! ,I
WILLIAMSTOWN VILL'AGE
"WILLIAMSTOWN VILLAGE" SITE
'Development Proposal
for ... . .e:• •e. Presentation to the ~---...... -..... :.' .... ,- . • • •. : \~~ • • -'... !, I . • •• MinisterforPI~nning , .' •• .. • • .• • ....• e'. .. - .....~ .~ .. • •,. 'i~'1 .', • -.}-- ::~~.! ~ -.. ~ •.• •. , .. • ...... '\ ,..... I, : ( ! . \ . ~ , : . )- .. . ~'. . .. " . .' .•• • . '.<. .-. by . ' . .•••• ..i~)': :: City of Williamstown : , . .• • . •• •• •• •• • •. ) ' , .' Feb. 1987 ••• • . , I I I I .. .-:.... :---...;;.; I . WILLIAMSTOWN. I "., VILLAGE I • 0 . ", '.~ .. " .. I :"WILLIAMSTOWN VILLAGE" :·SIT.E . J I·-Development Proposal .. I I . for. .., .c/\...... ,'/ ...... / ...•. . 0 Presentation to.: the. . -,. I ._ . .. ~,.. .e' ' •. ::', . L.~. ! ." ~~~~~ .. .', . I . Minister fQr 'PI~nnirig' • .• •e', ·.,e.• . ••• " :: e ••. -: ''-~.~: . " ..'~ ,/ .... I ~.·I. .• ".,.!: .•.. ~ ~.,.~.. "~~." .~ ~ I ~'. ., ~ \ '... ..' .'• •.e, . :. . .>. ~(!i._ ••· . .~ ,I ~'4.; ___ .~:. • . ,"e. . •. i , '?'. :0 ..by-_- ie'::. ....•. -'~.' I .. .' .'. City of WillialTlstQwn . ~ '... '. ... . •• ..•• ..• eo' I· ,!. ./ \ ,e'" .~' Feb.. 19,87 .. __ .• •. I ;~~' I
711.4 99451 ~ WIL:W I I
I I I I I I I I .1 EO) I I I I I I I I 711 .4099451 "Williamstown village" site: WIL:W development proposal: for presentation to the Minister for I Planning I ~~ ..
(. ~~'- ( -k_',c- - I .... 'f' . Schedule of Content$ ...... - '., ~... . ",
I 'IDPIC PAGE NO.
I I LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS, PLANS AND DIAGRAMS 1 I II CREDITS 2 III FORE"vK>RD 3 I IV GEXX;RAPHlCAL 7 . General Area I position Abutting Uses I V ANALYSIS OF SITE FFA'lURES 10 - Geology & Soils I Site Geology 10 pasture usage 10 Likely Soil cOnditions 10 I Likely Footing Types 11 Construction Problems 11 I Future Investigations 11 - utility Services 13 Sewerage 13 I water 13 Main Drainage 13 Electricity 14 I Gas 14 Telephone 14 I - vegetation 16 - Avifauna 16 I - 'lbpography 16 I - Landscape 18 - Wind" 18 VI DEM:X;RAPHIC DATA" 23 I \ VII AVAlLABILI'lY OF COMMUNI'lY FACILITIES & SERVICES 23 I VIII TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT 26 I - Bicycle Routes IX SPOCIAL IMPLICATIONS IN PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL USAGE 28 I Hazard X BUFFERS 28 ~I I I XI SOCIOLCX;ICAL FAC'roRS i 31 - Community. Satisfaction. I XII PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 31 Integration
I XIII PROPOSED BUFFER ZONES . 33 I XIV THE CONCEPT 33 xv DEVELOPMENT AGRE;EMENT 33 I XVI DRAFT PLANNING SCHEME ORDINANCE 37 - Explanatory Memorandum
I - Melbourne and Metropolitan Planning Scheme Amendment NO ••••••• I XVII APPENDIX 38 1. Report of a Survey by a Sub-Committee of the. City of Williamstown into Oommunity Opinion I of Quality of Life in Williamstown I 2. Survey questionnaire 38 3. Department of Minerals and Energy - Hazard Assessment . 39
I 4. Report of Time Planning Re9ulations arid practice with Reference to Buffer ZOnes - Israel - Mr. Shuki Shoshani - (Univ'~) Technico, I Haifa, Israel 40
5. Report on the Results of the Community I Satisfaction Survey Williamstown District - Dr. C. Roy Stather and Paul Lochert - Chisolm Institute of Technology 41 I 6. NOtes on Assessment of Thesis - Dr. D.G. Ross - Executive Director, Centr~ for Applied I Mathematicall>Ddelling - Chisolm Institute 42
I \ I I I I ~ I "- 1'-
. ;. '. I List of Photographs, Plans & Diagrams. ,"-
I W.T. 01 Regional LoCation page 5 W.T. 02 Aerial Photograph of Site and Environs (from West) Ti. tIe Sheet (Inside I W.T. 03 II II II U" II (from South) page 4 front W.T. 04 II a a "" II (from East) page 6 cover)
I W.T. 05 Planning Scheme page 8'
I W.T. 06 Schedule of ownerships page 9
I W.T. 07 site Geology plan - (Mitford Soil Testing) page 12 I W.T. 08 utility Services plan (SCott & Furphy) page 15 I W.T. 09 Existing Facilities and Amenities page 25 I W.T. 10 Traffic Access Plan page 27 W.T. 11 TOpography. and Landscape Elements page 17 I W.T. 12 Wind Roses - LoCation Of Meteorological stations page 19 I W.T. l2A Wind Rose - paisley (Environmental Protection Authority) 20 W. T. l2B Wind Rose - Williamstown (Port of Melbourne Author i ty) 21 I W. T. l2C Wind Rose - Laverton (Bureau of Meteorology) 22
I W.T. 13 Development Buffers & Elements. 32
I W.T. 14 Key Structural Elements 34 I W.T. 15 Concept Layout - Williamstown Village 35 \ I W.T. 16 Concept-Aerial perspective I I I I 2 CREDITS I For assistance in the preparation of this report the' City of 'Williamstown I extends its appreciation to :- I 1. Dr. Terry Bellairs, Environmental Scientist
I 2. Mr. A.J. Fraser and Miss S. Mott with the sub-COmmittee of the City of I Williamstown for research into noammunity Opinion of Quality of Life in Williamstown n,
I 3. Dr. John Holland, Mitford SOil Testing
I 4. Messrs. K.A. Reed, TOwn Planners, Architects, Surveyors
I 5. Dr. Graham Ross, Executive Director - Department of Mathematical I l-bdelling 6. Messrs. Scott.& Furphy, Consulting Engineers I 7. Dr. C. Roy Stather and Mr. Paul Lochert, Statistical Analysis - Centre for I Applied Mathematical Modelling - Chisolm Institute of Technology I 8. The City of Williamstown Sub-COmmittee I 9. Max Parsons & Associates - Land Surveyors. I \.
I \ I I I I - 3 :- I . FOREWORD
1.1 In June 1984 The City of Williamstown applied to. the then Planning I Authority, The Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of WOrks, for the rezoning of an area of land bounded by Maddox Road in the west,the Railway on the north, Florence street on the east and Kororoit Creek Road on the south - I ("The Williamstown village Site") •
1.2 All necessary services were found to be available and there was general I agreement on the need for residential land in Williamstown.
I 1.3 The Environmental Protection Authority was not satisfied in relation the possible intrusion of odour and/or noise.
I NO decision has at this time been made in relation to the City of I Williamstown's application. 1.4 For many years Williamstown has sought the appropriation of an area long I occupied by the Merrit Rifle Range for residential purposes. . The Commonwealth Government decision to sell the Range for housing and the subsequent report by the Williamstown Rifle Range working Group recommending residential development on the Range bring into focus the I question of the appropriate usage of the wiliiamstown Village Site.
I 1.5 The bulk of the Village Site abuts residential development but is itself zoned general and partly light industrial and the development of the village Site is therefore critical to future residents on the Merrit Rifle I Range area as well as to the residential area abutting. ' .
1.6 The demand for industrial land within the City of Williamstwn is weak. I There is a considerable excess of available industrial land over any present or anticipated future requirement. The Maddox Road Industrial I .Estate is barely 25% occupied. 1.7 The City of Williamstown believes that it is appropriate now to resolve the question of future usage of the Williamstown village Estate and in I particular to plan for integrated overall development of the area I comprising the village Site and the Rifie Range. 1..8 This report reviews much of the work and research that has taken place in relation to the two areas and concludes 'that in the interests of the City I and all of its res~dents a modified proposal for an Amendment of present zoning of the village Site (Appendix I) should be exhibited.
I 1.9 This report includes and is cross referenced with a report by the City of Williamstown sub-committee relating to the Williamstown Village Site. I 1.10 The City of Williamstwn accordingly seeks the consent of the Minister of Planning to such exhibition. I I
I - 5 - , I c '-,iUlLAMARIN .l ____~IRPORT I I -t I ,,I I -"'\ '"'\ ...... I ...... , I I I I I I I I I POR T PHJLLlP BA Y I
I '\ I ~ HIGHWAY I
I REGIONAL. . LOCATION I WT.01.
------
ZONES ZONES ZONES I RURAL BUSINESS • LOCAL TRANSPORTATION VILLAGE I V I INDUSTRIAL • LI GHT SPECIAL USE • (SERIALL Y NUMBERED AS IN ORDINANCE! I RESIDENTIAL • A W//bi • GENERAL A I, A Z · SPECIAL RESERVATIONS . B · RESER VED LI GHT .
I . C II • RESERVED GENERAL PUBLIC OPEN SPACE EXISTING .
• D II • COI,IMER CI AL & INDUSTRIAL II PROPOSED
RESERVED LIVING · SERVICE PUBLIC PURPOSES EXISTING . I ( SEE P~EL AT EXTREME RIGHTl B USINESS · CENTRAL · EXTR ACTI VE 11 PROPOSED I · DISTRICT · OFFENSIVE • CEMETERIES lit CREMATORIA • RESTRICTED • DAN GEROUS CIVIL AIRFIELDS - 7 - I GEXX;RAPHICAL I 2.1 GENERAL 1 The Williamstown village Site (See Map 05) is situated- (a) 1.3 km.·from nearest boundary of the Petroleum Refineries 1 Association plant in Kororoit Creek Road, Altona. I (b) 1.5 km from the Williamstown TOwn Hall (c) 8 km. from the City of Melbourne 1 (d) Directly opposite the Merrit Rifle Range in Kororoit Creek Road. (e) 300 metres from Port Phillip Bay I (f) with ready access to West Gate Bridge and the City and the freeway (princes Highway) to Geelong. I 2.2 AREA The total site comprises approximately 40 ha. I 2.3 POSITION The site is bounded by Maddox Road to the West, the Railway. to the north, I Florence Street to the east and Kororoit Creek Road to the south.
2.4 ABUTTI~ USES 1 (a) TO the north there is older style housing separated only by the Newport Railway Line. 1 (b) TO the bnmediate east is some new 'residentialdevelopmentfringing older style housing.
(c) TO the south is th~ Merrit Rifle Range, the easterly section of I which is zoned Reserved Living and proposed Public Open Space. (See Map 05). 1 (d) TO the.south west is the John Grey Reserve and Altona Spotts park (e) TO the west is the Maddox Road Industrial Estate .which abuts paisley park, the site of a proposed golf course. 1 '..
