Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory Committee Engage Victoria

Home , City of Geelong, City of Geelong West, City of South Barwon, Shire of Corio

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 59 Committee

Full Name: Andrew Mauderer Organisation: Affected property: Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49431 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments: I would like to object to the draft central Geelong framework plan. This plan severley devalues my property at ,and restricts the type of use of my property going forward. I have previously submitted and spoken with the council in regards to a development on my property at . They planning officer advised me that we should be increasing the height of the development to utilize the full extend of the regulations. Under this new draft this would now not be possible. Many building in close proximity are already exceeding these new height restrictions.(ST JOHN OF GOD HOSPITAL,RYDGES HOTEL ETC) We are being discriminated against with this new draft proposal. I purchased this property in 1998 because you were able to build to approx 10 stories on this site,and that is where the value of this property lies. If the council want to hamstring future development of central Geelong the council need to compensate people like myself for the difference between the value of our property with a full development as opposed to the greatly reduced development potential being proposed. I have already invested a considerable amount of time and money in relation to design of a building, drawing and consultation with architects and builders,to slowly move towards the redevelopment of our site. I am submitting the plans that were discussed with council and ask to note that we object strongly to this draft Geelong framework plan and ask that we as a city don't move forward with this framework proposal as it hinders the cities future property and development. Andrew Mauderer

Submission Cover Sheet

FRONT VIEW REAR VIEW

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 3D VIEWS Job No 15065 36-38 Lt Ryrie Street Geelong MASSING RENDERS SK04 P1 28.5.15 Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 60 Committee

Full Name: Mary-Jane Walker Organisation: Affected property: Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49460 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet

SUBMISSION TO DRAFT CENTRAL GEELONG FRAMEWORK PLAN 6 JULY 2021

DR MARY-JANE WALKER THE SCHOOL OF LOST ARTS 221 NOBLE STREET NEWTOWN www.theschooloflostarts.com.au

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………………………………..3 MY BACKGROUND/PERSPECTIVE ………………………………………………………………………..4

BIOPHILIC DESIGN ……………………………………………………………………………………………….5 - PRECEDENTS …………………………………………………………………………………………… 7 - GEELONG’S POTENTIAL …………………………………………………………………………….8

THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF BIOPHILIC DESIGN FOR GEELONG …………………………10

HOW BIOPHILIC DESIGN WILL ADDRESS THE CENTRAL GEELONG DRAFT FRAMEWORK PLAN’S KEY OBJECTIVES ……………………………………………………………….11

SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS TO DRAFT CENTRAL GEELONG FRAMEWORK PLAN …………………………………………………………………………………………..11

CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………………………………………………….16

SUBMISSION TO DRAFT CENTRAL GEELONG FRAMEWORK PLAN 7 JULY 2021 DR MARY-JANE WALKER, THE SCHOOL OF LOST ARTS

INTRODUCTION Geelong is a wonderful city with incredible potential but it stands at a crucial stage in its development. The Central Geelong Framework Plan outlines the strategy to guide the city up to 2050. As such, it holds the key parameters that will determine just how liveable the city will remain and in particular whether the city will embrace its full potential. It is my belief that for this to happen, the Framework Plan needs to include a much greater emphasis on guiding the overall design of the built forms and their settings so that they combine to deliver a destination biodiverse and green city that will attract and retain the people the planners seek for work, lifestyle, commerce and tourism. To do this the Central Geelong Framework Plan needs to mandate designs that exhibit specific properties that are known to enhance human wellbeing. Biophilic Design fulfills this role and provides a well-documented, established series of design principles which guide the design of buildings and the urban environment to deliver optimum health and wellbeing through direct and indirect connection to nature. The whole future survival of urban ecosystems depends on this connection, which is vital for our mental and physical health. This has been proven over many decades of research globally. It is increasingly being recognised by cities internationally as the way forward to a vibrant, healthy and sustainably economic future. It does this while still allowing freedom for interpretation and in the range of design outcomes. I believe that the Framework Plan also requires a real and binding urban greening policy which mandates not only a much greater percentage tree cover but also requires buildings to include green roofs, walls and plantings and biophilic design elements as an integral part of their development. This is a once in a generation opportunity, which if missed, will diminish the experience and potential prosperity of Geelong for a long time to come, possibly forever. It will also fail to address the reality of the urban environmental challenges we are facing this century through loss of biodiversity and climate change and issues such as the Heat Island Effect These are real, pressing and hugely costly if ignored. This focus requires great leadership, long term vision and a real belief, as I have, that this city can take its place as one of the great green cities of the world, becoming a sought-after destination for work, life and commerce and tourism. We have the model for this, one of the world’s most commercial but attractive destinations, our sister City of Design, Singapore, also a biophilic design city. Other cities close to us, Freemantle W.A and Wellington N.Z are also already biophilic cities and embracing its potential.

MY BACKGROUND/ PERSPECTIVE I have been a Geelong resident for the last 12 years. My family and I moved here to restore and re-activate one of the city’s most historic houses and gardens. My own background is cross disciplinary encompassing both a Ph.D. in the science of Genetics but also work as a professional artist, designer and founder of the Geelong based business The School of Lost Arts. I am the co-founder of the Melbourne based marketing strategy consultancy, Circ Consulting and have also worked at the London Design Centre focusing on innovation implementation. I am one of the City of Greater Geelong Design Week Curatorial Team and on the Working Group for the UNESCO Cities of Design Subnetwork Meeting later this year. Up to this year, when the internal structure changed, I was also a member of the Audience and Engagement Committee of the Geelong Gallery. My interest in the future of Geelong in the current context is particularly about creating the optimum urban ecosystem for the health and wellbeing of all residents. This includes recognition of the other species with which we share this environment and which contribute to its long-term biological health and its sustainable future. There is enormous opportunity in this perspective on urban design, creating a city which will stand out globally. This focus comes not only from my training as a biologist but also from my background as an artist and educator and in particular my understanding and research into the role of biophilic design. This is the international design movement that recognises our fundamental need to connect to nature and its use of key principles for the design of the urban environment. For the past five years I have been promoting the importance of biophilic design, particularly for Geelong’s future, through events together with the Live+Smart Lab at Deakin University and over 40 other key stakeholders, including hosting events during Geelong Design Week. I have conducted presentations to conferences, corporate partners and property and planning organisations. These events together have generated a large amount of buy-in from the community and successful international exposure for our city. They demonstrate to me the great desire that Geelong’s residents and others have for this city to craft a unique future which embraces these ideas.

BIOPHILIC DESIGN Biophilia means literally the love of life, a term originally made popular by the biologist E.O. Wilson in the 1980s. Since then, interest in this concept and its application to how we live has grown enormously with extensive studies around the world to have proven its vital importance to our mental and physical health. When we think about changing the way we live in cities, the idea of biophilic design takes this innate love and harnesses it to create better homes, workplaces and schools. Living in an urban 21st century environment does not have to mean being cut off from nature and all it has to teach us. Other cities around the world are crafting a different future, both more biophilic and more sustainable in the way they are designing their built environment. Briefly, biophilic design takes this connection to nature which comes from our innate biology and uses it to create design principles which we can apply. There are a number of ways of looking at these key design patterns but for simplicity I outline them thus:

Firstly, we can think of our Experience of Nature which is simply our direct visual connection to say plants and animals or our non- visual connection such as when we use our other senses like touch, smell or hearing like when we smell a eucalypt leaf or hear a bird calling. These experiences are very important to us. These patterns can be applied in cities through biodiverse multi-layered street plantings and in buildings through green walls, plants, and green roof terraces.

Green walls and biophilic design for greater productivity

The other patterns in this grouping include how we sense the temperature, the movement of air, as well as access to water and natural light. Being able to open a window to feel a breeze or having sunlight fall on our desk makes a huge difference to our wellbeing and is also proven to increase productivity.

The second group can be thought of as The Feeling of Nature. These are those elements which affect our perception of the space we are in. The prospect or the view that we might have, the sense of refuge or mystery we experience when entering a space, such as not being able to see all of a room at once. Even the slight feeling of risk we feel if we enter a building across stepping stones. These also are readily translated into a home or office

Metro Rail Design Melbourne, Dr Philip Roos, Deakin University

The third way is in the Imagination of Nature. This is when we copy nature’s designs, shapes and colours, using them in art, furnishings or the design of buildings. Using natural materials such as wood or stone or making our environment visually complex and interesting. We did not evolve to live inside a white box! Even digital images of nature have been found to be helpful.

Use of natural materials enhances wellbeing

All these different ways tap into what we feel inside when we are immersed in the natural world but make those feelings still accessible every day even in a city.

A biophilic designed school full of natural light, colour, wood and stone set in visually rich and biodiverse gardens will enrich concentration and learning.

A workplace with cosy refuge areas and windows that open for air. That has views enriched by plants or access to a space outside will be both more productive and less stressful.

A hospital ward with views to lush gardens, trees and water as well as internal finishes that include timber and natural materials results in quicker recovery rates and enhanced healing. Biophilic Design improves wellbeing and has measurable economic benefit

BIOPHILIC DESIGN

PRECEDENTS Singapore This city is probably the best example of a vibrant, commercial economy and tourism destination that champions Biophilic Design to achieve these goals. It has done this through firstly creating interconnected parks vis nature corridors which also facilitate cross-city human transport. This is particularly important as they increase the biologically viable ecosystems through interconnection of habitats while enhancing liveability. In doing so Singapore has both doubled its population while increasing tree cover to nearly 50% In addition, since 2009 Singapore has utilised its Landscaping for Urban Spaces and High - Rises (LUSH) to include green infrastructure in high density settings, as shown here:

KAMPUNG ADMIRALTY, SINGAPORE AN INTEGRATED PUBIC HOUSING AND AGED CARE CENTRE AWARDED WORLD BUILDING OF THE YEAR 2018

Wellington, New Zealand Wellington has been a member of the Biophilic Cites Network since 2013. The city, which aims to be both biophilic and liveable, has adopted a Living City plan with three goals. Firstly to increase its natural capital, secondly both to transform its ecoomony while reducing environmental impact. Lastly, to show leaderdship in this space. One of their most interesting initiatives has been the Wellington Nature Map which inspired my creation of THE JOURNEY OF EXTRAORDINARY ENCOUNTERS for this year’s Geelong Design Week. This Biophilic Design event activated by an interactive map shows the potential of biophilic design to activate the city. It was visited by over 650 people during Design Week including 10% accessing it from overseas via my website. (www.theschooloflostarts.com.au)

Freemantle W.A Freemantle joined the Biophilic Cities Network in 2018. Freemantle is a city not unlike Geelong in its history, location and population size lying close to the capital, Perth. It is crafting a unique future, however, through strong alignment with biophilic principles to diferentiate itself from its close neighbour and to enhance the quality of life for its residents. This is an important exemplar for our own city. Like the City of Greater Geelong, Freemantle Council is a One Planet Council and as such it must ensure that ‘the ten One Planet Principles are embedded across the organisation and the community” ( Bioregional.com ) These are supported by its commitment to being a Biophilic City

GEELONG’S POTENTIAL By embracing the opportunity of becoming a Biophilic City, Geelong will bring together several of its existing commitments which can then be incorporated into the Draft Central Geelong Framework Plan. The City of Greater Geelong is already a One Planet Council so has a commitment to adhere to the ten One Planet Principles. It also has an Environment Strategy Action Plan 2020-2022 whose goals are stated as: GOAL 1 Become a zero-emission, climate-ready city and region GOAL 2 Create greener community spaces GOAL 3 Contribute to a circular economy by reducing waste GOAL 4 Protect, enhance and restore our region’s biodiversity GOAL 5 Achieve better integrated water management through planning and design

These goals require an overarching commitment to deliver on their ambitions. The new actions listed in this Plan are far-reaching and in its own words require: “Complete environmental assessments and use planning control processes to identify, protect and manage existing biodiversity values and identify new opportunities for nature reserves. Periodically review corporate strategies and plans to check they’re supporting this goal. Complete environmental assessments and use planning control processes to identify, protect and manage existing biodiversity values and identify new opportunities for nature reserves.” Periodically review corporate strategies and plans to check they’re supporting this goal. Uniting all these different commitments together with the Draft Central Geelong Framework Plan is possible by using a commitment to an overarching Biophilic Design approach and

Biophilic City designation. This will allow a coherent delivery of both the development and environmental goals of all these plans. Biophilic Design brings them all together in a way that will ensure the city we see in 2050 delivers as a place which people will want to live in and will be responding to the huge environmental challenges we are facing. The stated aim of 25% tree cover listed in both the Urban Forest Strategy and the Draft Central Framework Plan is inadequate to deliver real benefit and it is urgently recommended to be increased to 40% as adopted by other Local Government areas including Melbourne and Sydney. This will be necessary to reduce the health risks associated with the Urban Heat Island Effect as the planet warms. Interconnecting parks and creating wildlife corridors facilitates cycling and walking and increases Central Geelong foot traffic and real economic benefits for retail. Mandating the requirement of all developments to have green infrastructure and biophilic design principles will facilitate these outcomes.

The Draft Central Geelong Framework Plan’s key aim states: ‘Central Geelong must continue to attract high quality employment and services that would otherwise not come to the region’ Geelong developed as a globally recognised Biophilic City will deliver this goal

THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF BIOPHILIC DESIGN SOME KEY BENEFITS FOR GEELONG

• GEELONG BECOMES A DESIRABLE, RECOGNISED BIOPHILIC CITY TO ATTRACT AND RETAIN PROFESSIONALS TO EMPLOYMENT IN HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SERVICE SECTORS DRAWN TO ITS VALUES AND LIFESTYLE

• GEELONG RECOGNISED GLOBALLY AS A BIOPHILIC CITY BECOMING AN ENHANCED TOURISM AND DESIGN DESTINATION As part of the 40 UNESCO Cities of Design most of which are now ‘greening their Centres’ we have an obligation also to lead in this space We are charged to: ‘build safe, resilient, sustainable economies through clever design, creativity and innovation. As part of the 116 UN Creative Cities Network, we are also committed to the UN Sustainable Development Goals

In its 30-year Clever Creative Future Plan Geelong pledges: 'By 2047, Greater Geelong will be internationally recognized as a clever, creative city region that is forward looking, enterprising, adaptive and cares for its people and environment

• GREATER TREE COVER TO REDUCE URBAN HEAT ISLAND (UHI) EFFECT AND IMPROVE CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE Dept of Industry Innovation and Science Report 2019 estimates that the value of moving from no mitigation to mitigation of UHI effect through greening of urban areas is $1,541/household

In Geelong with 131,977 households = $203,376,557 in value The Greener Spaces Better Places puts Geelong at the more vulnerable end of its scale when examining all Local Government Areas for the Urban Heat Island Effect (2017)

COGG committed in its 2020-22 Environment strategy Action plan to ‘Review urban heat and vulnerability assessments periodically to inform priority community space greening projects.’

• INCREASE IN RETAIL VALUE WITH VEGETATED STREETS IN CENTRAL GEELONG Retail Benefit using the COGG Retail Strategy Tracked Changes Report 2019 and Retail Turnover Density as a metric In Geelong = $126,428,572 for 25% higher sales value with vegetated streets (Cabanek, Zingoni de Baro and Newman (2020), Sustainable Earth Vol3)

HOW BIOPHILIC DESIGN WILL ADDRESS THE CENTRAL GEELONG DRAFT FRAMEWORK PLAN’S KEY OBJECTIVES OVERALL RECOMMENDATION: BIOPHILIC DESIGNED BUILDINGS AND GREENER STREETS THESE WILL PROVIDE A GEELONG THAT IS:

• Connected to Place • A Lifestyle City • A city for education, innovation, arts and design • A health, wellness, injury prevention and recovery city • A sports, tourism and events city • A living city with housing choices • A national, state and regional centre for services • A centre for design excellence

A BIOPHILIC CITY DESIGNATION AND DESIGN COMMITMENT WILL DELIVER THESE OBJECTIVES

SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS TO DRAFT CENTRAL GEELONG 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 Action 1.2.1 — Implement the recommended and refreshed built form framework contained In the Urban Design Framework. Add requirement for green walls, roofs and biophilic design in built forms

Objective 3 - Strengthen Central Geelong as a state significant precinct for health, wellbeing and recovery Strategy 3.2 Position Central Geelong as Australia’s premier health and social insurance cluster Action 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 Include biophilic design requirements for all buildings in this precinct to deliver the known health benefits and to position the Health Precinct as a World Leader in this field Attracting the best people in the field to the region.

Objective 4 - Develop Central Geelong into Australia’s leading regional centre for education and life- long learning Actions 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 and 4.4.1 Recognise that Geelong already has a Biophilic Design centre of excellence in its Deakin University Live+Smart Lab. Mandating a biophilic vision for the city will attract world leading research, academics and students in all disciplines

Objective 5 - Support the development of Geelong as a clever and creative city through increased business investment and local employment opportunities Strategy 5.2 Champion Central Geelong as a centre of design excellence and a clever and creative economy Biophilic Design, sustainability and the Circular economy are part of the world-wide design movement to tackle our environmental challenges through clever design. As a UNESCO City of Design Geelong needs to embrace these directions. Investment is flowing in these directions globally. Strategy 5.5 Support the adaptive reuse of vacant commercial space for employment uses Include directions for use of vacant land for pocket parks, as connectors for wildlife corridors and urban farming

Objective 6 - Develop Central Geelong as a vibrant hub for retail, hospitality, arts and culture Strategy 6.5 Activate Central Geelong’s laneways and provide new commercial opportunities Green streets, biophilic extensions to the Green Spine will encourage vibrancy and superior experience. Green laneways will stimulate pedestrian usage and retail turnover and alternative transport options as well as provide shade and increase tree cover. Strategy 6.6 Support the development of Central Geelong as the arts and cultural heart of the region Around the world arts and culture are responding to the environmental challenges of our time. If we do not also, we will be left behind. Positioning Geelong as a ‘green’ city will attract high level arts events and practitioners.

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

Strategy 7.1 Position Central Geelong as Australia’s leading regional destination for business events and conferencing

Strategy 7.2 Support opportunities to increase the diversity and quality of visitor experiences

Action 7.2.1 If Geelong is to become a national and international destination, becoming a biophilic city will be a key way to attract visitors. An internationally recognised design strategy of connection to nature will deliver these aims. Include these goals and biophilic design in the Destination Masterplan. International exemplar : SIngapore

Objective 9 - Facilitate well designed, sustainable and accessible residential development that provides for a diversity of housing choices Strategy 9.2 Encourage the development of an interconnected network of liveable, accessible, and vibrant neighbourhoods Action 9.2.1 Include biophilic design and greening objectives as the Innovative Initiatives to deliver the goal of liveable neighbourhoods

Objective 11 - To ensure the building scale and form supports the preferred land uses and character of Central Geelong and its emerging precincts Strategy 11.2 Ensure built form facilitates the preferred character of Central Geelong and its precincts Action 11.2.1 Include mandating greater tree cover and biophilic elements in building designs will deliver a unified character

Objective 15 - Protect the amenity of key existing and proposed public spaces, streets and laneways from overshadowing and wind impacts Strategy 15.1 Protect public open spaces, such as the station forecourt, public parks and plazas, from overshadowing throughout the year

Action 15.1.1 Include mandating greater tree cover and biodiversity considerations such as joining of spaces to create wildlife corridors to increase amenity and interconnectivity

Objective 18 - Ensure a high-quality interface between buildings and the street at ground level and those levels seen by pedestrians to activate the street, reduce the impact of vehicle access and the visual impact of building services on the public realm Strategy 18.1 Introduce specific controls to ensure high-quality interfaces between buildings and the public realm

Action 18.1.1 Include biophilic design patterns and increased greening to create the desirable types of active frontages and public realm interfaces.

Objective 19 - Ensure buildings respect and celebrate the designation as a UNESCO City of Design by demonstrating a sense of their natural setting, sensitivity to heritage buildings, and high levels of sustainability and architectural merit Strategy 19.1 Encourage buildings and spaces that are ‘designed with Country’ in mind, meaning that they include natural elements and particularly the cultural landscape of the area Strategy 19.2 Encourage sustainable buildings which are designed using green rating tools, include green energy and/or water sources and reduce the urban heat island effect

Action 19.3.1 Mandate natural elements in all developments, including biophilic design patterns in addition to green rating tools. Increase tree cover to 40% to mitigate Urban Heat Island Effect

Objective 21- Ensure movement and transport supports the city’s prosperity, activity, and amenity Strategy 21.2 Ensure transport network and services contribute to the liveability of central Geelong

Actions 21.2.1 ,2.,3. Add provision of green corridors for walking and cycling and biodiversity in upgrade, improving amenity and supporting greater attraction of visitors and residents in Central Geelong and connecting it to surrounding suburbs.

Objective 22 - Increase transport choices and options to travel to Central Geelong Strategy 22.4 Improve walking connections to Central Geelong

Strategy 22.5 Improve cycling connections to Central Geelong

Actions 22.4 and 22.5 As Objective 21 above

Objective 23 Create a clear street hierarchy within Central Geelong that connects to key destinations and reduces through traffic

Strategy 23.1 Apply a street network hierarchy for freight, vehicles, pedestrians, public transport and bicycle riding to provide clear objectives for each street in the network and prioritise infrastructure improvements

Action 23.1.1 Mandate Street network hierarchy to include the concept of nature corridors as arteries for biodiversity as well as walking and cycling transport at the inception of hierarchy research and as a vital element of the transport plans

Strategy 23.2 Deliver all stages of the Malop Street Green Spine to connect Johnstone Park to Eastern Gardens Action 23.2.1 and Action 23.2.2 Strategy 23.3 Add a north-south Green Spine to complement the east-west Malop Street Green Spine Action 23.3 and Action 23.3.1

The Green Spine shows how bringing nature into the centre of the city can create the heart of Central Geelong. It provides a key window into the potential for a biophilic designed city. Finishing the existing planned sections and using these as the core from which all nature corridor/walking and cycling links radiate out will activate the city bringing all the visitor and activity the Plan seeks to attract.

Objective 24 - Improve the public realm and preference pedestrian amenity All Actions

A biophilic designed Geelong will deliver all the improvements that are listed in this Objective. Bringing nature back into the heart of Central Geelong will improve not only the health of all works and residents but provide the evolving experience that will ‘surprise and delight visitors’ as listed as a key objective. This will also provide a key marketing tool for the city as an international destination city. Biodiverse nature corridors criss-crossing the city will activate the space and encourage people to explore the city as desired.

