Summary - wcb.vic.gov.au B - WVB CAP... · WVB CAP Interim Review/Final Report/Arup Environmental & Planning/July 2013 Implementing Coastal Action Plans 2005. It implements key policies

1

WVB CAP Interim Review/Final Report/Arup Environmental & Planning/July 2013

Summary The Western Victoria Boating Coastal Action Plan (WVB CAP) was enacted in November

2010 and establishes a strategic framework to guide the provision of improved and more

sustainable boating facilities in the western coastal region of Victoria.

The WVB CAP was developed in accordance with the Coastal Management Act 1995,

implements key policies and actions of the Victorian Coastal Strategy 2008 (VCS 2008)

and was prepared by the Western Coastal Board (the WCB) following extensive technical

evaluation and consultation with the community, local and State government agencies

and input from the Project Steering Committee and the Stakeholder Reference Group.

While the WVB CAP is not due for a full statutory review until late 2015, the Minister for

the Environment and Climate Change, in July 2012, directed the WCB to undertake an

Interim Review of the effectiveness of the WVB CAP. This report addresses the Interim

Review requested by the Minister.

The WVB CAP is predicated on a planning horizon out to 2035. The assessment of the

progress made over the past two and a half years needs to recognise, therefore, that we

are only at the beginning of this period. It is also important to note that there are no set

benchmarks against which to measure the extent or level of progress that should be

expected at this stage in the implementation of the WVB CAP and there are no

established quantitative or qualitative criteria that can assist this review or its findings.

In this context, the Interim Review has concluded that the WVB CAP has played an

important role in translating the principles of the VCS 2008 into the western region and it

has generally provided planners, funders and managers with the strategic planning

framework within which to develop and assess proposals to upgrade or improve boating

facilities and to assist in determining priorities. There is general consensus that the

Strategic Directions and the associated Priority Regional Actions are still valid and that

the WVB CAP remains consistent with current coastal planning directions.

There is, however, less agreement on whether the WVB CAP has assisted and influenced

facility planning and regional coordination or provided effective support for investment to

improve boating levels of service in the region. A common issue raised repeatedly has

been the lack or limitation in funding, resourcing and time available for the

implementation of the designated levels of service and region-wide actions listed in the

WVB CAP.

Overall, this Interim Review has found that there has been progress in a number of key

areas in relation to the status of the planning and assessment of the hierarchy of boating

facilities and Priority Regional Actions and Strategic Directions. It has also found that this

progress is not consistent across all of the recommendations and that no progress has

been made in relation to some of the key recommendations of the WVB CAP.

Specifically, for the hierarchy of boating facilities and their Levels of Service, and

excluding the Informal Boating Facilities (which represent 33% of all facility types and

which have been classified as No Change), 3% of all actions can be classified as

Completed, 32% as In Progress and 39% as Ongoing (see Section 3). This means that

2


74% of all actions can be considered to be in some form of progress and only 26% of

actions can be classified as Not Yet Started.

With regard to the five key Strategic Directions established by the WVB CAP, 63.5% of all

actions can be classified as either In Progress (33%) or Ongoing (30%), while 36.5% can

be classifies as Not Yet Started. No actions can be classified as Complete (see Section

4).

For this reason, the Interim Review has identified a series of issues which should be

monitored and progressed over the next two and half years and which should form the

basis of the matters to be considered in the full statutory review to be undertaken in

2015.

The priority implementation actions in regard to the hierarchy of boating facilities are:

• The planning and assessment of components of a State Marine Precinct at Lady Bay

Warrnambool. • The assessment and identification of potential safe harbour locations between

Queenscliff and Apollo Bay.

• Planning and assessment of a regional boating level of service at Torquay. • Funding and implementation of the Apollo Bay Harbour Plan. • The status of actions for the two medium priority Local Boating Facilities at Point

Roadknight, Anglesea (Not Yet Started) and Point Grey, Lorne (In progress). • The status of actions for those Local Boating Facilities classified as Not Yet Started,

including the Lorne boat ramp, Peterborough front beach, Curdie Vale, Boat Bay Peterborough, Fitzroy River Mouth and Henty Bay Caravan Park.

The priority implementation actions in regard to Priority Regional Actions (PRAs) and

Strategic Directions are:

• Progressing those high and medium priority PRAs that have been classified as Not

Yet Started.

• PRA3 – the preliminary feasibility of potential safe harbour locations between Queenscliff and Apollo Bay.

• PRA5 – the audit of car and trailer parking for boating facilities. • PRA15 – demand monitoring for boat facility use. • Strategic Direction 5 (Management, Investment and Maintenance), which currently

has the lowest level of completion (at 5%), with 8 of the 11 PRAs classified as 0% complete.

• Simplification and consolidation of the PRAs, with a clearer distinction between

matters of policy and action and a clearer perspective on their timing and duration.

3


1 Introduction

1.1 Background

The Western Victoria Boating Coastal Action Plan (WVB CAP) was enacted in November

2010, and establishes a strategic framework to guide the provision of improved and more

sustainable boating facilities in the western coastal region of Victoria.

While the WVB CAP is not due for a full statutory review until late 2015, the Minister for

the Environment and Climate Change, in July 2012, directed the WCB to undertake an

interim review of the effectiveness of the WVB CAP.

This report addresses the Interim Review requested by the Minister. Arup Environmental

& Planning has assisted the Western Coastal Board with this Interim Review.

1.1.1 Location

The WVB CAP applies to the Western coastal region, which extends from Breamlea (near

Torquay) in the east to the South Australian border in the west. The region includes:

• The marine environment including the nearshore marine environment, the seabed and

waters out to the state limit or 5.5 kilometres. • The 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 the critical views to the foreshore environment.

• Catchments feeding the rivers and drainage systems and including estuaries.

1.1.2 Focus

The WVB CAP is focused on recreational boating facilities on the coast and in estuaries.

It considers boating facilities that are used jointly by both commercial enterprises and the

public, with an emphasis on the public recreational boating facilities. The WVB CAP does

not seek to consider facilities located beyond the tidal extent of estuaries and in

freshwater systems.

The WVB CAP does not consider exclusively commercial, privately leased or owned or

‘other shipping’ facilities that are within the jurisdiction of port authorities. Nor does it

consider existing boating facilities on privately owned land, even if the facilities are

accessible to the public, or ramps associated with Surf Life Saving Clubs as these are not

public boat ramps and public access to these ramps is generally unsuitable.

1.1.3 Purpose of the WVB CAP

The WVB CAP was developed in accordance with the Coastal Management Act 1995 and

the Victorian Coastal Council’s (VCC’s) Guidelines for Preparing, Reviewing and

4


Implementing Coastal Action Plans 2005. It implements key policies and actions of the

Victorian Coastal Strategy 2008 (VCS 2008), and was prepared by the Western Coastal

Board (the WCB) with input from a Steering Committee and Stakeholder Reference

Group.

The WVB CAP seeks to ensure that the state’s west coast has a coordinated strategic

plan with which to approach the provision, maintenance and management of recreational

boating infrastructure. It also aims to ensure that appropriate levels of service are

provided through a regional network of boating facilities, for the benefit of all Victorians.

Key issues of sea level rise and open water access are addressed in the WVB CAP.

1.1.4 Implementation of the WVB CAP

The implementation of the WVB CAP is outlined in Section 8 of the WVB CAP. It includes

an Implementation Plan that has been developed to specify the priority actions that are

critical for effective and timely implementation.

The Implementation Plan allocates responsibilities for implementation of each action to

one or more agencies and organisations. It is the responsibility of land managers to

implement specific projects. Section 29 of the Coastal Management Act 1995 requires

land managers to take all reasonable steps to give effect to a CAP applying to that land.

The WVB CAP identifies that an Implementation Committee will be established comprising

members of the agencies and organisations who have a responsibility to implement the

WVB CAP. It also identifies a series of pathways for the implementation and realisation

of the recommendations of the BCAP that enact the framework and provide the detailed

environmental, social and economic assessments required to achieve the recommended

level of service for each facility.

The Implementation Committee is also responsible for reviews of the WVB CAP.

1.1.5 WVB CAP Outcomes

Successful implementation of the WVB CAP will deliver the following outcomes consistent

with the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development outlined in the VCS 2008:

• A vision for the future direction and management of recreational boating facilities in

the Western Coastal Region. • Regional strategic context and guidance for the location and scale of boating use and

development in the Western Coastal Region based on environmental, economic, social assessment principles.

• Priorities for future public and private investment in the development of boating

infrastructure in the Western Coastal Region to maximise benefits to current and future generations.

• Improved co-ordination of the provision and regulation of boating facilities, leading to

improved decision making. • Improved safety standards for boating launch and retrieval activities.

5


1.2 Review of the WVB CAP

The WCB was established under the Coastal Management Act 1995 to provide strategic

planning advice to the Minister for Environment and Climate Change and to the Victorian

Coastal Council.

The WCB was responsible for the preparation of the WVB CAP, which involved extensive

technical evaluation, consultation with the boating and recreational and commercial

fishing communities and liaison with local and State government departments and

agencies, local councils and committees of management.

The Coastal Management Act 1995 requires a CAP to be reviewed every five years. This

ensures that a CAP remains current and considers new information and planning issues.

A CAP review is generally undertaken in two parts, an assessment of the status of the

actions in the CAP and an evaluation of the CAP’s effectiveness as a sub-regional

planning document. For a Boating CAP, additional updates include an assessment of the

condition of each boating facility and reporting on trends in markets and demand to help

inform the revised plan.

1.2.1 Scope of the Interim Review

The Interim Review of the WVB CAP has:

• Reviewed the effectiveness of the WVB CAP, including whether coordinated regional

actions and designated levels of service have been achieved.

• Examined the synergy of the WVB CAP with current policy and planning directions and priorities in the region.

• Considered recreational boating issues relevant to a proposed overarching Regional

CAP (e.g. managing changes/pressures, infrastructure provision and use). • Considered changes to the strategic priority actions and the provision of levels of

service.

Key questions the Interim Review has sought to answer include:

• Have upgrades to boating Levels of Service been progressed or achieved?

• Have region-wide actions been progressed or achieved? • Has the BCAP provided the strategic justification and direction for the provision of

sustainable infrastructure and is it still appropriate?

• Are there emerging issues?

• What additional issues should a full statutory review in 2015 consider?

The interim BCAP review has not:

• Considered changes to the designation of levels of service for locations.

6


• Provided detailed answers to the key questions listed in the Boating CAP.

1.2.2 Approach to the Interim Review

Information presented in this report was collected by the WCB through a survey

forwarded to 29 representatives of responsible agencies, land/facility managers and

organisations involved in the administration of the WVB CAP. Responses were received

from 15 stakeholders.

All information gathered from the survey is reflected in this report where appropriate. As

the same level of detail for each question, facility or strategic direction was not received,

the report reflects the information available.

