element in the set. We think this is unacceptable and is now an irregularity in the streetscape.

We offer an alternative to this and suggest that our site at 118 Corio and 2 Hays Place and all sites immediately adjacent to or with in 30-40 meters of the 54.3m meter high approval at 1-3 Hays Place become known as a transitional site and the height be set at an average between the two at 38.0m to show a gradual change in the street scape form.

Refer our concept plan showing streetscape along Corio Street. Attached.

In summary we think that the planning control should be set by a plot ratio based on site area to produce a more varied outcome.

If a plot ratio is too difficult to implement then gradual change is the better way to improve the desired outcome rather than opting for a new plan.

4/4

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 144 Committee

Full Name: Yvonne Yip Organisation: Deakin University Affected property: 1 Gheringhap St, Geelong Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49614 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 145 Committee

Full Name: Kim Graves Organisation: Tarita Giselle Nominees Pty Ltd Affected property: 46 - 44 Western Beach Road Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49615 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet Tarita Giselle Nominees Pty Ltd (ACN 005 250 199) Office: 10 Coonil Crescent, Victoria, Australia, 3144

Telephone: + 613 9509 1426 Mobile: Kim Graves 0417 058 146 7 July 2021 Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory Committee Planning Panels Victoria 1 Spring Street MELBOURNE VIC 3000

Dear Committee Members,

C431 / Central Geelong Framework Plan

Our company is the owner of 42-44 Western Beach Road, Geelong and by this correspondence makes its submission in relation to the Central Geelong Framework Plan and Amendment C431.

Our property, whilst not contained within a heritage overlay, is nonetheless in an area that is subject to limited change and redevelopment. We have seen, somewhat bewilderedly, the development of The Mercer to the rear of our neighbours’ properties and are of the view that it is entirely inappropriate that buildings of this size and presence be continued along Mercer Street/The Esplanade South. The outcome, if this was to be the case is the overshadowing of the residential amenity of our property and the neighbourhood, as it clearly has been for those in closer proximity to The Mercer. The evidence is undeniable.

Unaccountably and disturbingly, the Central Geelong Framework plan fails to give regard to the potential impacts of built form at the rear of Western Beach Road properties and is incongruous with the amenity of the existing precinct. We cannot help but wonder at the integrity of the planning process in the circumstances that, in our view, is yet another indication of the denigration of respect for individual property owners and the amenity of their neighbourhood and precinct. Controls on the individual seem to be sanctioned whilst those on the ‘big end of town’ seem not be. The evidence of this is to be found in The Mercer.

The maximum heights outlined in the plan unequivocally need to be reduced significantly, to better reflect a gradual step in the building form and height as you move from the waterfront toward the west. It is our view that the east side Mercer Street properties should have a maximum 4 storey height.

A height limited to 4 storeys will reduce overlooking, due to the reduction in the number of apartments on each site and reduce likely adverse noise impact, particularly in summer. Furthermore this will also minimise adverse traffic impact, a relevant amenity matter as our property relies on access from Mercer Street.

Consistent with the point made above we note that we have no rights for submission and appeal when decisions are made in this precinct. So be it as the will of our elected leaders. However, out of even a modicum of respect for individual property owners that do not have the resources of large enterprises but who live with the consequences (irrelevant to the developer) it is essential that lower maximum heights be set and enforced to ensure our property and our amenity is respected.

Yours faithfully,

Kim Graves Director Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 146 Committee

Full Name: Joe Organisation: Villegas Affected property: Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49623 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet Submission to the Central Geelong draft framework plan.

6th of June 2021

Knowledge and Enterprise District

The preferred maximum building heights in the Knowledge and Enterprise District are too restrictive. Realistically, these heights are not sustainable in the long term, and the framework should encourage this precinct to accommodate buildings with a height of 100m or more.

Geelong is the most viable regional city in Australia to take on the function of a major city by 2050. Height limits like these are not representative of Geelong’s ambition economic and cultural aspirations and could deter investment.

Further to the above, tall, and slender buildings can do more in the way of providing for open public spaces, as shorter buildings tend to occupy a wider site coverage. There is capacity to accommodate a taller in the Knowledge and Enterprise District, without comprising open space and views of the bay.

Improving the amenity on Moorabool St.

Moorabool St is rather under looked in the framework, given that it connects the Waterfront to the Kardinia Park, it should have a greater focus as a Civic Avenue.