Objective 27 - Deliver high-quality urban spaces that promote social interaction and are engaging, safe, attractive and welcoming spaces for all Actions 27.1.1.and 27.1.2

Extensive research over many years has proven the benefits of Biophilic Design in public spaces that enhance safety and enhance social interaction and recreation as well as reflecting the natural history of Geelong. Biophilic cities such as Singapore have shown that mandating a nature-full city and

encouraging central population growth are not mutually exclusive but can achieve commercial aims with a higher quality of life in urban areas.

Objective 30 - Deliver environmental improvements and respond to climate change

Action 30.1.1 Delivering the full recommendations of the City of Greater Geelong Environment Strategy 2020-2030 if vital. Key policy recommendations such as open spaces, tree planting, biodiversity preservation and blue/green infrastructure must be mandated. Also consider an urban significant tree register to map all trees to be retained. Institute preservation plan to prevent all new developments removing key established trees, working with developers to create alternate biophilic designs that incorporate trees. Strategy 30.3 Provide trees in streets and other publicly accessible spaces, and encourage tree planting in private open spaces To counteract the Urban Heat Island Effect tree cover needs to be increased to a minimum of 40%. Provide education and resources for private landholders to increase biodiversity plantings and tree cover. Consider plans to use nature strips for biodiversity native grass plantings to aid green corridors.

Actions 30.4.1-3 Develop the Green Spine as the core from which nature corridors radiate out across the city delivering a green ecosystem within Central Geelong.

CONCLUSION The Draft Central Geelong Framework Plan is a unique opportunity to craft a visionary future for our city. As a UNESCO City of Design, this is a once in a generation opportunity to step into that UNESCO designation and lead, crafting an overall design vision for our city and shape its built environment. If this Plan seizes the opportunity offered by embracing Biophilic Design as an overall guide for how the city looks and functions then Geelong can truly become a world leading city. A destination for visitors; a centre for health and education which is informed by the environment in which the city sits; a vibrant commercial centre; a desirable workplace. A city recognised for its overall design and which people will increasingly seek out as a place to live. As planners you have that opportunity right now. Embrace that future vision of Geelong. By doing so the city will ensure not only the long-term health and wellbeing of all its citizens, brought about by that connection to nature but also deliver a biodiverse, sustainable and environmentally resilient place for future generations.

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 61 Committee

Full Name: Caroline Moore Organisation: Affected property: Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments: We are concerned about the potential of destroying positionality of historic properties in the cultural precinct and Western Village precinct. IE being consumed by large built up structures.

Submission Cover Sheet Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 62 Committee

Full Name: Allan Wilkins Organisation: Affected property: Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49464 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet I object to the aspect of the Draft Central Geelong Plan in regards the proposed freight movement. If trucks are restricted from using Ryrie St, the nearest Draft Plan alternative east- west route is McKillop St. It could be assumed that McKillop St would therefore have more than it’s fair share of extra trucks. McKillop St is manifestly unsuitable for large volumes of freight traffic. 1. The street is largely residential and extra trucks with the attendant extra noise and pollutants would have a detrimental effect on the health of residents.

The Draft Plan envisages the south side of McKillop St as a Growth Residential area but would still have perhaps THE major East-West freight route run alongside this residential development. Residential areas should not be next to major freight routes.

2. The adverse effect of diesel pollutants on young children is well documented. There is a primary school and a day-care centre in McKillop St. Children at these centres would be exposed to a higher risk from pollutants if extra trucks used the street.

3. The very short stretch of McKillop St between Latrobe Tce and the railway line presents as a potential disaster if multiple long trucks are turning left from Latrobe Tce. and the boom gates are down.

4. McKillop St houses both the Fire Station and the Ambulance Station. If many large vehicles were using this road it is feasible that emergency vehicles could be slowed in responding due the inability of large vehicles to clear a path.

5. The relatively narrow (for a truck) road lanes combined with parallel parking along the length of McKillop St have a potential danger. This is obvious at the Gull Bus Depot which has constant traffic and pedestrian movements. The extra width of trucks makes alighting from cars hazardous.

6. Despite the recently implemented traffic calming measures, trucks using McKillop St to travel to Portarlington Rd will be tempted to continue down McKillop St to Boundary Rd instead of using the designated route via Ormond Rd. The eastern end of McKillop St is particularly unsuitable for extra trucks. Unlike the Vicroads controlled western end, the Council-controlled eastern end was never constructed for heavy vehicles.

7. The Cemetery is at the eastern end and when funerals are held there is on- street parking in McKillop St where potentially distracted drivers should not be sharing the road with trucks.

8. Also at the eastern end is the Eastern Hub. Clients with disability as well as many elderly patrons use this facility. Many need to cross McKillop St as pedestrians to access the building. Extra trucks would only exacerbate an already hazardous experience. Eastern Hub also has a Child Minding Centre and extra trucks in this part of McKillop St would add extra risk to the children’s welfare.

9. Planners would like to see a reduction in the number of trucks in Ryrie St. I believe there is just as strong a case for a reduction of freight traffic in McKillop St, not the increase that will happen if this Draft Plan is implemented. Alternative truck routes further from the city centre need to be established, not merely pushing trucks from one street to create issues on another street.

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 63 Committee

Full Name: Adrian Muller Organisation: Affected property: , Geelong Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments: In reviewing the Central Geelong Draft Framework Plan, a number of concerns were raised with regard to the proposal to approve development of a significant number of buildings in the range of 12 to 18 storeys in height in very close proximity. The development that has occurred within the Geelong Waterfront and Educational precinct has been well planned and executed to date, and is in keeping with the philosophical approach to maintaining the character of a country town. That said, I am strongly of the opinion that an over saturation of medium to high rise development of similar proportions in a distinct localised area will detract from the visual appeal of the precinct. Both the Miramar and Mercer buildings, whilst aesthetic in their own right, are significantly imposing on the Geelong foreshore skyline. In isolation, I believe these buildings to be feature, however have concern that this appeal will be eroded should a multitude of similar height buildings be constructed in adjacent positions. The unappealing nature of the Gold Coast comes to mind. Of greater concern would be the overshadowing effect. As construction of the Miramar and Mercer buildings progressed, it quickly became evident how far reaching the shadow effect extended across the broader Geelong West and Newtown suburbs. Obviously this impact would be magnified should the proposal to construct similar height buildings along the majority of Mercer St through to the Gordon be approved. There is also significant concern regarding the wind tunneling affect that would be generated by the closely built structures. Furthermore, the height of the structures will significantly limit natural light within the precinct itself, having an adverse affect on both the local building residents, and the general public who are currently drawn to the area. The risk of developing dark, damp, cold environs is obvious and of great concern. The successes of well planned development areas such as Noosa, for example, where the context of the local environs has been strongly considered in executing a planning strategy, and should be embraced in the final development framework. I strongly encourage the Committee to duly consider the before mentioned aspects when assessing and providing recommendations for Planning approval of the final Central Geelong Framework Plan.

Submission Cover Sheet Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 64 Committee

Full Name: Wayne Freedman, Organisation: Estate of Stanley Abe Freedman Affected property: 5-11 Mercer Street, Geelong; 2-6 Ginn Street, Geelong; 4 Saddlers Lane, Geelong Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49468 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet

Draft Central Geelong Framework Plan and Proposed Planning Controls

I am the Trustee for the Estate of Stanley Abe Freedman, under which the properties at 5 - 11 Mercer Street, Geelong; 2-6 Ginn Street, Geelong; and 4 Saddlers Lane, Geelong are owned. These properties are currently in Activity Centre Zone 1 and Knowledge and Enterprise Precinct. I notice that the properties, including 17 Mercer Street, Geelong along Mercer Street, Geelong, up until Gheringhap Street, Geelong are also included in the Knowledge and Enterprise Precinct.

I am putting forth this objection to the new preferred maximum height restrictions that are proposed for my properties under the Draft Central Geelong Framework Plan and Proposed Planning Controls.

I am referring to Section 3.2 Knowledge and Enterprise Precinct, Page 25 from the Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory Committee Engage Victoria:

Precinct Objectives –

To encourage campus form of medium (28metres) to medium tall (42 metres) building heights

On the next page, page 26, the preferred maximum building height for my above properties is listed as 21m (6 storeys) yet one road, Ginn Street, Geelong separates my properties from a maximum preferred height of 28m (8 storeys). I feel this is very unfair and I will be objecting strongly to this unfair disadvantage to my properties. Diagonally across the road from my properties in Mercer Street, Geelong the preferred maximum building height is 60m (15-18 storeys). This is grossly unfair, as what is suggested under this Framework Plan for the height difference of 21m (for my properties) to 60m (diagonally across the road,) as people entering Geelong will see huge bulk buildings on one side and it is so uneven on one side of the road only.

As there are no preferred heights in place along Mercer Street, Geelong, surely the suggested building restrictions on height that are suggested to be put in place over the above properties is grossly unfair of my rights as an owner. Maximum heights can be exceeded as a discretionary control and I would be using this control for one of my objections.

The property at 2-6 Ginn Street, Geelong is set back from Mercer Street and sits behind 17 Mercer Street, Geelong, which is a double storey building, plus there is a laneway behind this property before you reach the 2-6 Ginn Street, Geelong properties. The proposed preferred height limit for 2-6 Ginn Street, Geelong is 21 metres (6 storeys), yet all that separates these properties from the one across the road at 21 Mercer Street, Geelong is a road and their preferred height limit will be 28 metres (8 storeys). Surely this would tell you that this is totally unfair and restrictive.

As 2-6 Ginn Street, Geelong does not front Mercer Street, Geelong, then if 28 metres was allowed for this property, it would not be out of place as you enter Geelong because it is set back from Mercer Street, Geelong .

Properties on the other side of Mercer Street, Geelong are allowed to have a preferred height of 60 metres. Surely these buildings will be high and bulky and driving into Geelong why should one side of the street be penalized when the other side is given full advantage of many more metres in height.

In closing, why could we not have a consistency situation, where a uniform height of say 40 metres for both sides of Mercer Street, when The Miramar has a height of 71 metres, and is 32 metres from Mercer Street in Cavendish Street.

The Mercer Apartments has a height of 50 metres, and as you say if you want people to live in Geelong, you would certainly need to raise the heights limits to adequately accommodate the proposed development of the precinct.

In closing I would like to quote from the Senior Engineer building the world’s biggest dam in China at a cost of $15 Billion in 1990’s (which would equate to in excess of 250 Billion in todays terms) - “IF YOU WORRY ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT THEN NOTHING IN THE WORLD GETS BUILT”.

Wayne Freedman, For the Estate of Stanley Abe Freedman. C/- , Geelong, 3220

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 65 Committee

Full Name: Barbara Fewings Organisation: Barbara Fewings Affected property: Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments: Draft Central Geelong Framework Plan. Objection to proposed density and height of Deakin Car Park and surrounding area development. Immense effect on amount of sunshine, over shadowing, wind tunnels, increased traffic and pedestrian danger. Heights and Density should be limited.

Submission Cover Sheet Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 66 Committee

Full Name: John K Goodfellow Organisation: This submission is on behalf of the 105 signatories as well as the Owners Corporatio Affected property: Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49493 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments: This submission is on behalf of the 105 people who have signed the petition as attached as well as on behalf of the Owners' Corporation Committee. The chairman of the Committee is Mr Peter Kirman and I am a member of the committee. The wording of the petition that has been signed is as follows. PETITION We, the undersigned, express our extreme objection to proposed height changes foreshadowed for development of the Deakin carpark site as per the information in engage.vic.gov.au/CGFPAC We also object to the new proposal for the height changes to 1-3 Cavendish St and 62 – 64 Western Beach Road. For these proposals, we strongly feel that with the loss of sunlight, the overshadowing of adjoining residences, the loss of privacy with one tower looking into another tower, that we will be severely and adversely impacted by this change to height allowances. Very importantly the creation of unacceptable wind tunnels with create a huge detriment to amenity and also create a huge safety concern for all the residents in the area. Our concerns are essentially about the complete disregard for the amenity of the people living in the Miramar as well as people living in nearby houses. Our concern is that the Miramar is could now be completely surrounded by buildings of 20 storeys or more. This raises very serious concerns about such things as 1. The creation of completely unacceptable wind tunnels on all four sides of the Miramar. 2. The removal of very significant sunlight to every side of the Miramar Building affecting practically every resident. 3. A possible severe over crowding of this part of the Geelong foreshore precinct with resulting traffic congestion etc. 4. According to the plans published, a complete disregard of the magnificent heritage building on the corner of Cavendish St and Western Beach Road. I have discussed this proposal with many of those who have signed the petition and I have the full support of the Owners' Corporation Committee and I look forward to making a presentation to the Committee. I thank you for the opportunity in advance.

Submission Cover Sheet

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 67 Committee

Full Name: Rohan Gow Organisation: Dimmick Nominees (Vic) Pty Ltd Affected property: Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49495 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 68 Committee

Full Name: Robert Abbey Organisation: Affected property: Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49496 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments: The purpose of this submission is to strongly object to the proposed “Central Geelong Framework Plan and Proposed Planning Controls.” Specifically, my comments relate to the South Geelong Urban Design Framework described in pages 39-54 of the subject document. Contrary to the statement in the proposed plan, crime will increase, not decrease. There have been several academic studies on this point. The higher the density of housing, the more crime. References can be provided. To suggest that more people will be looking out their windo3wws and crime will decrease is too naïve and contrary to the facts Additionally, the sheer mass of all the buildings will destroy the character of Geelong, not enhance it. To increase the appeal of Geelong, efforts should be concentrated on improving the CBD, not moving businesses away! The South Gelong neighbour is one of single and double storey houses in a pleasant and calming environment; the proposed project would significantly degrade the area. As one says, “build better, not bigger!” Traffic and people congestion will increase dramatically, and another Waurn Ponds will be created between there and the CBD – simply not needed, unless the purpose is to increase the profits of greedy builders! These would be reasons for people NOT to come to Geelong, but rather avoid it, similar to the purpose of the building the M1 around Geelong! Dr. Robert Abbey Geelong, VIC 3220

Submission Cover Sheet The purpose of this submission is to strongly object to the proposed “Central Geelong Framework Plan and Proposed Planning Controls.” Specifically, my comments relate to the South Geelong Urban Design Framework described in pages 39-54 of the subject document.

Contrary to the statement in the proposed plan, crime will increase, not decrease. There have been several academic studies on this point. The higher the density of housing, the more crime. References can be provided. To suggest that more people will be looking out their windo3wws and crime will decrease is too naïve and contrary to the facts

Additionally, the sheer mass of all the buildings will destroy the character of Geelong, not enhance it. To increase the appeal of Geelong, efforts should be concentrated on improving the CBD, not moving businesses away! The South Gelong neighbour is one of single and double storey houses in a pleasant and calming environment; the proposed project would significantly degrade the area. As one says, “build better, not bigger!”

Traffic and people congestion will increase dramatically, and another Waurn Ponds will be created between there and the CBD – simply not needed, unless the purpose is to increase the profits of greedy builders! These would be reasons for people NOT to come to Geelong, but rather avoid it, similar to the purpose of the building the M1 around Geelong!

Dr. Robert Abbey

Geelong, VIC 3220 Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 69 Committee

Full Name: Julie Elkin Organisation: Affected property: Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments: The preferred height limits in the strategic plan surrounding my address will cause a great deal of wind turbulence in the surrounding streets. The heights will also cause shadowing of the building and the surrounding streets. The overshadowing plans only allow for certain sides of some streets to preserved - this is not great for residents in these streets. All residents deserve to have access to the sunlight. It may also be that we are looking into other apartments which is not ideal. The amount of traffic associated with the increased use of the area will contribute to the already dangerous intersection at Eastern Beach Rd/ Malone St and Cavendish St. The original plans for the convention centre were to be five or six storeys - now it is permitted in the strategic plan to be up to 12 storeys. This may have affected my decision to purchase in the area if this was known beforehand. The amenity of the area will be severely diminished being surrounded by 60m buildings. The heritage value of the building on Malone st will be lost if surrounded by high rise residential buildings. Overall, the amount and height of preferred building in this precinct seems out of proportion to area, so close to the waterfront precinct.

Submission Cover Sheet Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 70 Committee

Full Name: Jacinta Begley Organisation: Western Waterfront Pty Ltd Affected property: , Geelong Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments: We consider this to be a key strategic development area along the Geelong Waterfront and have future visions of putting a hotel on our site, with the proposed Convention Centre next door. Our plan would be to build the hotel large enough to service the ongoing demand generated by the Convention Centre, whilst also providing hundreds of jobs to local tradespeople; business to local suppliers during construction, and finally employment to many hotel employees post completion. May we please request that we be kept up to date with any amendments and further developments that take place relating to this Framework Plan.

Submission Cover Sheet Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 71 Committee

Full Name: Craig and Nicole Porte Organisation: Affected property: Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49508 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet Dear Committee members,

Response to Central Geelong Framework Plan

We live on which has become the short cut for people travelling to the Bellarine Peninsula. We have regular inconsiderate speeding drivers at all hours of the day and night using Garden Street so the suggestion of having as a tourist route which will increase traffic in a residential area is disappointing.

The proposal of a tourist route along Western Beach, Eastern Beach and contradicts objective 3 of the Central Geelong Framework Plan: Transport Strategy of reducing through traffic. The streets around the waterfront, particularly Eastern Beach Road, Swanston Street, Fitzroy Street and have become regular ‘rat running residential streets’ with people travelling through Geelong to the Bellarine Peninsula trying to avoid traffic lights thus using these residential streets with no care for residents and pedestrians as speed limits are often ignored. Making it a tourist route will increase the already heavy traffic load resulting in the area losing its appeal as a place to relax. These residential streets are not made to carry this load of traffic as some of the roads are narrow, some of the land topography leads to poor vision for both motorists and pedestrians and most of the streets are filled with all day parking spaces. We often witness motorists towing horse floats, large boats, and caravans along this route, I cannot imagine the traffic jams if tourists were encouraged to use these streets as well.

Pedestrians trying to cross the road at Eastern Beach Road, Fitzroy Street or are forced to risk their safety as none of these roads have marked pedestrian crossings and motorists rat running through the streets have no regard for pedestrians trying to cross the roads. We regularly walk from our residence to the waterfront precinct and retail precinct, and we have on several occasions almost been hit by motorists speeding, ignoring traffic signs, or driving on the wrong side of the road. Considering these streets are all frequented by residents, commuters, and school students nothing has been done to provide safe street crossings to date.

The suggestion of a parking hub at Eastern Gardens would have negative impact on traffic congestion and pedestrian safety in the area as it is too close to the centre of Geelong. Parking hubs around the edge of the city would make more sense and a good example is Cambridge in the UK where free parking on the city limits is provided with a small fee for the bus into the city centre.

Further, the proposal of a tourist route along Western Beach Road, Eastern Beach Road and is outside of the study area of this framework and therefore an additional plan would need to be undertaken to consider this proposal.

We would urge you not to proceed with the tourist route proposal as it would destroy the amenity of the waterfront area.

Kind regards

Nicole and Craig Porte

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 72 Committee

Full Name: Giulia Baggio Organisation: G21 - Geelong Region Alliance Affected property: Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49513 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet

G21 notes that the City of Greater Geelong council, as the relevant local government body, has made a substantive and technically detailed submission to your committee. In supporting the City of Greater Geelong’s submission, G21 is taking regional perspective.

While enthusiastically welcoming the creation of a Central Geelong Framework Plan, G21 cautions that the final plan must not overlook, nor play down, the strong links and relationships between central Geelong and the wider region.

General observations

Eight central Geelong precincts

G21 supports the creation of eight planning precincts within central Geelong and feels that the boundaries and focus of each of the proposed precincts is both intuitive and appropriate. The designation of precincts will benefit the orderly planning of the city, providing clear guidance to developers and planners.

G21 and others have successfully lobbied for Geelong to become a specialist public and private sector injury, wellness and recovery insurance hub. This hub (incorporating TAC, WorkSafe, NDIA and GMHBA) sits comfortably beside Deakin University’s waterfront campus and key corporate, finance and service businesses within the ‘Knowledge and Enterprise’ precinct. The addition of a proposed Geelong Convention Centre to the precinct will further enhance its credentials.

The concept of a ‘Waterfront’ precinct is welcome to maximise the natural asset that is Victoria’s only truly north-facing major waterfront, making it a natural amphitheatre to Corio Bay. There are already many impressive developments and uses along the waterfront, however the potential of this precinct has yet to be fulfilled.

Opportunities to sensitively develop the Waterfront Precinct will undoubtedly benefit central Geelong and the region more generally. This might include increased public access to the area surrounding the Royal Geelong Yacht Club, expanding water-based tourism opportunities and exploring synergies which will emerge with the Spirit of Tasmania’s relocation to Corio Quay from 2022. While Wadawarrung design and culture should feature across all of the central city, it should be expressed particularly strongly in this precinct with its high volume of visitation.

G21 welcomes recognition of the residential nature of the ‘West Village’ precinct. We support retention of its residential use to maximise the availability of housing close to Geelong CBD, while protecting the precinct’s existing historic and architectural character.

Geelong is fortunate to have two established hospitals and many allied medical services. Recognising this through designation of the ‘Health’ precinct acknowledges the precinct has unique access and traffic management needs and the diversity of its visitors’ needs.

The ‘Station’ is an obvious precinct. It will take on a more important focus as proposed faster train services to Melbourne are introduced in coming years and as central Geelong’s residential population grows. G21 welcomes plans to encourage visitor accommodation in the precinct, given its close proximity to the CBD. G21 emphasises that the quality and style of development in this precinct must be managed carefully to create an inviting, distinctive, well-connected gateway to the city.

Residential

The draft plan’s encouragement of increased residential opportunities within, or near, to central Geelong is welcome. The energy and activity of residents socialising, shopping, exercising and taking part and pride in their community will provide the essence of a vibrant and lively central city. A permanent population will drive business opportunities and deepen the character and currency of central Geelong.

G21 welcomes plans to increase inner city residential development through infill opportunities, and encourages this approach in tandem with, if not ahead of, the opening of further corridors of growth out from central Geelong.

G21 especially welcomes recognition of the need to incorporate social, affordable and worker housing within central Geelong, or within close proximity. The current affordable housing shortage within Geelong and the wider region needs to be tackled on multiple fronts, including in inner city areas where higher density can be achieved.