Further consultation on the Interim Review has occurred as follows:

• The structure and format of the draft Interim Review Report and some initial findings

were discussed at a joint meeting of the Reference Group and Implementation

Committee on 16 May 2013.

• The draft Interim Review Report, including the detailed discussion presented in

Sections 3, 4 and 5, was circulated to the 29 representatives of responsible agencies

for comment. No comment was advised to be taken as acceptance. No comments

have been received.

• The draft Interim Review Report was circulated prior to, and discussed at, a meeting

of the Western Coastal Board on 14 June 2013.

• The draft Interim Review Report was circulated prior to, and discussed at, a joint of

the Reference Group and Implementation Committee on 24 June 2013.

Extensive consultation on this report has therefore been completed, and all relevant

representatives have had several opportunities to comment on the findings, conclusions

and recommendations of this Interim Review.

The Interim Review was undertaken in accordance with the following three broad stages:

• Stage 1 – A review of the current operating environment to identify any relevant

changes to the WVB CAP operating environment since its gazettal in November 2010.

• Stage 2 – The analysis of feedback from facility managers and responsible agencies.

• Stage 3 – the development of a WVB CAP review report and an implementation plan.

1.2.3 Purpose of the Interim Review

The purpose of this interim review is to inform the WCB, the Minister, the government,

the boating community and other key stakeholders on progress in implementing the WVB

CAP. As such:

7


• Section 2 provides a brief review of the policy context for the WVB CAP and whether

there have been any changes of significance.

• Section 3 reports on the status of actions in regard to the designated levels of

service.

• Section 4 reports on the status of actions in relation to the four strategic directions

developed in the WVB CAP.

• Section 5 reports on responses received to a set of questions related to the

usefulness of the WVB CAP and the respondents’ experience with the administration

and implementation of the WVB CAP.

1.2.4 Status classifications used in the Interim Review

The following classifications have been used to assess the status of actions:

• Complete: An action has been classified as complete if the action has been either

completed by the lead agent or superceded by other support agents or addressed

through the actions of another management plan.

• In Progress: An action has been classified as in progress if it is partially complete

(e.g. it may have been undertaken by some agencies but not all concerned or it may

require further time/or funding to be completed).

• Ongoing: The action is more aligned to a policy statement and a long-term planning

program or actions which are likely to be continued beyond the five year timeframe

of the CAP.

• Not yet started: An action has been classified as not yet started if it had not

commenced at the time of this review.

• No change: There has been no change to the facility and no change had been

planned in the WVB CAP. This classification has generally been applied to those at

the informal level of service.

These classifications are generally consistent with those adopted by the WCB in it’s

review of Coastal Action Plans in Victoria’s Western Coastal Region (June 2012) and by

the Central Coastal Board in its recently released draft five year review of it’s current

Boating Coastal Action Plan. It seems sensible that generally the same classifications are

adopted, given that the reports from both the Central Coastal Board and the WCB will be

provided to the Victorian Coastal Council and the Minister for Environment and Climate

Change.

Some sections of this report provide an estimate of the extent (percentage) to which an

action, item or policy has been completed. These estimates are provided for guidance

only and cannot be taken to represent any rigorous statistical analysis. They have been

based loosely on a mathematical averaging technique, which has inherent flaws given the

8


wide range of agencies involved in the implementation of the WVB CAP and the

geographic extent of the western coastal region. They are intended to provide another

indication of the extent of progress and action and should be viewed in this light only.

9


2 Policy context

2.1 Introduction

The WVB CAP was prepared within the coastal management framework established by a

myriad of legislation and policy at a State, regional and local government level.

The WVB CAP has also been prepared to facilitate the implementation of the VCS 2008 in

the western coastal region, including key components relating to sea level rise, open

water access, the Coastal Settlement Framework and the Recreational Boating Facilities

Hierarchy 2030.

Important strategic planning and settlement policies at a local and regional level also

influenced, and continue to influence the recommendations of the WVB CAP, particularly

where they provide direction to future population and employment growth or change.

Population change has a direct relationship with potential levels of boating demand.

Such strategies include the G21 strategy, which has significant implications for the rate

and direction of population growth and settlement patterns in the Geelong region.

2.2 Coastal planning and management

The WVB CAP has been prepared in accordance with the hierarchy of coastal planning

and management policy as summarised in the following sections:

2.2.1 Coastal Management Act

The Coastal Management Act 1995 establishes the Victorian Coastal Council and tasks it

with the preparation of the Victorian Coastal Strategy. The Act also provides for the

establishment of coastal regions and Regional Coastal Boards. The Regional Coastal

Boards provide advice to the Minister and the Victorian Coastal Council, prepare Coastal

Action Plans, facilitate the implementation of the Victorian Coastal Council in the region

and undertake a range of other functions.

The WVB CAP was prepared pursuant to the provisions of the Coastal Management Act

1995. A Coastal Action Plan is a strategic planning tool for either a particular area or a

specific issue relating to coastal management and the use and development of Crown

land.

A Coastal Action Plan must:

• Identify strategic directions and objectives for use and development in the region,

and;

• Provide for detailed planning of the region or part of the region to:

• facilitate recreational use and tourism, and

10


• to provide for protection and enhancement of significant features of the region’s

coast, including the marine environment.

The Act is supported by CAP Guidelines issued in 2005 and 2012 by the Victorian Coastal

Council.

While updated guidelines have been issued (2012) since the preparation of the WVB CAP,

there have been no significant changes in the intent, implementation and/or

administration of this Act.

One change of potential significance is that the Minister for Environment and Climate

Change has asked each Regional Coastal Board to develop an overarching CAP that

identifies strategic directions and objectives for coastal use and development within their

region.

The Central Coastal Board (CCB), in its Draft Five Year Review report on its Boating

Coastal Action Plan, has proposed to prepare a Regional Boating Facilities Framework for

the central region to update information in the existing Boating CAP. The CCB advises

that:

A summarised form of this information would be integrated into the Regional CAP

ensuring recreational boating remains prominent amongst a broader set of regional

coastal planning values. The intention would be to reference the Regional CAP in the

State Planning Policy Framework which will give it the same level of legislative support

experienced by the existing Boating CAP. These ideas will be developed further in the

consultation process to prepare the Regional CAP.

The WCB will consider adopting a similar and consistent approach with the CCB, and

undertake further discussions with the Minister, the VCC and the CCB.

2.2.2 VCS 2008

The WVB CAP was also prepared within the framework established by the VCS 2008 and

to facilitate the implementation of the strategy in the western region.

The Victorian Coastal Strategy 2008 gives direction for the planning for and managing

the impacts of activities on and in the:

• Marine environment, which includes the nearshore marine environment, the seabed

and waters out to the State limit (or 5.5km).

• Foreshore or coastal Crown land 200m from the high water mark.

• Coastal hinterland, on private and Crown land.

The overall purpose of the WVB CAP is to provide a strategic framework to guide the

provision of improved and more sustainable boating facilities across the western coastal

region, based on the following VCS 2008 policy statement (Section 3.1.2):

11


• Strategically plan for and deliver sustainable boating facilities and infrastructure on

the coast via CAPs that respond to a demand assessment, safety considerations, the

protection and sustainable management of coastal processes, conservation

objectives, and quality of experience of all beach users.

• Provide new access and review existing inappropriate access in accordance with the

recreational boating facilities hierarchy.

• Ensure the provision of effluent disposal facilities at strategic boating locations to

address illegal sewage discharge from boats.

One of the key issues identified in the VCS 2008 is the likely impact of climate change on

the coast, particularly in relation to potential sea level rise and an increase in the

frequency and severity of storm surge events. These matters have also been addressed

in DEPI’s Future Coasts Program and the National Climate Adaptation Program.

At a local level, there have been consequential changes to planning scheme provisions,

including amendments to Clause 13.01 of the State Planning Policy Framework regarding

the management of coastal hazards and planning for sea level rise and associated storm

surge activity supported by a Ministerial Direction and Planning Practice Note.

Much of the strategic planning policy at a local level, including the development of new

boating facilities, local planning policy and associated review processes has been

influenced and guided by these key strategies and programs.

While the analysis and understanding of the key issues identified and addressed in VCS

2008, and associated policy documents and approaches, has continued to evolve and

deepen since the preparation of the WVB CAP, there have been no significant changes in

the intent, implementation and/or administration of the VCS 2008.

2.2.3 Coastal Management Plans

A coastal management plan is a public document approved by the Minister for the

Environment. The plan establishes an agreement between a Committee of Management

(COM), Department of Environment and Primary Industry (DEPI) and the community as

to how an area of coastal Victoria will be managed. It sets out the land management

requirements for an area of land and includes a three year business plan detailing

proposed works for the site.

A coastal management plan provides direction to a COM in terms of actions and activities

to take place on the reserve, planned expenditure and maintenance requirements.

Community input and participation in the development of a coastal management plan is

essential.

The main objectives of a coastal management plan and business plan are to:

• Provide a vision for the management of the reserve for the future in accordance with

the Victorian Coastal Strategy (January 2008).

12


• Identify the environmental, heritage and recreational values of the area.

• Set objectives for the protection of these values and strategies to protect and

enhance them.

• Provide a prioritised list of actions and a time frame in which to achieve the actions.

• Identify resources and/or possible sources of income/grants to complete priority

actions.

• Define the roles and responsibilities of the various stakeholders in the management

of the reserve and implementation of the actions.

In the context of the WVB CAP, a Coastal Management Plan will be used to guide

subsequent development of more detailed master plans and works for an area and

provide support for future bids for funds from Government Agencies and other funding

sources.

2.2.4 Coastal Action Plan Review (2012)

During 2012, the WCB undertook a statutory five (5) year review of its Coastal Action

Plans (CAPS) applying to the coastline from the South Australian border to Breamlea and

including the municipalities of Glenelg, Moyne, Corangamite, Colac-Otway and Surf Coast.

The 2012 Review found that CAPs have been very successful and have provided a

valuable cross-jurisdictional mechanism for stakeholder collaboration, planning and

implementation to deliver Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) on the west

coast of Victoria.

The findings and recommendations outlined in the review reveal the key successes of

and learnings from the CAP process and conclude that a second generation of revised

Regional CAPs is required to deliver ICZM and facilitate the implementation of the

Victorian Coastal Strategy (VCS) 2008.

The CAP Review Report examines the status of all CAP actions, as well as the successes

and challenges associated with current CAPs, within a structured qualitative and

quantitative review process. The review translates the knowledge of the WCB and

regional stakeholders gained from the lessons of CAP implementation, into 31

recommendations to ensure future coastal planning and management practices respond

effectively to the range of issues outlined in the VCS 2008.

