Ports and Environs AC Discussion Paper

PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

DISCUSSION PAPER

MARCH 2010

PORTS AND ENVIRONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER MARCH 2010

1

Contents

1. SUMMARY....................................................................................................................9

Part A - Background

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

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

4. LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK ....................................................20 4.1 Legislation ....................................................................................................................20

4.1.1 Planning and Environment Act, 1987 ...............................................................20 4.1.2 Port Services Act, 1995 .....................................................................................21 4.1.3 Environment Protection Act, 1970 ....................................................................23 4.1.4 Marine Act, 1988...............................................................................................24 4.1.5 Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2007...........................................24

4.2 State Policies.................................................................................................................25 4.2.1 State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) ........................................................25 4.2.2 Victorian Ports Strategic Framework 2004 ......................................................28 4.2.3 Port Futures – New Priorities and Directions for

Victoria’s Port System 2009 ............................................................................28 4.2.4 The Victorian Transport Plan 2008 ..................................................................31 4.2.5 Freight Futures: Victorian Freight Network Strategy 2008 .............................31 4.2.6 Victorian Coastal Strategy 2008 .......................................................................34

4.3 Local Planning Policies ...............................................................................................35 4.4 Port Land Use Strategies ............................................................................................40 4.5 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................42

Part B - Overview of Victoria's Ports

5. OVERVIEW OF VICTORIA’S PORTS ..................................................................44 5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................44 5.2 Port of Melbourne .......................................................................................................45

5.2.1 Location and context .........................................................................................45 5.2.2 Governance .......................................................................................................47 5.2.3 Nature of trade throughput ................................................................................47 5.2.4 Current infrastructure ........................................................................................47 5.2.5 Road and transport issues..................................................................................47 5.2.6 Future development plan...................................................................................50 5.2.7 Key interface issues...........................................................................................54

5.3 Port of Hastings ...........................................................................................................55 5.3.1 Location and context .........................................................................................55 5.3.2 Governance arrangements .................................................................................57 5.3.3 Nature of trade throughput ................................................................................57 5.3.4 Current infrastructure ........................................................................................57 5.3.5 Road and transport issues..................................................................................58 5.3.6 Future development plan...................................................................................59 5.3.7 Key interface issues...........................................................................................60

5.4 Port of Geelong ............................................................................................................61


2

5.4.1 Location and context .........................................................................................61 5.4.2 Governance .......................................................................................................63 5.4.3 Nature of trade throughput ................................................................................63 5.4.4 Current infrastructure ........................................................................................63 5.4.5 Road and transport issues..................................................................................64 5.4.6 Future development plans .................................................................................65 5.4.7 Geelong Port Structure Plan..............................................................................66 5.4.8 Key interface issues...........................................................................................67

5.5 Port of Portland ...........................................................................................................70 5.5.1 Location and context .........................................................................................70 5.5.2 Governance .......................................................................................................72 5.5.3 Nature of Trade throughput...............................................................................72 5.5.4 Current infrastructure ........................................................................................72 5.5.5 Road and transport issues..................................................................................73 5.5.6 Future development plans .................................................................................74 5.5.7 Key interface issues...........................................................................................75

5.6 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................76

Part C - Ports Environs

6. APPROACHES TO INTERFACE PLANNING IN THE PORT ENVIRONS .....................................................................................................78

6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................78 6.2 Approaches to interface planning and management .............................................79

6.2.1 Creating buffer areas .........................................................................................79 6.2.2 Planning controls to create ‘reverse buffers’.....................................................80 6.2.3 Extend the range of sensitive uses.....................................................................81 6.2.4 Improve environmental and/or operational performance..................................82 6.2.5 Site design and layout .......................................................................................83 6.2.6 Relocation of nuisance or hazardous activities .................................................84 6.2.7 Legal agreements ..............................................................................................84 6.2.8 Notice of potential detriment.............................................................................85 6.2.9 Acquisition of land and change of use ..............................................................85 6.2.10 Memorandum of understanding ........................................................................86 6.2.11 Conclusions .......................................................................................................86

6.3 Planning tools under the VPPs ..................................................................................86 6.4 Stakeholders in interface planning ...........................................................................89 6.5 Advisory Committee discussion ...............................................................................92

7. IDENTIFYING THE PORT ENVIRONS FOR VICTORIA’S FOUR PORTS....................................................................................94

7.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................94 7.2 Nature of amenity and risks at the interfaces..........................................................96 7.3 Port of Melbourne .......................................................................................................97

7.3.1 Swanson Dock and Dynon precinct with South Kensington ............................97 7.3.2 Appleton Dock and Dynon Precinct with e-Gate..............................................99 7.3.3 Swanson Dock (Coode Island) with Yarraville precinct.................................101 7.3.4 Webb Dock with Garden City and The Strand................................................108 7.3.5 Station Pier with Beacon Cove and Port Melbourne.......................................114 7.3.6 Appleton Dock, Victoria Dock and South Wharf with Lorimer

Street and Fishermans Bend ..........................................................................116 7.3.7 Victoria Dock with Docklands........................................................................118 7.3.8 Holden Dock with Francis Street, Yarraville ..................................................121 7.3.9 Ann Street Pier, Gellibrand Pier and Breakwater Pier with the

former Port Phillip Woollen Mill site ............................................................125


3

7.4 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................128 7.5 Port of Hastings .........................................................................................................128 7.6 Port of Geelong ..........................................................................................................130

7.6.1 North Shore residential area with Incitec Pivot and Midway..........................131 7.6.2 Norlane residential area with the industrial area east of Station Street ...........134 7.6.3 Former Ford site with ‘port area of interest’ land ...........................................137 7.6.4 Proposed Geelong marine industry project, Osborne Park,

Osborne House, and the Rippleside residential area with ‘port area of interest’ land..............................................................................139

7.6.5 Geelong Grammar School with ‘port area of interest land’ ............................142 7.7 Port of Portland .........................................................................................................146

Part D – Planning Framework

8. STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK ...................................................150 8.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................150 8.2 Advisory Committee discussion .............................................................................152 8.3 Key issues for consideration ....................................................................................155

9. LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK...................................................156 9.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................156 9.2 Local Planning Schemes ...........................................................................................156

9.2.1 Melbourne Planning Scheme ..........................................................................156 9.2.2 Port Phillip Planning Scheme..........................................................................157 9.2.3 Maribyrnong Planning Scheme.......................................................................159 9.2.4 Hobson’s Bay Planning Scheme .....................................................................160 9.2.5 Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme ........................................................161 9.2.6 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme .................................................................163 9.2.7 Glenelg Planning Scheme ...............................................................................164 9.2.8 Status of Port Strategic Land Use Plans..........................................................165

10. EXISTING PLANNING CONTROLS APPLYING TO THE PORTS ............166 10.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................166 10.2 Concerns with the current planning controls applying to the

Ports of Hastings, Geelong and Portland .............................................................166 10.3 Issues with the current planning controls applying to the waters

of the Ports of Geelong, Portland and Hastings ..................................................169 10.3.1 Background .....................................................................................................169 10.3.2 Advisory Committee discussion......................................................................170

11. PROPOSED PORT ZONE ......................................................................................172 11.1 Rationale for a new zone ..........................................................................................172 11.2 Proposed Port Zone ..................................................................................................173 11.3 Schedules to the Port Zone.......................................................................................180 11.4 Definition of Port .......................................................................................................180 11.5 Key issues for consideration ....................................................................................181

12. WHO SHOULD BE THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY FOR THE PORTS OF HASTINGS, GEELONG AND PORTLAND?...............................182

12.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................182 12.2 Issues ...........................................................................................................................182 12.3 Advisory Committee discussion .............................................................................183 12.4 Key issues for consideration ....................................................................................184


4

13. INTEGRATING THE PORTS’ LAND USE STRATEGIES WITH THE PLANNING FRAMEWORK.........................................................................185

13.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................185 13.2 Advisory Committee discussion .............................................................................185 13.3 Key issue for consideration ......................................................................................186

Part E - Conclusions

14. CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................188

Appendices

APPENDIX A TERMS OF REFERENCE...............................................................189

APPENDIX B COMMITTEE MEMBERS BIOGRAPHIES ...............................194

APPENDIX C STAKEHOLDERS THAT MET WITH THE COMMITTEE.............................................................196

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

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX I DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN SCHEDULE ..........................211

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


5

List of Figures

Figure 1 Port of Melbourne and surrounding areas ............................................... 46

Figure 2: Port of Hastings and surrounding areas .................................................. 56

Figure 3: Port of Geelong and surrounding areas ................................................... 62

Figure 4: Portland Port and surrounding areas ....................................................... 71

Figure 5 Swanston Dock and Dynon Project with South Kensington................... 98

Figure 6 Appleton Dock and Dynon Precinct with e-Gate.................................. 100

Figure 7 Swanson Dock (Coode Island) with Yarraville Precinct ...................... 102

Figure 8 Webb Dock with Garden City............................................................... 109

Figure 9 Webb Dock with The Strand (Williamstown) ...................................... 111

Figure 10 Station Pier with Beacon Cove ............................................................. 115

Figure 11 Appleton Dock, Victoria Dock, South Wharf with Lorimer Street and Fishermans Bend.................................................................. 117

Figure 12 Victoria Dock with Docklands.............................................................. 120

Figure 13 Holden Dock with Francis Street, Yarraville ........................................ 123

Figure 14 Ann Street Pier, Gellibrand Pier and Breakwater Pier with former Port Phillip Woollen Mill (Williamstown)................................ 126

Figure 15 North Shore with Port of Geelong Area of Interest Land ..................... 132

Figure 16 Norlane with Industrial Area to the West.............................................. 135

Figure 17 Former Ford site with Port of Geelong Area of Interest land........................................................................................................ 138

Figure 18 Marine Industry Project and Ripponlea with Port of Geelong Port Area of Interest land........................................................ 141

Figure 19 Shell Refinery with Geelong Grammar School .................................... 144

Figure 20 Port of Portland with South Portland .................................................... 147


6

Abbreviations

CDZ: Comprehensive Development Zone

COGG: City of Greater Geelong

DIIRD: Department of Innovation, Industry and Regional Development

DOT: Department of Transport

DPCD: Department of Planning and Community Development

EMP: Environmental Management Plan

EPA: Environment Protection Authority

HPFV: High Productivity Freight Vehicles

IMT: Inter-modal terminal

LPPF: Local Planning Policy Framework

MAEO: Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay

MHF: Major Hazard Facility

MoU: Memorandum of Understanding

MSS: Municipal Strategic Statement

NSW: New South Wales

PDS: Port Development Strategy

PEPF: Port Environs Planning Framework

PLUS: Port Land Use Strategy

PLUTS: Port of Hastings Land Use and Transport Strategy

PoMC: Port of Melbourne Corporation

PCRZ: Public Conservation and Resource Zone

PSA: Port Services Act, 1995

PSEMP: Port Safety Environmental Management Plan

SPPF: State Planning Policy Framework

SUZ: Special Use Zone

TEU: Twenty-foot equivalent unit

ToR: Terms of Reference

VCS: Victorian Coastal Strategy

VFLC: Victorian Freight and Logistics Council


7

VPPs: Victoria Planning Provisions

VPSF: Victorian Ports Strategic Framework

VTS: Victorian Transport Strategy


8

Submissions

The main purpose of this Discussion Paper is to invite written submissions

on the issues identified by the Advisory Committee following its

consultations with key stakeholders.

To assist submitters respond to the issues, the Committee has identified Key

issues for consideration in most sections of this report in a question format.

This does not preclude stakeholders raising other issues relevant to the

Committee’s Terms of Reference (ToR).

Submissions are invited in writing by close of business Friday, 25 June 2010.

Submissions must be sent to:

Chair

Ports and Environs Advisory Committee

Planning Panels Victoria

GPO Box 2392

Melbourne 3001 Vic

Alternatively, submissions can be faxed on 9637 9700 or emailed to

[email protected]

The Advisory Committee proposes to commence public hearings after

receiving submissions. Further advice will be provided as to when the

hearings will be held. The public hearings are intended to provide an

opportunity for submitters to clarify information or views as presented by

them in their written submissions.


9

1. Summary

The Ports and Environs Advisory Committee was appointed by the Minister

for Planning in September 2009 to, amongst other matters:

determine whether the existing and proposed planning controls

applying to the Ports of Hastings, Geelong and Portland are adequate

to ensure the protection of the ports from the encroachment of sensitive

uses;

review the issues raised in the draft Port of Melbourne Port Environs

Planning Framework (PEPF) and provide recommendations on how the

framework can be implemented; and

advise on appropriate and streamlined planning controls that could

apply to the use and development of land and waters to the Ports of

Hastings, Geelong and Portland.

The need for the review stems from a number of significant issues affecting

Victoria’s four commercial trading ports at Melbourne, Hastings, Geelong

and Portland, including:

significant increased activity at the ports as a result of increasing

international trade and forecasts for continued growth in trade;

concern from port managers about the encroachment of sensitive uses

near the ports that may impact on the ability of the ports to

accommodate increased growth;

expectations by local communities that the ports operate to high

standards of environmental performance; and

concerns by port managers about the effectiveness of planning controls

to provide an efficient and streamlined assessment process for

development projects identified in the ports’ land use strategies.

The Advisory Committee comprises Mark Marsden (Chair), Des Grogan,

Helen Weston and David Whitney.

The Committee is required to produce a Discussion Paper, invite

submissions on the Discussion Paper and prepare a final report.

In preparing the Discussion Paper, the Committee has held discussions with

the port managers, Council officers, relevant government departments and

agencies and some community groups. The Committee also invited these

stakeholders to make preliminary written submissions.


10

As well as meeting key stakeholders, the Committee inspected the four ports

and their surrounds.

This Discussion Paper is divided into the following parts:

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

This part includes background on the role of the Advisory Committee, the

consultation processes adopted by the Committee and the legislative and

policy framework relevant to ports. The chapter on consultation includes a

discussion on the scope of the Committee’s task.

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

This part provides a summary of Victoria’s four ports in terms of location

and context, governance, nature of trade throughput, current infrastructure,

road and transport issues, key interface issues and future development plans.

This information has been summarised from a number of State Government

policies relating to ports and freight and also from the land use strategies

that have been prepared for each of the ports by the port managers pursuant

to the Port Services Act, 1995 (PSA).

The ports’ land use strategies provide a useful framework for each of the

ports to identify and plan for their future requirements in terms of land

needs, infrastructure requirements and addressing existing and potential

amenity impacts beyond the ports’ boundaries.

With forecasts of significantly increased international trade and increased

activity at each of the ports, it will be even more important that the ports’

land use strategies are further developed and integrated into the statutory

planning framework to ensure a transparent and efficient decision‐making

framework.

Part C – Port Environs (Chapters 6 and 7)

The first chapter in this part identifies a range of approaches to interface

planning that have been applied in various situations to address concerns

that can arise when incompatible land uses are neighbours. While ten

different approaches to interface planning have been identified, the

Committee believes that the environmental performance of the ports and

port users should be the starting point to manage the interface between the

ports and surrounding areas. However, the Committee has a limited role to

play in relation to the ports’ compliance with relevant environmental

policies, guidelines and standards. This matter is beyond the Committee’s


11

ToR which are restricted to issues associated with the statutory planning

framework.

This chapter also includes a matrix which has been developed to identify the

relevant agency that would have responsibility for the implementation of the

interface treatment and opportunities for stakeholder involvement.

With respect to successfully planning for the reasonable co‐existence of the

ports and surrounding areas, the Committee considers it is essential that the

planning system recognises that the four commercial trading ports are able to

operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. As a result, port activities and

hours of operations, ports can generate off‐site amenity impacts beyond their

boundaries which have the potential to cause nuisance to uses considered

‘sensitive’ such as residential development or certain community facilities.

It is also important that the planning system recognises that there are areas

near these long‐established ports which are now sought after residential

areas because of their coastal location, and, in the case of the ports of

Melbourne, Geelong and Portland, their inner urban setting. Further,

planning policy at both the State and local levels which actively promotes

intensification of established urban areas also contributes to the demand for

residential development close to the ports.

In the second chapter in this part, the Committee provides a detailed

examination of the interface areas between each of the ports and surrounding

areas that potentially contain sensitive uses having regard to:

the nature of existing uses and developments within each of the ports;

the future plans for each of port as identified in its land use strategy;

the nature of existing and future uses and developments (if known)

surrounding each port; and

relevant planning objectives and strategies in the applicable planning

schemes.

From these investigations, the Committee is seeking comment as to whether:

the interface area beyond the specific port boundary should be

identified as a port environs area that requires some form of interface

treatment;

the identified port environs area should be subject to a planning

mechanism under the statutory planning framework, such as an

alternative zone to restrict the type of uses or an overlay to control the

nature of development;


12

the port manager should be a prescribed authority under Clause 66.10

of the VPPs for notice and/or referral of applications in the port

environs; or

some other collaborative approach is appropriate between the port

manager, relevant authority and other stakeholders.

The Committee has provided a detailed analysis to determine the key

interface areas for each of the ports in preference to a more arbitrary

approach that would simply delineate a certain distance from the port

boundaries to be included in the port environs. In the Committee’s view, an

arbitrary approach may not be justified given the significant variation in the

nature of activities occurring within different parts of each of the ports and

the diversity of surrounding land uses and development. In other words, a

‘horses for courses’ approach is adopted. However, the Committee is

seeking responses from submitters on whether a more arbitrary approach

may be justified for some or all ports.

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

The first two chapters of this part provide an overview of the clauses

pertaining to ports found in the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) and

in the local policies of the relevant municipal planning schemes relevant to

each of Victoria’s four commercial trading ports and their environs.

Given the strategic importance of the ports, the Committee considers that the

SPPF could be enhanced by acknowledging the importance of ensuring the

future growth and development of the ports as well as recognising the need

for a two‐way consideration of interface issues between the ports and their

environs. In addition, the Committee considers that State Government

policies relating to ports and individual port land use strategies should all be

included in the planning scheme as reference documents.

An overview of the relevant municipal planning scheme local policies

relating to ports is then provided, including consideration of the

recommendations of the Port Environs Planning Framework (PEPF) prepared

for the Port of Melbourne.

In broad terms, the Committee considers that most of the local planning

schemes adequately recognise the economic significance of the ports.

However, the Committee provides suggestions to improve some local

policies particularly in relation to the need for responsible authorities to

consider the interface areas between ports and their environs.

Following consideration of State and local policies, the Committee provides

an analysis of the existing planning controls applying to the ports of


13

Hastings, Geelong and Portland. A number of concerns are identified about

the inconsistency between the zoning provisions that apply to these three

ports and the opportunities to provide more transparent and streamlined

planning controls. In addition, the Committee considers there needs to be

stronger integration between local policy and planning controls relating to

ports.

To address the deficiencies of the existing planning controls, the Committee

suggests a new purpose‐specific Port Zone that should apply to all land

within the port boundaries or port area of interest as identified in the

respective port land use strategies. A draft of the Port Zone has been

prepared for consideration by submitters.

While the Committee’s ToR do not include a review of the planning controls

applying to the Port of Melbourne under the Port of Melbourne Planning

Scheme, it considers that the Port Zone could also apply to this port.

In addition, the Advisory Committee has developed a definition of Port for

inclusion in Clause 74 of the VPPs.

During its consultations, the Committee heard submissions as to whether or

not the State Government should be the planning and responsible authority

for the ports of Hastings, Geelong and Portland1. Each port land use strategy

contains recommendations that the State Government should be the

planning and responsible authority for the ports. In the Committee’s view,

the more important issue is not who the planning and responsible authority

should be, but whether a more effective and efficient planning framework

will achieve State and local planning objectives for the ports.

Finally, the Committee provides some analysis on the potential to improve

integration between the ports’ land use strategies and the statutory planning

framework. In the Committee’s view, there is potential to review the manner

in which ports’ land use strategies are prepared so that in the future they

could be considered for inclusion as Incorporated Plans or Development

Plans in the planning schemes.

Part E Conclusions (Chapter 14)

In this part, the Committee identifies key conclusions relating to its ToR as a

result of the first stage of the consultative process.

1 The Minister for Planning is the responsible authority for the Port of Melbourne Planning Scheme


14

Part A – Background


15

2. Background

2.1 Terms of Reference

The tasks of the Advisory Committee are:

Port Environs Matters

· Determine whether the existing and proposed planning scheme

controls applying to the environs of the Ports of Geelong, Hastings

and Portland are adequate to ensure the protection of the ports

against the encroachment of sensitive uses.

· Review the issues raised in the draft Port of Melbourne Port

Environs Planning Framework (Port of Melbourne Corporation) and

provide recommendations on how the framework can be

implemented, as appropriate.

· Make recommendations on appropriate boundaries for the land that

would constitute ‘port environs’ for all of the four commercial ports.

· Make recommendations that would protect the ports from

encroachment of sensitive uses through the use of appropriate

planning policy and applications of the Victoria Planning

Provisions.

· Respond to any other matters that the Advisory Committee considers

relevant to planning and development controls of the four

commercial ports so that they remain competitive and sustainable.

Port Planning Controls

· Advise on appropriate and streamlined planning controls that could

apply to the use and development of land and where relevant, the

waters of the Ports of Geelong, Portland and Hastings. This should

have regard to the current model used in the Port of Melbourne

Planning Scheme for which the Minister for Planning is Responsible

Authority. (The Advisory Committee is not to consider or make

recommendations that separate planning schemes be developed for

the ports of Geelong, Hastings and Portland or review the planning

controls applying to the Port of Melbourne).

· Draft appropriate planning scheme provisions that could apply to the

Ports of Geelong, Portland and Hastings.


16

The ToR are included in Appendix A.

2.2 Advisory Committee members

The Advisory Committee was appointed by the Minister for Planning on 18

September 2009 and comprises:

Mark Marsden (Chair);

Des Grogan;

Helen Weston; and

David Whitney.

Biographies of the Advisory Committee members are attached in Appendix

B.


17

3. Consultation processes

3.1 Approach

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

consultative process:

Stage 1 – Preparation of the Discussion Paper. During this stage, the

Committee conducted discussions with port managers, Council officers,

government departments and agencies and some community groups, to

assist it gain an understanding of the major issues concerning the ports and

the port environs.2.

From these lists, the Committee identified key stakeholders it should meet

with (Appendix C) and key stakeholders that should be invited to make a

preliminary submission (Appendix D). A list of stakeholders who provided

a preliminary written submission is found in Appendix E.

Stage 2 – Development of Final report. During this stage, the Advisory

Committee will conduct formal public hearings on submissions in response

to the Discussion Paper. Its final report will be prepared after the public

hearings and submitted to the Minister for Planning.

As well as meeting key stakeholders, the Committee has conducted

inspections of the four ports and their surrounds.

3.2 Issues raised and relationship to ToR

In responding to the ToR, the Committee has been mindful that the output of

its inquiry is to recommend to the Minister for Planning a policy and

statutory planning framework that:

ensures that appropriate recognition is given in planning schemes to

the strategic importance of Victoria’s major commercial trading ports to

the economy of the State and of the regions in which they are located;

facilitates the future development of the ports in an economically and

environmentally sustainable manner;

enables land use and development in both the ports and their environs

to co‐exist safely and with reasonable/acceptable levels of amenity;

2 The Committee asked both the port managers and Council officers for a list of stakeholders the

Committee should contact.


18

restricts the potential for sensitive uses which might compromise

existing and planned port use and development to encroach into port

environs; and

facilitates approvals for port use and development in timely and

efficient manner.

In preparing this Paper, some stakeholders have raised issues related to the

ports which extend beyond statutory planning processes and the

Committee’s ToR. Many of these issues, while of interest and importance,

are beyond the scope of this inquiry. Nevertheless, in the Committee’s

opinion, they are worthy of mention as matters to which the Government

could direct its attention in appropriate forums in the future.

These matters include, but are not confined to, the following:

The role of Victoria’s four commercial trading ports in terms of the

nature of their respective trade throughputs and whether individual

ports should be accepting or refusing certain throughputs to address

concerns about amenity and/or community safety and health at the

various ports. For example, the Committee considers it is beyond its

ToR to make recommendations for the Port of Hastings to accept

increased throughput of certain goods in order to address amenity or

risk concerns within the Port of Melbourne.

The need to identify strategic transport linkages between the ports and

proposed new ‘inland ports’ or freight and logistics centres as well as

the need for appropriate planning measures to protect these transport

corridors and inter‐modal facilities.

The adverse amenity impacts of port‐related traffic and transport, for

example, road traffic noise. While such impacts could be more

significant for many local residents than other amenity impacts from

port or port‐related activities, road and transport matters are regulated

by State policies and controls other than the statutory planning

framework. 3 However, it may be possible in some situations where an

overlay could be imposed along a transport corridor to mitigate the

impacts of traffic noise. For example, there is a Design and

Development Overlay in the Hume Planning Scheme that applies

adjacent to parts of the Hume Freeway (Craigieburn Bypass) that

requires development to be designed to minimise the impact of traffic

noise on noise sensitive activities.4

The Committee’s role in assessing individual development proposals

within ports. For example, the Committee has received letters from

3 For example, VicRoads Traffic Noise Reduction Policy 2005. 4 Clause 43.02 of Hume Planning Scheme.


19

some residents in The Strand in Williamstown who are concerned that

the Committee is not able to determine the port environs without

considering the potential impacts of the proposed Webb Dock

development within the Port of Melbourne. In the Committee’s view,

the ToR require consideration of potential interface issues having

regard to the future development of the ports as identified in the ports’

strategic land use plans. However, this does not require or enable the

Committee to assess individual future development proposals.

Water‐based conflicts between shipping movements and recreational

boating and fishing activities. In the Committee’s view, these issues are

addressed through relevant marine safety regulations, not the statutory

planning framework.

In addition, some stakeholders addressed the Committee on health and

safety risks associated with the storage, handling and transport of hazardous

materials such as butadiene. While these concerns are understood, it is not

the role of this Committee to assess the performance of industries that store,

handle and transport major hazards, nor is it the role of the Committee to

assess the performance of the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) or

WorkSafe Victoria in monitoring these industries. Furthermore, it is not the

role of the Committee to comment on the appropriateness of EPA threshold

distances or WorkSafe safety guidelines.

However, the Committee does consider health and safety issues in terms of

the statutory planning framework which incorporates as guidelines the EPA

threshold distances between uses with potential amenity and risk and

sensitive uses.5 Accordingly, the Committee has considered the EPA

threshold distances in determining the port environs boundaries.

It is not the Committee’s intention to deal further with these matters and

trusts that the responses to this Discussion Paper will be confined to

addressing the matters set out in the Committee’s ToR.

5 Refer to Clause 52.10 of the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPPs)


20

4. Legislative and Policy framework

In this section of the report, the legislation and policies relevant to the

Advisory Committee’s tasks are identified and summarised.

4.1 Legislation

4.1.1 Planning and Environment Act, 1987

The Planning and Environment Act, 1987 provides for the land use planning

framework in Victoria. The objectives of planning in Victoria are to:

(a) to provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use, and

development of land;

(b) to provide for the protection of natural and man‐made resources and

the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity;

(c to secure a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and

recreational environment for all Victorians and visitors to Victoria;

(d) to conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which

are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or

otherwise of special cultural value;

(e) to protect public utilities and other assets and enable the orderly

provision and co‐ordination of public utilities and other facilities for

the benefit of the community;

(f) to facilitate development in accordance with the objectives set out in

paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e);

(g) to balance the present and future interests of all Victorians.

The objectives of the planning framework established by this Act relevant to

this Inquiry are:

(a) to ensure sound, strategic planning and co‐ordinated action at State,

regional and municipal levels;

(b) to establish a system of planning schemes based on municipal

districts to be the principal way of setting out objectives, policies and

controls for the use, development and protection of land;

(c) to enable land use and development planning and policy to be easily

integrated with environmental, social, economic, conservation and


21

resource management policies at State, regional and municipal

levels;

(d) to ensure that the effects on the environment are considered and

provide for explicit consideration of social and economic effects when

decisions are made about the use and development of land;

(e) to facilitate development which achieves the objectives of planning in

Victoria and planning objectives set up in planning schemes;

(f) ….

(g) to encourage the achievement of planning objectives through positive

actions by responsible authorities and planning authorities;

(h) to establish a clear procedure for amending planning schemes, with

appropriate public participation in decision making;

(i) to ensure that those affected by proposals for the use, development or

protection of land or changes in planning policy or requirements

receive appropriate notice;

(j) ….

(k) ….

(l) ….

4.1.2 Port Services Act, 1995

Port Development Strategies

Part 6B of the Port Services Act, 1995 (PSA) requires the port authorities to

prepare a Port Development Strategy (PDS) every four years. The PDS is to

include:

(a) projections of trade through the commercial trading port;

(b) current and projected land use requirements, including transitional

land uses designed to protect the port from constraints on efficient

operations and mitigate adverse impacts of port operations on

adjacent uses;

(c) current and projected infrastructure requirements for land and

water in the commercial trading port;

(d) current and projected transport infrastructure requirements for land

and water in the commercial trading port;

(e) any other matters specified in any guidelines.

In addition, a PDS must be prepared and submitted to the Minister in

accordance with guidelines.


22

Section 91M states that the Minister may issue guidelines in relation to the

preparation of a PDS addressing:

(a) the form;

(b) the content;

(c) the method and process for preparation;

(d) processes to enable tenants, licensees and service providers in the

port to be involved in the preparation;

(e) processes for consultation with people affected;

(f) publication and availability.

Port of Melbourne

The PSA provides for the establishment and regulation of the Port of

Melbourne Corporation (PoMC) and sets out its powers. Section 12 provides

that the objectives of the PoMC are to:

(a) manage and develop the Port of Melbourne in an economically,

socially and environmentally sustainable manner;

(b) to ensure that essential port services at the Port of Melbourne are

available and cost effective;

(c) to ensure, in cooperation with other relevant responsible bodies, that

the Port of Melbourne is effectively integrated with other systems of

infrastructure in the State;

(d) to facilitate in cooperation with other responsible bodies, the

sustainable growth of trade through its Port of Melbourne; and

(e) to establish and manage channels in Port of Melbourne waters for

use on a fair and reasonable basis.

Section 13 of the PSA provides that the functions of PoMC are as follows:

(a) to plan for the development and operation of the Port of Melbourne;

(b) to provide land, waters and infrastructure necessary for the

development and operation of the Port of Melbourne;

(c) to develop or enable and control the development by others of the

whole or any part of the Port of Melbourne;

(d) to manage or enable and control the management by others of, the

whole or any part of the Port of Melbourne;

(e) to provide or enable and control the provision by others of, services

for the operation of the port of Melbourne;

(f) to promote and market the port of Melbourne;


23

(g) to facilitate the integration of infrastructure and logistics systems in

the port of Melbourne with relevant systems outside the Port;

(ga) to manage and in accordance with standards developed by the

Director of Marine Safety, to dredge and maintain channels in port

of Melbourne waters;

(gb) to provide and maintain in accordance with the standards developed

by the Director of Marine Safety, navigation aids in connection with

navigation in port of Melbourne waters;

(gc) generally, to direct and control in accordance with the Marine Act

1988, the movement of vessels in port of Melbourne waters;

(h) any other functions that are conferred on the Corporation by or

under this or any Act.

In addition, the PoMC must carry out its functions in a manner that is safe

and secure, effective and efficient, commercially sound and that has regard

for persons living or working in the immediate neighbourhood of the Port of

Melbourne.

Under the PSA ‘Port of Melbourne land’ includes land that is in the

municipal district of the Cities of Melbourne, Maribyrnong, Hobsons Bay

and Port Phillip, or any land in the Bay adjoining one or more of those

municipal districts.

Port of Hastings Corporation

The PSA also established the Port of Hastings Corporation. The functions of

the Corporation are identical in nature to those outlined above for the PoMC.

4.1.3 Environment Protection Act, 1970

The Environment Protection Act, 1970 established the Environment Protection

Authority (EPA), outlines its powers, duties and responsibilities and makes

provision for the prevention of pollution and the protection of the

environment.

In terms of Victoria’s ports, the EPA is responsible for the licensing of certain

premises that are responsible for the discharge, emission or deposit of waste

to the environment. There are a number of premises operating within

Victoria’s ports that require EPA licences and approvals.


24

4.1.4 Marine Act, 1988

The purposes of the Marine Act, 1988 are:

to re‐enact with amendments the law relating to the registration of

vessels and the pollution of State waters;

to implement certain international conventions; and

to provide for the efficient and safe operation of vessels on State waters.

4.1.5 Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2007

The Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2007 further the objectives

of the Occupation Health and Safety Act 2004 by:

(i) providing for health and safety in relation to workplaces and

hazards, activities and things at workplaces; and

(ii) providing for the safe operation of major hazard facilities and mines

in order to reduce the likelihood of a serious incident occurring; and

(iii) providing for the registration of certain people engaged in

construction work at workplaces; and

(iv) providing for the licensing of certain people engaged in high risk

work at workplaces; and

(v) providing procedures for the resolution of health and safety issues

at workplaces; and

(vi) specifying the information to be included in entry permits issued

under Part 8 of the Act; and

(vii) providing for other matters that are required or permitted by the

Act or that are necessary to give effect to the Act.

The Regulations also seek to further the objectives of the Dangerous Goods Act

1985 by providing for the protection of property from damage from the use

of dangerous goods at major hazard facilities.


25

4.2 State Policies

4.2.1 State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)

The SPPF policies apply to all land in Victoria and must be taken into

account when preparing amendments or making decisions under a planning

scheme. Those policies that are most relevant to ports include the following:

Clause 11 – Introduction Goals and Principles – Clause 11.03 ‐ Principles of Land

Use and Development Planning identifies the following seven general

principles for planning in Victoria; Settlement; Environment; Management of

Resources; Infrastructure; Economic well‐being; Social needs and Regional

co‐operation. In short, planning must take account of these matters

including their underlying policies and strategies, to ensure the best overall

outcomes for current and future generations. This inevitably involves

judgement on balances between individual principles. It requires that

Victoria’s planning objectives are fostered through appropriate land use and

development planning which integrates relevant environmental, social and

economic factors in the interests of net community benefit and sustainable

development.

Clause 11.03‐1 – Settlement requires planning to anticipate and respond to the

needs of existing and future communities through provision of zoned and

serviced land for housing, employment, recreation and open space,

commercial and community facilities and infrastructure. This is relevant in

the context of ensuring environment protection and community health and

safety in relation to coastal hazards arising from the effects of climate change.

11.03‐2 – Environment relates to obligations under national and state

environment policies and strategies. The policy requires planning to:

· Adopt a best practice environmental management and risk

management approach which aims to avoid or minimise

environmental degradation and hazards.

· Prevent environmental problems created by siting incompatible land

uses close together.

· Help to protect the health of ecological systems and the biodiversity

they support (including ecosystems, habitats, species and genetic

diversity).

· Protect areas and sites with significant historic, architectural,

aesthetic, scientific and cultural values.