\ 1 1 .1 I 13 PAISLEY PARK PROPOSED GOLF COURSE
I ~ fu~mm~~ 'h /'!(
/ ~
1- .' ...... I ~ ' , . -----...... ~~~ - - ...... - I 1=_--I ~ . ;j' \ I . \~--- . 1 ,urUJU;· 1 PUTUIlE.' Pt/8I.JC OPEN \ \ RES/PEA/rIAL' \~ / ' I I \~ I " -r J 1 ',. LrcIEND \ 1 AREA PROPOSED 10 BE REZONED SCALf 1: 5000 1 ~ TO RESIDENTIAL '(' I 1 HO GROUP 1 GILBERTSON / GREENHAM I ] CARA VAN PARK 1 - SCHEDULE OF OWNERSHIP WT.06. I . G .. 10 ... ANALYSIS OF SITE FFA'IDRES I Special Note The E.P.A. have adversely commented on the development of the site for I residential purposes pn the grounds that the site had been subject to unControlled fill in the past. I The same engineering solutions would apply whether the site is used for industrial purposes fas presently zoned) or residential purposes. It is a matter of the mechanics of engineering t~ remove and replace unsuitabie fill and I to determine the proper building procedures. GOOLCX;Y AND SOILS \. I Report prepared by Mitford Soil Engineering (Victoria) pty. Ltd. -Dr. J.E. HOlland Ph.D. B.E., (Civic), F.I.E. Aust. I 3.1 SITE GOOLCX;Y - See wr. 07 The site of this proposed developnent eOvers two basic geologies. The approximate extent of these geologies is shown on Figure wr. 07 attached which I is taken from Melbourne Geological Survey Map 1822 sheet SJ55-l. The geological boundary roughly bisects the site diagonally from the north west I corner to the south east corner. South of this line is Quaternary Swamp deposits which is coastal in nature and comprises tine sands and silts with layers of seashells. North of this line is I a Quaternary Basalt deposits.· This basalt deposit derives from igneous extrusions and is basically a "flow" rock. That is the depth to the fresh or sound rock surface is likely to vary as the rock flow tends to follow contours I and Obstru9tions at the time it was deposited. The residual clays derived from this Basalt are known to be highly expansive but I again the thickness of these clay layers are likely to be variable. 3.2 PAST USAGE I lt is understood that the majority of this site has been subject to mainly uncontrolled filling in the past. I OVer the western side of the site filling derived from the construction of the Newport Power Station, and other sites was spread over this area and the I adjoining industrial estate. OVer the eastern and central areas of this site extensive tipping to a depth of 3m was carried out over a number of years. The exact extent of this tipping is unknown at this stage, but it is believed to extend from Railway parade in the I north to Kororoit Creek Road in the south. Tipping operations are believed to have ceased at least 15 years ago. I 3.3 LIKELY SOIL CCNDITtONS TO date there is no evidence of any significant investigations of the soil on I the site in question. However, past investigations by Mitford Soil Engineering have revealed the I following:- . (1) Tennyson Street Area (west of Site) I In this area silty clays, and rubble filling to a depth of about 1.6 metres is known to exist over the natural sandy swamp deposits. However, these sand deposits are typically wet and collapsing I because of·the existence of a high water table. - 11 - I ! -. (2) Walter street Area (East of Site) I In this area uncontrolled filling cOmprising of clay, concrete and basalt boulders is known to exist at depths of 1.2 to 2.4 metres. Below this level is the natural ,expansive clay Basaltic soil I profile. ' Based on preliminary discussions with both local residents and Oouncil officers I it is likely that the central area of the site is filled to a depth of about 3 metres. The upper 0.6 to 1m,being basically clay and rubple with the remainder being sanitary landfill. ' \.,
I 3.4 LIKELY F (1) Aerial photographs should be examined to determine the extent, age and I approximate depth of filling over this site. " (2) Test pits and boreholes should then be placed over the site 'to define the soil conditions and locate areas of poor filling that may require special I treatment. ' , (3) Areas of poor filling, should be examined closely to verify their extent I and deep penetrometer testing carried out to determine the viability of various development options. ' ' I I ... ,," '- 12. - I I R~ILWAt' PAR'i(OE ~ I ~ ~ '" "'" ~ ~ '" ~ ~. ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ '" '" ~ ~ I '" I 'If ~ ~-~-". I· '" '" I TENNYSO I I I KOROROIT CREEK ROAD I I LEGEND I E22:3 .REPRESENTS QUATERNARY SWAMP DEPOSITS .. I I··:~.:J REPRESENTS QUATERNARY BASAlTS I . .. \ MIT FORD SOIL ENGINEERING (VIC) PlY. LTD. Iii I I .GEOlOGY PL.AN" SITe. :-0: . ~ . .. .,...... I "" WT~07.:" I - 13 - UTILI'lY SERVICES I Report prepared by SCott & Furphy Engineers Pty. Ltd. Consulttng EngineeI;s - see plan W.T. 08 I 4.1. SE.WERAGE I . Authority - Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of WOrks . There is an existing MMBW reticulation sewer in Florence Street which caters for the existing development abutting Florence street. This sewer I is at or near capacity and would only serve a very small portion of the development site abutting Florence ~treet. I The Board have a "partially funded/contributor" scheme under design to sewer the industrial area west of Maddox Road, which would also involve the extension of a major branch sewer to Maddox Road/Kororoit Creek Road intersection. Ultimately this branch sewer would be further extended I along Kororoit Creek Road to Florence street to relieve the sewer system in this area. I The timing for the sewer extension to cover the area west of Maddox Road is very vague as it is dependent on contributions from owners of this industrial land. The extension of the branch sewer along Kororoit Creek Road has not been considered by the Board on any long term program of I works but is more dependent on the possible development of the Rifle Range site •. I The branqh sewer extension along Maddox ~d would serve the p~~posed development site east of Maddox Road. I The timing for construction of this branch sewer could be bro~ght forward if either of the developers of the proposed developments (Ho Group or Rifle Range) were to provide finance for the sewer extension. I Internal sewer reticulation would be provided under the normal MMBW terms and conditions. I 4.2 WATER I Authority - Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of WOrks There are existing water mains in Rosshire Road which could be extended along Maddox Road to serve the site. The Board also have a "partially funded/contributory" scheme to extend the water main along Maddox Road to I serve the industrial area west of Maddox Road. proposals and timing for this extension are again vague due to the requirement for owner contributions, but could be brought forward if the developer was to I finance the const~uction. Internal water reticulation would also be provided under the MMBW's normal I terms and conditions. .' 4.3 MAIN DRAINAGE I Authority - Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of works Drainage to the site is provided by the MMBW Challis Street drain. South I of Kororoit Creek Road this drain is a concrete lined channel but is unconstructed between Kororoit Creek Road and the railway line. I I -14 - I The Board has no proposals to construct ,this section along Challis street at present as there are no firm proposals to develop the area or to ' I construct Challis street. However, the Board would be prepared to construct this section of drain in conjunction with the developnent works under its normal terms and conditions. The abutting land may need to be filled to provide adequate I fall in subdivisional drainage connecting into the Main Drain. There is also an existing concrete lined MMBW channel crossing the south I west corner of the site from Maddox Road. Developnent of land around or over this drain may be restricted. I 4 .4 ELEX:TRICITY Authority - Cit! of Williamstown (east of Challis Street) I state Electrici y oammission of victoria (west of Challis Street) Both authorities advise that electricity supply is readily available to service the site. Normal SEC conditions and charges would apply to the I area west of Challis street: currently $1,150 per residential lot refundable over 10 years (underground or overhead) plus $690 Per lot charge for an underground supply. I The City of Williamstown charge $690 per lot (non refundable) for underground supply and approximately half this amount for overhead I supply. 4.5 GAS I There are existing gas mains in Kororoit Creek Road east of Walter Street which could be extended to service the site. I 4.6 TELEPHONE , A telephone service could be provided to service the site. I I I I \ I I I I - 15 ~ I . , " I I I I I I i ! . I I I I I 600mmtl '3xi I I I I I Propo ..d Water Suppl,,· I I I SERVICES . ", -~...... I , WT.OS. I - 16 - I VEX;ETATION 5.1 The land is virtually devoid of significant vegetation having been I extensively filled. There is same poor 'quality pasture. I AVIFAUNA I 6.1 The Village Site is not presently attractive to avifauna, as a consequence of factors including :- I (a) Use for walking and recreation by residents including children from the Hobsons Bay Caravan park I (b) Use for agistment of horses. (c) Recent filling I 6.2 The area is close to the Rifle Range and the various species referred to in the Williamstown Rifle Range Development proposal at pages 16 and 17 I would no doubt be sighted from time to time over the iand. 6.3 Where no significant nesting has been observed in the area, the provision of proposed green bands, trees and mounding would render the village site I more attractive to birdlife. I 'IDPCX;RAHPY (Plan WT 11) 7.1 The Site generally has a maximum elevation of 5M (AHD). Same fill is I stored at higher levels. I 7.2 The Site is generally flat with a minimum elevation of 2.6 M (AHD) 7.3 There are no steep slopes save that this site is intersected by the M.M.B.W. main drains in the area of Challist Street and in the south west I corner. I 7.4 There is a gentle slope generally north to south. * Information has been derived from extensive survey to the east of I the Site and fairly minimal survey to the west. \ I I I I - -- -·N - LOW SCALf URBAN DEVELOPMENT t DlST ANT VIEWS OF PETROLEUM REfiNERY ~ SLlGHT.t Q SLOPE ...-" .'-.--____ 0 Ik 1i:~~I-~~~;;;;--....-:::;: ..~~"-- SITE BOUNDARY 0: . , , I OPPORTUNITY I :- /' .''I .. FOR LANDSCAPED , lINIC I , ~+f---4-"-"""r-- NEW SUBDIVISION "<- --~-... -~------, . I GOOD QUALITY 'V STOREY HOUSING ... JOHN GRAY RESERVE RESERVED RESIDENTIAL RifLE RANGE ..- AL lONA PARI< PORT PHILLIP BAY I - 18 - LANDSCAPE (Plan WT 11) I 8.1 There are no on-site landscape features of intrinsic interest. I 8.2 The major off-site areas of intrinsic· interest include:- (a) Port Phillip Bay - views are possible from much of the village Site. I " (b) The Reserve to the immediate East. I (c) The John Grey Reserve to the South. (d) Altona Sport Park to the South. I (e) The Reserve to the North-East with pony club facilities. I (f) The historic fishing village 350 metres to the South. (g) The many points of landscape interest within the Rifle Range area proposed to become available. I (h) The P.R.A. Refinery to the west. I WIND (Plans WT 12, WT l2A,WT l2B, WT l2C) 9.1 Tb the extent that local factors intervene in wind patterns some I difficulty will always be experienced in extrapolating data applicable to the Williamstown village Site or the Rifle Range site when that data originates from wind testing stations situated elsewhere. I 9.2 Data is available from three meteorological stations in relatively close proximity to the site and these are :- I (a) Environmental protection Authority at paisley - Plan WT l2A (b) Bureau of Meteorology at Laverton - Plan WT l2B (c) Melbourne Port Authority at williamstown - Point Gellibrand - plan I WT l2C 9.3 All show a heavy emphasis on Southerly winds although in the case of the Melbourne Port Authority data and no doubt consistent with the topography I of the coast there is a slight shift towards South-East. . 9.4 The data clearly demonstrates that the majority of' both strong and I moderate winds·. come from a southerly direction (See Williamstown Rifle Range Development proposal at page 28). 9.5 The village Site apjoining as it does the Rifle Range Site co~ld be I expected to experience winds virtually identical to those experienced on the Rifle Range. I 9.6 'Anecdotal information and conclusioQ from The COmmunity Opinion of Quality of Life in Williamstown Study are consistent with the area being subject to prevailing Off Shore Southerlys and this perception clearly extends I over the Railway Line into Newport. I I 0. I i~ ) \ I .'-- ../1. , MEln. I ./- I -" -- .r..., - . I I I I I I . /.-~ I I I I I I \\TRR~~ ._ ., \ · · f~ · J I r- i: Y-- I _ _ • \ • . I , . /'r I I \ ,'. -. -- . ~ ~ \ . , I -.:'...::...-: f _ j " ~ ' ; I'rr/ ". --_ .. - ' l ~ -i r - ~ - -[ -1 . ) I, I , I I I I~ ______~ ~ . ,,- _ _ ._... _u • .-.- . ... ?-" . " - _ _ { I I r · I .• - - - _ I : I METEOROLOGICAL STATION LOCATION PLAN PO R T PHILLIP SA Y - SHOWING PREVAILING WINDS I WT.12. I - 20- HINb SPEED SC~LE IN HIS I ( 1 - I I 0.2 1.5 - 3.0 ~.5 6.0 OVER Tn Tn Tn - Tn TO I-'J 'J I U I V I .' 1.5 3.0 ~.S 6.0 7.5 7.5 N I NNW NNE - I ' ~. - NE I NW I / . I ~~\'\ \_ ENE I WNW! I I \\\ '\ :.) E H I ) ) t I I I / / ESE 10.·~-- I .... / ~/ . So I I SSE s I \ PERCENTAGE F~EQUENCY OF OCCURENCE I HOURL Y AVERAGE- SURFACE WINDS '63 - '64 ALL YEAR. I I : WIND ROSE. PAISLEY ,I WT.12A. I .