SUPPLEMENTARY EVIDENCE STATEMENT

2

Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Standing Advisory Committee - Surf Coast Draft Statement of Planning Policy SUPPLEMENTARY EVIDENCE STATEMENT – MARK WOODLAND 10/03/2021

Project number 2574

Prepared by Mark Woodland

Reviewed by Mark Woodland

Date 11 March 2021

Version V1

3


1. Table of contents

1. Table of contents ................................................................................................................................ 3

2. Introduction. ....................................................................................................................................... 4

3. Expert Witness Statement. .................................................................................................................. 5

4. Response to Public submissions – thematic issues. ............................................................................. 7

Environmental Risk: .................................................................................................................... 7

Landscape significance:............................................................................................................... 8

Biodiversity and environmental values:...................................................................................... 9

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage: .................................................................................................... 10

Historic heritage: ...................................................................................................................... 11

Tourism, agriculture and natural resources: ............................................................................. 11

Strategic Infrastructure: ............................................................................................................ 12

Settlement – Overall issues: ..................................................................................................... 13

Settlement – Spring Creek Area: ............................................................................................... 15

Torquay North East Investigation Area: .................................................................................... 16

Messmate Road future settlement area: .................................................................................. 16

Northern Protected Settlement Boundary: .............................................................................. 17

Bellbrae Protected Settlement Boundary: ................................................................................ 17

Mt Duneed and Connewarre Protected Settlement Boundary: ............................................... 18

Implementation related issues: ................................................................................................ 18

5. Response to Expert Evidence Filed by Other Parties .......................................................................... 20

Robert Milner, on behalf of Zeally Investments Pty Ltd. .......................................................... 20

David Crowder, on behalf of Mack Property Developments Pty Ltd ........................................ 21

Sandra Rigo, on behalf of Anseed Pty Lrd ................................................................................. 22

Justin Ganly, on behalf of Zeally Investments Pty Ltd and . ...................................................... 24

Robert Milner, on behalf of DFC (Sprague Farm) Developments Pty Ltd. ................................ 25

Appendix 1 – Letter of Instruction ................................................................................................................. 26

Appendix 2 – CV ............................................................................................................................................. 27

4


2. Introduction.

I have been instructed in this matter by the Victorian Government Solicitors Office who act for the

Minister for Planning who has referred the draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy (SPP) and the

associated proposed landscape planning controls to the Distinctive Areas and Landscape Standing

Advisory Committee (Committee). The letter of instruction can be found at Appendix 1.

On 3 March 2021 I received supplementary written instructions to prepare additional evidence and

evidence in reply for the purposes of the Distinctive Areas and Landscape Standing Advisory Committee

Hearing, appointed to advise the Minister for Planning on the Surf Coast Draft Statement of Planning

Policy, and related provisions.

Specifically I was asked to prepare an expert witness statement responding, to the best of my ability in

the time available, to the following:

Public submissions to the Standing Advisory Committee

Expert Evidence filed by other parties on 5th March 2021

My instructions contained the following enclosures, which I have relied upon to prepare this Statement:

• Enclosure 1: Overview summary of all submissions (table form and written summary);

• Enclosure 2: List of notable submissions;

• Enclosure 3: Detailed summary of particular notable submissions (provided on 5th March 2021);

Given the very limited time available within which to respond to these instructions, I have prepared my

response to submissions based on the thematic summary contained within Enclosure 1 of my

instructions. I have not had an opportunity to review specific submissions in the course of preparing this

supplementary statement, and I intent to review any submissions that I am instructed to prior to giving

evidence, and I will advise the Panel if reading those submissions changes my opinion in relation to any

matter contained within my statement of evidence.

I have only responded to the expect evidence filed by other parties that addresses strategic planning

matters.

5


3. Expert Witness Statement. The name and address of the expert. Mark Woodland of 3 Prentice Street, Brunswick 3056. The expert qualification and experience. Mark Woodland holds a Bachelor of Planning and Design from the University of Melbourne. He is a member of the Victorian Planning and Environment Law Association and the Property Council of Australia. A Curriculum Vitae is included Appendix 2. The expert’s area of expertise to make this report. Mark has a broad range of experience in planning and development matters with a sound understanding of statutory planning provisions and significant experience in strategic planning and policy development enabling him to comment on a wide range of planning and development issues. Other significant contributors to the report. Not applicable. Instructions that define the scope of the report Mark Woodland has been instructed by the Victorian Government Solicitors Office who act for the Minister for Planning regards to this proceeding. The identity of any person who carried out tests or experiments upon which the expert has relied on and the qualifications of that report. Not applicable. The facts and matters and all assumptions upon which the report proceeds. Mark Woodland relies upon the reports and documents referred to in section 2.0 of this report. Documents and other materials the expert has been instructed to consider or take into account in preparing his report, and the literature of other material used in making the report. Mark Woodland has reviewed and taken into account the reports and materials referred to in section 2.0 of this report.

A summary of the opinion or opinions of the expert witness A summary of Mark Woodland’s opinions are set out in section 4 and 5 of this report. Any opinions that are not fully researched for any reason Not applicable.

6


Questions falling out of the expert’s expertise and completeness of the report Mark Woodland has not been asked to make comment on any matters outside of his area of expertise. This report is a complete statement of evidence. Previous Involvements in/adjoining the Declared Area I have provided advice to the State Government on the potential scope of the proposed Great Ocean Road

Strategy in 2020.

I have previously prepared an expert evidence report at the request of the City of Greater Geelong in relation

to Amendment C395 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme (Geelong North and West Growth Area

Framework Plan) in 2019. My evidence did not deal with the settlement boundaries proposed under that

amendment, but rather the form and content of the growth area framework plans themselves.

I have previously prepared an expert evidence report Mack Property Group in relation to Amendment C114 (Spring Creek Precinct Structure Plan) to the Surf Coast Planning Scheme Panel in 2016. My evidence did not deal with strategic planning or settlement boundary issues but rather specific design issues relating to the content of the Spring Creek PSP, and specifically the following matters:

• The allocation of land for open space purposes in the Spring Creek Precinct Structure Plan

• The long term ownership and management regime should apply to the proposed conservation reserves

• The proposed alignment of the connector street through the subject site

• The residential densities proposed in the Spring Creek Precinct Plan

Expert Declaration I have made all the inquiries that I believe are necessary and desirable to prepare and present expert evidence in this matter and no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Advisory Committee.

Mark Woodland 11th March 2021

7


4. Response to Public Submissions – Thematic Issues.

My responses to the thematic issues raised in public submissions (as set out in Enclosure 1 of my

instructions) are as follows:

Environmental Risk:

Summary of submissions:

The submissions raised concerns in regard to climate change, and in particular, risks arising from

bushfire, water security, stormwater management and development generally (given the necessary

clearing of vegetation before development). Concerns were also raised that increased development

would exacerbate human risks to fragile ecosystems, including from increased litter, land clearing,

pollution and greater human presence on fragile beach ecosystems.

Generally, the submissions supported the approach of the draft SPP, and identified gaps and areas that

could be strengthened (for example, by providing greater detail on water security and strategies; greater

guidance on balancing bushfire risk with protection of landscape and environment values).

My response:

The environmental risks identified in submissions are all of relevance to determining the preferred

future use and development across the Declared Area. The current Planning Policy Framework contains

policy directions in relation to most if not all of the environmental risks identified in submissions, and in

my view the draft SPP and the associated Settlement Background Paper and technical studies provide a

reasonable broad-scale strategic assessment of the potential risks associated with various land use and

development outcomes contemplated within the draft SPP.

I acknowledge that a more detailed assessment of the impacts of population growth and urban

development on the natural environment, cost of infrastructure, etc. could have been undertaken as

part of preparing the draft SPP. However, I consider the level of assessment against relevant policies that

has been undertaken to be proportionate to the nature and scale of growth contemplated under the

draft SPP.

I also acknowledge that there are probably opportunities to clarify or strengthen the draft SPP in regard

to how certain environmental objectives and risks are to be managed in the Declared Area.

For example, the draft SPP could further clarify how landscape and bushfire risk objectives are to be

balanced - Strategy 2.8 which promotes the conservation and enhancement of native vegetation to

strengthen landscape character could reference the need for such conservation works to be undertaken

with consideration to the associated bushfire risks.

Beyond making this general observation, I would defer to the expertise of others on how the draft DAL

addresses specific technical topics such as bushfire, ecology, hydrology, etc.

8


Landscape significance:


There was a general acceptance in the submissions of the intent and approaches set out in the draft SPP

and proposed landscape planning controls to protect the significant landscapes of the declared area.

Many submitters were concerned to protect the natural landscape and green breaks between

townships. Some of the more significant concerns raised in the submissions were that:

• The draft SPP places too much weight on landscape and environmental values in comparison to

social and economic factors.

• The identification of significant landscapes of local, regional or State significance was not always

accurate in relation to a particular parcel of land, or the location of the boundaries of that

significant landscape.

• The approaches to protecting road corridor views and viewsheds are too restrictive in some

locations where landscape values were considered by submitters not to justify those restrictions.

A large number of submissions reflect a desire to retain as much coastal, small-town community

atmosphere in the area as possible; with the green break and surrounding landscape being referenced

as an important aspect of township character and sense of place.

This was particularly evident in the context of Spring Creek, where many submitters considered that

Torquay would lose its natural character and small surf town heritage under Spring Creek Option 1, with

a negative effect on the community, business and property values.

My Response:

In relation to the relative weight placed on landscape and environmental values in comparison to

allowing land to be used for social and economic purposes in rural areas, my views are as follows:

• The landscape objective and strategies contained within the draft SPP are intended to ensure

that the siting and design of new development does not adversely impact on significant

landscapes. They do not inherently prevent activities such as agriculture and tourism from

occurring in rural areas across the declared area.

• Objectives 6a and 6b (and their associated strategies) support agriculture and tourism activities

across various parts of the Declared Area. Whilst these strategies place an emphasis on ensuring

that such activities do not adversely impact on landscape significance, this is appropriate given

the significant landscape settings in question.

The fact that there have been many submissions referring to the importance of protecting landscape

values of the wider Declared Area is further justification for why the area has been declared by the State

Government as a Distinctive Area and Landscape.

My views in relation to whether or not the Spring Creek section of the wider landscape should be set

aside for its contribution towards the region’s landscape values or alternatively be developed for urban

purposes are set out in detail in my original Evidence Statement.

9


I would add that the ‘small town coastal community atmosphere’ that may submitters wish to see

retained is a product of multiple factors relating to matters such as the landscaping and design of the

public domain, the density, siting and design of housing and other forms of development within the

township boundary, and the overall future population size of the township.

In my view enabling further urban development in Spring Creek will not axiomatically result in a ‘city-

like urban environment’ in Torquay, and much can be done with the subdivision, landscaping and

dwelling design to contribute towards a distinctly coastal township character.

There is arguably a greater threat of the neighbourhood character becoming more ‘urban’ as a result of

increased rates of infill development occurring within the existing township boundary. Whilst

opportunities exist to shape the design of infill development so that it is more in keeping with a ‘coastal

township character’, if land supply within the settlement boundary is constrained, I would expect that

there would be a greater rate and number of infill developments, which will mean that a higher number

of sites within the township will be developed for medium density, thus contributing towards a more

urbanised streetscape character.

I acknowledge that allowing Spring Creek to be developed for housing will obviously lead to additional

housing growth and the expansion of the towns footprint across the existing rural hinterland, which in

the eyes or many will be seen as determinantal to the perceived ‘small town’ character of the township.

However, I think it is important to distinguish between not waiting to see the population of the town to

grow above a certain size (because of the impacts that this might have on the busyness and atmosphere

of the place), and wanting to ensure that the built and landscape form of urban growth takes on a

certain type of character.

I am not qualified to comment on the accuracy of how landscape significance has been identified, or the

proposed approaches to protecting road corridor views and viewsheds.

Biodiversity and environmental values:


A vast majority of submissions identified the protection of the local environment and ecosystem as

important, with specific concern for the protection of remnant trees (such as the Bellarine Yellow Gum)

and habitat for native animals. This was a particular concern in relation to Spring Creek and the Karaaf

Wetlands, as well as more broadly, the protection of the fragile beach ecosystems in the local area.

In the context of Spring Creek, the protection of biodiversity and environmental values is cited as a key

reason to support Spring Creek Option 2. Numerous submitters state that development of the area has

already decreased habitat for threatened and indigenous species, and the further reduction would

impact the amount of wildlife in the area with flow on impacts on tourism. Spring Creek's ecological

value and water quality, and the Bellarine yellow gum woodlands, are frequently noted.

In contrast, those submitters which support the urban development of Spring Creek (under Option 1 or

otherwise) generally contended that the environmental values could be adequately protected. Some

submitters supported development of the area on the basis that it would better protect the remnant

trees and result in revegetation outcomes. Various submitters identified past planning assessments of

10


the area (including for the Spring Creek Precinct Structure Plan (PSP) as evidence of how these values

can be protected; and some questioned whether the whole area was of relevant environmental value.

My response:

I am not qualified in ecology, and I have based my town planning opinion on the ecological information

referred to in the Settlement Background Paper and contained in the EHP report.

I have noted in my Evidence Statement that the extent of native vegetation within Spring Creek has been

mapped as being less than 10% of the total precinct, and that in my view it is not necessary for the

entire area to be kept free of urban development for the ecological values within this area to be

preserved.

It is common practice for precinct structure plans to set land aside for the protection of waterway

corridors, patches of native vegetation and remnant trees, and I see no reason why this same approach

could not apply to the Spring Creek area.

In relation to the Karaaf Wetlands, I have noted in my evidence statement that if there is not enough

scientific certainty about the risks and potential mitigation measures associated with allowing residential

development in the Torquay North East Investigation Area then in my view it would be prudent to

exclude this land from the settlement boundary until such time as there is certainty in relation to these

risks and mitigation solutions.

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage:


Some submitters call for consultation with the Traditional Owners of the land, with others stating that

sites of cultural significance and connection for Wadawurrung people will be displaced or destroyed. A

number of submissions make reference to the land (the Spring Creek Valley, and sites close to the Karaaf

wetlands) being specifically significant to the Wadawurrung people.

My response:

I agree that ongoing consultation with the Traditional Owners of the land within the Declared Area is

important, and I consider that the provision of the Aboriginal Heritage Act (2006) and he strategies

contained within the draft SPP make appropriate provision for this to occur.

11


Historic heritage:


Some submitters state that there is a need to protect access to heritage listed sites, including the

nationally significant Great Ocean Road, which is in close proximity to the Spring Creek area. Specifically,

many submitters are concerned that Option 1 would ruin views and the 'feel' of the Great Ocean Road,

ocean walk, surf coast and Bells Beach precinct overall. The surfing heritage of the declared area was

also recognised as an important heritage value.