G21 acknowledges the strategy work already underway by the City of Greater Geelong in this regard. That work forms part of a wider regional social and affordable housing strategy being developed by G21 and its other member councils and community organisations. It is clear from this work, that Central Geelong can play a significant role in providing good quality social and affordable housing.

Integrated transportation

Effectively integrating public transport across a geographically diverse G21 region has long been a conundrum for governments and transport bodies. The current ‘spoke and hub’ model of intra-region public transport focuses largely on the bus network hub in central Geelong.

This model is unlikely to change in the short-term and inevitably presents ongoing management and accessibility challenges for central Geelong and the wider region.

G21 acknowledges the draft Framework’s supporting document: “Central Geelong Framework Plan: Transport Strategy” (2021). We note however, that the success of a transport plan for central Geelong will be inextricably linked to the success of transport strategies across the region.

The draft Framework Plan references the Transport Network Plan which has not been endorsed by the City of Greater Geelong Council. Among other matters, that plan does not acknowlede the proposed Bellarine Link as the long-term solution to removing unnecessary freight trucks from Central Geelong, nor does it adequately address matters around McKillop Street and various level crossing treatments.

G21 notes the draft Framework Plan has as Action item [21.1.1 on page 84] to “Update transport plans to reflect the network hierarchy and strategies contained in the Central Geelong Framework Plan.”

In this regard, G21 is well advanced in sourcing government funding to develop a comprehensive integrated transport management strategy for the entire G21 region, in association with state government agencies, G21 region councils and other bodies. G21 believes that traffic treatments within Central Geelong are inextricably linked to transport issues across the region. G21 flags this initiative in an endeavour to ensure appropriate coordination and to eliminate duplication. It is intended that this strategy would be completed in 2022.

G21 supports the draft Central Geelong Framework Plan’s objective of reducing car traffic within central Geelong, in favour of improved and better integrated public transport options and improved walking and bike pathway options.

However, this transition needs to be carefully managed, with appropriate education processes, in tandem with public transport service improvements. This approach will only become truly viable when public transport offers a much more comprehensive network across the region.

In the meantime, a solution to the positioning of a public transport bus interchange within the central Geelong remains crucial to the long-term success of the Framework Plan’s approach and the viability of central Geelong. The current Moorabool Street interchange is problematic and impacts badly on the amenity of the area.

Furthermore, in a similar vein, G21 is disappointed that the draft Framework Plan does not adequately address the Geelong railway station’s role as a hub to rail and bus services across the G21 region. Nor does it acknowledge adequately the future impacts of fast rail, nor a potential rail connection with Avalon Airport, on Central Geelong.

While G21 notes and generally welcomes the intention to reduce car traffic in Central Geelong in the longer-term, we caution against being too hasty on the expressed intention to reduce car parking spaces in some precincts, in favour of public open space. This must be managed carefully and in association with the City of Greater Geelong which controls such parking.

Any reduction in car parking should occur only once regional public transport options to central Geelong are significantly improved. G21 cautions against any move that might discourage visits to central Geelong while public transport remains a less-attractive option than cars.

Major road links

Although not within the central Geelong geographic area, several major road linkages will be crucial to the Central Geelong Framework’s successful implementation.

Moving trucks out of the CBD is necessary to ensure central Geelong becomes a friendlier and safer environment for pedestrians and cyclists. The solution will almost certainly require significant infrastructure road investment in alternative road options.

Once again, the success of the Central Geelong Framework will be inextricably linked to major future developments, such as the Bellarine Link, connecting the Geelong ring road across the Bellarine.

Likewise, the upgrade to major arterial roads linking Geelong to centres like Ballarat and Bendigo will indirectly improve central Geelong’s attractiveness as a cultural and leisure destination for people outside the region.

People and lifestyle

G21 welcomes an emphasis on developing an attractive lifestyle for those people living in and visiting central Geelong. In this regard, G21 supports the draft Framework’s prioritisation of improved bicycle and walking paths.

We note bicycle path projects are already advancing under the auspices of the City of Greater Geelong, connecting the Barwon River to the Corio Bay waterfront via the new Civic area. This will be an important north-south link to open up the city area and encourage greater use of the bay and river frontages.

G21 also supports the continued development of the Malop Street Green Spine which will ultimately provide a safe east-west pedestrian and cycle option from the Botanical Gardens through to Gheringhap Street and Johnstone Park. This development will encourage access to central Geelong’s gardens and parklands.

As a general observation, the draft Framework Plan is largely focused on physical forms and structures. These are important. However, there could be a greater focus on the human elements necessary to make central Geelong a caring and sharing community. The need to encourage not-for-profit and charitable entities and pursuits is crucial.

UNESCO City of Design

G21 is pleased that the draft Framework recognises Geelong as a UNESCO City of Design which brings with it an expectation of high-quality design and construction, especially of major public sector developments.

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 73 Committee

Full Name: Lyn and Carl Norton Organisation: Affected property: Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments: To The Committee We object to the proposed amended height of any structures built on the north side of Smythe Street Geelong due to the shadows of such buildings that would have an adverse effect on the dwellings and residences opposite. We also believe protection of the Waterfront character needs to be a priority, with staggered heights of proposed modern structures being no greater than what is current. A gradual minimal increase in height of buildings from the foreshore (Western Beach Road) to the central CBD would enhance and be more appropriate to the character of our City of Geelong and the historical aspect of Geelong. We do not want visitors to our city to have their first viewing of Geelong as a concrete jungle as they travel along our modern developed waterfront precinct. Sincerely Lyn and Carl Norton

Submission Cover Sheet Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 74 Committee

Full Name: Janine Morrison Organisation: Affected property: Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments: About 15 months ago my husband and I moved into our Waterfront apartment in the 'Miramar' complex. We were assured that while moderate sized building might take place on our East side (the current Deakin University carpark) we could not be built out on the north side due to heritage properties. We also are concerned about the apparent 'overbuiiding' that this plan allows in terms of increased traffic and congestion on the waterfront, as well as possible shadowing of the shoreline which we had also been informed would be controlled.

Submission Cover Sheet Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 75 Committee

Full Name: Jonathan Morrison Organisation: Affected property: Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments: This statement is in regards to the Knowledge and Enterprise precinct. We were sold our apartment in Miramar with the information that the view to the water could not be built out. There is a heritage listed property in Malone St. My belief is that other properties in the area between Malone and Miramar could not have a big enough footprint to go beyond 5 levels. More importantly, placing many high rise buildings in a cluster, such as is being considered for this precinct, is potentially a very unsafe scenario. Buildings in Sydney are currently going through issues of structural damage due to having the foundations affected by neighbouring projects digging deep into very closely surrounding properties. None of us want to see that happen. The Miami collapse is another reminder of too many high rise buildings in close proximity. From a visual point of view, creating a 'Gold Coast' where all the buildings cut out the afternoon sun is not a good look. That this proposal is seeking to do so in a patch of the greater Geelong city seems quite crazy. I do understand that there will be new developments occurring in my neighbourhood at some stage. All that I am asking is that each is placed and developed with absolute certainty to the safety of my current situation, and that each is placed and developed with no impact upon the greater community need for daylight, especially at Western Beach.

Submission Cover Sheet Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 76 Committee

Full Name: Steve Mirkovic Organisation: Affected property: Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments: It seems that bike lanes and multi story developments are key to this plan. I'd like to add that encouraging cycling as a means of transport is a good thing but it is not practical and simply will not work where ppl are travelling large distances. Painting a few roads green and planting a few trees on a major thoroughfare is not the answer (Malop St) Firstly, this so call green spine with millions spent and I dare say millions more will be spent is currently an eyesore with not much thought gone into the design and practicallity, eg planting of trees that would be better suited for a bush setting and dining on the sidewalks which hasn't really been the case. The traffic along Malop St is chaos at peak times and brougham St is now a detour because of this and it's suffering as the road surface is terrible with all the extra traffic it needs to carry. Some sort of bypass needs to be looked at for residents East of the city as it is a growing area and bike lanes will not rectify this unfortunately. A bridge over the bay perhaps to Point Henry? Yes there are issues involved, shipping channels and the bay but the city is the only way to access through traffic to the Bellarine suburbs. More thought need to go into traffic management whether we drive electric cars or something else in 20 years time we will still have the problem of traffic management. When visitors come to Geelong City they comment on the waterfront precinct and that's about where it ends as there is not much else that sticks out in all honesty having lived here myself for 50 years.

Submission Cover Sheet Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 77 Committee

Full Name: Shirley Ogle Organisation: Affected property: Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49519 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory Committee

Planning Panels Victoria

1 Spring Street

MELBOURNE VIC 3000

I own the property at , Geelong and am lodging a submission to the Central Geelong Framework Plan Amendment C431.

My concerns are:

The possible height of a new structure at close proximity to my house. Although the height limit in my area shows 9 storeys, the wording states that this is the “preferred" maximum, and not necessarily the actual height limit.

Almost connecting to my boundary is “The Mercer", a 15 storey apartment building (built in the orange coded zone for height.) The construction of this building caused damage to my west and north walls and this issue could be exacerbated if future development were to take place even closer to my home.

As an owner, I was not protected by the regulations requiring an initial check of my home prior to commencement of “The Mercer" nor the required check at the conclusion of the construction. To protect my house from damage in the case of future possible development, then close proximity owners of buildings need assurance that these regulations will be met.

Shirley Ogle

GEELONG VIC 3220

6 July 2021

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 78 Committee

Full Name: Maria Babaniaris Organisation: Affected property: Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments: I understand and welcome plans to enhance the vibrancy and liveability of Central Geelong but consideration must be given to those that already own homes and reside in the area. Some of the proposed changes are vastly different to the current building guidelines and would have a huge impact on existing properties. My home, a six-year-old 2 storey townhouse, is in the Health Precinct. Under the proposed changes there could conceivably be a building of 28M (8 storeys) with a street wall height of 16M (4 storeys) constructed at my property boundary. I understand these are preferred maximums and an approval must be given for any development, however from personal experience it is also a reality that approvals ARE often given. The scale of the maximum height changes would not be in keeping with the character of the many residential buildings in the area. I am also concerned that the consultation process with the community has not been adequate. The website is difficult to navigate and proposed changes, maps, heights, etc are hard to understand. I hope that there will be further opportunity once more detailed plans have been formulated for those impacted to have an input.

Submission Cover Sheet Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 79 Committee

Full Name: Andy Nguyen Organisation: Affected property: Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49523 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet Central Geelong Framework Plan submission Submitter name: Andy Nguyen

Central Geelong has the potential to become a world class city if we get planning right.

Geelong Station is the gateway to the heart of Geelong and its wider precinct would need to be redeveloped to realise its full potential. As part of the redevelopment, consideration should be given to adding more car parking spaces, relocating the police station and magistrates court, new open space and better connecting the station precinct to Johnstone Park and the new civic precinct.

Depending on the future design of a duplicated Geelong to South Geelong rail tunnel, there is a potential, if a new route is to be developed, for the Geelong train station to go underground longer run, which could enable better use of space above. If that happens, the existing train station buildings might be converted to retail and dining areas, complementing the underground train station, with new office space in new buildings to the west of the existing train station buildings. In all aspects, bus access to the Geelong Station precinct needs to be taken into consideration. The duplication should also include the removal of level crossings.

Moorabool Street bus stop could be relocated to Yarra Street – from Geelong Station, buses could travel through Brougham Street, then to the relocated bus stop at Yarra Street and continuing straight to better connect with train services from South Geelong station, then beyond towards their respective destinations.

More free car parking spaces needs to be provided across central Geelong, and existing car parking spaces in central Geelong should be maintained and/or converted to multi storey carparks, providing easier access to central Geelong for those driving in.

Central Geelong could be made more easily accessible by reducing traffic that do not have central Geelong as its destination, particularly trucks. A future Bellarine Link, and in the longer run, a Corio Bay bridge and/or tunnel will ensure this.

Geelong’s attractiveness can also be boosted through unique offerings. This is especially vital if Geelong is to attract tourists from both interstate and overseas.

Better malls and new and improved laneways will enhance the vibe of central Geelong, which will entice people locally and from abroad to visit central Geelong, day, and night. Live music is always encouraged, and this could be further emphasised as part of developing parts of Gheringhap, Moorabool and Little Malop Streets into a vibrant nightlife precinct.

A future redevelopment of the Waterfront could include a new mineral spa and an adventure hub (incorporating zipline, high ropes course, high diving, bungy jumping and rock climbing). An observation tower, whether as part of the new adventure hub or at another site (such as the west end of Geelong train station precinct), could be in the mix too. There also needs to be better connections between the Waterfront and Geelong CBD, ensuring Geelong CBD businesses can capture trade from visitors to the Geelong waterfront.

More should be done to entice business, both public and private sector, and a mixture of local, national, and international companies to set up their head offices or operations in central Geelong. This will improve access to jobs, diversify our local economy, reduce our economic dependence on Melbourne and play a part in revitalising central Geelong. As more people prefer to work from home, it could provide an opportunity for many businesses to operate small to medium scale offices in central Geelong to accommodate workers who occasionally need to head to the office for some meetings or other important business that must be done in person.

A convention centre in central Geelong would increase Geelong’s attractiveness to the corporate sector, however, the centre might incorporate, or be entirely shifted to, the Geelong waterfront to provide more space for the centre and car parking, with a pedestrian tunnel along Western Beach Rd, and serve as an iconic attraction.

The convention centre, the waterfront and Kardinia Park are key venues for events in Geelong and is encouraged to promote our city and boost visitors and economic activity. Among the events that should be considered for Geelong in future include a Commonwealth Games, the Formula 1 Grand Prix or MotoGP as well as a range of other large scale sporting events and concerts using Kardinia Park, and business events using the new convention centre.

If Geelong is to make the most of its event’s calendar, there needs to be better transport access to events, as well as better access between Kardinia Park, Geelong Waterfront and Geelong CBD for pre and post event activities.

Increased residential and accommodation development in suitable locations and of high quality around central Geelong would fill up Geelong CBD shops and businesses, further contributing to its vibrancy and reduce congestion due to easy access to key locations. Residential development could include student and worker accommodation, if justified by demand. There is already a high demand for tourist accommodation in Geelong pre-Covid and the demand would still be there as more people take trips to regional destinations.

If the Newland Army Barracks site is vacated, the site could be used for hospital purposes. Additionally, the University hospital should be upgraded to provide a more comprehensive range of health services, including provision as a major trauma centre, so residents from Geelong and the wider region do not have to travel to Melbourne to access specialist health care, as well as to meet the growing demand for health services in the Geelong region. The upgrade should also have provisions for increased car parking and expansion of the emergency department.

There may be future provisions for expansion of Gordon TAFE dependent on the design and alignment of a future duplicated rail between Geelong and South Geelong stations, and a future expansion of the Deakin University Geelong Waterfront campus could incorporate the existing Busport and Waterfront Church site.

Provisions should be made to build a flyover connecting Westfield Geelong and Market Square at Malop Street. Opportunities to modify the design of the Green Spine in Malop Street should be seriously considered to help minimise congestion, whilst maintaining the concept of a linear park between Johnstone and Eastern Park. A linear park may also be considered along Gheringhap Street between the waterfront and Kardinia Park if practical.

Protecting the character of central Geelong is also important, helping to maintain distinctiveness between our city and Melbourne, and other big cities within Australia and globally. Therefore, taller buildings should only be built in suitable locations, such as in suitable areas around Geelong train station. This should also be complemented by Geelong moving into a polycentric city model, which could incorporate land around Waurn Ponds shopping centre as Geelong’s secondary hub, and smaller hubs in Corio, Leopold and the Geelong western growth area. I would support Geelong having its own identity rather than being a feeder into Melbourne. Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 80 Committee

Full Name: Connor Parker Organisation: Affected property: Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49526 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet Central Geelong Framework Plan submission

Connor Parker

South Geelong VIC 3220

As a resident of inner Geelong, I care passionately about my city’s future and the people who live here. Our city is at a crossroads where it has the opportunity to choose the kind of city it would like to be – a city that focuses on preserving the past at all costs, or a city that embraces a new and exciting future. I submit that this Framework Plan as presented lacks ambition and will stifle the conditions necessary for Geelong to be successful. It will substantially limit residential and ofice development and exacerbate the city’s growing housing crisis. It prioritises aesthetic considerations over the need for homes and jobs. And it will prevent Geelong and its residents from bringing their city into a new economic future. While much of the strategy is welcome, from a focus on public transport to greater attention to pedestrian permeability, this Plan lacks ambition. To seriously address the challenges Geelong faces and to embrace the opportunities available, it must be amended.

The plan, as proposed, will do long-term damage to Geelong’s economic transformation. Geelong is undergoing a radical economic transformation. Historically, Geelong has been powered by its manufacturing sector, with major manufacturers and industries including Ford and Alcoa providing the employment backbone for the city. Following a post-war peak however, manufacturing employment in the city has experienced a rapid decline. Between 1957 and 2016, manufacturing jobs fell from providing 46 percent of employment to just 8 percent within the Greater Geelong region. To fill this critical economic gap, Geelong is transitioning to a service and business- focused economy, with a corresponding need for dense ofice development in its core. The market has responded by proposing and developing large-scale ofice buildings, bringing thousands of new jobs to a city that desperately needs them. These market-led developments, like the nearly completed commercial development at 60 Moorabool Street, have not only created thousands of construction jobs for the city, but expanded Geelong’s premium ofice space ofering and created ongoing job opportunities. Under the Framework Plan as proposed, almost none of these developments and the benefits they bring would be permitted. The Victorian and Australian Governments have clearly understood the importance of dense ofice development to Geelong’s transformation. Both levels of government have actively facilitated the development of ofice towers that they occupy but that would not be permitted under the proposed Framework Plan. The TAC, WorkSafe and the NDIA have brought thousands of jobs to Geelong and located them in new, tall ofice developments in the CBD, clearly demonstrating the importance of tall developments in rapidly expanding the availability of afordable ofice space in Geelong. When the Victorian Government itself has recently facilitated such dense ofice developments, it is inappropriate for another arm

Page 1 of 5 of the Victorian Government to attempt to prevent other similar developments occurring in the future, despite acknowledging their benefits. Geelong’s economic transformation into a service economy is only just beginning. This Framework Plan, as proposed, would kill this transformation before it has the chance to mature by driving investment back to Melbourne where economies of scale in ofice space can be achieved, leaving Geelong’s population with fewer jobs and a weaker economy. Geelong should not be consigned to operating as a second-rate city living in Melbourne’s shadow. It must be allowed to develop its own core of ofice buildings that can compete and attract new industries to our city without the substantial constraints proposed in this draft Framework Plan.

The Framework Plan should include the following amendments to ensure Geelong’s CBD reaches its economic and jobs growth potential: 1. Throughout the document, height limits should be deprioritised as a planning control method. Where developments can provide exceptional employment or housing value to Geelong and its residents, these developments should be considered holistically – not on an arbitrary height limit. 2. In particular, height limits in the station and retail core precincts should be reverted in line with planning controls previously allowed by the City of Greater Geelong, allowing ofice developments to achieve economies of scale and provide competitive leases for Geelong-based businesses. 3. Height limits on major thoroughfares such as Moorabool Street should be substantially increased to a minimum of six stories elsewhere throughout Central Geelong, allowing for greater commercial development on attractive, high-customer throughput streets.

The plan does not provide adequate capacity to resolve Geelong’s afordable housing crisis. Geelong’s population is increasing at an extreme rate, rising by more than 10% in the four years from 2016 to 2020. At the same time as Geelong’s population is growing, a chronic undersupply of homes is causing housing and mortgage stress to balloon. In the three years since 2016, home prices in South Geelong, a suburb bordering the CBD, increased on average by 53% while median private sector wage growth grew by just over 2% each year. This unsustainable housing price growth reflects an expanding gap between housing supply and housing demand, and is creating a crisis that will limit opportunities for all but the city’s most economically fortunate residents. A city that cannot afordably house its residents is not a city that has been well planned. It is notable that the draft Structure Plan states it has the objective of delivering more afordable housing in central Geelong (see objectives 9 and 10). Despite this laudable goal, the Framework as proposed will do the opposite by significantly restricting the potential supply of new housing in Geelong’s CBD. Any Framework Plan that does not prioritise new housing supply is not serious about creating more afordable housing, and as drafted, the current Plan significantly misses the mark. By substantially lowering the floorspace capacity for residential development, the Plan will slow the rate at which new housing can be built, force apartment sizes down below the level suitable for families, and result in a city that is more expensive and less populated over time. We cannot aford to wait for all the property in the CBD to turn over and be redeveloped to meet Geelong’s housing needs – the demand is already enormous, and there is no serious danger of a market oversupply. Large sections of the Framework should be amended to

Page 2 of 5 increase the space available for new housing, allowing for new homes to be built quickly and at a lower cost per unit – exactly the conditions required to provide more afordable housing close to existing services and infrastructure. It is also notable that the Structure Plan places greater emphasis on aesthetic considerations than resolving housing stress, devoting eight individual objectives to heritage and aesthetic concerns but only two to addressing the current crisis of housing afordability. This is a fundamentally flawed approach. A Framework Plan that does not place the most critical needs of a city’s residents first is a plan for buildings, not a plan for people. While aesthetic considerations are a fair concern, they cannot, and should not, be prioritised above the needs faced by our community’s most vulnerable residents.

The plan should include the following amendments: 4. Objectives 9 and 10 must be prioritised at the beginning of the Structure Plan and referred to more prominently in all strategic considerations. Considerations of heritage and aesthetic concerns, while important, should always be measured against their impact on housing afordability and service provision for residents. 5. Height limits for residential developments throughout station and retail core precincts should be abolished in favour of more holistic planning controls. Height limits should also be increased to a minimum of six stories along major thoroughfares such as Moorabool Street, outside these areas to provide a greater volume of housing development capacity on major public transport routes. 6. Any height limits should incentivise the provision of afordable housing. Preferred maximum height controls should allow for additional height where that height is to be used for afordable development. For example, a residential or mixed development in an area with a preferred maximum height of six stories should considered for approval to eight stories where additional floors are used for social or community housing.