Currently Moorabool St is of poor amenity in some parts. It is noted that the draft plan considers an additional Green Spine on Moorabool St (Action 23.3.1). However, at the very least, the beautification of the Moorabool St in the retail core should occur in the short term.

Moorabool St would benefit by imitating Swanston St Melbourne– by having wider footpaths, and ornamental trees creating a boulevard aesthetic. In addition to this, it is also time to reconsider the cliché Palm trees on Moorabool St and replace them with a combination of Native drought-resistant trees and other suitable ornamental trees.

Open Space

It is noted that this draft plan draws to the need for good open space. More consideration should be given to open space, and providing pocket parks in or around the retail core.

Closing Comments

Taking from the above, if Geelong is aspiring to be a key commercial and cultural centre, it needs to embrace taller and larger built form, especially in the Knowledge and Enterprise District. The current built form controls do not fully represent the ambitions of the city. The amenity of Moorabool St is quite poor, and the street is overdue for even the lowest degree of urban renewal. More consideration should be given in the framework to address this matter.

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 147 Committee

Full Name: Eric Allilomou Organisation: Property Council of Australia Affected property: Attachment 1: Refer to attachment Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet

The Property Council welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory Committee’s review of the draft Central Geelong Framework Plan.

Geelong is one of the fastest growing cities in the nation. As an attractive lifestyle destination with access to amenity, services, community infrastructure and transport, Geelong has become a sought-after location for residents and businesses alike. With some considering life outside of the Melbourne metropolitan area following the ongoing COVID-19 outbreak, Geelong is now presented with an opportunity to become a destination of choice for thousands of Victorians seeking an urban living alternative. As more people choose to live and work in Geelong, planning for growth is imperative to ensure a vibrant and liveable city for more Victorians.

Historically, planning has, on occasion, been perceived as a brake on inappropriate development or something which protects the community from “bad development”. We reject this notion. Rather, with precincts like Central Geelong, the role of planning is the exact opposite. Planning needs to enable good development and good design. Its role is to maximise the positive outcomes for Geelong in terms of social amenity but also, importantly, economic development. Inappropriate restrictions such as height controls that are not fit for purpose and overly restrictive overshadowing rules pose a risk to Central Geelong’s development potential and growth prospects.

This submission is informed by many of the Property Council’s key member representatives and expert committee members. In our response to the draft Framework plan, we refer throughout our submission to Central Geelong as a wider precinct. We note the Framework’s reference to inner precincts within Central Geelong.

The Property Council is the leading advocate for Australia’s property industry — the economy’s largest sector and employer.

In Victoria, the property industry contributes $45.1 billion to Gross State Product (12.4 per cent), employs more than 331,000 people and supports more than 400,000 workers in related fields. It pays more than $21 billion in total wages and salaries per year, employs one in four of the state’s workers either directly or indirectly, and accounts for 57.5 per cent of Victorian tax revenue.

The Victorian membership has more than 500 members. They are architects, urban designers, town planners, builders, investors and developers. These members conceive of, invest in, design, build and manage the places that matter most — our homes, retirement living communities, shopping centres, office buildings, education, research and health precincts, tourism and hospitality venues.

The Central Geelong Framework Plan should:

1. Reinforce the need for a robust growth plan given the strengths of the region; 2. Ensure strong population growth in the Geelong CBD to best activate it as a 24/7 precinct; and 3. Reconsider how strict height controls and overshadowing restrictions will limit economic opportunities in Geelong.

The Property Council supports the direction of the draft plan and its objective to help guide the development of Central Geelong for the next three decades. The focus of the Framework must be how it can underpin a robust plan for growth for Central Geelong and Greater Geelong as a whole. General trends in population growth, and the move away from Melbourne to the regions provides Geelong with a strong opportunity to supercharge its growth and harness the benefits of a growing population. As such, the Framework should ensure it is appropriate for the current circumstances and empower Central Geelong to provide residents and workers with the diversity of development required for a growing city. Key to the Framework should be consideration of ways to increase visitation numbers to Central Geelong. This not only involves increasing the number of people calling Central Geelong home, but also increasing employment opportunities for residents across the Geelong region.

To help achieve this, the Framework must ensure it seeks to deliver confidence to drive private investment in the precinct. Anchor industries such as medical, health and the education sectors can provide significant investment in Central Geelong and help attract residents and employees. The COVID-19 pandemic has also underscored the desire for investment in sovereign manufacturing capabilities, and this could provide an opportunity for Central Geelong’s economic development if innovative and advanced manufacturing industries are encouraged through the planning and design frameworks. At the core of this is the need to recognise the opportunity to rejuvenate Central Geelong as a precinct, and to

take advantage of economies of scale to attract investment and confidence in the development process.