A process to revise Regional CAPs is considered essential by the WCB to deliver the

outcomes sought by the Coastal Management Act 1995 and VCS 2008. The report

outlines a number of opportunities which should be considered for a next generation of

regional CAPs.

Once the process to develop the revised CAPs is established, the WCB will involve all key

stakeholders and communities in extensive consultation.

13


2.2.5 Policy Framework for Open Ocean Access Launching

Facilities in Victoria

This policy (Finding a Balance for Open Ocean Access – Safety, Boating and the

Environment) was released in October 2010 to support proponents developing proposals

for new or enhanced boat launching facilities that provide direct access to the open

ocean. The Policy Framework related to all facilities that provide access to open, ocean

ranging from artificial harbours to boat ramps (with or without the support of

breakwaters) to informal beach areas.

The policy identified that the Victorian Government supported the development of

appropriate infrastructure providing safe and effective access to the ocean along

Victoria’s coastline. The policy provided a clear set of strategic principles as a basis for

developing any new proposals, but did not replace the requirement to achieve the

necessary statutory approvals.

The Policy Framework was developed to help proponents identify the critical work that is

necessary in developing proposals for open ocean access facilities and assist with better

understanding of the various statutory and planning processes that need to be adhered

to.

2.3 Other key Victorian legislation

Other primary legislation includes the:

• National Parks Act 1975

• Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978

2.3.1 National Parks and Crown Land Acts

Within Victoria, 96% of coastal land is held by the Minister for Environment and Climate

Change on behalf of the Crown for all Victorians. One third of Victoria’s coastal Crown

land is reserved as National Park under the National Parks Act 1975 and managed by

Parks Victoria. The majority of the remaining coastal Crown land is reserved under the

Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 for a variety of public purposes, generally for the

protection of the coast:

• Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978: Provides for the reservation of Crown land for a

variety of public purposes, the appointment of committees of management to

manage those reserves and for leasing and licensing of reserves for purposes

approved by the minister. The Act aims to preserve areas of ecological significance,

conserve archaeological interest areas, preserve native plant species, manage wildlife

or preserve wildlife habitat and preserve and protect the coastline. It is administered

by the DEPI

• National Parks Act 1975: This legislation makes provision for the preservation and

protection of the natural environment including wilderness areas and remote and

natural areas in national parks, State parks, marine national parks and marine

14


sanctuaries. It stipulates that indigenous flora and fauna and features of scenic or

archaeological, ecological, geological, historic or other scientific interest must be

protected. Human activity in these areas is restricted to ensure their protection. It is

important to note that these parks and sanctuaries are available for use and

enjoyment by the public for appropriate self-reliant recreation activities, which

includes recreational boating.

There have been no significant changes in the intent, implementation or administration of

these Acts.

2.3.1 Other important legislation

Other important State legislation includes:

Planning and Environment Act 1987

This Act establishes a framework for planning the use, development and protection of

land in Victoria. It provides for planning and environmental protection and regulation,

including core tools such as the Victoria Planning Provisions and Planning Schemes. In

decision making consideration must be given to the present and long term interests of all

Victorians.

Fisheries Act 1995

The Act regulates the operation of commercial and recreational fisheries.

It provides the legislative framework for the regulation, management and conservation of

Victorian habitats and protection of selected aquatic species. Under this Act it is an

offence to take, injure, damage, destroy, possess, keep or display for reward any

declared protected aquatic biota.

Marine Act 1988

This Act provides controls for the registration of marine vessels, the efficient and safe

operation of vessels and associated boating activities and the pollution of State waters.

It establishes Marine Safety Victoria (MSV) and relates only to intrastate activities (i.e.

those solely within State waters). The MSV is responsible for the regulation of shipping

activities, allocation of funding to boating safety services, facility development from

licence and vessel registration and the appointment of local authorities for the

management of waterways. It provides powers to local authorities for the management

of navigation of vessels, management of channels and provision of dredging standards.

This Act also provides powers to Parks Victoria for management of recreational boating,

piers and jetties within Port Phillip Bay.

Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988

This Act provides for protection of listed species and communities and management of

threatening processes (including those relevant to to the marine environment and coastal

habitats).

Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987

15


This Act sets up a legislative framework to enable effective conservation of the State’s

lands, waters, flora and fauna and makes provision for their productive, educational and

recreational use in ways which are environmentally sound, socially just and economically

efficient.

Heritage Act 1995

This Act protects shipwrecks, archaeological sites and archaeological relics in the region

and includes requirements for a permit or consent to disturb the remains of any historic

shipwreck or archaeological site.

At the Federal level one important piece of legislation is:

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation(EPBC) Act 1999

This Act establishes the legislative framework for obtaining information and advice on the

likely environmental effects of projects by decision makers and those responsible for

undertaking works. The EPBC Act is the enacting legislation for several international

agreements relating to the protection of flora and fauna species and communities

(including the RAMSAR Convention). The Act provides that the Commonwealth

Environment Minister must, in deciding whether an action is likely to have a significant

impact, taking into account the precautionary principle.

2.4 Regional Studies

2.4.1 G21

G21 is the formal alliance of government, business and community organisations within

the greater Geelong region across five member municipalities; Colac Otway, Golden

Plains, Greater Geelong, Queenscliffe and Surf Coast.

The G21 Planning and Services Pillar is one of the eight pillars of the overall G21

Strategy. It supports efforts to:

• Monitor land supply throughout the region (industrial and residential).

• Assess anticipated climate change impacts on the region and coordinate the planning

response.

• Ensure strategic regional infrastructure provision for designated growth areas of the

region.

The Pillar supports the G21 Geelong Region Plan. Two priority projects supported by the

Region Plan are the Apollo Bay Harbour Precinct and the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth

Area.

In April this year, the Minister for Planning released the latest G21 Regional Growth Plan.

The G21 Regional Growth Plan is the first of eight Regional Growth Plans to be approved

16


and will link to the new Metropolitan Planning Strategy being developed to create a vision

for Victoria.

The purpose of the Growth Plan is to manage growth and land use pressures to 2050.

The Growth Plan provides a regional land use and settlement planning framework which

will guide local level planning and infrastructure planning. It pulls together the strategic

land use and growth planning already done across the region and sets out where future

residential and employment growth will occur and critical infrastructure required to

support it.

The G21 Regional Growth Plan:

• Identifies residential land supply for the next 30-40 years to accommodate a

projected population of 500,000.

• Identifies employment land to accommodate up to 80,000 new jobs by 2050.

• Identifies agricultural land uses, significant tourism routes and health, education and

research facilities.

• Strengthens and protects existing major employment zones including Central

Geelong, Corio, Lara, Avalon, Port of Geelong, Armstrong Creek, Torquay-Jan Juc,

Ocean Grove and Colac.

• Identifies significant natural and landscape assets including the Otway Ranges, You

Yangs, Bellarine Peninsula, Great Ocean Road, Otway Coast and Barrabool Hills.

The G21Regional Growth Plan represents a significant strategic planning document that

will help shape the growth and settlement pattern for the region to 2050. It reinforces,

rather than revises, the fundamental population growth and settlement assumptions that

are recognised by the WVB CAP.

2.4.2 Great South Coast Regional Growth Plan

The Great South Coast Regional Growth Plan provides a regional approach to land use

planning in the Great South Coast region and includes the municipalities of Corangamite,

Glenelg, Moyne, Southern Grampians and Warrnambool. It is one of eight regional

growth plans being prepared across Victoria and is due to be finalised by late 2013.

The draft plan identifies a number of drivers that will affect how the region develops and

how land is used and covers four main themes, the regional economy, environment and

heritage, living in the region and regional infrastructure. The plan provides the land use

planning framework to underpin a prosperous and sustainable future for the region and

supports economic and population growth, building on regional strengths and

opportunities. It also identifies that infrastructure, services and workforce will be needed

to harness the potential and benefits of growth.

17


The draft plan identifies that the region has unique marine assets that are undeveloped

in terms of their potential to support economic growth and that there are opportunities,

including recreational fishing and marine-based tourism, sustainable commercial fishing,

aquaculture, renewable energy production and marine and environmental science

research and education.

The draft plan supports overcoming constraints to the expansion of the Port of Portland

and the development of related industries in the port precinct and supports the

completion of a full audit and assessment of existing marine infrastructure and assets

and the utilisation of existing studies, including the WVB CAP and the Victorian Coastal

Strategy.

The draft plan also identifies that future population growth will be accommodated across

the existing network of towns and that the settlement hierarchy of the region reflects the

diversity of the region and the roles played by various towns.

Warrnambool is identified as the key population and employment centre for the region

and is expected to accommodate 50 to 60% of the population growth in the Great

Southern Coast under the plan, leading to an increase in the number of residents from

~32,500 people in 2011 to around 55,000 by 2041. Warrnambool’s growth will offer

economic and social spillovers for the region, including the attraction of new higher order

services, facilities and service industries.

2.5 Conclusions

The WVB CAP remains relevant within the current policy context and has retained its

synergy with current policy and planning directions and priorities in the western coastal

region.

There have been no significant changes in the intent, implementation and/or

administration of the key components of the legislative and policy settings for the WVB

CAP.

The G21Regional Growth Plan and the Great South Coast Regional Growth Plan represent

significant strategic planning documents that will help shape the growth and settlement

pattern for the region to 2050. They reinforce, rather than revise, the fundamental

population growth and settlement assumptions that are recognised by the WVB CAP.

18


3 Hierarchy of Boating Facilities

3.1 Introduction

The WVB CAP hierarchy for boating facilities in the western coastal region defines five

levels of service:

• State Marine Precinct • Regional Boating Facility • District Boating Facility • Local Boating Facility • Informal Boating Facility

The key elements that comprise a facility at each level of service in the hierarchy have

been defined in the WVB CAP, along with other elements that are not necessarily critical,

but which may add value to the level of service.

The hierarchy is based on an assessment of each facility’s target level of service and role

within the regional network and hierarchy of facilities to 2030. The status of actions in

relation to this hierarchy is discussed further in this section and Appendix A.

3.2 Survey response

Appendix A provides a detailed analysis and description of the recreational boating facility

hierarchy to 2030 adopted in the WVB CAP including:

• The location of each facility and its current role and designated future level of

service.

• Reports by relevant land managers on:

• The current status of actions in relation to that facility and towards the

realisation of the designated level of future service as designated by the WVB

CAP.

• The future intentions in relation to that facility and towards the realisation of the

designated level of future service as designated by the WVB CAP and the

proposed timeframe.

In preparing their responses to these matters, the relevant land managers were asked to

consider the following:

• Constraints and opportunities – what are the constraints and opportunities that affect

the achievement of the designated level of service or progress towards it?

19


• Timeframe - this is not intended to be binding but to be indicative to assist

coordination and information sharing.

• Potential and committed funding – what funds have been allocated and where

additional funds might be sourced from.

• Strategic linkages - what other processes/initiatives would drive or assist the

achievement of the designated level of service?