26

11.03‐3 ‐ Management of resources requires planning to assist in the

conservation of natural resources, to minimise hazards such as flooding and

to minimise impacts on estuarine, coastal and marine environments. It also

recognises the Department of Sustainability and Environment and

Committees of Management as managers of Crown land when making

decisions affecting Crown land.

11.03‐5 ‐ Economic well‐being is relevant because it seeks to foster the well

being of communities and support economic growth through the provision

of land and resolving land use conflicts.

11.03‐6 ‐ Social needs seeks to provide a safe physical and social environment

for residents, through the appropriate location of uses and developments.

Clause 12 Metropolitan Development ‐ This clause provides objectives and

strategies for Metropolitan Melbourne.

Under Clause 12.05 – A great place to be, Clause 12.05‐2 – Strategies and under

Coastal Areas seeks to improve the environmental health of the bays through

reducing the pressures of urban growth through growth area planning,

managing waterway and stormwater quality and protecting coastal and

foreshore environments, providing public access and recreation facilities

around the Bays. Importantly, the policy also requires coastal planning and management to be consistent with the Victorian Coastal Strategy and to

manage privately owned foreshore consistently with the adjoining public land.

Under Clause 12.07 – A greener city, Clause 21.07‐2 – Strategies under Native

habitat and biodiversity seeks to protect flora and fauna habitat and landscapes

such as the coastal areas, Western Port and the Mornington Peninsula.

Clause 14 – Settlement under Clause 14.01‐2 – General Implementation

recognises the need to plan to accommodate projected population growth

taking account of land capability and natural hazards, environmental quality

and the costs of providing infrastructure. The policy also seeks to protect

environmentally sensitive areas such as Western Port and Port Phillip Bays

and their foreshores, the Gippsland Lakes and its foreshore and coastal areas

and their foreshores from development which would diminish their

environmental conservation or recreation values.

Clause 15 – Environment under Clause 15.01 – Protection of catchments,

waterways and groundwater seeks to:

To assist the protection and, where possible, restoration of catchments,

waterways, water bodies, groundwater, and the marine environment.


27

Clause 15.08 – Coastal Areas is the key policy relating to coastal climate

change effects. It was amended under VC52 on 18 December 2008 following

the release of the 2008 VCS. Under Clause 15.08‐1 the objectives are:

· To protect and enhance the natural ecosystems and landscapes of the

coastal estuarine and marine environment.

· To ensure sustainable use of natural coastal resources.

· To achieve development that provides an environmental, social and

economic balance.

· To recognise and enhance the community’s value of the coast.

· To plan for and manage the potential coastal impacts of climate

change.

Clause 18.05 – Ports has the objective of:

· recognising the importance to Victoria of economically sustainable

major ports(Melbourne, Geelong, Portland Hastings) by planning

for appropriate access, terminal areas and depot areas”; and

· planning the land resources adjacent to ports to “facilitate the

efficient operation of the port and port‐related uses and minimise

adverse impacts on surrounding urban development and

environment”.

Clause 18.05‐2 states:

The land resources adjacent to ports should be protected to preserve their

value for uses which depend upon or gain significant economic advantage

from proximity to the ports’ particular shipping operations.

Port and industrial development should be physically separated from

sensitive urban development by the establishment of appropriate buffers

which reduce the impact of vibration, intrusive lighting, noise and air

emissions from port activities.

Planning for the use of land adjacent to ports should aim to achieve and

maintain a high standard of environmental quality, be integrated with

policies for the protection of the environment generally and of marine

environments in particular and take into account planning for adjacent

areas and the relevant catchment.


28

4.2.2 Victorian Ports Strategic Framework 2004

The Victorian Ports Strategic Framework (VPSF) 2004 is an older strategy that

has been superseded by Port Futures (2009). The policy proposed that the

four commercial trading ports should focus on reinforcing and developing

their existing core trade roles. In the case of the ports of Portland, Geelong

and Hastings, these are primarily the handling of dry and liquid bulk

cargoes and break bulk cargoes related largely to steel and aluminium

products. In the case of the Port of Melbourne, the emphasis was on

developing its specialised capacity to handle containerised cargo,

acknowledging that it will also continue to play an important role in relation

to bulk and break bulk commodities.

The VPSF nominated Hastings as Victoria’s second largest container port, to

act as an overflow for this trade once Melbourne reaches its full capacity.

In relation to competition between Victoria’s ports, the policy generally

encouraged this for the bulk and break bulk trades but not for international

containers which were earmarked exclusively for Melbourne until it reaches

capacity around 2035 (based on current trade forecasts and anticipated

productivity improvements in stevedoring terminals) and then for Hastings.

The VPSF did not make any explicit statement in relation to competition for

service provision within the ports, particularly for container stevedoring.

However the policy implicitly favours an approach of deferring a process

which might attract a new third entrant until around 2017. It anticipated

that, by then, all potential capacity available to the two incumbent stevedores

at Swanson Dock would be exhausted and it would be necessary to establish

a new terminal at Webb Dock. However, the VPSF noted the need for

flexibility, stating that this should be revalidated periodically as commercial and

other changes occur.

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

Port Futures (2009) updates the Victorian Port Strategic Framework 2004 and

introduces improved policy and strategy settings to maximise the

contribution of Victoriaʹs ports to state and national economic prosperity.

The goal of Port Futures is to introduce improved policy and strategy settings to

ensure that the contribution of Victoria’s ports to state and national economic

prosperity and sustainability is maintained and maximised.


29

Port Futures outlines the following key priorities and actions:

Re‐affirm port trade roles and development

Under Port Futures, the four commercial trading ports will develop their

existing core trade roles:

The Port of Melbourne will continue to develop its specialised capacity

to handle containerised cargo;

The ports of Portland, Geelong and Hastings will continue to focus on

the bulk trades and break bulk cargoes related largely to steel and

aluminium production; and

The role of the Port of Hastings to act as an overflow container port for

the Port of Melbourne is also reaffirmed, with further assessment of

timing of this development to be undertaken.

Accelerate port development at Melbourne and Hastings

Port Futures proposes to meet strong projected medium to long term growth

in freight volumes by accelerating the development of an initial module of new

stevedoring capacity at Webb Dock and progressing the development of the Port of

Hastings. Specifically, the Government will:

Consider bringing forward an initial module of terminal capacity at

Webb Dock (up to one million Twenty Foot Equivalent Units (TEUs);

Maintain the existing planning reservation for the Webb Dock Rail Link

for future consideration;

Progress planning to increase capacity of the existing East and West

Swanson Dock container terminals and wharves; and

Progress planning and environmental investigations for the staged

expansion of the Port of Hastings.

Enhance port access, efficiency, productivity and investment

Port Futures details a range of strategies to improve port access, efficiency,

productivity and investment, including:

Deepening the Port of Melbourne shipping channels to allow access for

14 metre draft vessels at all tides;

Progressing development of a staged, long term ‘channel improvement

program’ for the Port of Geelong;

Implementing the initiatives from the Truck Optimisation Plan (2009)

prepared by the Victorian Freight Logistics Council;

Designing and implementing a Road Freight Access Charge for trucks

accessing the major terminals at Port of Melbourne;


30

Further developing the Metropolitan Freight Terminal Network; and

Exploring the scope to secure ongoing port productivity improvements

through direct negotiations with port service providers.

Secure the provision of essential port services

Port Futures identifies towage and ship lift facilities in the Port of Melbourne

as essential port services.

Improve port governance arrangements

The policy confirms the Government’s intention to integrate the governance

and management of the ports of Hastings and Melbourne and to review the

role of the PoMC ‘beyond the port gate’ in order to maximise the contribution of

Victorian ports to the efficiency of the broader freight and logistics network.

Introduce measures to improve planning and buffer protections for ports

and local communities

Port Futures identifies the critical need to facilitate port planning and protect

ports from encroachment by surrounding sensitive uses as well as protecting

neighbouring communities from the impacts of port operations. The policy

proposes a range of initiatives be examined to streamline and strengthen

planning processes and protections including:

Formally recognising port strategic plans and strengthening policies to

separate port activities from residential and other sensitive uses in the

SPPF;

Establishing the Minister for Planning as the responsible authority for

the land controlled by the regional ports, as is already the case for the

Port of Melbourne;

Ensuring that the interests of the ports are explicitly considered in the

evaluation of planning scheme amendments involving policy and

zoning changes in the environs surrounding the ports controlled land;

and

Considering the reinstatement of industrial zones where appropriate

and new planning controls to establish two‐way buffer protections for

ports.

Improve Port Safety, Security and Environmental Performance

Ports Futures proposes a number of initiatives for building on improvements

in safety, security and environmental risk management established through

the implementation and operation of Safety Environment Management Plans

(SEMPs) in the ports.


31

4.2.4 The Victorian Transport Plan 2008

The Victorian Transport Plan outlines the Governmentʹs commitment to invest

in key projects outlined in Freight Futures, including:

a Truck Action Plan for the inner west to improve freight access to the

Port of Melbourne and remove thousands of trucks off residential

streets;

a new interstate rail terminal at Donnybrook/Beveridge, assisting to

shift unnecessary truck trips away from the Dynon area and inner

suburbs;

designation of a principal freight network, to connect the major freight

hubs with the Port of Melbourne and concentrate freight flows on

dedicated links;

completion of key east‐west and orbital links in the freeway network

that services freight;

a network of metropolitan freight terminals to actively encourage more

efficient freight movements within Melbourne by rail and road, with a

new international terminal adjacent to the Port of Melbourne forming

its central hub;

an extension of the network for High Productivity Freight Vehicles

(HPFV) in the Green Triangle region and other limited metropolitan

freeways;

additional stevedoring capacity at the Port of Melbourne;

planning for the Port of Hastings expansion, to become Victoriaʹs

supplementary container port when Melbourne reaches capacity;

planning for improved transport connections in Gippsland to open up

new coal industries;

a truck access charge for the Port of Melbourne, to contribute to

infrastructure upgrades, encourage off‐peak truck movements and

promote rail freight; and

a trial of hybrid electric freight vehicles, to support a sustainable and

lower emissions transport system.

4.2.5 Freight Futures: Victorian Freight Network Strategy 2008

Freight Futures provides the blueprint for a secure and properly planned

freight infrastructure network to support the Governmentʹs vision for

Victoria, which includes a growing economy and productivity, population

growth, growing our regions and building sustainable communities.

The Strategy responds to the many factors that are driving changes in

patterns of supply and demand. It aims to provide industry with “long term


32

security through a clear statement of what the principal freight network is now and

in the future, and a more predictable policy and regulatory environment.”

Freight Futures identifies and addresses a number of priorities, including:

Proactive land use planning – planning for future port and freight

facilities and their land use requirements, including buffering

strategies;

Effective targeting of infrastructure investment by optimising the use of

existing public infrastructure, identifying future infrastructure priorities

and, together with the Commonwealth Government, contributing to

future infrastructure capacity;

Greater integration of the network – working in close collaboration with

industry to deliver new initiatives that promote supply chain efficiency;

Improved regulatory arrangements – providing the right regulatory

and institutional settings to foster a sustainable freight and logistics

sector;

Effective management of community and environmental impacts –

seeking to mitigate the negative impacts of freight growth; and

Continuous improvement of safety and security performance –

adopting best practice safety management principles and implementing

further measures to mitigate security threats to land, sea and air

transport in accordance with relevant legislation.

The document identifies the following as key drivers of change facing the

states’ freight infrastructure network:

Significant growth in the freight task

Freight Futures highlights that world freight trade is increasing with

economic growth, the globalisation of supply chains, the use of larger

vessels and the implementation of more efficient freight and logistics

systems.

Impacts of increasing congestion on freight costs

The Strategy identifies that managing increasing levels of traffic and

associated congestion is a challenge being faced by large cities around

the world. Loss of amenity, increasing travel times and environmental

damage can have a significant impact on the liveability of cities and the

efficiency of the economy.


33

Climate change

The effects of climate change will likely see the environment in Victoria

becoming hotter and drier over the coming decades and many of the

natural resources upon which the state has relied for transport energy

over the past 100 to 150 years becoming increasingly scarce. The

Strategy also makes the comment that the Commonwealth

Government’s carbon pollution reduction schemes will also lead to

rising energy prices. The strategies warns that these developments will

result in rising costs for the freight and logistics industry (and other

energy users), driving the search for greater efficiencies.

Increased public awareness of sustainability and liveability issues

Freight Futures stresses that the requirement to balance liveability,

mobility and sustainability is becoming a substantial social and

industrial challenge for large cities such as Melbourne. Because of its

high visibility, the road freight industry is an operational sector that

must implement sustainability initiatives – and be seen to be

implementing these initiatives.

Higher security and safety standards

Community expectations about improved safety have increased in

recent years. Freight Futures estimates that the annual economic cost of

road trauma in Victoria is $3 billion. The policy states that Victoria is

recognised nationally and internationally as a leader in road safety

policy and programs and the Victorian Government remains committed

to continual improvement through strategies such as Arrive Alive 2008 –

2017, the Government’s road safety strategy.

Victoria’s changing economy

Victoria’s manufacturing sector, and the transport task it generates, will

continue to be important to the Victorian and national economies,

although it is expected to make up a smaller proportion of overall Gross

State Product in the future.

Increasing oil prices

The Strategy states that global oil production is likely to peak at some

time between now and 2030 – within the horizons of Freight Futures. In

response, oil prices are predicted to triple or quadruple, even if

alternative fuels succeed in powering a significant amount of freight,

commercial and personal travel.


34

Labour and skills shortages

The increasing freight task is requiring a greater number of truck,

delivery and freight train drivers. However, according to Freight

Futures the 2006 Census of Population and Housing disclosed that the

average ages of truck and train drivers are higher than that of the

workforce in general.

Changes to industry structure and technology

In addition to external factors, there are a range of internal

developments within the freight and logistics industry which are

driving change in the way the industry operates. Freight Futures lists

these developments as including:

Strategic alliances and amalgamations along supply trains;

Increasing ship and ship container size;

Increased use of intermodal solutions;

Advances in road freight vehicle performance, size and

technology; and

Advances in rail rolling stock performance, size and technology.

4.2.6 Victorian Coastal Strategy 2008

The Victorian Coastal Strategy 2008 (VCS) is the State Government’s policy

commitment for coastal, estuarine and marine environments in Victoria. It

provides a long‐term vision for the planning, management and sustainable

use of our coast, and the policies and actions Victorians will need to

implement over the next five years to help achieve that vision. It is also a

framework to assist in the development and implementation of other locally

and regionally specific strategies and plans such as management plans,

Coastal Action Plans and planning schemes.

The VCS builds on the principles and actions of the last two strategies and

identifies and responds to three significant issues affecting Victoria’s coast

that require specific attention:

Climate Change;

Population and Growth; and

Marine Ecological Integrity.

The purpose of the VCS is to provide:

a vision for the planning, management and use of coastal, estuarine and

marine environments


35

the governmentʹs policy commitment for coastal, estuarine and marine

environments.

a framework for the development and implementation of other specific

strategies and plans such as Coastal Action Plans, management plans

and planning schemes.

a guide for exercising discretion by decision‐makers, where appropriate.

The strategy gives direction for planning and managing the impacts of

activities on and in the:

marine environment ‐ includes the near‐shore marine environment, the

seabed and waters out to the state limit or 5.5 kilometres;

foreshore ‐ or coastal Crown land 200 metres from the high water mark;

coastal hinterland ‐ on private and Crown land directly influenced by

the sea or directly influencing the coastline and land within critical

views of the foreshore and near‐shore environment; and

catchments ‐ feeding rivers and drainage systems and including

estuaries.

All of these policy directions have implications for the planning,

development and management/operation of the ports.

4.3 Local Planning Policies

The Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) of planning schemes usually

comprises a Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and Local Planning Policies

(LPP). Municipal planning schemes that either include port land in their

municipality or are affected by port activities have some reference to ports in

their planning schemes.

A brief overview of the relevant planning schemes local policies relating to

ports follows:6

Melbourne Planning Scheme

The Melbourne Planning Scheme acknowledges the economic importance of

the Port of Melbourne in Clause 21.02. Relevant objectives relating to the

Port of Melbourne are in Clause 21.04‐4 Land Use – Advanced

Manufacturing and Industry, and include:

6 The Advisory Committee has not provided an overview of the Port of Melbourne planning local

policy on the basis the ToR do not require any review of the planning policies and controls in this scheme.


36

· Support the ongoing function of the Port of Melbourne (administered

by Port of Melbourne Corporation) as Australia’s leading container

port, and associated industries.

· Support the ongoing function of National Rail Terminal and the

redevelopment of the Dynon Rail Hub to support Port Melbourne

(Fishermans Bend) and Port of Melbourne by better integrating port

operations with the rail network.

· Limit the development of commercial and retail uses within Port

Melbourne (Fishermans Bend) which are not ancillary to industrial

use.

Clause 21.08‐11 includes a policy on Port Melbourne (Fishermans Bend) and

Port of Melbourne. Relevant objectives and strategies include supporting

new advanced manufacturing and associated research and development

enterprises in Fishermans Bend, encouraging a high level of visual amenity

along Lorimer Street; and ensuring that development in Fishermans Bend

visible from Docklands does not detract from the appearance or visual

amenity of the Docklands.

Clause 21.08‐12 includes a policy on the West Melbourne Industrial Area,

and acknowledges this area has strong functional links with the port.

In addition, there are planning objectives to ensure residential development

take into account the amenity impacts of established and potential uses,

including noise impacts and light spill, and take protective steps to minimise

these impacts on future occupants.

The Port of Melbourne is located within the City of Melbourne but has its

own planning scheme. Obviously, the Port of Melbourne Planning Scheme is

based on the role of the Port of Melbourne to provide port facilities.7

Port Phillip Planning Scheme

The Port Phillip Planning Scheme contains few references to the Port of

Melbourne. However, Clause 21.03‐1 identifies that a key issue for the

municipality is increased traffic in residential areas from the impact of Webb

Dock.

7 The Advisory Committee has not provided an overview of the Port of Melbourne local planning

policy on the basis that the ToR do not include any review of the planning policies and controls in the scheme.


37

Maribyrnong Planning Scheme

The Maribyrnong Planning Scheme acknowledges that a locational

advantage of the municipality is its proximity to the Port of Melbourne.

Clause 21.02 identifies the Footscray Wharf precinct as a major mixed use

development opportunity. The 2011 vision identifies this area as part of a

Major Activity Centre with a connection through to Footscray.

Clause 21.04 The Maribyrnong River and Valley includes an objective to

facilitate the construction of 4,000 new quality dwellings on the former

industrial areas adjacent to the river, which display a high degree of

diversity in size, type and value and are well integrated with existing activity

and to establish a wide range of accessible leisure and recreation facilities

along the river.

Clause 21.04 Open Space includes an objective to create high quality linear

open space systems with safe and attractive pathways along the full length of

the Maribyrnong River and Stony Creek, with a large range of leisure and

recreation experiences available.

Clause 22.04‐2 is the Footscray Riverside Precinct Policy. Relevant policy is

to:

Encourage, support and facilitate developments with leasable floor areas

designed to provide opportunities for the establishment of a range of

small businesses.

Encourage, support and facilitate activities which will enhance the precinct’s potential for entertainment and tourism, especially;

- cafes and restaurants - retail fish marketing (especially south of Napier Street) - small professional offices - places of assembly, indoor recreation, fitness and entertainment, art galleries and theatres

- arts industries, including studios metalworking, advertising and promotional industry, printing and sales industries

- education and training - community facilities and services - tourism support activity including retailing - medium to high density housing north of Napier Street, and in association with commercial or business activity.


38

Clause 22.05 is the Business 3 Zone policy, which applies to the Footscray

Riverside Precinct. Relevant policy is:

· The establishment of new, mixed industrial and business activity

which is compatible with nearby housing.

· The retention and expansion of existing industry which is compatible

with nearby housing.

· Developments which create an office park‐like ambience and provide

a high proportion of office space (ie, are suited to a range of activities

under one roof).

Clause 22.06 is the Industrial 1 Zone Land Use and Development policy,

which acknowledges the large areas of industrial land near the Port. The

policy notes that many areas of the industrial land is under utilised, and that

there are many opportunities for further development of large value adding

export oriented manufacturing.

Clause 22.07‐2 is the Industrial Buffer Areas Policy that applies to Industrial

3 Zoned areas. This zone applies to land in the triangle between Whitehall

Street and Moreland Street south of Napier Street.

Hobsons Bay Planning Scheme

Clause 21.05 of the MSS acknowledges that the Port of Melbourne provides a

locational advantage for industry in Hobson’s Bay.

Clause 21.06 Residential includes the following strategy:

Ensure that future residential development which has an interface with

an existing industry implements appropriate mitigation measures to

protect amenity, such as noise attenuation measures and the appropriate

design and siting of private open space.

The Industry policy in Clause 21.07 includes a number of objectives and

strategies to ensure the amenity and safety of local residents is not threatened

by industrial activity.

Clause 21.12 The Coast includes the following objective:

Encourage the retention of the maritime industry in the future,

maintaining links with the history of Williamstown.

Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme

Clause 21.04 of the MSS identifies that one of the four basic land use

structures includes Port development areas.


39

Key strategic directions include:

Identifying areas available for port development, recognising that this

area is a unique resource of state significance.

Maintaining separation between port development areas and township

areas.

Clause 21.10 Managing Port Area Development contains the following

objectives:

To protect the long term value of Western Port for selected port and

industrial purposes that depend upon or gain significant economic

advantage from proximity to natural deep water channels.

To ensure that port and port‐related development does not adversely

affect or compromise the ecosystems and recreational resources of

Western Port.

Greater Geelong Planning Scheme

Clause 21.07 Economic Development and Employment acknowledges the

Port of Geelong as a major infrastructure asset.

One of the strategies under this policy is to protect existing and designated

future industrial areas from encroachment by incompatible land uses.

Clause 21.12 applies to the Port of Geelong.

Objectives are:

To provide for the continued growth and development of Geelong Port as

a key economic resource to the Victorian community.

To maintain and enhance the efficiency of the port.

To safeguard the port as a focal point for infrastructure development and economic prosperity within south‐west Victoria.

To ensure that development in the port area is environmentally sustainable.

To give appropriate weight to the needs of a working port having regard to the amenity of the land uses at the port interface.

Council has prepared a new MSS and the Panel which considered the

Amendment made minor recommendations to the policy8.

8 Amendment C129


40

In addition, Council has prepared the Geelong Port Structure Plan and has

requested the Minister to exhibit an Amendment to introduce the Structure

Plan into the planning scheme. However, the Minister has refused to

authorise the exhibition of the request given the current port environs

review.

Glenelg Planning Scheme

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

the municipality.

The Vision Statement states that planning for development will:

be based on setting aside land for long term residential, industrial and

port‐related needs and ensuring that incompatible uses and developments

are effectively buffered from each other and that their potential impacts

are managed;

realise the potential of Portland as a major regional deep water port with

associated industries, employment opportunities and value‐added

processing;

Clause 22.03‐3 applies to the Port of Portland. The objective is:

To ensure that the port’s development is not limited by other land uses

and developments in nearby areas either onshore or offshore.

The policies include:

Development in and near the port should not prejudice the expansion

and operation of the port.

Easy road and rail access to the port shall be maintained.

The fishing industry and the servicing of the fishing industry is

supported.

4.4 Port Land Use Strategies

As noted in Section 4.1.2 above, the Port Development Act, 1995 requires each

port manager to prepare a land use strategy for their respective port.

Port of Melbourne

The Port of Melbourne strategy is entitled The Port Development Strategy

(PDS) and was approved by the Minister for Roads and Ports in August 2009.

The PDS guides the future development of the Port of Melbourne and give

the port’s tenants, stakeholders and the wider community a clear picture of

the port’s future plans, requirements and responsibilities in terms of:


41

Forecast trade volumes and terminal productivity in the port freight

and logistics industry that will have an impact on the port and its

development;

The infrastructure improvements required by the port and the

implications for land and water use;

The funding strategy the port will use to deliver infrastructure projects;

and

The environmental and social principles the port will follow in its

development of the port and facilitation of port growth.

Port of Hastings

The Port of Hastings strategy is entitled Port of Hastings Land Use and

Transport Strategy (PLUTS) and was approved by the Minister for Roads and

Ports in August 2009. Specific objectives of the PLUTS are:

Establish a vision for land use planning in, and transport access to, the

Port of Hastings over the next 30 years;

Establish a clear strategic land use plan and land management policy

and communicate them effectively to port customers, stakeholders and

the neighbouring community;

Define and implement suitable land use designations throughout the

port area to provide certainty of land use in the future;

Identify suitable road and rail transport options to efficiently and cost

effectively link the port to key regional industrial hubs and the broader

State and national freight and logistics networks;

Ensure that appropriate areas of land and transport corridors are

preserved to cater for the future development of the port and associated

uses;

Effectively integrate planning and development for the port with the

social, economic and environmental influences of the surrounding

areas; and

Identify the necessary actions and appropriate strategic approaches to

achieve strategic vision.

Port of Geelong

The Port of Geelong Port Land Use Strategy 2009 (PLUS) was approved by the

Minister for Roads and Ports in August 2009. Key objectives of the PLUS

include:

Effectively developing port facilities to accommodate trade growth and

change;


42

Transparently planning the development and use of port and adjoining

land to support growth;

Improving land use transport access to the port;

Effectively managing the port’s interfaces with the Geelong community,

including amenity, safety and environmental impacts; and

Supporting reviews of planning controls to provide more certainty for

port‐related developments.

Port of Portland

The Port of Portland Port Land Use Strategy (PLUS) was approved by the

Minister for Roads and Ports in August 2009 and seeks to:

identify key assets that support the port ‐ such as transport corridors ‐

and environmental values that will require protection;

take account of land use planning objectives in adjacent areas;

define appropriate buffers around port infrastructure and their

transport corridors; and

inform and identify land use and development issues requiring further

action, including recognition in state and local planning policy

frameworks and implementation in planning schemes.

4.5 Conclusion

The Committee notes that there is a robust and well‐articulated policy and

strategic framework that recognises the importance of ports to the State of

Victoria. Identifying ways in which this importance can be appropriately

reflected into the statutory planning framework is one of the keys tasks of

this Committee.


43

Part B – Overview of Victoria’s ports


44

5. Overview of Victoria’s ports

5.1 Introduction

In this Chapter an overview of the four ports of Melbourne, Hastings,

Geelong and Portland is provided in terms of:

location and context;

governance arrangements;

nature of trade throughput;

current infrastructure;

road and transport issues; and

future development plans.

In addition, an overview is provided of the main interface areas that are

identified in the ports’ land use strategies (PLUSs).9 This overview is

followed by a more detailed overview of the key planning and interface

issues for each of the ports.

The information in this Chapter has been derived from a number of key

reports, including:

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

(2009);

The Victorian Transport Plan (2008);

Freight Futures: Victorian Freight Network Strategy (2008); and

The port land use strategies that have been prepared for each port, as

well as the Port Environs Planning Framework (PEPF) prepared for the

Port of Melbourne Corporation and the Geelong Port Structure Plan

prepared by the City of Greater Geelong.

In addition, discussions have been held with the Department of Transport

(DOT), port managers, Council officers and key stakeholders to assist the

Committee gain an understanding of the issues.

9 It is noted that the Port of Melbourne land use strategy is called the Port of Melbourne Port

Development Strategy (PDS). The Port of Hastings land use strategy is called The Port of Hastings Land Use and Transport Strategy (PLUTS).


45

5.2 Port of Melbourne

The Port of Melbourne handles approximately 36% of Australia’s container

trade and is the primary mainland port for the transfer of Tasmanian cargo to

and from international markets. In 2006, the port generated a total economic

output of $2.5 billion, including value added to the Victorian and Australian

economies of $1.1 billion and supported 13,748 full time jobs.10 The Port of

Melbourne is one of the largest 50 sea ports in the world.

5.2.1 Location and context

The Port of Melbourne is located in the inner urban area of Melbourne to the

west of the Melbourne CBD on approximately 510 hectares of land. Figure 1

shows the location of the Port of Melbourne relative to surrounding areas.

The Port of Melbourne is one of Australia’s oldest ports, and was

traditionally surrounded by industrial uses including many businesses that

relied on port activities.

The PEPF states that urban growth and development in areas surrounding

the port is placing increasing pressure on the port, with changing social and

environmental expectations of neighbouring communities potentially

affecting port operations and future development plans.

Areas of concern identified in the report include Yarraville, Footscray,

Garden City and Beacon Cove, Docklands, e‐Gate11, Fishermans Bend and

Williamstown.

10 Port of Melbourne Preliminary Submission to the Advisory Committee, page 6 11 e-Gate is a project to redevelop 20 hectares of the Melbourne railway yard area as a mixed use

suburb. Preparation of a business case is currently being funded by the State Government.


46

Figure 1 Port of Melbourne and surrounding areas


47

5.2.2 Governance

The Port of Melbourne Corporation was established in 2003 pursuant to the

Port Services Act 1995 (PSA). The PoMC is responsible for the efficient,

integrated and sustainable development and management of the Port of

Melbourne land and waters.

5.2.3 Nature of trade throughput

The majority of the Port’s trade throughput is containerised but it also

handles break bulk, liquid bulk, dry bulk, general cargoes and motor

vehicles. International containers account for approximately 65% of all

freight passing through the port.

A summary of the increase in trade of the various throughputs between 1997

and 2007 follows:

International container trade through the port increased from 838,000

TEU in 1997 to 1.753 million TEU in 2007, an annual average growth

rate of 7.7%;

In addition, Tasmanian container trade increased from 176,000 TEU in

1997 to 317,000 TEU in 2007, an average annual growth rate of 6.1%;

New motor vehicles increased from 134,000 in 1997 to 316,000 in 2007,

an average annual growth rate of 9.0%;

Break bulk trade increased from 604,000 mass tonnes in 1997 to 859,000

mass tonnes in 2007, an average annual growth rate of 3.6%;

Dry bulk increased from 1,709,000 mass tonnes in 1997 to 2,867,000

mass tonnes, an average annual growth rate of 5.3%; and

Liquid bulk increased from 4,094,000 mass tonnes in 1997 to 4,462,000

mass tonnes in 2007, an average annual growth rate of 0.4%. Most

liquid trade is crude oil.

5.2.4 Current infrastructure

Major assets of the Melbourne Port include the shipping channels and 34

commercial berths located at five docks, river wharves and Station Pier.

These facilities include two modern, purpose built container terminals and

specialised berths for motor vehicles, break bulk, dry bulk, liquid bulk and

passengers.

5.2.5 Road and transport issues

Approximately 80% of all Port trade is currently moved by road transport,

and so the efficient management and amenity impacts of road transport is a

critical issue for Port users and the local community.


48

To manage increasing truck traffic, the Port Development Strategy (PDS)

includes the following strategies:

Increasing the utilisation and back loading of trucks to reduce the

relative number of truck trips;

Optimising truck trips to reduce the distance travelled;

Locating appropriate container management functions including empty

container parks, close to the Port;

Optimising the use of existing road infrastructure; and

Improving the road network by increasing its scope, capacity and

convenience.

Specific initiatives of most relevance include:

Increased truck utilisation

Encouraging truck fleet enhancements through the wider use of HPFVs

(4 TEU per truck) and B‐Doubles (3 TEU per truck); and

Integrating supply chain logistic systems to ensure the proportion of

loaded inbound trucks with an outbound load (or vice versa) is

increasing.

Improved roads

The Victorian Transport Strategy (VTS) and Freight Futures propose strategies

to upgrade the road network servicing the Dynon and Port precincts that

may see the development of alternative and improved road links that reduce

the impact of road traffic on the surrounding community.

To improve traffic conditions in the Port Melbourne/Webb Dock area,

including ameliorating the impacts of existing Williamstown Road traffic on

local residents, a network improvement study of the Port Melbourne/Webb

Dock area has been completed which has resulted in a number of priority

road works including:

Widening of Todd Road and Cook Street and signalisation of Cook

Street and the Westgate Freeway eastbound off ramp; and

Development of Plummer Street as an alternative access route to the

Westgate Freeway.

Further road works within the Port and at the Todd Road intersection will be

undertaken in the short to medium term to provide an integrated solution to

Webb Dock access.

Internal road network


49

The PoMC has also identified a number of changes and improvements to the

internal road network.

Rail transport

The PoMC has identified the following initiatives aimed at promoting

increased rail mode share:

Supporting the development of on‐port rail terminals through

appropriate land allocation and provision of efficient rail links between

the external network and terminal boundaries;

Engaging Australian Rail Track Corporation Ltd (ARTC) to provide

management services for rail operations within the Port that maximise

the use of available track capacity for port trains;

Actively supporting the concept of common user access to on‐port rail

terminals under acceptable commercial arrangements;

Gaining a better understanding of the critical elements of the business

models underpinning rail operations servicing the Port; and

Working with various industry bodies to develop rail based logistics

between the Port and outer urban areas.

Specific initiatives relating to the port include:

Dynon rail precinct – relocation of the Melbourne Wholesale markets from

their Footscray Road location in the short to medium term will facilitate the

development of this site for more appropriate port‐related activities.

Webb Dock rail connection – the rail connection to Webb Dock was severed

in 1996 to allow for the Docklands development to proceed. However, it is

understood that a new reservation has been provided west of and adjacent to

the Bolte Bridge to allow for its reinstatement. A new rail connection

requires either a bridge or tunnel crossing of the Yarra River.

The PoMC considers the Webb Dock rail connection is a long term project

when a business case has been made.

West Maribyrnong rail connection – A broad gauge rail link connects North

Dynon to the Port and other properties to the west of the Maribyrnong River

with the potential to accommodate future trades or port‐related activities.

This track currently terminates near Somerville Road.

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

the PoMC.


50

5.2.6 Future development plan

The PDS prepared for the Port of Melbourne aims to create a clear picture of

the short to medium and long term development plans of the Port. The PDS

provides a clearer understanding of:

Forecast trade volumes and terminal productivity in the port freight

and logistics industry that will have an impact on the port and its

development;

The infrastructure improvements required by the Port and the

implications for land and water use;

The funding strategy the Port will use to deliver infrastructure projects;

and

The environmental and social principles the Port will follow in its

development of the Port and facilitation of port growth.

The Port Development Strategy provides forecasts to 2035 for the Port’s

throughputs. It is not proposed to repeat the forecasts here, save to say that

significant increases of all throughputs are expected.

In terms of future berth and land needs, the PDS identifies the following

requirements:

International container needs

Existing: Berth length: 1,828 metres Terminal area: 77 hectares

2035: Berth length: 3,770 metres Terminal area: 160 hectares

Tasmanian trade terminal needs:

Existing: Berths: 2 Terminal area: 14 hectares

2035: Berths: 5 Terminal area: 30 hectares

Motor vehicles:

Existing: Berths: 2.5 Terminal area: 31 hectares

2035 Berths: 3 Terminal area: 50 hectares

Break bulk:

Existing: Berths: 3 Terminal area: 15 hectares

2035: Berths: 3 Terminal area: 15 hectares


51

Dry bulk:

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

Liquid bulk:

No additional berths are required.