- 21 - I I ,., I I . -.! I' NNE' I NNW I HE 4.84 0/0 I I EN£ I .. I I ESE I I Sf 17.08 0/0 I ~i SSW . ,-.j.~~- SSE S 16.59 % I \ I PERCENTAGE'ANNUA( FREQUENCY PORT OF MELBOURNE AUTHORITY MELBOURNE DIVISION . ~ I WILLIAMSTOWN BASE I ... ~,IN~ . ~OSE W.ILLIAMSTOWN·,''" I ·~Wt.'12B~·. .. ". I -22 N N N I I I I . JANUARY fEB~UARY . MA~(H I I JUNE APRIL· MAY I I ./ I AUGUST .~E~TEM~ER N I I OCTOBER NOVEMBER I DECEMBER I I - WIND - 20 km .. P'l!r hour + . , . I WIND 10 - 20 km.i per hour \ I .' I I WfNQ BOSE LAVERTON .... '" ,,':'.. ,,-','.. " " " I WT~12C~ : I - 23 - I' D~RAPHIC DATA 10.1 The Williamstown Rifle Range Development proposal at page 31 sets out in I some detail demographic data in relation to the City of Williamstown. 10.2 The Community Opinion of Quality of Life in Williamstown study provides demographic information ih relation to mainly the abutting areas of I' Newport as well as williamstown. 10.3 The population of the City of Williamstown is on the one hand declining and ageing but on the .other hand is being invaded by young professionally I educated adults. 10.4 The present high residential values in the City of Williamstown (25% increase in year to 30th June 1986 - source City of Williamstown) are I consistent with the invasion of the young professional. 10.5 The Western Suburbs in general has sought to attract more professionals I because they have in the past been disadvantaged by the lack of resident professionals and managers. ,I 10.6 The population mix in Williamstown is not matched in adjoining Newport (see Community Opinion of Quality of Life in Williamstown) and presumably is not matched generally in other western suburbs. I 10.7 The tendency of residents in both Williamstown and Newport is toward long term residency. I AVAILABILITY' OF COMMUNITY' FACILITIES AND SERVICES (see Plan WT 09) 11.1 The Williamstown Rifle Range Development proposal reports that Williamstwn I is well served for recreation space having:- (a) 39 hectares of informal open space I. (b) 41.6 hectares of unrestricted sporting area; and (c) 118.9 hectares of restricted sporting area including the Merrit I Rifle Range; and (d) 34.2 hectares undeveloped. I 11.2 The Williamstown Rifle Range proposal reports, inter alia, as follows :- 11.2.1 The municipality has a ratio of 9.3 ha. of recreation space per 1000 I head of population, which is equal to the average for the Western Region. In sporting areas, Williamstown has a ratio of 6.4. ha/lOOO head of population, whereas the regional avergage is 3.3. ha/lOOO I and there is" less undeveloped open space, 1.4 ha/lOOO compared to 2.5 ha/lOOO. " . I 11.2.2 Eighty-five percent of the open space is developed. Of this a high proport~o (81%) is for sporting and only 19% is for informal use; sixty percent is restricted (MMBW). I I I I - 24 -. 11.2.3 The· facilities which are provided in Williamstown are set out I below:- Botanical Gardens (1) Museum (1) I Historic Ship (1) Baseball Field (3) Cricket Nets . (11) I Cricket pitch (24) Lacrosse Field· (2) OVals (9) Soccer Fields . (4) I Athletic Track/Facilities (1) Fitness Circu·it (3) BMX Track (Competitive) (1) I IndexJr Bowling (3) Squash (2) playgrounds (24) I pony Club (1) Rifle Range (1) Bocce Green (1) Bowling Green (8) I Croquet Green (4) Golf Course (1) Basketball (netball) (2) I Tennis Courts (15) Outuoor Swirinniny pool (1) I The city has the following recreational buildings:- Yacht Clubs (3) Motor Yacht Club (1) I Life Saving Club (1) Boatramp (1) Marinas (2) I, Anglers Club (3) 11.2.4 The Williamstown Rifle Range Coastal Reserve has the potential to serve the recreational needs of the proposed housing development, I the municipality and the region for coastal recreational features. 11.2.5 The future residents of the area are likely to require access to I facilities for young families, including an infant welfare centre and child care centre, as well as small parks with playgrounds which could be part of a linear park access to the foreshore. The I requirements for primary schools needs further investigation, although .. the area is at present adequately served with secondary schools. 11.2.6 The Adjoining Schools The Point Gellibrand (Girls) High School has a current enrolmerit of 295 pupils, which· is estimated by the Regional Office of the Education Department to be likely to decline to 178 pupils by 1991. The Williamstown Technical School has 293 pupils, declining to 185 I by 1991. Although suggestions have been canvassed by public groups that the High School may close or be amalgamated with the Technical School, no decision has been made or foreshadowed by the Regional I Office. I .~ . " " " .'.' .. .' . .'. ' . ' '," .. ~ c ; I I - ---~ ..- .-----+- RECREATION --~~"..-.::.- -, ~ WEBB .: SCHOOLS. .,. ,, • ~ --. ~\ . SHOPPING ' :-1: '>\ /" i ., : .... WT.09. , 1 ~ '\. , f TOWN HALL I i ~J f LIBRARY ~ i I : , 1-' i I \ ! -t.pHILLIP I PORT ! -j ,=1 !". I i I ! : . i : WITOWN BEACH ! I - 26 - I TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT (See plan WT 10) 12.1 The recommendation of the ROad Traffic Authority in relation ~o Kororoit Creek Road which provides the principal site access ~o Williamstown I village is that a service road be constructed along the Kororoit Creek frontage with two access points only to be provided at a distance greater than 250 metres between them and with each access point having median I access in addition. 12.2 It would be proposed to provide approx~tely five acqess points in Maddox Road. 12.3 The Department of Minerals and Energy 'and the Head Traffic Authority have indicated a preference for a road structure generally providing collector I roads in an East-West direction with access from such East-West collectors to both Maddox Road and Kororoit Creek Road. 12.4 It is considered that Challis Street would be unlikely to be constructed I and it is not presently the intention of the City to construct it. 12.5 Traffic along Kororoit Creek Road in the twelve hour 7~00 a.m. to 7.00 I p.m. in a March Census on a two way movement basis has been recorded as follows:- I 1981 8764 1982 9060 I 1983 9117 I 1984 10501, 1985 10304 I, (SOORCE - ROAD TRAFFIC AUTHORITY) 12.6 Approximately two thirds of traffic along Kororoit Creek Road in the morning peak' travels towards the City and two thirds in the evening peak I travels away from the City. I 12.7 Bicycle Route The Williamstown Rifle Range Development proposal includes provision for two bicycle routes. I 12.8 Provision could be made within the village Site linking the Rifle Range I via a series of landscaped buffers to paisley park. \ I I 'I .. .. .-N'" 1 t 1 - \ \ ... - - -- r _____~~r----.:.lL..----"' ...... ~~- SlTE aOUNOt.RY PROPOSEO BICYCLE ROU1E lllESt 11 II'IELBOURIIE(ONIIE(1ING 10BU (REEK EX\STING ROAD ",[DIAN aREA\( \ TO WILliAMSTOWN ( \ & WESTGATE BRIDGE \ \ 1RAFF\( 1985 - 12 HOUR - 10,30" ~ \ \. __ .\ 1':;-;-1 ~"OSS\8LE t.cCESS PO\NTS. ~ '" t:::==l - VE~\CULAR ~ TR~FF'C ~CCESS· EA)OR1 'NDIC~TED ~- '" \AIT .. ('\ H\NOR ITEOr 10 La" VOLUME - TRAFfic ONLY I - 28 - SPOCIAL IMPLICATIONS IN PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL USAGE I 13.1 Hazard Upon the City making an application for rezoning of the area the question of hazard was addressed by the 'Department of Minerals and Energy as the I proper authority. 13.2 The Department of Minerals and Energy advised the Director of Planning of I the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of WOrks that it did not object to the proposed rezoning of the land to residential and .. that it had reached this decision after giving special consideration to any possible fire or I explosive incidents that might originate at one or other of P.R.A. or Gas & Fuel',s Altona terminal. 13.3 The Department of Minerals and Energy did recommend to the Board that I consideration, be given to future development within the area with a view to having :-, ' I ,13.3.1 Any residential or other structures erected on the land being not more than two storeys in height 13.3.2 streets and access ways would presumably be provided on the more I westerly parts of the land so designed to allow access and egress I via an easterly route and not solely by Maddox Road. See Appendix 3 - Hazard Assessments - (9QPY letter Department of I Minerals and Energy dated 27th June 1984) 13.4 The land is 1.3 kIn. fran the boundary of PRA at its nearest point and is in excess of the required 300 metres from the plant farm. I 13.5 It is recommended that the Department of Minerals and Energy reconmendations be adopted and form part of any planning amendment. BUFFERS I 14.1 Special NOte SOme considerable time has been devoted to an appreciation of and comment upon appropriate buffers from Petroleum Refinery Authority. I The City of Williamstown has made extensive enquiries of the responsible authorities providing all relavant services, local civic groups, the adjoining City of Altona, representatives of private enterprise and I ratepayers generally. All semi-goverment and goverment authorities approached as well as representative groups and persons save the Environmental protection I Authority have expressed support for, or alternatively, no objection to the projecC'" I As, it WOuld appear that the buffer zone of 2 kilometres recommended by the ,E.P.A. around, the petroleum Refinery Authority, represents the only effective objection to the ~lementation of the City's proposal, the I 'question of appropriate buffer zones have accordingly been addressed at , length. 14.2 The 1 kIn. buffer zone relating to fugitive air omissions such as noise I odour and dust around the Petroleum Refineries of Australia refinery site was subsequent to the lodging of the Council application for rezoning, I ,increased to 2 kIn. - 29 I 14.3 On the 19th July 1984 a MeIOOrandum by Mr. P.J. RamSay then Acting Chief Air Quality Officer was submitted to the Director - Division of Air and Noise of the Environmental protection Authority seeking amendment to the I Authority's buffer zone guidelines. ' 14.4 In t, support of the change Mr.' RamSay provided a copy of his thesis prepared I in 1978 in partial 'fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Environmental SCience. . 14.5 The 'I1lesis prepared by Mr. RamSay was entitled "Industrial ()3ours and I COmmunity Attitudes - ()3ourous Omissions Associated with a petroleum Refinery and EValuation of Surrounding COnmunity Att'i.~udes". I 14.6 Earlier researchers acting for the Environmental Protection Authority had apparently erred in their research to determine what were world standards in relation to buffer zones around refineries and reported that two I countries, Russia and Israel, had buffer zones of 2 km. 14.7 On the 5th November 1971 the State Committee for Oonstruction U.S.S.R. revised the 2km. for Class 1 industry to 1 km. in keeping with lln,proved I technology in industrial plant and in the control of omission allowed. I (See N.F. Ismarov 1947 - "Oontrol of Air pollution in the U.S.S.R.") 14.8 Israel does not now have nor has it ever had a 2 km. buffer zone (See Report on TOwn Planning Regulations and Practice with Reference to Buffer I ZOnes - Israel. Shuki Shoshani") - Appendix 4. 14.9 The present 2km buffer zone Umposed by the Environmental Protection I Authority is not a statutory requir~ment but is a reconunendation only. 14.10 In his recommendation to the Environmental Authority dated 19th July 1984 Mr. RamSay indicated that he had concluded that a buffer zone of 2,200 metres would be required based on a community annoyance criteria extracted I from his own thesis. 14.11 Dr. D.G Ross, Executive Director of the Centre for Applied Mathemtical I MOdelling at the Chisolm Institute of Technology reports as follows :- 14.11.1 "The following oommentsare made on the basis of a limited examination of the thesis:- "Industrial Odours and Community Attitudes: ()3ourous Emissions Associated with a petroleum Refinery and an EValuation of Surrounding Community Attitudes - P.J. Ramsay", I by a statistician in my group, Mr. P. Lochert, and myself: ( i) The analysis carried on pp. 73-74 shows that odour is related to distance in both the North and South directions I independently. HOwever, there appears to be no analysis presented which justifies the authors' conclusion that "annoyance to odour and noise from the refinery is related I to distance independently of any characteristic topographical or micro-meteorological factors of the north and south study areas". One must therefore question the combination of the north and south data to produce the I linear distance relation for odour presented in Fig. 7.2. The application of this result to any other direction is even IOOre questionable without further justification. I Hence, without conducting a IOOre comprehensive survey and analysis the buffer zone suggested for petroleum refineries I , cannot be supported or refuted. I I, - 30,- (ii) On p. 87, following the Multi-variate analysis, the independence of direction "is implied to be supported. I However, :since the distance criterion split exactly matches the North-South break this conclusion is difficult to I justify. " See Appendix 6. 14.12 rhe conclusion of Mr. Ramsay as to degree of annoyance differ markedly I fr.om the conclusions of the Williamstown Sub-c6mmi~t~e researchers. \. I See Appendix 1 and Appendix 5. 