The Framework should also seek to provide Central Geelong with the ability to curate an identity within the wider city precinct, that links up the separate components of the city effectively. The best precincts have a curated identity that give people a sense of place and tends to attract superior additional partners, tenants and long-term residents, allowing for stability of capital and maximising the economic performance of the precinct.

Further, the Framework needs to facilitate economic outcomes, but it also must maintain flexibility to maximise those outcomes. There is a genuine sensitivity that is required to balancing public interest with the ability of the private sector to determine the best outcomes. The focus and goal should be on how the private sector can be allowed to maximise value and amenity without compromising other social outcomes. Previous experience of the development sector has been that when governments dictate the precise mix of commercial activities that should occur in a precinct, for example, by nominating that a precinct must favour one industry rather than another, it can stifle development, lower the total economic output, create perverse incentives and limit the precinct’s chances of success.

The Property Council identified the factors that underpin successful precincts and how they can be best enabled through public and private sector strategic planning, policy, partnerships and engagement in its paper, Principles of Successful Precincts.1 Published last year, the paper outlined the key policy settings that enable the success of precincts and identified the common features of existing precincts that work well. The Framework should consider the recommendations of the paper to help enable Central Geelong as a precinct to power the wider economic success of Geelong as Victoria’s second city.

The paper identified key features that would be desirable to help achieve successful precinct policy, features which would be reflected by the Framework. They are:

• Maximum Flexibility: Precincts are often developed over several years. To ensure that precincts can evolve to meet the needs of the populations they intend to service, precinct development needs to be flexible and not fixed in a concept or sole use such

1 Property Council of Australia, Principles of Successful Precincts (2020).

as health or education. Enabling flexibility throughout the development period will ensure the precinct delivers value across the life of the project.

• Infrastructure Funding: Infrastructure is essential to underpin the development of thriving precincts, and as such stringent funding mechanisms need to be considered. Infrastructure needs to be delivered ahead of actual population or community need because it will service much broader catchments across established areas and not simply any population within a defined boundary. There should be specific funding for infrastructure in the precinct set aside and a mechanism by which developers can work with government on the right sort of transport connectivity to maximise internal rate of return for both the public and private sector.

• Contracting: Innovative funding models for infrastructure delivery including public- private partnerships and alliances contracts should be considered as well as traditional contracting to get the right outcomes.

• Early Identification of Return on Investment: There needs to be analysis and clarity about what level of density can be achieved for a site and what infrastructure investment is likely to be committed to by government prior to tender. If the infrastructure options are known (even as possibilities) prior to tender, the State will get better outcomes from the private sector.

• Creative Finance Agreements: Consideration should also be given to alternative financing models that shift thinking on value capture to value creation and long term economic and social benefits. This approach, which could be managed by a precinct authority, should consider revenue share models or long-term lease arrangements as well as freehold title arrangements.

Diversity of housing in Central Geelong will be at the core of Central Geelong’s ability to support a 24-hour community. As explored in Principles of Successful Precincts, where precincts only service one objective, such as an office market, there is an underutilisation of the area outside of business hours. Precinct environments rely not only on constant foot traffic, but the ability of those utilising the space to develop a connection with the environment. Residential communities cannot just work within the precinct; they must live there too.

Controls within the Framework must allow greater diversity of housing options, including the development of high-quality residential apartments. The inner-city lifestyle has attracted young, high-earning, professional workers to areas such as Southbank, South Yarra, and Richmond in Melbourne. There is an opportunity with the Framework to create a similar environment in Central Geelong. Further, Central Geelong provides downsizers and ‘empty- nesters’ with a compelling option due to the proximity to amenities and services. With the apartment market in Geelong likely to be owner-occupier driven, planning and design controls should be calibrated to enable investment and development of housing options appropriate to these types of consumers: two, three and four-bedroom apartments. Where restrictions serve to prevent the delivery of such housing, such as with inappropriate height limits and shadowing restrictions, they should be revised.

Allowing for a diverse range of high-quality housing options in Central Geelong will drive its ability to be a ’24-Hour’ city. The delivery of a 24-hour identity for Central Geelong requires consideration of the demographic of those utilising the environment and the ability of developers to be able to curate tenancies required to meet demand and the inclusion of significant residential development either within or proximate to the precincts. Precincts also need to include infrastructure that supports a lifestyle option.