Passenger ships:

Adequate capacity is available at Station Pier.

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

Valued added logistics – a range of port‐related activities may be located on‐

port to meet logistics requirements of key users and operators to enhance the

Port’s competitive position. These activities include:

Cold stores;

Packing and unpacking depots; and

Distribution centres.

The objective of the PDS is to locate these activities within the Port ‘where

possible’, including within the Dynon precinct.

Freight terminals and empty container parks – these facilities provide critical

functions including storage and serving of empty containers, providing a

time buffer for delivery and receipt of full containers at strategic locations

near the Port and outer metropolitan locations.

The PDS identifies the following precincts:

Williamstown – Ann Street Pier

Ann Street Pier is currently used for the storage and mooring of marine

equipment, such as tugs, barges, pontoons, workboats and survey vessels.

The precinct will continue its multi‐purpose role for the foreseeable future.

Williamstown – Gellibrand Pier

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


52

Williamstown – Breakwater Pier

Breakwater Pier will be retained to ensure the security and safety of the

adjacent Gellibrand Pier. Breakwater Pier is also considered to be a strategic

port asset for use as a future liquid bulk berth or for special purposes such as

visiting naval ships, vessel lay up and large plant storage.

Newport

The Newport precinct includes oil pipelines and jetties used by adjacent oil

companies. The precinct will be retained as a key asset for the petroleum

industry and as a park, managed in partnership with Parks Victoria.

Webb Dock

Webb Dock can be developed in stages and could potentially handle a

similar capacity to Swanson Dock if required. The first stage of the proposed

development in the short to medium term will involve a portion of the east

side of the dock being converted to international containers to accommodate

terminal capacity of 1 million TEU. In the longer term to around 2025, the

remainder of the east side of the dock may be converted to containers and

the west side of the dock will become the Port’s major coastal terminal

precinct. Displaced motor vehicles will be relocated elsewhere within the

Port or to another Victorian port. Break bulk trades will be accommodated

elsewhere in the Port.

The reconnection of rail to Webb Dock will be considered consistent with

trade demand and the longer term.

It is envisaged that by 2035 this precinct could handle a similar number of

containers to Swanson Dock.

Yarraville

The Yarraville precinct will retain its multi‐purpose dry and liquid bulk

functions in the short to medium term and appropriate development of

acquired PoMC properties.

Coode Island

The precinct is used as a storage facility for importing and exporting bulk

liquids. Because it serves a vital State role, Coode Island is to be retained for

bulk liquid operations in the long term.


53

Holden Dock

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

Swanson/Appleton/Victoria Dock

Swanson Dock East and West will continue to be used for international

carriers for the long term. This will involve an intensification of trade

through the dock with some expansion to the north possibly being necessary

to cater for future shipping needs.

Trade through Victoria Dock will also increase in the short to medium term,

with substantial new investment currently underway. The eastern edge of

Victoria Dock is reserved for the future Webb Dock rail link, if required.

This precinct will be integrated with the Dynon rail precinct to the north of

Footscray Road following relocation of the Melbourne Wholesale Fruit &

Vegetable market.

Intensive development of the Swanson/Appleton/Victoria Dock precinct for

international containers and general cargo is planned to take place during

the short to medium term to ensure sufficient capacity and productivity to

accommodate forecast demand.

South Wharf

South Wharf is used for a range of activities, including break bulk and dry

bulk cargos, bulk cement imports and ancillary services. The limited width

of the wharf area, particularly with the Webb Dock rail corridor, makes the

wharf area ideally suited for its current activities and will continue to be

used for these activities for the long term.

Station Pier

Station Pier is used as the Melbourne Sea Passenger Terminal and is the only

cruise liner facility in Melbourne. The precinct will continue to be used by

TT‐Line, cruise liners and naval vessels visiting Melbourne.


54

5.2.7 Key interface issues

While there is some general reference to the interface issues in the PDS, the

PEPF provides a more detailed analysis of these matters.

The PEPF identifies the following land use challenges for Melbourne Port:

Protecting the amenity of residential development and foreshore areas

in locations such as Docklands, Garden City, Port Melbourne,

Williamstown and Footscray;

Providing for continued operation of major hazard facilities at Coode

Island and Gellibrand Pier;

Ensuring that future development in neighbouring areas does not

impede long‐term port development;

Protecting arterial land transport connections and Freight Activity

Centres from adjoining development with unrealistic amenity

expectations;

Continuing operation of South Wharf and recommissioning of the

Webb Dock rail link whilst balancing land use changes in Fishermans

Bend; and

Balancing development pressures in sought‐after Williamstown with

the needs of the Port and the BAE ship building facility.

The PEPF makes the following principal recommendations:

Strengthening the land use planning objectives for the Port and its

future development which are expressed by both the PoMC and the

Victorian Government;

Adopting an approach to management of land use change that aims to

protect both the interests of the Port and its neighbours; and

Ensuring that planning frameworks provide a basis for consideration of

environmental, amenity and safety management issues in land use

decisions by proponents and responsible authorities.

The PEPF also makes recommendations for:

Enhancements to the SPPF to provide greater recognition and

protection of the Port and to particular provisions relation to defining

caretaker houses in the VPPs;

Administrative and procedural improvements to the planning system;

Policy changes to the Port of Melbourne Planning Scheme;

Policy changes to the Local Planning Policy Frameworks of the

Melbourne, Port Phillip, Hobson’s Bay and Maribyrnong Planning


55

Schemes to provide policy support and protection for the Port of

Melbourne; and

Changes to the business zones abutting the port in Melbourne and

Maribyrnong Planning Schemes.

Specific zoning and overlay changes recommended in the municipal

planning schemes include:

Melbourne Planning Scheme – the schedule to the Business 3 Zone in

Fishermans Bend be amended to include a floor space limitation for

offices which restricts the intensification of such uses in proximity to

the operational port;

Maribyrnong Planning Scheme – land in the Business 2 Zone between

Lyons Street, Moreland Street and Footscray Road be rezoned to

Industrial 3 to address amenity interface issues with the port,

particularly the major hazardous facilities;

Hobson’s Bay Planning Scheme – with the exception of the possible

changes near Gellibrand Pier, the existing zoning and overlay

framework is considered appropriate; and

Port Phillip Planning Scheme – no changes are recommended.

5.3 Port of Hastings


The Port of Hastings is located on the western arm of Western Port,

approximately 60 kms south east of Melbourne’s CBD. Over 3,500 hectares is

zoned for port‐related uses, however the area currently used for port and

port‐related uses is much smaller.

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

areas.

The Port of Hastings has two main areas: Crib Point and Stony Point, located

south of the Hastings township; and Long Island located to the north of the

Hastings township.

Land to the east and south of Crib Point and Stony Point is developed with a

mixture of residential, rural residential, industrial and farming purposes.

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

and farming purposes.

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

Ramsar site.


56

Figure 2: Port of Hastings and surrounding areas


57

5.3.2 Governance arrangements

The Port is managed by the Port of Hastings Corporation, which has a Port

Management Agreement with Patrick Port Hastings (a division of Asciano

Ltd) to manage the port land, jetties and channels. This lease expires in 2012,

with the option of a 5 year extension.

In July 2010, the Port of Melbourne Corporation will replace the Port of

Hastings Corporation as the authority responsible for the Port.


The major trades at Hastings Port include:

Steel – slab steel is brought to Hastings by BlueScope for the

manufacture of various sheet metal products including corrugated iron,

zincalume and flat steel supplied to car manufacturers. The steel is

primarily for the domestic market with some exported from the Port;

Oil and gas – Bass Straight crude is pumped to the former Esso storage

facility at Long Island Point from Longford (Gippsland) via a 180 km

pipeline. Some of this is exported as gas or oil via the Long Island Jetty,

and some is piped to Altona/Geelong; and

Petrol – fuel is imported through Crib Point and piped to United

Terminal’s storage and distribution facilities north of Hastings.

In the 2007/08 financial year, trade volume reached 2.95 million tonnes,

comprising:

1.79 million tonnes of petroleum products; and

1.16 million tonnes of steel products.


The main facilities at the Port include State‐owned infrastructure at Long

Island Point, Crib Point and Stony Point, as well as privately owned land and

infrastructure at the BlueScope Steel Wharf.

Long Island Point Jetty. This jetty is a single oil/gas berth, with a design

capacity to accommodate vessels 300 metres long.

Crib Point Jetty. This jetty has two bulk liquid berths. Berth No 1 has a

design capacity to accommodate vessels 300 metres long, and is used to

import ULP which is then piped to Hastings. Berth No 2 was constructed as

part of the BP refinery development located adjacent to the jetty. Both the

refinery and jetty have been decommissioned, however the berth can provide

temporary lay‐up facilities for vessels.


58

Stony Point Jetty. This jetty is 190 metres long and is used as the

headquarters for port control and harbour services. The jetty also handles

passenger ferries to Cowes and French Island and small commercial vessels

up to 60 metres long.


As evident by the title of the Port of Hastings Land Use and Transport

Strategy, a significant element of the plan relates to transport issues.

Currently, the Port is connected to the broader network by rail (Stony Point

Line) and via local and regional road networks.

Key road routes include Western Port Highway linking Hastings with

Dandenong and Melbourne’s south eastern suburbs; Tyabb‐Tooradin Road,

South Gippsland Highway and Koo Wee Rup Road linking Hastings to

Gippsland; and Frankston Flinders Road linking Hastings to the proposed

Frankston Bypass and East Link.

A target of the PLUTS is to have freight split 50% between road and rail,

which is acknowledged as a ‘stretch target’.

Regional access actions include:

Develop Western Port Highway to freeway standard from the north to

Tyabb—Tooradin Road;

Support the construction of Frankston Bypass;

Improve Tyabb‐Tooradin Road, South Gippsland Highway and Koo

Wee Rup Road with a local bypass of Koo Wee Rup Road;

Encourage appropriate east‐west freight routes such as Thompsons

Avenue and Greens Road through to East Link;

Establish port‐related road freight routes; and

Upgrade McKirdys Road to provide direct access to Western Port

Highway.

Local road access actions include:

Establish specific port‐related local road traffic routes;

Extend Bayview Road to provide a direct connection with Western Port

Highway;

Create a connection between Western Port Highway and Watts Road

(with a grade separation over the Frankston‐Stony Point rail line) and

widen Watts Road through to Reid Parade; and


59

Improve local roads required to link Hastings with Mornington

Peninsula Freeway corridor and Frankston thus avoiding built‐up

residential areas.

Rail improvement actions include, at the regional level:

Further detailed assessment of rail corridor capacities and options for a

preferred rail corridor; and

In the long‐term, connect the port with Dandenong and Gippsland

regions along a preferred route.

At the local level, actions include:

A rail connection between the existing BlueScope/Esso spur and “Old

Tyabb Reclamation Area”;

Upgrade signalling/safe working environments on the Hastings to

Frankston section to allow off‐peak freight train operations; and

Enhance the capacity of Hastings‐Frankston corridor by either

providing crossing facilities at selected locations or by duplicating the

entire track length.

5.3.6 Future development plan

The Port of Hastings will be a secondary port to the Port of Melbourne after

2035 once the Port of Melbourne reaches capacity. It is this context that

provides an understanding of the future growth of this Port.

The PLUTS includes development plans for the three precincts of Long

Island, Crib Point and Stony Point.

Long Island Point – this is the preferred site for a new port operations centre,

and three stages of development have been proposed:

Stage 1 – a multi‐purpose berthing facility in a 50 hectare reclamation

area between the Long Island and BlueScope jetties. The facility will

accommodate 3 berths of 300 metres each, capable of handling bulk,

break bulk, cars and general cargo.

Stage 2 – development of a series of container berths and associated

landside infrastructure in a 400 hectare site to be reclaimed north of the

existing BlueScope jetty.

Stage 3 – Expansion and integration of Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the

development.

Crib Point – this precinct will continue to be used as a liquid berthing

facility, however not all land may be required and scope exists for

community, recreational and environmental uses for this area. The areas of


60

State owned land between Crib Point and Stony Point are identified for

environmental rehabilitation and management.

Stony Point – this precinct is currently used as a port operations centre, it is

expected that this precinct will become available for community, tourism and

recreational uses, including a continuation of passenger ferry services and

potentially a car ferry service.

The PLUTS is underpinned by a number of principles to ensure the natural

environment is protected and its activities are environmentally sustainable.

Many areas of the port and surrounds have environmental significance,

including the Ramsar wetlands.


The Port of Hastings is a largely undeveloped port, however Port Futures

identifies it as having a major role once Melbourne Port reaches capacity in

about 25 years time. Currently the main freight activity involves oil and gas

and steel.

Accordingly, the PLUTS’ overall objective is to create a comprehensive

framework and process for enabling the timely and sustainable expansion.

With respect to planning and interface issues, the planning principle is:

· To implement land use frameworks which can balance the port’s

operational and efficiency needs with the need to protect the amenity

and natural environment of the surrounding area and provide clear

guidance to existing and potential port users, the community and

regulators.

The PLUTS notes that local government has a critical role to play in

administering the Special Use Zone that applies to the Port, however

suggests that given the State significance of the port that it may be appropriate

that planning decisions are taken at the State level for port and infrastructure

development within the defined port precincts, particularly the Long Island precinct.

In addition, the Port representatives tabled a Land Use Assessment Report

for the Stage One (Long Island) development, which was prepared for the

Port by AECOM. The report states there is a need to:

Prepare a specific zoning control to facilitate the Port of Hastings (Stage

One) Core Development Precinct, which supports the use and

development of the land for port development;

Introduce planning provisions to manage safety with regards to

locating new facilities near the former Esso plant;


61

Reserve land for the development of a road and rail access corridor

with appropriate zones and overlays to be determined following more

detailed design;

Identify private land which may need to be acquired to facilitate the

development of the road and rail access corridor; and

Consider the most appropriate responsible authority of the Port of

Hastings – Core Development Precinct.

The PLUTS does not refer to issues concerning the port’s interface with

surrounding land uses, other than to recognise the significance of the natural

environment and the need to minimise amenity impacts through its transport

initiatives.

5.4 Port of Geelong


The Geelong Port is located 75 kms south west of Melbourne and 15 kms

north of the Geelong CBD.

The port area included in the Special Use Zone is approximately 90 hectares,

and there is also a wider adjoining ‘port area of interest’ of approximately

226 hectares in the Industrial 2 zone.

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

The Princes Highway and Corio Bay provide the boundaries to the west and

east respectively.

A substantial residential area exists between the southern and northern parts

of the port, which contains approximately 200 houses and 480 people. This

area is the suburb of North Shore.

There is also a substantial residential area to the west, on the west side of the

Geelong‐Melbourne railway line. This is the suburb of Norlane.

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

Figure 3 shows the Geelong port and surrounding areas.


62

Figure 3: Port of Geelong and surrounding areas


63

5.4.2 Governance

The State Government sold the port land and port based structures at the

Port of Geelong to Ports Proprietary Ltd in the late 1990s. The port is now

managed by GeelongPort on behalf of three shareholders, Hastings Funds

Management (35%), Reef Infrastructure ((35%) and Asciano (30%).

GeelongPort owns approximately 29 hectares of vacant industrial land

adjacent to Lascelles Wharf. The balance of the land is owned by other

private port operators or industries.


The port’s major trading products are:

Crude and oil petroleum products – 60 percent;

Woodchips – 15 per cent;

Fertiliser – 12 per cent;

Grain – 1 per cent; and

Aluminium products – 4 per cent.

There has been a relatively steady increase of the trading products over the

past five years, with total trade of 10,875,533 tonnes in 2007/08.12 Expansion

and improvements to existing infrastructure is expected to lift trade by 35%.13


The port’s infrastructure includes:

Berths, piers and wharves; and

Cargo handling facilities, on the back‐up land behind the berths.

Specialised berths are provided to handle the different cargo types traded

through the Port. The commercial shipping berths include:

Lascelles Wharf ‐ 3 berths, break and dry bulk;

Corio Quay North and South ‐ 4 berths, break and dry bulk;

GrainCorp Grain Pier ‐ 1 berth, dry bulk;

Refinery Pier ‐ 4 berths, liquid bulk; and

Point Henry Pier ‐ 1 berth, dry bulk.

12 Trade Through the Port of Geelong: Economic Indicators 2007/08 – Planning Strategy &

Economic Development – City of Greater Geelong 13 GeelongPort Information Brochure


64


Roads

Access to the Port of Geelong from the State’s arterial road system is

available from local arterial road networks. The principal north‐south route

is Corio Quay Road/Seabeach Parade/Shell Parade. Connections are also

available to the Princes Freeway and Geelong Ring Road at its northern end.

The Ring Road will be able to service the majority of port‐related traffic

travelling to and from western Victorian and South Australia.

In 2008, VicRoads prepared the Geelong Freight Linkages Study, which

identifies the principal freight routes, short‐term improvements and possible

future road connections.

Major recommendations are:

Geelong‐Bacchus Marsh Road should be recognised as the main route

from the Geelong Ring Road to the Port.

Cox Road will provide a support function to Geelong‐Bacchus Marsh

Road for access to the Port, this route is less attractive to heavy vehicles

due to the geometry of the Princes Highway/ Geelong‐Bacchus

Marsh/Cox Road intersection. The Cox Road area is also the subject of

an urban renewal project which would be incompatible with high levels

of heavy vehicles.

Existing access to the Heales Road Estate from Geelong ‐Bacchus Marsh

Road, Broderick Road and the Princes Freeway/Forest Road off/on

ramps is adequate for current levels of development. The Geelong Ring

Road project includes provision for future access ramps oriented

towards Melbourne at Broderick Road, which will support future

capacity needs between the Heales Road industrial area and

Melbourne.

Geelong Bacchus Marsh Road and Bayside Main Road (Shell Road)

have been identified as the key port freight routes for future planning.

Rail

The Port of Geelong is connected to the State’s standard and broad gauge rail

network by rail lines running northward (to Melbourne) and westward (to

western Victoria and Adelaide). There are also local rail connections to a

number of the Port’s facilities, including Corio Quay North, Corio Quay

South, GrainCorp’s grain receivable facility, Lascelles Wharf, Incitec Pivot

fertiliser works and Midway site.

The PLUS identifies a number of operational constraints associated with the

rail network servicing the port. These include the level crossings at


65

Thompson Road and Separation Street which limit the length of trains

accessing the GrainCorp facility and shunting into Corio Quay requires the

use of the main line to Melbourne.

Recent improvements have been made to the rail infrastructure, including

the dual gauge Corio Independent Goods Line, off the Geelong Grain Loop

to North Shore, connecting Midway Pty Ltd to the standard gauge network.

The PLUS identifies future improvements, as follows:

Australian Government has committed up to $50 million towards

upgrading the standard gauge rail access to the Port; and

Preliminary finding that an inter‐modal terminal (IMT) could be

established providing a shuttle service for containerised freight, on

standard gauge, between the Port of Geelong and Melbourne. Location

options for an IMT are Lara and the Heales Road Industrial Estate.

5.4.6 Future development plans

The PLUS identifies a number of precincts for the future planning of the port

and port area of interest, and are summarised as follows:

Liquid Bulk Precinct – this precinct is located in the northern parts of the

Port, and includes the Shell refinery and Terminals Pty Ltd. Land to the west

of the railway line serves as a buffer to the residential areas further west. The

available area for liquid bulk is considered adequate and no extension to the

precinct is proposed. However, some of the main planning opportunities for

this precinct include:

Investigating new industry opportunities for the undeveloped land at

Oyster Cove, including potential biodiesel operations;

Investigating the potential opportunities for foreshore initiatives, and

bicycle and pedestrian paths subject to addressing security and public

risk issues;

Improving the environmental values of Cuthbertson and Cowies

Creeks.

Bulk and Break Bulk Precinct – this precinct is located in the central parts of

the Port, and is designated for the use of dry bulk and break bulk activities

and consist of two key port areas, Corio Quay and Lascelles Wharf.

Significant users in this precinct are Incitec Pivot (fertiliser

production/storage)14; One Steel (steel products) and a range of small service

industries not necessarily connected with the Port.

14 The Advisory Committee was advised by GeelongPort that Incitec Pivot has ceased operations at

its site. It is not known whether this is a temporary or permanent closure.


66

Main planning opportunities for Lascelles Wharf include:

Expanding the facilities at Lascelles Wharf to meet capacity

requirements to 2025, including provision of crane facilities at No 1

berth; extend the existing wharf at the southern end by about 150

metres and construction of one new berth; and

Development opportunities for vacant or available land at OneSteel and

Incitec Pivot;

Main planning opportunities for Corio Quay include:

Support the development of port and port‐related industries on the

former Ford site;

Expand the facilities at Corio Quay to meet capacity requirements for

2020 by providing additional berths to be constructed at both the north

and south sides of the Quay;

Investigate opportunities to extend Moorpanyal Park to the south of the

developed park area.

Dry Bulk Precinct – this precinct is located in the southern part of the port,

and is designated for the use of dry bulk activities. Major features of this

precinct include two Grain piers, one owned by GrainCorp and the other by

Geelong Port. This precinct also contains the former Classweave Textile

factory (Mill Market) and Osborne House which now houses the Geelong

Maritime Museum.

The PLUS does not identify potential development opportunities in this

precinct, but notes that the City of Greater Geelong has developed the

Geelong Marine Industry Project, which is to provide boating related

industries.

Point Henry precinct – this precinct is located on the other side of Corio Bay,

some distance from the main Port area. It is used by Alcoa for shipping

aluminium product. Planning opportunities identified include:

Investigate the potential new industrial and/or value adding industries

that may be sited in the undeveloped industrial land that would be

compatible with Alcoa.

5.4.7 Geelong Port Structure Plan

The Geelong Port Structure Plan, prepared by the City of Greater Geelong, has

been developed primarily as a tool to be used by the Council to determine

the application of local planning policy, planning zones and overlays and the

consideration of applications for planning permits and rezoning.


67

The Structure Plan was adopted by Council in October 2007 and includes

objectives and strategies relating to:

Port economic role and function;

Land use needs;

Health and safety;

Environment and recreation;

Amenity buffers;

Transport; and

Physical infrastructure.

The Structure Plan identifies four precincts, including:

Precinct 1 – Refinery

Precinct 2 – Lascelles

Precinct 3 – Corio Quay

Precinct 4 – Grain Piers

The Structure Plan does not include Point Henry.

Council has requested that the Minister for Planning authorise an

Amendment to implement the Structure Plan. The Minister has advised

Council that it would be inappropriate for the Amendment to be exhibited

while the Advisory Committee was reviewing the planning controls on ports

and their environs.

Notwithstanding the Minister’s advice that it would be inappropriate to

exhibit an Amendment to introduce the Geelong Port Structure Plan, the

Committee has given detailed consideration to many of the Structure Plan’s

recommendations. The Committee considers that because the Structure Plan

has provided a more detailed consideration of many of the interface issues

than the land use strategy prepared for GeelongPort, it has been a helpful

document in determining the port environs and the nature of planning

controls that may be appropriate for the interface areas. However, the

Committee considers that having two different strategies relating to the

port’s future creates confusion and can lead to unjustified expectations. In

the future, it is preferable that there is only one land use strategy plan for the

Port of Geelong, not two.


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

interface issues:


68

Ensure the continuing availability of appropriately located sites for

future port and port‐related industries which support economic growth

in Geelong;

Establish effective buffer arrangements around the port to ensure the

future development of sensitive land uses does not unreasonably

constrain its development and operation, and that the port’s impacts on

neighbouring communities are minimised;

Ensure that effective safety, security and environmental management

practices are adopted so that the port and port‐related activity does not

unreasonably impact on the surrounding areas; and

Support future reviews of planning provisions aimed at providing

more certainty for particular developments, within a transparent

process, while also ensuring that community and environmental

interests are identified and protected.

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

Availability of appropriately located land:

Ensure that existing industrially zoned land in the ‘port area of interest’

is retained for port‐related and industrial uses, as well as providing a

port buffering role;

Investigate opportunities to utilise vacant or currently available

industrial land within the ‘port area of interest’ including the former

Ford site, the OneSteel site and potentially the Incitec Pivot site, for

port‐related or associated value adding industries; and

Ensure protection of the Heales Road Industrial estate as a priority

location for port‐related or associated value adding industry outside,

but accessible to, the ‘port area of interest’.

Effective land use buffers

Develop a comprehensive port buffer strategy to address existing and

potential interface issues between the operating port, industrial land

uses and more sensitive land uses;

Retain all existing industrial zoned land within the ‘port area of

interest’ to maintain its integrity as a land use buffer between the port

and sensitive land uses;

Review the area south of Mackey Street (Geelong Marine Industry

Project) to provide a land use transition, whilst retaining all the existing

industrial zoned land in an industry zone;

Retain the industrial land between the railway line and the Princes

Freeway as a buffer to the Shell Refinery; and


69

Develop a specific local plan designed to protect the amenity of the

North Shore residential area.

Effective safety, security and environmental management practices

Promote integrated environmental management planning for all sites

currently within the ‘port area of interest’ including those not subject to

SEMP or EPA approvals requirements; and

Restrict ‘Controlled Port Activities’ to the Liquid bulk precinct.

Effective land use planning and approval framework

Provide greater transparency in port planning by adopting a precinct

based approach within the ‘port area of interest’, identifying discrete

precincts each of which has its own characteristics and issues;

Support the port precinct planning approach in Council’s Port Structure

Plan, and appropriate amendments to the Greater Geelong Planning

Scheme;

Strengthen planning policy frameworks to provide clear strategic

support for future port operations in a manner that achieves sustainable

development outcomes; and

Consider and advocate changes to the existing zone provisions in the

‘port area of interest’ to better accommodate port‐related development

and reduce the likelihood of the port’s future development being

unreasonably constrained by inappropriate or ad hoc development.

The Port of Geelong Structure Plan prepared by Council contains many

detailed strategies that address the same issues as the PLUS. However, there

are some points of difference, including:

The Structure Plan excludes Point Henry;

The Structure Plan identifies three precincts, the PLUS identifies four;

The Structure Plan includes proposals for pedestrian/cycle paths and

future connections and environmental improvements to creeks;

The Structure Plan seeks to limit the Liquid Bulk Storage precinct role

of storage of hazardous goods to the Terminals’ site lease; and

The Structure Plan identifies a range of application requirements for

bulk liquid storage, whereas the PLUS relies on existing processes (e.g.

Clause 52.10, EPA works approval).

In addition, the proposed Amendment prepared by Council to implement

the Structure Plan includes a number of rezonings. Council understands that

GeelongPort does not oppose the rezonings, other than a small parcel of

Reserved Crown land near Mackay Street from Industrial 2 to Public

Conservation and Resource Zone.


70

However, the Advisory Committee notes that in GeelongPort’s submission it

states that all current industrially zoned land should be retained within its

current zoning. Further, GeelongPort is concerned that the Council’s

maritime precinct proposal includes tourism accommodation and the

potential for a Special Use Zone which it believes would not be compatible

with the Port of Geelong operations.

As noted previously, the Minister has advised Council that it would be

inappropriate for the Amendment to be exhibited while the Advisory

Committee is reviewing the planning controls on ports and their environs.

5.5 Port of Portland


The Port of Portland is located within the coastal town of Portland, about 360

kms south‐west of Melbourne. It is located in the area known as the ‘Green

Triangle Region’, which has a strong economic base in agriculture, timber,

fishing and manufacturing industries.

The port covers an area of approximately 65 hectares occupying two separate

parcels of land with the main area extending from Henty Beach (Trawler

Wharf) to the southern end of the Incitec Pivot plant.

The Port also owns a parcel of land separate from the port located between

the Henty Highway and Canal Court. This parcel of land is known as Canal

Court and covers an area of approximately 8 hectares.

Figure 4 shows the Portland Port and surrounding areas.


71

Figure 4: Portland Port and surrounding areas


72

5.5.2 Governance

The Port and associated land tenures were purchased from the State

Government in March 2006. The Port is owned and operated by the Port of

Portland Pty Ltd, a private company managed by Hastings Funds

Management.

5.5.3 Nature of Trade throughput

The Port of Portland specialises in the storage and handling of bulk

commodities. Trade volumes to the year ending 30 June, 2008 were:

Forestry products – 1,407,000 tonnes;

Smelter products – 1,085,000 tonnes;

Grain – 10,000 tonnes;

Fertiliser – 452,000 tonnes;

Mineral sands – 201,000 tonnes; and

Other 98,000 tonnes.

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

Recent trade volumes have been impacted by very low grain exports caused

by drought. However, it is expected that trade will grow significantly due to

new export trade volumes from maturing hardwood plantations and the

mining and processing of mineral sands.


The port is divided into six separate precincts:

Bulk commodities and smelter;

Lee Breakwater;

Marine;

Canal Court;

Incitec Pivot; and

Portland foreshore.

The bulk commodities and smelter precinct comprises:

Fisherman’s wharf;

Storage and berth areas for bulk forestry (soft and hardwood chips and

logs);

Mineral sand, grain and overflow storage areas;

Storage and berths for Portland smelter imports;

Livestock berths;


73

Liquid pitch storage facilities; and

A conveyor belt for alumina.

The Lee Breakwater is 1179 metres long and contains the berths for two

harbour tugs. It is open to the public for both vehicular and pedestrian

access (except during bad weather) and provides an opportunity for

recreational fishing in relatively deep water.

The marine precinct comprises Trawler Wharf, slipways and various marine

businesses. The wharf accommodates Portland’s trawler fishing fleet as well

as itinerant vessels.

Canal Court comprises storage space and distribution facilities for port‐

related freight. A rail marshalling yard is located along the southern

boundary of the site.

The Incitec Pivot precinct accommodates the Incitec Pivot plant, which is a

large industrial facility for the processing and storage of fertiliser products.

The foreshore precinct includes the Portland foreshore between the western

edge of the port and the Lee Breakwater.


The PLUS states that improved road and rail infrastructure within the region

and in the approaches to the Port are essential to support increased business

and associated industrial development of the Port.

The PLUS notes that the construction of the Cliff Street overpass has been

essential in improving access to the Port.

Specific strategies to improve road and rail infrastructure include the

following:

Develop proposals to manage heavy vehicle traffic access for other local

and arterial roads that lead to the Port. This would include the

implementation of the Access Management Policy for the Henty

Highway ‘Ring Road’ and dedication of 24 hour/7 seven day curfew

free access to the Port;

Based on the outcomes of the Port master plan, prepare a detailed

traffic management plan to manage the throughput of trucks through

the Port to accommodate estimated delivery volumes of timber and

other commodities from 2009 onwards;

Review operations and identify the need for a truck marshalling area to

be developed within close proximity to the Port;


74

Advocate for the re‐opening of the Heywood to Mount Gambier

railway line reservation; and

Lobby the federal and state governments to improve the rail network

and infrastructure in accordance with a number of completed studies.

5.5.6 Future development plans

The PLUS contains a number of strategies for the future planning of the six

precincts. The strategies are predicated on a proposal to prepare a port

master plan to assist the ongoing planning and development of the port

incorporating:

Storage and handling areas for all tenancies;

Revised access arrangements (road and rail);

Security arrangements;

Location of administrative functions;

Environmental obligations;

Future development zones;

Land use arrangements for Canal Court; and

New berth developments.

Bulk commodities and smelter

Investigate opportunities to relocate Port services not dependent on

being within close proximity to berths to alternative sites, such as Canal

Court, in order to provide additional space for activities dependent on

locations near berths; and

Ensure product handling activities which have the potential to generate

dust, noise and light spill occur away from the precinct’s land side

boundaries where possible.

Lee Breakwater

Pending on‐going security and operational requirements, continue to

provide public access to Lee Breakwater for recreational and tourism

pursuits.

Marine

Review opportunities to improve:

Slipway;

Cray fisherman berths;

Urban design and amenity enhancements for the Fisherman’s

Wharf interface; and


75

Commercial opportunities on land between the Trawler Wharf

and west of the Fisherman’s Wharf.

Canal Court

Investigate opportunities to relocate the Port administration building

and other non‐Port‐dependent activities; and

Investigate opportunities to rearrange the rail sidings to incorporate an

area for truck queuing.

Incitec Pivot

No development opportunities are identified, however the PLUS states that

the Port should continue to liaise with Incitec Pivot on environmental

management issues and to manage development pressures adjacent to their

site.

Portland foreshore

No development opportunities are identified, however the PLUS states that

it needs to ensure the protection of the Port’s assets and that the port

manager must be made aware of any issues with the potential to impact

upon its operations.


The PLUS includes the following key planning principles and strategies

relating to planning and interface issues:

Effective planning for adjoining urban areas

· Identify and manage any adverse consequences to people, the

environment and property in the future planning for the Port and its

environs.

· Planning for areas adjoining the Port environs area needs to:

- Recognise the lifestyle values and amenity expectations of residents in the areas;

- Take into account the effect of the Port operations on the affected land; and

- Avoid introduction of activities that would prejudice the efficient and effective operations of the Port.

Specific changes recommended to the land use planning framework and

approvals process include:

Recognition of the State significance of the Henty Highway as a major

transport route servicing the port in the State Planning Policy

Framework;


76

Managing land use changes to prevent the encroachment of sensitive

land uses around the port’s boundaries; and

Managing land uses changes to prevent the encroachment of sensitive

land uses adjoining freight networks.

5.6 Conclusion

While there are differences in the size, function and geographic location of

Victoria’s four commercial ports, the Committee notes a number of

similarities which have implications for their strategic and statutory

frameworks. These similarities include that all ports:

are experiencing continued growth in throughput and forecasts expect

growth to continue;

are comprised of different precincts catering for different port

functions;

have documented plans for infrastructure development and other

improvements to increase efficiency and cater for forecast growth; and

have interface issues that require/would benefit from appropriate

recognition in the planning framework.


77

Part C - Port Environs


78

6. Approaches to interface planning in the port environs

6.1 Introduction

The strategic role of Victoria’s ports means that they need to be able to

operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This need is related to

international and national shipping schedules and the efficient use of

landside loading/unloading facilities and transport infrastructure. As a

result of these activities and hours of operations, ports can generate amenity

impacts beyond their boundaries which can cause nuisance to uses in the

port environs considered ‘sensitive’ such as residential development or

certain community facilities.

The coastal location of ports and, in the case of Melbourne, Geelong and

Portland, the inner urban setting means that areas near these long‐

established ports are now sought‐after residential areas. In addition to the

waterfront location of such residential areas, there are aspects of living near a

commercial port that some residents find attractive such as the movement of

ships, tugs and other vessels or the visual dynamics and night time lighting

of wharf infrastructure.

The Advisory Committee considers that recognition of the strategic and

economic importance of ports at the national, state and local levels needs to

be predicated on awareness of the context in which long‐established ports

are located. The planning and management of this interface between ports

and their neighbours is, arguably, as important as planning and management

within the ports themselves.