14.13 The reason is fairly obvious. Ramsay asked respondents directly about their' annoyance to P.R.A. and concentrated his research mainly in closer than lkm to P.R.A •• I 14.14 Fraser and Mott (Appendix 1) asked general questions as to community annoyance and did not allude to P.R.A. specifically. Moreover they I confined their respondents to those within the lkm - 2km distant band. 14.15 As Ramsay acknowledged in his thesis "In this study if the first question had been of an unstructured general nature'the author believes that a very I l~itedresponsewould have been achieved". ' 14.16 Mr. Ramsay also notes in his thesis "the preparation of the sample design for this study was 'constrained by the l~ited resources of time and field I staff which was available for the collection of data" (at page 55) 14.17 It is submitted that the thesis by Mr. Peter J. Ramsay - Industrial Odours I and Community Attitudes presented as a Thesis in '1978 at Monash University is of somewhatl~ited value in the present circumstances having regard to the above factors and also to the very considerable improvements in I measures ~or control of odourous omissions adopted by P.R.A. since 1978. 1~.18 Special Note I The site ,area of the Petroleum Refinery Authority is approx~ately 750 me~res x 400 metres (30 hectares). (See diagram Buffer ~Envelope) I When the buffer distance was 1 kilometre (the E.P.A. determine this as from the boundary line of the P.R.A.), the total encompassed area was some 2,750 metres (east-west) x 2,400 metres (north-south) which encloses 660 hectares including the P.R.A. (30 hectares) leaving a nett buffer area of 630 hectares of land. The current E.P.A. recommended distance of 2 kilometres from the boundary of the P.-R.A. encompasses an area of 4,750 metres (east-west) x 4,400 (north-south) which encloses 2,090 hectares including P.R.A. (30 hectares) leaving a nett buffer. area of 2,060 hectares of land. I I ~is represents an increase of 327% over the previous buffer area...... , . ~ - . . '. . The implementation of a 2 kilometre buffer appears to ignore the potential I detriment to many thousands of existing homeowners for whom any 'residential redevelopment is now prohibited. I It is likely that the continuation' of a 2 kilometre buffer will cause a cOntinuing deciine in the'standards of housing within the buffer and that the rights of ratepayers will be 'accordingly prejudiced. I I It is notable that ten, schools are located within the 2 kilometres .. ' I . buffer. ~_. ______~~~*~~~. ~M~~~~·_· ___,._. __ ._.:~' 1 I~~. , I '. I "".• , I'", ~ I,. I, ---~-l.-L-'.LU~~~. Sc~.e..-: L=2~Q~C)..-:o_.· _~_~ ------I - 31 I SOCIOr.cx:;ICAL FAC'IDRS 15.1 COmmunity Satisfaction I In 1984 the City of williamstown sub-COmmittee Commissioned a study into Conununity attitudes as to' quality of life in Williamstown and specifically in areas abutting williamstown and the village Site. I 15.2 The study investigated both. factors which related to community enjoyment as well as factors which gave rise to community dissatisfaction or annoyance. I 15.3 The clear conclusion of the researchers was that p.R.A. was not a significant factor in relation to the occupiers of land abutting the I village site. 15.4 The Study showed that overwhelmingly the area was perceived as fresh clean and environmentally satisfactory and was perceived as a highly desirable I area in which to live. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS I Integration 16.1' The expected release of the Rifle Range for Residential Development makes urgent consideration of appropriate usage of abutting land necessary and I appropriate. 16.2 The introduction of some 500 to 750 new residential units within the I existing Rifle Range area will create a requirement for a number of facilities and amenities including - I (a) neighbourhood shopping centre (b) kindergarten I (c) health centre (See Williamstown Rifle Range Development proposal - Available COmmunity I Facilities & Services). 16.3 Clearly industrial development particularly in the area inunediately I adjacent to exeisting residential development could have a very serious negative impact. 16.4 The exhibition and ultimate adoption of the proposed amendment would I enable the prov.ision of all necessary and ancillary services within the village Site and the development of the two areas would be complimentary. I 16.5 The almost total lack of available residential land within the City of Williamstown and the escalating prices of any that becomes available (usually by way of a house to be demolished) makes it difficult to estimate clearly the extent of demand for land in Williamstown save to say I that Williamstown is a preferred area and that demand of available land over the period of development could be expected to exceed the total of I available lots.' I I ~-==~-.=-=-======~~==~======~~/' /"~---- I CONSHftRA TION .TO NEW./,:--' / ... // .•. "STATION TO PICK/UP ,Rill ." EXISTING RESIDENTIAL TO NORTH & RESIDENTIAL FR I SUBJECT/lAND & RIFLE RANGE.. PROPOSED TREE I PLANTING TO EAST RESERVE Of ,., MAOOOX ROAD / ...... ~..... - .... . :// '-.7.;<-At:" .:>\~ PROPOSED LANDSCAPED EXISTING . /;~~. MOUNDED & TREED OPEN I INDUSTRIAL /' >;~:~~} SPACE INCORPORATING PROPOSAL fOR EXIST~/ . .~.~~~" _" PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL /' :)(-;:" LINKS TO RIFLE RANGE BLOCKS FRONTING );:i::' & PAISLEY PARK r--,~_:J MADDOX RD. BE REZ ; '""; .." TO "SERVICE BUSINES ':. :' t:~: .. ~~O~~E{~I;'~~' i ,\~ ... . ',,,,~ . '~"'.I;';\'." ~.:;-.~):' I PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL PORT PHILLIP SA Y I I ------'I I !I I - 33 - I PROPOSED BUFFER ZONES (See Plan WT 13) 17.1 These are dealt with in the proposed amendment ·annexed. I 17.2 The proposed buffers would enable a linked landscape treatment which would include the provision of bicycle routes walking tracks and treed fingers which would integrate with the Rifle Range and surrounding areas to I produce an aesthetically pleasing and cohesive overall design. I THE CONCEPT (See plan WT 14) 18.1 The concept is for an integrated development with lower density to the west increasing to the east with chains of open space environmentally pleasing and available for interconnecting walking tracks and bicycle I routes and integrated and inter-connected with various surrounding parks and the landscaped features of the Rifle Range. 18.2 The concept includes the provision of shopping facilities of a size I necessary and appropriate for an influx of population projected for the Rifle Range and the smaller additional nUmber projected for the village I Site. 18.3 A heavy tree reserve with mounding is propOsed for Maddox ROad· to create a protective visual buffer which would in addition serve to lUnit noise and I odour (if any) • 18.4 The provision of a buffer of serviced business to the west of Maddox Road would be both advantageous to land owners to the west and consistent with I the proposals for the Rifle Range and the village,Estate. 18.5 The increased residential population would prov.ide both a ready made I workforce and a substantially increased demand which could well be taken up by serviced business and industrial sites further to the west of Maddox Road thus providing support for increasing viability in the industrial I area. 18.6 The possibility exists of the establishment of a railway station to the immediate North-West of the village Site with suitable pedestrian and I independent road access to it, thus providing a substantial collection area to make such a station viable. I 18.7 The concept includes the provision of a motel which is a facility long lacking in Williamstown and its viability would be assured by its proximity to major industry as well as its reasonable proxUnity to the I various tourist features of Williamstown. I DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 19.1 with a view to ensuring the development of the area generally in accord with the concept submitted the owners of the Williamstown Site would be prepared to enter into an appropriate Development Agreement ensuring that I the broad concept is adhered to and that particular requirements are I faithfully observed. I I I ~,/ I ' To PAISL~ PARK MEDIUM I--~'" , DENSITY MEDIUM I DfNSITY I ---- T I I -,.,..--..+-,~ I POSSIBLE I~.....---... SHOPPING I COHI1EROAL . SERVICE I ROAD BUS I PED.I VEHICLE ACCESS I MAJOR RD. I~~~ 'a,..... "--'" ' , ~~ r , .... ""-~... ~~~ ... " ~'1'J~ ", ,-- - -- '!:. '-"",,--,--- -~ ~ ...... "\ / ~ '. • L ---t,...... -~ ,- \ I~/' :.~. , " - ,,. - ~_'I '! ~A7 , PEDESTRIAN I BIKE ROUTES TO LINK JOHN GRA" 1 RIFLE RANGE OPEN SPAUI JOHN GRAY RESERVEI \ I : AL lONA PARK I PAlSUY PARK RESERVE/ , " • . i \ I PUBLIC OPEN SPACE , \ .' I ALTONA I PARI< KEY STRUCTURAL EL~MENTS I Iv.. , WT.14. ne~IUClli I~\ ~I link to Paisley Park I I I I VIOLET STREET I PARK CRESCENT I I I I -- ~ i· I \, , I J.T,Gray Reserve I .~, , ; I I I, I . Altona Park I I PHILLIP BAY I PORT SITEI I WT.1t· .,i: Ii Il Ii I Ii Ii 'i Recruhon, I Conservation I ------ "'::0. I - 37 - -1/ I I I - I I DRAFT PIANNING SCHEME ORDINANCE I Explar~"tory MalDrandum I Melbourne and Metropolitan Plarming Schema AInendIrent "tb. • ••••• I II !I I I I I I I \ I I I I I MELB:XJRNE ~POLITAN PIANNDC SCHPME AMENJ:to1ENI' NO. I EXPLANA'IDRY S'l'ATa-1E11l' I I ImRC'!X..:CI'ION This amending scheme provides for ~~ rezoning of I approximately 40 hectares of, industrial zoned ~and for primarily residential developrent. It ?rcposes changes to the M:lbourne M:tropolitan Planning Scheme's Ordinance and to Planning Scherre Map No. I 55-1-4. Amendrrent No. will be availCiPle for inspection I at the follaving locations: The municip:ll offices of the City of Williarrstown, I Ferguson Street, Williamstown. The Ministry for Planning and EnviroIlIt\E;nt, iJestern Region Office, St. Albans Road, Sunsh~e (M.M!B.W. I Western D9pot) The Ministry for Planning and EnVl.ronment Ground I Floor, Olderfleet Building, 477 Collins Street, MelLourne. The arrending scherre will be on publ ic exh.~bi tion fran I Any tJerson may lodge a submission during this period which must ~ in writing. This explanatory statement does not I canprise part of the proposed ariendrnent. It is intended only as a guide to a person reading the proposed changes to the Ordinance and the Planning I Scheme Map;. Staff at the Western Region office can be contacted for further information on 313-4360. I ',. In October 1982 the Minister for Planning and Envirorurent established' the Western Suburbs Planning and Environment Action Program which initially investigated community concerns about environmental and landuse planning matters in, the western suburbs of ~lbourne. Many people put 'forward their views. I Conflicts between industria-l and residential areas were identified as the major planning and . I environmental issue in the west . . . . /2. I , r:• I ------'------I Page 2. I Considerable attention has now'been given to the issue of industrial planning in the Western Suburbs. Concerns were expressed about the possible "offsite" effects of industry despite a high standard of safety I in design, maintenance and managerrent. These offsite effects include odours, air pollution, noise, and any potential health and safety risks for the residents I and employees in surrounding areas. In preparing t!1is arrendm::mt t.1-}ese matters have been taken into account to ensure the safety and amenity of future I residents. I PLRPCSE The purpose of this anending Schelre is to provide I intergrated residential based development of approximately 40 hectares of industrial land generally located east of Maddocks Road and North of I Kororoit Creek Road in the City of Williamstown. The land is currently vacant or unused with the exception of a caravan park. The property is I strategically located between residential development to the north am east and the canprehensive residential and open space developnent proposed for I the Rifle Range site to the south. The proposed am:mdrrent will allow intergration of open space networks and the provision of centrally located community and commercial facilities to serve the I locality. I ffiIN:IPLES OF THE SCHEME I The arreroing scherre will: I (a) provide a much needed residential resource in the City of Williamstown in conjunction with the I Rifle Range proposal. ' (b) allow redeVelopnentof an abbatoir_ site and surplus vacant, industrial land enhancing the I residential ~ity of existing development and allowing the provision of additional local services. I (c) provide an appropriate use of the land in such a manner as to allow the continued operation and I explnsion of industry in the locality • . . . /3. I I I. I Page 3. I (d) have regard for the safety and envirorurental issues relating to the operation of industry in the area as identified by the Envirorurent I Protection Authority (EPA) and the Hazardous Materials Division of the Department of I Employrrent and Industrial Affairs. (e) provide for an awropriate transition between developing industrial areas to the west and I residential areas to the east. I DE.VELOPMENT INrENTION I It is intended that the two major owners of the land co-operate to submit a development concept plan for I the land including: residential developnEnt at varying densities. local commercial facilities I height control landscaped open space and recreation facilities. - provision for both pedestrian and I bicycle links incorporated into wider cammunity networks. - a road orientation and layout which I recognises site constraints and is· canpatiblewith the surrounding road I network. By provision of landscaping am open space along the east side of Maddocks Road a "buffer" will be created - to assist in the orderly transition from industrial I activities to the west and residential development to the east. I The o\\ll1ers intern to enter into a development agreement with the City of Williamstown which will I embody the design principles outlined. I \ I I I I , MEIBOORNE ~ITAN PLANNING SCHENE I PART A - GENERAL I 1. Title: This Planning Scheme may je cited as the Melbourne \. Metropolitan Planning Sc.