The Framework must complement Geelong’s growth by creating the environment for appropriate development. We are concerned that restrictions relating to overshadowing and height limits will inhibit Central Geelong’s potential. The diverse range of development, employment, residential and otherwise, require flexible planning and design frameworks to enable the delivery of buildings suitable to the evolving and growing needs of the community. The housing needed to help grow Central Geelong’s population, a prerequisite to transforming it into a 24-hour city with similar ratio of population in the centre as comparable second-cities Wollongong and Newcastle, will need to be more than the eight-to-ten storey limits as detailed in the Framework. The stated aim to make Central Geelong a commercial and tourism hub will be further undermined by the restrictions that prohibit the full utilisation of land. In the case study overleaf, we detail how measures relating to height and overshadowing are already impacting a significant development in the Central Geelong precinct.

A planning permit application for a 13-storey hotel development was lodged with the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning in November 2020. A car park is located to the immediate south of the site off Little Ryrie Street. At the time of lodgement, all relevant strategic reports had been reviewed and there was no indication to those involved in the project that the car park was, or would likely to be, designated as future open space.

On January 7 Amendment C424GGEE to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme was gazetted by the Minister. This Amendment introduced, without any notice to affective landowners, several changes to the discretionary and mandatory provisions of the Activity Centre Zone Schedule 1 of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme. These include discretionary controls relating to building height (within some precincts) and setbacks as well as mandatory controls relating to wind impacts and overshadowing of nominated future open space.

The interim controls introduced varying discretionary requirements for built form including side and street setbacks but no change to the preferred building height to the Activity Centre Zone Schedule 1. However, the amendment nominated the Little Ryrie Street car park to the immediate south of the site as future open space (as well as several other sites throughout central Geelong). It introduced mandatory sunlight access controls that ensure no additional overshadowing of the entire car park area between 10am and 3pm at the winter solstice.

The application of these mandatory overshadowing controls (with no transition arrangements) significantly limited the viable development of the site. The drawings below depict (left) the original development, and (right) the development as required under the new controls. The development is now on hold, demonstrating the impact of height and shadowing restrictions on the development potential of Geelong.

We look forward to continuing to work with the Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory Committee on the Framework. We welcome the direction of the Framework as one that will mostly help underpin Central Geelong’s growth on the way to bolstering Geelong as a destination of choice. However, steps must be taken now to ensure restrictions that are not fit for purpose, such as the height and overshadowing restrictions, are revised before their detrimental impacts are realised and Central Geelong’s future as a vibrant precinct are jeopardised. A Framework that helps unlock Central Geelong’s potential will power Geelong’s growth and economy as it further establishes itself as Victoria’s second city.

If you require further information or clarification, please contact Eric Allilomou, Senior Policy and Media Advisor, on

Yours sincerely,

Danni Hunter Executive Director, Victoria

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 148 Committee

Full Name: Nick Clements Organisation: Up Property Pty Ltd c/- Tract Consultants Pty Ltd Affected property: 164 MALOP STREET GEELONG VIC 3220168 - 170 MALOP STREET GEELONG VIC 3220172 MALOP STREET GEELONG VIC 32202 POWELL PLACE GEELONG VIC 3220

Attachment 1: Refer to attachment Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet

Hon. Richard Wynne 26 July 2021 Minister for Planning Level 16, 8 Nicholson Street EAST MELBOURNE VIC 3002 via email: [email protected] & [email protected]

Dear Minister Wynne Submission – Draft Central Geelong Framework Plan Tract Consultants Pty Ltd acts on behalf of Up Property Pty Ltd in this matter. We are pleased to provide the following submission in relation to the recently released draft Central Geelong Framework Plan (the Framework Plan). Up Property is the owner and developer of a number of properties within Geelong’s Central Business District and wider Geelong. This submission relates to land known as 164-172 Malop Street and 2 Powel Place, Geelong (the Site) - refer attached OneMap Site Report for further details. Whilst Up Property does not yet own the Site, it is in active negotiations with the current landowner and expects contracts to be signed shortly.