The plan conficts with existing development, and will leave Geelong with badly matched buildings on adjacent lots. Over the past five years, a number of commercial and residential developments have been completed or begun construction in central Geelong. These developments, such as 53 Mercer Street at 15 stories in height, have added desperately-needed housing close to transport, services and ofices. They have also recalibrated the normal level of Geelong’s skyline, creating a new precedent for development. Throughout the proposed Framework Plan, these developments are routinely ignored when setting preferred maximum building heights. Neighbouring building heights are frequently proposed to be capped at a fraction of the height of these new developments, creating a result in which these new buildings will permanently stick out in the landscape instead of blending seamlessly into a new skyline as would have occurred under City of Greater Geelong planning controls. By ignoring these developments, the draft Framework will consign Geelong to an inconsistent and disjointed outcome where a few tall buildings stick out bizarrely over a low-rise landscape. Notably, the plan itself identifies this as a poor outcome, with Strategy 12.4 noting that the plan should “avoid development of isolated buildings above the preferred maximum building height that do not contribute to a varied yet undulating city skyline.” By setting inappropriately low preferred maximum heights around existing development, the Framework contradicts its own objectives.

Page 3 of 5 The plan should include the following amendments: 7. Where existing or approved developments have created a height precedent, nearby lots should be given a similar preferred maximum height throughout the entirety of the Structure Plan.

The Plan will force more development to the city’s fringes, yet does not seriously consider the efects of this decision. Reducing housing capacity in Central Geelong as proposed by the Structure Plan will not reduce the demand for homes in Greater Geelong – it will simply displace it. This displaced growth will create additional pressure to develop housing on the city’s fringes, where it requires matching investment from governments in the form of new infrastructure and public services at a substantial cost. Such developments also create transport and employment challenges, with residents required to travel great distances to reach their place of employment or access services. As proposed, the Framework Plan forces more development into these new estates, but does not strategically consider the results of this decision. By focusing on limiting capacity in the city while not undertaking simultaneous planning for greenfield developments, the structure plan will consign Geelong to a future which is less walkable and less sustainable by limiting the opportunity to develop infill housing in central Geelong.

The plan should include the following amendments: 8. Further development of the Framework Plan should be paused to occur alongside strategic planning for growth on the city’s fringes. City of Greater Geelong planning controls should apply during this period. 9. The Plan should focus on creating development capacity in the city as a priority, not limiting it. 10. The Plan should include greater consideration of, and a response to, any efects of displacing demand to new developments on the city’s fringes instead of infill development in Central Geelong.

Final notes Geelong’s enormous potential can only be realised if the Framework Plan allows the city to aim high, rather than restricting the city to averages. In promoting the draft Framework, promotional videos from the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning quietly admit that the plan is based on Geelong underperforming its potential, noting “the floorspace required in all but the upper end of the Optimistic Upside are accommodated within the proposed planning controls.” In other words, the Framework Plan deliberately and knowingly constrains Geelong from achieving the best possible outcome. This plan is fundamentally designed around a cold calculation of averages. It does not push the city to grow, it does not aim for transformative improvement, and at its core, it does not believe in Geelong’s potential. It must be amended to allow the city to be the very best it can be.

Page 4 of 5 Proposed action summary 1. Throughout the document, height limits should be deprioritised as a planning control method. Where developments can provide exceptional employment or housing value to Geelong and its residents, these developments should be considered holistically – not on an arbitrary height limit. 2. In particular, height limits in the station and retail core precincts should be reverted in line with planning controls previously allowed by the City of Greater Geelong, allowing ofice developments to achieve economies of scale and provide competitive leases for Geelong-based businesses. 3. Height limits on major thoroughfares such as Moorabool Street should be substantially increased to a minimum of six stories elsewhere throughout Central Geelong, allowing for greater commercial development on attractive, high-customer throughput streets. 4. Objectives 9 and 10 must be prioritised at the beginning of the Structure Plan and referred to more prominently in all strategic considerations. Considerations of heritage and aesthetic concerns, while important, should always be measured against their impact on housing afordability and service provision for residents. 5. Height limits for residential developments throughout station and retail core precincts should be abolished in favour of more holistic planning controls. Height limits should also be increased to a minimum of six stories along major thoroughfares such as Moorabool Street, outside these areas to provide a greater volume of housing development capacity on major public transport routes. 6. Any height limits should incentivise the provision of afordable housing. Preferred maximum height controls should allow for additional height where that height is to be used for afordable development. For example, a residential or mixed development in an area with a preferred maximum height of six stories should considered for approval to eight stories where additional floors are used for social or community housing. 7. Where existing or approved developments have created a height precedent, nearby lots should be given a similar preferred maximum height throughout the entirety of the Structure Plan. 8. Further development of the Framework Plan should be paused to occur alongside strategic planning for growth on the city’s fringes. City of Greater Geelong planning controls should apply during this period. 9. The Plan should focus on creating development capacity in the city as a priority, not limiting it. 10. The Plan should include greater consideration of, and a response to, any efects of displacing demand to new developments on the city’s fringes instead of infill development in Central Geelong.

Page 5 of 5 Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 81 Committee

Full Name: Kevin Battye Organisation: Affected property: Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49530 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet Submission to Central Geelong Framework Plan By Kevin Battye

Geelong 3220

Our residence is on the boundary of the York Precinct and has its vehicle access via York Street. We have lived at this current address for 34 years and have observed all the developments in the immediate and surrounding areas over this long period. Comments are given here for the York Precinct which may be useful to guide strategy for the longer term.

The York Precinct is different, with unique features; - • It is on the interface/transition to pure residential neighbourhood. There is a special need to protect existing residential amenity. • It is bordered to the South and West by highspeed and high-volume Highway and offramp to central Geelong. • It is bordered to the North and East by a narrow residential street that has severe limitations for large development. • The York Precinct currently has high-density three storey residential developments at its North and East (partly). Most of these have a narrow rear laneway for vehicle access which is rarely used by many of the residents due to its narrowness. This severely impacts the traffic in the neighbourhood. • The York Precinct is very confined by York Street itself, which is a narrow street with a permanent blind 90-degree corner with walled frontages. It is incapable of servicing further heavy development. The North/South section of York Street is the driveway access for houses on The Esplanade South. • There have been previous attempts to develop the primary vacant land at 1 York Street. The most recent being a mixed-use permit to construct 46 Apartments, 5 Commercial Offices, a Fitness Centre, a Café Restaurant, and a Retail shop. This was a very inappropriate design that attempted to maximise the use of the site with little consideration of the neighbourhood. An extensive list of conditions on the Approved Permit were complex and the development did not proceed. (It is hoped the new guidelines prevent a recurrence of this type of planning application).

With this background in mind The Central Geelong Framework Plan for the York Precinct should encourage; - • Residential development. • Height limited to three storeys, to match the existing residential developments within the York Precinct (West of the Quest Apartments). Greater height generates more impact on services and intensifies existing issues of nuisance to existing residences and lack of traffic infrastructure. • Development guidelines in the York Precinct should mandate the use of setbacks off the North/South section of York Street itself in order to provide transition to the residences to the East and prevent a walled development. • Vehicle infrastructure constraints that currently exist in York Street do not have scope to improve, even in the long term. Ingress/Egress to new developments must be from Keera Street. It is unrealistic to service this Precinct from York Street. • Mixed-use of the site should not be allowed. Retail, commercial, sporting, entertainment, etc. do not have a place here and would be unlikely to succeed in this precinct due to Infrastructure limitations. • The Framework should provide guidelines for developments that are self-sustainable within their own footprints, especially for vehicles.

Summary The York Precinct is a difficult area at the Northern extremity of the Central Geelong Framework Plan. The residential interface at the site is already at its limits for amenity loss and traffic infrastructure. The Central Geelong Framework Plan should not encourage unrealistic planning applications for this very tight area. It does not have the basic infrastructure capacity to support greater than three storey residential-orientated development that transitions to the existing neighbourhood.

I note with interest your words for the York Precinct in the Draft Central Geelong Framework Plan. They are interesting to read at this time, however they need to be changed to remove mixed-use of the precinct, and the precinct should have a maximum three storey height limit.

I am happy to discuss these observations and apprehensions further as required.

Thank you Kevin Battye Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 82 Committee

Full Name: Adrian Dolley Organisation: Rail Projects Victoria Affected property: Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 83 Committee

Full Name: Jennifer Bantow Organisation: Geelong and Region Branch National Trust of Australia (Victoria) Affected property: Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49532 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet

P O Box 1512 Geelong 3220

Wednesday 7th July 2021 Ms Sarah Carlisle Chair, and William O'Neil (Deputy Chair), Peter Edwards, Jonathan Halaliku and Rachael O'Neill Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory Committee Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

Dear Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory Committee

RE Draft Central Geelong Framework Plan and proposed planning controls for central Geelong

The attached submission is particularly directed to the Plan’s consideration of the conservation of heritage places within Geelong city, and the maintenance and enhancement of the character of the heart of Geelong’s old city centre.

This submission is made by the Geelong and Region Branch National Trust of Australia (Victoria), which seeks to implement the mission of the organisation, to inspire the community to appreciate, conserve and celebrate its diverse natural, cultural, social and indigenous heritage.

The National Trust of Australia (Victoria) is recognised as a leading voice for heritage, encouraging all tiers of Government, property owners, corporations and the community to protect, use and celebrate our heritage.

Generally the main thrust of the Draft Central Geelong Framework Plan is supported, especially the general lowering of building heights, however with regard to heritage conservation, the Plan could be much stronger.

We urge the Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory Committee to consider the Ten Submissions within this document.

For any enquiries about this submission use these contact details:

Yours sincerely

(Mrs) Jennifer Bantow OAM Conservation Advocacy and Community Liaison Geelong and Region Branch, National Trust of Australia (Victoria)

1 TO: Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory Committee Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning FROM: Geelong and Region Branch National Trust of Australia (Victoria)

CONTACT:

DATE: 7th July 2021

RE: Draft Central Geelong Framework Plan and proposed planning controls for central Geelong

CONTENTS:

1. Background

2. Introduction

3. Draft Central Geelong Framework Plan and proposed planning controls for central Geelong

3.1 Omission of both Geelong’s History, and specific heritage information, in the 22 documents on the DELWP Engage Victoria web site about the Central Geelong Framework Plan 3.2 The City of Greater Geelong Heritage Strategy 2017- 2021 Action Plan page 20, Prepare a thematic history for the Municipality.

4. Clause 37.08, Schedule 1 - Substantial Rewrite (Draft Central Geelong Framework Plan – Document 14)

4.1 Clause 37.08 2.0 Built form (proposed C431ggee) 4.2 Clause 37.08 4.4 Design and development (proposed C431ggee) 4.3 Clause 37.08 Precinct 3 – WEST VILLAGE PRECINCT 5.3 -2 (proposed C431ggee) 4.4 Clause 37.08 8.0 Decision Guidelines (proposed C431ggee)

5. Victorian Rail Institute, Heritage Overlay 962, 195 La Trobe Terrace Geelong

6. City of Greater Geelong Council submission adopted on 22 June 2021 Woolstores Industrial Heritage Area, Heritage Overlay 1638

1. Background

It’s now over eight years since the start of the process to consider the strategic planning of central Geelong. As a representative of the National Trust, I’ve attended the following events associated with considerations about the future of the heart of old central Geelong.

• Vision 2 Public Lecture by Professor Hisham Elkadi head of the School of Architecture Deakin University, 17th October 2013, held at Percy Baxter Lecture Theatre Deakin University. Fifteen Vision Design Principles for Central Geelong were identified:

City Arrival Private Mobility Public Square Waterfront Integration Green Spine Univer-City East-West Links North-South Links Public Connectivity Fine Grain Culture Sense of the City City of Three Waters Urban Permeability Walkable City

Each Design Principle card has details: e.g. Sense of the City Make more creative use of the central city’s existing buildings to draw out, and make more evident, the narrative history of the city. Being a cognitive city is defined by the ability of the city to learn and adapt its behaviour based on past and present experience. The effect of this goes beyond just the visual and engages with all sensory abilities to be able to understand and respond to changes in its environment. Geelong has a great advantage to aspire to this, with it being a city full of history and heritage.

EXTRACT FROM: https://dro.deakin.edu.au/view/DU:30102829

Vision 2 developed and tested a collaborative model with a diverse level of stakeholders towards redefining and revitilising central Geelong. The project was a formal (MoU) collaboration between the City of Greater Geelong (CoGG), Deakin University, Committee for Geelong (CFG) and the Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD), to develop the new vision. A series of modules and outputs were explored and investigated

3 to facilitate the substantial cross-discipline engagement across the different levels of stakeholders. … The project was commissioned by Committee for Geelong and funded by Department of Planning and Community Development. Complementing the Design Studio Report for Vision 2, a project that looked at the revitalisation of central Geelong, was the production of a video published to the public … • Our Central Geelong Action Plan Workshop, 22nd October 2013, Sheraton Hotel Eastern Beach Road Geelong

Special Guest: Danish architect Jan Gehl who at the end of the day concluded, … “I don’t know what you’re worried about, you have a beautiful City. But what ever you do, don’t do a Docklands”.

Australian Centre for the Moving Image – The Human Scale a documentary on creating cities with beating hearts, based on architect Jan Gehl’s innovations, investigating how urban environments impact and enhance human life.

• Revitalising Central Geelong 2016/17 Action Plan, meeting 15th July 2016

• Realising Our Visions: Central Geelong’s land use, built form and function in 2050, function on Thursday 12th December 2019, held in the City of Greater Geelong Council Chamber.

There were also regular meetings of the Central Geelong Task Force, a Section 86 Committee of the City of Greater Geelong.

This list may not be fully comprehensive. Submission 1: A Background Summary of the whole process from the beginning that gives context to the current proposal could be included in the final Framework Plan currently under consideration.

2. Introduction

Strong campaigning by the NTAV from its formation in 1956 influenced the Hamer Government to pass Australia’s first legislation to recognise and protect heritage places - the Historic Buildings Act 1981. Then through broad-based conservation advocacy across

4 local government areas, NTAV has achieved change to assist Victoria in becoming a leader in heritage protection.

Heritage protection in the Geelong region began soon after this legislation, and heritage studies were undertaken in some municipalities. At the time these studies were ground breaking, and although they began the work of identifying places, they were often under resourced and therefore limited in scope and detail.

The Rural City of Bellarine, Shire of Corio, City of Geelong, City of Geelong West, City of Newtown, City of South Barwon, and parts of the Shires of Barrabool and Bannockburn, became the City of Greater Geelong in 1994.

A huge comprehensive Outer Areas Heritage Study 1998-2000 was undertaken after amalgamation to identify gaps in earlier heritage studies.

Although there have been reviews of the heritage overlay in the central part of the City of Geelong, there are still significant omissions such as the four properties pictured below which are all in central Geelong. These have recently been in the news, none are protected by heritage overlay.

1. 27 The Esplanade Drumcondra has recently been demolished 2. 7 Balmoral Crescent Rippleside is to be dismantled and removed 3. 1 and 3 Cavendish Street Geelong are to be demolished

1. 27 The Esplanade Drumcondra 2. 7 Balmoral Crescent Rippleside

3. 1 and 3 Cavendish Street Geelong

5 Submission 2: To avoid losing places like the ones above, a high priority urgent Review is needed of the heritage overlay within the boundaries of Central Geelong area now under consideration, to identify heritage places that has been missed in former Heritage Studies and former Reviews.

3. Draft Central Geelong Framework Plan and proposed planning controls for central Geelong

3.1 Omission of both Geelong’s History, and specific heritage information, in the 22 documents on the DELWP Engage Victoria web site about the Central Geelong Framework Plan

The expert panel discussion during the virtual Webinar on Monday 7th June between 7am and 9am, was of great interest and emphasised the importance of retaining heritage character, mentioned many times by several speakers.

However the 22 documents on the DELWP Engage Victoria web site about the Central Geelong Framework Plan, mention very little to indicate this emphasis.

Information about two important factors is missing.

Firstly there is no background history of the City which describes how its built form character has been formed, and then evolved. No mention of the original Hoddle grid survey of the streets, when the street grid was angled to view Corio Bay and the You Yangs.

The topography of the amphitheatre rise to the McKillop Street ridge before the land slopes into the Barwon River Valley does not appear to be considered an important factor.

This Framework plan could be about any anonymous city anywhere.

The City should not be divided into eight precincts, approximately in an east west pattern, it should be seen as a whole within the original grid.

The precincts appear to based around the current usage or occupation of clusters of buildings. The use of buildings may change at any time.

Although the Plan talks about … strengthening Central Geelong’s developing character … there’s no information about how the character of Geelong has evolved, and where the original evidence of this evolution has survived.

There’s nothing about heritage places relating to the Port.

The internationally regarded Woolstores precinct doesn’t rate a mention.

Secondly the other serious omission is about heritage conservation.

6 Although the Plan talks about … integrating heritage overlay requirements, … apart from a few paragraphs in the Draft Central Geelong Framework Plan at page 151, under 7.3 Existing built form, character and challenges, there’s little specific mention or consideration of the extensive heritage overlay in the City centre, both individual buildings and precincts and streetscapes. There’s no Heritage Overlay map, although there is a Design and Development Overlay map. Submission 3: All the properties within the subject area under the City of Greater Geelong heritage overlay should be included in maps and schedules in this Draft Central Geelong Framework Plan All the places within the central City listed on the Victorian Heritage Register, and Victorian Heritage Inventory, be listed in the Draft Central Geelong Framework Plan

3.2 The City of Greater Geelong Heritage Strategy 2017- 2021 Action Plan page 20 Prepare a thematic history for the Municipality

Another particularly serious consideration is the timing of this draft Central Geelong Framework Plan and proposed planning controls for central Geelong.

A landmark important publication called “About Corayo: A Thematic History of Greater Geelong” authored by Dr David Rowe, was required under the Action Plan of the Greater Geelong Heritage Strategy adopted in 2017. This mammoth work that has taken several years to complete, has recently been finished, and it is due to go to Council at the end of July 2021. The content of this thematic history is especially relevant to the core considerations of this Framework Plan, and it is vital that this work becomes an essential reference to properly inform this subject Central Geelong Framework Plan. Submission 4: The few short paragraphs of “The City History” summary (3.4 Central Geelong Framework Plan Background Report May 2021) in insufficient to explain the development of the City character.

The timeline for the completion of the Central Geelong Framework Plan should be rescheduled to enable the important publication, “About Corayo: A Thematic History of Greater Geelong”, to be an essential reference and adequately inform the Plan about the heritage places and character of the old City centre.

7 4. Clause 37.08, Schedule 1 - Substantial Rewrite (Draft Central Geelong Framework Plan – Document 14)

GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME SCHEDULE 1 TO CLAUSE 37.08 ACTIVITY CENTRE ZONE

4.1 Clause 37.08 2.0 Built form (proposed C431ggee)

Built Form (extract) ! To ensure buildings respond to Geelong’s designation as a UNESCO City of Design by demonstrating a sense of their natural setting, sensitivity to heritage places and the urban context, and high levels of sustainability and architectural merit. ! To provide opportunities to retain and protect indigenous living heritage elements including spaces, views, vegetation, natural and designed landforms and built fabric. ! To ensure the building scale, form and setbacks relate to the site size and supports the preferred land use, amenity and character. ! To ensure development contributes to an undulating city skyline that tapers down to the Geelong waterfront and the periphery of the Activity Centre. ! To ensure new development responds sympathetically to heritage places within the Activity Centre. ! To encourage the retention and protection of the historic built form fabric and character along and fronting the Waterfront precinct, avoiding excessive building heights. ! To maintain shared access to bay views. ! To incorporate an active public realm through building facades, the design of footpaths and infrastructure and public art.

Submission 5: Strongly support Clause 37.08 - 2.0 BUILT FORM Clauses above shown in green. Re Words shown above in red As a general policy it is preferable to encourage conservation of heritage buildings in their entirety in three-dimensional form, not only the façade.

4.2 Clause 37.08 4.4 Design and development (proposed C431ggee)

8 4.4 Design and development (extract)

The following design and development requirements apply to an application to construct a building or construct or carry out works: Buildings and works should meet the land use and development objectives and should comply with the design and development requirements of this Schedule. For the purpose of this Schedule the following definitions apply: ! Heritage place means any place including buildings subject to a heritage overlay graded contributory, significant or individually significant.

Building Height (extract) Building height requirements ! All buildings should provide for sensitive built form transitions to nearby heritage places.

Street Wall Street wall height requirements (extract) Street wall heights in or adjoining a Heritage Overlay: ! Development in a Heritage Overlay should retain the street wall height of heritage buildings including where the street wall height of heritage buildings is greater than the preferred maximum street wall height requirement. ! Development adjoining a Heritage Overlay should provide a street wall height in keeping with the street wall height of an adjoining heritage building where the street wall height of the adjoining heritage building is lower than the preferred maximum street wall height.

Submission 6: Strongly support Clause 37.08 4.4 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT & BUILDING HEIGHT and STREET WALL HEIGHTS in Clauses above shown above in green.

4.3 Clause 37.08 Precinct 3 – WEST VILLAGE PRECINCT 5.3 -2 (proposed C431ggee)

5.3-2 Precinct objectives (extract)

! To maintain the prominence of heritage buildings within an evolving character that provides a high amenity for residents, with building heights transitioning from medium (28 metres) to medium low (21 metres) fronting Moorabool Street and towards the edge of Central Geelong that will also include landscape setbacks.

Submission 7: Strongly support Clause 37.08 Precinct 3 – WEST VILLAGE PRECINCT

9 5.3 – 2 PRECINCT OBJECTIVES Clauses above shown above in green.

Further consideration to strengthen the Precinct objectives to conserve heritage is needed in Clause 5.3-2 .

4.4 Clause 37.08 8.0 Decision Guidelines (proposed C431ggee)

8.0 Decision guidelines (extract)

The following decision guidelines apply to an application for a permit under Clause 37.08, in addition to those specified in Clause 37.08 and elsewhere in the scheme to use land, construct a building or construct or carry out works and/or subdivision which must be considered, as appropriate, by the responsible authority:

Built Form

! Whether the proposed development supports the built form objectives contained in Clause 2.0 and Clause 5.0. ! Whether the proposed development is consistent with the centre-wide requirements of this Schedule. ! Whether the proposed development is consistent with the precinct specific requirements and guidelines of this Schedule. Building Height, Setbacks, Scale and Street Wall Height ! Whether a proposal to exceed the preferred maximum building height, maximum street wall heights, the preferred minimum setbacks or the plot ratio: - Exceeds by at least 0.05, the urban greening requirement for a Green Factor scorecard of at least 0.55. - Exceeds the requirements relating to a heritage place and results in an improved outcome for an on-site or adjoining heritage place - Does not result in an unreasonable loss of amenity to the public realm through overshadowing and visual bulk. - Does not result in an unreasonable loss of amenity to residential properties through overshadowing, overlooking and visual bulk. - Does not result in building/s that do not contribute to an undulating city skyline that tapers down to the Geelong waterfront and the periphery of the Activity Centre. ! Whether a proposal to locate the street wall closer than required for identified landscape setbacks does not compromise the existing street scape character. ! Whether buildings positively contribute to an undulating skyline and enhances key views of the city from the Corio Bay, the Esplanade and from neighbouring suburbs to the east, south and west.