~ Amendment No ••••••••• I 2. Arrangement of Scheme: I This Planning Scheme is divided into the following- Part A - General I Part B - Va::-iationof the Principal Scherre. Plan.'1ing Schane Map - Maps bearing a Serial Nlrrnber to 'each 0-: which the suffix I AM ••••••••• is added. I 3. Definit.ions: In t~is Plannirig Scheme, uniessiriconsistent with the I context or the subject na::ter - "Approva'l oate" means the date on which notice of approval of this Planning Scheme by the Governor in I Council is published in ti.2 Government Gazette. "Principal ScheIte" means t.~ Melbo~me Metropolitan I Planning Schane approved by the governor in council on the 30th day of April 1968, as amended or varied by any subsequent planning scheme or an amendment rrade by the II Governor in Council notice of approval of which or notice I of, which (as the case may be) has been published in the I Government Gazette. 4. Application of Sche.ne: I After the awroval date, the Principal Schene shall be ameooed a"d varied in thE r.anner and tc the extent sJo,m in Part B hereof and suer. Principal Scherre am t1:E amendrrents and variations ~-ein shall be read and I construed as one. ',ft C __' __ . ____: • __ .!..:..-_.~ ___.:.. _~. -__ _ ····:;·:.7 'I -- , I PART B - VAAIATIrn OF THE PRINCIPAL SQlEME I S. Planning Scheme Map: The Planning Sch6re Map of the Principal Scheme shall be anerx3ed and varied in the ma.nner- shCJlNl1 and to the' extent . I delineated on thema.ps hereto which bear the same serial number as those of the PrincipiI Scheme but to whicr; \ numbers there has been added the suffix k~ ...... I Maps in the Principa I Scheme which are so amended or varied are - Map No. 56-1-4 I 6.. Plan.'1ing Scheme Ordinance: The Pl anning Scherre ordinance of the Principal Scheme I shall be amended and varied as follc:MS - . . (1) In Clause SE(l) after paragraph (bf) there shall be I inserted the following additional paragraph - n (bf)· The objective of the Special Residential I (Williamstown) ZOne is: 1) to provide for intergrated residential development, related facilities and I services having regard for the zcnes relationship to existing and likely future industrial and residential I .6 development. 2) to enable pre planning of the zone to I enhance the residential amenity of existing and f~ture residents in such a way as to be cxxnpatible with the continuing operation of industry in the I area .. " I (2) In the Table to Clause 6 - Ca) In column 1 belON the eXpression "Pink with black 55RI superimposed" there shall be inse~ed the expression "Pink w!iBi black C::Sb ~ I supen.mp:>sed" and there shall be set forth . opposite thereto in Column 2 the expression I "Special Residential (Williamstown) Zone". (3) In the Table to Clause 7 - I (a) After S~ion 6 ( g) there shall be inserted the following additional Section 6H - '.", I NOTE - ClauSe numbering assumes approVal of ~~.404 '"'. I I ... ; . :,~~;;/: ) -.- ---- .. _.. __ ._-_.. _------I (4) In Clause 13A( 2} after the expression "a Special Residential - (Altona) Zone" there shall be I inserted the expression "a Special Residential (Williamstown) Zone." I ( 5 ) In Clauses 19 (l) and 19 (2) after the expression "a Special Residential (Altona) Zone" there shall be inserted the expression "a Special Residential I (Wi~liamstown) Zone". . (6) After Clause 19(A)(3) a new clause 19(A}(4} shall be I inserted. 19(A}(4} The follcwing provisions shall awly in the Special Residential (Williamstown) I Zone: (a) No buildings shall be erected within I the zone so as to exceed two (2) storeys; ,I (b) Developnent shall only be awroved and undertaken generally in aax>rdance with an approved concept I plan. (7) In the Table to Clause 25A - I (a) In Colunn 1 of Category 4 there shall be inserted the expression "Special Residential I (W~lliamstCMl) Zone". I I I I I \ I I I I ------ " lll..l..1-'N 1 CIIl.M'J 2 tIJ.l.M.J 3 crIlM\l 4 CIIl.M'J 5 Rl{KEE CINJI'I'ICl£ " Sl:.t.im 6i I:Et.c:rlID lb..a2 Cbmurity lEsid:ntial FroJi.drl tiat I'D rrt:I:e B:nk (famirg [:Bi.t idllt ~ Bxk crrl Ibre O::xl.p3tim lhit t:tEn 6 lRs:I1 (rrt ofaEh::wirg 9:!'x Aid ESta:>liSr ~l:CIAL I£.<:si\€ ~t.iC:n .irchrlir~ aI1f resi.d3lt a:nplex. ) ITBlt H1:Bl11:NrlAL Rrilvay staff cr tlcir ielatB1 cafe AI LS3TB1t ltirlQ..I[" (\~) Itirl fani.l y) rE5i.cE in tte O::rs.ll t:.in:J R:x:rrs PninBl B:mtiiry ZLl£ 'fralvay ~. n.Bl QnrfnY EStIDl.iSnmt WJTHS I€ft.ge llBlth O:ntre PninBl l-tlP-tal At:tirlaj Cllbi:er ProJid:rl tlBt tl-e fasicrer Ielati\e Ppiary (crler t:tEn lb..a2 dreity dEs Iut. Uri.t R:sid31t B32 Leta::h:rl CltstEr e>afrl ere d-.el1..in3 fer lfu:atimal Ie:pirg) ~ lb..a2 eRLY 350 9:J..Bre ' EStabl.iSmnt 'At:::t:arln:e O:ntre Flat of si1:l2 area cn:1 tiE fttel B:Bt S:l1.e5 Ietiraj Ieffinc:; s..troissim of ~~QoJrl Ikcttcl 1Esi.d:3'ltial Cbnnnity ------.:. /", . ~~----~-----.----~----~~~------~------~ .. anm3 a:IDN 5 Fh:ezirg 3rrl ClDl .' . 1 3-' 1Dj p.np::ee sp=ri firo ~ W::rl CII.1J.N 1 CII.Lffi 2 ~3 m1.J.N 4 CIIOO 5 R.RREE CIN>rrIClS Rrlio stati.m ; Rrlio Sb..rlio IefCX1l8U\e -- IIEtitutim R:s:mch nrd ~qrrB1t ~ Rltal IrdEt:ry 9:!rv:i.ce Irdst:ry ., stI:xX S;ileyard - Stxxe - 'Ielevisim St.at:.im 'lel.evisim Stlrlio TintEr Yard I 'fta t:{U L D:ttt 'ftaIt:pXL I Iulerd Big:: .j 'ftcS1 em :; •••• "I 'lIaB.Ire~ W3reto.IE 'b.rt:h i'e1.fare ~ce .1 i I I -","{.! ....:""\ i .. I .' ------======-... .. _-----_._-_ ... _.. _.... _. -_ ..- -.--- .... -- ..--- I -·38 - I I I APPENDIX 1 Report of Survey by the SUb-Comnittee I of the City of Williamstown into Cormrunity ~inion of Quality of Life I in Williamstown I I I APPENDIX 2 I SUrvey Questionnaire I' I I I I I I I I I 1/ 1 I REPORT ON A SURVEY BY A SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF WILLIAMSTOWN I INTO COMMUNITY OPINION OF QUALITY OF LIFE IN WILLIAMSTOWN I INTRODUCTION Very few residential areas can be regarded as environmentally I perfect. A planner in the course of discharging his responsibility to establish a residential zone must balance a number of factors I some of which may be perceived as being directly in conflict. On the one hand it is reasonable that people would wish to live conveniently to their work place and on the other the greater the I separation of residential areas from the work place the less potential problems in terms of industrial pollution. I Planning considerations are more complex than simply evaluating the objective or subjective advantages to the individual tesident. Social and community values must be encompassed·and a successful I balanced economy providing good employment prospects for the population at large must always be a factor. An environmental problem such as air pollution is difficult to assess as the reaction of any individual ,to such a problem is subjective to that individual. It is very difficult to assess annoyance qualitatively from comments made at the time and even more difficult to assess on an historical basis. If on balance it is found that an area is regarded as an I attractive or highly attractive area in which to live then this is in effect the communities assessment of all of the factors I that the planners are seeking to predict. Planners very often will not have the advantage, in considering a particular project, of having a ready made population sample in I an entirely equivalent position. Where that situation exists community experience and community satisfaction or dissatisfaction must be seen as vitally important. I In relation to the application by the City of Williamstown to re-· 'zone the general industrial and light industrial land bounded by Kororoit Creek Road Maddix Road Walter Street Florence Street I and Clifton Street,Railway Parade in the City of Williamstown to residential C it m19ht be noted that all of this land is a) Outside a buffer ·zone of 1 kilometre from the PRA refinery I and I b) Within a buffer zone of 2 kilometres from the PRA refinery In recent times the question of a buffer zone was the subject of I most detailed submissions by all interested parties in relation I I 2 .... :. I to Paisley. Aresidential area was established in the area (buffer I lkm) proximate to the corner of Mason Street and Blenheim Street and a Housing Commission development was also carried out in this area. I There has been to the north of the subject land established residential development for many years and in addition there is both old established and relatively new housing in the Florence I Street area which also borders the subject land and is within the 2 kilometres. I The purpose of this survey was to ascertain satisfaction or dissatisfaction by way of a community attitude survey and in particular to ascertain those factors that residents enjoyed I within the area and those factors which caused annoyance. No limit was placed on the number of factors that respondents could report in either instance and it was felt that such a I survey would place the factors enjoyed and the factors causing annoyance in perspective. Clearly if one were to conduct a survey in relation to a I particular annoyance such as the problem of howling tom cats and one was to ask all the residents in the particular area whether they had been annoyed by howling tom cats over the last 12 months I it is likely that one would achieve a fairly high response. However the number of occasions which persons might repo~t this as one of the sources of their annoyance in the area is probably I the only realistic means of assessing the relevant importance of howling tom cats in the totality of sources of annoyance to residents generally. I This survey therefore was designed to give a qualitive appreciation of annoyance factors and by providing such a I perspective to give a useful guide as to community attitude. METHODOLOGY FOR ASSESSMENT OF COMMUNITY ATTITUDES I In the qualitative sense degree of annoyance to any particular source of annoyance is relative to the degree of annoyance provoked by other factors also giving annoyance to a particular I respondent. " It is reasonable to assume that over a sample of sufficient size where people are invited to list annoyances • I ... a) the number of" complaints in relation to a particular annoyance should indicate the comparative degree "of I annoyance caused to"the community by that factor b) As a corollary, in "a substantial majority of cases at least the order of listing of complaints for a particular I respondent would indicate relative degree of annoyances as far as that respondent was concerned. I I 3 I ~" I The population to be sampled was chosen' by establishing I geographical boundaries which included areas' most proximate to the subject land and which might reasonably be expected to suffer from annoyances similar to those that might ~ffect persons living I within the subject land. Factors t6 be investigated included the fo110~irl9 I 1) General resident satisfaction/dissatisfaction 2) Any statistical relationship, between I satisfaction/dissatisfaction and length of residence 3) A comparative study of various factors enjoyed and factors causing annoyance in 'order to qualitatively evaluate I enjoyments and annoyances 4) General sociological & genetic information obtained relative I to assessment of the suitability or other' wise of the subject land for residential development. I THE QUESTIONAIRE A trial questionaire was devised in large part modelled from the standpoint of later comparison with the questionaire used by I Ramsay P. in his thesis "Industrial Odours and Community Attitudes" Monash University December 1978. A sample of 15 residen~s was interviewed in a nearby but substantially distant I municipality (Yarravi11e) designed as in the case of·the Ramsay questionaire to ensure no bias in the final sample while being of similar demographic characteristics. I Questions were kept as simple as possible to avoid difficulty ,with those respondents having limited English. The questionaire consisted of 17 questions of which 5 related to noise and 5 I related to smell in the event of either noise and/or smell being reported by a respondent as an ahnoyance~ Four general questions relating to ethnic group, length of residence and socio-economic I status were asked. Appendix 1 contains the questionaire together with the I introductory statement used during interviewing. Again every effort was made to keep the questionaire as short as possible so as to maximise the availability and accuracy of the I obtained data by avoiding respondent fatigue. I QUESTIONAIRE DESIGN The questionaire was designed and implemented in a manner which prevented bias in the results. I Ramsay P. in his th~sis at page 54 makes a similar claim in relation to the questionaire upon which his survey was based. I I / - I 4 I His reference to Jonsson Et Al (1975) who conducted a sociological survey to determine community reaction to