Background

Up Property welcomes the release of the draft Central Geelong Framework Plan (draft Framework Plan) and the establishment of the Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory Committee to consider submissions. Overall, Up Property is supportive of the intent of the draft Framework Plan and associated planning controls. The work undertaken in support of the draft Framework Plan is extensive and detailed, including consideration of urban design issues, transport improvements and economic elements. We acknowledge the significant effort required to integrate this into the draft Framework Plan. The Framework Plan and proposed Schedule 1 to the Activity Centre Zone sets out the following design considerations of relevance to the Site. • Located in the Retail Core Precinct • Building height o Preferred maximum building height = 21 metres (medium low building height) o Preferred minimum floor to ceiling heights apply • Street wall o Preferred maximum street wall height = 12 metres o Street wall should be located on or within 0.3 metres of the front boundary, o Street wall heights adjoining a Heritage Overlay should retain the street wall height of heritage buildings (both where this is lower or greater than the preferred maximum height). • Street wall upper setbacks o For buildings equal to or less than 42 metres, 6 metre preferred minimum front setback above street wall height. • Building setback and separation requirements o Preferred minimum side and rear setback above street wall height:

Tract Consultants Pty Ltd ATF Tract Consultants Unit Trust Quality Endorsed Company ACN: 055 213 842 ABN: 75 423 048 489 ISO 9001: Licence No. 2095

39 Gheringhap Street, (03) 5221 0105 1 / 4 Geelong, VIC 3220 www.tract.com.au

o Preferred minimum side and rear setback below preferred street wall height where building is not within 300mm of a side/rear boundary:

o Increased where habitable window or balcony is proposed

• Building separation o For separate buildings within a site with an overall height of 42 metres or less, the preferred minimum separation is:

• Street activation and interface requirements o Retain Primary Pedestrian Link along the Malop Street interface and locate building services away from this area. o Provide weather protection (awnings/tree canopies) along Primary Pedestrian Links.

Tract Up Property_Submission – Draft Central Geelong Framework Plan 2 / 4

Submissions

1. Building Heights Up Property is generally supportive of the need to provide further clarity regarding buildings heights throughout all precincts within the central business district. However, we believe that in this case the Framework Plan appears to have specified preferred building heights based upon the size of the various land parcels, rather than broader strategic principals associated with the precinct. As we understand it, the current approach does not recognize opportunities such as there where the Site has combined smaller parcels to achieve greater development efficiencies. The Officeworks site to the immediate west is afforded a 28m preferred height limit, presumably simply on the basis of the scale of the singular land holding. Up Property submits that greater consideration should be given to the Site being identified as having a 28m preferred height limit, or at a minimum the Framework Plan should be reworded to recognise that greater heights can be achieved where smaller lots are consolidated. Indeed, incentives for site consolidation should be provided through the planning system to help catalyse development.

2. Building Setbacks The proposed Schedule 1 to the Activity Centre Zone provides for a complex arrangement of front, side and rear setbacks as well as building separation. The controls do not adequately address whether a six metre setback (above street wall height) would be applied to each street frontage, or would a designated “front” be determined? If the latter, how would the “front” be determined? In this circumstance, the Site has a number of street frontages. Where a 4.5 metre setback could be adopted for secondary streets that are not considered to be the “front”, it results in an unnecessarily constrained building envelope. Buildings with setbacks less than 4.5m can be well-designed and result in highly articulated buildings. The proposed setback guidance will impact on the ability to create design excellence and uniqueness in built form, instead resulting in a homogenous and repetitive built form outcome that is often referred to as ‘layer caking’. Additionally, Clause 4.4 that states that: “A terrace, deck or balcony should not protrude into the building setback requirements.” Up Property considers this control to be excessive and unnecessarily restrictive. We encourage DELWP and the Advisory Committee to explore the merits of the currently proposed approach to setbacks to examine alternatives before settling the final Activity Centre Zone schedule.

Tract Up Property_Submission – Draft Central Geelong Framework Plan 3 / 4

Conclusion

We look forward to the matters Up Property has raised in this submission being considered further by DELWP and the Advisory Committee in due course. Should you wish to discuss this submission further, please contact the undersigned on Yours sincerely

Nick Clements Principal Town Planer Tract

Tract Up Property_Submission – Draft Central Geelong Framework Plan 4 / 4

ONEMAP RATING

91.7%

ACCESS TRAIN - 1.04km

MULTI-SITE REPORT BUS - 290m MALOP ST, GEELONG CREATED ON 28-06-2021 MAJOR SUPERMARKETS - 630m

GOVT. PRIMARY SCHOOLS - 1.06km

GOVT. SECONDARY SCHOOLS - 880m

CBD - <50m

OPEN SPACE - 210m

FORESHORE - 380m

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CLOSEST GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL Geelong South Primary School (1.06km)

CLOSEST GOVERNMENT SECONDARY SCHOOL Geelong High School (880m)