The Committee notes that the Port of Melbourne’s draft Port Environs

Planning Framework (2009) identifies a range of mechanisms that may be

considered appropriate to address the adverse amenity impacts of

incompatible land uses. The Committee has used that material as a starting

point for the identification of conceptual approaches to interface planning for

the port environs. In addition, there are a range of stakeholders involved in

the management of interface issues including the ports themselves, state and

local government and the community. The approaches and stakeholders are

discussed in the following sections.


79

6.2 Approaches to interface planning and management

The range of approaches to interface planning which may be relevant to the

port environs are summarised in the following sections. References to

examples of these approaches currently used in the ports under

consideration or included in the VPPs are included where relevant.

6.2.1 Creating buffer areas

Separating incompatible land uses by means of physical distance, in other

words, by means of a buffer area, is a common land use planning mechanism

that is used to allow a use which generates adverse amenity impacts to

operate without causing unreasonable nuisance to adjoining or nearby

sensitive uses. With this approach, an area of sufficient width or other

characteristics such as topographical features is identified between the

impact‐generating use and other uses to mitigate adverse impacts. This

separation may also be enhanced by controls on the intensity, form and

location of incompatible activities.

Where an existing use does not have sufficient space within its existing

boundaries to provide a buffer, it could purchase land beyond its boundary,

particularly where there may be a small area of a sensitive use whose

continuance may otherwise constrain efficient operations of the impact‐

generating activity. This land could be incorporated into the boundary of the

impact‐generating activity or be made available for development for

compatible uses.

Under contemporary planning practice, buffer areas are usually contained

within the boundaries of the landholdings of the impact‐generating use. For

example, in the VPPs, Clause 52.10 Uses with Adverse Amenity Potential

which has as its purpose:

To define those types of industries and warehouses which if not

appropriately designed and located may cause offence or unacceptable

risk to the neighbourhood.

This clause sets out the minimum threshold distance from any part of the

land of the proposed use or buildings and works to land (not a road) in a

residential zone, Business 5 Zone, Capital City Zone or Docklands Zone, land

used for a hospital or an education centre or land in a Public Acquisition

Overlay to be acquired for a hospital or an education centre.

For the longer‐established ports of Melbourne, Geelong and Portland, the

Committee considers that there are few opportunities to develop buffer areas

within existing port boundaries. However, in the case of Hastings, the


80

extensive areas included in the Special Use Zone provide the potential for the

planning of future port development and port‐related uses to incorporate

buffer areas as appropriate.

6.2.2 Planning controls to create ‘reverse buffers’

With this approach, an area external to the site boundaries of the impact‐

generating use is identified in which the type of uses are limited and/or the

nature of built form is controlled to allow the impact‐generating use to

operate without restriction. In effect, the onus is on any new nearby use to

demonstrate that it would not compromise the operation of the existing use.

A clear expression of the ‘reverse buffer‘ concept included in the VPPs is the

Airport Environs Overlay. This overlay applies in several planning schemes

including:

Hume Planning Scheme around Melbourne Airport as the Melbourne

Airport Environs Overlay (MAEO) with two schedules which control

use and development relative to forecast levels of aircraft noise

exposure. The purposes of this overlay as it applies around Melbourne

Airport include:

To ensure that land use and development are compatible with the

operation of Melbourne Airport in accordance with the relevant

airport strategy or master plan and with safe air navigation for

aircraft approaching and departing the airfield.

To assist in shielding people from the impact of aircraft noise by

requiring appropriate noise attenuation measures in dwellings and

other noise sensitive buildings.

To provide for appropriate levels of noise attenuation depending on

the level of forecast noise exposure.

A key intention of this overlay is to control the number of people and

dwellings adversely affected by aircraft noise. The extent of this

overlay is usually related to either forecasts of the extent of specified

levels of exposure to aircraft noise or the nature of the underlying zone.

This overlay is a statutory planning tool to give effect to a ‘reverse

buffer’.

Kingston Planning Scheme applying to areas around Moorabbin

Airport ‐ Schedule 1 to this Overlay prevents the granting of a permit

for a range of nominated ‘sensitive’ uses despite the provisions of the

underlying zone. Policy basis for this overlay is provided in Clause

22.05‐1 of the MSS which recognises ‘….the need to ensure that the use and


81

development of land around the Moorabbin Airport is sensitive to the long

term operation of the airport’.

Strathbogie Planning Scheme applying to areas around Mangalore

Airport where it controls subdivision and includes as a decision

guideline the ‘views of the airport owner’ along with other

considerations including compatibility with airport operations and

whether the proposal incorporates noise attenuation measures.

A similar overlay if applied to port environs ‐ however determined ‐ could

introduce an administrative process under the Planning and Environment Act

1987 to enable the port to be:

a referral authority in relation to planning permit applications for

certain types of uses or developments – this role would require the port

to respond and defend its position in relation to proposals within its

environs which it perceives have the potential to adversely constrain

operations or development;

given notice about certain categories of applications and the onus is on

the ports to respond if the applications are of interest. If no response is

received, the responsible authority could reasonably assume that the

application is of no interest or concern to the port;

or both roles as allowed for under Clause 66.10 of the VPPs.

6.2.3 Extend the range of sensitive uses

In this approach, the identification of uses considered to be ‘sensitive’ is

extended beyond residential accommodation to include other uses such as

child care centres, educational establishments, hospitals and, possibly,

offices, cafes and shops.

As a result, the establishment and/or expansion of such sensitive uses would

be considered through the prevailing planning controls in relation to either

the on‐going operation and/or forecast expansion of the impact‐generating

use. Expanding the range of ‘sensitive uses’ could progressively constrain

the operations and future development of existing impact‐generating uses.

A port is generally not a ‘footloose’ activity, i.e. a port cannot readily relocate

to another location as can many industrial activities. As a result, allowing a

wider range of sensitive uses in the port environs could have serious

ramifications for the future development of a port ‐ particularly those in

established urban areas.

The Committee was advised by Port of Melbourne representatives that an

example of this situation could be emerging in the Lorimer Street area in

Fishermans Bend. Office development in this area is attracting supporting


82

uses such as cafes with outdoor areas with certain amenity levels that may be

inconsistent with a location in close proximity to operating port areas. The

PEPF also referred to this situation.

6.2.4 Improve environmental and/or operational performance

With this approach, the impact‐generating use improves its environmental

performance through, for example, reducing its emissions which have

adverse effects beyond its boundaries such as noise levels, light spill, or the

generation of dust or odours. As a result, this improved environmental

performance could reduce the need for other interface management

approaches such as buffer zones within or beyond the boundary of the

impact‐generating activity. Such emission reductions may also have benefits

for the port operator such as improved occupational health and safety

conditions or reduced energy usage.

An example of this approach is the Port of Melbourne’s Safety and

Environmental Management Plan (2005). This Plan applies a ‘whole of port’

approach to improving the safety and environmental performance of all

operations in the port – both those under direct control of the PoMC as well

as over other uses where it has influence only.

The North Shore Residents Group, representing residents of the North Shore

area within the ‘port area of interest’ in Geelong (as discussed in Section

5.4.1), in preliminary consultations with the Committee, acknowledged that

there had been improvements in the environmental performance of the

operation of Geelong Port and key port‐related uses within the port area

such as Incitec Pivot. The Committee noted that there are perhaps no

residents better placed to comment on the environmental performance of a

port operator than this group which participates in regular consultations

with Geelong Port through the Geelong Port Community Consultative

Committee.

In addition to improvements in environmental performance, port operators

can also institute a range of operational improvements that may have multi‐

faceted benefits of achieving efficiency improvements as well as amenity

improvements in neighbouring areas. An example of such measures include

improved time management of truck movements to assist loading and

unloading of ships which may reduce congestion on approach roads to the

port through ‘just‐in‐time’ arrivals.

The PoMC recently funded the Truck Optimisation Plan in order to better

understand and maximise efficiencies in landside container logistics (Annual

Report 2008‐09, p48). The Committee was advised that there is potentially

considerable scope for operational enhancements through the application of


83

technological advances such as automated guided vehicles and cranes within

ports and high productivity freight vehicles and GPS monitoring beyond

ports.

The Committee notes that ports must also be aware of obligations to plan for

and manage their ‘waterside’ as well as their landside environs.

Parks Victoria, in its preliminary submission to the Committee, noted that:

While there are mandatory Safety and Environment Management Plans

in place for the commercial ports under the Port Services Act, any

planning for Port environs must continue to take account of the seaward

activities and risks as well as land‐based activities.

Another approach to enhancing environmental performance is the

implementation of improvements for the impacted recipient. Examples

include noise attenuation measures implemented in existing dwellings which

experience increases in noise levels above specified levels as a result of

projects such as road upgrades, airport expansions or nearby industrial

development. For example, the Commonwealth Government administered

programs to insulate residences near Adelaide and Sydney Airports where

increases in exposure to aircraft noise were experienced after capacity

enhancements at the airports. Levies on the tickets of aircraft passengers

using these airports funded these programs – an example of the ‘polluter

pay’ principle.

6.2.5 Site design and layout

Many impact‐generating uses are now required to prepare master plans for

their sites and operations – either at the establishment stage and/or at regular

intervals. Beneficial outcomes of such master planning activities for new

uses can be that more intrusive activities are located away from adjoining or

nearby sensitive uses and less intrusive activities, such as storage and

warehousing, closer to adjoining sensitive uses.

For long‐established uses, the scope for major site rearrangement may be

limited but the master planning process can assist, initially, in identifying

‘interface’ issues and ways in which progressive site improvements can be

made – usually involving a combination of interface management

approaches.

The requirement under the Port Services Act 1995 for operators of commercial

trading ports in Victoria to prepare a Port Development Strategy (commonly

known as a Port Land Use Strategy [PLUS]) at four yearly intervals is an

example of this approach. Under Section 91K (2) (b) of this Act, one of the

requirements a Port Development Strategy must include is:


84

current and projected land use requirements, including transitional

land uses designed to protect the port from constraints on efficient

operations and mitigate adverse impacts of port operations on

adjacent uses; (emphasis added)

As discussed in the relevant sections of Chapter 4, the ‘first generation’ of

these land use strategies has been prepared for all four commercial trading

ports in Victoria. However, as yet, there is no explicit recognition of these

planning documents in the applicable planning schemes through

mechanisms such as acknowledgement in the SPPF or LPPF and/or inclusion

as an Incorporated Document or Reference Document. Such a nexus, if

achieved, could enhance certainty for all parties with responsibility for or

interest in interface planning for port environs.

6.2.6 Relocation of nuisance or hazardous activities

With this approach, nuisance or hazardous activities, often long‐established,

are relocated to a suitable site away from sensitive uses. A challenge with

implementing this approach is usually the ability to gain approval for new

sites for nuisance or hazardous activities. In the light of this difficulty,

existing nuisance or hazardous activities often remain in locations that may

be considered suboptimal relative to contemporary planning practice. As a

result, their interface issues need to be managed through other approaches.

Traditionally, areas within or adjacent to ports have been attractive for the

location of uses which are now identified as Major Hazard Facilities (MHF)

by virtue of the imported materials processed and/or stored prior to

transport/transfer elsewhere. On the one hand, there are strong logistical

reasons for such uses to be located within ports to facilitate materials

handling. However, actual incidents such as the explosion at Coode Island

in August 1991 or contemporary risk assessments have identified interface

issues.

Both the Coode Island facility in the Port of Melbourne and the Terminals

Pty Ltd facility within Geelong Port are identified as MHFs.

6.2.7 Legal agreements

Legal agreements can be made between the impact‐generating use and

occupiers or operators of sensitive uses to prevent complaints and legal

action being taken against the detrimental use. An example could be to

indemnify new owners from taking action against or complaining about the

impact‐generating use – assuming that impacts meet relevant standards or

fall within specified limits. This approach may be of limited utility in dealing

with port environs issues.


85

6.2.8 Notice of potential detriment

A notice of potential detriment can alert potential buyers to an existing

nuisance associated with the off‐site impacts generated by an existing nearby

activity such as agricultural production. An example of this approach is the

inclusion of a specific notice under the Vendor’s statements provided as part

of a contract of sale for land under Section 32 of the Sale of Land Act 1962.

Under Section 32 (2) (cb) of this Act, one of the elements to be included in a

Vendor’s notice is:

a warning to the following effect—

ʹImportant notice to purchasers:

The property may be located in an area where commercial agricultural

production activity may affect your enjoyment of the property. It is

therefore in your interest to undertake an investigation of the possible

amenity and other impacts from nearby properties and the agricultural

practices and processes conducted there.ʹ

There may be potential for a similar notice to be applied in certain situations

in the port environs.

6.2.9 Acquisition of land and change of use

This approach would involve the voluntary acquisition of a sensitive use on

adjacent land by the impact‐generating land use and then achieving a change

of use and/or zoning to enable development of compatible uses. While this

approach can potentially achieve desirable outcomes, it has the

disadvantages of the high costs involved, the potential long timeframes to

achieve area‐wide outcomes and the perception by the community of ‘land

use creep’ by the impact‐generating land use.

The Committee understands that this approach has been used in relation to

heavily noise‐affected areas near airports or the purchase of individual

properties near wind farms to prevent on‐going complaints.


86

6.2.10 Memorandum of understanding

A memorandum of understanding (MoU) can be made between the port

authority and other parties involved in managing interface areas such as the

local Council. A MoU is usually a non‐enforceable agreement about certain

actions to be undertaken by the respective parties to achieve specified

outcomes. MoUs are usually formalised expressions of good faith and rely

on other underlying measures for implementation and enforcement.

An example of this approach is the MoU that was agreed between Port of

Melbourne Corporation and Maribyrnong City Council in November 2006 in

relation to planning issues for the Footscray Wharf area on the western bank

of the Maribyrnong River. This MoU set out an agreed planning direction

for the port environs in Yarraville and included a statement of general

planning outcomes (principally amendments to the respective Planning

Schemes) as well as planning outcomes for specific areas. According to the

preliminary submission by the Council, the MoU has guided Council’s work

and approach in this area since then. However, the MoU is not mentioned in

the recommendations of the Draft PEPF for the Port of Melbourne. This

omission perhaps raises questions as to the utility of this mechanism for

interface management.

6.2.11 Conclusions

The Committee concludes that this wide range of approaches to interface

planning provides a useful guide to port operators to consider in their

planning and management to achieve appropriate outcomes in the port

environs. However, none of these approaches can or should be implemented

without appropriate consultation so the role of stakeholders in interface

planning needs to be considered – as discussed in the following section.

6.3 Planning tools under the VPPs

The Committee notes that the VPPs already incorporate several policy

settings and controls related to planning for interface areas to achieve land

use compatibility, namely:

The State Planning Policy Framework at Clause 17.03‐2 in relation to

industrial development states:

Industrial activity in industrial zones should be protected from the

encroachment of unplanned commercial, residential and other

sensitive uses which would adversely affect industry viability.


87

Planning authorities should zone land for industrial development in

urban growth areas where good access for employees and freight

transport is available and where appropriate buffer areas can be

provided between the proposed industrial land and nearby sensitive

land uses.

Industrial 3 zone (IN3Z) which has as its purposes:

To provide for industries and associated uses in specific areas where

special consideration of the nature and impacts of industrial uses is

required or to avoid inter‐industry conflict.

To provide a buffer between the Industrial 1 Zone or Industrial 2

Zone and local communities, which allows for industries and

associated uses compatible with the nearby community.

To ensure that uses do not affect the safety and amenity of adjacent,

more sensitive land uses.

Clause 52.10 ‐ Uses with Adverse Amenity Potential which has as its

purpose:

To define those types of industries and warehouses which if not

appropriately designed and located may cause offence or unacceptable

risk to the neighbourhood.

This clause, which applies to new uses or buildings and works, specifies

the minimum distance from any part of the land of the proposed use or

buildings and works to land (not a road) in a residential zone, Business

5 Zone, Capital City Zone or Docklands Zone, land used for a hospital

or an education centre or land in a Public Acquisition Overlay to be

acquired for a hospital or an education centre.

Examples of location‐specific applications of other aspects of the VPPs which

assist with planning and management of ‘interface’ areas are discussed in the

following Chapter.

In the Committee’s view, the various planning tools under the VPPs could be

strengthened to address interface issues between sensitive and non‐sensitive

uses that would be relevant to apply to ports and their environs.

Opportunities to strengthen the VPP tools are as follows:

SPPF

The SPPF provides the opportunity to ensure that the strategic and economic

importance of Victoria’s four major commercial trading ports is given

statutory recognition. It can also outline the policies of the State with respect

to interface issues. Existing State policy could be retained or strengthened.


88

LPPF

The LPPF of each of the planning schemes that control land in and around

ports provides the opportunity for the significance of the ports to the local

area to be given appropriate recognition. It can also set out policies with

regard to port development and interface issues from a local perspective.

Existing policies could be retained or strengthened.

Zones

Zones set down planning scheme requirements regarding the use,

development and subdivision of land as well as the requirements for

applications, decision guidelines and notification and review. At present

ports are included in Special Use Zones which group them with other uses

which do not fit into a specific class of land uses. Existing zones could be

retained or a new specific Port Zone could be introduced.

Overlays

Overlays supplement zone provisions to control the manner in which certain

uses or development may occur or to reinforce the importance of particular

circumstances which may apply to a specific area. Overlays cover a variety

of matters such as design and development issues, environmental matters,

native vegetation, flooding, wildfire, and heritage. In addition they can refer

to development plans or incorporated plans.

One option could be to apply the Design and Development Overlay (DDO)

in the identified port environs. An example of a DDO that could be applied

in identified port environs areas is included in Appendix H.

There may be potential for a specific port environs overlay to be introduced

to relate to areas around ports as a means to specifically address interface

issues at the development approval stage. There may also be the potential

for Port Master Plans to be the subject of an appropriate overlay as a

mechanism to facilitate the approvals process within ports. A draft of the

Port Environs Overlay has been prepared and is included in Appendix G.

Particular Provisions

Planning schemes contain a number of particular provisions which relate

specific matters. These include provisions relating to uses with potential

amenity impacts, car parking, residential development (ResCode), outdoor

advertising, petrol filling stations and the like. There may the opportunity to

introduce new particular provisions relating to port environs. An example of

a port‐specific clause is in Appendix J.


89

Definitions

There may be shortcomings in the definitions included in the planning

scheme which give rise to ambiguities or confusion. There may be confusion

regarding the respective definitions of ‘port’, ‘wharf’, ‘jetty’ and ‘pier’ for

example or to uses which may be ‘port‐dependent’ on the one hand or ‘port‐

related’ on the other. The definition of ‘sensitive uses’ may also need to be

expanded.

Incorporated Documents

Incorporated Documents are documents which must be taken into account

during the consideration of applications for use and development. These

may include Government, Council or Port prepared documents but are

usually documents that have involved a consultative process in their

preparation. There could be the opportunity to have Port Land Use

Strategies included as Incorporated Documents to give greater status to new

development foreshadowed in these strategies if the preparation of these

strategies were shown to have been through a consultative process.

Reference documents

Reference documents are documents referred to in planning schemes to

provide background or context for the consideration of particular use and

development applications. They do not have the status of Incorporated

Documents but are nevertheless useful additions to a planning scheme to

assist in the decision making processes. These may include Government,

council or port prepared documents.

6.4 Stakeholders in interface planning

The Advisory Committee is aware that, in addition to the range of

approaches to interface planning for port environs, there are a range of

agencies and stakeholders variously involved in the implementation of most

of these interface planning approaches. These agencies and stakeholders are:

The port operator – through lease conditions as well as interaction with

external parties;

Port lessees – through lease obligations as well as interaction with

external parties;

State Government – through policy formulation at the state level and

enacting enabling legislation;

State government agencies – through implementation of specific

statutory responsibilities;


90

Local government authorities – as responsible planning authorities and

through specific enforcement responsibilities as well as representatives

of the local community;

Community and interest groups – through participation in formal or

informal consultation opportunities; and

Individual property owners or occupiers ‐ through participation in

formal or informal consultation opportunities.

Opportunities for these stakeholder groups to participate in the

implementation of various approaches to the planning and management of

port interface areas is indicated in Table 5.1. Some of the opportunities for

stakeholder involvement have a statutory basis such as notice of Planning

Scheme amendments or referral of Planning permit applications to

prescribed agencies. Other opportunities are at the discretion of the port

operator.

Table 5.1 indicates that, as would be expected, the port operator has a

primary role to play in the implementation of many of these interface

management approaches. The State Government has a key role to play

through policy formulation and enacting legislation which sets the

framework for implementation of relevant mechanisms, usually undertaken

by particular government agencies such as the Environment Protection

Authority, Work Safe or VicRoads.

Opportunities for involvement by the community or individuals in these

interface management approaches varies. There is potentially little or no

involvement where the approach is largely one internal to the operation of

the impact‐generating activity. However, there are generally more

opportunities for stakeholder involvement when external (and often

statutorily‐required) processes such as approval processes are involved.

Good practice for port operators is to engage other stakeholders through

opportunities including, but not limited to, consultation on draft port land

use strategies, participation in Community Reference Groups and discussion

on particular issues.


91

Table 5.1 Involvement of stakeholders in interface management approaches

EPA Environment Protection Authority

PV Parks Victoria

WS WorkSafe 1 also as representatives of the local community

STAKEHOLDERS INTERFACE MANAGEMENT APPROACH Port Operator

Port Lessees

State Government

(Policy)

State Government Agencies

Local Government Authority1 Community Individuals

Creating buffer areas (EPA/WS)

Reverse buffers (VicRoads)

Extend range of sensitive uses

Site design and layout:

- Future planning (PDS)

- Refitting

Improved environmental performance

(EPA/WS)

(Enforcement)

Relocation of nuisance or hazardous facilities

Legal agreements

Notice of potential detriment

Acquisition of land and change of use

(VicRoads)

Memorandum of understanding

primary involvement

Involvement

No involvement


92

6.5 Advisory Committee discussion

The preceding discussion clearly indicates that the management of interface

issues between impact‐generating activities and sensitive uses can involve a

combination of approaches which have differing opportunities for

involvement by stakeholders. As a result, interface management in locations

such as port environs can be a multi‐dimensional process that varies

according to particular circumstances and requires a complex interaction

with stakeholders.

One of the mechanisms identified in the Port of Melbourne’s PEPF report is

for the operator to improve the environmental performance of the port which

could have the effect of eliminating or reducing the need for other interface

management measures. The Committee notes that, in the land use strategies

prepared for each of the four ports, the port operators are committed to

improving their environmental performance to reduce any adverse impacts

on amenity. In the Committee’s view, improving environmental

performance of the ports should be the starting point for interface

planning particularly given that the ports operate to some, albeit varying,

degree in existing urban environments.

Further, the Committee considers that any reasonable scope to improve the

design, layout and efficiency of the ports is also an important opportunity

to eliminate or reduce adverse amenity impacts. This is preferable to an

approach where neighbouring land may be sterilised to provide an inactive

or, at least, a less active buffer.

With the pressure to intensify development of existing urban land and

reduce urban sprawl, greater emphasis needs to be placed on co‐existence

between potentially incompatible land uses rather than simply separating

incompatible land uses to the maximum extent possible. In relation to

strategically important ports, this approach requires that people residing or

working in neighbouring land uses to the ports have reasonable

expectations about the level of amenity which take into account the benefits

of living in or near waterfront and inner city locations.

In the Committee’s view, expectations are best managed when the

environmental performance of the ports are able to be measured in tangible

terms. There needs to be clear, and preferably quantifiable, standards in

terms of the environmental performance that must be met by the port

operators.


93

The Committee concludes that further consideration of the following

approaches to interface planning and management is not warranted for the

following reasons:

Relocation of MHFs is beyond the scope of the ToR. Regulation of these

facilities is undertaken by the EPA and the Victorian WorkCover

Authority under relevant legislation;

Legal agreements which prevent adjoining or nearby sensitive uses

from lodging complaints and taking legal action against a detrimental

use are not appropriate because they are legally questionable in terms

of reducing a person’s right to take action and, even if not legally

questionable, could result in a detrimental use pursuing inappropriate

activities;

Relocating of a port per se is beyond the scope of the Advisory

Committee’s terms of reference.

In the next chapter, the Committee identifies the boundaries that would

constitute the port environs for each of the ports. From this analysis, the

Committee then considers whether the application of a planning tool under

the VPPs is appropriate to address the interface issues and if so, the actual

VPP tool that may be appropriate.

Key issues for consideration

Are there other approaches to interface management that should be

identified?

Have all the relevant stakeholder categories been identified?

What approaches to interface management are particularly useful in the

port environs?


94

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

7.1 Introduction

The ToR include the following task:

Make recommendations on appropriate boundaries for the land that

would constitute ‘port environs’ for all of the four commercial ports.

In approaching this task, the Committee has undertaken a detailed

examination of the interface areas between each of the ports and surrounding

areas that potentially contain sensitive uses having regard to:

the nature of existing uses and developments within each of the ports;

the future plans for each of the ports as identified in its land use

strategy;

the nature of existing and future uses and developments (if known)

surrounding each port;

relevant planning objectives and strategies in the various planning

schemes;

issues raised by key stakeholders; and

site inspections of the ports and surrounding areas.

From these investigations, the Committee is seeking comment as to whether:

the interface area beyond the specific port boundary should be

identified as a port environs area that requires some form of buffer

treatment;

the identified port environs area should be subject to a planning

mechanism under the statutory planning framework, such as an

alternative zone to restrict the type of uses or an overlay to control the

nature of development;

the port manager should be a prescribed authority under Clause 66.10

of the VPPs for notice and/or referral of applications in the port

environs; or

some other collaborative approach is appropriate between the port

manager and the operators of a sensitive use.


95

The Committee has provided a detailed analysis to determine the key

interface areas for each of the ports in preference to a more arbitrary

approach that would simply delineate a certain distance from the port

boundaries to be included in the port environs. In the Committee’s view, an

arbitrary approach (Appendix J) may not be justified given the significant

variation in the nature of activities occurring within different parts of each of

the ports and the diversity of surrounding land uses and development. In

addition, an arbitrary approach may capture uses that are compatible with

port activities and do not require a buffer.

In determining the port environs for each port, it should be noted that in the

cases of the ports of Hastings and Geelong there are significant amounts of

land beyond that controlled by the port manager. However, in determining

the port environs for these two ports the Committee has considered the Port

of Hastings ‘boundary’ to include all the land in the Special Use Zone and

the Port of Geelong ‘boundary’ to be all the land identified as ‘Port Area of

Interest Land’ in the Port of Geelong Land Use Strategy.

For the ports of Melbourne and Portland, the Committee has referred to all

land directly controlled by the port manager as well as land included in a

port‐related Special Use Zone to determine the port boundary.

The Committee has noted that in the various documents relating to ports

there is reference to ‘port‐dependent’ and ‘port‐related’ uses. However,

there does not appear to be a standard definition of each. For the purposes

of this Paper, the Committee considers port‐dependent uses to be solely or

critically reliant on a port for its location and existence and port‐related uses

to be uses that have some business or functional connection to a port.

Key issue for consideration

Is a more detailed investigation of the interface areas of each of the

ports to determine the port environs more preferable than an approach

which arbitrarily identifies the port environs based on a certain

distance?


96

7.2 Nature of amenity and risks at the interfaces

The Committee considers it is appropriate that the nature of amenity and

risks associated with ports and port‐related uses are identified.

From the information provided to the Committee, existing amenity impacts

from the operation of the four ports variously include:

Noise from port operations such as cranes, gantries, reversing vehicles

and movement of containers;

Airborne emissions from dust, fugitive odours and industrial activity

processes;

Vibrations from port and port‐related activities;

Light spill and glare; and

Appearance of and views to and across the port.

Local community concern about adverse amenity impacts from road traffic

noise is a vexed issue for the Committee. While such impacts could be more

significant for many local residents than other amenity impacts from port or

port‐related activities, road and transport matters are regulated by other

State policies and controls than the statutory planning framework. 15

However, it may be possible in some situations where an overlay could be

imposed along a transport corridor to mitigate the impacts of traffic noise.

For example, DDO1 in the Hume Planning Scheme requires development to

be designed to minimise the impact of traffic noise on noise sensitive

activities.16

With respect to risk, the main concerns relate to the handling and storage of

hazardous material such as oil and petroleum, fertilisers and various

chemicals within or adjacent to ports as well as the transportation of such

material to and from ports.

The Committee has considered the issue of risk in the context of Clause 52.10

of the VPPs, which sets out the EPA threshold distances for uses with

adverse amenity potential and risk. It is not the role of the Committee to

assess the performance of the industries that store, handle and transport

major hazards, nor to assess the performance of the EPA or WorkSafe

Victoria in monitoring the industries. Furthermore, it is not the role of the

15 For example, VicRoads Traffic Noise Reduction Policy 2005 16 Clause 43.02 of Hume Planning Scheme


97

Committee to comment on the appropriateness of the EPA threshold

distances or WorkSafe safety guidelines.


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

operations?

7.3 Port of Melbourne

With its location in central Melbourne, the Port of Melbourne is the most

complex of Victoria’s four commercial trading ports in terms of the number

and diversity of sensitive interfaces.

From the PEPF and discussions with both PoMC and Council officers, the

Committee considers the important sensitive interfaces to be investigated

are:

Swanson Dock and Dynon precinct with South Kensington;

Appleton Dock and Dynon precinct with e‐Gate;

Swanson Dock (Coode Island) with Yarraville precinct;

Webb Dock with Garden City and The Strand, Williamstown;

Station Pier with Beacon Cove;

Appleton Dock, Victoria Dock and South Wharf with Lorimer Street

and Fishermans Bend;

Victoria Dock with Docklands;

Holden Dock and Francis Street with Newport and Yarraville; and

Ann Street Pier, Gellibrand Pier and Breakwater Pier with the former

Port Phillip Woollen Mills site (Williamstown).

The Committee notes that these nine interface areas account for almost all of

the Melbourne Port landside boundary.

7.3.1 Swanson Dock and Dynon precinct with South Kensington

Background

The Swanson Dock precinct includes the Swanson Dock international

container terminals, the Coode Island Major Hazard Facility (MHF) as well

as road and rail transport connections to the Dynon precinct and beyond.

Currently the land to the north of this precinct is zoned Industrial 1 and

Public Use 27 (Other Public Use) and the land to the north west is zoned


98

Public Use 4 (Transport). The PoMC considers these zones may provide

adequate buffers, however it notes that complaints about rail operations have

been received from the South Kensington residential area north of the North

Dynon rail yards.

Figure 5 Swanston Dock and Dynon Project with South Kensington


99

Advisory Committee discussion

While there is a potentially sensitive interface between the North Dynon

railway yards and the South Kensington residential area, the Committee

notes that this residential area is at least 500 metres from the northern port

boundary (at Footscray Road). JJ Holland Park also provides a buffer

between the North Dynon railway yards and a significant part of the South

Kensington area. The Committee does not consider there is any need to

include the South Kensington residential area within the port environs which

could be subject to some form of interface treatment.


Given the approximately 500 metres distance between the South

Kensington residential area and the northern boundary of the Port of

Melbourne, is there any need to include the South Kensington

residential area within the port environs?

7.3.2 Appleton Dock and Dynon Precinct with e-Gate

Background

The Victorian Government is currently investigating whether a 20 hectare

site located between North Melbourne train station and Footscray Road in

West Melbourne should be considered for a range of land uses including

sporting, commercial and residential development. This project is known as

e‐Gate.

The PoMC has stated that the project on the railway land will require a

planning and design outcome that minimises impact on the port’s

operations.

The City of Melbourne supports the e‐Gate project as a mixed‐use area, but

notes that any development in this precinct will need to take into

consideration the existing surrounding uses, including the port and railway

uses.


100

Figure 6 Appleton Dock and Dynon Precinct with e‐Gate


The Committee notes that the nominated e–Gate site is surrounded by

industrial and public use (transport) land which also separates this site from

the port. However, the Committee agrees with both PoMC and City of

Melbourne that any potential residential development will need to be

carefully planned to address potential impacts from the port and to ensure

that such development does not curtail port activities. Given the project is at

an early investigation stage, it is perhaps too early to recommend that e‐Gate

should be included within the port environs. However, it is important that

there is a collaborative approach between Major Projects Victoria, City of

Melbourne and PoMC during the investigative and feasibility processes.


Is it too early to include the nominated e‐Gate project site in the port

environs?

What role should PoMC and other key stakeholders play in the

investigative and feasibility processes for the e‐Gate project?


101

7.3.3 Swanson Dock (Coode Island) with Yarraville precinct

Background

Coode Island lies to the west of Swanson Dock and east of the Maribyrnong

River and contains the Coode Island MHF.

Terminals Pty Ltd owns and operates a bulk liquid hazardous chemical

storage facility on land leased from the PoMC. Chemicals handled at Coode

Island fall into three main groups based on their Dangerous Goods

Classification and on their potential to produce off‐site effects. In decreasing

order of this potential, they are:

Group 1 ‐ Acrylonitrile and propylene oxide;

Group 2 ‐ Flammable and toxic chemicals (e.g. benzene and ethyl

acrylate); and

Group 3 ‐ Combustible and corrosive chemicals and other low hazard

chemicals.

Terminals Pty Ltd receives liquid products by pipeline from ships and stores

these products in tanks. The chemicals are transferred by either bulk road

tankers or in 200 litre drums for transport off‐site. Many of the chemicals are

used in the production of paints, plastics, lubricating oils, detergents,

pharmaceuticals and health care products.

DP World operates the largest facility (a container terminal) on the Island,

handling about 400,000 containers of non‐hazardous goods each year,

together with some 12,000 containers and isotainers of dangerous goods from

Groups 1, 2 and 3. The 12,000 containers equate to approximately the same

volume of hazardous goods handled by Terminals Pty Ltd. Other operators

are King Transport who maintain a container storage area, and Pacific

Terminals and Gordon Brandon who operate low hazard storage facilities.17

On the west side of Maribyrnong River, there is an area between Footscray

Road to the north and Lyons Street to the south that is zoned Business 2.

This area is identified as Area A in a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)

between PoMC and City of Maribyrnong. Further to the south of this

Business 2 area, the land is zoned either Industrial 1 or Industrial 3.

17 http://ciccc.org/coodeisland.htm


102

Figure 7 Swanson Dock (Coode Island) with Yarraville Precinct


103

The application of the Business 2 Zone reflects Maribyrnong Council’s

objectives to rejuvenate the area. Following a decline of riverfront industrial

businesses about 20 years ago, the stretch of waterfront between Lyons Street

and Dynon Road was earmarked for significant redevelopment as a business,

tourist and residential area offering new opportunities for business

investment and employment. Through land purchasers, capital works

investment, development facilitation and planning, Council set out to

encourage the redevelopment of this area and realise its potential as an

attractive waterfront location and gateway to the municipality.