odours I from pulp mills in Eureka California is similarly noted. The statement that the questionaire was introduced by Jonsson and his assistants to respondents as part of a survey on peoples I attitude to the community in which they lived is noted and the questions in the questionaire (Appendix 1) are entirely consistent with such an object in that respondents are asked 3 I questions at the outset a) Do you like living in this part of Williamstown? b) What do you enjoy about living in this area? I c) What annoys you about living in this area? which are entirely consistent with a survey on peoples attitude I to the community in which they live. It is however submitted that in the case of the questionaire designed by Ramsay P. the immediate launch into questions about I odour in an area in which the refinery was clearly the dominating physical structure must clearly have elicited comments about the I refinery • . It is not suggested that all of these respondents would have answered otherwise than honestly but some may unconsciousnessly I have endeavoured to please the questioners as they were clearly concerned with odour. As a consequence of the purpose of the survey being ~irtually I self evident a number of factors must have intervened of the very type sought to be avoided by Jonsson in his masking. I These could include the following a) A dislike of the refinery for any other reason I b) A desire to give support to neighbours who may be known to be annoyed by the refinery c) A desire to please the questioner I Direct questions in relation to odour give no balance as to the relative importance of the odou.r to the respondent as annoyance may be of a low degree or.a high degree. The relative importance I of an annoyance to other community annoyances is, as earlier suggested, probably the only way of effecting a qualitative I analysis of degree ·of annoyance. The advice that 't:he survey would take only approximately 10 minutes enabled a very high response rate and the number of I actual refusals was only 17. Where the initial call and a subsequent follow-up call failed to eli'cit ~ person home a further selection was based on the I principle of adding one whole number to the failed selection until a new selec~ion was successful (avoiding original I nominations) • 5 I <.: ... The target population selected was t~e population effectiv~ly on the I fringe of the subject land save that residential development at the Paisley Estate was also inclUded. I It was originally intended that residents of the housing commission area at the Paisley Estate be included as part of target population but it emerged that the area was extremely I. difficult to survey and that 'underlying tensions amongst the residents in the view of the interviewers militated strongly I against the validity of any results that could be obtained. A considerable amount of open hostility was displayed and amongst that part of the selected sample that was prepared to co-operate there was a clear indication that the overriding concern of I residents of the Housing Commission Section of the Paisley Estate was internal problems within the Housing Commission Estate. I This view was confirmed by most of the residents of the Paisley Estate outside the commission area who listed the Commission Area as their major problem or who listed the inhabitants of the I Paisley Estate as their major problem (children or neighbours). The design of the questionaire included 12 samples to be taken in the Paisley housing commission area and 12 in the adjoining I residential area and the 12 from the residential area have been included. I It is notable that satisfaction with the area was much lower amongst the 12 residents at Paisley in that they recorded only 7 as satisfied as against 5 dissatisfied whereas. the overall I average was somewhat higher than 6 to 1. If the Paisley figures are extracted the. overall average in fact I is higher than 10 to 1 who are satisfied. It might be noted that the Paisley land is the only land which is I not in fact close to the subject land. The procedures outlined on. page 56 of The .Ramsay P. thesis were followed as follows: I INTERVIEWING All interviews were carri~d out verbally with both researchers I present one of .. whom noted comments while the other presented the questionaire. I Questionaire mate(ial was not shown. If the respondent was annoyed by odours and/or noise the full set of questions was asked for the odour/source. I All respondents were adults and where possible were either the head of the household or spouse/partner. Interviewing was carried I out on 5 full days from 10.00am to 6.30pm. I ~I 6 I ..... , I Evening interviews were felt to be less desirable but late afternoon interviews were necessary to catch up with absentees. I Adjustments for refusals/absentees have been indicated. The format of one male and one female interviewer was followed and it is believed that the comment of Ramsey P that this reduced I suspicion and enabled one interviewer to take notes while the other rel.ated to the respondent is a valid comment. I All respondents were able to speak some English and this may be related to the high average length of residence and the fact that it is clearly an old established area seen as very desirable by I the resident population. The percentage of non English speaking countries of origin was 21%. The length of residence of those of non Australian origin I almost approximated the length of residence of those born in Australia (19.63:23.47) - average was 22.39. I It is of course noted that there are difficulties with any historical type interview and in 3 cases respondents complained about the Gilbertson Greenham Abattoir situ~ted on part of the I subject land ~ This had· not actually operated for in excess of 12 months. These complaints may have been partly protective in nature and partly due to lack of realization that source had I ceased. Information of this nature (closure) was not advised to I respondents until after the questionaire had been completed. The conclusion therefore in relation to the complaint over the abattoirs would be that the degree of annoyance had been I sufficiently great to cause feelings of annoyance to persist over a period of 12 months. In some cases the substantial physical presence of the abattoir may have induced an unconscious response I to anticipated smell. It might be noted that all those who complained about the abattoirs had been resident over a considerable number of years I and had no doubt therefore over that period found intermittent odour at least, to be a continuing annoyance on a long term basis. I This annoyance by persons resident close to the abattoirs does indicate the weaknesses of historical data in survey. I Factors causing enjQyment were.noted on the basis of the literal replies of respondents and a preliminary distinction was maintained between answers of a very close nature which were then I subsequently reduced to'a smaller group of headings which largely encompassed the particular factor. For detailed reference the initial headings contained the numbers I 1, 2, 3, 4 etc. which are references to the order of a particular I factor as given by the respondent. I I 7 I Very often respondents gave only one factor as either enjoyment or annoyance but only two gave neither annoyance nor enjoyment. I The processing of information in relation to the break up of status and prestige based on employment data has not . yet been I completed. . . . . Satisfaction has been tabled both for all respondents including Paisley and for all respondents excluding Paisley.· - I The specific problems of Paisley which do not relate to other areas are such as to make the Paisley information clearly a somewhat dubious indicator in terms of satisfaction for areas I removed from it. I (' DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS I Country Of Origin The sample contained people of 14 diff~rent countries of origin, with the majority of the respondents being. Australian born.· A I breakdown of all categories and main cate~ories is shown. I The Countries of Origin of the Sample of Residents Australia 72 I Yugoslavia 6 Italy 4 I Egypt 3 I Scotland 3 Greece 3 I Ireland 2 Poland 1 I Syria 1 -Holland 1 I \ Malta 1 I Ukraine 1 India 1 I England 1 --- I lOa I I 8 I I SUMMARY Australia 72 English speaking I Country Origin (excluding Malta) 6 Non English speaking 22 I 100 SOURCE OUESTION I In which country were you born? I The sample population contained 63 females as against 37 males a ratio 1.703 to 1 and this is no doubt accounted for by the fact that the survey was conducted between the hours of 10.00am. and I 6.30pm. . ·In this regard it was felt that the number sampled would be more I likely to spend more hours at home and would therefore be subject to annoyances such 3S noise or odour 'as they would be I more frequently at home to experience them. Equally it is possible that to some extent their slightly greater exposure may to some extent reduce the impact of annoyance. I OCCUPATION Follow up information has not yet been obtained in relation to I head of household when the .head was not interviewed. taken . The following table has been/from a sample of the 46 whose I occupations were included in the survey. - nine adult students are included and these would probably rank I fairly high in due course but only the head of household occupation is presently relevant~ I I \ I I I I I ------.. - .__ .- ._ ... - _._----- I 9 I I Occupations of the Head of Household or Breadwinner of the jfouses sampled " " - - .. --~. . Occupational Scale Occupation Number 'of sample I 16 6 . Identified Point Point I 1 Upper Professional 4 8.7 2 ) 6 Graziers o I 3 ) Lower Professional 2 4.35 I 4 Managerial o 5 5 Self-employed 2 4.35 I {shop proprieto~s) 6 Other farmers I 7 ) Clerical 5 10.87 8 Armed· Services and o I Police Force 9 ) 3 Craftsmen and Foreman 12 26.09 10 ) Shop Assistants o I . .' 11 ) 2 Process Workers & I Operators 3 6.52 12 Drivers 2 4.35 I 13 ) Personal, Domestic 5 10.87 & Service Workers I' 14 ) 1 Miners o 15 ) Farmers & Rural o I Workers 16 Labourers 1 2.17 I NOTE ALSO Unemployed 1 2.17 \ Adult Students 9 19.57 II ------Source questions: What 'is your job or occupation? Could you please describe what you do in your 'I! work? . The conclusion is clearly that the Williamstown area contains a I- mu6h larger area of residents holding higher ranking positions Ii I I t ! . - ..- ---' .._-_ .. _------ I 10 I than to the North and' South of the PRA (refer to Ramsay I thesis Table 7.2) and based on factors such as real estate value this is certainly to be ~xpected. I On the basis that those in the upper levels in employment complain more (Refer Ramsay P. thesis) the reported levels of annoyance in the sample area would most certainly not be expected I to be less than areas North and South of the refinery RESIPENT SATISFACTION I The questionaire was designed to assess resident satisfaction with the part of Williamstown in which the residents lived. It was felt that to ask how long they had lived 'in "this house" I would not give a true indication of satisfaction in·the area as if persons had moved say from the house next door or from a block I away such a move would in no way indicate dissatisfaction. As the measure of satisfaction was based on "this. part of Williamstown" the question as to residence was extended somewhat I beyond the immediate house to include "this part of Williamstown". Where respondents asked interviewers what was meant by this part of Williamstown (which occurred on only one occasion) the interviewers were instructed to answer "within a I half kilometre of this house." ' The interviewers indicated that notwithstandirig that the question I did not specifically relate to this house that they were of .the view that the overwhelming proportion of respondents answered in relation "this house". The years of residence in present house I has been analysed for (I) those expressing satisfaction with the area and (2) for those expressing dissatisfaction with the area. Length of residence has not been found to be a factor in I satisfaction/dissatisfaction. Only 5% of respondents had lived in the area for less than one year and 10 respondents had lived in the area for in excess of 40 I years. . . The length of residence as between migrants and non migrants has I been analysed and while there is a difference in favour of Australian born the di~ference is not large and shows very .clearly that the area between one and two kilometres from the refinery is an area which is very tightly held as far as I occupancy is concerned., It is noted that the result is in dramatic contrast to the result I obtained by the Ramsay survey but the Ramsay survey included houses to the North and South and much closer to the refinery which is generally in the area of maximum prevailing winds. I It might be noted that in the sample there is some new housing in the Florence Street area that has been surveyed and in addition I ,there is new housing in the Paisley area and it would appear I 11- I therefore that there ha~ been little charige in occupancy in the I newer houses. The following table s~ts out iength of residence -and shows I separate table for migrants and ~on migrants. LENGTH OF RESIDENCE I All residents 22.16 years Residents of Australian origin 22.45 years Residents of non Australian origin - 19.63 years