SITE CONTEXT MAP

500 m

Leaflet | © OpenStreetMap contributors, © CartoDB, Geoscape Australia - Cadlite © 2021 - https://geoscape.com.au/legal/data-copyright-and-disclaimer/, © CARTO, Copyright © The State of Victoria, Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning, Copyright © The State of Victoria, Public Transport Victoria 2016 LEGEND

SITE BOUNDARY LAND USE TRANSPORT 400M RADIUS RETAIL TRAIN STATIONS 800M RADIUS MIXED USE BUS STOPS

OFFICE / COMMERCIAL TRAIN LINES

INDUSTRIAL BUS ROUTES

EDUCATION

OPEN SPACE FUTURE TRAIN STATIONS

FUTURE TRAM STOPS

FUTURE TRAIN LINES

FUTURE TRAM ROUTES MULTI-SITE REPORT MALOP ST, GEELONG - CREATED ON 28-06-2021

SITE PLAN AREA: 2,405.49M2

NO. OF PARCELS: 4

MUNICIPALITY: GREATER GEELONG CITY SUBURB: 48.1m

GEELONG 34.9m 20.2m SITE ADDRESSES 10.2m

164 MALOP STREET 17m 7.6m

GEELONG VIC 3220 30.5m

168 - 170 MALOP STREET 0.7m 26.6m

GEELONG VIC 3220 3.9m 20.2m 172 MALOP STREET GEELONG VIC 3220 2 POWELL PLACE GEELONG VIC 3220 PARCEL SPI:

4\LP207424, 3\LP207424, 1\LP207424, 1\TP961211 50 m MEDIAN HOUSE Leaflet | Nearmap, Geoscape Australia - Cadlite © 2021 - https://geoscape.com.au/legal/data-copyright-and-disclaimer/, Copyright © The State of Victoria, Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning 2017 LEGEND PRICE (SUBURB): $711K SITE BOUNDARY CONTOURS MEDIAN UNIT PRICE EASEMENTS (ACTUAL)

(SUBURB): EASEMENTS (PROPOSED)

$580K PARCELS

PROPERTIES MULTI-SITE REPORT MALOP ST, GEELONG - CREATED ON 28-06-2021

SLOPE MAP

50 m

0% - 2.5%

2.5% - 5%

5% - 7.5%

7.5% - 10%

10% - 12.5%

12.5% - 15%

15% - 20%

20% - 30%

30% + MULTI-SITE REPORT MALOP ST, GEELONG - CREATED ON 28-06-2021

PLANNING ZONES

ACZ1 ACTIVITY CENTRE ZONE GREATER GEELONG - ACTIVITY CENTRE ZONE - SCHEDULE 1

50 m

Leaflet | © OpenStreetMap contributors, © CartoDB, Geoscape Australia - Cadlite © 2021 - https://geoscape.com.au/legal/data-copyright-and-disclaimer/, Copyright © The State of Victoria, Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning PLANNING ZONES CURRENT AS OF 24/06/2021. LEGEND RESIDENTIAL ZONES SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT ZONES OTHER ZONES

RGZ - RESIDENTIAL GROWTH ACZ - ACTIVITY CENTRE SUZ - SPECIAL USE

R2Z - RESIDENTIAL 2 CCZ - CAPITAL CITY CA - COMMONWEALTH LAND

NRZ - NEIGHBOURHOOD RESIDENTIAL DZ - DOCKLANDS PZ - PORT

GRZ - GENERAL RESIDENTIAL / R1Z - CDZ - COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT RDZ1 - ROAD - CATEGORY 1

RESIDENTIAL 1 PDZ - PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT RDZ2 - ROAD - CATEGORY 2

R3Z - RESIDENTIAL 3 UGZ - URBAN GROWTH UFZ - URBAN FLOODWAY

LDRZ - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL ZONES PPRZ - PUBLIC PARK AND RECREATION

MUZ - MIXED USE IN1Z - INDUSTRIAL 1 PCRZ - PUBLIC CONSERVATION AND

TZ - TOWNSHIP IN2Z - INDUSTRIAL 2 RESOURCE

COMMERCIAL / BUSINESS ZONES IN3Z - INDUSTRIAL 3 PUZ4 - PUBLIC USE - TRANSPORT C1Z - COMMERCIAL 1 / BUSINESS 1 RURAL ZONES PUBLIC USE - PUZ1 - SERVICE & UTILITY /