My response:

I think that it is well accepted that the Great Ocean Road, Bells Beach and Winki Pop are places of

cultural and social significance. Any further urban expansion of Torquay-Jan Juc needs to be respectful of

cultural and social heritage values of these places, and provide an appropriate setting for these values to

be experienced.

If Option 2 were adopted for Spring Creek, then the above objective would be achieved (subject to any

future development within the green break being sympathetic to these values), and in my view low

density ecologically sensitive development (Option 1) could also satisfy the above objective.

I do not consider that allowing urban development within Spring Creek would be intrinsically

detrimental to the cultural heritage values of the nearby Great Ocean Road, Bells Beach and Winki Pop

and I have said in my evidence statement that I am confident that a landscape interface treatment could

be established along the Spring Creek portion of the Great Ocean Road which provides an acceptable

landscape setting for these nearby heritage features.

Tourism, agriculture and natural resources:


In regard to tourism:

• Several submitters raised concerns that the draft SPP and proposed landscape planning controls did

not sufficiently support tourism in the declared area for land outside areas in an urban zone. There

was concern that the introduction of the Significant Landscape Overlay (particularly SLO10) would

restrict use of land for tourism enterprises.

• A substantial number of submitters are concerned that losing the area's native flora and fauna,

landscape character and significance due to increased residential development (mainly in Spring

Creek) will contribute to a decline in tourism and limit job and economic prospects in the region.

In regard to agriculture, several submitters noted the importance of the landscape and post-contact

heritage values of farmland, and the importance of protecting and supporting local farming enterprises.

My response:

In my view, the proposed Significant Landscape Overlays (SLOs) will not unreasonably restrict the use of

land for tourism purposes. The purpose of these controls is to manage the siting and design of

development, not the use of land.

12


The significant landscapes within the declared area provide the backdrop and reason d’etre for tourism

activity in the region. The protection of these landscapes will therefore help ensure that the economic

benefits associated with tourism can be sustained over the long term.

I acknowledge that the proposed SLOs will increase the regulatory complexity for future tourism

activities in the region. Under the SLOs, a wide range of buildings and works will need to obtain planning

approval, and they will need to respond to the objectives, application requirements and decision

guidelines contained within the relevant SLO. However, given that the landscapes in question have been

identified as being of significance to the national or the state, then I consider this level of regulation and

assessment to be appropriate.

In relation to providing for tourism accommodation in rural areas, I note that the Farming Zone provides

discretion for permits to be granted for certain types of tourism accommodation facilities, and that the

draft SPP (strategy 6b.1) supports agricultural and nature-based tourism activities in these areas.

It will be important that the future assessment of tourism proposals is undertaken in a way which is both

timely and which facilitates the realisation of the tourism objectives of the draft SPP, so as to ensure that

‘red tape’ compliance does not become a barrier to investment.

In relation to Spring Creek, I do not consider that allowing residential development in this location will

necessarily result in a loss of flora and fauna, and I do not consider that the urbanisation of this part of

the wider landscape will contribute to an overall decline in tourism, employment or economic prospects

for the region.

However, if the ultimate settlement strategy for this region results in there being an undersupply of

housing to meet forecast demand for permanent and short say visitors then in my view this is likely to

have an impact on the accessibility and affordability of Torquay as a place to live and visit, which in turn

will impact on tourism, employment and economic growth in the region.

Strategic Infrastructure:


Key concerns arising under this policy domain include increased traffic congestion and pressure on

essential services due to a growing population; and concern this will worsen with continued

development (in the context of Spring Creek in particular). Many submitters noted issues with the power

and gas network which has pre-existing issues with regular outages. Some submitters however

supported increased urban development (in Spring Creek) on the basis that additional services and

infrastructure (in particular, in education) will be built.

The Department of Transport made some recommendations that the draft SPP amend references to the

proposed Armstrong Creek Transit Corridor and potential terminal as subject to further investigation.

Several submitters noted their opposition to a train line between Torquay and Geelong, recommending

instead an electric bus and cycling network.

13


My response:

I acknowledge that future population growth within Torquay (whether it occurs in greenfield or infill

settings) will place pressure on existing infrastructure within the township. I agree that both physical

and social infrastructure will need to be upgraded to accommodate increased demand associated with

population growth.

In relation to public transport, I note that the draft SPP makes provision for land to be set aside as a

‘transit corridor’, and that the plan does not nominate a specific transit mode at this point. In my

opinion the question of what transit modes are most appropriate to operate within the nominated

corridor can be resolved at a future time.

In relation to how the corridor is described in the draft SPP, I consider that it is important that the

corridor be shown as linking into the settlement boundary, and for there to be reference to the terminal

facility being within the settlement boundary. I consider this to be important in terms of supporting

transit oriented development and also in terms of ensuring that the urban infrastructure needed to

support the township is located within the town boundary and not in the rural hinterland.

I agree that it is important for this to be noted as being a matter that is to be the subject of further

investigation.

Settlement – Overall issues:


The vast majority of the issues raised in submissions related to the Settlements domain. Key issues

arising from the submissions include overcrowding of the area, housing affordability, and availability of

land supply for a growing population. A substantial number of submitters were concerned with traffic

congestion and overcrowding at beaches, surf spots and car parking, as well as risks to the township

character and landscape values of the declared area by increased residential development and

population. Some submitters raised concerns about the introduction of protected settlement

boundaries rather than just settlement boundaries.

Several submitters provided detailed submissions contending that the draft SPP does not include

sufficiently detailed and extensive projections for population growth, visitor growth and land supply

requirements over 50 years, including in regard to the nexus between job creation and increased

residential housing. Some submitters of community groups argued for a broad impact assessment on

proposed settlement boundaries and population forecasts to be conducted to empower the local

community to properly understand and contribute to debates about the planning of the area.

My response:

The pressure to create more housing for residents and visitors along the Great Ocean Road has been an

issue for many years and shows no sign of abating.

One of the key considerations is the long term strategic role that Torquay is envisaged to play under

State and regional settlement policies. The present-day state policies support the future growth of

14


Torquay, and the G21 Regional growth Plan and the Surf Coast planning scheme supports the outward

growth of Torquay at Spring Creek (as described in the Sustainable Futures Plan Torquay/Jan Juc 2040).

The designation of the Surf Coast Areas as a Declared Area under the Distinctive Areas and Landscape

legislation significantly changes the planning and policy context for Torquay. The declaration means that

considerable weight needs to be given to the question of whether allowing any expansion of the

settlement boundary would compromise the achievement of the DAL objectives for the wider Declared

Area under the P&E Act.

In coming to a view about this, it is necessary to determine whether retaining its present (and

significant) coastal rural landscape character is of higher priority than allowing the land to be developed

for housing to support the planned growth of the township or not.

This is a difficult judgement call, particularly as there is such a wide range of views about this topic. The

landscape of Spring Creek is admired by many, but the availability and cost of housing in the township is

also an issue today. This issue is likely to compound as the supply of new dwelling stock diminishes in

future.

The proposed Settlement Boundary does not appear to provide for a long term supply of residential land

for Torquay. It appears that the supply of greenfield and infill land within the proposed boundary might

(at best case) only just cater for circa 15 years future growth - maybe less – based on the housing

demand forecasts contained in VIF 2019.

If this transpires then the future supply of housing will be increasingly dependent on the ongoing

redevelopment of larger, older sites within the existing township. This outcome will have its own

impacts on the coastal amenity and character of the township, as well as having consequences on the

availability, location, type and cost of housing in Torquay in the medium term.

For these reasons, I consider that the settlement boundary for Torquay-Jan Juc set out in the draft SPP

should anticipate and provide for an increase in housing supply in the township over the longer term (ie

15+ years).

I do not consider that it is necessary for the settlement boundary to cater for ongoing growth over a 50

year horizon (ie the Horizon of the draft SPP), but if the settlement boundary is to be one which can only

be amended via parliamentary ratification, then in my view it should comfortably cater for population

and housing growth over at least a 15 year period.90

The relevant state policy (at clause 11.02-1S) directs that residential land supply be considered on a

municipal basis, rather than a town-by-town basis, and that planning consider the relevant Victorian

Government population projections. These projections (Victoria in Future 1019 – VIF) forecasts that

close to 90 percent of the Shires growth is expected to be accommodated in Torquay.

In my view it is therefore necessary for in the order of 90 percent of the forecast housing growth over

the coming 15 years in the Shire to be accommodated in Torquay.

I understand that these regional and local growth plans will be reviewed in the future, but my opinion is

based on the policies as they are written today.

15


Given that the draft SPP has a 50 year vision, I also consider that the land supply within Torquay should

accommodate at least this amount, and ideally it should accommodate an even longer term supply.

Neither the G21 Settlement Strategy nor the local policies contained within the Surf Coast Planning

Scheme anticipate any significant growth in other townships across the Shire. I understand that these

regional and local growth plans will be reviewed in the future, but my opinion is based on the policies as

they are written today.

In my view, conservative assumptions should be adopted in relation to the role of infill development and

the Torquay North East Investigation Area might play in catering for forecast housing demand in the

township.

It is also important that adequate land is set aside for employment and economic growth if Torquay is to

improve local access to jobs and services. I have not previously given consideration to whether or not

the draft SPP makes adequate long-term provision for industrial and commercial land, and I would defer

to the expertise of others on this topic.

Settlement – Spring Creek Area:


Most submitters either strongly supported Option 2 (and rejected Option 1); or strongly opposed Option

2 and supported some type of development (Option 1 or otherwise).

Some submitters rejected both Options, arguing for the planning for Spring Creek to proceed in

accordance with the PSP (i.e. preserve current boundary and no low density limit). Generally, these

submitters supported Option 1 in the alternative to the 'third way'; and strongly opposed Option 2.

Various submitters, in support of either option, raised concerns about the meaning of 'low density

ecological sustainable development' and how that would apply. The concern that low density housing

would not create affordable housing was also prevalent.

My response:

I consider that Spring Creek is likely to have to play a role in providing for future housing growth in

Torquay over the coming 15 years, and that the draft SPP should include this land in the Torquay

permanent settlement boundary.

In my view a better overall longer term community benefit would be realised by including Spring Creek

within the Torquay Settlement Boundary and allowing it to be developed for urban residential purposes,

than by leaving it out of the township boundary (Option 2) or only developing the land for low density

residential purposes (Option 1). My view is conditional upon ensuring that the future layout,

landscaping and design of residential development in this location is done in a manner which is sensitive

to local ecology and waterways, and to the elements of coastal character, edges and interfaces

identified in the Settlement Background Paper and associated technical reports.

16


Torquay North East Investigation Area:


Most submissions that referenced this issue were strongly opposed to development of the area due to

concern about the stormwater runoff into Karaaf wetlands.

My response:

The technical assessments prepared to accompany the draft SPP to date suggest that there is no easy or

risk-free solutions for ensuring that future urban development will not adversely affect the ecological

values of the adjoining environmental areas.

If it is determined that there is not enough scientific certainty about the risks and potential mitigation

measures then in my view it would be prudent to exclude the area from the settlement boundary for

now, so that the further work referred to in the draft SPP can be completed, and the necessary

guarantees regarding stormwater impacts and mitigations can be established.

Messmate Road future settlement area:


Various submissions were made in relation to the location of the boundary, and its nature as a protected

settlement boundary rather than a settlement boundary.

My response:

The existing ridgeline appears to be a reasonable location for setting the settlement boundary, however

further detailed site-based survey is needed to determine the exact location of the boundary.

The nature of the ridgeline and its slopes necessitates a finer-grained analysis of the development

setbacks needed to ensure that the height of buildings do not unreasonably impinge on the landscape

presence of the existing ridgeline. This analysis will confirm where the optimal settlement boundary

should be drawn.

I understand that this work is yet to be done as part of preparing the draft SPP and I consider that it is

reasonable for this work to be completed prior to the settlement boundary being resolved in this

location.

17


Northern Protected Settlement Boundary:


Numerous submissions were made concerning the location of the boundary. A substantial number were

directed to arguing that particular parcels of land in the Mount Duneed area should not be in the Surf

Coast declared area, and instead should be included in the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area.

Concerns were raised about a perceived lack of consultation with landowners.

My response:

I support the general intent of a permanent settlement boundary being set in the northern part of the

Declared Area, so as to ensure that a clear rural break is maintained between Torquay and Armstrong

Creek.

The location of the boundary needs to be informed by landscape considerations as well as determining

how to set an enduring boundary for the Armstrong Creek growth area.

There are a range of views about how and where to delineate the edge between the Armstrong Creek

growth area and the adjoining rural landscape. In my view further analysis, consultation and debate on

this issue is warranted, and I support this issue being resolved in the manner proposed in the draft SPP

(ie a boundary review led by the City of Greater Geelong, working in partnership with the State

Government, Traditional Owners, affected landowners and the wider community).

Bellbrae & Breamlea Protected Settlement Boundaries:


There are some divergent views on the Bellbrae settlement. Some submissions note support for the PSB

for Bellbrae, and noted the importance of the green break between Bellbrae and development in

Torquay and Jan Juc. Some submitters noted that there is no strategic basis for limiting development in

the Bellbrae South commercial shopping strip along the Great Ocean Road between the Bellbrae

Roundabout and the Gundry’s/Addiscott Road offset intersection.

Some submissions opposed any further residential subdivision and infill development in Breamlea, and

that it should be protected from high-density development in the investigation area to the east side of

Horseshoe Bend Road.

My response:

These settlements have not been identified for growth in any of the currently settlement strategies for

the area, are located in sensitive natural environments, and in landscape settings that have been

assessed as being of State or National significance. In my view these factors provide a sufficient basis to

determine the settlement boundaries as shown, without there being any further need to undertake

more detailed assessments.

18


Mt Duneed and Connewarre Settlement Boundary:


Various submitters referred to Mount Duneed and contended that their properties have been

inappropriately included in the Surf Coast declared area and they believe that the City of Greater

Geelong should retain all control over planning matters.

Several submitters argue that the designation of the ‘Mt Duneed Volcanic Plain’ as an area of regional

significance is not warranted as the landscape attribute varies. These submitters noted that landscape

based restrictions on development may not be warranted in the broader Mt Duneed area and the draft

SPP could be amended to permit appropriate low density or rural residential development that would be

screened and therefore not compromise in the surrounding areas.

Some submissions noted development in this area would be more sustainable (than in Torquay) as the

land will be flatter and building would be less expensive. At least one submission noted that the farming

values were important in this area.

My response:

The draft SPP proposes to set settlement boundaries around these estates, which I support. It does not

propose any changes to the existing subdivision controls that apply to these locations. I do not see any

strategic justification for altering the existing subdivision controls over these estates.

Implementation related issues:


Numerous submitters raised issues regarding proposed development restrictions, specifically the

application and terms of the proposed Significant Landscape Overlays (SLO); height restrictions (to

preserve the character of the area) and (to a lesser extent) allotment sizes.