Design Quality and Architecture ! Whether the development demonstrates exceptional quality of design. ! Whether the development responds appropriately to onsite or adjoining heritage place.

10 Heritage Buildings in a Heritage Overlay guidelines ! Whether the upper levels of development have been designed to be visually distinct from the existing heritage façade and fabric in materiality. ! Whether the upper levels of development are recessive in mass and scale.

Submission 8: Strongly support Clause 37.08 8.0 Decision Guidelines - Clauses above shown above in green.

Further consideration to strengthen the Decision Guidelines to conserve heritage is needed in Clause 8.0 Decision guidelines.

5. Victorian Rail Institute 195 La Trobe Terrace Geelong Central Geelong DRAFT Framework Plan, May 2021 (Document 1) Author Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning Contributing Authors: MGS Architects Movement and Place Consulting 5.4 Transport and Movement, Page 92, Action 23.1.3 Investigate re-aligning Gordon Avenue (east) to connect seamlessly across Latrobe Terrace to Gordon Avenue (west).

Victorian Railways Institute 195 Latrobe Terrace, Geelong (HO 962)

Victorian Heritage Database Report Report generated 07/07/21 Victorian Railways Institute Location 195 Latrobe Terrace, GEELONG VIC 3220 - Property No 202526 Level of significance Included in Heritage Overlay Heritage Overlay Numbers HO962 Heritage Listing Greater Geelong City Statement of Significance Last updated on - C Listed - Local Significance 195 Latrobe Terrace is a group of timber Bungalow structures retaining a high degree of integrity. The main buildings are typically symmetrical with large corrugated iron roofs with projecting gables, and overhanging eaves. Notable details include double hung sash windows and casement windows, large decorative timber eaves brackets, and large roof ventilators above a half timbered effect in the gables. The entrance is in an attached box

11 form at the side of the main building. The building stands above the street on a prominent corner site and has a rear skillion and collection of adjoining structures, largely from the same period and using the same materials. Heritage Study/Consultant Geelong City Urban Conservation Study, Volumes 2-5, Graeme Butler, 1991; Heritage Act Categories Registered place, Hermes Number 15796 Physical Description 1 195 Latrobe Terrace has architectural, historic, and social significance at a local level. It is a representative example of timber Bungalow architecture in the Geelong region. The buildings retain their characteristic form, as well as typical Bungalow details including large decorative brackets and roof ventilators, projecting gables and large corrugated iron roofs. The corner siting of the buildings in a prominent location make the complex and important streetscape feature. The structure has historical associations with the Victorian Railways Institute and it is of social importance to the local railway workers.

Submission 9: The significance of the rare regional Victorian Rail Institute 195 La Trobe Terrace, cnr Gordon Avenue, must be included in any consideration of implementation of re- alignment of Gordon Avenue as described in the Central Geelong DRAFT Framework Plan May 2021 under 5.4 Transport and Movement, Page 92, Action 23.1.3, … Investigate re-aligning Gordon Avenue (east) to connect seamlessly across Latrobe Terrace to Gordon Avenue (west).

6. City of Greater Geelong Council submission adopted on 22 June 2021

The Geelong and Region Branch NTAV submission concurs with the content City of Greater Geelong Council submission adopted on 22 June 2021, under the heading Heritage Considerations A. Structure Plan a. Foundational Basis b. Foreword c. Opportunities in Central Geelong d. Knowledge and Enterprise Precinct e. Station Precinct f. Retail Core Precinct g. Health Precinct h. West Village Precinct i. Key Issue j. Land Use and Economy k. Built Form and Design l. Objective 20 m. Objective 28 n. Implementation Plan

12 o. Action 13.1.1 B. Urban Design Framework a. Purpose b. Existing Built Form, Character and Challenges c. Built Form d. Built Form: Design Quality and Architecture e. Upper Floors f. Draft Clause 37.08 Schedule 1

In particular the outstanding significance of the internationally acclaimed Woolstores Heritage Area Heritage Overlay 1638 requires greater research and protection.

Knowledge and Enterprise Precinct 7. The preferred maximum building height map has not mapped heritage overlay sites, only sites included in the Victorian Heritage Register. The majority of central Geelong’s European heritage is included as heritage overlays. The preferred building heights and possibly the street wall heights do not completely align with the significance of the Woolstores Industrial Heritage Area HO1638 and the policies and objectives at Clause 22.29 of the Planning Scheme 7.2 To maintain the views to and from the Woolstores Industrial Heritage Area; and 7.3 To retain the streetscape qualities of the area which is dominated by three and four storey Victorian warehouses with varying street setbacks and minimal separation between buildings.

Victorian Heritage Database Report Report generated 07/07/21

Woolstores Industrial Heritage Area Location Woolstores Industrial Heritage Area Municipality Level of significance Included in Heritage Overlay Heritage Overlay Numbers HO1638 Heritage Listing Greater Geelong City Statement of Significance Last updated on - The Woolstores Industrial Heritage Area is significant as a distinctive part of Geelong with a number of key nineteenth and twentieth century commercial and industrial buildings, including surviving warehouses and stores. Historically, it is distinguished as the industrial heart of the commercial district of inner Geelong and its port. The Heritage Area demonstrates the importance of the wool trade to Geelong's development and reflects the economic fortunes of the City. The proximity, vista and orientation of the Heritage Area to the City's traditional entrance by road and rail, the commercial centre and the waterfront reflect its industrial heritage.

13 The area is dominated by warehouses and contains many individually significant buildings dating from the late 1850s to the late 1920s. Its character is derived from the scale, cohesion and integrity of the architecturally significant Victorian, masonry warehouses. The Woolstores are constructed from stone and brick, use massive construction, rise between three and four storeys, have varying street setbacks and minimal separation. Heritage Study/Consultant Hermes Number 22192 Greater Geelong - Geelong City Urban Conservation Study, Graeme Butler, 1993;

The Woolstores Heritage Area includes:

• Denny Lascelles Woolstore - Geelong Woolstores Historic Area 26 Brougham Street, • Former Dennys Lascelles Woolstore 20 Brougham Street • Stuccoed Wing - Dennys Lascelles Woolstore Brougham Street, • Former Dalgety Woolstores - Geelong Historic Area Cnr Brougham and Gerringhap Streets • Strachan's Building - Geelong Woolstores Historic Area 25-43 Moorabool Street • Strachan, Murray and Shannon Woolstore 95 Malop Street, • FORMER STRACHAN MURRAY AND SHANNON WOOL WAREHOUSES 76 BROUGHAM STREET • Wool Exchange 44 Corio St and others ….

Submission 10: The significance of the internationally recognised Geelong Woolstores Heritage Area HO 1638, must be singled out as the most important area for immediate consideration in this Central Geelong Framework Plan.

This area requires urgent review to further establish its rarity. The scale of these buildings must not be spoilt by new developments which obscure the heights and scale of the Woolstores.

Other buildings and related areas associated with the Woolstores have survived in the neighbourhood.

15 Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 84 Committee

Full Name: Adele Bartram Organisation: Affected property: Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments: My biggest concern with the central Geelong plans is that there is no proper means of access from the Bellarine through the CBD. It becomes congested daily through residential and tourist zones. I believe that everyday access should be diverted from our tourist waterfront and redirected through either industry areas with a new freeway or alternatively McKillop Street. Proposal of directing traffic through a heritage tourist area should be reconsidered. COGG council has never managed to get the flow of traffic correct and believe they require state government directive to deliver a well executed long term plan. Issues are congestion on LaTrobe Trc, Waterfront and traveling East- West of Geelong CBD in particular Malop Street, which is why people try to use tourist routes to get through the CBD quicker, in turn making these areas incredibly dangerous due to un-policed areas and no infrastructure to slow drivers in a pedestrian dominant zone. I agree with reducing some of the heights of buildings however support growth of the area as long as heritage areas and green spaces are protected. The train line needs to be reconsidered at McKillop Street. I know this was dismissed due to expense however this would solve many issues of congestion of the traffic on these main roads. My vision for the local area is more promise for tourist zones particular on the the waterfront and botanical gardens, this in turn will benefit the local economy and provide many jobs and business opportunities. More community gardens and generally more green zones. The Geelong Botanical Gardens should have more focus on local flora and fauna and pay homage to our indigenous ancestors. With COVID still a concern, i believe there should be more emphasis on outdoor undercover sections for both PT and wellness groups. To think there is only one undercover on the whole waterfront at the botanical gardens is very poor. Another outdoor gym as seen at Western Beach for the promenade region would be well utilised by tourists and locals. I believe Geelong should be persevered but also be propelled into the future with health and wellness as our guiding mission- with some of the best medical facilities and hospitals, this will encourage tourists and allow for a progressive health driven community.

Submission Cover Sheet Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 85 Committee

Full Name: Cameron Henderson Organisation: Ballanclea Holdings Pty Ltd Affected property: 52 Moorabool Street, Geelong Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments: We have a number of commercial properties in the city centre and I would like to be a part of the process and know exactly what the plans are for the future of the city of Geelong. PPV Note: Refer to submission 47 for further comments from this submitter

Submission Cover Sheet Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 86 Committee

Full Name: Margaret Ann Cartledge Organisation: Affected property: Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments: My property is situated at: , Geelong. It is a 2 storey residential dwelling. I request that the planning committee consider the existing residential properties in their future planning so that overshadowing, loss of sunlight, privacy and capital growth are not lost due to future planning proposals.

Submission Cover Sheet Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 87 Committee

Full Name: Roger Cooper Organisation: Housing Industry Association Affected property: Nil Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49545 Attachment 2: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49546 Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet

7 July 2021

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory Committee Planning Panels Victoria via email: [email protected]

To whom it may concern

Draft Geelong Central Framework Plan

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the ‘draft Geelong Central Framework’ (Framework).

Overview

The Housing Industry (HIA) is Australia’s peak residential building industry association. HIA members comprise a diversity of residential builders, including all Top 100 builders, all major building industry manufacturers and suppliers, as well as developers, small to medium builder members, contractors and consultants to the industry. In total HIA members construct over 85% of the nation’s new housing stock.

HIA exists to service the businesses it represents, lobby for the best possible business environment for the building industry and to encourage a responsible and quality driven, affordable residential building and development industry. HIA is committed to working with all sectors of government to support a regulatory environment that facilitates growth in the economy, reduces red tape, and enables the delivery of affordable housing.

HIA Response

HIA supports the Central Geelong Framework review process as the urban centre of Victoria’s second largest city. It is a significant employment hub for the region where many Victorians will chose to work and live locally or commute from Melbourne via the upgraded V/Line services. The Framework provides land use and development planning over the next 30 years. Further to this, we wish to comment as follows:

 For reasons explained later in this correspondence, HIA objects to any proposal to prepare a Development Contributions Plan (DCP) for new development to fund the upgrading of existing infrastructure or new infrastructure for whole of community benefit.

 Referred to in the Framework is the potential to introduce a DCP as a development levying mechanism towards the provision of “upgraded infrastructure – including improved public realm and open spaces.” DCP levies on development are typically charged on a per dwelling basis. We note upwards of 5,500 dwellings may be required to support population growth.

 HIA’s overarching position is that development levies are one of many costs that impact the end price of a new home and in effect act as a tax on homebuyers. It is important that any levies that are passed onto the home buyer are based on a fair and justified set of principles. Any development specific infrastructure which provides essential access and service provision and without which the development could not proceed are considered to be core requirements for housing development and should be provided in a timely manner to facilitate affordable development. These infrastructure items within the boundaries of the development are and should be provided by the developer as part of the cost of development. However the costs of broader community, social and regional infrastructure should be borne by the whole community and funded from general rate revenue, borrowings or alternative funding mechanisms.

Page 2

 HIA considers that any amendment imposing a levy requirements for community, social and regional infrastructure will undoubtedly have a negative impact on housing affordability. Additionally, the inclusion of a new development levy for broad infrastructure may result in ‘double dipping’ whereby such infrastructure items may already be provided for under existing levies / revenue avenues (i.e. rate collections).

 HIA encourages government to be innovative in sourcing appropriate revenue to pay for broadly used community infrastructure to the benefit of the ‘whole community’. Government must show industry leadership and not simply rely on existing funding models such as traditional development/infrastructure contribution schemes for this purpose.

 HIA would also like to note that only where it is absolutely necessary and there is a demonstrated need with a clear nexus, introduction of any new DCP or ICP system should deliver a standardised approach to local infrastructure levies. Such levies must transparently and accurately reflects the relationship between development and the need for provision of further local infrastructure to accommodate resulting population growth. Initial and ongoing public accountability must be a key element of any DCP / ICP system.

 The costs of broader community, social and regional infrastructure should be borne by the whole community and funded from general rate revenue, borrowings, or alternative funding mechanisms. It has been HIA’s longstanding view that development levies such as ICPs/DCPs have a negative effect on housing affordability. This overarching position on development levies is based on HIA’s policy ‘Infrastructure Charges and Levies on Residential Development’ (most recently endorsed at 2021 National Policy Conference. A copy is appended to this letter).

 HIA supports the Central Geelong Framework review process as the urban centre of Victoria’s second largest city. It is a significant employment hub for the region where many Victorians will chose to work and live locally or commute from Melbourne via the upgraded V/Line services. The Framework provides land use and development planning over the next 30 years.

 It is important that new road, pedestrian and cycling infrastructure upgrades are constructed on existing public land and do not require private land acquisition.

 Where zoning is proposed to change (e.g. from Residential Growth Zone to Activity Centre Zone) land owners should not be given diminished development rights. For example some land currently zoned RGZ in the north-east corner of the ‘Health Precinct’ on Swanston Street with a 4 storey height limit would have a maximum height of 3 storeys under the proposed ACZ.

 The Urban Design Framework is welcomed as a robust set of guidelines to achieve the built form objectives of the Strategy.

 Encouragement of new canopy trees in private development should be discretionary with the vast majority of new canopy to be provided on public land. Intensification of medium and large trees has broader implications for private development foundations, particularly where concrete slabs encroach on the boundaries of smaller lots. Where safe integration of trees and development foundations permit, developers can mitigate against future damage by following ‘best practice’ planting guidelines e.g. provision of top soil, access to an irrigation source, use of less invasive species, inclusion of root barriers, minimum setbacks to buildings/assets and a tree area ratio for roots to establish clear of assets and buildings.

Thank you once again for the opportunity to comment at this stage. HIA welcomes the opportunity to be involved in any form of further consultation or to meet one on one to discuss our feedback further. Once again we thank you for the opportunity to contribute at this stage of the program. Please do not hesitate to contact – Senior Planning Advisor (Vic) on or should you require anything further.

Page 3

Yours sincerely HOUSING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION LIMITED

Fiona Nield Executive Director

Infrastructure Charges and Levies on Residential Development

Policy Background  Levies and charges applied to development to cover physical and social infrastructure significantly affect new housing affordability. They are in effect a tax on new homebuyers.  Most states and territories, through the planning system, can apply a charge on new residential developments via an infrastructure development contribution scheme of some type.  Over the last decade, the charges being applied through these infrastructure development levy schemes have become increasingly significant. This is partially due the large range and high quality of facilities being requested by authorities and in many cases a conscious decision to shift the majority of the upfront costs onto new developments.  The levies are now so significant they are impeding orderly and affordable residential development from occurring and significantly adding to the upfront costs of new homes.  State governments have recognised the negative impact levies have on residential development and introduced ways to slow increases through either standard development levies or capped development levies. However, there is no clear evidence this approach has lowered the charges payable and improved the final cost of a new home.  Some councils are attempting their own approach to the levies which can result in more levies and varied amounts being charged. Policy Issues  Development charges and levies can encompass two types of infrastructure provision: 1. Development specific infrastructure – being items which are directly attributable to new development, defined as those items that are necessary to create the allotment without which the development could not proceed, for example: o local roads; o drainage; o stormwater; o utilities provision; o land for local open space; and o direct costs of connecting to local water, sewerage and power supplies. 2. Community, Social and Regional Infrastructure – being items of broader physical, community and social infrastructure which are ancillary to the direct provision of housing in a new development and support residents outside that development, for example: o headworks for water, sewerage and power supplies which may be part of a specific contributions plan; o community facilities such as schools, libraries, child care facilities, medical centres and retail facilities; o district and regional improvements such as parks, open space and capital repairs;

Policy endorsed by HIA National Policy Congress: May 2007; Amended 2009 & 2010; Re-endorsed with amdts 2016 (title change)

Page 1 of 3 HIA Policy Infrastructure Charges and Levies on Residential Development

o social improvements such as library books; o public transport capital improvements; o district and regional road improvements; o employment services; o subsidised housing; and o conservation of natural resources.  Levies for community, social and regional infrastructure are typically applied by either local and/or state governments through the planning system.  In many cases the levies are charged without the establishment of a nexus between the infrastructure item and the community who will benefit and use it, without transparency in the collection and without any consideration of the impact on housing affordability.  Levies of this kind are being viewed as a primary funding source for community, social and regional infrastructure, despite the benefits from that infrastructure being enjoyed by the whole community.  Whilst development specific infrastructure has a nexus with the allotment or building and directly benefit future home owners community social and regional infrastructure may have limited or no nexus with the population who will occupy the homes in a new development.  Many items of community, social and regional infrastructure end up in private ownership and are operated on a commercial basis once delivered, such as child care and medical centres. This represents a double charge for new home buyers.  Every dollar charged in infrastructure contributions adds multiple dollars to the end price of a home as a result of multiple factors including delays in the calculation and setting of the levies, the uncertainty of this process and associated risks, the delays in developments commencing and increased mortgage repayments by the developer and the homebuyer required over time. HIA’s Policy Position on Infrastructure Charges and Levies on Residential Development 1. Development specific infrastructure which provides essential access and service provision and without which the development could not proceed are considered to be core requirements for housing development and should be provided in a timely manner to facilitate affordable development. These infrastructure items within the boundaries of the development should be provided by the developer as part of the cost of development. 2. An up-front charge against a new development is the least efficient manner in which infrastructure costs may be recovered. 3. The costs of broader community, social and regional infrastructure should be borne by the whole community and funded from general rate revenue, borrowings or alternative funding mechanisms. 4. The imposition of up-front levies on new homebuyers for community, social and regional infrastructure is inequitable, discriminatory, inflationary and erodes housing affordability. 5. Where up-front infrastructure levies currently exist for community, social and regional infrastructure and until such time as these levies are eradicated in line with dot points 1-4 above:  The establishment and calculation should be identified by the authority and be embedded within a statutory planning instrument prepared at the time of approval of land for urban development;

Policy endorsed by HIA National Policy Congress: May 2007; Amended 2009 & 2010; Re-endorsed with amdts 2016 (title change)

Page 2 of 3 HIA Policy Infrastructure Charges and Levies on Residential Development

 Governments should be required to prepare a full cost benefit analysis of the impact of any proposed infrastructure levy on housing affordability prior to any implementation;  The manner in which the up-front levies are costed should be transparent and cover capital and implementation costs only. All ongoing and maintenance costs should be recovered by means of an annual rate or charge and not permitted to be part of the levy calculation;  Any levies implemented should provide certainty and consistency for future development and home owners about the infrastructure to be delivered, costs to be funded and timing of delivery;  Levies should be collected at the latest stage of the development process, just prior to the creation of legal title or prior to occupation;  Once adopted levies should not be subject to any change or variation apart from defined cost of living increases or similar indexation to allow for inflation;  The amounts collected should be fully disclosed and reported to State Parliament annually and also reported by local councils to their own communities via annual reports. 6. Levies which are applied by Governments for state based items of infrastructure should be:  Established and collected in the same manner as those collected by local government as established above; and  Expended in the same area from which they were collected. 7. Any funds which have been collected for infrastructure which is not subsequently provided within the planned timeframes should be refunded to the property owner of the development either as soon as the decision is made to eliminate the proposal or at the expiry of the specified time frame.

Policy endorsed by HIA National Policy Congress: May 2007; Amended 2009 & 2010; Re-endorsed with amdts 2016 (title change)

Page 3 of 3 Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 88 Committee

Full Name: Richard Henderson Organisation: Ballanclea Holdings Pty Ltd Affected property: Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments: We own a number of commercial properties in the city centre and would love to be a part of the process and discussion. To know what is the plan and to offer any suggestions and advice from an owners perspective. PPV Note: Refer to submission 47 for further comments from this submitter

Submission Cover Sheet Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 89 Committee

Full Name: Janet Henderson Organisation: Ballanclea Holdings Pty Ltd Affected property: 172 Malop Street Geelong, 168-170 Malop Street Geelong, 166 Malop Street Geelo Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments: We own a number of commercial properties in the city centre and would like to be present and participate in the hearing. PPV Note: Refer to submission 47 for further comments from this submitter

Submission Cover Sheet Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 90 Committee

Full Name: Peter Javni Organisation: Javni Developments Pty Ltd Affected property: 110-112 Yarra Street Geelong VIC 3220 Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49547 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet

We have reviewed the relevant Planning Scheme Amendment C431GGEE (Amendment C431) documentation and we understand that it generally proposes changes to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme (Planning Scheme) to implement the land use, built form, transport and public realm components of the Central Geelong Framework Plan 2021. Specifically in relation to our property, we understand that Amendment C431 proposes to (amongst other things):

• Introduce a new Schedule 1 to the Activity Centre Zone (ACZ1) at Clause 37.08. Under the draft ACZ1 our property is identified as being located within the West Village Precinct where a mix of dwellings, office and business uses are encouraged.

Little Ryrie Street is identified as a ‘Future master plan area’ adjacent to our property.

• Amend Schedule to Clause 72.08 (Background Documents) to introduce the Central Geelong Framework Plan 2021 (CGFP). The CGFP comprises the Central Geelong Structure Plan and Revitalising Central Geelong Urban Design Framework. The structure plan includes our property in the ‘West Village Precinct’.

The preferred maximum building height is 28m (8 storeys).