I TABLE SHOWING LENGTH OF RESIPENCE AUS~RALIAHS I 1 -0 . but less than 1 year 11 1 year but less than 5 years 9 5 years but less than 10 years I 11 10 years but less than 20 years 12 20 years but less than 30 years 15 30 years but less than 40 years I 13 40 years or more 72 I HIGHAm'S 0 but less than 1 year I 2 1 year but less than 5 years 3 5 years but less than 10 years 9 10 years· but less than 20 years 7 20 years but less than 30 years I 7 30 years but less than 40 years I 28 ALL RESPOliDENTS I 1- 0 but less than 1 year 13 1 year but less than 5 years 12 5 years but less than 10 years 20 10 yeaJ;s but less than 20 years I 19 20 years but less than 30 years 22 30 years but less than 40 years - 13 40 years or more I \ 100 I The proportion of Australians namely 72 as against migrants 28 is probably a little higher being a ratio of 2.5 to 1 and this is possibly explained at least in part by factors which include: .J I 1) It is a very old established area 2) It is clearly a popular area where the average pe·riod of I residence is very high I I .... '" I I 3) It has clearly not become a focal point for .any one type of migrant as the spread is wide and (with the possible exception of Yugoslavs with 6 out of 28 cases) the I distribution is very wide. It is probably true that the distribution is more similar to a typical southern. or eastern suburb distribution than to a typical I western suburbs distribution. TABLE OF RESIPENT SATISFACTION I Person like Persons do not living in . living in I Williamstown Williamstown (a) INCLUDING PAISLEY I All Respondents 85 14 (One undecided), I Australian born 61 10 Non Australian born 24 4. :1'1 (b) NOT INCLUDING PAISLEY I All Respondents 78 9 Australian born 57 8 II Non Australian born 21 1 NOTE - Paisley sample contained the following cases I Yugoslavia 5 I I Ukraine 1 Australia 6 I (c) PAISLEY All Respond'ents 7 5 I Australian born. 4 2 \ I Non Australian'born 3 3 On any basis resident satisfaction is very high. Indeed in relation to the respondents who complained of smells I the number who nevertheless liked living in the area was 4 out of 6 or 66.67%. I The high satisfaction with the area bears interesting comparison I 13 I .... :.. I I with the average period of residence in the area. It is difficult. to envisage any suburb producing figures indicating greater' satisfaction and perhaps this· explains the I influx of "trendies" to the area in respect of which 2 respondents have complained. I It is perhaps indicative at last of a coming of age in the Western Suburbs and the stigma to which one respondent referred I is not borne out by the extraordinary popularity of Williamstown. I I I I I I I I I I \ "J I I I I 14 I ANALYSIS OF FACTORS RELATING TO ENJOYMENT the particular respondent I Numbers (1,2,3,4) represent the order of preference of and the number of reports is the sum of the number of such numbers. I FRIENDS: 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 I FAMILY: 2, 2, 3, 1, 2, 2 I FRIENDLY PEOPLE: 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 3', 2, 1, 1, I. BIRTH PLACE: 2, 1, 2, 2, 1 I HOME: 1, I" 1, 2 ALWAYS LIVED HERE: 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, I SCHOOLS: 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1 I ' SHOPS: 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 1, 1, 2, 2 .TRANSPORT : 3, 2, 2, 2, QUIET 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 3, 1~ 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, (QUIET & PEACEFUL) 2, 2, 1, 1, 3 QUALITY OF LIFE: 2, 2 BEACH (SEA) 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 3, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, I BOWLING CLUB: 2, 3 OWNS HOME: 3, J; I CLOSE SHOPS: 1, 2, 3, 2 CLOSE WORK: 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1 I 1 AMENITIES: 1 II I I I CONVENIENT: 1, 1, 1, 1, 4 NEIGHBOURS: ' 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1 I ENVIRONMENT: 2, 1, 1,\3, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1 I PARK AREAS' 1, 1 LOW TRAFFIC: 2, 2, ). I LIFESTYLE: 3, 2, 1, 3 CLOSE TO CITY: 1, 1, 1, 1, 2 I FRESH AIR: 1, 3, 1 I ..------.--- ... _---_. --.--.. ------_._------_._--- 'I IS I The following heads are chosen as representing as closely· as I practicable a general description of the enjoyment source. I PEOPLE SATISFACTION 1 Friends 15 Ib Family 6 la Friendly people 'IS I 3a Birth place 5 3b Home 4 3 Always lived here 7 I 3c Owns home 2 2 Neighbours 7 I 61 CONVENIENCE AMENITIES' I 5 Schools 6 2 Shops 12 7 Transport 4 I 1 Beach/Sea 19 8 Bowling Club 2 2a Close Shops 4' I 3 Close Work 7 4a Amenities 1 4 Convenient 5 '1 6 Close city 5 65 I . QUIET PEACEFUL GOOD ENVIRONMENT 1 Quiet peaceful 26 I 3a Quality of life 2 2 Environment 9 5 Park areas 2 6 Low Traffic 2 I 3 Lifestyle 4 4 Fresh air 3 I 48 I \ I I I I 16 I ...:.:. I I ANALYSIS OF FACTORS RELATING TO ANNOYANCES Numbers against reported factors represent the order of I preference of the particular respondent. ABATTOIR UGLY: 2 I TRAFFIC: 1, 1, 1 BURGLARIES: 1 I PAISLEY ESTATE: 1, 1, 1 I SCHOOL TOO CLOSE: 1 NEIGHBOURS: 3, 1, 1, 1 I LACK OF SHOPS: 2 NEARBY FACTORY FUMES: 1 I LARRIKINS: 1, 1 I HOAX CALLS: 2 NOISE PRA: 1 WESTERN SUBURBS I DEVOID OF FUNDS: 1 I NEGLECTED NEIGHBOURHOOD: 2 TRAIN LINE: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 I TOO MANY PEOPLE: 1 DANGER FROM REFINERY I PIPE: 2 TAIL END OF WORLD: 1 I STREET LITTER & RUBBISH: 1 'SMOKE, SOOT: 1 I LACK OF AMENITI ES :\ 1 I TRENDY PEOPLE MOVING IN: 1 GAS SMELLS: 2 ) I CHILDREN ON BIKES: 1 I CHILDREN ON HORSES: 2 ,I I 17 I il STIGMA ATTACHED: 1 INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION FACTORIES: 1 I DUST: 2 I NO TAB AGENCY: 1 CLINIC TOO FAR: 2 I DOGS: 1, 1, 2 TOMCATS: 2 I LACK .OF BUSES: 1 I SLOW BUSES: 2 LACK OF COMMUNICATION: 1 I LACK OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT: 2, 1, 1, 1, 1,1, 1, 1 LACK OF GOOD SHOPPING: 3, 2 I DOES NOT LIKE CITY: 4 I NEIGHBOURHOOD CHILDREN: 1, 1, 2, 1, 2 SNOB VALUE: 1 I UNSATISFACTORY COUNCIL: 1 ABATTOIR SMELLS: 1, 1, 1 I I I I \ I I I I "I ,- I 18 I PEOPLE PISSATISFACTION :1 Burglaries I - Paisley Estate 3 School too close I I Neighbours 4 Larrikins 2 Hoax calls I Too many people I I Trendy people moving in I Children on bikes I Children on horses I .1 Stigma attached I Dogs 3 Tomcats I I Lack of communication I Neighbourhood children 5 Smog value I I 28 CONVENIENCE AMENITIES DISSATISFACTION I Traffic 3 I Lack of shops I Western Suburbs devoid of I funds I Neglected neighbourhood I -Tail end of world I .'1 Lack of amenities I r No TAB I Clinic too far I Lack of buses I I Slow buses I Lack of public transport 8 Lack of good shopping I I Unsatisfactory council I 21 I PISSATISFACTION WITH ENVIRONMENT Nearby factory fumes I Noise from PRA I I Trainline 5 Danger from above ground _ oil pipe I Street litter and rubbish 1 I Smoke & soot 1 Gas smell 1 Industrial pollution factory 1 I Dust 1 Does not like city I Abattoir smells 3 I Abattoir ugly 1 18 I TOTAL 67 I \ I rl 19 I I COMPARISON OF FACTORS ENJOYED AND FACTORS ANNOYED I ENJOY' ANNOY People 61 28 'I Convenience and amenities 65 21 Environment 48 18 I These results reinforce the popularity of the area. Some interesting notes I 1) Major Dissatisfaction(excluding people) Lack of public transport 8 Trainline (very important to those nearby 5 I Traffic 3 Abattoir smells (now closed) 3 I 2) Odour Problem Of those respondents reporting odour problems in 'the subject area it is clear that the abattoirs ~ere of greater significance as even a ce~sation of operations 15 months ago I has not yet ceased annoyance. Two thirds of those complaining re odours like, living in the I area. One complainant had complained to ,the EPA re smell naming the PRA (in the questionaire he complained of multiple sources which no I doubt included PRA) , , Only three responderits reported annoyance to odours which could I have included PRA (including above complainant) and these were sourced by the respondents as follows: I 1. nAIl factories nearbyn - noxious fumes frequency of annoyance 2 to 3 times per week 2. nSmoke and soot from surrounding factories n oily smell I monthly annoyance I 3. nAltona" - occurs now and then - occasionally annoyed. The survey reveals no community annoyance to PRA of a significant I level. To the direct c6ntrary the area is perceived generally by 'I respondents'as nclean , fresh, country stylen• I I I '. \ .. '.' ; ~ ;- . \. I SEX: SITE NO: JANUARY 1985 COMMUNITY SATISFACTION SURVEY WILLIAMSTOWN DISTRICT I INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT I Good Morning/Afternoon We are from Monash University. We are conducting a survey of resident opinion as to the quality of life in Williamstown. It I would be of assistant~ if you would be kind enough to answer the following questions. We would only need about 10 minutes of your' I' time. I I I I I I I I 5. I NOTE IF NOISE IS MENTIONED IN THE LIST OF ANNOYANCES ASK QUESTION 4 TO 8 (IF NOT PROCEED TO Q.9) I Q4. WHERE DO YOU THINK THE NOISE IS COMING FROM? I 4.1 \ 4.2 I 4.3 Q5. HAVE YOU EVER COMPLAINED TO ANYONE ABOUT THE NOISE? I IF SO TO WHOM? YES/NO Q6. HOW OFTEN HAVE YOU HEARD I THE NOISE? 6.1 ABOUT DAILY 6.2 ABOUT ,WEEKLY I 6.3 ABOUT MO~THLY 6 _ 1\ (','1' l i r: p • c ..... :... tI 07. WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THE NOISE? l, 08. HOW OFTEN HAVE YOU BEEN I ANNOYED? '. NOTE IF SMELL IS MENTIONED IN THE LIST OF ANNOYANCES ASK 'I OUESTIONS 9 - 13 (Ir NOT PROCEED TO 014.) -, 09. WHERE DO YOU' THINK THE SMELLL IS COMING FROM? 9.1 I 9.2 I 9.3 010. HAVE YOU EVER COMPLAINED TO ANYONE ABOUT THE SMELL? I YES/NO IF SO TO WHOM? ~I 011. HOW OFTEN HAVE YOU NOTICED I THE SMELL? 11.1 ABOUT DAILY 1i.2 ABOUT WEEKLY ~I 11.3 ABOUT MONTHLY 11.4 OTHER I ," 012. WOULD YOU 'DESCRIBE THE I SMELL? 013. HOW OFTEN HAVE YOU BEEN I ANNOYED BY THE SMELL? 'I 014. IN WHICH COUNTRY WERE YOU I BORN? 015. now LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN I THIS PART OF WILLIAMSTOWN? I 016. WHAT IS YOUR JOB OR OCCUgATION? I , " Q17. COULD YOU PLEASE DESCRIBE :1 WHAT YOU DO IN YOUR WORK? I - 39 - I I I I APPENDIX 3 Deparbrent of Minerals and Energy I ~ Hazard Assessment I I I I ~I I I I I I I I I I ·' .... ; 'I DEPARTMENT OF MINERALS AND ENERGY ALL COfIRESI'ONDENCE TO BE ADORESSED ~ .I 'The Secretary for Mlner8le end Eneogy Our~ 82/501 GpO 80. 1613P. MELBOURNE VIC *1 YOUI'ReIlnme: 72 5 / 412/0019 ~ Phil Pascoe 'I 27 June 1984 EM!: 253 Mr K H Burr I Director of Planning Melbourne & Metropolitan Board of Works Box 4342 GPO MELBOURNE VIC 3001 Dear Mr Burr RE: PROPOSED REZONING - LOT 197 KOROROIT CREEK ROAD. WILLIAMSTOWN I refer to your letter dated 16 March 1984. relating to a proposal to rezone land at Lot 197. Kororoit Creek Road. Williamstown. from a light Industrial zone to a Residential C zone. and apologise I for the delay in. not replying earlier. . Officers of the Hazardous Materials Division of ~y Department. have inspected the subject land bounded by Maddox Road on the West. Florence Street on the East. Kororoit Creek Road on the South and I the railway line to the North. The subject land has been considered in relation to the various parts of the P.R.A. Oil Refinery situated to the west and south west. and to the Gas and Fuel Corporation's Altona L P Gas Terminal situated to, the west along Kororoit Creek Road. Special consideration has been given to any possible fire or explosive incidents that I might originate at one or other of these occupancies. The Department does not object to the proposed rezoning of the land. However. it is suggested to the Board that consideration be given I to future development within this area. with a view to having :- (i) any residential or other structures erected on the land I being not more than two storeys in height; and (if) the streets or access ways that would presumably be provided on the more westerly parts of the land. so I designed as to allow access and egress via an easterly route and not solely via Maddox Road. I FOR PERSONAL ENQUIRIES Ij I Head Office 151 Flinders Street Tel (03) 6539200 Melbourne Telex 36595 COUNTRY OFFICES Energy Division 140 Bourke Street Tel (03) 665 0555 Financial Policy Unit Melbourne Telex 36595 Ballarat Management Services Division Geological Survey Division Bendigo Oil and Gas Division Mining Dlvlsion Shepparton I Policy and Planning Division Traralgon Royally and Management Review Unit Wangaralta .. I 2 \1 The Department hopes these comments will be 'of assistance· to the Board and remains willing to be of any further assistance in~is I matter,if required. " Yours sincerely I Dr E W Russell I SECRETARY FOR MINERALS AND ENERGY 'I copy Mr G Lush /' Planning Officer Melbourne & Metropolitan Board of Works I Western Depot POBox 350 I, SUNSHINE VIC 3020 II ~I ,I: '1 - .