My response:

My views in relation to the drafting of the proposed landscape planning controls are set out in

paragraphs 95-110 of my Evidence Statement.

I am not qualified to comment on the technical basis for the mapping of landscape significance and

character areas. However, in relation to the application of SLO8 to the Spring Creek area, in my view if

this area is included within the Settlement Boundary with the intention of developing it for urban

residential purposes, then SLO8 should not apply to it.

I use the term ‘urban residential’ to distinguish the form of development from the low density

residential contemplated under Option 1. I anticipate that the lot sizes and dwelling densities in this

area would need to be responsive to the area’s interfaces with the rural hinterland, waterways and

ridgelines, and that the overall densities would therefore not be the same as the urban residential

densities being realised in metropolitan Melbourne.

19


I say this because a. the context within Spring Creek (urban residential) would be inherently different to

that within the rural areas and b. the relevant landscape, siting and design issues that need to bea

addressed in this context ought to be able to be resolved via controls within the relevant zone, as well as

requirements and guidelines within the PSP, and little additional benefit will be gained by introducing

additional permit triggers, requirements and guidelines within the DDO.

If Option 1 is preferred, then I consider that precinct specific landscape controls should be prepared

which reflect the intention to develop the area as a low residential estate. If Option 2 is preferred then

it would make sense for SLO8 to apply to the area.

Several submitters also raised concerns in regard to the residential change areas, when permit triggers

will operate under the new SLOs (with some proposing clearer terms), and how the draft SPP and the

proposed landscape planning controls will be implemented (and by whom).

I support the principle of designating areas within settlements as being minimal, incremental or

substantial change areas within the draft SPP.

In relation to the designation of change area boundaries within the draft SPP, and potential future

changes to zoning and built-form controls within settlements that are described in the Settlement

Background Paper, it is my view that further analysis is needed in relation to the current and preferred

future township character before determining what changes might need to be made. I have elaborated

on what analysis I consider is needed in my Evidence Statement – it may be possible for this analysis to

be undertaken in the course of the Advisory Committee Hearings but if this is not possible, then further

work would need to be done after this process to finalise the designation of change areas within the

draft DAL, and the associated zoning ad built form changes that would follow it.

This analysis should assess in greater detail those specific elements of built form and character that need

to be retained in future in order to preserve/create a desired future character, as well as assessing the

impact of any changes on infill housing capacity within the settlements.

My views about specific changes proposed in the Settlement Background paper are set out in Paragraph

277 of my Evidence Statement.

20


5. Response to Expert Evidence Filed by Other Parties

In the very short time available, I have reviewed the expert evidence reports filed by other parties to the

best of my abilities. I have limited my response to those statements that primarily deal with strategic

planning issues.

Robert Milner, on behalf of Zeally Investments Pty Ltd.

Summary of evidence:

Mr Milner’s evidence relates to the property located at 140 Duffield’s Road, Jan Juc (forming part of the

Spring Creek Future Residential Area), and it sets out his professional opinion on the substance of the

Draft SPP and particularly the options and roles advanced for the Site and the land 1km west of Duffields

Road.

Mr Milner’s opinion is that the options proposed in the draft SPP for Spring Creek are a potentially

fundamental change in regional strategic planning direction for this area. He observes that to be

justified, such a change would need to demonstrate that significant new matters or knowledge have

arisen since 2014 or there has been a notable and measurable shift in economic, social and

environmental land use planning policies or community needs that would warrant a complete reversal of

land use policy for the relevant area.

In Mr Milner’s view:

• Such justification has not been established, but rather there is renewed reasons why the affected

land should be retained in the settlement boundary and used for residential purposes.

• The non-urban option would undermine planning objectives of fairness and orderly planning and

principles of consistency and certainty.

• The DSPP as a strategic planning exercise has not appropriately been integrated with the relevant

planning policy framework at a state, regional or local level.

• The matter under review in the advancement of options for the relevant area have been fully and

recently the subject of independent public review with consideration of the community’s divided

opinion on the role of the land.

• The draft SPP should advance without reference to the non – urban option, while the Site and the

land 1 km west of Duffields Road should continue to be included within the settlement boundary.

My Response:

I agree with Mr Milner that the draft SPP (as it relates to the Spring Creek area) represents a significant

shift from the present-day State and local policies set out in the Surf Coast Planning Scheme.

The designation of the Surf Coast Areas as a Declared Area under the Distinctive Areas and Landscapes

legislation significantly changes the planning and policy context for Torquay.

The declaration means that considerable weight needs to be given to the question of whether allowing

any expansion of the settlement boundary would compromise the achievement of the DAL objectives for

the wider Declared Area under the P&E Act.

21


Having considered the implications of the wider Surf Coast area being declared under the DAL

legislation, as well as the various other state planning policies that come to bear on the question of the

future growth of Torquay, it is my view that Spring Creek will need to play a role in providing for future

housing growth in Torquay over the coming decades, and that the draft SPP should allow for this

outcome.

I note that the basis for my reaching this conclusion differs in various ways to those of Mr Milner,

although there is common ground between us on various matters of policy interpretation.

David Crowder, on behalf of Mack Property Developments Pty Ltd


Mr Crowder’s evidence relates to the property located at 200 & 220 Great Ocean Road, Jan Juc (the

‘Mack land’) forming part of the Spring Creek Future Residential Area, and he has have been requested

to assess the draft SPP having regard to Amendment C114, the Spring Creek Precinct Structure Plan

(PSP).

Mr Crowder acknowledges that the declaration of the Surf coast area under the DAL legislation ‘raises

the bar’ when assessing the implications of any strategic approvals process that may impact on those

values that are sought to be protected and enhanced by the declaration.

He notes that any assessment must be balanced against other important outcomes sought by the

planning scheme, such as the broader needs of the present and future community.

Mr Crowder expressed the view that the declaration should not (except in exceptional circumstances)

seek to reverse or back-zone existing strategic and statutory commitments.

He opines that the Spring Creek PSP area should be shown as being part of the existing township area,

and that if the Committee believes further adjustments are required to the adopted Spring Creek PSP in

light of the declaration of the area as a significant landscape, then this could be facilitated through

adjustments at the edges of the Spring Creek PSP area that will potentially be visible from significant

public vantage points – most notably the Great Ocean Road corridor.

My response:

I share Mr Crowder’s view that the declaration of the Surf coast area under the DAL legislation ‘raises

the bar’ when assessing the impact of any strategic approvals process on the values that are intended to

be protected via the declaration.

Whilst the Spring Creek PSP was at an advanced stage of finalisation, this plan has not been approved,

and it is therefore necessary to review the outcomes contemplated by that draft plan in the context of

the objectives of the DAL legislation and the declaration of the wider Surf Coast area.

I agree with Mr Crowder that any such assessment must be balanced against other important outcomes

sought by the planning scheme, and that (on weighing up the various policy objectives) the Spring Creek

areas should be included within the township boundary.

22


I also agree with Mr Crowder that some fine tuning can be done to manage the interface between future

urban areas and the landscape significance of adjoining areas – this policy intent could be included

within the draft SPP, and the detailed resolution of it could be determined as part of a future PSP.

I note that the basis for my reaching this conclusion differs in various ways to those of Mr Crowder,

although there is common ground between us on various matters of policy interpretation.

Sandra Rigo, on behalf of Anseed Pty Ltd


Ms Rigo’s evidence relates to the property located at 1350 Surf Coast Highway, Torquay North. Ms Rigo

has been asked to form her own opinion on whether there are strategic planning merits in identifying

the subject site for future urban development and whether the proposed protected settlement

boundary should include Anseed Pty Ltd’s landholding.

In Ms Rigo’s opinion the draft SPP has not fully considered the projected future growth of Torquay-Jan

Juc and the need to provide supply of land in line with state policy, nor considered fully all options for

accommodating population growth.

Ms Rigo opines that a decision on the need and alignment of a protected settlement boundary around

Torquay – Jan Juc should be deferred until such time that a decision has been made on the future of

Spring Creek and consequently, further strategic planning analysis undertaken to determine where a

protected settlement boundary should be aligned.

Her evidence notes that the principle of defining the protected settlement boundary along the northern

ridgeline (historically identified as a natural boundary) should not be at the expense of other important

planning objectives related to identifying opportunities for urban growth.

My response:

I agree with Ms Rigo that the draft SPP has not fully resolved how the projected future growth of

Torquay-Jan Juc can be accommodated within the proposed settlement boundary in both the medium

and long term.

The Settlement Background Paper assesses a number of potential ‘greenfield’ locations for future urban

growth, and these appear to have largely been selected based on the growth locations identified in the

Sustainable Futures Plan Torquay—Jan Juc 2040, rather than being a ‘first principles’ review of the urban

development potential of all areas around the existing township.

In my opinion, the designation of Spring Creek and Messmate road as locations for growth have a sound

strategic planning basis to them, and I am supportive of adopting the ridgeline north of Messmate road

as the settlement boundary (noting that the precise location of this boundary requires further

investigation).

I note that the area north of Messmate Road has been assessed by Claire Scott as having a lower

landscape significance than the Spring Creek area. However, developing the land north of this ridgeline

23


would nonetheless significantly impact on this landscape and this is an issue that would need to be

carefully considered.

I do not know if there are any environmental, cultural, hydraulic, servicing or other constraints of this

land, and therefore cannot comment on its suitability for urban development.

I expect that the current Advisory Committee will come to a view on whether or not Spring Creek should

be included within the settlement boundary, and (in the event that the Committee considers that the

Spring Creek land should be excluded) whether alternative locations for urban development should be

considered.

In the event that the Committee finds that the Spring Creek land should be excluded from the proposed

settlement boundary, then it is my view that it would be necessary to re-evaluate whether there are any

other locations around the township that would be suitable for future housing growth.

I say this because the exclusion of Spring Creek from the settlement boundary is likely to result in an

undersupply of residential land which will have adverse consequences on accessibility and affordability

of housing in the township over time.

In that scenario, I consider that it would be prudent to assess the suitability of the subject land (and

potentially other sites around the township) for urban development, having regard to the objectives of

the DAL legislation, as well as the various other relevant state and local planning policies.

In relation to the status of the settlement boundary, Ms Rigo notes that regardless of the decision taken

on the options for Spring Creek, she is of the opinion that further work needs to be undertaken into

understanding the future growth opportunities and limitations within Torquay-Jan Juc. She notes that

without having this resolved, the application of a protected settlement boundary at this stage would be

premature.

I am able to support the principle of a judicious use of protected settlement boundaries in special cases

where outward growth will demonstrably place at risk highly significant environmental, landscape or

other values.

In my view if a protected settlement boundary is to be applied around a settlement earmarked for

growth (which Torquay is) then it must be set in a locations that can reasonably accommodate long term

growth. I have already noted that I consider such a boundary should comfortably cater for population

and housing growth over at least a 15 year period, and in my view it would be prudent to plan for a

longer time horizon than this.

I have also said in my Evidence Statement that I consider further work needs to be undertaken to

understand the future growth opportunities and limitations within both the established and ‘greenfield

parts of Torquay-Jan Juc.

I do not consider that the plan needs to attempt to anticipate 50 years of housing growth, but for the

concept of a ‘protected boundary’ to have credibility as a planning tool it needs to be able to remain for

at least 15 years, without causing housing shortages or affordability issues over this timeframe. The

performance of the settlement boundary can then be reviewed as part of the periodic review of the SPP

itself.

24


In summary, I am able to support setting a protected settlement boundary around the entirety of

Torquay-Jan Juc but only if it can be demonstrated that the land within the boundary can comfortable

accommodate at least 15 years forecast growth, based on a conservative assessment of the

development potential of the infill and greenfield land within the boundary.

Justin Ganly, on behalf of Zeally Investments Pty Ltd and .


Mr Ganly’s evidence relates to the Duffields Road Pty Ltd and Zeally Investments Pty Ltd, who are the

owners of land at 140 Duffields Road, Torquay and 80 Duffields Road, Torquay respectively (forming part

of the Spring Creek Future Residential Area).

Mr Ganly has been asked to prepare economic evidence which deals with the economic impacts of

Option 2 included in the draft DAL. His opinions (in summary) are as follows:

• Adoption of the Draft SPP associated with the Surf Coast DAL will have serious consequences for the

future supply of residential land within Surf Coast.

• It will not be possible for Surf Coast to meet its 15-year residential land supply obligations under

either Option 1 or Option 2 put forward for Spring Creek.

• A third option – which implements the approved Spring Creek PSP and associated residential

densities – is the only manner by which Surf Coast will go close to meeting its new housing

obligations.

• The implications of adoption of either Option 1 or Option 2 will include:

• Transferring the housing challenge outside of the Surf Coast (and mainly to the City of Greater

Geelong);

• Continued escalation in land and house prices;

• Continued tightening of rental vacancy and increases in rental rates; and

• Significant reductions in local construction jobs, with flow on effects to other parts of the

Torquay economy.

My response:

I am not an economist and therefore not qualified to comment on the technical basis of Mr Ganly’s

views. I also have not had an opportunity to review his evidence in detail in the time available to

prepare this supplementary statement.

However, I note that a number of his conclusions are similar to those that I have reached after reviewing

the dwelling forecast and supply data contained within the Settlement Background Paper (refer to

paragraphs 120-138 of my evidence statement).

25


Robert Milner, on behalf of DFC (Sprague Farm) Developments Pty Ltd.


Mr Milner’s evidence relates to the property located at 372-450 Charlemont Road, Armstrong Creek,

and it sets out his professional opinion on the strategic planning merits of the draft SPP in the context of

that land.

Mr Milner’s opinion is that the land and other proximate land immediately north of Lower Duneed Road

is an appropriate candidate for review to an urban role and has no meaningful role to play in the holistic

appreciation of the distinctive areas and landscapes of the Surf Coast region. He opines that developing

this land for urban purposes would not materially compromise the role or perception of the substantial

green break between Torquay-Jan Juc and Greater Geelong.

It is Mr Milners view that the long term settlement boundary for this area should be resolved prior to

the adoption and gazettal of the draft SPP.

My Response:

As I have previously, stated, I support the general intent of a settlement boundary being set in the

northern part of the Declared Area, so as to ensure that a clear rural break is maintained between

Torquay and Armstrong Creek.

The location of the boundary needs to be informed by landscape considerations as well as determining

how to set an enduring boundary for the Armstrong Creek growth area.

There are a range of views about how and where to delineate the edge between the Armstrong Creek

growth area and the adjoining rural landscape. In my view further analysis, consultation and debate on

this issue is warranted, and I support this issue being resolved in the manner proposed in the draft SPP

(ie a Council-led boundary review).

The process for amending settlement boundaries is set out under Part 3AAB of the Planning and

Environment Act 1987 (P&E Act) which states that any change to a protected settlement boundary must

be ratified by both houses of Parliament.