The proposed street wall height is 16m (4 storeys) to Yarra Street and 8m (2 storeys) to Little Ryrie Street.

• Amend Clause 21.09 Central Geelong of the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) to update the policy consistent with the Central Geelong Framework Plan 2021, delete redundant provisions and correct drafting anomalies. We are generally supportive of the strategic review into the overall land use and built form opportunities for the Central Geelong area, however there are a number of proposed provisions that do not align with the purpose of the Structure Plan which is to “…drive growth and investment opportunities…” and to “…provide greater certainty to the community and developers.” Our submissions are detailed below:

Submissions

Residential Growth and Housing Choice The Central Geelong Framework Plan includes Strategy 9.1 which acknowledges that: …There is a deepening market for higher density living in Central Geelong and therefore it is an opportune time to advocate for a variety of outcomes like shop top conversions and developments, key worker housing, build-to-rent and other diverse housing typologies. This is supported by the identification of the ‘West Village Precinct’ as a location for “…medium-density living apartments…” among other typologies. The implementation of this policy will inevitably result in new built form which has an impact on existing buildings and land use including already established residential uses within Central Geelong.

Built Form and Design Objective 11 seeks “To ensure the building scale and form supports the preferred land uses and character of Central Geelong and its emerging precincts.” As it relates to our property, the proposed built form controls do not provide sufficient certainty in relation to the setbacks that would be required in order to achieve a building envelope and floor plate that can support the range of residential and business uses envisaged for the precinct.

While Strategy 16.3 seeks to provide for side and rear setbacks that are “appropriate to context”, it does not go far enough in terms of acknowledging that new development may impact on existing properties.

It is respectfully requested that the Central Geelong Framework Plan be amended to acknowledge that new development may impact on existing properties.

In addition, there is no specific recognition of corner sites and the manner in which the transition between two different street wall heights should be manage. This is relevant to our property where the preferred street wall height for Yarra Street and Little Ryrie Street are quite different (4 storeys vs 2 storeys). It is noted that Figure 93 (Street Wall Height) contains the note: “Podium-tower building typologies should adopt the lower street wall height”.

It is considered that this note would result in gross underutilisation of land, particularly on corner sites and should be deleted. Our property should be acknowledged as a location where higher street wall heights are appropriate.

It is requested that corner sites, such as our property, be acknowledged as a location were an innovative and well-designed building can define the corner in a manner that is different to the nominated street wall heights for each street frontage. The ‘Street corners’ guideline at page 165 of the draft UDF should also be amended to include reference to all precincts.

Building Height The proposed reduction in preferred building height from 40 metres to 28 metres is not supported. It is submitted that the site can accommodate height in excess of 28 metres and this should be reflected in reference to preferred height. This is consistent with the aspirations of the Central Geelong Framework Plan which seek to encourage growth within Central Geelong.

Side and Rear Setbacks The proposed preferred minimum side and rear setbacks above the preferred maximum street wall height are not practical on smaller sites such as our property. The preferred setbacks would result in a floor plate that is unviable in relation to residential or commercial use. It is considered that the preferred setbacks should only be applied to properties that are above 500sqm in area to ensure that the outcomes for Central Geelong that seek to provide increased housing densities can reasonably be achieved.

Preferred Active Street Frontages / Glazing Requirements The draft ACZ1 provisions describe glazing requirements that should be met. A planning permit is not required for an alteration to an existing building façade provided the glazing requirements for ‘Retail Street’ and ‘Active Street’ in Table 6 are met.

Specifically in relation to our property, Map 5 (Preferred Active Street Frontages) nominates this section of Yarra Street as a ‘Retail Street and Little Ryrie Street as an ‘Active Laneway’. It is submitted that the nomination of this section of Yarra Street as a ‘Retail Street’ where at least 80% clear glazing is sought to be provided at ground level is inconsistent with the land use objectives of the precinct which seek to encourage dwellings, office and business uses. The more appropriate classification for this section of Yarra Street should be as an ‘Active Street’ where the preferred glazing requirements are more aligned with the land use objectives sought.

Mandatory Controls within the Heritage Overlay Our property is included within the Heritage Overlay (HO1637). HO1637 relates to the wider ‘Geelong Commercial Heritage Area’. The citation for our property states that it is not significant in itself, but that it falls within the wider precinct. It is for this reason that we object to the introduction of mandatory setback provisions on land within the Heritage Overlay. These are not clearly expressed in the draft material.

While we suggest that the application of HO1637 to our property should be reviewed, we request that the language described in the definitions be continued throughout the provisions in that ‘non-contributory’ buildings within the Heritage Overlay are not subject to mandatory provisions.

Car Parking The requirement to sleeve/wrap car parking structures with active uses adjacent to street frontages is impractical to apply to narrow corner sites such as our property. It is requested that this requirement be revised to enable site specific responses to be considered for corner locations.

It is also noted that Table 10 Vehicle Access Requirements seeks to discourage new crossovers to Little Ryrie Street (a Category 4 Crossover Street). Given the narrow width of our property, it is not possible to provide all vehicle assess from the rear of the site. Little Ryrie Street should be nominated as suitable to accommodate new crossovers.

Conclusions Thank you for the opportunity to provide these submissions in response to draft Amendment C431ggee and we look forward to being involved in the balance of the process. We wish to appear before the Advisory Committee and present submissions and may call expert evidence. We also reserve our right to add to, modify or amplify the grounds upon which we seek to rely at the Advisory Committee hearing.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Javni

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 91 Committee

Full Name: Richard Facer Organisation: Affected property: Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments: The proposed public open space that will replace Little Ryrie Street car park will be a welcome addition to the city centre but the loss of carparking spaces must also be considered. The addition of the Green Spine from SJOG Hospital through the carpark is an exceptional idea. The laneway from Little Ryrie Street carpark to Ryrie Street (between 122 and 124 Ryrie Street) is very well used by the public but is in very poor condition and requires upgrading.

Submission Cover Sheet Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 92 Committee

Full Name: Jennifer Cromarty Organisation: Committee for Geelong Affected property: Level 1, Sally Walker Building Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49550 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet

the only region in the top five not in Queensland. With the opportunity for people to choose to live in Geelong and work from home on a more regular basis, we believe that this strong level of population growth will continue and must be supported by a vibrant CBD. The impact of COVID-19 on the purpose and function of the Geelong CBD, and on cities across the globe, is profound. In a recent opinion piece from the Committee for Geelong, and prior to the release of the CGFP, these issues and opportunities were highlighted. The following trends and data provide food for thought: • More people are predicted to continue to work from home than prior to the pandemic. • International data predicts that over twenty per cent of office workers will continue to work from home in some capacity. Prior to the pandemic, this figure was five per cent. • As less people commute to CBDs, office space demand is predicted to decline. While office g f ns to ensure that social distancing d with and the need for private offices brought back into focus, the demand for office space will lessen. • Consumer spending in the CBD will decrease, with some research stating the decline to be somewhere between five and ten per cent against pre-pandemic levels. CBDs are vital parts of our community and perform value-added roles including agglomeration, entertainment, cultural experiences, and larger-scale social interaction. However, we now need to re- vision our CBDs, and design healthy, sustainable environments for people to live, work and play in. There will be a need for mixed use spaces, co-working in cafes and hubs, spaces with fresh air and room to walk outside, and more green spaces. . In a recent article published by ABC News it was stated that “The pandemic has changed our tolerance for office work. Surveys show up to 70 per cent of employees will seek new jobs if their employer does not offer flexibility to work from home some of the time.” Open-plan office noise increases stress and worsens mood: we've measured the effects - ABC News We need to acknowledge and understand these trends and incorporate into supply and demand models and also encourage and incentivize developers and landlords to look at new ways to create flexible working environments. The much-anticipated draft Central Geelong Framework Plan is one piece of the puzzle in ensuring that our city maintains its liveability and vibrancy as we reflect our resilience in the face of the pandemic. The Committee for Geelong would also like to submit that there are several other policy and projects that are currently underway in Geelong that are important when considering the CGFP.

1. The Geelong City Deal The Geelong City Deal was announced several years ago and includes multiple projects of relevance to Central Geelong including the Green Spine – a project that was realized through the Vision 2 process (a Committee for Geelong instigated project). The Geelong City Deal has projects that directly impact and inform the built environment in the Geelong CBD. For the purpose of this submission, we wish to express our strong interest in being further engaged regarding the planning, design and development of the Geelong Convention and Exhibition Centre (GCEC). The opportunity for the Geelong waterfront to be transformed through this significant project must be realized. Local stakeholders wish to be engaged to provide input into the opportunity for the GCEC to not only deliver on the provision of space for conferences and exhibitions but to be an exemplar of design and an architectural attraction in its own right. How the city responds and benefits from such a significant investment needs be realized with the private sector also engaged to add value to the public investment. This level of engagement has not occurred to date. 2. Revitalising Central Geelong Action Plan - refresh The Committee for Geelong is currently heavily engaged in consultation regarding a refresh of the Revitalising Central Geelong Action Plan. The Action Plan provides a unique opportunity to begin building on the actions needed to support the successful implementation of the CGFP. For example, while the CGFP does not provide detailed guidance regarding public transport and freight movements in the CBD, a key project for the RCG Action Plan should be to seek funding and develop a public transport plan for the metro Geelong area and leverage the billions of dollars invested into Geelong Fast Rail including the duplication of the line between Waurn Ponds and South Geelong. This work will need to include a solution to the single tunnel that connects South Geelong and Geelong Train Station. The Committee for Geelong recommends that the key initiatives referenced in the CGFP be aligned and help inform the work of the RCG Partnership, including the allocation of funding streams to support delivery and implementation. 3. UNESCO Creative City of Design designation The City of Greater Geelong was successful in gaining a UNESCO Creative City of Design designation in 2017. This provides a unique and compelling opportunity for Geelong to position itself globally. As a city of design, we strongly support the CGFP’s intent to preserve the natural amphitheatre of our north-facing bay and ensure that building heights do not unnecessarily obstruct views to Corio Bay. Geelong was carefully designed on a Hoddle grid with wide streets to maximise bay aspects. As referred to earlier, there needs to be specific reference to design excellence in the built environment to acknowledge our UNESCO designation. This includes leveraging the public investment in the GCEC on the waterfront as a design exemplar. 4. The Geelong Authority The first CEO of the Committee for Geelong, Mr Peter Dorling was the inaugural Chair of the Geelong Authority. With new Geelong Authority Chair Diana Taylor now in place, we are aware of its Terms of Reference being reviewed. The Committee for Geelong is in regular engagement with

the Geelong Authority, in particular via the RCG Action Plan refresh. We request that work of the CGFP takes into consideration, and recognizes, the unique circumstances in Geelong for developers progressing through the planning permit application process. We ask, as the Geelong Authority’s Terms of Reference is reviewed, that regular engagement, invitations to brief and be briefed, and specific reference to the Committee for Geelong as a significant stakeholder be included. This will assist us in supporting and informing our members, and the Geelong community, in navigating the comple l i d i our city for the future. 5. Regional Integrated Transport Strategy The Committee for Geelong is working with G21 Geelong Region Alliance on the development of a Regional Integrated Transport Strategy. This strategy has been informed via a briefing paper developed by the Committee for Geelong - submitted to RDV & Department of Transport BSW - and was also included in our submission to the Principal Freight Network consultation. While this Regional Integrated Transport Strategy is important, we cannot lose focus on the transport planning needs for the Geelong CBD. Further, the Committee for Geelong agrees with the City of Greater Geelong in its submission to the CGFP, that the development of the CGFP has relied on the Transport Network Operating Plan released in late 2019 which was not endorsed by the City of Greater Geelong. “the Transport Network Operating Plan (TNOP) that was not endorsed by Council, including proposed changes to freight routes that fail to address level rail crossing issues broadly, and in particular at McKillop Street… A failure to address longstanding issues with bus movements, bus interchanges and bus stop locations within Central Geelong, which continue to negatively impact retail and public realm amenity on Moorabool Street, as well as limiting alternative transport options more broadly across the region; A failure to adequately address the Geelong railway station, rail and bus connections within Greater Geelong, and the exclusion of a future rail link to Avalon Airport.”

For reference – the Committee for Geelong made a submission to the City of Greater Geelong’s Transport Network Operating Plan in January 2020 Committee-for-Geelong-Transport-Network- Operating-Plan-submission-COGG-2-Jan-2020-FINAL.pdf (committeeforgeelong.com.au). Some key comments from that submission which we believe has relevance to the CGFP include: “In the Geelong community’s Clever and Creative vision, there is an aspiration for A Fast, Reliable and Connected Transport Network. Within that aspiration there is a measure of success that outlines a future where 50 per cent of journeys to work are made by public transport, walking or cycling.” “Apart from short walking and cycling trips, public transport is the key alternate transport option to private vehicle use into the Central Geelong area. Beyond rail and regional ferry services, all public transport within Geelong shares the road network which highlights the lower order priority that public transport plays in our road networks.”

“According to the data outlined in the draft Transport Network Operating Plan, all people who travel to work to Central Geelong from a four to six kilometre radius, 92 percent travel by car with five percent choosing to use public transport (three percent cycle to work). This clearly shows there is a considerable public transport challenge facing us.” “Public transport provides the greatest opportunity to promote mode shift away from private vehicle use. It needs and must have a high order priority within Council’s medium and long-term planning.” “Public transport is a significant consideration of Geelong’s future as we grow to 500,000 people in the next 20 years.” In that submission, the Committee for Geelong made the following recommendations: • The need to align with the Accessible and Inclusive Geelong Feasibility Study and recognise that walking and cycling is often not an option for people with a disability and that public transport that is accessible and inclusive is often the only option. • That public transport options and the consideration of new technology – for example trackless trams be included at the forefront in ongoing dialogue with the Victorian Government’s Department of Transport. • Priority routes and transit lanes for public transport that supports the cycling and pedestrian priority routes within the Central Geelong area that offers flexibility and creativity, acknowledging the evolving nature of public and sustainable transport. The need for a Department of Transport funded and led public transport strategy for Metropolitan Geelong is urgent. We believe that for the CGFP to be truly embedded in local planning, a public transport strategy must be developed simultaneously. The Committee for Geelong stands ready to support and advice on the development of this strategy.

SHARED POSTIONS WITH UDIA VIC (Geelong chapter) The following section in this submission includes edited extracts from contribution via the UDIA Vic Geelong Chapter of which the Committee for Geelong CEO Jennifer Cromarty is a member. We wish to thank members Nat Anson, Aaron Walley, Nick Clements and Greg Bursill for their contribution and advise that the Committee for Geelong is in agreement with statements as follows: Local Planning Policy Clause 21.09 (as amended) identifies the key issues and influences upon Central Geelong and consequently proposes a series of objectives that seek to: • “Support Central Geelong to be an international waterfront city with world class facilities. • Encourage high density housing development. • Encourage innovative and sustainable design outcomes whilst maintaining overall intensity of development.

• Discouraging the under development of sites.” UDIA Victoria (and the Committee for Geelong) support these aspirations as we share a future view of Central Geelong as a vibrant and welcoming business district that is connected to its surrounding suburbs and metropolitan Melbourne. Geelong is no longer a regional town and is appropriately recognised as Victoria’s second city within strategic planning policies such as Plan Melbourne The UDIA is concerned that the bright future for Central Geelong as a modern international waterfront city with envisaged world class facilities may be unnecessarily constrained by the Central Geelong Framework Plan and corresponding planning controls. The Central Geelong Land Use and Market Assessment (SGS Economics and Planning) has informed the Central Geelong Framework Plan’s land use demand projections for 2050. This assessment has been largely relied upon to guide the proposed changes to the planning controls. While it is acknowledged that this economic assessment has considered a variety of growth scenarios based on retail and commercial floorspace demand, as well as population and employment growth, UDIA Victoria (and the Committee for Geelong) submits that this approach should not unreasonably curtail the unforeseen market changes that may occur over the coming years. Building Heights UDIA Victoria (and the Committee for Geelong) is generally supportive of the need to provide further clarity around buildings heights throughout all precincts within the central business district. However, UDIA Victoria (and the Committee for Geelong) believes that in some cases there appears to be a sporadic application of preferred building heights that are often incongruous with surrounding land parcels. It would appear that preferred building heights have in some circumstances been applied based upon the size of the land parcel, rather than broader strategic principles associated with the precinct. If this is in fact the case, this does not recognize the common outcome where smaller parcels are combined by developers to achieve required development efficiencies. UDIA Victoria (and the Committee for Geelong) submits that greater consideration should be given to the likely consolidation of smaller parcels within the central business district prior to their redevelopment. Building Setbacks The proposed Activity Centre Zone (Schedule 1) provides for a complex arrangement of front, side and rear setbacks as well as building separation. The controls do not adequately address whether a 6m 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? Even where a 4.5m setback could be adopted for secondary streets not considered to be the “front”, it results in an unnecessarily constrained development outcome. Buildings with setbacks less than

4.5m can be well-designed and 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.” To not permit balconies to protrude into building setbacks is excessive and unnecessarily restrictive in our opinion. Car Parking The car parking objective at Clause 2.0 of the proposed Activity Centre Zone (Schedule 1 to Clause 37.08) that states “To provide car parking provision that responds to anticipated demand, except in the Retail Core precinct where additional car parking should be minimised.” On its own, the above objective is insufficient to support key elements of the Draft Structure Plan Transport and Movement objectives that seek to encourage transport mode change and transition away from car use. mprovements as well as works to attractiveness of active transport are critical to be undertaken in conjunction with parking reductions. The UDIA Victoria (and the Committee for Geelong) is pleased that significant investigation for public transport improvements has formed part of the strategic work undertaken. Geelong traditionally had a tram network and we would encourage the Government to develop a business case for investment in higher frequency and capacity public transport network provisions to support reduction in car traffic into the CBD. The Government recently released its new bus strategy which includes the concept of trunk bus services and even Bus Rapid Transport (BRT) which if applied in Geelong could help achieve the desired transformation. This would be consistent with Council’s vision for the Clever and Creative Corridor in the Northern and Western Growth Areas which was subject to discussion at the Amendment C395 planning panel hearing in 2020. Land use car parking requirements outside of the Retail Core Precinct remain as minimum requirements under the provisions of Clause 52.06, with matters required to be addressed within a car parking demand assessment under Clause 52.06 predominantly based on current or historic data, not aspirational objectives. It is not clear spatially where Action 22.2.2 will be applied (Action 22.2.2 Apply the parking rates in column B of Clause 52.06 for sites located within 400m of high- frequency corridors). A plan indicating its application would be helpful. Car parking concessions beyond the statutory rates of Clause 52.06 are typical in central business districts and are critical to appropriately minimize car dependency, promote active transport modes, support public transport and activate the broader area. As such UDIA Victoria (and the Committee for Geelong) supports a review of land use car parking requirements within Central Geelong in-line with the actions at Strategy 26.1 of the Draft Structure Plan. UDIA Victoria (and the Committee for Geelong) also submits that alternate land use car parking rates,

particularly the removal of minimum car parking requirements, provides greater development flexibility. It is unclear what consideration has been given to land use car parking provision within the built form modelling and outcomes testing scenarios within the Urban Design Framework. This could be explored in roundtable discussion with interested stakeholders. Transport and Movement Geelong Station and the Moorabool Street Central Geelong bus interchange remain the significant focus of bus and rail activity across Geelong. Ryrie Street, McKillop Street and LaTrobe Terrace are key regional road links that pass through Central Geelong. Whilst the UDIA Victoria (and the Committee for Geelong) broadly supports the Transport and Movement objectives within the Draft Structure Plan and agrees with the need to improve transport options (Objective 22) and to identify a clear street hierarchy and reduce through traffic through Central Geelong (Objective 23), these Objectives should be guided by a broader regional and integrated transport approach and be fully coordinated with other strategic transport initiatives currently underway, including the Geelong Growth Area Transport Infrastructure Strategy. Implementation The Central Geelong Framework Plan outlines a comprehensive list of actions required to inform its ongoing implementation. More than 30 of these actions relate to the preparation of stand-alone plans and strategies. Generally, we support the vast majority of these projects being designated as ‘immediate’ or ‘short term’, noting the urgency to facilitate additional work required to support development in Central Geelong. UDIA Victoria (and the Committee for Geelong) submits that each relevant lead agency, (Department of Transport, Revitalising Central Geelong Partnership and the City of Greater Geelong), must be supplied with the necessary and dedicated staffing resources and budget to complete the actions in the short timeframes specified. We further submit that it is important that key agencies responsible for delivering these plans, strategies and initiatives make a strong commitment to future consultation and that each future action incorporates timely and informed stakeholder consultation as appropriate. 6. Application Process UDIA Victoria (and the Committee for Geelong) is concerned that nowhere in the CGFP does it explain, either diagrammatically or in writing, the planning permit application process. At present, the application process is unnecessarily complex and timing consuming. Planning applications are formally and informally referred to Development Victoria, the Geelong Authority, the Office of the Victoria Government Architect, the City of Greater Geelong, and other relevant agencies. Too often our members report that application processes differ from site to site and that consistency of comments from the Office of the Victorian Government Architect is lacking. UDIA Victoria (and the Committee for Geelong) submits that the application process must be critically

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 93 Committee

Full Name: Renae Pleasance Organisation: Affected property: Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments: I Strongly dispute the proposed heights on the Geelong waterfront Cavendish Street area. It would allow our current building to be surrounded by the highest category on all sides. An extreme concern for natural light, privacy, and traffic/parking volumes. Aside from the obvious view restrictions and reduction in property value. We purchased at a premium price based on the awareness of the current height restrictions surrounding us which would not not impede on our current view, privacy or natural light, all determining the properties value. The new proposal would severely impact on all four aspects. How would we recoup loss of property value which would be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for each apartment. There are over 100 apartments in this building. I strongly encourage you to reconsider for the well-being and financial security of all vendors here. Thank you, Renae

Submission Cover Sheet Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 94 Committee

Full Name: Diane James AM Organisation: Affected property: Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49551 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet DIANE JAMES AM and MARK STONE AM Geelong

7 July 2021

We would like to make the following submission in response to the the Central Geelong Draft Framework Plan.