• Additional support – where could additional support come?

3.3 Status of actions

Table 3.1 provides a classification of the status of actions in relation to the WVB CAP

hierarchy for boating facilities to 2030 based on the responses provided in Appendix A

and using the status classifications described in Section 1.2.4:

• Complete (C)

• In progress (IP)

• Ongoing (OG)

• Not yet started (NYS)

• No change (NC)

Table 3.1 WVB CAP Hierarchy of Boating Facilities – Summary of Status Facility name Facility type Current role Strategic

priority

Status % complete *

State Marine Precinct

Lady Bay Warrnambool

Boat ramp, jetty & wharf

District High In progress 10%

Portland Harbour

Multipurpose Regional High In progress 80%

Regional Boating Facility

Torquay Fishermans Beach

Boat ramp Local High Not yet started 0%

Apollo Bay

Multipurpose District High In progress 40%

Port Fairy

Multipurpose Regional Medium Complete 95%

District Boating Facility

Nelson East Side, Kellet Street

Boat Ramp District Medium Ongoing 90%

20


Facility name Facility type Current role Strategic priority

Status % complete *

Local Boating Facility

Surf Coast Boating Precinct

Point Roadknight, Anglesea

Boat ramp Local Medium Not yet started 0%

Lorne boat ramp

Boat ramp Local Low Not yet started 0%

Point Grey, Lorne

Boat ramp Informal Medium In progress 20%

Corangamite Boating Precinct

Princetown

Boat ramp Informal Low Ongoing 90%

Port Campbell

Jetty/wharf Local Medium Ongoing 90%

Moyne Boating Precinct

Peterborough Front Beach

Boat ramp Local Low

Not yet started 0%

Curdie Vale


Boat Bay Peterborough


Killarney

Boat ramp Local Low Ongoing 90%

Shaw River, Yambuk


Warrnambool Boating Precinct

Allansford, Jubilee Park Road

Boat ramp Local Low In progress 90%

Hopkins River Mahoney’s


Hopkins River Upstream (Simpson St)


Hopkins River

Boat ramp, jetty & wharf

Local Low In progress 50%

Merri River at Dennington


Glenelg Boating Precinct

Fitzroy River Mouth


Henty Bay Caravan Park


21



Status % complete *

Wally’s ramp Allestree


Glenelg River Saunders Landing


Glenelg River Sapling Creek


Glenelg River Prichards

Boat Ramp Local Low Ongoing 90%

Nelson West Side


Nelson, Simpsons Landing


Informal Boating Facility

Surf Coast Boating Precinct

Torquay Sailing Club

Beach access track

Informal Low No change N.A.

Anglesea Landing

Landing Informal Low No change N.A.

Anglesea Caravan Park

Boat ramp Informal Low No change N.A.

Urquhart Bluff


Painkalac Creek


Spout Creek


Grove Road, Lorne


Colac Otway Boating Precinct

Wye River Boat ramp


Kennett River


Skenes Creek Boat ramp


Aire River, Horden Vale Road


Corangamite Boating precinct

Port Campbell SLSC


22



Status % complete *

Moyne Boating Precinct

Port Fairy, Battery Lane


Glenelg Boating Precinct

Narrawong, Surry River

Boat ramp Informal Low In progress 10%

Cape Bridgewater


Nelson, Isle of Bags


*The estimate of the extent (percentage) to which an action, item or policy has been completed is

provided for guidance only and cannot be taken to represent any rigorous statistical analysis. They

have been based loosely on a mathematical averaging technique, which has inherent flaws given the

wide range of agencies involved in the implementation of the WVB CAP and the geographic extent of

the western coastal region. N.A. means “not applicable” ie no estimate was made.

The following sections provide some discussion of the status of actions based on advice

provided by facility managers.

3.3.1 State Marine Precincts

The summary of the status of actions indicates the following:

• Actions related to Lady Bay at Warrnambool have been classified as In Progress

(10% complete). In 2011/2012 $680,000 was spent on implementing access to the

lower landing at the breakwater. Funds, and a working group, have been established

for a study to look at the creation of a safe boating facility at the boat ramp which

will not have a detrimental impact on the rest of Lady Bay.

• Actions related to Portland Harbour have also been classified as In Progress, but with

a much higher percentage of completion (80%). A new marina commenced operation

in 2013 and construction of the new boat ramp is scheduled for completion by March

2014.

3.3.2 Regional Boating Facilities


• Actions related to Port Fairy have been classified as complete recognising that it is

considered to be a mature port and harbour with a good range of well maintained

facilities. The 95% completeness rating recognises that there will continue to be

ongoing improvements made to the Port (e.g. a second boat ramp) and ongoing

maintenance works that will enhance the function and utility of the Port.

23


• Actions related to the Apollo Bay Harbour have been classified as In Progress, but

with 40% completeness. A recent funding application for the upgrade of the boat

ramp car park was unsuccessful. It is now proposed to proceed with upgrade of the

boat ramp car park in two stages, the first will incorporate construction and sealing

of the car park and the second stage will incorporate landscaping, lighting, car park

furniture and signage. The subsequent stages of development will focus on the

construction of a toilet facility, a community club rooms, upgrade of the boat ramp

and slipway facility and extension of the marina.

The Colac Otway Shire Council advises that funding applications may need to include

more information on design, the staging of the project and more precise costings and

that further funds may be required to enable the development of concept plans and

the preparation of detailed cost estimates.

• Actions related to Torquay have been classified as Not Yet Started. The replacement

of the existing boat ramp has been completed, but no substantive action in regard to

the definition and assessment of a Regional Boating Facility has been advanced since

the approval of the WVB CAP. GORCC advises that funds are being budgeted in

2013/2014 to partly fund the commencement of the preparation of a Regional Plan,

but that further major funding is required from the State Government for this to

proceed.

GORCC also advises that the development of a regional facility plan should be

preceded by the Safe Harbour study to ensure the Torquay design meets any

requirements resulting from the Safe Harbour design characteristics, if a Safe

Harbour is designated at Torquay.

3.3.3 District Boating Facilities


• Actions related to Nelson East Side (Kellet Street) have been classified as Ongoing.

Recognising that maintenance of the present service level and role of this facility will

be on-going a completion rate of 90% has been given.

3.3.4 Local Boating Facilities


• Actions related to facilities in the Surf Coast Boating Precinct have been classified as

Not Yet Started for Point Roadknight at Anglesea and the Lorne Boat Ramp and In

Progress for Point Grey at Lorne. The latter is given a rating of 20% completion due

to the commencement of the Point Grey Precinct master planning process (which

does not include the Lorne Boat Ramp), due to be finalised by late 2013. Results

may provide the impetus for a re-consideration of the designated service level in the

full 2015 review.

24


• Actions related to facilities in the Corangamite Precinct at Princetown and Port

Campbell have been classified as Ongoing. The crane at Port Campbell was replaced

in 2012. The service level and role of both facilities will be maintained and a

completion rate of 90% has been given, as there will be an ongoing maintenance

requirement.

• Actions related to facilities in the Moyne Boating Precinct have been classified as Not

Yet Started for facilities at Peterborough Front Beach, Curdie Vale and Boat Bay

Peterborough and Ongoing for the facilities at Killarney and Shaw River Yambuk.

Upgrade works at Shaw River have been reported as completed and the maintenance

of the service level and role of both facilities has been reported, and a completion

rate of 90% has been given, as there will be an ongoing maintenance requirement.

• Actions related to facilities in the Warrnambool Boating Precinct have been classified

as Ongoing for all facilities. Different rates for the level of completion have been

given for:

• Allansford Jubilee Park Road (90%) where boat ramp rehabilitation works have

been completed and the ramp is now accessible at a high level

• Hopkins River Mahoney’s (90%)where construction is scheduled to rectify

flooding issues around the boat ramp, floating jetties are to be installed for

access and Council will continue to monitor car parking. Cost estimates have

been prepared for additional works.

• Hopkins River Upstream (Simpson Street (70%)) where there has been funding

of a detailed design of a new ramp and a master plan for the entire area. Cost

estimates have been prepared for additional works.

• Hopkins River (50%) where one of the existing jetties has been replaced by a

floating jetty and the jetties at the boat ramp have also been replaced and other

minor improvements have been completed. Cost estimates have been prepared

for additional works.

• Merri River at Dennington (50%) where jetty improvements have been made,

but the boat ramp is in need of attention and access to the site needs to be

improved. Cost estimates have been prepared for additional works.

• Actions related to facilities in the Glenelg Boating Precinct have been classified as

Not Yet Started for Fitzroy River Mouth and Henty Bay Caravan Park and Ongoing for

the other facilities at Wally’s Ramp Allestree, with a 60% completion rating, and

Glenelg River Saunders Landing, Glenelg River Sapling Creek, Glenelg River

Prichards, Nelson West Side and Nelson Simpsons’s Landing, all with a 90%

completion rating. The maintenance of the service level and role of all facilities has

been reported, and the completion rate that has been given reflects the ongoing

maintenance requirement.

25


3.3.4 Informal Boating Facilities


• Actions related to all facilities in all Boating Precincts, apart from Narrawong Surry

River in the Glenelg Boating Precinct, have been classified as No Change, as there

were no specific actions required to be undertaken in regard to these facilities, apart

from the ongoing maintenance of their current function. No specific works are

planned in regard to these facilities

• Actions related to Narrawong Surry River in the Glenelg Boating Precinct have been

classified as In Progress, with a 10% completion rating, as it has been reported that

there are plans for a medium upgrade of the ramp and the provision of a new jetty.

3.4 Conclusions

Table 3.2 provides an overview summary of the status of actions and their classification

in regard to the hierarchy of facilities.

Table 3.2 Summary of status of actions

Facility

C IP OG NYS NC

State Marine Precinct 2

Regional Boating Facility

1 1 1

District Boating Facility

1

Local Boating Facility

6 11 7

Informal Boating Facility

1 15

Total

1 10 12 8 15

% of Total Actions

2% 22% 26% 17% 33%

% of Total Actions

(excluding NCs)

3% 32% 39% 26%

The overall summary of the status of actions indicates the following

• Excluding the Informal Boating Facilities, which represent 33% of all facility types

and which have been classified as No Change, 3% of all actions can be classified as

Completed, 32% as In Progress and 39% as Ongoing. This means that 74% of all

actions can be considered to be in some form of progress and only 26% of actions

can be classified as Not Yet Started.

• The two State Marine Precincts vary widely from Portland Harbour with an 80%

completion rating to Lady Bay Warrnambool with a 10% completion rating, reflecting

their different stages of planning and development.

26


• There are three Regional Boating Facilities which have an overall classification of

Complete(Port Fairy),In Progress(Apollo Bay)and Not Yet Started(Torquay

Fishermans Beach). Master planning for Apollo Bay is well advanced, but there have

been recent unsuccessful funding applications which have hindered the progress of

development at this facility.