I understand that the various protected settlement boundary proposals that form part of the draft SPP

will be tabled in Parliament at the time that the SPP is approved (pursuant to the provisions of the P&E

Act), and that following the northern settlement boundary review exercise, the SPP will be amended,

and the resultant permanent settlement boundary for this location will also be tabled before Parliament

for its ratification.

Whilst I agree that it would be convenient for the northern settlement boundary to be resolved at the

same time that the SPP is approved and the other permanent settlement boundary changes are ratified,

I don’t see this being undertaken as a subsequent step as being particularly problematic.

26


Appendix 1 – Letter of Instruction

Dated 3 March 2021

All correspondence to: PO Box 4356

Melbourne VIC 3001 Australia DX 300077 Melbourne

Level 25, 121 Exhibition Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Tel: +61 3 8684 0444 Fax: +61 3 8684 0449 Level 33, 80 Collins Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Tel: +61 3 9947 1444 Fax: +61 3 9947 1499

www.vgso.vic.gov.au

5986535_1\C OFFICIAL-Sensitive

Your reference: Contact details Natasha Maugueret

Our reference: 2011043 (03) 8684 0223 (direct line) [email protected] 3 March 2021

Claire Toole (03) 8684 0244 (direct line)

[email protected]

Mark Woodland Director Echelon Planning 3 Prentice Street Brunswick 3056 By email: [email protected] Dear Mr Woodland

Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Standing Advisory Committee Surf Coast Draft Statement of Planning Policy Supplementary instructions 1. We refer to our letter of instructions dated 24 February 2021 (Initial letter) and your

expert witness statement dated 2 March 2021.

Supplementary instructions

2. You are now instructed:

2.1 to prepare an expert witness statement responding, to the best of your ability in the time available, to the following:

(a) Public submissions to the Standing Advisory Committee (SAC). The public submissions are available at: https://engage.vic.gov.au/dalsac/submissions. To assist you, we enclose:

(i) Enclosure 1: Overview summary of all submissions (table form and written summary);

(ii) Enclosure 2: List of notable submissions;

(iii) Enclosure 3: Detailed summary of particular notable submissions (to be provided on 5 March 2021);

(b) Expert evidence filed by other parties (expected to be available the evening of 5 March 2021).

https://engage.vic.gov.au/dalsac/submissions

- 2 -


3. We confirm that you are likely to be called to give evidence at the SAC hearings on Monday, 22 March, Tuesday, 23 March and Wednesday, 24 March. Please ensure that you are available for this period.

Background

4. This background is a supplement to the information in our Initial Letter. Please review the Initial Letter for a full background and identification of issues.

5. By letter dated 17 February 2021, the Chair of the SAC issued directions of the conduct of the hearing (Enclosure 4). In particular:

5.1 The Minister for Planning's evidence must be filed by 2:00 pm on 2 March 2021;

5.2 All other parties must file their evidence by 4:00 pm on 5 March 2021;

5.3 Any (like) evidence in reply must be filed by 2:00 pm 9 March 2021.

6. The SAC will not circulate material to parties on a distribution list. All material will be uploaded to the SAC's Engage Victoria webpage: https://engage.vic.gov.au/dalsac. We will notify you as soon as the other parties' evidence has been uploaded and will advise you, as we review the reports in tandem with you, of any particular reports for you to focus on in preparing your reply evidence.

7. The hearing will commence on 15 March 2021 for 6-8 weeks by video conference.

Expert evidence

8. We remind you that you are engaged by the Minister as an expert witness to assist the SAC. As an expert witness you have an overriding and paramount duty to assist the SAC on matters relevant to your expertise.

9. Before commencing your review of the submissions and other evidence, please review the enclosed Guide for Expert Witnesses prepared by Planning Panels Victoria with which your report must comply (Enclosure 5).

Timeframes and Fee Estimate

10. We request that your finalised report be provided to this office by or on the morning of 10 March 2021 to enable it to be filed on 11 March 2021.

11. Once you have had an opportunity to review the materials, and only to the extent that you have not already done so in your initial estimate, please provide an estimate of fees for provision of your expert witness statement in reply.

Conflicts of interest

12. You are reminded that as an independent expert, it is important that you are free from any possible conflict of interest in providing the opinion sought. If you feel you have any conflict of interest please notify us immediately.

https://engage.vic.gov.au/dalsac

- 3 -


Information provided

13. In drafting your expert witness statement, please base it on the information set out in the Initial Letter, this letter including the enclosures, and your own independent investigations as necessary.

Please do not hesitate to contact Claire Toole on 8684 0244 or me on 0447 802 779 (between 5 and 9 March) if you have any questions.

Yours faithfully

Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office

Natasha Maugueret Lead Counsel Enclosures

Enclosure 1: Overview summary of all submissions (table form and written summary)

Enclosure 2: List of notable submissions

Enclosure 3: Detailed summary of particular notable submissions (to be provided)

Enclosure 4: Letter from the Chair of the SAC dated 17 February 2021

Enclosure 5: Planning Panels Victoria, 'Expert Witnesses' guidelines, April 2019


Distinctive Areas and Landscape Standing Advisory Committee Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy and Proposed Landscape Planning

Controls

The Minister for Planning's position on the thematic issues raised in the public submissions received by the DALSAC

1. The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (Department) on behalf of the Minister for Planning (Minister) has reviewed the public submissions and expresses its gratitude to all submitters for their time and effort in participating in the Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Standing Advisory Committee (Committee) process for the draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy (SPP). It is evident that there are a diverse range of views amongst a passionate and connected community on the draft SPP and proposed landscape planning controls and on the best approach to manage the special nature and distinctive attributes of the declared area of the Surf Coast.

2. The Minister has considered the issues raised by the public submissions and advises the Committee that it is not possible to come to a resolution on the thematic issues raised in the public submissions prior to the Hearing. This is primarily due to the diversity of opinion on numerous issues, and the detail to which certain submitters address individual points which would benefit from further examination and, in some cases, analysis of evidence in support.

3. The Minister has provided a broad overview of the thematic issues raised by the public submissions below. For a further high level breakdown, please see the enclosed table.

Overview of thematic issues

4. The issues generally can be divided by policy domain, proposed landscape planning controls and proposed actions to implement the draft SPP.

Environmental risk

5. The submissions raised concerns in regard to climate change, and in particular, risks arising from bushfire, water security, stormwater management and development generally (given the necessary clearing of vegetation before development). Concerns were also raised that increased development would exacerbate human risks to fragile ecosystems, including from increased litter, land clearing, pollution and greater human presence on fragile beach ecosystems. Generally, the submissions supported the approach of the draft SPP, and identified gaps and areas that could be strengthened (for example, by providing greater detail on water security and strategies; greater guidance on balancing bushfire risk with protection of landscape and environment values).

Landscape significance

6. There was a general acceptance in the submissions of the intent and approaches set out in the draft SPP and proposed landscape planning controls to protect the significant landscapes of the declared area. Many submitters were concerned to

- 2 -


protect the natural landscape and green breaks between townships. Some of the more significant concerns raised in the submissions were that:

6.1 The draft SPP places too much weight on landscape and environmental values in comparison to social and economic factors.

6.2 The identification of significant landscapes of local, regional or State significance was not always accurate in relation to a particular parcel of land, or the location of the boundaries of that significant landscape.

6.3 The approaches to protecting road corridor views and viewsheds are too restrictive in some locations where landscape values were considered by submitters not to justify those restrictions.

7. A large number of submissions reflect a desire to retain as much coastal, small-town community atmosphere in the area as possible; with the green break and surrounding landscape being referenced as an important aspect of township character and sense of place. This was particularly evident in the context of Spring Creek, where many submitters considered that Torquay would lose its natural character and small surf town heritage under Spring Creek Option 1, with a negative effect on the community, business and property values.

Biodiversity and environmental values

8. A vast majority of submissions identified the protection of the local environment and ecosystem as important, with specific concern for the protection of remnant trees (such as the Bellarine Yellow Gum) and habitat for native animals. This was a particular concern in relation to Spring Creek and the Karaaf Wetlands, as well as more broadly, the protection of the fragile beach ecosystems in the local area.

9. In the context of Spring Creek, the protection of biodiversity and environmental values is cited as a key reason to support Spring Creek Option 2. Numerous submitters state that development of the area has already decreased habitat for threatened and indigenous species, and the further reduction would impact the amount of wildlife in the area with flow on impacts on tourism. Spring Creek's ecological value and water quality, and the Bellarine yellow gum woodlands, are frequently noted.

10. In contrast, those submitters which support the urban development of Spring Creek (under Option 1 or otherwise) generally contended that the environmental values could be adequately protected. Some submitters supported development of the area on the basis that it would better protect the remnant trees and result in revegetation outcomes. Various submitters identified past planning assessments of the area (including for the Spring Creek Precinct Structure Plan (PSP)) as evidence of how these values can be protected; and some questioned whether the whole area was of relevant environmental value.

11. As noted above, several submitters argued that the draft SPP does not adequately balance environmental values with social and economic values.

- 3 -


Aboriginal cultural heritage

12. Some submitters call for consultation with the Traditional Owners of the land, with others stating that sites of cultural significance and connection for Wadawurrung people will be displaced or destroyed. A number of submissions make reference to the land (the Spring Creek Valley, and sites close to the Karaaf wetlands) being specifically significant to the Wadawurrung people.

Historic heritage

13. Some submitters state that there is a need to protect access to heritage listed sites, including the nationally significant Great Ocean Road, which is in close proximity to the Spring Creek area. Specifically, many submitters are concerned that Option 1 would ruin views and the 'feel' of the Great Ocean Road, ocean walk, surf coast and Bells Beach precinct overall. The surfing heritage of the declared area was also recognised as an important heritage value.

Tourism/agriculture/natural resources

14. In regard to tourism:

14.1 Several submitters raised concerns that the draft SPP and proposed landscape planning controls did not sufficiently support tourism in the declared area for land outside areas in an urban zone. There was concern that the introduction of the Significant Landscape Overlay (particularly SLO10) would restrict use of land for tourism enterprises.

14.2 A substantial number of submitters are concerned that losing the area's native flora and fauna, landscape character and significance due to increased residential development (mainly in Spring Creek) will contribute to a decline in tourism and limit job and economic prospects in the region.

15. In regard to agriculture, several submitters noted the importance of the landscape and post-contact heritage values of farmland, and the importance of protecting and supporting local farming enterprises.

Strategic infrastructure

16. Key concerns arising under this policy domain include increased traffic congestion and pressure on essential services due to a growing population; and concern this will worsen with continued development (in the context of Spring Creek in particular). Many submitters noted issues with the power and gas network which has pre-existing issues with regular outages. Some submitters however supported increased urban development (in Spring Creek) on the basis that additional services and infrastructure (in particular, in education) will be built.

17. The Department of Transport made some recommendations that the draft SPP amend references to the proposed Armstrong Creek Transit Corridor and potential terminal as subject to further investigation. Several submitters noted their

- 4 -


opposition to a train line between Torquay and Geelong, recommending instead an electric bus and cycling network.

Settlements

18. The vast majority of the issues raised in submissions related to the Settlements domain. Key issues arising from the submissions include overcrowding of the area, housing affordability, and availability of land supply for a growing population. A substantial number of submitters were concerned with traffic congestion and overcrowding at beaches, surf spots and car parking, as well as risks to the township character and landscape values of the declared area by increased residential development and population. Some submitters raised concerns about the introduction of protected settlement boundaries rather than just settlement boundaries.

19. Several submitters provided detailed submissions contending that the draft SPP does not include sufficiently detailed and extensive projections for population growth, visitor growth and land supply requirements over 50 years, including in regards to the nexus between job creation and increased residential housing. Some submitters of community groups argued for a broad impact assessment on proposed settlement boundaries and population forecasts to be conducted to empower the local community to properly understand and contribute to debates about the planning of the area.

20. In relation to specific protected settlement boundaries and settlement boundaries, the most contentious issues relate to Spring Creek, and to a lesser extent, the location of the Northern Protected Settlement Boundary (PSB). In brief:

20.1 Spring Creek area

Most submitters either strongly supported Option 2 (and rejected Option 1); or strongly opposed Option 2 and supported some type of development (Option 1 or otherwise).

Some submitters rejected both Options, arguing for the planning for Spring Creek to proceed in accordance with the PSP (i.e. preserve current boundary and no low density limit). Generally, these submitters supported Option 1 in the alternative to the 'third way'; and strongly opposed Option 2.

Various submitters, in support of either option, raised concerns about the meaning of 'low density ecological sustainable development' and how that would apply. The concern that low density housing would not create affordable housing was also prevalent.

20.2 Torquay North East Investigation Area: Most submissions that referenced this issue were strongly opposed to development of the area due to concern about the stormwater runoff into Karaaf wetlands.

- 5 -


20.3 Messmate Road future settlement area: Various submissions were made in relation to the location of the boundary, and its nature as a protected settlement boundary rather than a settlement boundary.

20.4 Northern PSB: Numerous submissions were made concerning the location of the boundary. A substantial number were directed to arguing that particular parcels of land in the Mount Duneed area should not be in the Surf Coast declared area, and instead should be included in the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area. Concerns were raised about a perceived lack of consultation with landowners.

21. A much smaller number of submitters made comments in regard to Bellbrae, Breamlea, Mount Duneed and Connewarre settlement boundaries.

Proposed development restrictions

22. Numerous submitters raised issues regarding proposed development restrictions, specifically the application and terms of the proposed Significant Landscape Overlays (SLO); height restrictions (to preserve the character of the area) and (to a lesser extent) allotment sizes.

Implementation actions

23. Several submitters also raised concerns in regard to the residential change areas, when permit triggers will operate under the new SLOs (with some proposing clearer terms), and how the draft SPP and the proposed landscape planning controls will be implemented (and by whom).

1

5983604_3\C

OFFICIAL-Sensitive

Summary of thematic issues raised in the public submissions on the Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy

The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (Department) on behalf of the Minister for Planning (Minister) has considered the issues identified in the public submissions and summarised below. The Minister advises the Committee that it is not possible to come to a resolution on the thematic issues raised in the public submissions prior to the Hearing. This is primarily due to the diversity of opinion on numerous issues, and the detail to which certain submitters address individual points which would benefit from further examination and, in some cases, analysis of evidence in support.

Issue Overview of issues raised (generally and noting specific points of contention). Please use the 'things to look out for' in the Protocol document to guide entries in this column.

Number of submissions

Policy based issues/distinctive attributes Environmental risk

Impact assessment: a number of submitters noted concern in regard to the lack of an impact assessment that considers the impacts of population growth and urban development on the natural environment, climate, social cohesion, liveability, fresh water (including ground water, cost of desalination), costs of infrastructure/services in the declared area. Such an assessment would assist community participation in decision-making for planning for the area. There is also a concern that there is likely to be a big burden on local conservation volunteer managers and organisations to manage these risks.