There have been a number of projects that have helped achieved Council’s

vision for this precinct, including the reuse of the Port Phillip Mills building

and the development of the Lonely Planet headquarters. There was also a

proposal to establish a public marina and café/restaurant at Footscray Wharf,

however, this has not eventuated.

Council’s planning objectives to rejuvenate this area are a major concern for

the PoMC. In the PoMC’s view, the Coode Island MHF should be a major

consideration in defining the ‘port environs’ and providing a suitable buffer

between the MHF and sensitive uses. It notes that under Clause 52.10 of the

planning scheme, the threshold distance between the chemicals stored at

Coode Island and sensitive uses is one kilometre. Further, it notes that

WorkSafe Victoria’s draft outer risk area extends into the Business 2 zoned

land.

The PoMC considers Council should be promoting more intensive

development at the recently designated Footscray Central Activities District

(CAD), and that to promote major office development outside this CAD is

contrary to both State and local policy.

The PoMC’s position is that the Business 2 land in the northern part of the

Yarraville precinct should be rezoned to Industrial 3.

While Council has developed a long‐term strategy to rejuvenate the northern

section of the Yarraville precinct currently zoned Business 2, it considers that

the current controls are not effective and need strengthening.

In its preliminary submission to the Advisory Committee, Council officers

stated that Council is seeking to:

apply planning controls that do not quarantine the port environs;

allow uses and development that are able to co‐exist with the port; and


104

allow uses and development that are ‘fair and reasonable’ to other

property owners and that offer ‘a proportionate’ response to the buffer

issues.

Further, Council considers that an evidence‐based approach is required to

understand the necessity for buffers and any changes to the planning

controls. The main interface issues have been identified as noise, light spill,

air emissions and risk/health, and that most concern relates to air emissions

and risk/health. For each of these elements, Council has sought an approach

that identifies whether the element requires buffering, the nature and extent

of the impacts and ways of mitigating the impacts.

Specifically, Council officers have advised that Council has in the MoU

proposed the following changes to the planning controls:

A new local policy based on the following principles:

- Residential uses will not be supported in the area;

- A preference for development similar to existing scale of

developments within Area A;

- All future development to acknowledge the proximity of the port

and port‐related uses and the need for on‐going efficient

operations of the port;

- The potential risk and amenity impacts of port operations on this

area and the interface role of this precinct given its proximity to

the port; and

- Appropriate management of historic contamination.

Rezoning of the Business 2 area to Business 3;

Use of a Design and Development Overlay; and

Potential for a floor space limitation.

Officers had previously recommended that an overlay control similar to the

Airport Environs Overlay be applied over the Area A land, however they

have been advised by the Department of Planning and Community

Development (DPCD) that such an approach is not supported.

Council officers consider the industrial zoning in the remainder of the

Yarraville precinct has prevented the encroachment of residential uses into

the buffer area. However, they note that, with the increasing value of

residential land, there is pressure from owners and occupiers of non‐

conforming dwellings in the Industry 3 Zone in Frederick Street and Earsdon

Street on Council for rezoning this small precinct to residential.


105

Council officers have also expressed concern with establishment of

‘Caretaker’s houses’ in the Yarraville precinct. ‘Caretaker’s houses’ are a

permitted use subject to a permit in industrial zones and are as of right in the

Business 2 zone.

Under the VPPs, a Caretaker’s house is defined as follows:

A dwelling on the same site as a building, operation or plant, and

occupied by a supervisor of that building, operation or plant.

The concern is that some Caretaker’s houses which have been developed in

the area have no legitimate association with a building, operation or plant,

and have been a means to achieve residential development to take advantage

of the Yarraville address and the views to the city skyline. Council has had

some success in having such developments refused by VCAT.18

Both PoMC and City of Maribyrnong have sought to resolve the issues

through the signing of the MoU and the preparation of the PEPF Report. The

PEPF was preceded by a buffer strategy that had been prepared jointly for

the two organisations. 19 This strategy recommended that the Industrial 3

Zone and the Business 3 Zone be carefully considered to be applied to

Precinct A.20 It further recommended that a Design and Development

Overlay be introduced that includes design objectives, outcomes and

standards, including preferred building heights and setbacks as well as

measures to respond to and minimise risk from Coode Island.

Despite the attempts to resolve the issues, agreement has not been reached

between the two organisations on the statutory planning controls on the

northern part of the Yarraville precinct currently zoned Business 2.


While the Yarraville precinct is identified in the various documents as port

environs, the Committee considers that not all the existing Industrial 1 and

Industrial 3 land south of Lyons Street and west of Hyde Street is a sensitive

interface.

It is clear that most of this land is used by major industry, which also

includes some large sites that are owned by PoMC. These industrial zones

provide an appropriate buffer between the port operations and the extensive

18 Collins v Maribyrnong CC [2009] VCAT 366 and Ogilvie v Maribyrnong CC [2008] VCAT 1920. 19 Issues Paper: Yarraville Port Environs Local Planning Policy 2008. 20 Precinct A includes the northern section of area and is bounded by Napier Street, the Maribyrnong

River, Moreland Road and Lyons Street.


106

residential west of Hyde Street. Other than the City of Maribyrnong officers’

comments on Earsdon Street and Frederick Street, the Committee is unaware

of any suggestion to rezone these areas from industrial.

The Committee does not consider there is any justification for Council to

accede to pressure from residents in Earsdon Street and Frederick Street

within the Industrial 3 Zone to consider rezoning to residential. These

properties are within the one kilometre threshold distance of the Coode

Island MHF and are surrounded by existing industries to the north, east and

south.

Accordingly, the only area that requires any consideration for some form of

interface treatment is, in the Committee’s view, the Business 2 zoned land at

the northern end of the precinct (Area A in the MoU). While there is a

difference of view between the PoMC and City of Maribyrnong over the

future zoning of this area, the Committee notes that there has been some

movement by both parties to attempt to resolve the matter and that Council

has suggested some additional measures that seek to strengthen the nature of

the buffer by providing greater restrictions under their preferred Business 3

Zone.

In terms of whether the land should be rezoned to Business 3 or Industrial 3,

the Committee notes that, despite the different purposes of the two zones,

that there is very little difference between them as to the type of uses that are

prohibited. However, it is noted that the Industrial 3 Zone restricts office use

to 500 square metres and this appears to be a major concern of Council.

While the Committee does not have any information on the size of the offices

in this precinct, it has observed that many uses appear to be small scale office

use. Should these offices be less than 500 square metres, they would not

become non‐conforming uses in an Industrial 3 Zone. It would be helpful if

Council could provide more information about the nature and size of the

office uses in this precinct.

Despite the differences between the PoMC and City of Maribyrnong on the

future zoning of this part of the Yarraville precinct, it appears that with the

existence of the Coode Island MHF within the 1 kilometre threshold distance

under Clause 52.10 of the VPPs that there is no disagreement that this part of

the precinct should be included in the port environs.

Accordingly, further consideration needs to be given to the nature of

planning controls and processes that would be appropriate at this interface.

Specifically, these include whether:


107

The northern part of the precinct should be zoned Business 3 or

Industrial 3;

A Design and Development Overlay should be introduced to address

potential amenity and risk impacts from the port in any development

proposals;

The floor space of individual developments should be limited; and

There is a need for the notice or referral of applications to the PoMC

under Clause 66.10 of the VPPs.

Further, the Advisory Committee understands PoMC’s concerns that Council

appears to be promoting major office development in the northern parts of

the Yarraville precinct outside the Footscray Activity Centre contrary to State

and local policy.

Finally, with respect to ‘Caretaker’s houses’, it would appear that both PoMC

and City of Maribyrnong share the same concern with applicants seeking to

exploit planning scheme provisions by establishing dwellings that have no

caretaker function. The Committee notes that a more stringent policy such as

that prepared by the City of Yarra may be appropriate to apply in the

Yarraville precinct.21 A further option may be to produce a particular

provision in the VPPs so that it has application across the whole of the State.


Should the northern part of the Yarraville precinct currently zoned

Business 2 be included in the port environs?

If this northern precinct is included in the port environs, should:

it be zoned Business 3 or Industrial 3;

a Design and Development Overlay be introduced to address

potential amenity and risk impacts from the port;

floor space of individual developments be limited; and

the PoMC receive notice or referral of applications under Clause

66.10 of the VPPs.

Should major office development be promoted in this precinct outside

the Footscray CAD?

Is there any justification to rezone the existing dwellings in Earsdon

Street and Frederick Street to residential?

Should a local policy be prepared for ‘Caretaker’s houses’ similar to the

policy in Clause 22.06 of the Yarra Planning Scheme? Alternatively,

should there be a particular provision on ‘Caretaker’s houses’ be

prepared for the VPPs?

21 See Clause 22.06 of Yarra Planning Scheme


108

7.3.4 Webb Dock with Garden City and The Strand

Background

Webb Dock is currently used as a multi‐purpose facility with berths for

motor vehicles and break bulk cargoes.

Environmental and amenity issues are addressed through the EPA

legislation and guidelines and through the implementation of the PoMC’s

Webb Dock Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and the Port Safety and

Environmental Management Plan (PSEMP). The Webb Dock Environmental

Effects Statement and the EMP were approved by the Minister for Planning

in 1999.

The development of Webb Dock is the next major project proposed by

PoMC. In the short to medium term, the east dock is proposed to be

converted for container handling with 1 million TEU capacity. In the longer‐

term, the west dock will also be developed and it is anticipated that the

capacity of Webb Dock will match current capacity at Swanson Dock. Break

bulk would be relocated elsewhere within the port and motor vehicles could

be relocated either within the port or to another Victorian port.

The PDS recognises the need to maintain an effective transition and buffer

zone between the community and the port.

Garden City is a residential area developed from the 1920s, and comprises

semi‐attached double‐storey houses arranged around a series of public open

spaces modelled on the Garden City Movement. It is covered by a Heritage

Overlay.

Garden City abuts the port’s boundaries at the corner of Todd Road and The

Boulevard. On the south west corner of this intersection is the 4 hectare

Perce White Reserve, developed as a nature reserve providing some passive

recreation. The reserve is within the port’s boundaries, however the reserve

is publicly accessible and is maintained and managed by Port Phillip City

Council.

In its preliminary submission to the Committee, City of Port Phillip officers

considered that the existing amenity impacts from Webb Dock to Garden

City include:

Air and noise emissions;

Light spill; and

The environmental impacts of water runoff.


109

Figure 8 Webb Dock with Garden City

With any proposed development of Webb Dock for containerisation, Council

officers considered that there is a strong potential that there would be an

increase of air and noise emissions and light spill to Garden City.

It was submitted that:

The PoMC needs to be specific about the full range of likely impacts

from the proposed Webb Dock development;

There is a need for tangible performance standards to address air

emissions, noise emissions from the port, road traffic noise, light spill

and stormwater runoff that are clear to the community and are

regularly monitored and reported; and

The Environs Planning Framework Working Paper (2007) provides a table

of performance standards and solutions from the Webb Dock EMP.

The status of the proposed solutions should be updated and the

effectiveness of the solutions reviewed.

In addition, the Council officers submitted that a landscaped buffer and

acoustic wall on Port of Melbourne land is essential to ameliorate the off‐site

impacts of the port’s activities.


110

It was noted that the Webb Dock Conceptual Development Plan in the Port

of Melbourne Planning Scheme indicates a 22.5 metre landscape buffer along

the western boundary of Todd Road, however the buffer is not included in

Design and Development Overlay 2 (DDO2).

Further, it was stated that the Panel that considered the Port of Melbourne

new format planning scheme in 2006 noted that neither the Conceptual Plan

nor the statutory controls were being modified at the time and suggested

that, in time, the buffer should be reflected in the schedule to the DDO.

Council officers sought the following outcomes:

DDO2 in the Port of Melbourne Planning Scheme enshrine the buffer

and provide specific details about its construction standards for

planting, height and quality;

All buffers should be designed, constructed and maintained fit for

purpose;

Planting must commence well ahead of development to ensure it is well

established before development commences; and

DDO2 in the Port of Melbourne Planning Scheme provide limits about

height of container storage, however, there is a let‐out clause for

‘temporary storage’. A definition of what is a temporary or short term

timeframe needs to be provided in the Scheme.

In its preliminary submission to the Committee, City of Hobsons Bay officers

expressed concern with the impact of the proposed development of Webb

Dock on views to the city skyline from Williamstown. They submitted that

any future development should not have a detrimental impact through

excessive mass, bulk or light. Similar to the City of Port Phillip, Council

officers considered that more information is required to assess the potential

impacts of the proposed Webb Dock development.

A number of Williamstown residents along The Strand have also expressed

concern in letters addressed to the Committee about the potential impact of

the proposed Webb Dock development and believe that the PEPF is deficient

because it does not include details of the Webb Dock development and its

potential amenity and risk impacts. These residents have also questioned

how the Advisory Committee is able to fulfil its tasks under the ToR without

considering the proposed Webb Dock development and its impacts.


111

Figure 9 Webb Dock with The Strand (Williamstown)


112


Garden City

Given the close proximity between Webb Dock and Garden City, it is

reasonable for Port Phillip City Council to be concerned about the potential

amenity impacts of the Webb Dock development on Garden City residents.

Accordingly, it would appear appropriate that Garden City should be

included within the port environs.

The Committee does not have a role in assessing the proposed Webb Dock

development nor in reviewing the provisions of the Port of Melbourne

Planning Scheme. However, it supports Port Phillip City Council officer

comments that there is a significant opportunity for the PoMC to identify the

full range of amenity impacts from the proposed development in the

planning and design stage and that appropriate measures preferably with

tangible performance standards should be developed to mitigate potential

amenity impacts.

Further, the Committee supports the Council officer comments that the

landscape buffer along Todd Road provides a significant opportunity to

address potential adverse amenity impacts from the proposed Webb Dock

development. However, the Committee considers the nature of the buffer

and the timing of its development are matters that need to be considered as

part of the assessment process for the Webb Dock development.

The Committee notes that there a number of provisions in the Design and

Development Overlay (Schedule 2) of the Port of Melbourne Planning

Scheme that restrict the height of buildings, stored goods and materials in the

Webb Dock precinct. It would appear such controls have been designed to

address visual impact of port development from outside the port boundaries,

including from Williamstown. Any change to this control or any

development that exceeds these requirements should, in the Committee’s

opinion, be subject to consultation with the relevant Councils and

communities.

Despite the Committee’s opinion that Garden City should be included in the

port environs, it is not convinced that any additional planning controls

designed to restrict the type of uses to protect the port from the

encroachment of sensitive uses or control the nature of built form to reduce

potential amenity impacts from port activities will have any significant

benefit in addressing amenity concerns at this interface. Nor is the

Committee convinced that there would be any significant benefit in


113

introducing a requirement for the notice or referral of applications to the

PoMC.

The Committee has adopted this stance because Garden City is a well

established residential area that is unlikely to go through significant change

in terms of the nature of uses or the type of built form. There are no

development sites that would allow significant new development and the

Heritage Overlay that applies to the area is likely to discourage

intensification of residential development. In other words, with little

prospect of new sensitive uses or the intensification and change to built form,

what purpose would additional planning controls and notice or referral

requirements have in addressing concern with the encroachment of sensitive

uses and potential amenity impacts from the proposed Webb Dock

development?

In relation to traffic and transport issues, the Committee notes that there is

little prospect that port‐related traffic will have a significant impact on

Garden City. However, the PDS has identified opportunities to address

adverse traffic impacts in the wider area, including the potential closure of

the Williamstown Road access and the re‐establishment of the Webb Dock

railway line. It is understood that the Plummer Street link also seeks to

provide a direct link to the freeway network.

The Strand

With respect to The Strand in Williamstown, the greater distance that

separates Webb Dock and The Strand compared to Webb Dock and Garden

City should assist with the reduction of potential amenity impacts of noise

and light spill of the proposed Webb Dock development.

In relation to concerns with visual impact from The Strand, the Committee

notes that residents on The Strand are living in a major capital city close to

Australia’s largest commercial trading port and should therefore accept the

existence and growth potential of the port subject to appropriate

development standards. Further, the Committee notes that there are a

number of examples of recent development on The Strand which have been

designed to capture the views to the Melbourne Skyline, including Webb

Dock.

Similar to Garden City, the Committee is not convinced that introducing new

planning controls and requiring the notice or referral of applications will

provide any significant benefit in protecting the port from the encroachment

of sensitive uses and addressing potential amenity impacts from the port at

this interface.


114


Should the onus be on PoMC to address potential amenity impacts of

the future development of Webb Dock as part of the future planning

and design process?

Is there any significant benefit in introducing additional planning

controls and/or requiring the notice or referral of applications in

Garden City to the PoMC to protect the port from the encroachment of

sensitive uses and to address potential amenity impacts from the

proposed Webb Dock development?

Is there any significant benefit in introducing additional planning

controls and requiring the notice or referral of applications along The

Strand to the PoMC to protect the port from the encroachment of

sensitive uses and to address potential amenity impacts from the

proposed Webb Dock development?

7.3.5 Station Pier with Beacon Cove and Port Melbourne

Background

Station Pier is used as the Melbourne Sea Passenger Terminal and is the only

cruise liner facility in Melbourne. It is estimated that the Pier has over

500,000 local, interstate and overseas visitors per annum, with the peak

season of passenger cruisers occurring between November and April.22 In

addition, the Spirit of Tasmania provides a daily passenger, vehicle and

freight service between Melbourne and Devonport.

Beacon Cove is a residential subdivision constructed from the mid 1990s on

former industrial land that is directly opposite Station Pier. It comprises

approximately 1,100 dwellings in a mixture of low‐rise medium density and

high‐rise housing with a small supermarket, some commercial space, a small

number of cafes, restaurants and a gym.

The main amenity impacts of the operation Station Pier relate to traffic and

transport issues when the Spirit of Tasmania docks at the pier. According to

the City of Port Phillip officers, the main traffic issue relates to the significant

queuing back along Waterfront Place and Beach Street by Spirit of Tasmania

patrons waiting to access the Pier and board the vessel at times of peak

activity in the area. This congestion interrupts the use of the local road

network for residents, the general public, restaurant patrons and emergency

vehicles needing to access Waterfront Place. Access by large trucks to the

22 http://www.portofmelbourne.com/cruiseshipping/stationpier.asp


115

freight yard adjacent to the Pier for the Spirit of Tasmania causes congestion

on the local road network. The processing of these vehicles occurs at the

front gate causing queuing back along Beach Street. The situation is

exacerbated by the growth in cruise ship visitation at Station Pier for five

months over the summer cruise ship season. Parking supply and

management is also an issue.

The PoMC considers any future intensification of non‐port‐related

development in the Station Pier precinct needs to be appropriately balanced

with the current and future operations of Station Pier for cruise ships and the

Tasmanian ferry service.

Figure 10 Station Pier with Beacon Cove


116


Station Pier is not a ‘built‐for‐purpose’ facility for either the Spirit of

Tasmania or cruise ships, so it is not surprising that there are significant

traffic issues associated with the Pier.

However, the traffic congestion issues are an operational matter for Council

rather than issues that can be addressed through the statutory planning

framework. Accordingly, the Committee considers it does not have a role to

play in addressing such issues.

The Committee also considers that Beacon Cove residents should expect a

high level of activity occurring around Station Pier given its historical role as

Melbourne’s shipping passenger terminal. It would not surprise that some

Beacon Cove residents are attracted to the area for this very reason.

With respect to the PoMC’s comments that future intensification of non‐port‐

related development in this precinct is ‘appropriately balanced’, the

Committee notes that such an expectation appears to conflict with other

planning objectives that has seen the development of Beacon Cove with a

mix of high and medium density dwellings.


How should future intensification of non‐port‐related development in

the Station Pier precinct be appropriately balanced with the current and

future operations of Station Pier for cruise ships and the Tasmanian

ferry service?

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

Background

Appleton Dock and Victoria Dock are currently used for general cargo and

PoMC proposes to develop these docks in the short to medium term for

international containers.

South Wharf is used for a range of activities, including break bulk and dry

bulk cargoes, bulk cement imports and ancillary services. The PDS does not

propose any changes occurring at this wharf.

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

and light spill.


117

Lorimer Street and Fishermans Bend were once a major industrial precinct,

however there are now many offices and warehouses, a number of which

appear to have a connection to international trade through the port.

Concern has been raised by the PoMC that the office development is eroding

the Fishermans Bend ‘buffer’, and that any expansion of business zones will

‘seriously damage’ the ability of land use buffering protecting the port. The

PEPF states that additional office development results in higher amenity

expectations which could not be met in proximity to port activities, both

existing and planned. The proposed reconnection of rail to Webb Dock is

also cited as an activity that could cause loss of amenity in this precinct.

In its preliminary submission to the Committee, the City of Melbourne

officers consider that the area will continue to attract more industrial‐related

activities and will intensify its advanced manufacturing and research and

development function, leading to a demand for additional office supply and

businesses in the precinct.

Council officers do not consider it necessary to limit office floor space in the

Business 3 Zone beyond the current provisions in the Melbourne Planning

Scheme. They note that sensitive uses are prohibited or discouraged from

this zone via the planning provisions.

Figure 11 Appleton Dock, Victoria Dock, South Wharf with Lorimer Street and

Fishermans Bend


118


The Committee inspected Appleton Dock, Victoria Dock and South Wharf

and the Lorimer Street and Fishermans Bend precinct and noted the

relatively new office and warehouse development that is occurring in the

area.

In the Committee’s view, such development is improving the built form of

the area and would appear to be providing significant employment

opportunities in accordance with City of Melbourne’s planning objectives to

establish the area as the preferred location for clean, high profile, value‐

added advanced manufacturing. The Advisory Committee notes the

purpose of the Business 3 Zone is To encourage the integrated development of

offices and manufacturing industries and associated commercial and industrial uses.

The Committee does not agree with PoMC’s submission or the PEPF’s

statement that the recent office development is incompatible with current or

future port activities and sees no justification for limiting the floor space of

new buildings or requiring a Design and Development Overlay requiring

buildings to address potential amenity impacts of the port. It notes that,

unlike Coode Island, these parts of the port do not contain major hazard

facilities.

Accordingly, the Committee does not consider the Lorimer Street and

Fishermans Bend precinct need be included in the port environs that should

be subject to any additional planning controls and the requirements for the

notice or referral of applications to the PoMC.


Should Lorimer Street and Fishermans Bend be included in the port

environs given the Business 3 Zone and nature of office and warehouse

development that is occurring in the area?

7.3.7 Victoria Dock with Docklands

Victoria Dock is approximately 21 hectares and the PoMC invested

approximately $10 million in 2002 to prepare the site for future development.

In 2004, the State Government awarded a tender to develop the site to

Westgate Ports.

Westgate Ports is currently developing the site as a freight and logistics

centre, including a 17,500 square metres warehouse with a 50,000 square

metres container hardstand storage area together with a separate 5,400

square metres warehouse.


119

From the 1880s, the Docklands were used for docks, rail infrastructure and

industry but mostly fell out of use following the containerisation of shipping

traffic. The space remained vacant and unused during the 1980s and it fell in

to disrepair.

From the 1990s, a major urban renewal of Melbourne Docklands

commenced, with construction of a moveable roof sports stadium followed

by a number of both commercial and residential high and medium rise

developments.

Docklands is an area extending up to 2 km west of and adjacent to

Melbourneʹs CBD and, according to the 2006 Census, had a population of

3,939.

The brief for the Docklands master plan was for wide open water‐side

promenades and road boulevards with contributions of landscaping and

public art commissions to be made by each developer. It is estimated that the

population of Docklands will reach 20,000 by 2015.

The Victoria Dock and Docklands interface occurs just west of the Bolte

Bridge. It is understood that the Docklands Act 1991 actually includes part of

Victoria Dock east of Bolte Bridge and that, despite the gazettal of this land

as Docklands area, it is owned by the PoMC.

Currently much of the eastern end of Victoria Dock and the outermost

western end of Docklands are undeveloped.

The PEPF states that potential interface issues have been addressed through

the Victoria Dock development assessment process, including a requirement

to assess noise impacts and provide attenuation if required. It further states

that these requirements are complemented with overlay and policy

provisions in the Port of Melbourne Planning Scheme.

It is the PoMC’s understanding that the Docklands area closer to the Bolte

Bridge will include parkland/recreation use, which would reduce potential

adverse amenity impacts from the port.

The PoMC also noted that Docklands has the potential to constrain the Webb

Dock precinct because of concerns of Docklands residents about potential

noise and exhaust emissions, visual impacts, vibrations and boating access.


120

Figure 12 Victoria Dock with Docklands


The development of Docklands to promote inner city high density residential

development has been a major government initiative, notwithstanding the

existence of the Port of Melbourne to the west. It is against this context that

future planning for both Docklands and the port needs to be considered.

Given the Victoria Dock development by Westgate Ports, it would appear

that there is sufficient certainty for VicUrban to prepare future plans having

regard to the port and the parameters set by the Victoria Dock Precinct

Environmental Management Plan January 2001.

The Committee notes that the presence of Bolte Bridge and the associated

traffic noise is a barrier to residential development occurring in close

proximity to Victoria Dock.

Notwithstanding, as Docklands develops further west, an effective working

relationship between VicUrban, City of Melbourne, PoMC, Westgate Ports

and other stakeholders will be essential to resolve development at this

important interface.


121

Further, any proposal to construct the Webb Dock rail connection through

Docklands will require a collaborative planning approach between PoMC

and VicUrban.

Accordingly, the Committee considers there is strong merit in identifying the

western part of Docklands as a port environs area that should be subject to

additional planning controls particularly relating to siting and design

requirements to reduce the potential impacts of the activities occurring at

Victoria Dock. Notice and referral of applications to the PoMC would also

appear to be appropriate.


Should the western part of Docklands be included in the port environs

and be subject to additional planning controls to take account of the

potential amenity impacts of Victoria Dock?;

Should applications within the port environs be subject to notice or

referral to the PoMC?

Are there other mechanisms that should be developed to ensure an

effective working relationship between VicUrban, City of Melbourne,

PoMC and Westgate Ports as Docklands develops further westwards?

7.3.8 Holden Dock with Francis Street, Yarraville

Background

Holden Dock is used for the storage and transfer of refined petroleum

products. The Port’s PDS states that this dock will be used for bulk liquid

products stored in large tanks for the long‐term.

It is understood there is widespread concern about the potential

environmental and community safety impacts of any incident occurring at

this location. Concern about such incidents was recently highlighted with

the petroleum spill at the Mobil oil refinery in Millers Road, Altona on 9

February 2010.

As well as concern about environmental risk and community safety, there is

significant concern in this precinct in relation to high traffic volumes of

heavy vehicles using Francis Street.

The Committee notes that a Mixed Use Zone applies west of the Holden

Dock precinct on the western side of Hyde Street. This area contains a

number of dwellings.


122

Further, the Committee notes that the Maribyrnong Planning Scheme

includes an objective to encourage the transition in this area from residential

to non‐residential activity in the long term. It is anticipated that this precinct

will be rezoned Industrial 3 in the future.23

PoMC notes that in Spotswood residential development is located in close

proximity to the oil terminals which are connected by pipeline to Holden

Dock. Further, residential development is contrary to the industrial buffer

objectives in Clause 17.03 of the planning scheme and would erode the

ongoing viability of these uses.

23 Clause 22.02-3 of the Maribyrnong Planning Scheme


123

Figure 13 Holden Dock with Francis Street, Yarraville


124


Given the location of the refined petroleum products in close proximity to

the Mixed Use Zone and the existence of a number of dwellings, this area

should be included in the port environs.

While the Maribyrnong Planning Scheme encourages non‐residential uses in

this area and aims to eventually rezone the land to Industrial 3, it may be

prudent to consider rezoning this land to Industrial 3 in the short‐term.

Rezoning the land to Industrial 3 would be the most effective response to

prohibiting further sensitive uses from encroachment at this interface.

Further, consideration should be given as to whether an overlay should be

introduced that requires development at this interface to take account of the

storage of refined petroleum products as well as to whether notice or referral

of applications to PoMC should occur.

It is understood that there is strong local community concern in relation to

transport and traffic issues in this precinct. In response, VicRoads has

developed the Truck Action Plan which aims to reduce truck traffic on the

residential streets and improve freight access from the west to the Port of

Melbourne. In the Committee’s view, traffic concerns will be more

effectively addressed through such measures than any additional controls in

the statutory planning framework.


Should the Mixed Use Zone applying to the land on the west side of

Hyde Street in the Holden Dock precinct be included in the port

environs?

Should the land zoned Mixed Use be rezoned to Industrial 3 in the

short‐term as the most effective buffer treatment because that zoning

prohibits sensitive uses?

Should an overlay be introduced that requires development to take

account of the storage of refined petroleum products?

Should there be a requirement for the notice or referral of applications

to PoMC?


125

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

Background

The PDS states that the Ann Street Pier in Williamstown is currently used for

the storage and mooring of marine equipment, such as tugs, barges,

pontoons, workboats and survey vessels and there are no proposed change

to these activities.

The PDS also states that the Gellibrand Pier will be retained for liquid bulk

(crude oil) pack type and Breakwater Pier will be retained to ensure the

security and safety of the adjacent Gellibrand Pier. The crude oil tanks

(Mobil Oil) are a MHF.

It is noted that the Port of Melbourne Planning Scheme includes a notation

on the plan at Clause 21.03 that states Increase capacity for liquid bulk berth.

Breakwater Pier is identified as a strategic port asset for use as a future liquid

bulk berth or for special purposes such as visiting naval ships, vessel lay‐up

and large plant storage.

BAE Systems is located on the north side of Nelson Place between Gellibrand

Pier and Ann Street Pier opposite the former Port Phillip Woollen Mill site.

The PoMC notes that a threshold distance of 300 metres is required between

the site and sensitive land uses. The PoMC considers that future uses

adjacent and opposite Gellibrand Pier need to be carefully considered and

any rezoning of existing industrial land would erode the buffer to more

sensitive land uses.

In its Industrial Land Use Management Strategy 2008, the City of Hobsons Bay

has identified the former Port Phillip Woollen Mill site at the corner of

Nelson Place and Kanowna Street as a ‘strategic redevelopment site’, and has

a preference that it be developed for residential purposes. Accordingly,

Council considers that retention of an industrial zone as proposed in the

PEPF is not appropriate and that measures other than a traditional distance

buffer should be considered.

Council is also concerned that retaining the site in an industrial zone does

not address the interface to existing residential properties to the south and

that leaving the site in an industrial zone may render its use and

development impossible and result in urban blight. However, Council is

concerned with high density residential development of this site and in


126

December 2009 refused to adopt proposed Amendment C75 which would

have facilitated a 12 storey residential development.

At the time of writing, the Committee was informed that the Minister for

Planning has approved Amendment C75 which rezones the Woollen Mill site

to Residential 1 and applied an Environmental Audit Overlay. The Minister

has also appointed an Advisory Committee to provide:

An assessment of the suitability of the proposed redevelopment of the

site;

An assessment of relevant planning issues relating to the proposed

developments; and

An assessment of the planning scheme Design and Development

Overlay and Heritage Overlay, and if necessary, recommendations as to

any changes to the proposed controls.

Figure 14 Ann Street Pier, Gellibrand Pier and Breakwater Pier with former Port Phillip

Woollen Mill (Williamstown)


127


Given the interface between the Mobil Oil tanks, the port activities at the

three piers and BAE Systems and the industrial areas on the south side of

Nelson Place that are subject to pressure to rezoning to allow sensitive uses,

it is appropriate to include these areas in the port environs.

While Council has its own strategic planning reasons for supporting a

potential residential development on the former Port Phillip Woollen Mills

site, the Committee has observed that the BAE Systems building fronting

Nelson Place is a substantial building that provides a significant barrier

between the industrial activities occurring behind this building and south of

Nelson Place. In the Committee’s view, this could provide some justification

to allow sensitive uses such as residential development to be considered for

the site. However, the Committee acknowledges there is no obligation of the

site’s owners to retain this building to screen operations.

Any proposal to redevelop the Woollen Mills site for residential purposes

would need to be sited and designed to avoid potential adverse amenity

impacts. Accordingly, the Committee considers that there is a case to be

made for a site‐specific overlay to be introduced for this site that would

specifically address potential impacts from the port area and for a

requirement for notice or referral of applications to the PoMC.

Finally, the Committee notes that the former Woollen Mill site appears to be

just outside the 300 metre buffer distance for petroleum storage under Clause

52.10. If this is the case, this would also provide some justification for a

residential development to be considered.


Should the former Port Phillip Woollen Mills site and other industrial

zoned land south of Nelson Place be included in the port environs?

Is there scope for appropriate residential development to be approved

on the former Port Phillip Woollen Mills site given the substantial

barrier provided by the BAE Systems building and operations to the

north and the distance of the site from the MHF (Mobil Oil tanks)?

Should an overlay to require a design response that would mitigate

potential amenity impacts from the port area be introduced on the

former Port Phillip Woollen Mills site?

Should there be a requirement for the notice or referral of applications

in the current industrial zoned land to the PoMC?


128

7.4 Conclusion

As can be seen from the preceding analysis, there is a variety of land uses

and developments and planning objectives and controls that apply to land at

the different interfaces with the Port of Melbourne. It is because of the

variety of land uses at these interfaces that a site specific response is required

to identifying whether the area under investigation should be included

within the port environs. This response could be additional planning

controls and/or whether applications at these interfaces should be subject to

the notice and referral requirements of Clause 66.10 of the VPPs.

7.5 Port of Hastings

Background

The Port of Hastings is located to the south‐east of Melbourne in the Shire of

Mornington Peninsula. The total amount of land included in the Special Use

Zone 1 (SUZ1) for port‐related purposes is approximately 3,500 hectares.

However, current port and port‐related activities cover a relatively small area

and much of the land in the SUZ1 is currently not used or developed for

port‐related purposes.

The Port of Hastings Land Use and Transport Strategy (PLUTS) identifies three

precincts of the port. The future planning is summarised as follows:

Long Island precinct – will be significantly developed for container and

multi‐purpose trade;

Crib Point ‐ will continue to be used as a liquid berthing facility,

however not all land may be required and scope exists for community,

recreational and environmental uses for this area; and

Stony Point ‐ is expected to become available for community, tourism

and recreational uses, including a continuation of passenger ferry

services and potentially a car ferry service to Phillip Island.

The Port and SUZ1 is surrounded by extensive rural, rural living and public

use land as well as Western Port. In contrast to the Port of Melbourne, the

encroachment of sensitive uses into the port environs has not given rise to

the same level of concern.

Further, the storage of hazardous materials on the former Esso land

accommodating the tanks and the fractionation plant in the Long Island

precinct is located a considerable distance from any sensitive uses including

the Hastings township.


129

The Port of Hastings commissioned a report to review existing development,

land tenure, planning studies and planning provisions to determine the

planning controls required to facilitate Stage 1 of the proposed Long Island

development and recommends a specific zoning control be introduced.24

The Shire of Mornington Peninsula supports the development of the

Hastings Port, however considers there are critical environmental, social and

economic questions which need to be addressed. Local community groups

have also identified the need to protect the sensitive coastal environment.