• There is only one District Boating Facility at Nelson East Side, Kellet Street with a

90% completion rating.

• There are 24 Local Boating Facilities which have an overall classification of In

Progress (6 or 25%), Ongoing (11 or 46%) and Not Yet Started (7 or 29%). This

means that 71% of all actions can be considered to be in some form of progress and

only 29% of actions can be classified as Not Yet Started.

• There are 16 Informal Boating Facilities which have an overall classification of No

Change and a Not Applicable (N.A.) completion rating, which reflects the existing

form and function of these facilities and what the WVB CAP intended for these

facilities.

27


4 Priority Regional Actions and Strategic Directions

4.1 Introduction

A number of new Strategic Directions for the future management of boating facilities in

the Western coastal region have been established in the WVB CAP.

The Strategic Directions provide guidance on the high-level issues that need to be

addressed in order to deliver the vision for the WVB CAP. They are based on, and apply

existing State-wide policy to the Western coastal region, and build on stakeholder and

community input during the preparation of the WVB CAP.

The Strategic Directions are:

• Strategic Direction 1: Boating Facilities Hierarchy and Levels of Service.

• Strategic Direction 2: Safety and Standards.

• Strategic Direction 3: Accessibility and Demand.

• Strategic Direction 4: Sustainable and Equitable Development.

• Strategic Direction 5: Management, Investment and Maintenance.

The issues addressed under each of the Strategic Directions are outlined in Table 4.1

Table 4.1 Issues addressed by Strategic direction

No Strategic Direction Issues addressed

1 Boating Facilities Hierarchy and

Levels of Service

• The network of boating facilities

• Current and future levels of service

• Boating hierarchy – where do we want to be in

2035?

2 Safety and Standards • Boating safety, the establishment of safe

harbours and standards for boating facilities

3 Accessibility and Demand • Balancing demand for coastal spaces between

different users

• The criteria for uses on Crown land

• The demand for growth and the expansion of

boating facilities

• Access for a range of users and boating types

• The distribution of boating access opportunities

4 Sustainable and Equitable

Development

• Sustainable development for boating

infrastructure (environmental, social, cultural

and economic)

28


• Net long term benefits for economic

development and communities

• The protection and enhancement of the coastal

environment

• Consideration of the impacts of climate change

• Equitable access for all boat users

5 Management, Investment and

Maintenance

• Management arrangements, planning and

accountabilities

• Improved coordination and communication

• Private sector investment guidance

• Public -Private Partnership opportunities

• Priority investment areas

• Risk management

The Strategic Directions provided the framework for the development of a specific list of

priority regional actions which are discussed in the following sections.

4.2 Survey response

Appendix B provides a detailed analysis and description of the priority regional actions for

responsible agents adopted in the WVB CAP including:

• The detailed priority regional action, the responsible agents and the priority of the

action (high, medium or low).

• The current status of actions in relation to the achievement of the action, whether

there have been constraints or opportunities to this and what these might be.

• Future intentions and anticipated timelines.

• Potential and committed funding sources, strategic linkages and any additional

support that may assist in the achievement of the action.

In preparing their responses to these matters, the relevant land managers have been

asked to consider the following:

• The information last provided to the WCB in mid-2011.

• The agreement reached at an Implementation Committee meeting in October 2011

to focus on the high priority actions and classify them as foundation (underpinning

other actions and therefore of the highest importance), ongoing and second-order.

• The information provided to the hierarchy of facilities survey, as outlined in Section 3.

29


4.3 Summary of status

Table 4.2 provides a summary of the status of actions in relation to the WVB CAP Priority

Regional Actions (PRA) based on the responses provided in Appendix B and using the

status classifications described in Section 1.2.4:

• Complete (C) • In Progress (IP) • Ongoing (OG) • Not Yet Started (NYS)

Table 4.2 WVB CAP Priority Regional Actions – Summary of Status

Action

Summary of Status &

priority given in the WVB

CAP

% complete *

Strategic Direction 1 – Boating Facilities Hierarchy & Levels of Service

PRA1. The boating hierarchy set out in this BCAP is to be used to guide strategic regional planning on the role of each facility in determining the range of of facilities and services provided across the whole network.

Ongoing High

20%

PRA2. The Decision Making Principles in Section 4.1.2 are to be used to guide the determination of the appropriate level of boating facility upgrade or development in the context of the level of service allocated to each facility within the network

In Progress High

20%

PRA3. Undertake an investigation to establish the preliminary feasibility of potential safe harbour locations between Queenscliff and Apollo Bay

Not Yet Started High

0%

PRA4. Safe harbour facilities must be developed and/or upgraded using a strategic context approach based on the network of boating facilities within the region.

Ongoing High

10%

PRA5. Undertake an audit of car and trailer parking for boating facilities

In Progress High

30%

PRA6. Initiate and facilitate a master planning process for the regional and state facilities that do not currently have an adopted strategic plan (e.g. Torquay, Port Fairy, Warrnambool)

In Progress Medium

30%

Strategic Direction 2 – Safety and Standards

PRA7. Each boating facility within the context of the regional network is to be audited to test their compliance with Australian Standards


0%

PRA8. Facilitate an accreditation of safety training and an education program at state, regional and district boating facilities

Not Yet Started Medium

0%

30


Action

Summary of Status &


CAP

% complete *

PRA9. Each boating facility asset (with the exception of informal facilities) is to have a Facility Management Plan completed which will outline the necessary maintenance work required to comply with Australian Standards

In Progress High

20%

Strategic Direction 3 – Accessibility and Demand

PRA10. When assessing development proposals, boating facilities are to be located strategically within the context of each Municipal Boating Precinct with due consideration of boating destinations and growth areas identified in the Coastal Settlements Framework.

Ongoing Medium

10%

PRA11. Conduct a program aimed at breaking down barriers to accessing recreational boating facilities

Not Yet Started Low

0%

PRA12. The development approvals system is to regulate access to coastal environments and boating infrastructure through prohibiting non- coastal dependent uses within the inter-coastal zone

In Progress High

20%

PRA13. Identify regional facilities, and gradually others across the network, where boating facilities will be provided to cater for a range of boater abilities

In Progress Medium

10%

PRA14. Promote appropriate opportunities for public access to across the beach access launch and retrieval (generally through informal facilities) to cater for non-powered boating activity


0%

PRA15. Initiate demand monitoring for boat facility use

In Progress High

20%

PRA16. Assessment of new commercial developments related to boating use or facilities must include significant opportunity for community consultation to avoid potential coastal conflicts

Ongoing Medium

15%

Strategic Direction 4 – Sustainable and Equitable Development

PRA17. Apply the hierarchy of Principles (VCS pages 22 & 23) in assessing the need to upgrade or develop new boating facilities

Ongoing High

10%

PRA18. Progressively upgrade conventional swing moorings


0%

PRA19. Evaluation of applications for new boating facilities must be consistent with the VCS 2008 and this BCAP in addition to other normal regulatory and assessment requirements

Ongoing High

10%

31


Action

Summary of Status &


CAP

% complete *

PRA20. The design of upgraded facilities should avoid the need for dredging. When required, undertake maintenance dredging in accordance with EPA’s requirements


0%

PRA21. Educate the boating community about the potential environmental consequences of their boating activities. Provide signage in accordance with Australian Standards regarding potential contaminants to the environment.

In Progress Medium

20%

PRA22. Maintenance operations and improvements to existing boating infrastructure must be undertaken with consideration for the protection of the marine ecosystem and in recognition of the environmental, social and economic benefits it provides

Ongoing High

50%

Strategic Direction 5 – Management, Investment and Maintenance PRA23. Beginning with State Marine Precincts and working down the boating hierarchy, clarify and confirm each agency responsible for the management, maintenance and planning for each existing boating facility within the Facility Management Plan.


0 %

PRA24. During renewal and renegotiation of agreements and when making funding arrangements, endeavour to provide increased public access to the foreshore and coastal environments where this is appropriate

In Progress Low

20%

PRA25. Recognise and strengthen partnerships among agencies responsible for boating facilities by encouraging best practice

Ongoing Medium

N.A.

PRA26. Prepare an Annual Strategic Statement to provide continuity and accountability for the implementation of this BCAP outlining funding and investment priorities and achievements. This Statement must be linked to the overall capital works program.


0%

PRA27. Provide regional guidance to the relevant authorities on the appropriate level of fees to be derived from launching, parking, leases and moorings thus ensuring consistency across the network in line with the level of service being provided


0%

PRA28. When considering funding and investment decision making opportunities, the priority will be to allocate investment towards the upgrade of existing facilities in preference to funding the development of new facilities

Ongoing Low

N.A.

PRA29. When undertaking regional network planning, seek opportunities for synergies between commercial and recreational boating facilities to share infrastructure, avoid duplication of resources and

Ongoing Low

N.A.

32


Action

Summary of Status &


CAP

% complete *

thereby maximise benefit

PRA30. Ensure revenue collection for the day-to-day maintenance of facilities is targeted at the list of priorities identified through the strategic priority assessment process

In Progress Medium

20%

PRA31. Identify capital works program budgets that will resource the capital improvement upgrading of facilities to meet Australian Standards through the Annual Strategic Statement process


0%

PRA32. Prepare a list of regional priorities for maintenance works and determine the ongoing budget requirements

In Progress High

10%

PRA33. Undertake an evaluation of the maintenance requirements for existing boating facilities in the context of a risk assessment for boating facilities


0%

*The estimate of the extent (percentage) to which an action, item or policy has been completed is

provided for guidance only and cannot be taken to represent any rigorous statistical analysis. They

have been based loosely on a mathematical averaging technique, which has inherent flaws given the

wide range of agencies involved in the implementation of the WVB CAP and the geographic extent of

the western coastal region. N.A. means “not applicable” ie no estimate was made.

The following sections discuss the status of actions based on advice provided by facility

managers. In the discussion the following abbreviations have been used:

• SCS (Surf Coast Shire), COS (Colac Otway Shire), WCC (Warrnambool City Council),

MSC (Moyne Shire Council) and GSC (Glenelg Shire Council)

• WCB (Western Coastal Board) and GORCC (Great Ocean Road Coast Committee)

• DEPI (Department of Environment and Primary Industry), DPCD (Department of

Planning and Community Development), DOT (Department of Transport) (bearing in

mind that since the survey response these two departments have become the

Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure) and PV (Parks Victoria).

4.3.1 Strategic Direction 1 – Boating Facilities Hierarchy & Levels

of Service


• Actions related to PRA1 (BCAP to be used to guide strategic regional planning on the

role of each facility) have been classified as Ongoing with a 20% completion rating.