Our comments relate primarily to the Transport Strategy, its impact on the Eastern Park area, and our objection to the following:

- The proposed tourism route along Eastern Beach Road into an already congested Garden Street; the latter is already a bottleneck caused by the commuter traffic ‘squeezing’ itself into Garden Street from Malop Street. The bank up of outbound cars at the Garden/Ryrie Street intersection backs up most days at peak hour all the way back to Pevensey Park. - Further use of Hearne Parade as a parking hub; using our beautiful Eastern Gardens waterfront location as a car park is a wasted use of our prized Gardens precinct, with its scenic vistas and open space. - The strategy does not appear to differentiate between local tourism traffic to Eastern Beach, and through traffic travelling to the Bellarine Peninsula. The latter should be directed to stay on the Princes Highway and exit at Ryrie or McKillop Streets to avoid the increasing congestion at Eastern Beach. Or, alternatively, accessing these streets via Brougham and Bellerine Streets. We are signatories to the Eastern Beach Community Group submission and support their key objections and 7 recommendations, in particular:

THE GREEN SPINE Though not discussed in the DraftFramework Plan, we believe the Green Spine is relevant to proposals in the Plan. We support the completion of The Green Spine and request the State Government to expedite this as soon as possible. We suggest funding the final section, Fitzroy Street to Garden Street, as the next stage for construction, thus working backwards to other completed sections. This would provide:

- A visual sense of the completed Green Spine - Attention to the heavily congested Malop/Garden intersection, reducing the number of ‘near misses’ at this location - A gradual shift of driver habits as commuter routes are adjusted - Hastened awareness of the Green Spine goals and objectives as the completed vision is more visible and driving/cycling/pedestrian behaviours can adapt (eg more cycling, sooner).

REDUCTION OF TRAFFIC LANES We request urgent removal of one lane of inbound traffic at the right turn from Ryrie Street (Portarlington Road) into Garden Street; currently two lanes ‘pour’ traffic along Garden Street which has to quickly merge into one lane; there are myriad issues with drivers trying to out-manoeuvre each other to get to the single lane; speed limits are broken and pedestrian safety is non-existent. This will need attention when the Green Spine does reach Garden Street.

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 95 Committee

Full Name: Patricia Lynne Richards Organisation: Affected property: I am speaking about the entire central Geelong and Waterfront precinct Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments: My concerns relating to the proposed changes to the central Geelong and Eastern Beach precinct mainly centre on: • Heritage preservation – Geelong has a poor history of preservation of our heritage buildings. Please stop pulling them down!!!! • Transport Parking: any development must consider parking for: short-term visitors to the area; visitors to residents in the towers; residents of towers who use more than one vehicle. Inadequate parking spaces are already a major issue around the Miramar development. The proposed building densities will create major traffic and parking issues. • Shading: I believe the shading discussion in the proposal does not allow enough light and sun between and over the recreational area of the bay. It would be terrible to create lovely new spaces that only have a few hours of sunlight each day. • Open spaces: Usable open spaces with adequate parking and amenities must be available • Noise: Proximity of buildings and noise pollution is another area of great concern • Wind tunnels – Many cities around the world are reporting concerns about altered wind patterns associated with a growth in high-rise structures. These accelerated winds cause a downdraught effect which happens where the air hits a building and, with nowhere else to go, is pushed up, down and around the sides. This increases wind speed at street level. Further, acceleration of wind around the side of buildings, known as channelling, creates the Venturi effect. Also as air at higher altitudes is colder, it can create chillier micro-climates when the downdraught reaches street level. • Tree planting and street scapes. It is hard to see from the proposal what attention will be given to this. Geelong has a very inconsistent tree-scape in the inner city area. Please get it right!!! • Character of space – consider two storey maximum height for the first street and then stepping back building heights away from street. The proposed 8 storey development along the southern alignment of Eastern Beach and Western Beach Roads will significantly detract from the visual amenity enjoyed by residents in existing multi-storey developments in the precinct. Owners have made significant investments accompanying lifestyle choices in high-rise living, and these should be protected under any future development proposals. • Environmental impacts of increased density living specific to one area of town – eg waste and traffic management.

Submission Cover Sheet Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 96 Committee

Full Name: Claire Matthews Organisation: Affected property: Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments: As an owner, Chair of the Owners Committee, and resident with a young family of , I'm really happy to see further work being done to support more residents of Central Geelong. We love living in the City centre, and look forward to see it become a more liveable precinct not just for workers and short stay visitors, but for children and families also. As residents we are directly affected by the density and heights of the buildings around us, which include the Station and Knowledge Precinct. The lower height limits of the Knowledge Precinct in particular are a welcome addition, as shadowing concerns have affected our building committee's plans for a solar panel project. I support the lower limits suggested by this review. I also hope the guidance around tall but narrow buildings will carry through to the Knowledge Precinct, allowing the view across the bay and access to sunlight especially during the winter months to be preserved for existing and future residents of the Station Precinct. The Terminus Hotel building is listed as state significance, and additional thought should be put into how adjacent developments may overshadow or overwhelm the appearance of the building - otherwise, what is the point of heritage protections? I would also support changes to planting guidelines to increase the tree cover at the Station Precinct. The section along Mercer Street between the Station entrance and Brougham St is a particularly bare patch at the moment. Although I do not need to be heard at the hearing, I am happy to be contacted should you have further questions.

Submission Cover Sheet Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 97 Committee

Full Name: Gerard Holwell Organisation: G Vaccari Investments Pty Ltd Affected property: 130-140 Ryrie Street Geelong 3220 Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49554 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet

7 July 2021

The Department of Environment, Land Water and Planning P O Box 500 EAST MELBOURNE Vic 8002

SUBMISSION TO DRAFT CENTRAL GEELONG FRAMEWORK PLAN AND PROPOSED PLANNING CONTROLS

The owner of 130 to 140 Ryrie Street, GEELONG, G Vaccari Investments Pty Ltd has received public notice of the Draft Central Geelong Framework Plan (“The Draft Plan”).

The owner, on review of The Draft Plan, identified some concern with elements of The Draft Plan.

Gerard Holwell Pty Ltd has been engaged by the owner, to prepare and lodge a submission, highlighting those concerns to the Planning Authority managing the Public Notice process.

Those concerns are highlighted below:-

• The inclusion of the owner’s land in the proposed West Village Precicnt.

The Context Plan detailed in Figure 4 Page 10 iof the Draft Plan clearly identifies the land fronting the south side of Ryrie Street between Gheringhap and Moorabool Streets as being an identifable part of the retail core of Central Geelong. The properties at 130 to 140 Ryrie Street make a considerable contribution to the retail activites in that strip of land.

In my opinion, the Context Plan correctly shows BOTH sides of Ryrie Street between Gheringhap and Moorabool Street as being part of the “existing retail core”.

This Context Plan is copied on Page 2 of this submission.

Amendment C416ggee introduced to the Geelong Planning Scheme on 16 July 2020 included these properties in Precinct 1 - Core Retail.

The Draft Plan provides no explanation for the exclusion of this strip of land from the proposed Retail Core Precinct in The Draft Plan.

77 St David Street, FITZROY Vic 3065 Mobile: Phone: Email:

Gerard Holwell Pty Ltd ABN 17110162617

The introduction for the West Village Precinct in the Draft Plan at Page 37 states:-

The West Village Precinct is anchored by its mixed uses, including Matthew Flinders College, secondary retail, offices and residential land uses. This precinct is distinctive for its potential as a village for a growing residential community with access to jobs and services within its boundary and its convenient access to public transport, Cultural and Health precincts and neighbouring high concentrations of associated employment”.

Page 2 of 5

The strip of land being suggested for inclusion in the proposed Retail Core Precinct has not only been identified as part of the existing Retail Core of Greater Geelong, the land is also very much related to the activities and built form of the north side of Ryrie Street.

The majority of properties in this strip of land that includes 130 to 140 Ryrie Street have the current Council car park abutting the rear of those properties and Little Ryrie Street.

The next issue refers to this Council car park area.

In summary, it is considered that Little Ryrie Street between Gheringhap and Moorabool Streets is a more appropriate boundary between the Retail Core and West Village Precincts.

• The Council owned car park off Little Ryrie Street.

This car park land has been the subject of Council deliberations for a number of years.

Most recently, prior to The Draft Plan being prepared, was consideration of the site for a new Council Office. The owners of 130-140 Ryrie Street put forward a concept plan to accommodate such a development including access off Ryrie Street in response to that new Council Office proposal.

A copy of that Concept Plan is attached to this Submission.

That option for the car park land was not progressed by Council.

The Draft Plan now highlights the car park land as “Open Space – future (indicative)”.

In some references in the Draft Plan, the “indicative” has been deleted. (For example Figure 38 Page 39 of The Draft Plan.)

There is no detail of what form this future Open Space may take if such a use was proceeded with.

In fact, the inclusion of the word “indicative” in reference to the Future Open Space does not provide a great deal of certainty as to the long-term future of that land.

This labelling may simply reflect the thinking of Council in regard to that land at present.

It is relevant to note that The Draft Report promotes the provision of and upgrades to, Open Space and the co-location of community infrastructure. For example:-

Page 3 of 5

Action 29.1.6

Preserve existing Council off-street car parks identified for future open space and co-locate community infrastructure where appropriate, such as the following locations: — Little Ryrie Street car park (between Gheringhap Street and Moorabool Street) — Little Malop Street car park (between Yarra Street and Bellerine Street) — Haymarket car park (Myers Street, between Moorabool Street and Yarra Street)

Action 27.1.9

Support private developers to contribute to improving the public realm adjacent to their development, including streetscape upgrades, infrastructure and public art

These actions are highlighted as simple examples of the promotion and support for a host of similar objectives dealing with the possible opportunities for co-operation between public and private agencies for better land use planning outcomes for Central Geelong as detailed in The Draft Plan.

The implementation of these outcomes is the challenge for all public authorities responsible for managing the future of communities in this State.

It would be helpful for the private sector for there to be some clear guidelines.

For example, the Little Ryrie car park land. At present an at grade car park. The Draft Plan identifies this land for Open Space – future (indicative).

What would be useful to the private sector is some guidelines/statements on the vision of Council for those parcels of land.

• Heritage matters.

It is unclear from The Draft Plan and the background reports what consideration has been given to the impact of the existing heritage elements and resultant built form values, built form on the massing and floor areas referred to in The Draft Plan.

The Draft Plan highlights the need to preserve and protect these heritage values.

The height and setback controls applying across the precincts do not make reference as to how it is proposed to manage existing heritage features or identified heritage values.

There are several examples of intact heritage valued streetscapes in central Geelong.

Page 4 of 5

The section of Ryrie bordering and opposite my client’s land are an example this.

There is a need to have a broader consideration of the form of development on the heritage values of a site and the abutting properties. It may be useful long term to have some reference and policy support in the Draft Report to ensure that the heritage values in defined streetscapes are protected in The Draft Report.

In conclusion, the Draft Report is generally supported.

It is recognised that the task of planning for the future has some challenges, however, it is considered that with some refinement, The Draft Report is will be a good planning tool to help manage the undoubted growth that will be experienced in Geelong.

The community is becoming increasingly aware of the importance of co-operation between the public and private sector in managing this growth to ensure good and supported outcomes.

This has involved a change in thinking to the earlier approach to the “them and us” in the development world.

The Draft Plan is another step in achieving better outcomes for all stakeholders in the in that development process.

The owner of 130 to 140 Ryrie Street, GEELONG, G Vaccari Investments Pty Ltd also asks for the opportunity to be heard in any future public hearing following the receipt of submissions to The Draft Report.

Yours sincerely

Gerard Holwell

Page 5 of 5

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 98 Committee

Full Name: Monica Little Organisation: Affected property: , Geelong. Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments: Central Geelong Framework Plan – Submission 7/7/2021 Dear Sir/Madam, I live in the Hospital Precinct bounded by Bellerine, Little Malop, Swanston and Ryrie Streets. I think in the residential zone anything about 2 to 3 storeys maximum height is too high and takes away from one of the last inner-City historical precincts and consider every effort should be made to keep the character and history of our pretty City. A more desirable scape is mall, village atmosphere and relaxed city living, and making use of what we already have here. Boundary to boundary building is inappropriate and intrusive to neighbours instead aesthetic mandatory boundary green easements should be in place for green space, gardens and trees for any several storey and multi-storey buildings as adjacent tall buildings cause a funnel or chasm for air pollution containment until it reaches the sky adding more pollution in an age when we should be more environmentally sensitive. Higher density living does not guarantee people will use less cars as many couples and families these days need two cars and larger vehicles such as SUV’s rather than smaller vehicles. Encouragement of walking and cycling is good but not everyone can do this to get to work or for recreation. Our City already has parking issues and any building over One storey should be required to have off the street parking, on-site property ground level or underground parking adequate for all resident vehicles and some visitors so there is not over-spill into already insufficient street parking. We have already seen the impact of ugly several level apartment buildings in Geelong for example the apartment building in Yarra Street opposite St. Mary's Church overshadowing cute historical cottages and townhouses and aesthetics was not a priority in this build. Fortunately there is a lovely tree in front to partially shield it from view. These kinds of buildings and higher density living buildings bring the value down of neighbouring properties and I consider any building built over 2 storeys should bring rate relief to the properties immediately on any boundary to compensate for potential future-value loss. In conclusion, instead of going higher and spoiling our precious Waterfront and City more concrete and glass, our aim in Central Geelong should be to restore, convert and use our empty office, retail, and warehouse spaces in Geelong for more boutique, aesthetic, and relaxing lifestyle living. COVID has taught us that our inner-city working life has changed forever with more central space to be had as people no longer commute or commute less to cities for work, or even wish to live in dense cities as we have become more distancing aware and yearning for life quality and aesthetics. We need to adjust out thinking and preserve and use what we already have. That is why our Geelong has so many visitors and is a desirable place to live. Yours sincerely.,

Submission Cover Sheet Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 99 Committee

Full Name: Simon Loader - Tract Consultants Organisation: Milieu Property Pty Ltd Affected property: 23, 25-29, 31 & 33-35 Bellerine Street, GEELONG, 3220 Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49558 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet

Figure 1 - Site Aerial Plan

The Site is currently located within the Residential Growth Zone – Schedule 1 (RGZ1) and the Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 36 (DDO36). In accordance with DDO36 ‘a permit is not required to construct a building or construct or carry out works with a height that is not more than 25.0 metres above ground level’ subject to not encroaching on the helicopter flight path airspace associated with Geelong hospital i.e. 8 levels is as of right subject to flight path considerations.

2021-06-30 Let-CGFPAC_Draft Central Geelong Framework Plan and Tract proposed planning controls 2 / 8

Figure 2 – Existing Zone Plan

The Site sits at the periphery of the commercial area of Central Geelong. Notwithstanding the RGZ1 and DDO36 being in place currently, the majority of land uses along the eastern side of Bellerine Street are currently commercial in nature. Immediately east of Board Place the transition to more urban/residential uses commences although noting the medical uses south of Little Malop Street continue some distance further east. To the south, the Site is located a short distance south of Geelong’s famed waterfront and its extensive recreation spaces, while to the north the Site is located a short distance from Geelong hospital. The Site is also located in immediate proximity of the future green spine that will connect the Train Station and Eastern Gardens along Malop Street. The streetscape character and amenity value of Bellerine Street directly adjacent to the Site is currently quite strong with well-established street trees and a wide road reservation, however the streetscape character of Little Malop Street and Board Place are currently low due to an absence of street trees, furniture, lighting and quality hardscape pavement finishes as well as the ‘back-of-house’ role they have historically played.

2021-06-30 Let-CGFPAC_Draft Central Geelong Framework Plan and Tract proposed planning controls 3 / 8

3 Submission

There are number of key issues which we raise in relation to Amendment C431, particularly the revised ACZ1 planning controls. After careful review, the following submissions are made to the Standing Advisory Committee: 3.1 Draft Framework Plan While Figure 7 and 8 of the Framework Plan clearly reflects the Site being situated in the Retail Core Precinct, Figures 24, 25 & 26 do not show the Site being included within the Retail Core Precinct. We support the site being included within the Retail Core Precinct and recommend Figures 24, 25 & 26 are corrected. 3.2 Draft Policy Clause 21.09 (as amended) identifies the key issues and influences upon Central Geelong and consequently proposes a series of objectives that seek to: · Support Central Geelong to be an international waterfront city with world class facilities. · Encourage high density housing development. · Encourage innovative and sustainable design outcomes whilst maintaining overall intensity of development. · Discouraging the under development of sites. We fully support these aspirations as we share a future view of Geelong as a vibrant, welcoming and connected City. Geelong is no longer a regional town and is appropriately recognised as Victoria’s second city within cornerstone documents such as Plan Melbourne 2017-2050. Notwithstanding, apart from key civic buildings there has been little residential development that has exhibited design excellence which should be a key focus of the draft framework and proposed controls. It is for this reason that our client holds concerns that this bright future for Geelong as a modern international waterfront city with world class facilities will be curtailed by the proposed changes envisaged in the Framework Plan and Amendment C431. The Central Geelong Land Use and Market Assessment (SGS Economics and Planning) has informed the Framework’s land use demand projections for 2050. This assessment appears to have been largely relied upon to ensure the changes to the Activity Centre Zone 1 (ACZ1) through Amendment C431 are sufficient to achieve predicted retail and commercial floorspace demand in 2050. While it is acknowledged that this economic assessment has considered a variety of growth scenarios based on retail and commercial floorspace demand as well as population and employment growth, it is our submission that this approach should not unreasonably curtail the unique and specific opportunities which the Site presents. Below we elaborate on the aspects of the changes to the ACZ1 which we submit need to change in order to facilitate the vision espoused by Clause 21.09.

2021-06-30 Let-CGFPAC_Draft Central Geelong Framework Plan and Tract proposed planning controls 5 / 8

3.3 Activity Centre Zone – Schedule 1 We strongly support the recognition of the Site being part of Central Geelong by being rezoned to the ACZ1 however, our client and prospective development partner does hold some concerns with particular provisions of the redrafted control. Land use We strongly support the recognition of the role of the Retail Core Precinct as “the primary location for shops, food and drink premises and nightclubs, and encourage office and accommodation uses where ground floor active frontages are maintained and expanded consistent with identified active street frontages…” Whilst in the Retail Core Precinct, we recommend that greater recognition of medical/allied health uses occurring in the precinct may be an improvement considering it adjoins the Health Precinct and is in such close proximity to key medical facilities including the University Hospital Geelong, which is located only150m further to the south on Bellerine Street. Building height The ACZ1 provides for a preferred maximum building height of 21m for the Site despite the current DDO36 supporting 25m, however it is unclear why the land to the immediate south is nominated for a preferred maximum building height of 28m. This land is characterised by lower height residential and retail uses and is located closer to the hospital and potentially more sensitive to helicopter flight paths. Given the Site is bound by streets on three boundaries and is predominantly adjoined by a commercial office building to the north and associated at-grade car park it is submitted that the Site is appropriate to accommodate a preferred maximum building height of 28m. We recommended that Map 2 (Preferred Maximum Building Height Requirements) be amended to provide for a consistent 28m (8 storey) preferred maximum building height along Bellerine Street (between Ryrie Street and Malop Street) to achieve a highly attractive boulevard of similar scale buildings exhibiting design excellence.1 Street wall height The ACZ1 provides for a preferred street wall height of 12m on Bellerine Street (north of Little Malop Street), however it is unclear why the land to the immediate south is nominated for a preferred street wall height of 16m. To require a 12m preferred street wall height on Bellerine Street (north of Little Malop Street) is unnecessarily restrictive especially in the context of a 16m preferred street wall height on Bellerine Street being permitted directly south of the site. This would further promote a boulevard outcome on a key street down to the waterfront. We however note and strongly support the requirement at Clause 5.5-3 which states that “No maximum street wall height applies to sites on a corner up to a length of 30 metres on both sides. The street wall height specified in the Maximum Street Wall Height Requirements (identified in Map 3) applies beyond this distance.”

1 In line with this submission, it is also recommended that Figure 92 (Preferred maximum building height) within the Framework Plan be updated accordingly. 2021-06-30 Let-CGFPAC_Draft Central Geelong Framework Plan and Tract proposed planning controls 6 / 8

Given this requirement applies it seems counter intuitive to nominate an 8m preferred street wall height on Little Malop Street. We recommended that Map 3 be amended to provide for a consistent 16m street wall height along Bellerine Street (between Ryrie Street and Malop Street) as well as along Little Malop Street.2 Building setbacks The ACZ1 provides for an excessively complex arrangement of front, side and rear setbacks as well as building separation. The provisions also fail to recognise the unique context that each site possesses, in this case the Site has three street frontages. It raises questions such as would a 6m setback (above street wall height) be applied to each street frontage, or would a designated “front” be determined? If the latter, how would the “front” be determined? Even where a 4.5m setback may be adopted for secondary streets not considered to be the “front”, it results in an unnecessarily constrained development outcome. Buildings with setbacks less than 4.5m can be well- designed and highly articulated buildings. Given the geometry of the Site (and we suspect many others in the CBD) the proposed setback regime will impact on the ability to create design excellence, instead resulting in a homogenous and repetitive built form outcome. We strongly object to the requirement at Clause 4.4 that states “A terrace, deck or balcony should not protrude into the building setback requirements.” To apply such onerous setback requirements and not permit balconies to protrude into this space is excessive and unnecessarily restrictive. We recommend the requirement be deleted. Where the controls require a lesser setback to be adopted, we believe 3 metres is appropriate, and in this instance, include a requirement that balconies and terraces remain outside the setback zone for the building above. Car parking We strongly support the objective at Clause 2.0 that states “To provide car parking provision that responds to anticipated demand, except in the Retail Core precinct where additional car parking should be minimised.” Concessions on car parking provisions in the Retail Core precinct is critical to appropriately activate the precinct and providing equitable development outcomes. It also goes to directly encouraging alternate forms of transport to vehicular usage which should be strongly encouraged and will assist in facilitating activation of the streets in addition to reducing the cost of apartments (thereby) providing improved affordability and promoting and encouraging non-vehicular modes of transport and a more sustainable outcome for the City of Geelong. Implementation of New Controls In order to achieve the Minister’s vision for Geelong we are strongly of the view that the implementation of new controls must be carefully managed to achieve the preferred future character for Central Geelong is achieved. Specifically, planning permit applications should consider primarily the core objectives of the Framework Plan and new controls proposed under Amendment C431 to ensure development outcomes can be realised. It is submitted that the overarching policy thrust of Amendment C431 must prioritised to ensure undue weight is not given to retaining status quo neighbourhood character or impacts to existing built form when assessing the merits of an application.

2 In line with this submission, it is also recommended that Figure 93 (Street wall height) within the Framework Plan be updated accordingly.