In terms of the PLUTS, Council notes that it focuses primarily on the land

required for the establishment of a port facility and associated transport

infrastructure, which is in the order of 300 hectares. However,

approximately 3,500 hectares is contained within the SUZ1 zone and the

Strategy does not contain any substantive review of the extent of land

required for port‐related purposes and the appropriate boundaries.

Accordingly, Council considers that it would be inappropriate to apply the

proposed zone for the Long Island precinct as a replacement for the SUZ1

that currently applies over all the port purposes land. In addition, Council

considers the transfer of planning authority to a specialist port agency would

risk a less balanced approach to decision‐making.


The major challenge for the Port of Hastings will be to develop as

Melbourne’s second commercial trading port in a manner that will result in

appropriate co‐existence with surrounding and adjoining land uses,

including the internationally significant coastal environs.

A further challenge will be to develop the road and rail linkages and ensure

these corridors will not have an unreasonable adverse impact on adjoining

residential areas and sensitive uses. It may be appropriate for relevant

authorities to investigate applying a DDO along these transport corridors to

protect sensitive uses similar to DDO1 in the Hume Planning Scheme.

Given that the Port of Hastings is largely undeveloped, there is a significant

opportunity to ensure that land identified for port and port‐related

development areas currently in the SUZ1 are planned to adequately address

amenity and risk impacts. In the Committee’s view, this will require a

collaborative approach involving relevant stakeholders including the port

24 Port of Hastings Stage One Scoping Land Use Planning Assessment Review, AECOM, June 2009


130

manager, relevant government departments and agencies, Council and the

local community.

The Committee supports Council officers’ comments that it would be

appropriate for the port authority to undertake a review as to whether the

3,500 hectares of land will be necessary in the long‐term for port and port‐

related uses. The Committee notes that total land area of Port of Melbourne

Port is approximately 510 hectares.

At this stage, the Committee does not consider there is a need to identify any

port environs areas that require an interface treatment. However, interface

issues will need to be an integral element of further planning and

development.

Responses to other issues raised by Council concerning the zoning of the

land and the role of the Minister for Planning are made in Chapters 11 and 12

in this report.


Is there a need for a study that reviews the extent and boundaries of

land for port and port‐related purposes before the port environs can be

identified?

Should there be an investigation whether a DDO along the proposed

transport corridors to the Port of Hastings similar to the DDO1 in the

Hume Planning Scheme be undertaken to protect sensitive uses along

these transport corridors?

7.6 Port of Geelong

The Port of Geelong has a number of sensitive interfaces, including:

North Shore residential area with Incitec Pivot and Midway;

Norlane residential area with industrial land east of Station Street;

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

Proposed Geelong marine industrial project, Osborne Park, Osborne

House, and the Rippleside residential area with ‘port area of interest’

land; and

Geelong Grammar School with Shell Refinery.

While the Point Henry Alcoa aluminium smelter is also identified as part of

the ‘port area of interest’, the Port of Geelong Land Use Strategy (PLUS) does

not identify any interface issues between Point Henry and surrounding


131

areas. The Committee agrees with this view given that the interface areas are

Cheetham Salt Works and land within the Farming Zone.

As noted in Section 5.4.7, the Committee considers that the Geelong Port

Structure Plan prepared by Greater Geelong City Council has provided a

useful framework which has assisted the Committee identify the key

interface issues at this port.

7.6.1 North Shore residential area with Incitec Pivot and Midway

Background

North Shore is a long‐established residential enclave of about 200 dwellings

within the ‘port area of interest’ and has two major industrial neighbours ‐

Incitec Pivot to the north and Midway to the south. Incitec Pivot stores and

mixes fertilisers and it is understood that the company ceases operations

when there is an easterly breeze to prevent emissions blowing over North

Shore. Midway operates a woodchip facility.

Both GeelongPort and the City of Greater Geelong readily concede that a

residential development in such close proximity to a major port would not be

contemplated under contemporary planning practice. However, both parties

also concede that North Shore is a well‐established residential area and

highly sought after given its location to the Geelong CBD and views across

Corio Bay to the Geelong CBD skyline. There are no proposals to rezone

North Shore from its current residential zoning.

On its tour of the port and surrounding areas, the Committee observed that

North Shore contains a mix of older dwellings and more recent medium

density housing developments.

The PLUS recommends a specific local plan be developed to protect local

amenity for North Shore.

Council’s Geelong Port Structure Plan includes a number of suggestions to

address the impacts of the port and port‐related activities on North Shore,

including:

Discourage further development of privately owned sites on the south

side of Sea Breeze Parade, and Incitec Pivot purchase the remaining

dwellings to augment the role of the buffer;

Maintain and enhance the Incitec Pivot landscape buffer on the south

side of Sea Breeze Parade;


132

Maintain a low intensity housing development acknowledging the

ongoing incompatibility between industrial and residential uses; and

Work with the North Shore community in partnership with relevant

government departments and agencies and GeelongPort to develop a

comprehensive buffer strategy and development plan for the North

Shore residential area.

GeelongPort advised that there is a North Shore community reference group,

which provides an opportunity to raise issues of mutual concern.

The North Shore Residents Group advised that it has a good working

relationship with GeelongPort. The Group accepts that residents should not

expect the same level of amenity that would be appropriate in greenfield

situations. It considers there are opportunities to acquire land and establish

land buffers on the fringes of the residential area. The Group also considers

there should be no high rise residential development that could result in

increased conflict between the port and future residents. The Group also

noted that the construction of the ‘port bypass’ road has been significant in

reducing amenity and safety concerns.

Figure 15 North Shore with Port of Geelong Area of Interest Land


133


Given the location of North Shore between the northern and southern

precincts of the general port area, it has a direct interface and should be

included in the port environs area.

The most sensitive interface is to the north at Sea Breeze Parade. This road

appears to carry significant volumes of heavy vehicle traffic that access the

Incitec Pivot plant which is located on the north side of this road.

To reduce the adverse impacts of its operations on North Shore, it is

understood that Incitec Pivot have purchased all but one of the residential

allotments on the south side of Sea Breeze Parade and that it has removed all

the houses except one. Accordingly, there are only two houses remaining on

this side of the street.

It would appear there is an opportunity to formalise this landscape buffer by

introducing a planning control that would prohibit any further development

and by creating a landscape plan that would provide more effective

buffering to the residential properties to the south.

Development could be prohibited by introducing an alternative zone such as

Public Park and Recreation Zone or by preparing a site specific control under

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

prohibit all development.

An alternative option could be to encourage a development on the south side

of Sea Breeze Parade that would provide a built form element reducing the

amenity impacts to the south. However, any such development would be

constrained by the residential zoning that currently applies to the land.

There may also be opportunities for more substantial landscaping on the

north side of Sea Breeze Parade within the Incitec Pivot site.

In addition to these measures, the Committee notes that strong potential

exists for future development to occur in the area. As a result, it may be

appropriate for additional planning controls to apply in North Shore which

limits further intensification of residential development and height of

development. This could be achieved by preparing a purpose‐specific

overlay.

Consideration should also be given to requiring applications for use and

development to be subject to notice and referral to GeelongPort as a means

for the port manager to keep abreast of developments and ensure their views

are considered.


134


Should North Shore be included in the port environs?

Should a planning control be introduced which prohibits any further

development on the residential zoned land on the south side of Sea

Breeze Parade?

Should a development on the south side of Sea Breeze Parade be

encouraged to provide a built form element to protect the amenity of

the area to the south?

Should a more detailed landscape plan be prepared and implemented

which provides better protection of the residential area to the south?

Should a planning control be introduced which limits the density and

height of residential development in North Shore?

Should applications for use and development be subject to the notice

and referral requirements to GeelongPort pursuant to Clause 66.10 of

the VPPs?

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

Background

Norlane is a long‐established residential area located to the north and west of

the port. Norlane’s housing was mainly constructed for workers of the port

and industrial areas of Geelong, including Ford, in the 1950s and 1960s.

Norlane is separated from an industrial area to the west by Station Street.

While this industrial area is included in ‘port area of interest area’ in the

PLUS and within the Geelong Port Structure Plan area prepared by Council,

the Committee notes it is a considerable distance from the core port activities

occurring closer to the foreshore.

The PLUS notes that while the Shell Refinery and Terminals Pty Ltd have

substantial buffers, they remain a concern to members of the Norlane

community. It further notes that new land use proposals within the ‘port

area of interest’ can present interface issues. It is also suggested that siting

and design guidelines may be appropriate for industrial development at the

interface.

Council’s Geelong Port Structure Plan includes a general objective to reduce

the amenity conflicts between existing industrial and port uses and nearby

residential areas.


135

In addition, there is a notation on the Lascelles precinct plan that states that

the land between Station Street and the Melbourne‐Geelong railway line

should be rezoned from Industrial 2 to Industrial 3 as part of the Norlane

Redevelopment Project.25

The Geelong Port Structure Plan states that the Port of Geelong includes the

use, storage and manufacture of products that have health and safety

impacts on the local community. The Structure Plan includes two principles

to manage this issue, namely:

· To promote the growth and development of Geelong Port that

supports the health and wellbeing of the Geelong community,

consistent with the principles of Council’s Strategic Health Plan.

· To ensure future use and development within core Port industry and

Port use areas require the preparation and maintenance of plans to

appropriately manage risks from off site impacts to the local

community and environment.

Presentations by representatives of the Community for Good Life and

Geelong Environment Council were made to the Committee regarding the

potential health impacts associated with the storage of petroleum, fertilisers

and chemicals, particularly butadiene, at the Port of Geelong.

Figure 16 Norlane with Industrial Area to the West

25 It is understood that the project referred to in the Structure Plan is the Norlane and Corio Urban

Renewal Project.


136


There is a considerable distance between the main port activities near or at

the foreshore and the Norlane residential area. However, there is a direct

interface between the industrial zoned area on the east side of Station Street

and the residential area on the west side.

From the Committee’s observations, a number of the industrial lots on the

east side of Station Street are vacant and many of the industries appear to be

local service industries that have little or no connection with the port.

The Committee notes that the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme already

includes this industrial zoned land in DDO20, which requires all

development to comply with design objectives relating to visual appearance,

amenity, setbacks, architectural interest and landscaping. These

requirements address potential amenity impacts from industrial

developments, whether or not they are associated with the port.

The Committee considers Council’s recommendation that the land between

Station Street and the Melbourne‐Geelong railway line be rezoned to

Industrial 3 is an appropriate response to address the interface with Norlane.

Should the Committee’s recommendation that a Port Zone be introduced for

the ports be supported, a schedule could be developed for application in this

area that that could restrict uses similar to the Industrial 3 zone.

In the Committee’s view, the proposal to rezone the land between Station

Street and the Melbourne‐Geelong Railway Line to Industrial 3 and the

existing requirements in DDO20 provide an appropriate treatment at this

interface and that further planning tools are not required to protect Norlane.

The Committee also sees little benefit in identifying Norlane as a port

environs area in order to protect the port or industrial area from the

encroachment of sensitive uses. Norlane is a long‐established area, and

while it is subject to a State Government urban renewal project, it is unlikely

to go through substantial change in terms of intensification of residential

development or high‐rise built form.

In response to the concerns about health impacts of hazardous materials at

the Port of Geelong, the Committee believes its role is limited to considering

the threshold distances in Clause 52.10 of the VPPs in order to determine the

port environs. The Committee does not consider it has a role in assessing the

adequacy of the threshold distances, the performance of these industries or

the performance of the EPA and other agencies in assessing the performance

of the industries.


137


Would the proposal to rezone the land between Station Street and the

Melbourne‐Geelong Railway Line from Industrial 2 to Industrial 3 as

well as the existing DDO20 that requires new industrial development to

address potential amenity impacts provide an adequate interface

treatment to Norlane?

Should Norlane, particularly the properties on the west side of Station

Street, be included in the port environs in order to protect the port and

industrial areas from the encroachment of sensitive uses?

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

Background

The former Ford site is located south of the existing Ford site fronting Princes

Highway, to the west of the ‘port area of interest’ land.

In 2006 an Amendment to rezone the site from Industrial 1 to

Comprehensive Development Zone (CDZ) was proposed to facilitate a bulky

goods retail development. The Amendment was strongly opposed by

GeelongPort. The Amendment was referred to a Panel that recommended it

be abandoned for a number of reasons including that the site should be seen

as an opportunity for further development of the port.

With respect to the site’s location to the port, the Panel found that:26

The Port of Geelong is major infrastructure of State significance. The

Greater Geelong Planning Scheme recognises this. The Planning

Scheme also recognises opportunities for retail growth and development,

but these should not compromise higher order objectives. The Panel

considers the clear objectives about the port are of a higher order and

should remain so.

GeelongPort consider the Amendment would have eroded the land that is

available for port‐related uses potentially constraining growth and current

operations.

The Department of Innovation, Industry and Regional Development (DIIRD)

also expressed a concern that the loss of the former Ford site from a port‐

related use would have an adverse economic outcome, because it would be a

lost opportunity for a major firm to establish an efficient supply chain

management system.

26 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C98 Panel Report, page 5


138

Council’s Structure Plan contains an objective that industrial and other

permitted uses along Princes Highway should provide visual interest and

not conflict with port operations and it includes a notation on the Corio Quay

precinct plan that a DDO be applied over the site for ‘highway interactive

uses and buildings’.

Further, Council has proposed a DDO to apply on all the land between

Princes Highway and Corio Quay Road south of North Shore Road,

including the former Ford site, as part of the Amendment it requested in

December 2009. The purpose of this Overlay is to ensure a higher standard

of design of development in this gateway precinct.

Figure 17 Former Ford site with Port of Geelong Area of Interest land


While the former Ford site should be considered as part of the wider port

precinct given its location on the east side of Princes Highway and its

industrial zoning, the Committee notes that there are some constraints for

setting aside the site exclusively for port‐related uses.

First, the site has no direct access to the port area, as the Melbourne‐Geelong

railway line runs directly to the east the site. Access to the site is only


139

available from Princes Highway. Any infrastructure to connect the site to the

other side of the railway line would be at a considerable cost.27

Second, in response to DIIRD’s concern about the economic importance of

establishing port‐related uses near the port, the Committee observes that

there is a significant amount of vacant and under utilised land in the port

area that could be developed for port‐related uses, including land closer to

the dock areas.

Notwithstanding these concerns, the Committee notes the very strong views

expressed by GeelongPort and DIIRD about retaining the site in the port

environs, and that Council’s key concern is not about the use of the site but

about the quality of the development.


Should the former Ford site be confined to a port‐related use and

continue to be identified within the ‘port area of interest’ given the

site’s gateway location into Geelong and the lack of direct access to the

port area?

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

Background

The proposed Geelong marine industry project is to be located on the former

power station site, located within the wider port area south of the GrainCorp

site. This project proposes to offer facilities for boat‐manufacturing,

maintenance and repairs, storage and slip/lift facilities.

Further south is Osborne Park which contains Osborne House, a Victorian

era homestead currently occupied by the Geelong Maritime Museum. South

of Osborne Park is the Rippleside residential area.

The PLUS states that the proposed Geelong marine industry project is a

suitable land use transition between the port and the residential area to the

south, however it also states that the existing industrial zone applying to the

site should be retained.

27 It is noted that the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C98 Panel Report referred to a

Connell Wagner report that estimated that the cost of a two lane bridge was $2.5m.


140

GeelongPort is concerned that any potential tourist accommodation within

the marine industry project would be an encroachment of a sensitive use,

and that may affect what could occur on port‐related land.

Others stakeholders including the Victorian Regional Channel Authority and

DIIRD also questioned the wisdom of allowing accommodation in the

marine industry project.

Council’s Structure Plan acknowledges the need to address the interface

between the port and surrounding area, and recommends that:

Applying a Special Use Zone to the marine industry project and

Osborne Park to provide an appropriate interface to ensure future use

and development does not detrimentally affect the port;

Retention of existing industrial zones in Mackey Street;

Ensuring the entire 300 metre Barrett Burston buffer is within an

industrial zone (involves extending IN1 south by approximately 12

metres); and

Limiting residential/accommodation use to Osborne House, and

ensuring design of accommodation components consider potential

impacts from the port and port‐related activities.


141

Figure 18 Marine Industry Project and Ripponlea with Port of Geelong Port Area of

Interest land


142


Other than the concern with proposing tourist accommodation in the

proposed marine industry project, it appears that GeelongPort considers the

project would be an acceptable land use transition between the port area and

non‐port uses.

In response to GeelongPort’s comment that it may be appropriate to retain an

industrial zone over the proposed project site, the Committee considers that

such a zone may be too restrictive and that either the proposed Port Zone

with an appropriate schedule or a Special Use Zone specifically tailored for

the development would be more appropriate.

The Committee does not have a major concern with promoting tourist, short‐

term accommodation in the proposed development on the basis that such

accommodation does not generate the same amenity expectations associated

with permanent accommodation.


Is the proposed Geelong marine industry project a suitable land use

transition between the Port and other uses?

Should the proposed Geelong marine industry project site be retained

within the Industrial 1 Zone, or rezoned to the proposed Port Zone with

an appropriate schedule or rezoned to a specifically tailored Special Use

Zone?

Should tourist accommodation be prohibited within the marine

industry project to ensure there is no impact on the port or port‐related

uses?

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

Background

Geelong Grammar School is located to the immediate north of the port area

that is currently zoned Industrial 2.

The PLUS does not make any specific recommendations about the interface

with the school. However, there are general recommendations about

retaining all industrial zoned land within the ‘port area of interest’.

Council’s Geelong Port Structure Plan contains an objective that any

applications for use and development in the Refinery Pier precinct should be

assessed having particular regard to nearby sensitive land uses, including the


143

school. The Structure Plan also includes a notation on a map “to maintain

visual and amenity between Shell and Geelong Grammar”.28

It is also recommended that the school site should be rezoned from Farming

to Special Use to better identify and clarify the sensitive use of this land.

Geelong Grammar representatives advised the Committee that the existing

buffer area between Shell Refinery and the school was an important

mechanism to provide a safe environment for its students. They considered

there could be an improvement to the traffic management of the area, and

that more investment on rail would be an important contributor to reducing

potential conflict between port‐related traffic and school generated traffic.

They also preferred Council to remain the responsible authority for the Port

of Geelong because they considered Council would be more likely to give

greater weight to local issues.

28 Refer to Map 2, page 18


144

Figure 19 Shell Refinery with Geelong Grammar School


145


Given the School’s location near the port, the school site should be included

in the port environs. On this basis it should be subject to a planning control

to ensure future use and development does not have an impact on the port

and port‐related activities, and that applications for use and development are

subject to notice and referral to GeelongPort.

However, the Committee notes that the school is well aware of the existence

of the port and does not propose to construct new buildings closer to the

port.

Instead of an additional planning control, an appropriate course of action

could be for the school to prepare a master plan for the site and for it to be

incorporated into the planning scheme. With such an approach, all parties

including the GeelongPort and other port stakeholders such as Shell would

have a very clear understanding of the future development of the school site.

Any significant variation to develop outside the parameters of the master

plan would trigger a planning scheme amendment and public notice.

It may also be appropriate that the school consider applying for a Special Use

Zone as an outcome of a master plan for the site.


Should Geelong Grammar School be included in the port environs?

Should a planning control be introduced to ensure future use and

development on the school site does not have an impact on the port and

port‐related activities?

Should applications for use and development on the school site be

subject to notice and referral to GeelongPort?

Should the school be encouraged to develop a master plan involving

stakeholders including GeelongPort and Shell for the site that could be

incorporated into the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme?


146

7.7 Port of Portland

Background

The Port of Portland has one main sensitive interface, which is the residential

land to the south of the main port area and west of Incitec Pivot.

This interface features a steep escarpment that would reduce some adverse

amenity impacts of port activities on the residents.

Main adverse amenity impacts from the port are noise, dust, odour and light

spill. Problems of odour have occurred from the Incitec Pivot site, and there

is a requirement of the EPA Works Approval for the plant to be closed when

there is an easterly breeze.

In 2008, the Minister for Planning approved Amendment C39 that facilitated

expansion of the woodchip storage and handling facilities at the port. The

Amendment was approved subject to an Environmental Management Plan

being incorporated into the Glenelg Planning Scheme which contains

requirements relating to construction noise and vibration, road traffic noise,

operational noise, air emissions and traffic.

There are also concerns with the impact of port‐related traffic noise on

residential properties, particularly along the Ring Road and Madeira Packet

Road which both serve as major transport corridors to the port. The Port of

Portland expressed strong concerns that any restrictions on the transport

corridors to the port could have a significant impact on the port’s potential to

grow.

Some of the Port’s concerns were addressed with the rezoning of parcels of

land from residential to industrial near Madeira Packet Road with the

approval of Amendment C40 in May 2009.

The PLUS does not contain any specific recommendations to address the

interface between the port and the residential area to the south. However, it

is recommended that the port manager implement an internal review process

to ensure that land use changes within the port consider potential impacts on

adjoining land uses. It is also recommended that the port manager should

work with Glenelg Shire Council and DOT to prepare a detailed buffer

strategy to address interface issues between the port and adjoining land uses.

Council considers that scope exists at the port to mitigate adverse amenity

impacts, and supports the proposal for a detailed buffer strategy.


147

The PLUS also contains a recommendation that the Canal Court precinct be

included in the Special Use Zone to ensure that the Zone is consistent with

the existing SUZ4 and port‐related purposes.

Figure 20 Port of Portland with South Portland


148


The Committee agrees that the residential area south of the port and east of

Incitec Pivot should be included in the port environs. This area includes land

bound by Henty Highway to the north, Madeira Packet Road to the east,

Wellington Road to the west and Edgar Street to the south.

Given the size of this area and the potential for further development, the

Committee considers there is merit in introducing a planning control that

requires development to be sited and designed to reduce potential amenity

impacts from the port and Incitec Pivot and for applications to be subject to

the notice or referral requirements of Clause 66.10.

The Committee agrees with the Port of Portland’s comments that restrictions

on the use of Ring Road and Madeira Packet Road as a result of concerns

raised by residents regarding traffic noise could have a significant impact on

the port’s growth opportunities. Accordingly, the Committee considers that

an overlay that required new development to be sited and designed to

reduce the impact of traffic noise similar to the DDO1 in the Hume Planning

Scheme is worthy of investigation.

Given the port manager owns Canal Court and it is identified in the PLUS as

required for port‐related uses, it would appear appropriate that it be

considered for inclusion within the port area and subject to the proposed

Port Zone recommended by this Committee.

Key issues for further consideration

Should the residential area to the south of the port and east of Incitec

Pivot and bounded by Henty Highway to the north, Madeira Packet

Road to the east, Wellington Road to the west and Edgar Road to the

south be included in the port environs?

Should a planning control that requires development to be sited and

designed to reduce potential amenity impacts from the port be

introduced?

Should applications for use and development be subject to the notice or

referral requirements of Clause 66?

Should Canal Court be included in the proposed Port Zone

recommended by the Committee?

Should an overlay along the main transport corridors adjacent to

residential areas be introduced to require development to be sited and

designed to reduce the impact of traffic noise?


149

Part D – Planning Framework


150

8. State Planning Policy Framework

8.1 Introduction

The terms of reference require the Advisory Committee to:

Make recommendations that would protect the ports from the

encroachment of sensitive uses through the use of appropriate planning

policy and applications of the Victoria Planning Provisions (Advisory

Committee emphasis)

The starting point for assessing any planning proposal is to determine

whether or not that proposal can be justified strategically. In making any

assessment the overriding strategic context is found in the State Planning

Policy Framework (SPPF) which is common to all planning schemes in

Victoria. It is this section of the planning scheme which sets out relevant

policies of the State. The SPPF provides for ports specifically under Clause

12.04‐2 Transport and freight and Clause 18 Infrastructure.

Under Clause 12.04‐2, ports are referred to where it is stated that key

transport and freight links are encouraged to develop as the nation’s premier

logistics centre through protecting options for access to, and future

development at ports and by ensuring port areas are protected by adequate

buffers to minimize land‐use conflict.

Clause 18 deals with a range of infrastructure items including (in order):

Declared highways, railways and tramways;

Car parking and public transport access to development;

Bicycle transport;

Airfields;

Ports;

Health facilities;

Education facilities;

Survey infrastructure;

Water supply, sewerage and drainage;

Waste management;

High pressure pipelines;

Developer contributions to infrastructure; and


151

Telecommunications.

Within this Clause sub‐clause 18.05 Ports has two objectives as follows:

· To recognise the importance to Victoria of economically sustainable

major ports (Melbourne, Geelong, Portland, Hastings) by planning

for appropriate access, terminal areas and depot areas.

· To plan the land resources adjacent to ports to facilitate the efficient

operation of the port and port‐related uses and minimise adverse

impacts on surrounding urban development and the environment.

In addition Melbourne 2030, a reference document in the SPPF, proposed the

strengthening of the State’s ports as one of its key initiatives and it noted that

the ports and their associated rail and road networks are crucial elements of

the State’s competitive capability.

In this regard Initiative 4.3.2 stated:

Protect options for access to, and future development at, the ports of

Melbourne, Geelong and Hastings, and ensure all port areas are

protected by adequate buffer areas to prevent land‐use conflicts at the

perimeter. *

*Portland was beyond the scope of Melbourne 2030.

Melbourne 2030 clearly recognized the importance of the ports as key drivers

of the State’s economy and the role they play in shaping the State and

national freight networks. Ports handle over 99% of Victoria’s international

import and export trade valued at over $100 billion annually and they

contribute 15,000 direct jobs.

Despite the general support given to port development and buffer

requirements in the SPPF, the PEPF called for the SPPF to be strengthened to

give greater support to the two way amenity impacts for development in

areas close to the port. In this regard it recommended the SPPF provide:

· policy statements that identify the need to apply a two way approach

to managing land use change within the port and its environs, with

the aim of protecting existing and future port operations and the

safety, amenity and environmental qualities of surrounding

communities; and

· policies that seek to protect the port from encroachment from

residential and other sensitive uses by expanding the scope to cover

commercial development and other inappropriate land uses for which

amenity expectations cannot necessarily be met in the port environs.


152


While ports are a strategically vital element of the State’s infrastructure, the

Committee believes that their importance to the State’s economy, as well as

that of the nation and the local areas within which the ports are located,

appears somewhat understated in the SPPF. Ports are referred to in a clause

dealing with matters of lesser significance to the State such as car parking,

bicycle transport and developer contributions. Further, reference to port

access and buffering under a separate and less transparent clause has the

impact of diffusing important policy which would be given greater impact if

placed under a specific clause relating to ports.

The first objective in Cause 18.05 begs the question ‘What is the importance

of the ports to Victoria?’ The Advisory Committee can see no reason why

Clause 18.05 could not be expanded upon to give context to this objective.

The Committee notes that the VPPs require statements of environmental

significance when controlling land that is of environmental importance.

However, no such statements exist where land is of economic significance

other than paragraphs that might be hidden away in a Municipal Strategic

Statement (or Port Strategic Statement in the case of the Port of Melbourne).

The second objective in Clause 18.05, while under the heading of ports, refers

to planning for land adjacent to ports. This raises the question ‘Why would a

responsible authority making a decision on land adjacent to a port refer to a

provision in its planning scheme relating to ports?’

The Advisory Committee has noted that a current departmental review has

led to the release of a revised version of the SPPF for discussion purposes.

The revision has modified the existing arrangement of Clauses which have

an ‘objective’ followed by ‘general implementation’ and ‘geographic

strategies’ sub‐clauses to have an ‘objective‘ followed by ‘strategies’ and

‘policy guidelines’ sub‐clauses.

This revision has placed all policy relating to ports in a revised Clause 18.06

Transport. In the Committee’s opinion ports in this revised SPPF are now

coupled more appropriately with Integrated transport, Movement networks,

Airfields and Freight.

In this version of the SPPF the two existing objectives have been split with

the result that a new Clause 18.06‐1 relates to planning for ports and a new

Clause 18.6‐2 relates to planning for land adjoining ports. Being a ‘policy‐

neutral’ revision, the wording of the objectives has not changed and the


153

strategies under each sub‐clause simply replace what is currently found in

the SPPF.

However the revised SPPF provisions appear more logically formatted and

by splitting the objectives and creating the specific sub‐clause 18.06‐2

Planning for land adjoining ports, they give slightly enhanced emphasis and

transparency to the need for decisions regarding land adjoining ports to take

into account possible impacts on port activities.

The existing Clause 18.05‐2 General implementation states:

The land resources adjacent to ports should be protected to preserve their

value for uses which depend upon or gain significant economic advantage

from proximity to the ports’ particular shipping operations.


sensitive urban development by the establishment of appropriate buffers

which reduce the impact of vibration, intrusive lighting, noise and air

emissions from port activities.

Planning for the use of land adjacent to ports should aim to achieve and

maintain a high standard of environmental quality, be integrated with

policies for the protection of the environment generally and of marine

environments in particular and take into account planning for adjacent

areas and the relevant catchment.

In the Committee’s opinion, this clause does not articulate the possibility of

uses which legitimately seek proximity to a port such as offices and

warehouses (and supporting uses such as restaurants and cafes) may

inappropriately place concentrations of people in areas where there is the

potential for exposure to risk and/or amenity impacts. Such uses, if

permitted in port environs/interface areas, may give rise to pressures to

curtail or restrict port use or port development proposals. The Committee

believes that there are mutual obligations if ports and the surrounding land

uses are to successfully co‐exist and reflect the strategic importance of ports.

The revised SPPF embraces the above ‘general implementation’ provisions

and includes them under an expanded section headed ‘strategies’. This

expanded section draws some related provisions from elsewhere in the SPPF

and is suggested to be worded as follows:

Protect the land resources adjacent to ports to preserve their value for uses

which depend upon or gain significant economic advantage from proximity to

the ports’ particular shipping operations [18.05‐2].


154

Physically separate port and industrial development from sensitive urban

development by the establishment of appropriate buffers which reduce the

impact of vibration, intrusive lighting, noise and air emissions from port

activities [18.05‐2].

Identify and protect options for access to, and future development at, the

ports of Melbourne, Geelong and Hastings [12.04‐2].

Ensure port areas are protected by adequate buffers to minimise land‐use

conflict [12.04‐2].

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

Ensure that planning and development of the Fishermans Bend precinct does

not jeopardise the needs of the Port of Melbourne as a working port and as

one of the State’s most important transport gateways [12.04‐2].

Retain the Port of Hastings as a long‐term option for future port development

should the ports of Melbourne and Geelong no longer meet the State’s needs

[12.04‐2].

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

Finally, the Committee notes that the only documents listed as references in

the current Clause 18.05‐3 Geographic strategies are Statement of Planning

Policy No 1 ‐ Western Port (1970‐varied 1976) and the Hastings Port Industrial

Area Land Use Structure Plan (Department of Planning and Development 1996).

These references are retained in the revised SPPF under the heading ‘Policy

guidelines’.

Nowhere is there reference to each port’s Port Land Use Strategy prepared

under the Port Services Act 1995 nor important State Government strategies

such as Melbourne @ 5 Million, Victorian Ports Strategic Framework (2004), Port

Futures – New Priorities and Directions for Victoria’s Ports System (2009), The

Victorian Transport Plan (2008) and Freight Futures: Victorian Freight Network

Strategy (2008).

The Committee believes that the revised SPPF as it relates to ports and

adjacent lands is an improvement on the existing SPPF. However some of

the existing weaknesses remain in the revised version.

It needs to be accepted that changes to the SPPF seldom happen in a

piecemeal manner and that the SPPF is written in a standard format. It is

simply not possible to have the provisions relating to ports and adjacent

lands adopt a different format. The current revision, however, offers an

opportunity to introduce some modifications which may overcome some of


155

the existing shortcomings which will remain if the SPPF is modified in the

revised form circulated for discussion.

The Committee considers that the brief statement at the introduction of

Clause 18 Transport in the revised SPPF which reads as:

Planning should ensure an integrated and sustainable transport system that

provides access to social and economic opportunities, facilitates economic

prosperity, contributes to environmental sustainability, coordinates reliable

movements of people and goods, and is safe.

might be strengthened to read along lines as follows:

Planning should ensure an integrated and sustainable transport system that

provides access to social and economic opportunities, facilitates economic

prosperity, contributes to environmental sustainability, coordinates reliable

movements of people and goods, and is safe. The State’s ports and airports

and their associated road and rail networks are crucial elements of Victoria’s

competitive capability and their potential for future development is to be

protected and enhanced.

In the Committee’s opinion, such a modification if coupled with the inclusion

of the relevant Port Land Use Strategies as well as Melbourne @ 5 Million,

Victorian Ports Strategic Framework (2004), Port Futures – New Priorities and

Directions for Victoria’s Ports System (2009), The Victorian Transport Plan (2008)

and Freight Futures: Victorian Freight Network Strategy (2008) as reference

documents in the proposed future Clause 18.06 would provide a

strengthened and more transparent SPPF as it applies to ports and adjacent

lands.

8.3 Key issues for consideration Does the existing SPPF (when coupled with local policy) provide a

sufficient policy basis for ensuring the future growth and development

of Victoria’s ports?

Does the revised version of the SPPF provide an enhanced policy basis

to assist facilitate the future development of Victoria’s ports and for the

consideration of the need for a two‐way consideration of interface

issues?

Should the various port land use strategies and key State Government

policies be listed as reference documents in the SPPF?


156

9. Local Planning Policy Framework

9.1 Introduction

The terms of reference require the Advisory Committee to:

Make recommendations that would protect the ports from the

encroachment of sensitive uses through the use of appropriate planning

policy and applications of the Victoria Planning Provisions (Advisory

Committee emphasis).

A summary of existing relevant policies in the local planning schemes is

provided in Section 4.3 of this report.

9.2 Local Planning Schemes

The PEPF prepared for the PoMC provides recommendations on the nature

of changes that should be made to the local planning schemes that have some

reference to the Port of Melbourne. Given the terms of reference requirement

that the Advisory Committee review the issues raised in the PEPF and

provide recommendations on how the framework can be implemented, it is

considered appropriate to provide comment on the PEPF’s recommendations

on this matter.

9.2.1 Melbourne Planning Scheme

The PEPF recommends changes to the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS)

and local policy to strengthen existing strategies for dealing with port

interface issues between sensitive uses and surrounding industrial uses, by

application of the buffer distances in Clause 52.10 of the Melbourne Planning

Scheme, and extension of existing amenity principles.

Specifically, the recommended changes are:

Update the MSS where it refers to policy for the Docklands area to

strengthen co‐existence and integration with the port at the interface

with Victoria Dock and South Wharf;

Update the MSS to include statements that address the land use change

around the Fishermans Bend and Port Melbourne areas and their

interface with the port, particularly in regard to protection of existing


157

separation buffers for land uses consistent with Clause 52.10 Uses with

Adverse Amenity Potential; and

Update the MSS to reflect the Port Development Strategy.