GSC reported on it in relation to the status of planning at Portland Harbour, the WCC

indicated it has been deemed a priority in plans to bring infrastructure up to standard

33


and the COS indicated the priority designated for the Apollo Bay Harbour Business

Plan.

• Actions related to PRA2 (Decision Making Principles) have been classified as In

Progress with a 20% completion rate , with GSC reporting on the status of Council

planning for Portland Harbour, the WCC advising that these are already in place and

DEPI advising that it will apply the decision making principles when required.

• Actions related to PRA3 (Preliminary Safe Harbour feasibility study) have been

classified as Not Yet Started, though this has been a topic of recent discussion at

WCB meetings.

• Actions related to PRA4 (strategic context approach for safe harbour facilities) have

been classified as Ongoing, on the basis of it being part of a policy framework, but

with a 10% completion rating, with GSC indicating that funding for Portland Harbour

has been obtained, SCS considering potential support for a Safe Harbour Facility near

Torquay, COS agreeing with the principle and GORCC indicating no fixed view on a

location until the study (PRA3) has been completed.

• Actions related to PRA5 (car and trailer parking audit) have been classified as In

Progress with a 30% completion rating, with the GSC and WCC indicating that this

task has been completed, the COS advising that priorities in relation to this matter

having been determined and mentioned in the Apollo Bay Harbour Business Plan and

GORCC indicating that no action is planned until the completion of the Torquay

Fishermans Beach project and subsequent parking study.

• Actions related to PRA6 (master planning process for regional and state facilities that

do not currently have an adopted strategic plan) have been classified as In Progress

with a 30% completion rating, with WCC advising that internal master planning has

been completed for some areas and funding for a consultant study has been

allocated for Lady Bay Warrnambool, the COS advising that the Apollo Bay Harbour

Master Plan is in place and that the Master Plan is revised on a regular basis in

response to community demands and DEPI reporting that GORCC is developing a

Coastal Management Plan that will provide the strategic planning context for

Torquay.

4.3.2 Strategic Direction 2 – Safety & Standards


• Actions related to PRA7 (audits to Australian Standards) and PRA8 (facilitate an

accreditation of safety training) have been classified as Not Yet Started (0%

completion).

• Actions related to PRA9 (Facility Management Plan) have been classified as In

Progress with a 30% completion rating, with the GSC referring to the status of

planning for Portland Harbour, PV indicating that facilities are maintained in

accordance with PV processes and expectations and asking whether the WCB will

34


provide some guidance on the format for such a plan, the COS advising that similar

matters are addressed in its Safety and Environmental Management Plan and GORCC

advising that this will form an action within the Coastal Management Plan currently

being prepared.

4.3.3 Strategic Direction 3 – Accessibility & Demand


• Actions related to PRA10 (boating facilities to be located strategically within the

context of each Municipal Boating Precinct) have been classified as Ongoing, on the

basis of it being part of a policy framework, but with a 10% completion rating, with

the GSC referring to the status of planning for Portland Harbour and DEPI advising

that it will apply this policy through the Coastal Management Act consent process

when required.

• Actions related to PRA11 (program aimed at breaking down barriers) and PRA14

(promote appropriate opportunities for public access to across the beach facilities)

have been classified as Not Yet Started (0% completion).

• Actions related to PRA12 (development approvals system to regulate non-coastal

dependent uses) have been classified as In Progress, with a 20% completion rating,

with the GSC and COS indicating that this is in place through their planning

departments and DEPI advising that it will apply this policy through the Coastal

Management Act consent process when required.

• Actions related to PRA13 (identify regional facilities) have been classified as In

Progress, with a 10% completion rating, with the GSC referring to the status of

planning for Portland Harbour and the WCB advising that action is expected to be

undertaken in conjunction with PRA23 and PRA32, subject to capacity being secured.

• Actions related to PRA15 (demand monitoring for boat facility use) have been

classified as In Progress, with a 10% completion rating, with the WCC advising that it

has received feedback from users about the lack of facilities, the COS advising that

demand levels are monitored from the harbour berthing and mooring waiting list

register and use of the slipway and GORCC advising that this will form an action

within the Coastal Management Plan currently being prepared.

• Actions related to PRA16 (assessment of new commercial developments related to

boating use or facilities) have been classified as In Progress, with a 15% completion

rating, with the GSC reporting that this has been completed, the COS advising this is

taken into account and DEPI advising that it will apply this policy through the Coastal

Management Act consent process when required.

35


4.3.4 Strategic Direction 4 – Accessibility & Demand


• Actions related to PRA17 (apply the hierarchy of principles in assessing the need to

upgrade or develop new boating facilities) have been classified as Ongoing, on the

basis of it being part of a policy framework, but with a 10% completion rating, with

the COS indicating that the policy is applied, PV advising that no new facilities have

been developed but will be applied if and when required and DEPI advising that it will

apply this policy through the Coastal Management Act consent process when

required.

• Actions related to PRA18 (progressively upgrade conventional swing moorings) and

PRA20 (avoid the need for dredging) have been classified as Not Yet Started ( 0%

completion).

• Actions related to PRA19 (new boating facilities must be consistent with VCS 2008

and the WVB CAP) have been classified as Ongoing, on the basis of it being part of a

policy framework, but with a 10% completion rating, with the GSC indicating that this

policy is in place in regard to the development of Portland Harbour.

• Actions related to PRA21 (educate the boating community about potential

environmental consequences of their boating activities) have been classified as In

Progress, with a 20% completion rating, with the GSC indicating that this is in place

and ongoing, the SCS indicating it will review but that the Boating Chart and Guide

are in place, the COS advising that its boating information booklet is regularly

updated and DEPI advising that the Apollo Bay Undaria Working Group, which is

being reviewed, coordinates educational awareness initiatives.

• Actions related to PRA22 (consideration of the protection of the marine ecosystem)

have been classified as Ongoing, on the basis of it being part of a policy framework,

but with a 10% completion rating, with the GSC and SCS advising that this policy is

in place and ongoing, the COS advising that this is accounted for in the Safety and

Environmental Management Plan for the Apollo Bay Harbour and PV advising that this

is integrated into its facility planning and maintenance.

4.3.5 Strategic Direction 5 – Management, Investment &

Maintenance


• Actions related to PRA23 (confirm each agency responsible for management,

maintenance and planning), PRA26 (prepare an Annual Strategic Statement), PRA 27

(provide regional guidance on fees), PRA 31 (identify capital works program budgets)

and PRA 33 (undertake an evaluation of the maintenance requirements for existing

boating facilities) have been classified as Not Yet Started ( 0% completion).

36


• Actions related to PRA24 (endeavour to provide increased public access to the

foreshore) have been classified as In Progress with a 20% completion rate, with the

WCC advising that this policy is already in place and DEPI advising that it will apply

this policy through the Coastal Management Act consent process when required.

• Actions related to PRA25 (recognise and strengthen partnerships among responsible

agencies) and Actions related to PRA28 (upgrade existing facilities in preference to

the funding of the development of new facilities) and Actions related to PRA29 (seek

opportunities for synergies between commercial and recreational boating facilities)

have been classified as Ongoing, on the basis of their being part of a policy

framework with a N.A. completion rating.

• Actions related to PRA30 (ensure revenue collection is targeted at the list of

priorities) have been classified as In Progress, with a 20% completion rate, with the

GSC reporting that a plan for collection at Portland Harbour is in place and GORCC

advising of a plan for Torquay Fishermans Beach.

• Actions related to PRA 32 (prepare a list of regional priorities for maintenance works)

have been classified as In Progress with a 10% completion rate, with the WCC

advising that it has a list in place and the WCB advising of a program to work with

the DEPI and Committees of Management to complete a regional list of priorities.

4.4 Conclusions

Table 4.3 provides an overview summary of the status of actions and their classification

in regard to the five key Strategic Directions established by the WVB CAP based on the

assessment of the priority regional actions presented in Table 4.2.

Table 4.3 Summary of status of actions

Strategic Direction

C IP OG NYS

1. Boating Facilities Hierarchy & Levels of Service

0 3 2 1

2. Safety & Standards

0 1 0 2

3. Accessibility & Demand

0 3 2 2

4. Sustainable & Equitable Development

0 1 3 2

5. Management, Investment & Maintenance

0 3 3 5

Totals

0 11 10 12

% of Total Actions

0% 33.5% 30% 36.5%

Table 4.4 provides an overview summary of the status of actions against the classification

of their priority designated in the WVB CAP for the five key Strategic Directions

established by the WVBCAP based on the assessment in Table 4.2.

37


Table 4.4 Summary of status of actions based on their level of priority

Strategic Direction & Level of PRA Priority

C IP OG NYS

1. Boating Facilities Hierarchy & Levels of Service

High Priority 0 2 2 1

Medium Priority 0 1 0 0

Low Priority

0 0 0 0

2. Safety & Standards



Low Priority

0 0 0 1

3. Accessibility & Demand



Low Priority

0 0 0 1

4. Sustainable & Equitable Development



Low Priority

0 0 0 0

5. Management, Investment & Maintenance



Low Priority

0 1 2 0

Totals

0 11 10 12

% of Total Actions

0% 33.5% 30% 36.5%

Table 4.5 provides an overview summary of the status of the different levels of priority

PRAs established by the WVB CAP based on the assessment in Table 4.2.

38


Table 4.5 Overall status of actions based on their level of priority

Strategic Direction & Level of PRA Priority

C IP OG NYS



Low Priority

0 1 2 1

Totals

0 11 10 12

The overall summary of the status of actions indicates the following:

• 63.5% of all actions can be classified as either In Progress (33%) or Ongoing (30%),

while 36.5% can be classifies as Not Yet Started. No actions can be classified as

Complete.

• On the basis of the classification of the status of the PRA’s and the rating of their

level of completion, Strategic Direction 1 (Levels of Service) has the highest

completion rate, followed, generally in order, by Strategic Direction 4 (Sustainable &

Equitable Development), Strategic Direction 3 (Accessibility & Demand), Strategic

Direction 2 (Safety & Standards) and Strategic Direction 5 (Management, Investment

& Maintenance).

• On the basis of the level of priority of the PRAs as established by the WVB CAP:

• 8 (or 42%) of the high priority PRAs can be classified as Not Yet Started, 5

(26%) as Ongoing and 6 (32%) as In Progress. None can be classified as

completed. Among those that have not started are the Safe Harbour

Investigation (PRA3), promoting appropriate opportunities for public access to

across the beach launch and retrieval facilities (PRA14), progressively upgrading

conventional swing moorings (PRA18), preparing an Annual Strategic Statement

(PRA26) and clarifying and confirming each agency responsible for the

management, maintenance and planning for each existing boating facility

(PRA23).

• 3 (or 30%) of the medium priority PRAs can be classified as Not Yet Started, 3

(30%) as Ongoing and 4 (40%) as In Progress. None can be classified as

completed. Among those that have not started are the facilitation of an

accreditation of safety training and an education program (PRA8) and providing

regional guidance on the appropriate level of fees to be derived from launching,

parking, leases and moorings (PRA27).