B2Z - BUSINESS 2 RLZ - RURAL LIVING PUZ2 - EDUCATION / PUZ3 - HEALTH COMMUNITY /

C2Z - COMMERCIAL 2 RAZ - RURAL ACTIVITY PUZ 5 - CEMETARY / CREMATORIUM / PUZ 6 -

B3Z - BUSINESS 3 FZ - FARMING / RUZ - RURAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT / PUZ7 - OTHER PUBLIC USE

B4Z - BUSINESS 4 GWAZ - GREEN WEDGE A MUNICIPALITY BOUNDARIES

B5Z - BUSINESS 5 GWZ - GREEN WEDGE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY

ERZ - ENVIRONMENTAL RURAL

RCZ - RURAL CONSERVATION MULTI-SITE REPORT MALOP ST, GEELONG - CREATED ON 28-06-2021

HERITAGE AND BUILT FORM OVERLAYS NONE

50 m

Leaflet | © OpenStreetMap contributors, © CartoDB, Copyright © The State of Victoria, Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning, Geoscape Australia - Cadlite © 2021 - https://geoscape.com.au/legal/data-copyright-and- disclaimer/ PLANNING OVERLAYS CURRENT AS OF 24/06/2021. LEGEND

Heritage (HO)

Design & Development (DDO)

Neighbourhood Character (NCO)

Incorporated Plan (IPO)

Development Plan (DPO) MULTI-SITE REPORT MALOP ST, GEELONG - CREATED ON 28-06-2021

ENVIRONMENTAL AND LANDSCAPE OVERLAYS NONE

50 m

Environmental Significance (ESO)

Vegetation Protection (VPO)

Significant Landscape (SLO) MULTI-SITE REPORT MALOP ST, GEELONG - CREATED ON 28-06-2021

LAND MANAGEMENT OVERLAYS NONE

50 m

Erosion Management (EMO)

Floodway (FO/RFO)

Land Subject To Inundation (LSIO)

Special Building (SBO)

Salinity Management (SMO)

State Resource (SRO)

Bushfire Management (BMO) MULTI-SITE REPORT MALOP ST, GEELONG - CREATED ON 28-06-2021

OTHER OVERLAYS NONE

50 m

Specific Controls Overlay (SCO)

Airport Environs Overlay (AEO)

City Link Project Overlay (CLPO)

Development Contributions Plan Overlay (DCPO)

Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO)

Infrastructure Contributions Overlay (ICO)

Melbourne Airport Environs (MAEO)

Public Acquisition (PAO)

Parking (PO)

Restructure Overlay (RO)

Road Closure Overlay (RXO)

Other Overlays (OTHERS) MULTI-SITE REPORT MALOP ST, GEELONG - CREATED ON 28-06-2021

AREAS OF CULTURAL HERITAGE SENSITIVITY NONE

50 m

Leaflet | © OpenStreetMap contributors, © CartoDB, Geoscape Australia - Cadlite © 2021 - https://geoscape.com.au/legal/data-copyright-and-disclaimer/, Copyright © The State of Victoria, Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning CULTURAL SENSITIVITY CURRENT AS OF 24/06/2021. LEGEND

AREAS OF CULTURAL HERITAGE SENSITIVITY MULTI-SITE REPORT MALOP ST, GEELONG - CREATED ON 28-06-2021

GEOSCAPE BUILDINGS

50 m

90M+

75M - 90M

60M - 75M

45M - 60M

30M - 45M

15M - 30M

11M - 15M

8M - 11M

5M - 8M

0M - 5M MULTI-SITE REPORT MALOP ST, GEELONG - CREATED ON 28-06-2021

GEOSCAPE SURFACE COVER

50 m

Leaflet | Google, Aerometrex, CNES / Astrium, Cnes/Spot Image, DigitalGlobe, Sinclair Knight Merz & Fugro LEGEND

BARE EARTH

ROAD AND PATH

GRASS

TREES

UNSPECIFIED VEGETATION

WATER

BUILT-UP AREAS

BUILDINGS

SWIMMING POOL

CLOUD

SHADOW

Data Capture Dates: 24-Jun-2017 MULTI-SITE REPORT MALOP ST, GEELONG - CREATED ON 28-06-2021

GEOSCAPE TREE & OTHER VEGETATION

50 m

0 - 2M

2 - 8M

8 - 16M

16 - 24M

24 - 32M

32M +

UNSPECIFIED VEGETATION

TREES (UNKNOWN HEIGHT)