-.J I il 'I. I' I I II I - 40 - :1: I 'I' APPENDIX 4 I "I' ReI:o:rt of Time Plann:i.ilg Regulations and Practice with Reference to Buffer Zones - Israel - Mr. Shuki Shoshani - I (Univ .) Techniro, Haif~, Israel ,I I .1 I ,I I I I I" .. I ", ) \1 I I, -... " I' " REPORT ON TOWN PLANNING REGULATIONS AND PRACTICE 'I' WITH REFERENCE TO BUFFER ZONES - ISRAEL 1. SOURCES: (a) "Planning & Building Law" in Israel I, (b) The Report of the "Legal Advisor" to the "Committee of the Seryice for Preservation of I Environmental Ouality". " (c) Information from the District of Haifa's Planning' Committee - responsible for Pl~nnin9 ,I. "Ouality Control". I 2. In the Planning and Building Regulations there is no mention of or legal findings relating to the MINIMAL DISTANCE of I building from Refineries (as distance alone does not take 'I into account the other factors). There is a legal requirement to carry out an ENVIRONMENTAL fl IMPACT SURVEY in each and every case of a polluting site or factor, investigating the specific conditions (TOPOGRAPHICAL I and WEATHER) of the site in question. II, 3. In such an Impact Survey one is required to check the pollution source; I (a) TYPE of POLLUTION (noise, particle, toxicity ;1 etc.) , (b) W~ND DIRECTION all year through I (c) TOPOGRAPHICAL data from the area surrounding the polluting source I (d) LEVEL or INTENSITY of POLLUTION at various 'I distances from the source I --'-' -'--..... -.--.. -... _.. - ... _..... _._.- ...... --·····~·l I ...... 'I I From an assessment of the above information it is possible to derive different results for each case that lead to '1 specifying a distance from the polluting source. It is I, impossible to predefine the number of kilometres beyond which there is a 'non-dangerous pollution level. I' For example in areas removed 10-20 Kilometres from the I Refineries in Haifa the measured pollution level is often much higher than that in areas closer to the polluting I source. 'I The height of the chimney stack is very crucial in determining the radius covered by P9lluting particles. I 4. In fact, it is extremely difficult in an age ~f intensive I industry and industrial development to attain pure air. Pollution is inevitable but there are several avenues of tl approach toward addressing this problem - each avenue has its '1 own economic price. (a) To .place the Refinery as far away as possible - (I incurring high transportation costs etc. (b) A technical solution in the source itself (such I as increasing the height of the Chimney Stacks, " lntervention in the chemical Process itself, *arious filters etc.) 'I (c) Any ,solution has to be based on the Environmental Influence Survey (E.I.S.) done I specifically for the site. I I r------. --- 5. In 1970, a committee convened by the Ministry of Health and 'chaired by Prof. Donagi tried to set up standards for regulating the distance of Residential buildings from Pollution Sources. The committee in fact translated an old Polish document which deals w{th distances. These recommendations were never formulated into a law' and remained as recommendations oniy and are now treated with the disdain which they deserve. 'I 6. HAIFA The Refineries were build by the British in 1934 and at that time was very far from any residential area. When the British set out Town Plans for the various planning districts, they made sure that the Refineries would be outside of any I Municipal Jurisdiction - for reasons of Power and 'because of the sensitive nature of the site and its importance to the I British Mandate Rule. Therefore they arbitrarily set the Municipal limits of Haifa as 2 kilometres' from the I Refineries. I It is important to stress that the Refineries were in the I heart of an Industrial area so that the 2 kilometre limit is not based on ~~y pollution or safety considerations. It is ,. just arbitrary. MR.SHUKI,SBOSHANI I Architect' (REGD) Town Planner (REGD) I (Univ.)Technico,Haifa, Israel " .. I. - 41 - APPENDIX 5 Report on the Results of the Cc:mnunity Satisfaction SUrvey, Williamstown District - Dr. C. Iby Stather and Paul IDchert - ~I Chisolm Institute of Teclmology . I, I I I \ I It Chisholm Institute of Technology Caulfield Campus 900 Dandenong Road, Caulfieid East, Victoria, Australia, 3145 Telephone: 5732222 Frankston Campus McMahons Road, Frankston, Victoria, 3199 .. Telephone: 781 1777 RS/PL:jlm March 7, 1985. I REPORT ON THE RESULTS OF A COMMUNITY I SATISFACTION SURVEY WILLIAMSTOWN DISTRICT Prepared by I Dr C. Roy Stather I Paul Lochert The survey being examined was carried out by a sub-committee of the City or Williamstown1 to investigate the attitudes of Williamstown residents to I aspects o~ community satisfaction. ,The major aim 6f the survey was ,t9 s.tudy 'J their perception of problems caused by industrial P9l1~~ion./ To avoid bias caused by "leading questions" in the quest'ionnaire, the respondents were asked to describe aspects of their environment which they found annoying. I If these annoyance factors included industrial pollution the subjects were further queried about their perception of the source and nature of this pollution. The residents surveyed live i'n areas of Williamstown between one and two kilometres east to north east of the P.R.A. refinery. Thus all respondents are resident within the (proposed) two kilometre buffer zone around this refinery. The establishment of this buffer zone was based primarily on results in P. Ramsay's thesis2 ?~;.. ~say' s,;...x:e.s_~+t.~,'came fr.om:.a survey of houses near the P.R.A. refinery but lying ~E~h,.and ~.?Et.l1..,.of refinery. The current survey aims to show that this buffer zone should not be as extensive in the east-west direction. In this report we compare aspects of the methods " and results of the two surveys. I (a) Survey Design Ramsay claims to have used simple random sampling techniques in drawing his samples. Further.he gives error bounds for his estimates which are based on this method of sampling. However, in an appendix,'he describes a systematic I sampling plan as being the one .used in his survey. The current survey was also carried out using a systematic sampling plan. This type of sampling plan is a I valid and convenient alternative to simple random sampling. A systematic I •• / 2 1. Report on a Survey by a Sub-Committee of the City of Williamstown in I Community Opinion of Quality of Life in Williamstown. (1984) 2. ..,Peter .. '. l J. Ramsa~,~Industrial.. .• Odours and Community Attitudes: Odorous Emissions Associated with a Petroleum Refinery and an Evaluation of Su~rounding Community Attitudes. M.Sc. ThesiS. ~Y University,' 1978. t-; t" ,- w', .!'age 2 I sampling plan is simple to .implement and in general will give a representative sample from the population •. The main limitation of the plan is that· the statistical properties of .the parameter,s cannot be defined completely hence I statistical bounds on estimates call only.be approximate. If the elements of the population' can be reasonably' assumed to be randomly plac'ed then the results based on simple random sampling m~y be applied. Both surveys sampled 100 subjects. (b) Questionnaire Design I The Ramsay questionnaire uses questions Which appear to :lead the respondent to g,iving "anti-pollution oriented" responses. The "neutral" approach Of the current questionnaire should. produce a fairer estimate of· the extent of pollution annoyance. Of course, the results of the two surveys are not directly comparable because of the differences in the questionnaires. (c) Results of the Current Survey The details of these results are given in an earlier report, however, we ,I summarize some relevant details. (i) 86 people (of those surveyed) like living in the area, 13 people do not like living in the area (one person did not respond to this question). (ii) 47 .people found nothing annoying about living in the area. I (iii) Only nine people described industry related· potiution as an annoying. f feature of living in the area. Of these, only. two specifically mentioned P.R.A. as the source of this annoyance. These were located in streets which would fall just outside a one kilometre buffer zone around P.R.A. Incidentally both of these people still liked living in the area. (iv) Three of the other people annoyed by industrial pollution complained about odours from the abbatoir (which has been out of opera'tion .for at least a year) •. (v) Other sources of annoyance ±ncltided features such as neighbours, lack of amenities, train and traffic noise which could be expected in most suburban environments. (vi) Responses to' the question, "What do you enjoy about living in this area?"', included 26 cormnents about the "quiet, peaceful" nature of 'the area and a further 22 about the (good) quality of the environment. These indicate I that.a significant proportion of those interviewed perceive that the area is free from industrial pollution problems. I In summary it appear's that only a ·very small proportion. of resident.s living. \. in these areas find i~dustrial pollution a source of ~nnoyance •. rFurther, nearly all residents enjoy living in the area. (d) Statistical Analyses In his thesis, 'Ramsay has used linear regression models. to express the I, percentage of people expressing annoyance with P.R.A. and the percentage of people satisfied with living in the area as linear functions of distance' from the refinery. Extrapolations of these models were then used to find the limits of areas of 0% 'annoy'ance and 100% satisfaction. These suggested limits were I then used to define the two kilometre buffer zone. Apart from doubts on the I validity of these analyses, one major criticism of Ramsay's study is that all •• / 3 ..-' 11 -- Page' 3 II the houses in his samples are' either north .or south of ·the refi'nery~ Thus his results provide no evidence of the need for such 'a buffer zone .in other directions. The current survey attempts' to obtain results for resiqencese'ast of P.R.A. ,I However, the results shows neglig~le annoyance with P~R.A. arid a very high level of satisfaction with living in the area (except for tho~e residents in the Paisley . estate which should be treated separ.,:tely because of different problems). I Problems arise when trying to fit models, similar to those of Ramsay, to these results becasue of the low levels of annoyance and ·the high level of satisfaction. However, .the results indicate that the declaration of a two I kilQ,metre buffer zone is probably not'warranted to the east of the P.R.A. refinery. Indeed, .it appears that a one kilometre buffer zone would be adequate in.this direction. I I' Ramsay has given conserVative'values for error bounds on his estimates of the proportions of annoyances, etc. A similar approach could p.e used to construct ~I error bounds for the results of this survey,. giving bounds of similar dimensions to those given by Ramsay. However, the methods used by Ramsay in calculating his bounds are based on using simple random sampling plans. There is doubt as to the validity of these bounds when samples are drawn using systematic sampling as is I the case in both of these surveys. However, in both cases, the samples represent a large proportion of the respective populations and so should give suitably I accurate estimates. (e) Conclusions The results of thi~~~r,v,~y;tindicate that the two kilometre buffer zone I, appears unwarranted to the east of the P.R.A. refinery. The discrepancies .. between Ramsay' s results and these could be explained by one or more of the '1 following reasons: differing physical conditions in the two areas sampled, i.e. north ,I and south of P.R.A. and east of P.R.A. different questionnaires used in the two surveys modifications to processes at P.R.A. in the time between'Ramsay's I survey and the current one. To conclusively decide upon the size and shape of any buffer zone around the I, refinery a further survey may be necessary. Such a survey should sample residents from all areas within, say, a two kilometre radius 'of P.R.A. Any models fitted I. to these results should include 'a direction term as well as a distance term. I \ I I I I II. - 42 ,.. 'I I. I APPENDIX 6 Notes on Assessment of Thesis- Dr. D.G. Ibss EKecutive Director, Centre for Applied I Mithanatical z.txlelling - Chisolm Institute I I I, I I I I I I I I I 141 Chisholm Institute of Technology Caulfield Campus 900 Dandenong Road, Caulfield East·, Victoria, Australia, 3145 Telephone: 5732222 Frankston Campus McMahons Road, Frankston, Victoria, 3199 Telephone: 781 1777 GR: jlh February 6, 1985. Mr. Jim Ramsay, C/- Sub-Committee of Williamstown Council, I Dear Mr. Ramsay, 1- The following comments are made on the basis of a limited examination of the thesis: "Industrial Odours and Community Attitudes: Odourous Emissions Associated with a Petroleum Refinery and an Evaluation of Surrounding Community Attitudes - P.J. Ramsay", by a statistician in my group, I Mr. P. Lochert, and myself: (i) The analysis carried out on pp.73-74 shows that odour is related to distance in both the North and South. directions independently. I However, there appears to be no analysis presented which justifies the authors' conclusion that "annoyance to odour and noise from the refinery is related to distance independently of any characteristic I~ topographical or micro-meteorological factors of the north and south study areas". One must therefore question the combination of the north and south data to produce the linear distance relation for odour presented i·n Fig. 7.2. The application of this result to I any other direction is even more questionable without further justification. Hence, without conducting a more comprehensive 1- survey and analysis the buffer zone suggested for petroleum . refineries cannot be supported or refuted. (ii) On p.87, following the Multi-variate analysis, the independence of direction is implied to be supported. However, since the distance criterion s·plit exactly matches the North-South break this conclusion is difficult to justify. I \ I Yours sincerely, I[ D.G. Ross (Dr), .l EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.