• 1 (or 25%) of the low priority PRAs can be classified as Not Yet Started, 2 (50%)

as Ongoing and 1 (25%) as In Progress. None can be classified as completed.

The one action that has not started is the conduct of a program aimed at

breaking down barriers to accessing recreational boating facilities (PRA11).

39


5 Qualitative Questionnaire

5.1 Introduction

As part of the review process, key land managers and lead agents were asked a series of

qualitative questions, which are summarised in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 Qualitative Questions

Topic

Question

WVB CAP assistance and influence

Has the WVB CAP assisted and influenced facility planning and regional coordination to improve boating levels of service in the region?

Strategic direction and policy Are the strategic directions in the WVB CAP still valid? What changes should be considered? Do you see key areas where the WVB CAP is at odds with current coastal planning directions?

Challenges and opportunities for levels of service and coordination

What challenges are you aware of facing the implementation of the designated levels of service at locations and the region-wide actions in the WVB CAP? What emerging issues are likely to affect implementation and achievement of the outcomes sought through the WVB CAP? Does the WVB CAP provide effective support to investment in boating levels of service?

General Any other comments?

The following sections provide a summary of the key points made in the responses

received. All stakeholders did not respond and so those responses received have been

summarised qualitatively, using the words and sentiments of each respondent wherever

possible so as to most accurately report the responses.

The response rate was not sufficient to justify further quantitative or statistical analysis of

the answers to the survey questions.

The following abbreviations have been used to identify respondents:

• MSC – Moyne Shire Council

• GSC – Glenelg Shire Council

• PV – Parks Victoria

• GORCC – Great Ocean Road Coast Committee

• DOT – Department of Transport

• DEPI – Department of Environment and Primary Industry

40


• TSV – Transport Safety Victoria

• FV – Fisheries Victoria, Department of Environment and Primary Industry

• TAC – Torquay Anglers Club

• COSC – Colac Otway Shire Council

5.2 WVB CAP assistance and influence

Q. Has the WVB CAP assisted and influenced facility planning and regional

coordination to improve boating levels of service in the region?

Following is a summary of the responses to this question:

• GORCC advises that it has, mainly because it provides the land manager with clear

and defensible direction on its next processes regarding the planning and

maintenance of affected areas. COSC also advises that it has, because of the

inclusion of a boating precinct classification system indicating the types of services

each boating precinct would be eligible for.

• DEPI advises that it is viewed by DEPI coastal planners as the key regional strategic

planning document when assessing applications for boating facility upgrades.

• GSC advises that it probably had, but it was well advanced on its project already

• MSC advises that it has had little influence on the direction of the Port of Port Fairy,

because it is considered to already be a mature port and harbour

• PV advises that its decision making process is significantly influenced by statewide

legislative, resourcing and capacity considerations more than local or regional

considerations. The Port of Port Campbell is the main consideration in terms of PV

management within the planning footprint and is said to be influenced to a larger

degree by the SEMP processes. PV also raises the need for both local and cost

benefit investment criteria to be integrated into decision making and prioritisation of

projects and actions within the BCAP.

• The TAC advises that it hasn’t, for while money has been spent on the

redevelopment of the area, there has been no tangible improvement in boating

facilities.

• DOT, FV and TSV advised that they were not directly involved in facility planning.

DOT also noted that BCAP timeframes are indicative and the requirement for a

feasibility study and business case to be prepared when projects are seeking support.

41


5.3 Strategic direction and policy

Q. Are the strategic directions in the WVB CAP still valid? What changes

should be considered?


• FV advises that they are still valid.

• COSC advises that they are and that a three year thorough review of the BCAP

document would be beneficial.

• GSC advises that they are, but funding will always be difficult unless the project has a

robust business case and is substantial in its benefits. A project needs to be

endorsed by the BCAP and the BCAP needs formal recognition by government as a

key driver and identifier of projects.

• GORCC also advises that they are, but the review process in 2015 is important to

maintain as it allows stakeholders to consider impacts given recent experience and

looks for improvement opportunities for the plan.

• DEPI advises that the strategic directions are, in general, sound and that some

clarification/narrative on site conditions driving service level components for each

facility type would be useful (for example upgrades to a local facility that is subject to

coastal erosion is a poor investment).

• TSV considers it would be unwise to change the rating of facilities without a full

review and that any overall changes should be based on facts and verifiable data.

• PV advises that the level of service approach provides good guidance in determining

the range of assets and services that could be provided at sites.

PV questions whether an objective of the BCAP to provide a significant opportunity to

improve management, accountability, funding and investment, maintenance,

resourcing and monitoring of boating facilities is being realised, particularly in regard

to the maintenance of existing facilities. This is a significant issue for PV, where the

BCAP has not provided opportunities to attract additional maintenance dollars.

PV also questions whether a consistent and coordinated risk assessment process for

all boating facilities has been undertaken or left up to agencies. PV believes this

should be centrally coordinated, given this is a significant component of the

development of a future program.

PV also asks what are the rules and expectations around private sector investment

and whether there is a standard format for the types of information we are requiring

from potential investors in order to frame up a proposal. Consideration should be

given to the guidelines being developed by DEPI.

42


• MSC advises that the CAP needs to reflect the purpose for the work, which is general

recreational boating and that in order to achieve anything meaningful the CAP needs

to stay focused on providing facilities for the public to be able to launch/retrieve,

moor and access safe boating facilities along the western coastline.

MSC advises that Strategic Directions 2 (Safety & Standards), 3 (Accessibility &

Demand) and 5 (Management, Investment & Maintenance) are relevant, but fails to

see a relevance for a hierarchy of facilities (Strategic Direction 1) and Strategic

Direction 4 (Sustainable & Equitable Development), which are considered to be

hurdles to overcome in the quest for better boating facilities along the western

coastline and not a strategic direction by themselves.

• DOT believes they could be more focused and fully replicated across all boating

CAPs.

There are too many layers of threshold and that it may be better to have national,

state, local or only regional if essential. Thresholds can work better to align with

roles and responsibilities of the respective agencies and stakeholders.

DOT also advises that:

• they are very wordy and that more constrained descriptions would provide

better clarity about the elements being explored

• generally, the investment timelines are very constrained, trying to deliver

within the lifetime of the CAP rather than setting stages which more

realistically reflect the planning and development requirements

• decision making and investment could address whole of life replacement

costs for assets with a sustainable user charges framework being

implemented in line with DTF policy.

• TAC advises that from the club’s perspective there do not appear to be any directions

on the ground resulting from the CAP.

Q. Do you see key areas where the WVB CAP is at odds with current coastal

planning directions?


• GORCC advises that it is not.

• COSC advises that it is not.

• MSC advises that it is not since the current Planning Minister announced that he is

keen to see local decisions made by local planners. It now seems that if a case can

be made at the local level, planners and the local community can make decisions

43


about new coastal facilities (remembering that this is looking primarily at boating

facilities).

• FV advises that it is not suggesting that it is at odds with coastal planning directions,

but raises the question about linkages to new information sources that arise over

time that may not always be consistent with the BCAP.

• GSC advises that coastal planning invariably changes with policy. Identified boating

facilities and infrastructure are not changeable.

• DEPI advises that the recommended level of service should be informed by an

assessment of coastal hazards using a risk based framework (i.e. Victorian Coastal

Hazard Guide 2012).

• TAC advises that there appears to be too much emphasis on beach users when

boating in our area comprises 1% of 1% of the total coastline in our area and there

seems to be a fascination by local planners with providing access across boating

areas for other beach users - creating safety issues for boat users.

5.4 Challenges and opportunities for levels of service and

coordination

Q What challenges are you aware of facing the implementation of the

designated levels of service at locations and the region-wide actions in the

WVB CAP?


• MSC advises that the challenges will include the need by some members of the

community to “save everything”. Coordination of those groups with competing

interests will be a challenge. Opportunities are seen as the provision of improved

access to safe recreational facilities to allow a greater percentage of the population to

enjoy our magnificent coastline. The improved facilities will also benefit the

Coastguard, the Water Police and commercial seafarers.

• GSC advises funding, reality in terms of physical and geographic limitations of

boating infrastructure in some areas and return on investment.

• PV advises consideration of whole of life asset planning for existing assets, with the

potential to incorporate the support and renewal/replacement of existing assets that

relate to established and supported service levels in the longer term program. What

will it cost to maintain and service the current/proposed asset base?

• GORCC advises generally community expectations for Torquay as a designated

regional centre and what that definition implies, which may not coincide with reality

and environmental issues. The same can be said for Lorne, where there are a range

of views on the Point Grey status.

44


• DOT advises resourcing, timing and competing priorities and the need to agree on a

pipeline of delivery for facilities enhancements.

• TSV advises considerable congestion and competing uses of the waterways,

especially Torquay.

• FV advises that while not a facility manager or having attributed actions, it expects

that one of the greatest challenges is resourcing and time to undertake actions.

Actions don’t often have funding associated with them and not being a legislative

document, it means that implementers will try and deliver when they can within their

various budgets, but ultimately may become lower priorities than other tasks.

• DEPI advises mechanisms and funding to undertake studies/investigations across

land management boundaries and commitment to auditing and reporting on facility

use to inform future decision making.

• TAC advises the lack of funding, the lack of desire by local managers to recognise the

importance of boating to local economies and no real push to address the concerns

of local boaters.

• COSC advises the lack of funding and State Government support.

Q What emerging issues are likely to affect implementation and achievement

of the outcomes sought through the WVB CAP?


• GSC advises funding availability.

• PV advises the economic priorities and constraints of government and flowing

through to agencies due to global economic uncertainty. This will also affect the

potential for private sector investment.

• GORCC advises the timing of the Safe Harbour project and its identification, as a

number of other decisions in GORCCs area, especially regarding Torquay, will be

impacted by this result.

• DOT advises the role of the VCC and Boards, how do we deliver these objectives in a

new environment.

• TSV advises that it is primarily a safety regulator and the assessment of maritime

safety issues and particular navigational safety are major considerations in any

development.

• TAC advises poor management by local authorities and lack of real desire to improve

boating conditions.

45


• COSC advises budget constraints, the lack of priority setting and the lack of clear

recommendations to the funding body for the funding of projects.

• FV advises appropriate resourcing for delivery, non-legislative in nature, other

competing delivery priorities and possible changes in boating priorities over time.

Changes in boating priorities could be influenced due to things like increased boating

interest in certain areas due to the popularity of an activity. For example,

recreational fishing participation overall is growing rapidly and there is increasing

pressure on boating facilities in general.