Data Capture Dates: 24-Jun-2017 MULTI-SITE REPORT MALOP ST, GEELONG - CREATED ON 28-06-2021

GEOSCAPE TREE COVER (KNOWN HEIGHTS)

50 m

0 - 2M

2 - 8M

8 - 16M

16 - 24M

24 - 32M

32M +

Data Capture Dates: 24-Jun-2017 MULTI-SITE REPORT MALOP ST, GEELONG - CREATED ON 28-06-2021

LEGAL DISCLAIMER

This document has been prepared by or on behalf of OneMap aus Pty Ltd 611 326 526 (OneMap) solely for the use and specific purposes of the person that exported it from the OneMap system (Direct Recipient).

This document should be used as a general guide only, and is not a comprehensive source of information in relation to the properties referred to. To the extent permitted by law, OneMap accepts no liability for any loss or damage you may suffer in connection with any reliance on this document and we recommend that you independently verify the currency, accuracy and completeness of information contained in this document.

This document may include content originating from parties other than OneMap (Third Party Content), including from the parties listed in any attributions in this document or in the table below. OneMap does not own any of the rights in the Third Party Content and is not in any way responsible for the currency, accuracy or completeness of such Third Party Content. Your rights to use such Third Party Content will be determined by the licence terms and conditions prescribed by the source of that Third Party Content.

This disclaimer must not be removed from this document or any other document that is created using information contained in this document. CORELOGIC - RP DATA GENERAL DISCLAIMER DATA ATTRIBUTION

Current Dataset Name Provider Attribution Licence as of Planning Zones The State of Victoria Copyright © The State of Victoria, Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning licence 24/06/2021 Train Stations / Lines The State of Victoria Copyright © The State of Victoria, Public Transport Victoria 2016 licence 22/11/2016 Tram Stops / Lines The State of Victoria Copyright © The State of Victoria, Public Transport Victoria 2016 licence 22/11/2016 Bus Stops The State of Victoria Copyright © The State of Victoria, Public Transport Victoria 2016 licence 22/11/2016 Smartbus Stops The State of Victoria Copyright © The State of Victoria, Public Transport Victoria 2016 licence 22/11/2016 Retail The State of Victoria Copyright © The State of Victoria, Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning licence 17/08/2015 Activity Centres The State of Victoria Copyright © The State of Victoria, Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning licence 17/08/2015 Woolworths Stores Dervied From Woolworths Data licence 07/11/2016 Aldi Stores Dervied From Aldi Data licence 07/11/2016 Coles Stores Dervied From Coles Data licence 07/11/2016 Supa IGA Stores Dervied From IGA Data licence 07/11/2016 Thomas Dux Stores Dervied From Thomas Dux Data 07/11/2016 Le Max Group Stores Dervied From LeMax Group Data 07/11/2016 About Life Stores Dervied From About Life Data 07/11/2016 Geoscape Australia licensed by the Properties Geoscape Australia - Cadlite © 2021 - https://geoscape.com.au/legal/data-copyright-and-disclaimer/ licence 17/03/2021 Commonwealth of Australia Easements The State of Victoria Copyright © The State of Victoria, Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning 2017 licence 24/06/2021 Median House Prices (June The State of Victoria Copyright © The State of Victoria, Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning licence 15/01/2020 2019 quarter) Median Unit Prices (June 2019 The State of Victoria Copyright © The State of Victoria, Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning licence 15/01/2020 quarter) Planning Overlays The State of Victoria Copyright © The State of Victoria, Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning licence 24/06/2021 Cultural Sensitivity The State of Victoria Copyright © The State of Victoria, Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning licence 24/06/2021 Geoscape Australia licensed by the Geoscape Australia - Geoscape Buildings, Geoscape Surface Cover, Geoscape Trees, Geoscape Addresses © 2020 - Buildings (PSMA Geoscape ) licence 10/04/2020 Commonwealth of Australia https://geoscape.com.au/legal/data-copyright-and-disclaimer/ Surface Cover (PSMA Geoscape Australia licensed by the Geoscape Australia - Geoscape Surface Cover © 2020 - https://geoscape.com.au/legal/data-copyright-and-disclaimer/ licence 10/04/2020 Geoscape) Commonwealth of Australia Geoscape Australia licensed by the Tree Cover (PSMA Geoscape) Geoscape Australia - Geoscape Trees © 2020 - https://geoscape.com.au/legal/data-copyright-and-disclaimer/ licence 10/04/2020 Commonwealth of Australia