2

Salinity: was noted in some submissions as an issue for protection of waterways. 50

Stormwater: • There is general concern for increased development resulting in increased stormwater runoff that

impacts waterways (in particular, Spring Creek, Karaaf wetlands, Thompson Creek estuary, and run off into the ocean). Concern that this would limit available swimming spots, and impact environmental values of the areas.

• A particular issue was raised in regard to the draft SPP’s focus on stormwater quality and quantity rather than the appropriateness of the receiving environment. This is noted as an issue, and it was suggested that the draft SPP better address this issue (e.g. Strategy 1.5 note the importance of the water being suitable for the receiving environment, as well as Water Sensitive Urban Design Principles).

24

Water security: Suggestion that the draft SPP should highlight water security and measures such as reduction in demand and alternative water sources via a separate section on water security and particular strategies.

25

2

5983604_3\C

OFFICIAL-Sensitive

There is a concern that the SPP does not take into account forecasts of water consumption and does not adequately respond to those risks. Erosion: is identified in several submissions as a risk that development will exacerbate (particularly in Spring Creek, due to steep nature of land)

19

Climate change - renewable energy: various submitters provided support for renewable energy and environmentally sustainable design practices (referring to its benefits for safeguarding culture, water, bushfire sensitivity). Additional Strategies for Objective 1 should be added to focus more on emission reduction (rather than adaption).

64

Climate change - risks from development: some submitters stated that development impacts would contribute to climate change due to land clearing (Spring Creek, in particular). Concerns included that development would significantly reduce land for endangered native wildlife which is already under extreme pressure from global heating and the increased bush fire risk associated with this. Some submitters expressed that climate change and associated increase in bushfire and extreme weather events into the future, and how urban development and growth responds to this, should be given more prominence in the draft SPP. Climate change - sea level rise: Sea level rise and Torquay becoming inundated were identified as issues, housing should be avoided in low lying areas. Bushfire risks:

• Noted in regard to the whole declared area and in relation to Spring Creek Option 1. Increasing population in bushfire areas should be limited, noting strain on volunteers.

• Several detailed submissions make the criticism that there is no guidance in the draft SPP where landscape objectives create bushfire risks, i.e. potential increased fuel load in environment due to planning controls, and planting of vegetation (some types of planting may increase risk).

• A small number of submitters stressed that there was increased bushfire risk with additional cars on the road and that Spring Creek Option 1 would increase bushfire risk as it is in a designated bushfire prone area. Concern was raised that increasing density will magnify the danger of bushfires.

40

Human impact: there were various concerns raised largely in relation to human impacts of growing population and increased urban development:

53

3

5983604_3\C

OFFICIAL-Sensitive

• Concerns regarding land movement due to development - for example, a large number of movement issues with Danawa Drive, Torquay (submission 1448).

• Pollution: increased litter and polluted runoff. A significant number of submissions referred to littering, and increased rubbish and pollution created by increasing tourist and permanent populations. Concern about further urban development resulting in pollution was also noted in multiple submissions (e.g. introduction of detergents, motor oil, carbon dust from roads, dog faeces will cause outbreaks of E. coli at Jan Juc Beach, plastic pollution, increase in waste and carbon emissions). Pollution of waterways was a key concern (see also comments on stormwater runoff)

• Effect of overcrowding and increased human presence in fragile beach ecosystems. • Some submissions identified the impact of Spring Creek Option 1 on the region's ecology, noting

disapproval for clearing native vegetation, in connection with support for Spring Creek Option 2.

Landscape significance

Landscape significance - protection of landscape values: a substantial number of submissions referred to the importance of the landscape to the area, as a result of its natural beauty, scenic value, and unique landscape character (rolling hills, rural vista, coastline). The landscape was also noted as being important for mental health and a sense of place. A large number of submitters stated that development of Spring Creek would impact their connection and memories of and with the land, and their enjoyment and use of the area and connection to the natural environment in the area if Option 1 for Spring Creek were to be implemented. There is a concern that the visual impact of developments would destroy the landscape of coastal towns and would negatively impact upon the tourism economy.

477

Landscape significance - contributing to township character: Preserving the rural and coastal landscape setting of the townships is of high importance to the majority of submitters. A dominant and re-occurring theme is local resident's desire to prevent Spring Creek Option 1 from being implemented, in order to retain the coastal, small-town community atmosphere; and to protect the surf culture. There is a concern that increasing urban development will result in a more city like urban environment. Many feel that if Torquay was to lose its natural character it would lose its unique character which would have a negative effect on the community, business and property values.

21

Balancing of factors: Numerous submitters criticised the draft SPP and proposed landscape planning controls on the basis that they define areas of marginal landscape significance in isolation to competing significant social and economic requirements for Torquay-Jan Juc (for example, employment opportunities

Undefined

4

5983604_3\C

OFFICIAL-Sensitive

and job creation; as well as other factors that flow into township character including tourism, business and innovation, surfing culture and connection to the Great Ocean Road, and the potential for greater accessibility to services if the area is further developed amongst others). Some submissions include recommendations to amend this perceived lack of balance, for example, to amend Landscape Strategy 2.7 at page 36 to apply in a more targeted way. Relatedly to the above, there is some general concern that the landscape values limit other values in restricting how land may be used (see also comments on Significant Landscape Overlays (SLO) below). For example, it was noted that Strategy 3 under Objective 2 is too restrictive in its current form and should be modified to allow complementary uses such as group accommodation, wineries etc (notes Rural Hinterland Futures Strategy). Green break: General support to protect green space for future generations; for defining townships and protecting wildlife/wetlands in between townships

28

Designation of Significance: Various submitters questioned the accuracy of the landscape significance assigned to their parcel (in the Armstrong Creek and Mt Duneed area, Spring Creek predominately). In some of these areas, submitters want greater justification of the level of restriction on development.

15

Road Corridor views: Some submitters questioned the value of views from Mt Duneed/Lower Duneed Road, noting that the draft SPP constrains development along that road in areas where there is no justification to protect views. Various specific recommendations were made, for example:

• One submitter (2784) suggested amending the description of the ‘Road Corridor views’ designation in the legend to Map 3 as follows: "Road corridor views – Manage the development of infrastructure to maintain identified significant views to the rural hinterland and/or coast."

• The City of Greater Geelong Council suggested including the duplication of Anglesea Road (Princes Highway West to Mount Duneed Road) in the ‘Road corridor views’ (742).

• Another submitter (1944) noted in relation to Map 3 and the road corridors from which views of the ‘rural hinterland’ are sought to be maintained; that there are limits with applying this to the northern slope of Mt Duneed, contending that, the objectives of the draft SPP as expressed do not justify preserving view lines or regulating development north of the Feehans Rd/Russells Rd line. The submitter argued for excluding that portion of the Surf Coast declared area from any restrictions

14

5

5983604_3\C

OFFICIAL-Sensitive

designed to maintain its view lines or landscape character, and for disregarding its contribution toward any green belt purpose.

Views of landscape: This was considered an important value to protect by numerous submitters, with some identifying and recommending additional vantage points to assess visual impact (see 2805). There were however some submitters that questioned the appropriateness of view-based restrictions in specific areas. Suggestions were made to the text of the draft SPP to be more targeted in the approach to protecting views. For example, the City of Greater Geelong Council noted that the wording ‘to the rural hinterland and/or coast’ in the draft SPP does not reflect the potential impact of infrastructure across the landscape. The wording could be amended to better reflect the landscape and strategic infrastructure policy domains' focus on new development being responsive to the landscape/not being visually dominating (742).

20

Views of landscape from the water: Several submitters advocated for the protection of views of the landscape from the water, including from surfers, and water users viewpoint. An example for the need for this was the concern about the elevated walkway in Winki Pop proposed by Surf Coast Shire Council which would impact landscape values from the water viewpoint. Protection of surf breaks: at least one submission noted that Surf Breaks such as Steps Beach and Bird Rock are important to the surf culture of the area and have been ignored in the draft SPP.

2

Biodiversity and environmental values

Balancing of factors: Various submitters argued that environmental factors were given more weight than other factors (e.g. land supply, and economic and social factors (such as employment opportunities, greater support for tourism, business and innovation, surfing culture and connection to the Great Ocean Road, and the potential for greater accessibility to services if the area is further developed). This was generally in relation to settlement boundaries.

Undefined

Protection of Karaaf Wetlands: Numerous submissions noted concern for the Karaaf wetlands environment. At least one submission noted that the protection of vegetation and habitat has not been included in the Karaaf Wetland section of the draft SPP.

79

Marine and Coastal Policy 2020: Several submissions identified that various parts of the draft SPP do not comply with this policy, including some objectives and strategies, and in terms of development: Spring Creek Option 1, Torquay North East, and a future train line through Armstrong Creek corridor.

16

6

5983604_3\C

OFFICIAL-Sensitive

Bellarine Yellow Gum: A substantial number of submissions referenced the need to protect the Bellarine Yellow Gums, however there was disagreement on what was required to do so (see discussion on Spring Creek).

81

Biodiversity - flora and fauna: A substantial number of submissions referred to flora and fauna in connection with support for Spring Creek Option 2. There was a significant amount of concern for the protection of habitat for endangered and threatened species, the loss of biolinks that are essential for wildlife movement, land clearing and the need to protect remnant vegetation. Many submissions noted Spring Creek and Torquay/Jan Juc are regions of high biodiversity value and referred to the negative impact developments would have on native, and remnant vegetation, wildlife and small creatures. There is a concern that urban developments in the area had already resulted in a steady decline in wildlife. It was noted that the surf-coast region has a fragile eco system supporting unique native flora and fauna and this eco system is being compromised and endangered by ongoing urban development. Some submitters desired to create a protected habitat in Spring Creek Valley for flora and fauna, including maintaining an exclusion zone from residential development between Torquay and Bellbrae.

538

Effect of biodiversity loss on tourism: Numerous submitters stated that native animals have already been pushed out from developed areas and further development would add to this, resulting in a large reduction in the number of wildlife present in the region - a drawcard for many tourists.

In the context of Mount Duneed and the Northern Protected Settlement Boundary (PSB): Strategies included in the draft SPP and proposed landscape planning controls to protect Thompson Creek Valley and various landholders submit that "The Mount Duneed and Lower Armstrong Creek Corridor is not considered as part of the Thompson Creek Valley".

4

Aboriginal culture heritage

Aboriginal cultural heritage values: A number of submissions referred to the Aboriginal cultural heritage significance in the area and called for decision makers to consult with the Traditional Owners. Submitters also stated that sites of cultural significance and connection for Wadawurrung people will be displaced or destroyed under Spring Creek Option 1. A number of submissions made reference to the land (the Spring Creek Valley, and sites close to the Karaaf wetlands) being specifically significant to the Wadawurrung people.

121

7

5983604_3\C

OFFICIAL-Sensitive

Connection to country: Some submissions noted that the area is important to the Wadawurrung people, and that Spring Creek is considered sacred land, and is an important breeding and feeding area for the wedge-tailed eagle, a symbol of the creator of Wathaurong land, Bunjil.

13

Historic heritage Heritage value of the landscape: A number of submissions from long term residents described the change in urban development of the area and noted that the landscape has drastically changed from when they were children. There is a concern that further development (particularly, re Spring Creek) would be such a drastic change to the landscape that the historical significance of the town would be lost.

99

Great Ocean Road: A substantial number of submissions referenced the Great Ocean Road and the impact that further development will have on the Road and its historic nature. Some submitters stated that there was a need to protect access to heritage listed sites such as the nationally significant Great Ocean Road. Protection of this heritage was viewed as another reason to support Spring Creek Option 2.

56

Bells Beach and Winki Pop: Various submissions noted the importance of Bells Beach and Winkipop to the character of the town. The area's value as an internationally renowned surf sport was also noted in some submissions; and its heritage as a surfing town should be protected as a key component of township character and the tourism industry.

44

Tourism, agriculture and natural resources

Natural resources/water security: Concerns were raised over water security and infrastructure for the region should a development in the Spring Creek area go ahead.

23

Tourism - degradation of environment: Many submitters contended that development will be detrimental to tourism as it will impact landscape character and significance and result in overcrowding which will affect accessibility for tourists. Numerous submitters contended that the impact on landscape values will diminish the areas tangible connection to native flora and fauna which would affect the areas identity and damage the visitor economy, resulting in less tourism. Submitters referred to the significance of the Great Ocean Road as a premier visitor experience and if this was to be replaced with high density housing it would change the experience for both residents and visitors.

202

Tourism - restrictions on land use: Some submitters raised concern that the draft SPP does not provide a sufficient platform for tourism such that Torquay will not be able to capitalise on visitation (accommodation, retail, hospitality), and will still bear burden of public infrastructure expectations (parking, beach visits, vehicles). Specific suggestions include:

8

5983604_3\C

OFFICIAL-Sensitive

• Conflict with SLOs and Tourism objective: Application of SLO10 to certain land parcels fails to support the tourism objective in restricting that lands use for tourism. Several changes to the drafting of the SPP and location of the SLOs are proposed by various submitters.

• The importance of the draft SPP maintaining discretion for land outside of the urban areas to provide tourist accommodation and other non-agricultural uses was noted, particularly on land which contains what would normally be termed urban uses. For example, concern that Strategies 6a.3 and 6a.4 will not support tourism sufficiently due to Farming zone on land (Map 6) which can be a ground of permit refusal for non-agricultural use.

• SPP needs greater support for accommodation in rural areas. Farming: There were some submissions that identified the need to protect arable farming land; and to protect hobby farming used of land and lifestyle living (specifically, along Grossmans Rd). A small number of submissions noted the importance of farming land close to the city for its efficiency and connection to services, preservation of farmland important against urban sprawl. Some of these submissions also noted the heritage values of farmland.

33

Economy and jobs: There are varying opinions on what will protect jobs in the area: • Several submissions in support of Spring Creek Option 2 noted proposals focussed on job creation

and wealth should not compromise scarce remaining areas. • Numerous submissions in support of Option 1 posited that development would allow new business

opportunities and employment in the region. • Numerous submissions noted that Option 2 will protect jobs and boost the economy through visitors

and tourism.

64

Strategic infrastructure

Essential services/infrastructure: A substantial number of submitters raised concerns that the district lacks the infrastructure to support continued population growth (generally in relation to the Spring Creek issue). This includes concern for transport infrastructure, water supply, public services (health, education) and issues with secure power and gas supply. One submitter stated that the area was suffering from power outages lasting 24 hours. There was a lot of concern about frequent power blackouts in the area and how the electricity grid was already under pressure due to the increase in population and influx of tourists.

174

Essential services/infrastructure: several submitters supported development in the area as a means to increase infrastructure and services, noting that development would improve access to schools and other facilities.