Furthermore, there are certain seasonal events that are extremely popular that focus

recreational fishing effort. The best example of this is the southern bluefin tuna

recreational fishery off the southwest coast in autumn over recent years. This has

seen a lot of recreational boating activity in Portland, Port Fairy, Warrnambool and

even Apollo Bay.

• DEPI advises managing increasing demand for boating facilities with finite

opportunities for safe access/egress and the ability to respond to coastal hazards

including erosion, sea surge and storm impacts.

• MSC advises that it is not sure if the issues that are likely to affect implementation

and achievement of the outcomes sought are emerging or whether they are the

same old “chestnuts” that come up over and over again. The “environment” will

certainly get a run and it is a fair bet that “economic viability” will also be in the mix.

These are not emerging issues. They are known and generally trotted out every time

all other irrational argument appears to be lost.

Recreational boating in Victoria and Australia, for that matter, is one of the largest

participation activities undertaken.

Boating facilities and the effective utilisation of the existing facilities along the

western coastline is an emerging issue. For example the Warrnambool ramp is very

dangerous for the ‘out of town’ user. Yet, it is deemed to be a ‘State Marine

Precinct’. Portland, on the other hand has tremendous facilities for the recreational

boater and this is demonstrated by the usage. Port Fairy’s facilities are very safe

with good ramps, fuel, berthing and parking available yet with very little in the way

of recognition.

Coast Guard or Water Police facilities at Warrnambool are appalling. The Coast

Guard vessel sits on a swing mooring. In an emergency, some of the crew has to

first row out to the vessel before it can be brought alongside for the rest of the crew

to board. Most emergencies at sea occur in rough seas and poor conditions. The

mooring of Coast Guard vessels at sub-standard facilities and issues similar in nature

are issues that need to be dealt with by the BCAP.

46


Q Does the WVB CAP provide effective support to investment in boating levels

of service?


• MSC advises that at this stage in the process it is of the view that the BCAP does not

provide effective support for investment. The BCAP talks about private and public

funding. The private sector needs to make a profit. There appears to be no clear

strategy along the south west coast.

• GSC advises to some degree but not greatly if compared to a business case.

• GORCC advises that it is not sure.

• FV advises that the BCAP is a very thorough and well set out document with clear

tables, maps and diagrams. It does provide support for investment in boating levels

of service. However, it does face some challenges.

• DEPI advises that it does.

• TAC advises that it does only if the local land managers promote the idea of

improving facilities.

• COSC advises that the overall direction can be very beneficial if systematically

implemented.

• PV advises that the BCAP, including associated strategies and actions need to be

framed and presented within the context of the Adaptive Management Framework

(AMF). For example, projects and priorities should not be identified within the BCAP

for full implementation that have not been through the planning processes identified

and are “not ready to be delivered.” There should be a number of proposed planning

activities as well as implementation activities within the timeframes of the next BCAP.

The levels of service ratings should not be used as a prioritisation tool rather, to

define and scope a broad and diverse range of services across the planning area.

5.5 Any other comments


• MSC comments that there are so many individual groups with vested interests that

this elephant is going to take quite some time to eat. However, the concept of trying

to get all stakeholders on the one page and heading in the same direction is

commendable.

47


• PV comments that in a practical sense, many sections of the BCAP could be

structured more succinctly to enable the BCAP to be easier to review, reference and

utilise in day to day management and planning.

• FV comments on the investigation of the feasibility of a safe harbour between

Queenscliff and Apollo Bay. This action is important to recreational fishing

stakeholders and has been topical in recent years. DEPI (Fisheries) would like to be

kept in the loop of future progress of the delivery of this action.

5.6 Conclusions

Following is an overview of the responses to the questions:

• There appears to be no consensus on whether the WVB CAP has assisted and

influenced facility planning and regional coordination to improve boating levels of

service in the region. Two respondents believe it has, one believes it probably has,

one says it hasn’t, one says it has had little influence and another says that other

policy and legislative considerations are probably more influential.

• There appears to be greater agreement that the strategic directions in the WVB CAP

are still valid, with seven respondents advising that they are, if only at least in part.

This question generated a good level of discussion, particularly on how the wording

of the strategic directions could be tightened and the intent, application and

implementation of the directions better defined and focused. This is certainly a

matter to be addressed in the five year review of the WVB CAP.

• There is a general consensus that the WVB CAP is consistent with current coastal

planning directions, but with a recognition that coastal planning will continue to

evolve with changes associated with new legislation and policy initiatives and with

new sources of information that arise over time.

• There were a number of different issues raised as challenges to the implementation

of designated levels of service at locations and the region-wide actions in the WVB

CAP. A lack of, or limitations in funding, resourcing and time were grouped as a

challenge by a number of respondents and often mentioned in association with the

problem of competing priorities for land managers.

• The lack of support by local managers and the State Government was also raised as

a concern. Community expectations were also raised as a challenge by a number of

respondents, both in terms of the actual capacity to deliver the type of facility sought

by the community and in regard to community opposition to certain types of coastal

development.

• There were also a number of different issues raised as emerging issues likely to

affect the implementation and achievement of the outcomes sought through the WVB

CAP, with considerable overlap with the challenges identified in responses to the

previous question, particularly in regard to the availability of funding, the lack of

48


support and desire by local managers and authorities to improve boating conditions

and a lack of priority setting.

• Delivering objectives in a new management environment, should potential changes to

the role of the VCC and Coastal Boards occur, is seen as an emerging issue as is the

timing of the Safe Harbour project, as a number of other decisions will be affected by

the outcome of this investigation. Other competing delivery priorities and changes in

boating priorities over time have also been identified.

• There appears to be no consensus on whether the WVB CAP provides effective

support to investment in boating levels of service. One respondent believes it does,

one respondent believes that the overall direction can be very beneficial if

systematically implemented, one respondent believes it does to some degree,

another says it is not sure, another says that it does but only if the local land

managers promote the idea of improving facilities and one respondent believes that it

doesn’t, with no clear strategy for private and public funding along the south west

coast.

One respondent believes that the level of service ratings should be used to define

and scope a broad and diverse range of services across the planning area rather than

be used as a prioritisation tool and that there should be a number of proposed

planning activities as well as implementation activities within the timeframes of the

next BCAP.

49


6 Looking Forward The brief prepared for this Interim Review identified the following five key questions that

the Interim Review should seek to answer. The first 4 questions have addressed earlier:

• Have upgrades to boating Levels of Service been progressed or achieved (See

Section 3)? • Have region-wide actions been progressed or achieved (See Section 4)? • Has the BCAP provided the strategic justification and direction for the provision of

sustainable infrastructure and is it still appropriate (See Section 5)?

• Are there emerging issues (See Section 5)?

• What additional issues should a full statutory review in 2015 consider?

The following sections address the final question and propose priorities for the future

based on the key findings presented in sections 3 to 5.

6.1 What additional issues should a full statutory review in

2015 consider?

The WVB CAP will be fully reviewed in accordance with Section 28 of the Coastal

Management Act 1995, which outlines that the WCB must review the CAP either at the

direction of the Minister or the VCC or at the end of five years from the date of

endorsement. This is a major review which could reflect significant changes in policy

over time or the planning framework for the CAP.

An interim review, such as this review, may be undertaken to further implementation,

which may result in a change of action priority, but policy direction must not be changed

without statutory approval. The Act also prescribes consultation requirements for a full

review, including public advertising. Any written amendment to the WVB CAP will require

VCC approval and Ministerial endorsement.

The full review of the WVB CAP will be intended to address:

• How the CAP has been implemented

• What the outcomes were

• The successes and failures of the CAP

• What unforeseen issues or impacts have arisen over the life of the CAP

Building on the requirements of the Act and the VCC Guidelines for Preparing and

Reviewing CAPs (2012), three possible outcomes of a review are identified:

• Review of the CAP due to the majority of the actions having been completed

50


• Retirement of the CAP due to actions being incorporated into other CAPs or other

regional strategic planning documents

• Revise and re-release the CAP with a current policy context and updated actions.

The full review will need to generally address the same matters which are the subject of

this review, namely:

• Have upgrades to boating Levels of Service been further progressed or achieved and

to what level of completion? • Have region-wide actions been further progressed or achieved and to what level of

completion? • Has the BCAP provided the strategic justification and direction for the provision of

sustainable infrastructure and is it still appropriate?

The five year review should also address the more specific priorities identified in Section

6.2.

6.2 Future Priorities for Implementation

The Interim Review has identified a number of specific matters which should be

addressed as a priority before the five year review of the WVB CAP to be undertaken in

2015.

The current WVB CAP is predicated on a planning horizon out to 2035, in recognition that

many matters are complex and require extensive investigation and community

consultation or are by nature matters of long-term and ongoing policy administration. It

is, therefore, important that the list of priority implementation actions is neither too

extensive or ambitious and that the length of time required to address and advance many

of these actions is seen in proper perspective.

A final implementation plan should identify expectations in regard to the timing and

duration of actions and establish broad indicators of what would be considered

satisfactory levels of progress and completion for each matter. This will assist the

assessment to be undertaken by the five year review in 2015.

The following sections summarise the priority implementation actions. It is considered

that focusing on these priorities has the potential to be of significant benefit to the

boating community of the Western Victorian Coastline.

6.2.1 Hierarchy of Boating Facilities

The priority implementation actions in regard to the hierarchy of boating facilities are as

follows:

• Planning and assessment of components of a State Marine Precinct at Lady Bay

Warrnambool.

• The assessment and identification of potential safe harbour locations between


51


• Planning and assessment of a regional boating level of service at Torquay.

• Funding and implementation of the Apollo Bay Harbour Plan.

• Actions for the two medium priority Local Boating Facilities at Point Roadknight,

Anglesea (Not Yet Started) and Point Grey, Lorne (In progress and 20% complete).

• Actions for those Local Boating Facilities classified as Not Yet Started, including the

Lorne boat ramp, Peterborough front beach, Curdie Vale, Boat Bay Peterborough,

Fitzroy River Mouth and Henty Bay Caravan Park.

6.2.2 Priority Regional Actions and Strategic Directions

The priority implementation actions in regard to Priority Regional Actions and Strategic

Directions are as follows:

• Those high and medium priority PRAs that have been classified as Not Yet Started.

• PRA3 –The preliminary feasibility of potential safe harbour locations between


• PRA5 –The audit of car and trailer parking for boating facilities.

• PRA15 –Demand monitoring for boat facility use.

• Strategic Direction 5 (Management, Investment and Maintenance), which currently

has the lowest level of completion (at 5%), with 8 of the 11 PRAs classified as 0%

complete.

• The simplification and consolidation of the PRAs, with a clearer distinction between

matters of policy and action and a clearer perspective on their timing and duration.

Documents

Summary - wcb.vic.gov.au B - WVB CAP... · WVB CAP Interim Review/Final Report/Arup Environmental & Planning/July 2013 Implementing Coastal Action Plans 2005. It implements key policies