2021-06-30 Let-CGFPAC_Draft Central Geelong Framework Plan and Tract proposed planning controls 7 / 8

4 Conclusion

Our client supports the broad principles of Amendment C431 and commends the Minister for Planning for their work in this regard. However, as outlined in this submission, there are several issues which we believe must be revisited in order to achieve the highest and best use of the Site and to ensure the delivery of a building exhibiting design excellence. We thank the Panel for the opportunity to make this submission and we look forward to presenting further submissions in due course.

Yours sincerely

Simon Loader Principal Town Planner Tract

2021-06-30 Let-CGFPAC_Draft Central Geelong Framework Plan and Tract proposed planning controls 8 / 8

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 100 Committee

Full Name: Stacey Leake Organisation: Affected property: Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49559 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet SUBMISSION FOR GEELONG FRAMEWORK REGARDING DIVERSION OF TRAFFIC TO RYRIE STREET

As a property-owning resident of in the Geelong CBD fringe, I find the Ryrie Street BIG Truck traffic in Geelong CBD to be noisy and unpleasant when using our city.

However, ideas to divert this traffic to residential streets further south such as McKillop Street that are highly residential only moves the problem and does not solve it satisfactorily in the short or long- term.

The solution we find as a community, rightly needs to be one that benefits ALL inner Geelong residents/commercial operators. We need to think “bigger” about how we find a long-term solution.

The only traffic diversion solutions that do not push the problem unfairly onto other inner Geelong residents is the construction of transport corridors such as tunnels and/or bridges while temporarily making use of whatever channels of ring roads already exist.

Despite its underlying status as the “Bellarine Hwy”, McKillop Street is HIGHLY residential. There are dwellings protected by Heritage overlays along the entire stretch which in itself denotes respect for their age and the cultural value to our community. Only small portions are mixed use zones and even less are of a commercial nature.

The impacts to our family and our community if traffic is diverted to McKillop Street include but are not limited to the following:

IMPACT DETAILS Increased Noise Current traffic on McKillop Street already includes huge trucks, commuter vehicles, holiday travel vehicles (caravans etc), buses, etc. Diverting MORE from the CBD will create a further increase in noise levels to further uncomfortable proportions for residents during sleep, quiet enjoyment and during recreation.

Social in-equitability McKillop Street already carries a heavy share of commuter traffic that affects residents in the area. Imposing more of this share directly on this portion of the community is inequitable. DANGER to families 1. Families with young children have moved into properties on McKillop Street to raise families; they have renovated and saved properties from demise investing tens of thousands of dollars to do so. Bringing such extra quantities of heavy traffic and the noise of trucks is a safety and wellbeing danger to the children in this family area. 2. St. Mary’s primary school playground for primary school aged children has its playground directly on McKillop Street. The negatives for increased traffic are obvious and include all the points within this table. Reduced public Hopetoun Park between Fitzroy/Burke Streets is open to McKillop Street enjoyment of green on its northern side and its value as a community space will be severely spaces affected by any increase in traffic - especially ‘heavy vehicle’ traffic.

It will reduce the community enjoyment of this facility due to noise and safety concerns and create foreseeable dangers to an area where children play.

Fencing foreseeably required to protect children will change the very nature of this open green community space. Health Fossil fuel exhaust from these heavy vehicles will pollute the front of our homes via the dirty air. We already experience this from the current dual lane highway; this will only increase as will stress associated with noise and congestion. Suitability for use The vast majority of McKillop Street is residential (see map below). This is NOT the case with Ryrie Street in our City Centre. Those walking through Ryrie Street, at daytime are primarily passing through – not residing in the environment. Congestion Geelong Fire station and Ambulance bases both enter McKillop Street to urgently service the community. Entering congested streets will delay the assistance and increase stress for emergency personnel and those needing their assistance. The same congestion will potentially delay returns to base for these vehicles and reduce the overall effectiveness of these vital services. Property Value Due to the negative elements of such a proposed approach, property declines values will be severely and negatively impacted by such a change to our neighbourhood. Community use Some local businesses operate from designated portions of McKillop Street; (much less than Ryrie) - for example Gull Transport where passengers are dropped off to access the airport transport links provided – the loading and unloading of belongings in this location with huge trucks thundering by will be off-putting for customers of this business and likely lead to a reduction or forced relocation.

Tennis club: Right opposite Hopetoun Park operates our community tennis club. Playing sport alongside the increased fumes of the traffic is another negative. This will put members off and make it difficult to continue to host such facilities. Community amenities The East Geelong Village (Garden Street village shops/Ormond Road shops) is a vibrant and important community amenity. The funneling of increased “through” traffic, and heavy traffic along this portion of McKillop Street will diminish enjoyment of community members who support the many small business operators, cafes and restaurants.

Residential use:

• Traffic on Ryrie Street travels through an area that is not the overall quantity of residential dwellings as is McKillop Street. • The simple interpretation of the map below shows how almost the complete length of McKillop Street is highly residential by comparison.

Figure 1. Overview of current zoning differences on Ryrie between Latrobe Street and portions of East Geelong.

Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 101 Committee

Full Name: Dale Young Organisation: Dominion Property Group Pty Ltd Affected property: Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49560 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet Dominion Property Group

7th July 2021

Department of Environment, Land Water and Planning Planning Implementation Division

Dear Sir / Madam

Submission to the Central Geelong Framework Plan

1 Background Dominion Property Group (DPG) represent the following landowners who are situated at the gateway of the Avalon Airport Precinct; Avalon 2020, Avalon City Pty Ltd and Avalon Lodge Pty Ltd. DPG have prepared Planning Scheme Amendments (PSA’s) for the respective landowners. The PSA’s form the basis of the creation of a new employment precinct referred to as the Avalon Gateway precinct. The Avalon Gateway precinct comprises approximately 335ha’s of land for employment generating purposes which would support a broader Avalon employment precinct encompassing and mutually supporting the existing Avalon International Airport facility. The proposed Avalon Airport Rail Link (AARL) would provide a strategic public transport link from Central Geelong to the newly created Avalon Gateway employment precinct and ultimately to the Avalon International Airport.

2 Submission We have reviewed and considered the strategic transport aspects of the Central Geelong Framework Plan, in particular as they relate to the future connectivity of the Central Geelong area to the Avalon Gateway employment precinct and the Avalon International Airport. Based on our review of the Central Geelong Framework Plan and relevant aspects of Strategic Transport relating to the Avalon area we hereby submit the following observations:  We note that the City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) propose to lodge a submission which (amongst other matters): o Identified the omission of the Avalon Airport Rail Link (AARL) from the Framework Plan; and o Seeks acknowledgement of the strategic public transport importance of the AARL between Central Geelong and the Avalon Airport.  We support CoGG’s submission which highlights the requirement for including the AARL within the Framework Plan. The omission of such a strategic rail link from the Framework Plan is a significant missed opportunity to strengthen Avalon’s role as Victoria’s second airport and ensure public transport is nominated as a key infrastructure attribute for the movement of future employees to a newly created Avalon Gateway employment precinct.  The Avalon Gateway employment precinct would benefit significantly from the AARL as a public transport link to and from Central Geelong. It should be noted that the Avalon Gateway employment precinct includes a concept to add an additional Train Station within the employment precinct.

Dominion Property Group Pty Ltd ABN: 53 827 653 781 Scottish House, Level 4, 90 William Street, MELBOURNE VIC 3000, Phone: 03 8199 7909

3 Conclusion Based on the above observations, we concur with CoGG’s assertion that the Central Geelong Framework Plan would benefit from an amendment to include reference to the AARL. The amendment to include the AARL would support the concept of the strategic benefit of public transport to the future Avalon Gateway employment precinct and to the benefit of the Avalon International Airport precinct. Should you have any queries regarding the details of this submission, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned on or via email at

Yours sincerely,

Richard Strates Director Dominion Property Group

2 Central Geelong Framework Plan Advisory 102 Committee

Full Name: Veronica Terracall Organisation: Eastern Beach Community Group Affected property: Attachment 1: https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/49564 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Comments:

Submission Cover Sheet

SUBMISSION TO DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENT, LAND, WATER AND PLANNING (DELWP)

CENTRAL GEELONG DRAFT FRAMEWORK PLAN

FROM: EASTERN BEACH COMMUNITY GROUP

DATE: 5th July 2021

Eastern Beach Community Group (EBCG) is pleased to lodge a submission to the DELWP’s Central Geelong Draft Framework Plan May 2021 (CGFP).

EBCG is a residential community group (see page 6. for list of members). Our community members reside on the Eastern fridge of the Central Geelong study area: Garden Street, Eastern Beach Road, Fitzroy Street, Pevensey Street, Pevensey Crescent, Alexandra Avenue, Ryrie Street and Malop Street. Our primary objectives are:

- To ensure the well-being and safety of residents and persons who work, visit, and use Eastern Beach and Eastern Gardens precincts for recreational use. - To work collaboratively with local and state Governments on issues directly impacting the safety and wellbeing of our community and the natural environment.

Further to the consultation on the CGDFP Eastern Beach Community Group would like to make the following submission:

While our members agree with many of the outcomes proposed within the framework plan, EBCG nevertheless objects to:

The inclusion of the Tourist Route along Eastern Beach Road and Garden Street as outlined within the CGFP via: Objective 23: Create a Clear Street Hierarchy within Central Geelong that connects Key Destinations and Reduces through Traffic (CGFP Draft - Strategy 23.1, page 90 and Figure 76 on page 91); and CGFP Transport Strategy -Tourist Routes (Pages 31, and Figure 17 on page 32).

EBCG also objects to the inclusion of an all-day commuter parking hub East along Eastern Beach Circuit as outlined within the CGFP Transport Strategy on page 59 and in Figure 41. ‘Parking hubs should be located on roads that facilitate traffic access. They cater for a higher capacity of traffic and will accommodate easy connections from parking to buses (PTV and shuttle) or walking connections to destination’ (page 59).

*A list of 7 recommendations is provided on page 4 and page 5 of this submission.

These conclusions are based on our review of these documents:

- Central Geelong Draft Framework Plan – April 2021 - Central Geelong Draft Framework Plan – Transport Strategy April 2021 - Municipal Heritage Strategy 2017-2021 - “Paleert Tjaara Dja” – Lets Make Country Great (Wadawurrung 2020-2030) - Geelong Play Strategy 2012-2021 - City Fringe Heritage Area Review Part 1 – Geelong City Council May 2017 - Heritage Council Victoria - Victorian Heritage Register – VHR H2095

PROPOSED TOURIST ROUTE – WESTERN BEACH ROAD, EASTERN BEACH ROAD AND GARDEN STREET.

1. The Tourist Route should be removed from the Strategy because it conflicts with the overall strategic aims of the CGDFP. The Strategy is weakly conceived, and it does not align with the frameworks vision and urban framework planning principles.

The Transport strategy identified significant constraints and contended ‘Eastern Beach should be supported as a tourism gateway, which would be undermined by traffic volumes expected on a City Access Road’ (page 31.)

The inclusion of a Tourist route strategy is flawed because it makes no reference to the delivery of infrastructure to support large volumes of traffic along Eastern Beach Road and Garden Street. In addition, the Strategy contends the eastern fringes of central Geelong will not be impacted by the CGDFP (page 22.)

‘Beyond these precincts, but still within the study area, are residential areas that have limited commercial uses and limited further development capacity. The structure plan does not envisage these areas changing from their current residential zone and they are therefore not included in the precincts’.

2. The proposed Tourist Route via Eastern Beach Road and Garden Street is outside of the study area. The waterfront precinct contained within the framework encompasses part of the Eastern Beach foreshore that is outside of the study area. Being outside of the study area the background work and engagement with the community on how the Tourist route would impact the community and the natural environments of Eastern Beach and Eastern Gardens precinct.

The inclusion of a Tourist Route strategy is flawed because it does not acknowledge or align with Heritage Strategy 2017-2021 to engage with the Geelong Community on how our cities cultural heritage landscapes are protected and managed.

“We will recognise, protect and share heritage which contributes to the character and sense of pride and place in our community. Heritage is an important part of our identity and has made Geelong a great place to live for thousands of years. Our present and future will be guided by the recognition, respect and celebration of our past” (Municipal Heritage Strategy2017/2021 – Vision Statement page 19).

EBCG consider the inclusion of a Tourist route along Eastern Beach and Garden Street would have a significant impact on the community and natural environment within and beyond the study area.

3. EBCG consider the inclusion of a Tourist route along Eastern beach Road and Garden Street does not align with the vision for Central Geelong as identified in the Framework plan.

A lifestyle City and A City Connected to Place

- The amenity of Geelong’s magnificent and unique Eastern Beach and Eastern Gardens would be flawed by increased traffic flow and congestion. - The impact of traffic flow and congestion, noise and environmental pollution on our heritage landscape setting has not been acknowledged or addressed in the Framework Strategy.

- The road infrastructure on the Eastern fringe of Geelong Central was developed in the late 1800s; Eastern Beach Road and Garden Street as a Tourist Route is ill chosen and does not align with the significance the city’s east heritage area and streetscapes.

“The city east heritage area is of local historic and aesthetic significance to the city of greater Geelong”. (City Fringe Heritage Area Review Part 1 - Page 3)

- Increased traffic flow and congestion would significantly impact on the east heritage areas aesthetic significance to the City of Greater Geelong. - Increased traffic flow and congestion would have a negative impact on our community’s sense of place, well-being, ease of movement and feeling safe around our local streets. - Garden Street and Eastern Beach Road experience large volumes of traffic and pose a safety risk to the many families who live in Geelong or come and visit the Eastern Beach foreshore and play spaces. - Developing Easter Beach Road as a designated Tourist route would create a block and interfere with families, pedestrians and cyclists accessing Eastern Beach foreshore.

4. The Tourist Route Strategy should be deleted as it does not align with the Urban Framework Strategy 5.3 Built Form and Design – The structure plan and detailed Urban Design seeks to protect the culture and heritage of Geelong.

“Eastern Park and Geelong Botanical Gardens are a historic, scientific (Botanical) and aesthetic significance to the State of Victoria, as well as significant or their rarity and uniqueness, potential to educate and illustrate and ability to exhibit the principal characteristics or representative nature” …….(sic)…Eastern Beach and Botanical Gardens is of historical significance as the second earliest botanical reserve created only five years after Melbourne’s Royal Botanic Gardens (H1459)”. Victorian Heritage Register

EBCG consider the inclusion of a Tourist route via Eastern Beach Road and Garden Street should be deleted because the Strategy does not acknowledge the historical significance of Eastern Beach and Eastern Gardens, nor does the strategy include policies and processes to protect the natural history and streetscapes of Eastern Gardens and surrounding area.

5. Contained within the strategic context residential growth has been highlighted as driving the success of the framework plan.

‘Housing and an increasing population will play a crucial role in unlocking central Geelong economic potential and evolution into a higher order centre. More people living in central Geelong means a more vibrant, active and attractive environment for people in the city centre (Page 72)’

The draft Framework has not considered how it will provide the future residents with an enhanced amenity they require through connection to Open Space, Eastern Beach, and natural heritage landscape at Eastern Gardens. In addition, the Framework plan does not provide specific details on how the vision with the residential growth would align with three of the four Municipal Heritage Strategy Objectives.

a) Protecting “We will protect our heritage and meet our statutory obligations”.

b) Supporting

“We will support heritage through councils’ various roles and responsibilities”.

c) Communicating Education & Celebration.

“Will celebrate our heritage and raise awareness and appreciation of it”.

EBCG consider the Framework Strategy flawed, as there has been no engagement with the Geelong community on “urbanisation” nor on how such a significant Open Space resource Eastern Beach and Eastern Gardens is to be protected and managed.

PARKING HUBS

Eastern Beach Community Group objects to the inclusion of a designated Parking Hub along Eastern Park circuit and/or expanding existing car park facilities to the east; along Eastern Park Circuit (CGDFP - Objective 26 has identified the need to encourage a consolidated approach to parking).

‘The location of car parking facilities has a significant impact on traffic congestion, amenity and economic utility. It is important that large parking areas built in the future are located toward the outer fringe of central Geelong.’

The strategy is flawed and should be deleted as it does not align with the vision for Central Geelong as a UNESCO – City of Design.

EBCG consider the strategy to build a parking hub along Eastern Beach Circuit undermines UNESCO principles and dimensions of cultural heritage. Eastern Gardens is a unique cultural heritage resource, and the strategy does not protect or preserve the natural heritage landscape of Eastern Gardens or Eastern Beach precincts.

EBCG objects to the inclusion of large parking hub on the outskirts of Central Geelong. We believe the Strategy is flawed as it does not align with Objective 27: Deliver high quality urban spaces that promote social interaction and are engaging, safe, attractive, and welcoming and Strategy 27.4 Provide a public realm that supports safety, comfort, accessibility, and inclusion for all.

The strategy to build large parking hubs on the fringes of Geelong is flawed and should be deleted as large car parks if not managed creates ‘hang-outs’ for ‘hoons’ impacting the communities’ sense of safety and wellbeing. Limeburner’s Boat Ramp, Richie Boulevard, Hearne parade carpark, and the carparking facilities near Geelong High School are 4 well-known ‘hang-outs’ for hoons, reckless drivers and vandals.

Eastern Beach Community Group Recommendations

Eastern Beach Community Group submits 7 priority actions that address the communities needs and desire to improve pedestrian and road safety, enhance community well-being and respect the cultural heritage of surrounding landscape:

1. Traffic calming solutions including signs, speed humps, pedestrian crossings, and road markings to slow down traffic and to raise driver awareness for high pedestrian activity. We contend the lack of adequate calming measures, the volume of traffic and high pedestrian activity using Garden Street and Eastern Beach Road and Eastern Beach Circuit pose a risk to pedestrian safety. We have experienced or seen families, the elderly and dog walkers ‘at risk of being injured while attempting to access Eastern Gardens. High pedestrian activity happens along Garden Street, Eastern Beach Road and Podbury Drive intersection, Eastern Park Circuit near the Botanical Gardens.

- We request the installation of a pedestrian island crossing at Garden Street and Alexandra Avenue which will provide a refuge for pedestrians to cross Garden Street and safely access Eastern Gardens. In addition, the crossing will provide safe refuge for Geelong city commuters parking on the eastern side of Garden Street.

- We contend the pedestrian refuge islands at Eastern Beach Road and Podbury Drive intersection poses a high risk to pedestrians as is has five converging entry points: Hearne parade carpark, Hearne parade, Podbury Drive, Eastern Beach Road and Garden Street. We request installation of safety signs and road markings alerting drivers (especially the rat runners) to slow down and watch for pedestrians.

- We request the installation of speed humps along Garden Street between Malop Street and Eastern Beach Road and along Hearne Parade to Limeburner’s boat ramp.

- We request the roadway installation of speed humps and pedestrian crossings in Fitzroy Street between Malop Street and Alexandra Avenue and the reduction of the roadway width to the minimum required at the intersection of Fitzroy Street and Alexandra Avenue. The intersection poses a risk to pedestrian safety.

2. We request the immediate installation of fencing to protect and preserve our heritage parklands at key locations; Eastern Beach Circuit; Corner of Podbury Drive and Garden Street; Hearne Parade Carpark. Eastern Gardens parkland is being significantly damaged at these locations through the inappropriate visitation of motor vehicles; vandals driving their cars into the gardens with the intention of damaging the landscape; vehicles parking on the parkland during major events and during the peak summer season; and RVs using Eastern Park as a camping ground.

3. EBCG supports the completion of the Malop Street Green Spine and recommends the next funded section be completed in an East/West direction, from the Malop/Garden Streets intersection and working backwards. This would have an immediate impact on traffic congestion and with the addition of proposed calming solutions in Garden Street, Eastern Beach Road, Fitzroy Street, Hearne Parade and Eastern Park Circuit, to prevent speeding and dangerous driving practices.

4. Urgent removal of one lane of traffic at right turn from Ryrie Street (Portarlington Road) into Garden Street; we understand this was planned over a decade ago, but never implemented. However, it is far from acceptable with traffic volumes continually increasing accompanied by poor driver behaviour. Garden Street between Ryrie Street and Malop Street has significant pedestrian traffic from the High School and commuters to the Hospitals and CBD. Many make the risky crossing of Garden St at around Park St in the face of speeding drivers so why would additional vehicle traffic in the vicinity be a good idea?

Our members feel let down by Council (and VicRoads) as to amenity and safety in our area. We are constantly confronted with speeding “rat runners” in Park Street, speeding in Garden Street, together with frustrated drivers honking at each other with the merging to one lane. On this point and from our observations on roads around Victoria the Ryrie St right turn into Garden St would be unique – i.e. A 2-lane diversion from a major linking C class road to 1 lane local street – a superficial pragmatic traffic plan with no regard to local resident amenity.

6. We request the installation of red-light cameras at the intersection of Ryrie Street and Garden Street and signage prohibiting heavy vehicles’ use of air brakes.

7. One-way streets have not been considered in the Framework Plan? Surely this would be an easy option to implement that could result in calming traffic in this area whilst preventing traffic rat runs through residential streets and congestion at key points in Malop and Garden Streets. - Already most traffic travels down Brougham Street, along Eastern Beach Road and along Malop/Garden Streets to get to the Portarlington Road. - Designating this road as a city access road is another lazy solution rather than considering alternative options. - This road is heavily congested in the mornings and especially in the evenings, and when major events are on. - Daily commuter traffic should not be scampering through suburban streets (they race through our street and others to beat the traffic ahead of them onto Malop Street

The Eastern Beach Community Group request State and Local Government to engage with the local community in and beyond the study area.

Kind Regards

Veronica Terracall - Representative Eastern Beach Community Group Geelong Email: M:

Veronica and John Terracall Nicole and Craig Porte Kerry and Brian Davies Margie and Luciern Roncon Jenny and Andrew Green Helen Hinkfuss Anne Jones Charles Morphy Adele Bartram and Shane Goodall Cheryl Scott Diane James AM Mark Stone AM

Kelly Jordan Sue and Michael Barnes Molly Jones Pat and Graham Blood Marita and Reg Eagles Leonie and Henry Brockman Anita Sachev Doug Mc Coll Kathy Zandi Lesley Williams Pam and Terry Stevenson Margaret and Ron Morphy Lydia and Peter Snow Wendy Zumpe Linda Bennett Stacey and Ben Hazel Kerry and Greg Denison Lyn and Doug Gow