9

5983604_3\C

OFFICIAL-Sensitive

Transport - Armstrong Creek Transit Corridor: The Department of Transport (2742) recommended that the draft SPP should not contain a specific locational reference to a future terminal location and should mark the corridor as being subject to further investigation; by changing Map 9 in the draft SPP (removing the southbound directional arrow). Some submitters raised concerns about the accuracy of the draft SPP in relation to how it refers to this Transit Corridor

3

Transport - train line and electric bus: Numerous submissions raise concern that a train line would have a negative impact on the fabric of Torquay and instead support an electric bus system

3

Transport - bike paths: Support for developing new, safe, local links for bikes; support for a dedicated bike path (to go with electric bus), between Geelong and Torquay. Some submitters expressed the need for more walking paths and bike trails to properly enjoy the Spring Creek area and other areas in the broader Torquay – Jan Juc region.

3

Roads and footpaths: Some submitters contended that roads would have to be widened to carry additional traffic and footpaths should be built to protect people if development and increased traffic continue.

10

Settlements Protected Settlement Boundary (PSB): Various concerns including that the additional level of protection for the boundary is unwarranted; or more work was needed before applying these boundaries

29

Land supply - residential: Various submitters argued that the draft SPP does not include projections for population growth, visitor growth and land supply requirements over 50 years. There was also a concern that PSBs limit land supply. Some submissions proposed additional areas for residential development, for example a further Investigation Area north west of Torquay (just beyond the Messmate Rd precinct).

2

Land supply of commercial and industrial land: Some submitters were concerned that the commercial area footprint is too limited for a 50 year vision, threatening intensification, loss of weatherboard houses and shifting of town centre (see Surf Coast Shire Council submission which was referenced on these points by other submitters). Surf Coast Shire Council recommend that the “Torquay Jan Juc Retail and Employment Land Strategy” (the strategy) (to be released in coming months) which considers industrial and retail land supply and demand and will set future directions for activity centres and employment land, which can inform the final version of the SPP. Density/infill development: Criticism that the draft SPP does not consider how the community would respond to a denser or high-rise Torquay-Jan Juc. There are mixed views on the desirability of higher density development in Torquay arising from the submissions.

43

10

5983604_3\C

OFFICIAL-Sensitive

Affordable and social housing: There are diverse views on these issues. There is a concern that PSBs may increase market prices by limiting development. Equally, a significant number of submissions noted that further development will negatively affect housing prices in Jan Juc/Torquay. Housing affordability is already a substantial concern in Torquay/Jan Juc and is worsening. This was an issue in particular for Spring Creek where there were divergent views on how housing affordability can be approached.

28

Overcrowding and population increase: A substantial number of submitters referred to overcrowding in the area, and stated that this was a reason why further development should not occur. Concerns primarily relate to environmental risk, biodiversity impacts and strain on essential services and infrastructure. Many of the submitters stated that growth should be restricted, similar to Barwon Heads. A significant number of submitters raised concerns regarding the existing issues of congestion and overcrowding at beaches, surf spots, and car parking, traffic/road congestion due to population increases and surge at peak tourist periods. A lack of access to car parking presents a particular problem for elderly residents with accessibility issues. Many claim further residential development would further aggravate this problem. As noted above, some submitters requested an Impact Assessment to establish the effects of population growth on the town and local area, so as to inform future planning decision. Various submitters in support of Spring Creek Option 1 believe development will relieve some of the pressures from overcrowding.

498

Township character/Job creation: the draft SPP needs to contemplate the social and economic future of the town in the way that current structure plans are developed; it does not consider job creation and where they will be. Too much weight on environment over other considerations in the context of township character, need to also consider tourism, innovation, surfing culture, and the significance of the Great Ocean Road.

21

Settlement boundary related issues Spring Creek area This is an area of divisive opinion in the submissions. Generally, submitters either strongly supported Option

2 on the basis of protecting the green break, landscape, environmental and cultural heritage values of the area or submitters rejected Option 1; or strongly opposed Option 2, and supported Option 1 for housing supply reasons and consistency with urban growth plans. Some submitters rejected both Options, arguing for the planning for the Spring Creek to proceed in accordance with the Spring Creek Precinct Structure Plan

See below

11

5983604_3\C

OFFICIAL-Sensitive

(PSP). Generally, these submitters supported Option 1 in the alternative to that 'third way'; and strongly opposed Option 2. The majority of submitters supported Option 2 and opposed Option1. At least one submission (2884) raises potential legal issues in not pursuing Option 1 on the basis of procedural fairness and perceived bias. One submitter (2967) criticised the draft SPP’s reference to divisive views in the community on Spring Creek, arguing it "undermines the integrity of the planning processes that have occurred since the Torquay-Jan Juc Structure Plan was first prepared in 1992". Surf Coast Shire Council expressed that if Option 1 is approved, the SPP needs to be amended to minimise the number of permits required (i.e. as a result of the proposed SLO), specific issues with SLO8 regarding inconsistency in application to uses and an issue with permit requirements around floor areas. Detailed submissions were also made by Spring Creek landowners, who identified more specific issues with the draft SPP’s approach to Spring Creek which are not set out in this table.

Pro Option 1 Arguments in favour of Option 1 submissions can be summarised as follows: • Strategic planning merit of boundary: the historical planning investigations and assessment of the

area cumulatively support development within Spring Creek in keeping the established boundary (references to Amendments C66, C114; to Torquay-Jan Juc Structure Plan, 1992, 1996 and 2007); the G21 Regional Growth Plan, 2013; and the Sustainable Futures Plan Torquay Jan Juc 2040). Recommendations for the SPP text to acknowledge that planning history. This history and the past expert and specialist advice on the issue was a key factor in support of Option 1.

• Landscape and environmental values: numerous submissions noted that these were extensively considered in the PSP process.

• Distinctive attributes: some submitters argued the area does not meet the distinctive attributes so Option 1 more appropriate. They questioned whether the area was of State significance.

188

12

5983604_3\C

OFFICIAL-Sensitive

• Heritage and cultural significance: Some submitters contend that there are no issues because cultural heritage assessment has been conducted; the Wathaurung Aboriginal Corporation did not object to the development and relevant areas are identified and included in the PSP for protection.

• Biodiversity and Habitat: o Areas of biodiversity significance including remnant vegetation (e.g. Bellarine Yellow Gums

also been earmarked for protection) can be protected under the development. These values were said to be extensively considered in the PSP process and would be protected.

o Some submitters questioned the position that the whole area was of environmental value, and argued that those aspects that are can be protected under Option 1.

o Development would preserve the environment whilst allowing others to benefit from the Surf Coast community; in particular some submissions noted revegetation plans.

o Several submissions supported Option 1 on the basis that the proposed development approach will protect the Bellarine Yellow Gums and establish reserves and revegetation. It was noted that the land currently is subject to significant weeds and pests, and that opening it up would assist managing the land.

• Housing supply: There is limited housing supply and issues with housing affordability in the area as a result of the Coronavirus (Covide19) pandemic has pushed many people to the area. This is a good option to respond to that issue.

• Public access to Spring Creek: Option 1 will allow greater public access to Spring Creek and is better for the community as there will be large areas of public space either side of Spring Creek. There was criticism that the area is currently privately owned and inaccessible to the public. If appropriately developed, the Spring Creek Valley could become another tourist attraction which would further increase the economic benefits to the region.

• Facilities: a number of submitters supported Option 1 on the basis that it would lead to education and other community and essential service facilities, making those facilities more accessible. Some noted that the government approved development of the Christian College needs surrounding infrastructure and residential housing in order to be viable.

13

5983604_3\C

OFFICIAL-Sensitive

• Economic benefits: Submitters claimed Option 1 would create jobs, improve housing diversity and attainable housing, sustainable and responsible tourism, agriculture and natural resources.

Some submitters in support of Option 1 made general comments in regard to striking the right balance between the best environmental outcome (i.e. low density, revegetation and conservation of Yellow Gums) while boosting the local economy. Comments were made in relation to purposeful and ecologically sound planning ensuring that low-density and ecologically sustainable housing can be provided.

Anti Option 1 Many submitters are opposed to Option 1 (in support of Option 2). Reasons for this are largely linked to

the domains above and also include: • Conflict with SPP intent: It is in conflict with many of the SPP's objectives and intent. • Biodiversity issues: Contravenes Victoria’s conservation planning measures intended to protect the

significant flora in the Spring Creek valley. Concern for habitat reduction. It will reduce the landscape from its current connected terrestrial/riparian area to a far smaller and disconnected riparian strip. Submitters argued that Option 1 directly contravenes policies (Marine and Coastal Policy; Protecting Victoria's Environment - Biodiversity 2037); threat to Bellarine Yellow Gum and native species.

• Landscape values: It is detrimental to the reason people want to come to the area in the first place (landscape character and significance).

• Do not believe it will respond to housing affordability issues given large blocks are not affordable to most people, and the expense of building 10 star environmentally housing in the area would not create affordable housing. This will not assist homeownership attainability or increase rental availability.

• Lack of clarity on ecologically sustainable development: argued that there is not enough detail regarding planning controls, allotment sizes and the meaning of low density ecologically sustainable development to be able to support this. Reference to UN Sustainable Development Goals which are themselves too broad to properly assess what this would mean. Some submissions queried how more residential development is ecologically sustainable, as it appears to directly contradict the aims of the Distinctive Area and Landscape process. There is a lack of trust that the environmental impacts of the development of Spring Creek would be adequately policed.

729

14

5983604_3\C

OFFICIAL-Sensitive

• Option 1 will increase traffic congestion and put strain on local infrastructure and services. • Increases to various categories of Environmental risk include crowding of beach ecosystems, littering,

land clearing, pollution, increased hazards of bushfire. • Topography: some submissions note the Spring Creek precinct as having unsuitable topography for

development.

Many submitters who did not support either Option criticised the proposed Low density ecological sustainable development. Various submitters supported the location of the boundary in Option 1 and did not support this aspect of Option 1 (and preferred it to Option 2) and argued for conventional density. Key reasons include that:

• The current drafting is unnecessarily restrictive where not all areas require sensitive development, or retention of landscape features. This can be addressed at the point of detailed planning and not at the higher level document;

• Housing affordability is not addressed with large lots. Low densities do not meet the market demands and may make projects commercially unviable to develop due to the large amount of road and services infrastructure required to service fewer lots.

• Some submissions noted that low-density is not a key characteristic of ecological sustainable development and must be treated with caution.

• Large allotments are not in accordance with Clause 11.03-2S (Growth Areas), • Biodiversity/habitat can be protected within allotments, road reserves, open space and other

development controls and planning. • Some noted that development densities can be the subject of a refinement of the Spring Creek PSP.

Pro Option 2 A very substantial number of the submissions expressed support for Option 2. The key reasons can be

summarised as: • Supports intent and purpose of draft SPP to conserve and enhance the declared area’s significant

landscapes. • Landscape and scenic value: are beneficial to township character, mental health and has consequent

tourism value. Development will harm beauty, character, charm and visitor experience in and around Torquay. Some submitters contended that area should be protected by planning provisions that

2409

15

5983604_3\C

OFFICIAL-Sensitive

permanently prohibit urban subdivision. Provisions should make allowance for future rehabilitation of the land along with minimal social facilities that support true ecological sustainability, tourism, education and culture.

• Habitat protection and impact on flora, fauna andwildlife. Numerous submissions identified concern for protecting critical habitat for listed critically endangered, endangered, threatened and vulnerable species and considered Option 1 would destroy this habitat with significant impacts on those species; concern for unique ecosystem of the area. It was noted that Spring Creek is one small remnant of Torquay's original bushland; noting limits of revegetation and importance of conservation of remnant vegetation.

• Overcrowding: will stop unsustainable growth. • Strategic Infrastructure and Essential services: are already under strain and would not cope with

further residential development. • Tourism/jobs: submissions argued that preserving the area as the start of the Great Ocean Road

contributes to long term high value jobs in protecting the visitor economy, including by preserving and contributing to the Bells Beach visitor experience.

• Aboriginal cultural heritage and connection to country: this option protects cultural heritage and connection to country for Wadawurrung people.

• Community Management: several submissions noted that the preservation of the area as a green break presented opportunities for community management of the area (e.g. community ownership to manage part of the land for community outcomes (e.g. protection of nature, sense of community and place, and contribute to local economy).

Anti Option 2 A smaller number of submissions directly opposed Option 2 for the following reasons:

• Lack of strategic planning merit: Numerous submissions argued that Option 2 undermines years of extensive planning processes that have repeatedly determined the Spring Creek area’s suitability to accommodate future urban growth.

• The only economically viable use of the land under Option 2 would be farming which would greatly reduce the potential for a public space accessible to residents.

47

16

5983604_3\C

OFFICIAL-Sensitive

• Option 2 would lock Spring Creek down which effectively means that the current land owners will remain the only ones who can access this area and will continue to have total responsibility for its care, which they are failing to do so at the moment. The enjoyment of the recreation area around Spring Creek would be prevented as Spring Creek would not be accessible to the public.

Torquay North East Investigation Area

There were numerous submissions noting strong opposition to any development of this area and inclusion of this area within the proposed settlement boundary due to concern about the stormwater runoff into the Karaaf wetlands and affecting the water quality with subsequent effects on the ecosystem and wildlife (for eg, impacts of pollution from contaminants, risk of increased algal blooms and decrease in oxygen levels in the water). The future investigation area shown in the documents should be removed. One submission noted that the wetland area is also very close to a significant indigenous cultural site. A few submissions identified Torquay North as a more appropriate area (than Spring Creek) for future development.

115

Messmate Road future settlement area

Location of boundary: Most submissions that referenced this issue supported further work being required to identify the location of this boundary:

• One submission identified it cuts across multiple parcels at 1350 Surf Coast Highway. • One submission noted that the location of the settlement boundary (SB) at the northwest boundary

of the area is currently unsettled and noted that an appropriate boundary could be designated. • Surf Coast Shire Council recommended a ridgeline survey, and further clarification of how to define a

separate description of this area in the draft SPP with a more directive vision for greenfield growth for clarity.

13

Support for declaring of Surf Coast a Distinctive Area and Landscape: There was support in some submissions for Messmate Road precinct as an important strategic precinct for the delivery of future housing in the Torquay township. Low density: One submission noted that all development along Messmate Road should be low density ecologically sustainable development. Torquay Jan/Juc Protected Settlement Boundary: Some opposition to PSB status of the proposed boundary, proposal that it be a SB instead.

17

5983604_3\C

OFFICIAL-Sensitive

Urban-rural transition zone: this is should be further detailed within the DALS for the Messmate Road precinct area, to ensure that there are no impediments to progressing the rezoning of the precinct. Planning controls: should be detailed for the area (not necessarily in the SPP) to provide certainty of transitional requirements).