The Committee notes the extensive reference to the Port of Melbourne in the

MSS and to the support to be given by the City of Melbourne to the port and

its continued operation as Australia’s leading container port.

The Committee considers the PEPF’s recommendations regarding the

strengthening of sections of the MSS to have merit, particularly in relation to

the Docklands policy at Clause 21.08‐2. However, this clause makes no

reference to the fact that Docklands abuts the Port of Melbourne. It

encourages a high level of residential use as well as advocating water based

activities without reference to the need for these activities to co‐exist with the

ongoing 24‐hour functions of the port. In this regard the Committee notes

that Figure 13 in Clause 21.08‐2 emphasises links with the central city area at

the eastern edge of Docklands but is silent about the port at its western edge.

In the Committee’s opinion there is merit in revising Clause 21.08‐2 to

recognise the need for development at Victoria Dock and South Wharf to co‐

exist and integrate with the port.

The Committee does not consider any changes are required to the policies

applying to Fishermans Bend and Port Melbourne. The Committee notes

that Clause 21.08‐11 actively supports the 24 hour operation of the port and

given the previous comments in this report that this area is not a sensitive

interface and that office development is not incompatible with current or

future port activities no change is needed.


Should the Melbourne Planning Scheme LPPF be amended generally in

accordance with PEPF’s recommendations?

Is there a need for local policy to address the impact of the Port in the

Business 3 Zone area of Fishermans Bend and Port Melbourne?

9.2.2 Port Phillip Planning Scheme

The PEPF states there is scope to enhance the MSS and LPPF to better reflect

the State policy relevant to the port, the role of the port (including current

and future port development) and interface relationships. It is recommended

that the MSS include statements that:


158

Support the existing policy and zoning framework as applied to the

port throughout the MSS;

Strengthen the MSS to address residential interface issues in Garden

City and Port Melbourne;

Strengthen tourism policies for Station Pier and recognise the

significant role Station Pier plays in Bass Strait freight transport and

cruise shipping; and

Recognise and strengthen the role of public transport and road freight

in providing access to Station Pier.


There is little reference in the Port Phillip Planning Scheme to the Port of

Melbourne. Reference is limited to the issue of traffic that might arise from

the future development of Webb Dock and the inclusion of Station Pier in a

‘civic node’ and tourism centre.

On the issue of Webb Dock, Clause 21.05‐1 which deals with the

municipality’s residential areas requires the consideration of any proposed

expansion of Webb Dock and any other Dock activities or other water based

activities against the potential impact on local residents and the needs of

business.

At Clause 21.05‐9 the MSS notes that a strength of Port Phillip’s industrial

areas is their proximity to Webb Dock but concern about the traffic that will

flow from future development of Webb Dock is amongst the key issues

facing the municipality set down in the MSS in Clause 21.03.

With regard to Station Pier, the LPPF is almost silent referring only to its

heritage status and its nomination as part of a tourism centre. The

Committee is surprised that there is no reference to it as one of the main

gateways to the State for both visitors and freight.

The Committee agrees that traffic associated with the future development at

Webb Dock is a key issue but believes that it is an issue that will be best

addressed through the requirements on future development applications

rather than through policy statements.

Given there is very little reference to the impact of the Port in the planning

scheme, the Advisory Committee generally agrees with the PEPF’s

recommendations that there is scope to enhance the LPPF to better reflect the

State policy relevant to the port, the role of the port (including current and

future port development) and interface relationships.


159


Should the Port Phillip Planning Scheme LPPF be amended generally in

accordance with PEPF’s recommendations?

9.2.3 Maribyrnong Planning Scheme

The PEPF recommends changes to the MSS and LPPF to acknowledge the

ongoing operations of the Port, the draft PDS and the need for ancillary port

activities in the area. Specific recommendations are:

Enhancing the references in the MSS in relation to residential, industrial

and transport development. This will assist in protecting the industrial

areas, especially in Yarraville, so that they are retained as buffers for the

Port and protected from encroachment by sensitive uses.

Strengthen policy statements in the MSS regarding the Maribyrnong

River and Valley to address interfaces with the port and associated

access corridors.

Include policy statements in the MSS in relation to industrial use to

ensure that existing buffer separation distances, including any

threshold distances consistent with Clause 52.10 uses with Adverse

Amenity Potential, are maintained and protected.

Update local policies in the LPPF to promote retention of industrial and

port‐related uses, and appropriate zoning, and to ensure new

development does not impede current and future operations of the

Port.

Create a new local policy for Yarraville to limit commercial office

development and prohibit new residential use. The policy would also

ensure future development considers the potential risk and amenity

impacts of port operations on those specific areas.


From the Committee’s perusal of the Maribyrnong Planning Scheme, there is

acknowledgement of the significance of the port to encourage industrial use

and development and provide employment opportunities. However, there is

no reference to actual interfaces with the port or the need to buffer future

sensitive uses from the off‐site impacts of the port other than to improve

arterial road links from industrial areas to the port.

The MSS makes clear Council’s commitment to facilitating mixed‐use

development and to changing the Maribyrnong River frontage from an

industrial orientation to mixed use. In this regard there is a fundamental


160

conflict between the PoMC and Maribyrnong City Council over the

Footscray Wharf precinct.

The Committee considers that given the existence of the major hazardous

facilities at Coode Island, it is not appropriate to encourage use and

development that will attract large numbers of people that are within the

EPA and WorkSafe Victoria’s buffer requirements. Accordingly, the

Advisory Committee generally supports the PEPF recommendations to

introduce policy to limit commercial office development and prohibit new

residential use within those areas subject to the potential for amenity impacts

and exposure to risk.

The Committee also acknowledges that the Memorandum of Understanding

between the PoMC and Maribyrnong City Council provides a positive way

forward with respect to some of the interface issues encountered in the

Yarraville/Footscray area.


Should the Maribyrnong Planning Scheme LPPF be amended generally

in accordance with PEPF’s recommendations, particularly in relation to

the Footscray Wharf precinct?

9.2.4 Hobson’s Bay Planning Scheme

The PEPF recommends changes to the MSS and LPPF in the Hobsons Bay

Planning Scheme to:

Strengthen the MSS coastal policies to acknowledge the interface with

the Port and the need to consider proximity to the port in land use

decisions;

Strengthen Local Planning Policy for industry to require a two‐way

approach to managing land use change and amenity to protect interests

of the Port and industry, as well as more sensitive non‐industrial uses

within the port environs area; and

Continue to protect industrial zoned land within the environs of

Gellibrand Pier from residential encroachment.


While the Advisory Committee considers there may be scope to specifically

acknowledge the interface of the port in different parts of the municipality in

the MSS, it considers the existing Industry Policy in Clause 21.09 is adequate

in addressing the interface between industry and sensitive uses.


161

The Advisory Committee notes that this policy includes a strategy to:

Protect core and secondary industrial areas as identified within the

Hobsons Bay Industrial Land Management Strategy June 2008 from the

encroachment of residential and other noise sensitive land uses. Require

residential and other new noise sensitive land uses to include appropriate

measures to protect their amenity including noise attenuation measures

within new buildings and the appropriate design and siting of private

open space, to protect occupants’ amenity’s view, this approach

recognises the importance for industry to be able to operate.

Accordingly, the Committee does not consider it is necessary to make further

amendments to the Hobson’s Bay LPPF to strengthen policy for industry to

require a two‐way approach to managing land use change and amenity to

protect interests of the port and industry.

As noted previously, the Committee considers there may be justification for

rezoning the existing Industrial 1 Zone land south of Gellibrand Pier (the

former Port Phillip Woollen Mill site) to facilitate a mixed use or residential

development. Therefore, the Committee does not agree with the PEPF

recommendation that all this land to remain zoned industrial. This matter is

discussed in section 7.3.9.


Should there be more specific reference in the Hobson’s Bay MSS that

recognises the interface of the Port?

Is the current Industry Policy in Clause 21.09 adequate to address the

interface between industrial and sensitive uses?

9.2.5 Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme

The land use strategy prepared for Hastings Port states that there is a need to

revise existing policies in the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme and

include the land use strategy as a reference document in the SPPF. No detail

is provided on the nature of revised policies considered appropriate.

The scoping report prepared by AECOM for the Port of Hastings

recommends that the MSS is amended to reference the planning objectives of

the land use strategy.


162


The MSS at Clause 21.03‐1. The regional role of the Mornington Peninsula

notes that Western Port boasts major deep‐water port facilities, including

Victoria’s largest bulk liquid cargo port. It then links the MSS to the State

Planning Policy Framework noting that the SPPF directs that:

Land resources adjacent to ports should be protected to preserve their

value for uses which are dependent upon or gain substantial economic

advantage from proximity to the port’s particular shipping operations.

Planning for the use of land should aim to achieve and maintain a high

standard of environmental quality, be integrated with policies for the

protection of the environment generally and of marine environments in

particular and take into account planning for adjacent areas and the

relevant catchment.


sensitive urban development by the establishment of appropriate

buffers, which reduce the impact of vibration, intrusive lighting, noise

and air emissions from port activities.

This Clause also notes that State policy requires that planning for the

Hastings port area should have regard to the Statement of Planning Policy

No 1 ‐ Western Port and is to be undertaken in accordance with the Hastings

Port Industrial Area Land Use Structure Plan.

In addition, the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme contains a specific

policy Clause 21.10 Managing Port Area Development dealing with the Port

of Hastings. This policy provides strong recognition of, and commitment to

the Port and recognises its economic significance to the State. At the same

time it recognises the sensitivities of the port being located in an area

containing internationally recognised ecosystems and to the need to provide

major infrastructure including main road improvements to support port‐

related development.

Despite the strong local policy related to the port there may be merit in

updating this policy having regard to the role the port will play in the future

as Melbourne’s second container port and the strategic directions of the land

use strategy including the proposed development of the Long Island

precinct.


163


Is there a need to update Clause 21.10 of the Mornington Peninsula

MSS to recognise the role the Port will play in the future as Melbourne’s

secondary port and the strategic directions of the PLUTS including the

proposed development of the Long Island precinct.

9.2.6 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme

The LPPF includes reference to the Port of Geelong in its clauses relating to

Economic Development and Employment and Infrastructure as well as

containing a specific clause related to the port – Clause 21.12 Geelong Port.

General references promote the need to support industry through the

maintenance and improvement of infrastructure including the port and

associated facilities; through minimising land use conflicts; and by focussing

new industry around infrastructure. In addition it aims to protect industry

from the encroachment of incompatible uses.

Clause 21.12 indicates Council commitment to the port though its objectives

which aim to:

provide for the continued growth and development of Port of Geelong

as a key economic resource to the Victorian community;

maintain and enhance the efficiency of the port;

safeguard the port as a focal point for infrastructure development and

economic prosperity within south‐west Victoria;

ensure that development in the port area is environmentally

sustainable; and

give appropriate weight to the needs of a working port having regard

to the amenity of the land uses at the port interface.

The land use strategy includes a strategy to:

Strengthen planning policy frameworks to provide clear strategic support

for future port operations in a manner that achieves sustainable

development outcomes.

Greater Geelong City Council has requested the Minister for Planning to

replace the existing Geelong Port policy in Clause 21.12 of the MSS with a

new policy based on the precincts, principles and directions of the Geelong

Port Structure Plan. The Minister has advised Council that it would be

inappropriate to exhibit the Amendment while the Advisory Committee is

undertaking its review.


164


From the Advisory Committee’s perusal of the Greater Geelong MSS, Clause

21.12 recognises the economic importance of the Port to the region.

While the port land use strategy recommends that the local policy be

strengthened to provide strategic support for the Port, it does not contain any

specific proposals to change the local policy framework.

However, the Committee notes that the proposed Amendment on the

Geelong Port Structure Plan contains a very detailed policy for the Port and

considers that provided the conflicts between the port land use strategy and

the Structure Plan are resolved, it would form a very useful starting point for

a local policy.


Provided the conflicts between the land use strategy and the Structure

Plan are resolved, would the proposed local policy for Geelong Port

prepared by the Greater Geelong City Council be a useful starting point

to prepare a new a local policy?

Is there a need for a new local policy?

9.2.7 Glenelg Planning Scheme

The LPPF includes a number of references to the Port of Portland and

indicates quite strong support for its continued development. The port is

noted as being one of the Shire’s major assets with the capacity to serve

western Victoria and south‐east Australia being the only deep‐water port

between Geelong and Adelaide. Further, the MSS notes that land for

residential, industrial and port‐related uses needs to be identified and

protected by appropriate zonings and policies.

The LPPF also includes a specific policy at Clause 22.03‐3 Port of Portland

which states that the long term development of the Shire is linked to the use,

development and expansion of the Port. The objective of this clause is to

ensure that the port’s development is not limited by other land uses and

developments in nearby areas either onshore or offshore. To meet this

objective it is Council policy that:

development in and near the port should not prejudice the expansion

and operation of the port;

easy road and rail access to the port shall be maintained; and

the fishing industry and the servicing of the fishing industry is

supported.


165

The land use strategy does not include any recommendations to amend the

Glenelg Planning Scheme LPPF relating to the Port of Portland.


From the Advisory Committee’s perusal of the MSS, it would appear the

local policy framework is adequate in terms of recognising the economic

significance of the Port and the managing the interface between port and

port‐related and sensitive uses. However, it appears the policy should be

updated to reflect the strategic directions of the port land use strategy.


Is there a need to update the Glenelg MSS to reflect the strategic

outcomes of the Portland PLUS?

9.2.8 Status of Port Strategic Land Use Plans

A number of the port land use strategies and the PEPF contain a

recommendation that the relevant land use strategy should be included in

the planning scheme as a reference document.

The Committee considers there is merit in this suggestion, particularly if

local policy is to be amended and updated to reflect the strategic directions

of the port land use strategy. However, this matter should be considered as

part of any proposal to amend the local policy rather than as a separate

initiative.


Should the relevant port land use strategy be considered for inclusion

into the relevant planning scheme as a reference document as part of

any future amendment to review and update the local planning policy?


166

10. Existing planning controls applying to the Ports

10.1 Introduction

One of the Advisory Committee’s tasks is to:

Advise on appropriate and streamlined planning controls that could

apply to the use and development of land and where relevant, the waters

of the Ports of Geelong, Portland and Hastings.

The ToR explicitly exclude consideration of the planning controls applying to

the Port of Melbourne, however they require the Advisory Committee to

have regard to the current model used in the Port of Melbourne Planning

Scheme.

Appendix F provides a summary of the existing planning controls applying

to the four ports.

In this chapter, the Committee provides a brief analysis of the issues

associated with the current planning controls as well as the planning controls

applying to the waters of the three ports.

10.2 Concerns with the current planning controls applying to the Ports of Hastings, Geelong and Portland

The Committee has identified a number of short comings with the existing

planning controls applying to the ports of Hastings, Geelong and Portland.

These concerns include:

Lack of transparency – the generic SUZ provisions give little clue as to the

purpose of port use given this type of zoning.

Lack of consistent purposes – the current purposes of the SUZ applying to

the three ports are not consistent and do not reflect contemporary

government policy to recognise the economic significance of the ports, the

need to protect the ports from the encroachment of sensitive uses, the need to

ensure the ports do not have unreasonable amenity and risk impacts on

surrounding land uses and the need to protect environmental values.


167

Table of uses not appropriate – there are a number of both Section 1 and

Section 2 uses in the SUZs that are not compatible with port‐related uses –

for example, Section 1 uses, Apiculture, Crop raising, Home occupation,

Informal outdoor recreation and Section 2 uses, Residential hotel, Retail

premises and Office. Further, the SUZ applying to Hastings Port appears to

be much more restrictive than the other SUZs applying to Geelong and

Portland. For example, Industry is a Section 2 use in Hastings and a Section

1 use in the other SUZs.

Use of land requirements not consistent ‐ there are some differences

between the application requirements and the decision guidelines in the

SUZs applying to the three ports. For example, an assessment of the

environmental significance of the site and proposals relating to the

maintenance of significant conservation values are a requirement in the

Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme, but not the Greater Geelong or

Glenelg Planning Schemes.

Subdivision requirements not consistent – the Committee notes that in the

Mornington Peninsula and Greater Geelong Planning Schemes any new lot

may only be created for port‐related uses, however, no such provision exists

in the Glenelg Planning Scheme. Further, exemptions from notice and

appeal apply in the Greater Geelong and Glenelg Planning Schemes, but not

the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme.

Buildings and works requirements not consistent – there are

inconsistencies between the three SUZs in relation to the exemptions for

buildings and works, and the exemption from the giving of notice and

appeal. For example, there are extensive exemption requirements for

buildings and works in the Glenelg Planning Scheme, less in the Greater

Geelong Planning Scheme and very few in the Mornington Peninsula

Planning Scheme.

Lack of integration between policy and planning controls – in general

terms, the Committee considers that there is an opportunity to strengthen the

integration between State and local policy and planning controls relating to

ports.

Definitions

Greater Geelong City Council raised some issues about the VPP definitions

relating to port uses. Firstly, it raised the question as to what is a port and

how should it be categorised in the planning scheme definitions.


168

Further, Council questioned whether the major port facilities at the Port of

Geelong (for example, Corio Quay and Lascelles Wharf), while having

existing use rights, would be defined as Wharf or Transport terminal in the

planning scheme.

It noted that a wharf is typically a structure that runs parallel to water’s edge

– does this include facilities for loading and unloading, docking rather than

loading?

Council officers also noted that Wharf is also part of a broader definition of

Transport terminal which includes in the definition ‘land used to distribute

goods and passengers’ and presumably, therefore, would include substantial

buildings.

In the Council officers’ view, the broader definition would include structures

and facilities ranging from warehouses, equipment buildings, offices,

external storage, loading equipment etc related to the operation of the

facility.

Council officers also made comments regarding the definitions of

Warehouse, Shipping container storage and Store. It was also noted a Pier is

nested under Marina then Pleasure boat facility which are permit required

uses in the Zone. Would this mean that the Grain Piers and Refinery Piers at

the Port of Geelong would require permits under the SUZ?


Are the problems identified with the SUZs applying to the three ports

of Hastings, Geelong and Portland a barrier to effective and streamlined

decision‐making?

Is there a need to develop a purpose specific Port Zone that provides a

more effective, streamlined and consistent decision‐making framework

with scope to take into account local factors?

Is there a need to develop a definition for Port?

Are there other issues associated with the definitions for port‐related

uses that require review?


169

10.3 Issues with the current planning controls applying to the waters of the Ports of Geelong, Portland and Hastings

10.3.1 Background

Each of the four ports have zones extending into the waters from the port

foreshore. The situation is as follows:

Hastings

Special Use Zone 1 (SUZ1) – this extends some distance into the water

at the Long Island precinct; and

Public Use Zone 27 (PUZ27) – this applies south of the Long Island

precinct west of the Esso site.

In addition, it is noted that abutting the Special Use Zone 1 (SUZ1) on the

foreshore is the Public Conservation and Resource Zone (PCRZ) north of the

Long Island precinct, south and west of the former Esso site as well as to the

north of Crib Point.

At both Crib Point and Stony Point, abutting the SUZ1 is the PUZ27.

A small area zoned Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ) applies close to

the foreshore to the north of Crib Point.

Geelong

The Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ) extends into the water along

the port’s foreshore boundaries for varying lengths, with the exception of the

Refinery Pier and Grain Pier wharfs, which are zoned Special Use 6 (SUZ6).

Portland

It appears SUZ6 applying to the reclaimed area of the port and Incitec Pivot

does not extend into the waters.

Melbourne

While the Advisory Committee does not have a role in reviewing the

planning controls applying to Melbourne Port, it is noted that Special Use

Zone 4 (SUZ4) covers the rivers adjacent to the port land (Maribyrnong River

and Yarra River) and also extends some distance into Hobsons Bay. The

zone has been created to specifically control development in the waters, and

has two main purposes:


170

To provide navigable channels and access for shipping to the Port of

Melbourne as a key area of the State for the interchange, storage and

distribution of goods.

To provide for boating and recreational uses within the waters of the Port

of Melbourne.

Some foreshore land in Port Melbourne and Williamstown abutting the SUZ

is zoned PPRZ.

10.3.2 Advisory Committee discussion

As can be seen from the various zones that extend into the waters adjacent to

Victoria’s four ports, there is an inconsistent approach.

Whereas Melbourne Port and the main area of Hastings Port have zones to

facilitate port or port‐related development that extend into the water, the

same does not apply to Geelong or Portland.

In the case of Geelong, all the waters adjacent to the port or port area of

interest land is zoned PPRZ. GeelongPort expressed concern about the time

and cost involved in seeking a rezoning for the new ship bulk loader and

berth at Corio Quay North, which took over two years at a cost of $500,000.

At Portland, there are no zoning controls that extend into the waters.

A key issue for consideration is whether the zoning controls that extend into

the waters at the ports of Hastings, Geelong and Portland are appropriate.

With respect to Hastings, it appears that the Special Use Zone at Long Island

is complementary for port and port‐related development.

Given the largely undeveloped nature of the remainder of the port, it would

appear any extension of the Special Use Zone into the water is not required

at this stage. The PCRZ also appears to play an important role in protecting

sensitive areas of the coastline.

With respect to Geelong, the PPRZ does not appear to be compatible with

future port development. The purpose of the PPRZ is to recognise areas for

public recreation and open space. This appears to be at odds with the

security issues now associated with international transport terminals such as

airports and sea ports. However, it is not clear whether there is any need to

extend a port‐related zone into the waters and the Committee also notes that

within the port area of interest to the north and south of the main port areas

there are opportunities for recreation, such as fishing.


171

The Port of Portland also needs to give consideration as to whether there is a

need to extend the Special Use Zone into the waters beyond its land

boundaries.


Should the Special Use Zones currently applying to the ports or the

proposed Port Zone extend into the waters adjacent to the port areas?

What should be the justification for applying the Special Use Zone or

Port Zone into the waters adjacent to the port areas?

How far should the Special Use Zone or Port Zone extend into the

waters?

What should be the nature of the planning controls applying to the

waters adjacent to the port areas?


172

11. Proposed Port Zone

11.1 Rationale for a new zone

The Committee has identified the following reasons why a purposes‐specific

Port Zone should be developed:

A Port Zone would give enhanced status to ports by not including them

in the Special Use Zone (SUZ) which is a zone that provides for a ‘grab‐

bag’ of uses that do not sit comfortably in the basic suite of land use

zones.29

The generic SUZ provisions give little clue as to the purpose of use

given this zoning. The zone instead relies on schedules to inform what

particular type of land use is the subject of control.

The current use of the SUZ does not lend itself to consistency in the

provisions relating to ports.

A Port Zone can provide transparency and consistency and, where

necessary, include schedules to allow variations within and between

ports to cater for differences in port activities and particular local

circumstances.

Common and clear zone purposes can ensure that the strategic and

economic importance of each of Victoria’s commercial trading ports to

the State and the regions within which they are located can be clearly

expressed.

A Port Zone can require consistent application requirements and

decision guidelines.

As with existing zones, a new zone can be combined with overlays or

other planning scheme controls.

29 This accepts that, for the present, the Port of Melbourne will maintain its current Special

Use Zones


173

11.2 Proposed Port Zone

The Committee has developed a Port Zone, as follows:

xx.01 PORT ZONE Shown on the planning scheme map as PZ

Purpose

To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement or Port Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

To recognize the significance that commercial trading ports have to the economic well-being of the State of Victoria.

To provide for the development of each of Victoria’s commercial trading ports as key areas of the State for the interchange, storage and distribution of goods.

To provide for uses which derive direct benefit from co-establishing with a major commercial trading port.

To provide for the development of a port in a manner which does not pose any unacceptable risk to the safety of local communities.

To provide for development which does not unreasonably impact on the amenity of neighbouring land uses.

To protect the environmental values of the port’s adjacent coastline and waters.

To provide for use and development that generally accords with any Port Development Strategy prepared pursuant to Section 91K of the Port Services Act 1995.

xx.01-1 Table of uses

Section 1 - Permit not required

USE CONDITION

Industry (other than Materials recycling, refuse disposal, refuse transfer station, rural industry)

Must be directly associated with and reliant upon the port.

Must not be a purpose shown with a Note 1 or Note 2 in the table to Clause 52.10.

The land must be at least the following distances from land (not a road) which is in a residential zone, Business 5 Zone, Capital City Zone or Docklands Zone, land used for a hospital or an education centre or land in a Public Acquisition Overlay to be acquired for a hospital or an education centre:

• The threshold distance, for a purpose listed in the table to Clause 52.10.

• 30 metres, for a purpose not listed in the table to Clause 52.10.

Informal outdoor recreation


174

USE CONDITION

Mail centre

Minor utility installation

Natural systems

Pleasure boat facility

Railway

Road

Service station The land must be at least 30 metres from land (not a road) which is in a residential zone, Business 5 Zone, Capital City Zone or Docklands Zone, land used for a hospital or an education centre or land in a Public Acquisition Overlay to be acquired for a hospital or an education centre.

Shipping container storage Must be directly associated with and reliant upon the port.

Must not be for the storage of bulk volatile organic compounds or the temporary storage of industrial wastes.

The land must be at least 100 metres from land (not a road) which is in a residential zone, Business 5 Zone, Capital City Zone or Docklands Zone, land used for a hospital or an education centre or land in a Public Acquisition Overlay to be acquired for a hospital or an education centre:

The site must adjoin, or have access to, a road in a Road Zone.

Shipping containers must be setback at least 9 metres from a road in a Road Zone.

The height of shipping container stacks must not exceed 6 containers or 16 metres, whichever is the lesser.

Telecommunications facility Buildings and works must meet the requirements of Clause 52.19.

Tramway

Transport terminal (other than Heliport and Wharf)

Warehouse (other than Mail centre and Shipping container storage)

Must be directly associated with and reliant upon the port.

Must not be a purpose shown in the table to Clause 52.10.

The land must be at least 30 metres from land (not a road) which is in a residential zone, Business 5 Zone, Capital City Zone or


175

USE CONDITION

Docklands Zone, land used for a hospital or an education centre or land in a Public Acquisition Overlay to be acquired for a hospital or an education centre.

Wharf

Note: In this draft the following uses which are generally Section 1 uses in

all zones under the VPP have been omitted as none is appropriate in

any circumstances in a commercial trading port:

Apiculture, Carnival, Circus, Home occupation, Mineral

exploration, Mining, Search for stone.

Section 2 - Permit required

USE CONDITION

Heliport

Leisure and recreation (other than Informal outdoor recreation, Major sports and recreation facility and Motor racing track)

Office The leasable floor area must not exceed 500

square metres

Any other use not in Section 1 or 3

Section 3 - Prohibited

USE

Accommodation (other than Caretaker's house)

Child care centre

Cinema based entertainment facility

Hospital

Intensive animal husbandry

Market

Shop (other Convenience shop)

xx.01-2 Use of land

Application requirements

An application to use land must be accompanied by the following information, as appropriate:

A report which demonstrates a need or significant benefit for the use to establish close to the port or associated uses.

The purpose of the use and the types of processes to be utilised.


176

The type and quantity of goods to be stored, processed or produced.

How land not required for immediate use is to be maintained.

Whether a Works Approval or Waste Discharge Licence is required from the Environment Protection Authority.

Whether a licence under the Dangerous Goods Act 1985 is required.

The likely effects, if any, on the neighbourhood, including:

- Noise levels.

- Air-borne emissions.

- Emissions to land or water.

- Traffic, including the hours of delivery and despatch.

- Light spill or glare.

- Risk.

A Site Environmental Management Plan for the management of environmental issues associated with the operation of the use.

An assessment against the relevant Port Development Strategy and the policies of the Local Planning Policy Framework.

A report indicating the hourly and daily volumes of traffic, by vehicle type and the capacity and suitability of the road network to accommodate the anticipated volumes. This report should also include details of any mitigating works required to achieve the required capacity. The report should also address the adequacy of truck parking, loading and truck queuing areas to accommodate truck movements at peak periods as well as employee parking on the land.

Decision guidelines

Before deciding on an application, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 65, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:

The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

The effect that the use may have on land in a residential zone, Business 5 Zone, the Capital City Zone, the Docklands Zone, land used for a hospital or education centre or land in a Public Acquisition Overlay to be acquired for a hospital or education centre, having regard to any comments or directions of the referral authorities.

Whether there is a demonstrated need or significant benefit associated with any proposed industry, transport terminal, utility installation (other than a minor utility installation) or warehouse, in it being located near or associated with port facilities or uses.

The effect that the use may have on nearby existing or proposed uses for or associated with the port.

The effect that nearby existing or proposed uses for or associated with the port may have on the proposed use.

The drainage of the land.

The availability of and connection to services.

Provision for fire protection and other emergency services.

The adequacy of the transport network to achieve safe, efficient vehicle movement to and egress from the land.


177

The interim use of those parts of the land not required for the proposed use.

The requirements of any Strategic Framework Plan contained in the Port Strategic Statement if applicable.

xx.01-3 Subdivision

Permit requirement

A permit is required to subdivide land.

A lot may only be created if the land is to be used for a port or a port-dependent or port-related use.

Exemption from notice and review

An application is exempt from the notice requirements of Section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d), the decision requirements of Section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of Section 82(1) of the Act. This exemption does not apply to land within 30 metres of land (not a road) which is in a residential zone, Capital City Zone, Docklands Zone or Business 5 Zone, land used for a hospital or an education centre or land in a Public Acquisition Overlay to be acquired for a hospital or an education centre.

Decision guidelines



The ability of the land as subdivided to accommodate future port-related uses.

The ability of the land to be combined with other lots for use as a port-related use.

Any natural and cultural values on or near the land.

The purpose of the zone.

The use intended.

The extent of any existing or proposed reclamation works.

The topography of the land.

The availability and standard of road access, drainage, sewerage and other infrastructure available to the site.

Whether the frontage is adequate to provide for industrial traffic requirements.

Any easement or rights of way which may be required to convey public or private goods or services to or across the land.

xx.01-4 Buildings and works

Permit requirement

A permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works. This does not apply to a building or works which:

Provide for navigational beacons and aids and associated facilities.

19/01/2006

15/09/2008


178

Rearrange, alter, renew or maintain plant if the area or height of the plant is not increased.

Comply with a direction or licence under the Dangerous Goods Act 1985 or a Waste Discharge Licence, Works Approval or any notice under the Environment Protection Act 1970.

Provide for a railway, road or tramway.

Provide for informal outdoor recreation.

Alter electrical or gas services or telephone lines.

Alter plumbing services which do not affect the drainage of other land.

Application requirements

An application to construct a building or construct or carry out works must be accompanied by the following information, as appropriate:

A plan drawn to scale which shows:

- the boundaries and dimensions of the site;

- adjoining roads;

- relevant ground levels;

- the layout of existing and proposed buildings and works;

- the locations of the proposed use of all existing and proposed buildings;

- the provision of on-site vehicle parking;

- loading and unloading areas;

- internal vehicle movements;

- site entrance and exit points;

- proposed landscape areas; external storage and waste treatment areas;

- features above or below water.

Elevation drawings to scale which show the colour and materials of all buildings and works.

Construction details of all drainage works, driveways and vehicle parking and loading areas.

A landscape layout which includes the description of vegetation to be planted, the surfaces to be constructed, a site works specification and the method of preparing, draining, watering and maintaining the landscape area.

Where development involves reclamation, information concerning the type and amount of material to be used to carry out the reclamation works and the uses to which the reclaimed land can be put.

Details relating to the staging of development and an appropriate time scale in which each stage of development should be completed.

A Site Environmental Management Plan for the management of environmental issues associated with the construction of the development or carrying out of works.

A traffic impact report outlining the volume of traffic anticipated to be generated by the proposed development, the ability of the road network to cater for the proposed volumes and the mitigating works required to accommodate the desired capacity. The report should also address the adequacy of on-site


179

parking areas required to accommodate truck parking, loading and queuing areas and employee parking.


An application is exempt from the notice requirements of Section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d), the decision requirements of Section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of Section 82(1) of the Act. This exemption does not apply to an application for a building or works within 30 metres of land (not a road) which is in a residential zone or Business 5 Zone, land used for a hospital or an education centre or land in a Public Acquisition Overlay to be acquired for a hospital or an education centre.

Decision guidelines



Any natural or cultural values on or near the land.

Streetscape character.

Built form.

Landscape treatment.

Interface with non-industrial areas.

Parking and site access.

Loading and service areas.

Outdoor storage.

Lighting.

Stormwater discharge.

Traffic implications on the surrounding road network.

Maintenance

All buildings and works must be maintained in good order and appearance to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

xx.01-5 Advertising signs

Advertising sign requirements are at Clause 52.05. This zone is in Category 2.

Notes: Refer to the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement, for strategies and policies which may affect the use and development of land.

Check whether an overlay also applies to the land.

Other requirements may also apply. These can be found at Particular Provisions.


180

11.3 Schedules to the Port Zone

The Committee considers that with the diversity of uses and development

within the port areas, there needs to be scope for schedules to be developed

which provide greater flexibility over the type of uses and nature of

development that may be appropriate within the different port precincts.

Ideally, the schedules should be based on the precincts identified in the port

land use strategies.

The Committee is seeking responses from stakeholders on the nature of the

controls that may be appropriate in the schedules.

11.4 Definition of Port

It may be appropriate to provide a definition of Port given that no definition

currently exists in the VPPs and the concern that activities normally

associated with a port are already defined (for example, ‘Wharf’, ‘Pier’,

‘Warehouse’, ‘Shipping container storage’ and ‘Store’).

The Committee notes that the New South Wales (NSW) standard instrument

for Local Environmental Plans contains the following definition:

port facilities means any of the following facilities at or in the vicinity

of a designated port within the meaning of section 47 of the Ports and

Maritime Administration Act 1995:

(a) facilities for the embarkation or disembarkation of passengers onto or

from any vessels, including public ferry wharves,

(b) facilities for the loading or unloading of freight onto or from vessels

and associated receival, land transport and storage facilities,

(c) wharves for commercial fishing operations,

(d) refuelling, launching, berthing, mooring, storage or maintenance

facilities for any vessel,

(e) sea walls or training walls,

(f) administration buildings, communication, security and power

supply facilities, roads, rail lines, pipelines, fencing, lighting or car

parks.

The NSW definition may provide a useful starting point to examining an

appropriate definition for Port in the VPPs.


181

In preparing a definition, it may also be necessary to distinguish between the

four commercial trading ports of Melbourne, Hastings, Geelong and

Portland from other ports such as local fishing and recreational ports.

In addition, the Committee is interested in responses about whether

definitions can or should be developed for ‘port‐dependent’ and ‘port‐

related’ uses or whether it is more appropriate to provide directions about

such uses through decision guidelines in the Port Zone provisions.

11.5 Key issues for consideration Is the proposed Port Zone appropriate?

What changes should be made to the draft provisions of the Port Zone?

Should schedules to the Port Zone be developed to apply to the

different precincts within the ports?