Northern PSB

There is disagreement about the growth of this area (see also comments in relation to Mount Duneed below):

• Some submitters noted the developments of the Armstrong Creek Growth area have already strained the infrastructure of Torquay and Jan Juc in particular, infrastructure that has always been limited.

• Various submitters noted that any further development or growth should be redirected to Armstrong Creek which has been developed specifically for growth purposes, while other submissions note the recent development in Armstrong Creek as a cause of the overcrowding in Torquay areas.

• Green break: several submitters expressed support for green break between Geelong and Torquay, however questions around location

75

Armstrong Creek UGA: various submissions noted the importance of further investigation of the PSB which in turn will inform location of 'Green Break', some arguing it is premature for the Committee to make any recommendations on these matters. Some concern was expressed that the current draft SPP text presupposes the outcome of future strategic work. Several submissions made specific amendment suggestions re Armstrong Creek, including, changes to Maps 3-9 and page 61 to clarify that the area is subject to investigation. Specific submissions: there were several specific submissions relating to parcels of land that contended they should not be in the declared area; or not be subject to a SB or PSB and rather were more appropriate to be included in the UGZ, as a logical extension of the Armstrong Creek Growth Area (see e.g. submission 2429; submission 2079 as examples, noting there are several). At least one submission submitted that 'any land north of Lower Duneed Road and east of Horseshoe Bend Road should not have formed part of the Surf Coast declared area and instead should be consumed within the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area as part of the City of Greater Geelong’s future planning of Armstrong Creek' (2966).

18

5983604_3\C

OFFICIAL-Sensitive

Various landowners were concerned about the use of their land for various business opportunities considered at risk due to proposed controls. Lack of consultation: concern about limited consultation/assessment of the area north of Mt Duneed Road to be included in the Surf Coast declared area.

Bellbrae PSB

There are some divergent views on this settlement. Some submissions note support for the PSB for Bellbrae, and noted the importance of the green break between Bellbrae and development in Torquay and Jan Juc. Some submitters noted that there is no strategic basis for limiting development in the Bellbrae South commercial shopping strip along the Great Ocean Road between the Bellbrae Roundabout and the Gundry’s/Addiscott Road offset intersection.

45

Breamlea PSB

Several submissions showed support for the area between Duffields Road and Bellbrae remaining rural land/a green break to protect Breamlea. The designation of Breamlea as a ‘village’ with protected boundaries received support in some submissions. One submission (1933) noted: that although Breamlea is referred to as a ‘village’ on page 51 of the draft SPP, the following paragraph on page 57 states: “Map 13 shows the proposed Breamlea protected settlement boundary. Breamlea will remain a small coastal hamlet, within a protected settlement boundary”. That submission notes that for consistency and accuracy, Breamlea should be referred to as a ‘village’ throughout the entire document. This submission also made specific recommendations in relation to the SPP’s objectives and strategies in their application to Breamlea. Some submissions opposed any further residential subdivision and infill development in Breamlea, and that it should be protected from high-density development in the investigation area to the east side of Horseshoe Bend Road.

10

Mount Duneed and Connewarre SB

Note concern about development in the area, and location of boundaries around Mount Duneed, as a contributing factor to population growth in Torquay and Jan Juc. Various submitters referred to Mount Duneed and contended that their properties have been inappropriately included in the Surf Coast declared area and they believe that the City of Greater Geelong should retain all control over planning matters. Several submitters argue that the designation of the ‘Mt

25

19

5983604_3\C

OFFICIAL-Sensitive

Duneed Volcanic Plain’ as an area of regional significance is not warranted as the landscape attribute varies. These submitters noted that landscape based restrictions on development may not be warranted in the broader Mt Duneed area and the draft SPP could be amended to permit appropriate low density or rural residential development that would be screened and therefore not compromise in the surrounding areas. Some submissions noted development in this area would be more sustainable (than in Torquay) as the land will be flatter and building would be less expensive. At least one submission noted that the farming values were important in this area.

Implementation related issues Proposed development restrictions

Height restrictions: many submitters voiced a desire for height restrictions, amongst other restrictions. A common recommendation was for a 2 storey residential limit and a 3 storey commercial limit in Torquay, and particularly near distinctive landscapes, beaches, parks and along the major tourist road corridor so building does not detract from the coastal atmosphere charm of Torquay. Some submitters objected to any four storey developments in Torquay. Some concern was raised in regard to zoning activity centres as high density (because, for example, it potentially would cause difficulties in rejecting applications for multi storey development along the Esplanade in the future).

86 (22 discuss height restrictions)

Open space: several submitters requested more open space requirements in new subdivisions and around buildings, for canopy trees. General comments on SLOs made by some submissions:

• Apply same landscape controls both sides of GOR (recommended SLO8) (1 submitter) • Align SLO controls with Landscape Significance Overlay (from Map 5 of SPP) (1 submitter) • Bushfire risks re SLOs: no guidance in draft SPP and proposed landscape planning controls where

landscape objectives create bushfire risks. Problematic for SLOs being introduced re vegetation protection or screening requirements. Concern for potential increased fuel load in environment due to planning controls.

20

5983604_3\C

OFFICIAL-Sensitive

SLO8: • Landscape controls - SLO8 in Spring Creek: opposition to application of SLO8, basis not consistent

with development within an established urban boundary, is inconsistent with cl 11.02-1S of the Planning Scheme and would complicate decision making. Some submitters opposed SLO8 or argued for it to be rewritten

• SLO8 in Spring Creek: opposition to application of SLO8, basis not consistent with development within an established urban boundary, is inconsistent with cl 11.02-1S of the Surf Coast Planning Scheme and would complicate decision making. Some submitters opposed SLO8 or argued for it to be rewritten

SLO9 • SLO9: suggestions proposed to wording regarding 'weeds', such as suggesting the wording be

amended to specify ‘listed in the incorporated document Environmental Weeds, City of Greater Geelong, September 2008’ in the Greater Geelong planning scheme; and recommend addition of a broader exemption in regards to 'permit is not required for works by a public authority relating to …', to include additional works (noting most of the land is Crown land) (see 742).

• suggestions proposed to wording re 'weeds', such as suggesting the wording be amended to specify ‘listed in the incorporated document Environmental Weeds, City of Greater Geelong, September 2008’ in the Greater Geelong planning scheme; and recommending the addition of a broader exemption in regards to 'permit is not required for works by a public authority relating to …', to include additional works (noting most of the land is Crown land) (see 742).

SLO10: • Map 1 lacks clarity. • Extent of SLO10: some submitters argued that SLO10 extended too far, and that certain properties

near Bellbrae, should be subject to SLO8 given greater relationship to the Bellbrae hinterland. • Non-urban land use: SPP should keep discretion for land outside of the urban areas to provide

tourist accommodation and other non-agricultural uses. (1 submitter) • SLO10: does not consistently identify/distinguish boundaries of the Bells Beach Hinterland and the

proposed “Addiscott Road Estate”. Implementation actions

Zoning: several submitters propose re-zoning residential areas to Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ), as suggested in the background settlement report, with appropriate overlays. This will avoid uncertainty with residential change areas

102

21

5983604_3\C

OFFICIAL-Sensitive

Residential change areas: notes of confusion in relation to these areas. Some key comments are: • Minimal change area: some submissions relating to an identified parcel of land not being appropriate to

be labelled as minimal change area. • Substantial change area: one submitter advocates for removal of “substantial change: an urban

consolidation area around Torquay Town Centre and areas along the Surf Coast Highway are identified as such. The submitter notes the proposed “substantial change” will work against retaining the coastal character of the township and will have a detrimental impact on the natural environmental attractions of the area.

Some submitters recommended changes and highlighted inconsistencies in the text of the draft SPP with the Settlement Background Paper. For example, one submitter contended that all areas marked as 'incremental change areas' should "also be rezoned to NRZ with a maximum building height of 8m and a preferred height of 7.5m". Varying support for infill development in existing boundaries - some opposed increased density and others supported it as an alternative to growing boundaries. Low density areas: SPP needs greater clarity on these for each precinct. Public land managers: Parks Victoria (3045) raised concern for planning permit triggers that may impact maintenance and upgrade works on facilities such as boardwalks, shelters, replacing rails on viewing platforms etc. Implementation: Several submitters argued that the final SPP should be implemented by DELWP in consultation with Councils. Great Ocean Road Authority: One submitter raised concern about the minimal reference to the role of the Great Ocean Road Authority and its statutory role

5977373_4\C

Enclosure 2: Notable public submissions Mennoty Pty Ltd - Spring Creek Landowner (491)

• Submission generally relates to Spring Creek area. • Low density:

o No need to create larger allotments, significant vegetation can be retained within allotments, road reservations, open space reserves and drainage corridors; remainder of the site should be developed at conventional densities

o Other values identified on the site tend to be focused along existing road reservations (where trees can be retained in tree reserves) and along Spring Creek, which will be set aside for conservation purposes. Accordingly, there is no merit in requiring the entire Spring Creek area to be developed as low density and ecologically sustainable when the landscape and ecological values have already been identified and can be appropriately addressed and incorporated (where significant) into any future residential subdivision.

o Land supply issues - low densities development does not meet the market demands and makes the project commercially unviable to develop due to the large amount of road and services infrastructure required to service fewer lots

• Proposed Landscape Planning Controls: o SLO8 will inhibit any meaningful future development of the site and is inconsistent with

Clause 11.02-1S of the State Planning Policy Framework which seeks “to ensure a sufficient supply of land is available for residential, commercial, retail, industrial, recreational, institutional and other community uses”.

o By prioritising the environmental values over all social and economic benefits to the future development of the land -only large allotments will be available with affordability issues and are not in accordance with Clause 11.03-2S (Growth Areas), which encourages average overall residential densities of 15 dwellings per net developable hectare.

o No need to include Spring Creek PSP area within the SLO8 given the abundance of similar landforms and ecological values to the west

• SPP does not appropriately balance environmental protection with other factors

Warwick and Julie Peel (575)

• This submission argues that the Surf Coast SPP should not apply to the City of Greater Geelong region, as the region was only added as an 'after thought' and the community was not given sufficient notice to engage in the public submission process.

Torquay Improvement Association (726)

• This is a brief submission given by the 'Torquay Improvement Association', which support Spring Creek Option 2.

City of Greater Geelong (742)

• Position: Overall, generally supportive of the draft SPP including the vision, objectives and strategies as they relate to the various policy domains. Focus of submission is on how the draft SPP relates to Greater Geelong’s planning objectives with the focus on the declared area within the municipal boundary of the City of Greater Geelong.

• Main issues: o Process: a number of landholders in Mt Duneed perceived lack of consultation prior to

declaration. City of Greater Geelong Council did not support inclusion of area north of Mt Duneed Rd within DAL

- 2 -

5977373_4\C

o Implementation through planning schemes: to be led and resourced by DELWP with the City given opportunity to provide input. Notes view that a s 20(4) decision in regards to such an amendment would be appropriate.

o Framework Plan: Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Boundary: identified as PSB, consistent with

Council's work in the adopted Settlement Strategy. Green Breaks: consistent with existing local and regional policy regarding

green breaks outside urban areas between settlements. Road Corridors:

• Suggest including the duplication of Anglesea Road (Princes Highway West to Mount Duneed Road) in the ‘Road corridor views’ to ensure infrastructure upgrades along this corridor are consistent with the relevant policy domains (nb. it is nominated as a short-term priority in the G21 Regional Road Transport Plan 2017-2021).

• The wording ‘to the rural hinterland and/or coast’ in draft SPP does not reflect the potential impact of infrastructure across the landscape. Wording could be amended to better reflect the landscape and strategic infrastructure policy domains' focus on new development being responsive to the landscape/not being visually dominating.

o Landscape: Mount Duneed Plain and Surrounds: notes landscape assessment and associated objective and strategies in the landscape policy domain will inform the strategic work to be undertaken to identify a long-term boundary for urban Geelong, including the Armstrong Creek Growth Area, outlined in the adopted Settlement Strategy and related local policy awaiting approval as part of C395.

o Tourism, agriculture and natural resources All land within the Greater Geelong Mount Duneed area is shown as

‘Extractive Industry Interest Area’. Notes issues re Boral land holdings and the Greater Geelong Settlement

Strategy which was revised to identify that land for further investigation. Council notes a position from the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions (DJPR) on the status of the EIIA would assist both DELWP and the City when planning for the next phase of growth.

o Strategic Infrastructure The Armstrong Creek Transit Corridor is shown as running in line with the Surf

Coast Highway. Note that land has been set aside for this corridor a few hundred meters east of the Surf Coast Highway consistent with the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area Framework Plan.

o Settlements Breamlea: Generally supports the proposed ‘Torquay–Jan Juc Coast and

Breamlea Saltmarshes area’ SLO (p. 18) but makes specific recommendations in regards to wording.

Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area: SPP notes that resolution of SB to be informed by strategic planning once Amendment C395 and Framework Plan given effect. Council notes that this discussion and associated objective and strategies in the settlement policy domain will inform the strategic work to be undertaken to identify a long-term boundary for urban Geelong, including the Armstrong Creek Growth Area, outlined in the adopted Settlement Strategy and related local policy awaiting approval as part of C395

o Establishing A Long-Term Boundary For Urban Geelong Council to formally commence strategic work upon approval of Amendment

C395. This is identified in the Settlement Strategy and the draft SPP.

- 3 -

5977373_4\C

The Submission sets out process it will follow, noting that should Amendment C395 be approved:

• Council will have a defined, robust, long-term boundary introduced into the planning scheme

• Council understands that this boundary will then be included as a ‘Protected Settlement Boundary’ within the Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy. This inclusion will be managed by DELWP and will require parliamentary approval.

University of Melbourne Academic, Dr Christopher Jensen specialising in environmental land design (1047)

• Development does not meet sustainability objectives, "I am highly confident that there is no version of the development of this area that meets realistic sustainability objectives, in the context of the wider surfcoast development options."

Catherine Aline Watson (1055)

• Recently completed a research masters looking at the Surf Coast Shire's Progressive Bush Kinder program. Concern that Spring Creek Option 2 further reduces natural environment spaces like Spring Creek, which are used for the kindergarten program.

Roger and Pamela Haebich - Spring Creek Landowner (1074)

• Supports Option 1 for Spring Creek to provide for low density, ecologically sustainable development which protects Spring Creek and provides for the urban expansion foreshadowed over the next 50 years. Refers to the Spring Creek Precinct Structure Plan (PSP) adopted by the Surf Coast Shire in 2017, which had regard to housing density, open space provisions, creek buffers and conservation reserves.

ACNL Engineers (1101)

• Boundary for western development into Spring Creek Valley should be limited at Duffield's Rd between Combes Rd and Great Ocean Rd

• Torquay and Jan Juc require comprehensive review of planning zones and introduction of Neighbourhood character zones

• Building heights of all residential land should be limited to 2 storeys (7.5m) and commercial zones limited to 3 storeys (11.5m). Concerns about tourism if building heights are unrestricted

• Rural hinterland surrounding Torquay should be zoned to allow current rural usages but should be protected from non-rural usage and create a buffer from expansion of Geelong Armstrong Creek to the north and from Bellbrae to the west.