What should be the nature of the controls that apply in the schedules?

Should a definition of Port be developed for inclusion in the VPPs?

Does the NSW definition of Port facilities provide a useful guide for a

definition that would be appropriate in the VPPs?

Should definitions be developed for ‘port‐dependent’ and ‘port‐related’

uses or should directions be provided about such uses through decision

guidelines in the Port Zone provisions?


182

12. Who should be the responsible authority for the ports of Hastings, Geelong and Portland?

12.1 Introduction

While the ToR have no specific requirement that the Advisory Committee

make a recommendation as to whether the State Government should be the

responsible authority, it is an issue that has been raised by a number of

parties including the port managers, Councils and other stakeholders.

In broad terms, the port managers and port users consider the State should

be the planning/responsible authority for the ports, while Councils and

community groups consider the responsibility for administering the

planning controls for ports should remain with the Councils.30

Given the issue has been raised, the Committee considers it is appropriate

that it address this matter in the Discussion Paper.

12.2 Issues

The PLUSs prepared for both the Port of Hastings and Portland suggest that,

given the State significance of the ports, it may be appropriate that planning

decisions are taken at the State level.

While the Port of Geelong PLUS did not contain a similar suggestion,

GeelongPort stated in its preliminary submission that it has concerns with

the timelines for approvals under the existing planning framework. It stated

that these timelines do not create:

….an ideal planning outcome for land specifically designated for port

uses which is such a significant contributor to the local and State

economies. It is for this reason that it is considered appropriate that the

Minister become the responsible authority for the Port and its area of

interest so that the operations of State significant infrastructure can be

more appropriately recognized and to avoid every planning application

becoming bogged down in localized issues and unnecessary procedure.

30 As noted previously, the Minister for Planning is already the responsible authority for the Port of

Melbourne Planning Scheme.


183

On the other hand, Councils and other stakeholders expressed concern with

any proposal that decision‐making should be at the State level.

For example, Mornington Peninsula Shire Council considers that in relation

to the Port of Hastings successive councils have recognised the responsibility

to maintain port development options under the framework provided by

State policy and have demonstrated an ability to assess applications within

the SUZ1 having regard to the full range of values that apply to land in

particular locations. According to Council, the transfer of planning authority

to a specialist port agency would risk a less balanced approach to decision‐

making.

Greater Geelong City Council raised similar concerns and stated that it

would not be supportive of accepting any recommendation which would in

any way diminish the Council’s role in town planning processes for the Port

of Geelong.31


As can be seen from the preceding comments, there are strongly held views

on both sides of the debate as to the whether the State should become

planning/responsible authority for the ports.

In response to concerns raised by the port authorities/operators and major

users of the ports, it is the Committee’s opinion that the relevant councils

have largely recognised the economic significance of the ports and have

included local policies in their planning schemes that provide statutory

recognition of the economic significance of the ports.

While there have been complaints by the port managers about the time it has

taken to obtain approval for permits, there are statutory mechanisms in place

to ensure decisions are made within a certain time‐frame, such as the right of

review for failure to make a decision within the statutory time period.

Options also exist in relation to ‘calling‐in’ applications of State significance

by the Minister for Planning under section 151 of the Planning and

Environment Act, 1987.

With respect to planning scheme amendments, the Committee notes the

proposed changes to the Planning and Environment Act, 1987 which would

provide a mechanism for consideration of amendments not supported by the

planning authority as well as mechanisms to expedite the amendment

31 Letter from Cr John Mitchell Mayor of COGG to Minister for Planning dated 4 February, 2010


184

process. If this mechanism is introduced into the Act, it would provide an

ability for port authorities/operators and any other proponent to initiate a

planning scheme amendment to facilitate specific development proposals.

It is the Committee’s view that the more important issue is not which level of

government is responsible for administering planning controls for the ports,

but rather, developing an effective and efficient planning framework that

achieves the planning objectives relating to ports and surrounding areas.

The proposed Port Zone developed by the Committee combined with

location‐specific schedules or overlays seeks to achieve this outcome.

While there was no view expressed as to whether it should be the Minister

for Roads and Ports or the Minister for Planning that should become the

responsible authority for the ports, the Committee considers that, if there

was any consideration for State involvement, it would be more appropriate

that it is the Minister for Planning who should be the planning/responsible

authority.

12.4 Key issues for consideration Is there any or sufficient justification for the State Government to be the

responsible authority for the ports of Hastings, Geelong and Portland?

If there was a proposal for State involvement, should the Minister for

Roads and Ports or the Minister for Planning be the

planning/responsible authority?


185

13. Integrating the ports’ land use strategies with the planning framework

13.1 Introduction

One of the issues raised by stakeholders is that there needs to be more

effective integration between the port land use strategies and the statutory

planning framework. However, it appeared to be common ground that the

existing port strategic land use plans do not provide sufficient detail for them

to be considered as Incorporated Plans or Development Plans for inclusion

into the planning scheme. Some Council officers also criticised the ports for

the lack of consultation in preparing the land use strategies.


In the Committee’s view, integration of the ports’ land use strategies with the

planning framework could be achieved by the following steps:

Consistency of approach by the four ports in the consultation,

preparation and structure of the ports’ land use plan strategies;

Sufficient detail and levels of consultation in the land use strategies for

the plans to guide planning decisions;

Incorporating the strategic plans as either Incorporated Plans or

Development Plans into the relevant planning schemes; and

Allowing development to proceed in accordance with the Incorporated

Plans or Development Plans consistent with or derived from the ports’

land use strategies without public notice or appeal, or requiring a

planning scheme amendment and/or notice of applications for

development that is not generally in accordance with the approved

plan.

The Committee notes that the Port Services Act, 1995 provides scope for the

Minister for Roads and Ports to prepare guidelines in relation to PDS

addressing:

(a) the form;

(b) the content;

(c) the method and process for preparation;


186

(d processes to enable tenants, licensees and service providers in the

port to be involved in the preparation;

(e) processes for consultation with people affected;

(f) publication and availability.

Preparation and implementation of the guidelines would be a good starting

point to achieve more consistency between the strategic plans for each port

and integration with the planning framework. In the Committee’s opinion,

the preparation of guidelines would benefit from the Minister for Roads and

Ports consulting with the Minister for Planning.

Appendix I includes a sample Development Plan Overlay that provides a

framework for the issues and level of detail that could be applied in the port

areas.

13.3 Key issue for consideration Should the port land use strategies be integrated with the statutory

planning framework?

If the port land use strategies are integrated with the statutory planning

framework, how should this be done?

Should port land use strategies be included in the statutory planning

framework as Incorporated Documents or Development Plans?


187

Part E – Conclusions


188

14. Conclusions

In response to the ToR, the Advisory Committee has:

Identified potential boundaries for the land that should constitute port

environs to address interface issues for each of the four commercial

ports;

Considered whether additional planning controls should be introduced

in the identified port environs to address the interface issues;

Considered whether the notice or referral of applications in the

identified port environs to the relevant port manager should be

required;

Identified improvements that could be made to the SPPF to strengthen

the provisions relating to the role of ports in Victoria;

Identified improvements that could be made to some of the local

planning policies of municipal planning schemes that contain clauses

relating to ports;

Developed a Port Zone that could apply to the ports of Hastings,

Geelong and Portland as well as be considered for the Port of

Melbourne;

Suggested a definition for Port that could be included in the VPPs; and

Discussed whether the State Government or Councils should be the

responsible authority for the ports.

In addressing the tasks in the ToR, the Committee has held discussions with

port managers, Council officers, relevant government departments and

agencies and some community groups. These discussions have been very

helpful to the Committee in understanding the issues various stakeholders

have in relation to the planning framework for ports and surrounds.

The Advisory Committee looks forward to receiving written submissions on

the issues raised in the Discussion Paper and conducting further discussions

during the public hearings.


189

Appendix A Terms of Reference


190

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Advisory Committee

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT 1987 (S151)

REVIEW OF PLANNING CONTROLS PORT ENVIRONS

Ports of Melbourne, Geelong, Portland and Hastings

1. Background

Victoria’s four commercial trading ports at Melbourne, Geelong Portland and Hastings are the State’s key trade gateways to the world and contribute directly to approximately $3 billion in economic output; $1.5 billion in value add and 15,000 direct jobs.

The Port of Melbourne is the largest container and general cargo port in Australia and accounts for over $75 billion of trade annually. It will continue to develop its specialised capacity to handle containerised cargo.

The Port of Geelong remains Victoria’s most important bulk cargo port handling about $5.6 billion worth of imports and exports annually. As well as being a vital contributor to the Victorian economy, the port is a valuable asset of the Geelong community, providing a gateway to the world for local industries, businesses and farmers from across the region as well as supporting 6,100 jobs.

The Port of Portland is a deep-water bulk port and serves the needs of the Green Triangle Region, a region that crosses state boundaries and handles an estimated $1.5 billion in annual trade. Over the next five to ten years, the Port’s volume is expected to double, adding approximately $1 billion in trade value per annum.

Each year around four million tonnes of petroleum product (oil and gas) is handled through the Port of Hasting with a further one million tonnes of steel product handled through the BlueScope Steel wharves. The State Government has nominated the Port of Hastings as the preferred site for a second container port to supplement the Port of Melbourne when it reaches capacity.

2. Policy Settings

Recently the State Government released Port Futures (2009), which builds on and advances policy and strategy settings established in the Victorian Ports Strategic Framework (2004) to ensure that the ports remain competitive and sustainable over the next 10 years and beyond. A key priority in Port Futures is the Government’s


191

commitment to introduce measures to improve planning and buffer protection for the ports. These measures include:

Formally recognising port land use strategies in the Victorian Planning System and the requirement under the Port Services Act 1995 for port managers to review these strategies every four years.

Protecting ports from encroachment of residential and other sensitive uses, while acknowledging that existing residents and sensitive uses in the vicinity of a port must be afforded reasonable amenity and safety protection from the operations of the port.

Considering establishing the Minister for Planning as the ‘Responsible Authority’ for administering planning permit applications to use and develop port land.

The consideration of a planning framework, including appropriate zones and controls for effective two-way buffer protection for ports.

Ensuring that the interests of the ports are explicitly considered in the evaluation of planning scheme amendments involving policy or zoning changes in the environs of the port controlled land.

Given the critical role of the commercial ports to Victoria’s economy, it is important to ensure that:

future developments on port land and port environs are protected by adequate buffer areas to prevent land use conflicts at the perimeter (Direction 4.3, Melbourne 2030 – planning for sustainable growth 2002).

planning controls that apply to port land are generally consistent and not unduly onerous.

3. Tasks

The tasks of the Advisory Committee established under section 151 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 include, but are not limited to the following:

3.1 Port Environs Matters

a. Determine whether the existing and proposed planning scheme controls applying to the environs of the Ports of Geelong, Hastings and Portland are adequate to ensure the protection of the ports against the encroachment of sensitive uses.

b. Review the issues raised in the draft Port of Melbourne Port Environs Planning Framework (Port of Melbourne Corporation) and provide recommendations on how the framework can be implemented, as appropriate.

c. Make recommendations on appropriate boundaries for the land that would constitute ‘port environs’ for all of the four commercial ports.

d. Make recommendations that would protect the ports from encroachment of sensitive uses through the use of appropriate planning policy and applications of the Victoria Planning Provisions.

e. Respond to any other matters that the Advisory Committee considers relevant to planning and development controls of the four commercial ports so that they remain competitive and sustainable.


192

3.2 Port Planning Controls

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

g. Draft appropriate planning scheme provisions that could apply to the Ports of Geelong, Portland and Hastings.

4. Matters to be considered

The Advisory Committee must have regard to:

The State Government’s policy and strategies on ports: - Victorian Ports Strategic Framework (2004) - The Victorian Transport Plan (2008) - Freight Futures: Victorian Freight Network Strategy (2008) - Port Futures – New Priorities and Directions for Victoria’s Ports System

(2009)

Port Development Strategy 2035 Vision (Port of Melbourne Corporation, 2009)

Port of Geelong Port Land Use Strategy 2009 (GeelongPort, 2009)

Port of Portland – Port Land Use Strategy (Port of Portland Pty Ltd, 2009)

Port of Hastings Land Use and Transport Strategy (Port of Hastings Corporation, 2009)

Draft Port Environs Planning Framework (Port of Melbourne Corporation, 2009)

The views of stakeholders including the relevant councils, port managers, departments and agencies and communities affected by the ports.

The Victoria Planning Provisions

The port related planning provisions in the Greater Geelong, Glenelg, Mornington Peninsula and Port of Melbourne Planning Schemes

Geelong Port Structure Plan (City of Greater Geelong, 2007)

Advisory Committee/Panel reports including: - Greater Geelong Planning Scheme - Amendment C98 (Hometown Geelong) - Glenelg Planning Scheme - Permit Applications P07076, P07077 and

P07078, 62 Victoria Parade, 2 Jones Street / 48 Victoria Parade and 3 Hartwich Street

- Glenelg Planning Scheme - VCAT Application for Review P3175/2005 Permit Application P05146 - Rossdell Court Subdivision.

Any other documents or matters the Advisory Committee considers relevant.


193

5. Consultation

It is expected that the Advisory Committee will consult with key stakeholders, including relevant councils and departments and agencies, affected communities, and respective managers of the ports.

The Advisory Committee should also have regard to the legislative requirements and commitments made in the port land use strategies to consult with communities.

Written submissions should be the principal means of providing input to the committee process. Following the release of the Discussion Paper, a public hearing should be conducted and is intended to provide an opportunity for submitters to clarify information or views as presented by them in their written submissions and to raise issues with respect to information, approaches and views presented by other submitters or publicly disclosed by the Advisory Committee.

6. Outcomes

The Advisory Committee will prepare a Discussion Paper following consultation with key stakeholders. The Discussion Paper will address the land use planning issues on port land and port buffer areas and will include recommendations on these matters. A Final Report is to be provided for the Minister for Planning’s consideration.

7. Timelines

It is expected that the Advisory Committee will submit the Discussion Paper to the Minister for Planning within six months from the date of its appointment or from the date of its Terms of Reference, whichever applies, and the Final Report within 11 months from these dates.

8. Conduct of Hearings

The Advisory Committee may act as a quorum of one at any time during the course of its proceedings.

9. Fees

The members of the Advisory Committee will receive the same fees and allowances as a panel chair appointed under Division 1 of Part 8 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

10. Project Support

Day to day policy support for the Advisory Committee will be through the Planning Policy Unit of the Department of Planning and Community Development.


194

Appendix B Committee members biographies

Mark Marsden‐ Chair

Mark Marsden is a Senior Panel Member with Planning Panels Victoria.

Mark has a Bachelor of Arts (Honours) and a Graduate Diploma in both

Urban Planning and Business Administration. Mark has over 20 years

experience in planning, which has included extensive work in research,

policy and advocacy at the Municipal Association of Victoria and senior

management positions in a number of Councils in both metropolitan

Melbourne and regional Victoria.

As a Senior Panel Member, Mark has chaired significant hearings including

the Heywood Pulp Mill, the Rossdell Court Portland call‐in applications,

planning scheme reviews and major development proposals, including high

rise buildings in the central city, golf course resorts and major mixed use

developments.

Mark is an occasional sessional lecturer at RMIT University, and was

president of the Local Government Planning Association between 1997 and

1999. He is also a Fellow of the Planning Institute of Australia and a Member

of the Victorian Planning and Environmental Law Association.

Des Grogan

Des Grogan has a Diploma of Civil Engineering and a Master of Engineering

Science, Traffic and Transportation, commenced work in February 1965 at

the Country Roads Board Victoria and retired in June 2005 as Managing

Director of Grogan Richards Pty Ltd., Consulting Engineers. During that 40

plus years, Des has been involved in the investigation and design of major

roads and freeways in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom. In

addition he has been involved in the assessment of traffic generation

characteristics of a range of land uses and determination of road design and

traffic management solutions to accommodate the forecast volumes.

Des also has expertise in the forecasting of car parking demand for a range of

land uses and the planning and design of large surface and multi‐storey car

parking facilities to serve shopping centres, sporting and entertainment

venues and office buildings. He has frequently appeared as an expert

witness in VCAT and its predecessors, at Panel Hearings and in the Supreme

Court. Des has been a sessional member of Planning Panels Victoria for

three years.


195

Helen Weston

Helen Weston is an experienced environmental and social planner with

considerable experience in social impact assessment, community

consultation, urban planning, and environmental assessment. Since 1992,

she has been Director, Environmental Affairs Pty Ltd, a specialist urban and

environmental planning practice.

Helen has undertaken social impact assessment studies for a range of

transport and urban development proposals and has prepared and

implemented community consultation strategies for a number of major

projects. She has been a Sessional Member of Planning Panels Victoria since

2002 and has chaired or been a member on over 25 Panel matters.

She is a member of the Liquor Licensing Panel (appointed by the Minister for

Consumer Affairs) and conducts hearings when objections are lodged to

liquor licence applications on grounds relating to amenity impacts or

consistency with objectives of the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998.

Helen is a Fellow of the Planning Institute of Australia. She holds Certified

Practising Planner status with the Planning Institute and is registered by the

Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand as a Certified

Environmental Practitioner.

David Whitney

David Whitney has had over 40 years experience in all aspects of town

planning. He is recognised as being skilled in both strategic and statutory

planning and in planning policy formulation.

Throughout his career David has provided advice to State and local

government, statutory authorities, educational establishments, the

development industry and community groups and has appeared regularly as

an expert witness in hearings before VCAT, Planning Panels and the

Supreme Court of Victoria.

David is a sessional member of Planning Panels Victoria and is a member of the Priority Development Panel. He is a Life Fellow and former State President of the Planning Institute of Australia and a Fellow of the Victorian Planning and Environmental Law Association.


196

Appendix C Stakeholders that met with the Committee

The Advisory Committee would like to thank the representatives of the

following organisations who met and raised issues with the Committee.

Organisation Representatives

Port of Melbourne Corporation Stephen Bradford

Chief Executive Officer

Caryn Anderson

Executive General Manager Business &

Planning

John Riley

Manager Land Use Planning

Janelle Donnolly

Manager Statutory Planning,

Sustainability and Risk

Port of Melbourne Board Bill Scales

Chairman

Des Powell

Deputy Chairman

Paula Benson

Director

David Cranwell

Director

Elizabeth Parkin

Director

Ian Robins

Director

Meredith Sussex

Director

Frank Williamson

Director


197


GeelongPort Shane Collins

Port Business Manager

David Kenwood

Property Manager

Ross Newcombe

Asset Manager

Julie Katz

Planning Consultant

Port of Hastings Ralph Kenyon


Anna Kilborn

Project Officer

Rod McLellan

Project Director,

Department of Infrastructure

Port of Portland Scott Paterson


Ian Dawson

Operations Manager

Jim Cooper

General Commercial Manager

Jerome Coleman

Chief Finance Officer

Peter Gracias

Harbour Master/Business Development

Manager

Brian Murphy

Operations Manager, Incitec Pivot

Melbourne City Council Sandra Wade

Coordinator Integrated Urban Planning

Port Phillip City Council Steve Scott

Place Manager Port Melbourne

Hobsons Bay City Council Natalie Walker

Manager City Strategy

Kathleen McClusky

Coordinator Strategic Planning


198


Maribyrnong City Council David Walmsley

Manager – Strategy and Economic

Development

Adam Parker

Senior Strategic Planner

VicUrban Simon Wilson

Docklands Development Director

Amanda Roberts

Senior Urban Designer

City of Greater Geelong Kate Sullivan

General Manager – Economic

Development and Planning

Tim Hellsten

Coordinator – Planning Strategy

Mornington Peninsula Shire Council Dr Michael Kennedy


Alex Atkins

Director Sustainable Environment

Alan Cowley

Manager Strategic Planning

Glenelg Shire Council Syd Deam

Manager Strategic Planning and

Development

Department of Transport Marianne Richards

Senior Policy Manager Freight Activity

Planning

Mark Curry

Director Freight Network Planning

Dianne Stewart

Director Freight Network Management

and Regulation

Department of Innovation and

Regional Development

Geoff Millar

Project Manager

Tina Sheldon

Project Manager Economic

Infrastructure

Worksafe Victoria Geoff Cooke


199


EPA Quentin Cook

Team Leader Statutory Facilitation Unit

VicTrack Mark Williams

General Manager, Property

Department of Sustainability and

Environment

Rebecca Price

Senior Project Officer

Victorian Regional Channel Authority Peter McGovern


Kas Szakiel

Commercial Manager

North Shore Residents

Group Inc

Jim Anderson

President

Bruce Cohen

Vice President

Dale Jennings

Secretary

Community for Good Life Sue McLean

Secretary

Western Port and Peninsula Protection

Council Inc

David Minton

President

Geelong Community Forum Sue Kelly Turner

Geelong Environment Council Peter Linaker

Westgate Ports Michael Haines


Department of Infrastructure,

Transport, Regional Development and

Local Government

Richard Farmer

General Manager, Policy Planning and

Development

Geelong Grammar School Mark Yeates

Risk Manager

Andrew Moore

Commercial Director


200

Appendix D Stakeholders the Committee invited to make preliminary written submissions

Port of Melbourne Corporation

Port of Hastings

GeelongPort

Port of Portland

City of Greater Geelong

Maribyrnong City Council

City of Port Phillip

Mornington Peninsula Shire Council

Hobsons Bay City Council


Australian Conservation Foundation

Australian Rail Track Corporation

Environment Defenders Officer

Parks Victoria

Shipping Australia Limited

VicRoads

Victorian Farmers Federation

Victorian Freight and Logistics Council

Victorian National Parks Association

Victorian Transport Association

Committee for Geelong

Geelong Community Forum Inc

Geelong Chamber of Commerce

Geelong Environment Council Inc

Geelong Manufacturing Council

Alcoa of Australia Ltd – Victoria Operations

Graincorp Operations Ltd

DP World

Patrick Stevedores


201

Terminals Pty Ltd

BlueScope Steel Limited

Tyabb Ratepayers, Business and Environment Inc

Western Port Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Port Phillip and Western Port CMA


202

Appendix E Stakeholders who provided a preliminary written submission

Port of Melbourne Corporation

Port of Hastings

GeelongPort

Port of Portland

City of Greater Geelong

Maribyrnong City Council


Mornington Peninsula Shire Council

Hobsons Bay City Council


VicRoads

Geelong Chamber of Commerce

Department of Transport

Tyabb & District Ratepayers

Shipping Australia Limited

BlueScope Steel

Parks Victoria

Victorian Farmers Federation

Victorian Freight and Logistics Council

Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government


203

Appendix F Current planning controls applying to the Ports

With the exception of Geelong Port, Victoria’s four ports and port areas of

interest are included in a Special Use Zone.

However, much of the land identified within Geelong Port’s boundaries but

not in Port ownership is zoned Industrial 2.

The table below identifies the purposes of each schedule of the Special Use

Zone applying to the ports.

Table 1 – Special Use Zone purposes applying to Victoria’s four ports

Port of

Melbourne ‐

schedule 1.

Port of

Melbourne

Port of

Melbourne –

schedule 2.

Marine

Engineering

Area

Port of

Melbourne

– schedule 3.

The Strand

& Nelson

Place

Port of

Melbourne –

schedule 4.

Waters of

the Port of

Melbourne

Mornington

Peninsula

Greater

Geelong Glenelg

Zone

purposes

To provide

for the

ongoing

operation

and

development

of the

Melbourne

Port as a key

area of the

State for the

interchange,

storage and

distribution

of goods.

To provide

for uses

which derive

direct benefit

from co‐

establishing

with a port.

To recognise

the

importance

of the Port of

Melbourne

and its

environs as a

focus for

major marine

industrial

development.

To support

the special

importance

of

shipbuilding

operations

and its

contribution

to State

economic

development

and

employment.

To provide

for

To provide

areas in the

vicinity of

Port Phillip

Bay for small

boat

building and

associated

uses.

To provide

for

development

that protects

the amenity,

safety and

character of

nearby

areas.

To provide

navigable

channels and

access for

shipping to

the Port of

Melbourne

as a key area

of the State

for the

interchange,

storage and

distribution

of goods.

To provide

for boating

and

recreational

uses within

the waters of

the Port of

Melbourne.

To provide a

location for

selected port

and industrial

uses which

depend upon

or gain

significant

economic

advantages

from the

natural deep

water channels

in

Westernport.

To enable the

effective

implementatio

n of the

Hastings Port

Industrial

Area Land Use

Structure Plan

(Department

of Planning

and

Development

To provide for

the

development

of the Geelong

Port as a key

area of the

State for the

interchange,

storage and

distribution of

goods.

To provide for

uses which

derive direct

benefit from

co‐establishing

with a port.

To provide for

the

development of

the port as a

key area of the

State for the

interchange,

storage and

distribution of

goods.

To provide for

uses which

derive direct

benefit from co‐

establishing

with a port.


204

Port of

Melbourne ‐

schedule 1.

Port of

Melbourne

Port of

Melbourne –

schedule 2.

Marine

Engineering

Area

Port of

Melbourne

– schedule 3.

The Strand

& Nelson

Place

Port of

Melbourne –

schedule 4.

Waters of

the Port of

Melbourne

Mornington

Peninsula

Greater

Geelong Glenelg

development

which

protects the

amenity,

safety and

character of

nearby areas.

1996).

To protect the

environmental

values of the

waters,

coastline and

intertidal areas

of

Westernport

and adjoining

land.

To provide for

the interim

rural use of

land to the

extent

consistent

with

maintaining

land resources

for future port

and port‐

related

development.

To protect the

towns of

Tyabb,

Hastings, Crib

Point and

Bittern by

ensuring that

no port

industrial

development

which may

have an

adverse affect

on the amenity

or safety of

residents

occurs in

proximity to

residential

areas.


205

Other zones that apply in port and port area of interest land include:

Table 2: Other zones that apply in port and port area of interest land

Port Zones

Melbourne Public Park & Recreation Zone

Road Zone 1

Hastings Public Use Zone

Public Use Zone 7 (Other public use)

Public Use Zone 4 (Transport)

Public Use Zone 1 (Service & Utility)

Geelong Industrial 1 Zone

Industrial 2 Zone

Public Park & Recreation Zone

Public Use Zone 4 (Transport)

Public Conservation & Resource Zone

Portland Public Park & Recreation Zone

Overlay controls that apply in port and port area of interest include:

Table 3: Overlay controls that apply in port and port area of interest land

Port Overlay

Melbourne City Ling project Overlay 2

Design & Development Overlay 2




Heritage Overlay 7

Heritage Overlay 8

Heritage Overlay 9

Special Building Overlay 3

Hastings Design & Development Overlay 1


Land Subject to Inundation Overlay

Public Acquisition Overlay 2

Public Acquisition Overlay 4

Vegetation protection Overlay 1


206

Port Overlay

Geelong Design & Development Overlay 14


Environmental Audit Overlay

Environmental Significance Overlay

Heritage Overlay 1648



Portland N/A


207

Appendix G Draft Port Environs Overlay


208

PORT ENVIRONS OVERLAY Shown on the planning scheme map as PEO with a number. Purpose

To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

To ensure that land use and development are compatible with the operation of a commercial trading port as detailed in the relevant Port Development Strategy approved under the Port Services Act 1995.

To recognise that the 24-hour, 7 day a week operation of commercial trading ports may have off-site amenity impacts on sensitive uses proposed to be located on adjacent lands.

To ensure that the establishment of sensitive uses on land adjacent to a commercial trading port do not impact on the ability of the port to operate on a 24-hour, 7 days a week basis.

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

To limit the number of people residing in the area or likely to be subject to significant levels of port generated noise.

To provide for the minimisation of exposure to risk to health or life of persons living in, working in or visiting the area.

Use of land

Any requirement in a schedule to this overlay must be met.

Construction of buildings

Any new building accommodating a sensitive use must include noise attenuation measures to the satisfaction of the responsible authority taking into account any comment from the Roads Corporation or EPA.

Subdivision

A permit is required to subdivide land.

An application to subdivide land must be referred to the commercial port operator under Section 55 of the Act unless in the opinion of the responsible authority the proposal satisfies requirements or conditions previously agreed in writing between the responsible authority and the commercial port operator.


An application under this overlay is exempt from the notice requirements of Section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d), the decision requirements of Section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of Section 82(1) of the Act.

Decision guidelines



Whether the proposal is compatible with the present and future operation of the commercial trading port as detailed in a Port Development Strategy approved under the Port Services Act 1995.


209

Whether the proposal will result in an increase in the number of dwellings and people affected by noise from port operations or road or rail traffic.

Whether the proposal will result in an increase in the number of dwellings and people affected by exposure to risk to health or life.

Whether the design of the building incorporates appropriate noise attenuation measures.

The views of the port operator.

Notes: Refer to the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement, for strategies and policies which may affect the use and development of land.

Check the requirements of the zone which applies to the land.

Other requirements may also apply. These can be found at Particular Provisions.


210

Appendix H Draft Design and Development Overlay

[NAME] PLANNING SCHEME

DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY - SCHEDULE [NUMBER] PAGE 1 OF 1

SCHEDULE NUMBER TO THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY

Shown on the planning scheme map as DDOnumber

PORT ENVIRONS

1.0 Design objectives

To ensure that the development of land near the ---- Port is undertaken with appropriate noise attenuation measures to mitigate the impact of port related noise on noise sensitive activities. (Comment: I presume we are talking about more than just traffic noise)

2.0 Buildings and works

Any development within the area defined on Maps ? DDO? which is associated with a use listed below must include noise attenuation measures to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. In considering whether any measures proposed are to its satisfaction, the responsible authority will consider any appropriate Australian Standard in relation to noise, the comments of the Roads Corporation and/or the EPA or a report prepared by a competent acoustic engineer.

Accommodation Child care centre Education centre Indoor recreation facility Office Place of assembly Retail premises Warehouse Art and craft centre Brothel Funeral parlour Hospital Research centre Veterinary centre

3.0 Subdivision

4.0 Advertising signs

5.0 Decision guidelines

‐‐/‐‐/20—

C‐‐

‐‐/‐‐/20—

C‐‐

‐‐/‐‐/20—

C‐‐

‐‐/‐‐/20—

C‐‐

‐‐/‐‐/20—

C‐‐


212

Appendix I Draft Development Plan Schedule


213

SCHEDULE xx TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERLAY Shown on the planning scheme map as DPO ?? PORT OF xxxxx DEVELOPMENT PLAN The development plan provides criteria for any future use and development of land within the Port of ?.

1.0 Requirement before a permit is granted No specific requirements

2.0 Conditions and requirements for permits No specific requirements

3.0 Requirements for development plan The development plan must include:

Site Analysis Plan

Surrounding land uses and development

Vehicle and pedestrian links

Public transport

Topography and relationship to high water mark

Landscape features

Development concept plan

the proposed layout and use of each site,

any buildings and works to be demolished;

the location, appearance, height dimensions and floor area of all new buildings and works;

a schedule showing the materials, finishes and colours of all external buildings and structures;

the number, location, dimensions, and layout of all car parks and access ways to and from them;

a management plan for the operation and maintenance of the car and heavy vehicle parking areas;

the location and dimensions of all bicycle, vehicle and pedestrian ways;

a traffic management plan which must show any traffic management and traffic control works considered necessary in adjoining and nearby roads when the development is completed;

the means of vehicular and pedestrian ingress to and egress from the land;


214

the impact on any areas of environmental significance, particularly sensitive coastal environments.

a landscape plan which includes details on furniture, lighting and the location, quantity and size at maturity of all proposed plants, and the botanical names of the plants, the location of all areas to be covered by lawn or other surface materials and provides a specification of works to be undertaken prior to planting; and a management plan for controlling and maintaining the open space and landscaped areas.

4.0 Display of Development Plan

The development plan shall be made available for public inspection at ?????? for 14 days prior to its consideration by the responsible authority.

5.0 Decision guidelines Before deciding on application, the responsible authority must consider in addition to the matters set down in Clause 65 and the zone:

any written comments received in response to the display of the development plan;

the impact of the proposed development and use on adjacent and nearby properties, roads and

other physical infrastructure;

the impact of traffic generated by the proposal and whether it is likely to require special traffic management or control works in the neighbourhood;

points of access to and from the land and whether they are suitably located;

the layout and management of car and heavy vehicle parking areas and accessways to and from them;

any relevant Council policy;

whether the location, bulk, height and appearance of any proposed buildings or works will be in keeping with the character and amenity of the area.


215

Appendix J Draft Particular Provision – Port Environs Protection


216

NEW PARTICULAR PROVISIONS CLAUSE:

‘PORT ENVIRONS PROTECTION’

Rationale for a new clause.

A new Particular Provisions Clause is a technique to ensure applications for

use or development in the environs of ports are required to take into account

the activities of the port for the protection of the amenity of occupants of the

intended use or development as well as for the protection of the port.

The Particular Provisions of the planning scheme provide for a range of

matters such as ‘uses with adverse amenity potential’, ‘advertising signs’,

‘service stations’, ‘wind energy facilities’, ‘shipping container storage’ and the

like. These provisions have the advantage of ensuring that the impacts of a

particular land use or issue can be adequately managed.

The clause simply requires that in addition to the provisions of the prevailing

zones that surround ports, the activities of the port must be taken into account

before any use or development application is determined.

The clause is an alternative to a Port Environs Overlay. While not as

transparent as zone provisions or the use of an overlay it can provide for the

general area around a port without having to specifically or scientifically

identify that area.


217

52.XX PORT ENVIRONS PROTECTION

Scope

This clause applies to all land within the environs (not less than

200 metres) of land zoned for the purpose of port and port‐

related activities.

Purpose

To ensure that the use and development of land within the

environs of a port takes account of the potential risk from the

storage and handling of dangerous goods and the potential

amenity impacts of noise, residual emissions, light‐spill and

traffic generated by port and port‐related activities.

To take into account the need to minimize the use and

development of land for purposes which would lead to high

concentrations of people within the environs of a port who may

be unnecessarily exposed to potential risk and adverse amenity

impacts.

To take into account the potential of any proposed use or

development to impact on the existing or proposed activities of

the port.

52.XX‐1 Decision Guidelines

Before deciding on an application to use land for a sensitive use,

in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 65, the

responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:

Whether the proposed use or development is appropriate to

the site by virtue of the proximity of the port.

Whether the proposed use or development has the potential

to expose people unnecessarily to the off‐site impacts of the

port.

Whether the proposed use or development might result in

people being exposed unnecessarily to risk.


218

Whether the proposed use or development might lead to

pressure to impede the long term development of the port.

In deciding any application the responsible authority may, as

appropriate, take into account the views of the Environment

Protection Authority, WorkSafe, the relevant port manager and

the relevant Port Development Strategy prepared pursuant to

the Port Services Act 1995.

For the purposes of this clause, sensitive uses include Accommodation, Arts and craft centre, Child care centre, Education centre, Food and drink premises, Hospital, Office, Place of assembly, Restricted recreation facility and Retail premises.