Geoffrey Fulton - Architect and past member of the Planning Committee (1119)

• written by an architect and former member of the Torquay Planning Committee • largely pro development as a necessary result of growing demand for housing in the area and

increase in population, but has large concerns about uncontrolled residential subdivision practices and 'greedy' land developers taking advantage of farmers and other landowners in the area

• considers that housing affordability will decrease, and housing supply will increase, with current plans and under the current Councils

• considers that uncontrolled sub division is resulting in ugly towns and cities and is anti-development of Spring Creek.

- 4 -

5977373_4\C

Samuel Milne (1140)

• Allow community-owned solar, ecotourism businesses carbon offsetting and regenerative farming the opportunity to make an impact and create a springboard to a green-led COVID recovery that is in step with the new normal we are all facing together.

William Shaw (1159)

• refers to a "minor error on the Torquay Jan Juc Option 1& 2 diagrams The road shown as Bells Road is in fact Bells Boulevard starting at Surf Coast Highway terminating at Bones road which then leads to Bells Road."

Peter King (1330)

• Land should not be included in the DAL as it does not possess concentration of unique attributes of state and or national and regional significance as it relates to the DAL

• Addresses in depth section 46AO of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 - criteria to be satisfied before an area is suitable for declaration

• Briefly touches on all policies - indigenous heritage, tourism, agriculture, biodiversity view lines, strategic infrastructure

Federal member for Corangamite (1456)

• Opposes development of the Spring Creek Valley • Expresses concerns about the sustainability of the environment and habitat as well as the

character and soul of Torquay and Jan Juc • Refers to the vulnerable threatened species including: Grey-headed Flying Fox, Southern

Brown Bandicoot, Growling Grass Frog, Swift Parrot, Powerful Owl, Little Galaxia, Grey Goshawk, Southern Pygmy Perch, Baillon's Crake, Lewins Rail, Eastern Great Egret, White Footed Dunnart, Brown Toadlet and the Bellarine Yellow Gum

Fortress Holdings Pty Ltd (1463)

• SPP takes a broad approach given the study area as the only practical approach to attempt its takes. This submission is generally limited to applicability of minimal change area to one site which, it is argued, can be suitable for high density development

Chistopher James Nunan (1597) -

• Spring Creek Option 2 is generally supported for the PSB with a proposed caveat as to the Torquay North East Investigation Area, as the submitter is concerned that authorities and developers will not be able to guarantee no stormwater overflow emanates from any development in these areas into the Karaaf wetlands

• Notes rising levels of phosphorous and nitrogen have been observed entering Sands lake system and causing algal blooms (i.e. water quality has been compromised) which indicates the same could happen here with development in the north east.

Camm Strutt, the Spirit of the Ocean INC (1689)

• Detailed statement which notes "I write this statement on behalf of my conservation organisation with the knowledge accumulated in my work and studies regarding sustainability, ecology, and social responsibility"

- 5 -

5977373_4\C

Tiffany Edwards (1694)

• Detailed submission which provides specific proposals as to development restrictions and building restrictions which you may wish to consider specifically.

Bellbrae Estate (1732)

• Detailed submission focussing on how the Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy framework impacts the cleared farmland, particularly in the area south and west of the township of Bellbrae to Gundrys Road where their property is situated. Key issues outlines are:

o The framework introduces unnecessary and prohibitive red-tape and increased costs to farmers.

o The framework does not distinguish adequately between land significance and character within identified areas.

o There is insufficient flexibility to consider economic impact and viability of farmers. E.g. Bellbrae Estate has low biodiversity value as it is cleared farmland.

o There is no rationale provided for including cleared farmland which is not visible from the Great Ocean Road. The cleared farmland has none of the attributes which qualified the region as a declared area. This must be recognised in the framework.

o There is no explanation of how this sits with the Surf Coast Council’s Rural Hinterland Futures Strategy.

o Some elements are internally inconsistent when considered from the viewpoint of farming cleared land with no guidance to prioritise competing objectives.

o There has been inadequate consultation and input from the farming community. o Overall the framework, and in particular the proposed landscape planning controls,

unreasonably prioritise a view, though trees, of a visitor in a car or a bus, travelling at 80km/h, over the livelihoods of resident farmers.

• Recommendations: o SLO8 excludes cleared farmland. o The framework recognises the desirability of agri-tourism, the need to see buildings

from the road to encourage customers and the existence of vegetation screening. o The framework is amended to support productive rural land and sustainable agri-

tourism. o Guidance is introduced to note the Strategies are not relevant where the land is

cleared farmland and the Surf Coast Council’s Rural Hinterland Strategy applies. • Proposed Landscape Planning Controls

o "the proposed overlay SLO8 has not adequately considered the severe impact on farmers of the additional proposed red tape, prioritising a fleeting view of rural land over the livelihood of farmers and the regional agricultural economy".

o Submit SLO8 must be amended to exclude cleared farmland south and west of Bellbrae.

o Of the ten stated considerations which informed the mapping and extents of the proposed SLO8, none explain including such a large amount of cleared farmland which is acknowledged to be of low landscape significance. There is some reference to visibility from the road but rationale for the overlay is not provided

Nicholas Gregory Horton (1735)

• Noting that the destruction of threatened species habitat in Australia continues to accelerate due to the loopholes and failures of our national nature laws - the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act.

- 6 -

5977373_4\C

Peter and Christine Ashton - Members of the Mount Duneed and Lower Armstrong Creek Working Party (1747)

• Believe that City of Greater Geelong should retain all current and future planning controls and management responsibilities.

• Addressed concerns with significant impacts on intensive residential development; inconvenience of extended road closures; traffic increases

• Addresses frustration with the DAL Surf Coast process • Overlay for the Mt Duneed area is poorly conceived and unsupported • Expresses concerns about the Mount Duneed and Lower Armstrong boundary • Expresses concerns about:

o Maintaining township separation via urban green break; o Protection of Thompson creek; o Preservation of significant geographical landforms; o Protection of environmental wetlands, saltmarshes and land drainage lines; o Past indigenous and settler heritage sites; o Protection of cultural significance;

• Submissions express that they do not want a 50-year overlay of planning restrictions increasing the controls and restricting opportunities, improvements and lifestyle choices.

Richard Henry Hall (1916)

• Property in Mount Duneed is part of the Surf Coast Distinctive Area and Landscape Policy and they do not wish to have their property included

• Reasons for this: o Mount Duneed has no discernible capability or function in providing a Green Break

between COGG and Surf Coast Shire o References the Planel Planning Scheme Amendment C138 report o Traffic volumes o No surface water migration

• Discusses the attributes qualifying Surf Coast declared area as distinctive and how their property and the surrounds do not meet the criteria for inclusion

• Process of attaching Mount Duneed area to the Surf Coast DAL denied the landowners adequate notice to be involved in negotiations and discussions

• COGG should retain all planning control for current and future requirements • Express that the properties listed in the submission have a final permanent settlement

boundary closer to the higher escarpment ride lines of Mount Duneed • Attaches 12 diagrams referenced throughout submissions

Birdlife Australia's Friends of the Hooded Plover Breamlea (1931)

• This submission supports Option 2, noting Breamlea, Point Impossible and White Beach dunes, the foreshore and the Creek estuary are home to the hooded plover which is listed as threatened in Victoria and vulnerable under National legislation. Additionally, BAFHPB supports the proposed Significant Landscape SL09 which covers the Torquay and Jan Juc Coast, the entire Karaaf Wetlands and the Breamlea Flora and Fauna Reserve.

• Also makes reference to the following: o The need for bushfire risk based planning to give equal consideration to protecting

the environment as well as human life. o Armstrong Creek Development remain contained within its current boundaries. o Land Managers to prioritise regular work on the Breamlea Flora and Fauna Reserve

which has increasingly been encroached upon by weed.

- 7 -

5977373_4\C

o The need to protect Hooded Plovers from human recreational impacts (eg fishing) and the impacts of climate change, such as sea rises and storm surges.

o The need for Victorian legislation to address the threats to the Hooded Plover and other shorebird communities which use Pt Impossible, Breamlea foreshore, rocky shelves and Thompson Creek estuary.

o Advocate for an extension of the Shorebird Protection Zone to the east of Thompson Creek estuary to further protect local and migratory shorebirds.

o Local land managers to work with First Nations traditional owners to develop an indigenous rangers program.

o The Artillery box within the Thompson Creek estuary urgently needing restoration. o Breamlea, Pt. Impossible, Thompson Creek estuary, the Karaaf and Breamlea Flora

and Fauna Reserve areas having rich potential for culturally responsive and ecologically sustainable tourism related uses.

o Support for protected settlement boundaries for Torquay-Jan Juc, Bellbrae, Breamlea and the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area.

o Funding of infrastructure and increased services to mitigate the increased human impacts to the area.

The Breamlea Association (1933)

• This submission strongly supports Option 2 and the designation of Breamlea as a "village" with protected boundaries as specified in the Draft SPP.

o Suggests adoption of the word "village" rather than "small coastal hamlet" under Map 13 in the Draft SPP.

o Appears to support the suggested approach for each of the policy domains. However, provides comment/ a response to some of the strategic directions and therefore I have flagged the need for an additional review.

Cameron and Jennie MacAulay (1944)

• Refers to Map 3 from the Draft SPP. Appears to contest how the land on the northern slope of Mt Duneed facing Geelong is defined in the Draft SPP.

Keith Grossman - Spring Creek landowners (2065)

• Made on behalf of a landowner - the draft SPP has not given proper regard to one of the key objectives of planning in Victoria - "to provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use, and development of land"

• Discusses Amendment C37 Panel Report; Amendment C66 Panel Report; Amendment C114 Panel Report; Amendment C95 Ministerial Letter Accompanying Gazette;

• Draft SPP should be amended to reflect the need to - acknowledge clear direction from previous panels, preserve options for growth, ensure any future planning for option 1 considers option for growth in the balance of Spring Creek

Paul Gooman (2079)

• land should not be in the DAL; or not be subject to SB/PSB but rather were more appropriate to be included in the UGZ, as a logical extension of the Armstrong Creek Growth Area

Vincent and Maree Kelly (2109)

• Land - Mount Duneed - group of landowners petitioning CGG council for inclusion of 7 properties in UGZ - in City of Greater Geelong.

- 8 -

5977373_4\C

• Position on the DAL/SPP: Narrow submission on inclusion of specific parcels of land in the DAL

• General comments: o Notes - Map 3 identifies the PSB along logical northern boundary; refers to p 61. o It is submitted that given the Land will be considered for inclusion in the urban growth

boundary as part of a logical inclusions process for the Armstrong Creek Catchment, it should not be identified within the Surf Coast Declared Area boundary in the SPP.

o The SPP as drafted does not provide a recognition that the future settlement boundary will not be precluded by the Declared Area designation

o The designation of the protected settlement boundary in the SPP introduces irrelevant planning considerations in circumstances where: 1. The Land does not have unique values or distinctive attributes, having regard to its

proximity and separation from Mount Duneed and Thompsons Creek and should be included in the settlement boundary;

2. The Land does not need to be included to achieve the purpose of the Declared Area planning controls;

3. The Land is likely to be included in the Armstrong Creek urban growth boundary as part of the City of Greater Geelong’s strategic planning work.

Margaret Baker (2133)

• Land owned by Christian College Geelong is currently zoned as “special use” which prevents suitable development of residential properties so more students can have easy access to the College.

• The remaining privately owned properties along the Spring Creek Valley are zoned “rural use”. This prevents anyone else from having legal access to the Valley to fully appreciate its environmental contribution to the region.

• If appropriate developed, the Spring Creek Valley could become another tourist attraction which would further increase the economic benefits to the region

• With Torquay/ Jan Juc growing so rapidly, there is the need to open up additional residential land within the designated town boundary, which currently is 1 kilometre west of Duffield’s Road.

• Previous panel hearings have recommended the development of land west of Duffield’s Road based on planning criteria.

Lyndel Littlefield (2174)

• Site: Crown Allotment 27C, Parish of Jan Juc, Victoria: This submission is to request the inclusion of this development in the Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy currently under consideration

Matthew Patullock (2244)

• Submission supports Option 1 for the following reasons: o Opportunity to adopt best practise Urban Design and Town Planning principles which

can respect the areas visual and natural significance and embrace the immediate and long-term futures of Urban Development as Victoria’s (and Australia’s) citizens shift from predominantly living in the cities to a more equitable work/life balance in the regions.

o Can properly plan for ecologically sustainable developments - allows for greater green connections, walkways, bushland, new planted indigenous flora, sustainable living in ecologically sustainable dwellings, a greater sense of community through

- 9 -

5977373_4\C

passive urban design and inclusive CPTED principles, community gardens and locally sourced produce supplying local business and moving back to ‘live local, eat local’.

o Changed face of workforce due to Covid means more people are seeking to move out of the cities

o To keep the area for farming isn’t good for nature or the natural environment given the greenhouse gasses it produces through cattle or the local flora and fauna degradation that follows.

Raphael Siket (2296)

Michael Barrow (2307)

• Objects to the Spring Creek development o does not value or adequately protect the environment and will destroy the rural creek

valley landscape and farming o will change from a natural environment to a curated landscape o will open the door to future development once this firm boundary is broken. This

happened in Torquay North o Holding developers to agreed standards is extremely difficult and the Surf Coast likely

has few resources to monitor compliance o support the designation of Torquay as one of the development zones listed in the

State Coastal Management Strategy but see this realised only in currently zoned residential land.

Boral Recycling Facility Pty Ltd (2429)

• Focuses on the City of Greater Geelong portion of the Distinctive Areas Landscape (DAL) as it applies to the Boral sites east and west of Anglesea Road as well as in the context of the entire site which is broken into the northern area (quarried out) and the southern area, south of Reservoir Road and north of Mount Duneed Road which is partly covered by a Works Authority.

• Position on the DAL/SPP: Boral land within DAL should be identified as an “investigation area for future urban development”, consistent with the C395 Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment and correspondence from the City of Greater Geelong.

• General comments: o PSB doesn't impact Boral land. If SB is to be identified in relation to the site, it should be

around the perimeter of the site: proposed redraft of SPP in submission. Submitter contends that this is consistent with various policy domains and detail how.

Susan Wardrop (2436)

• Personal affect and consultation: o Concerned that her property has been included within the confines of the Distinctive

Area and Landscape Surf Coast Precinct, by including the land corridor for Mt Duneed & Lower Mt Duneed (MDLAC) in the municipality of City of Greater Geelong (CoGG)

o CoGG should retain all current, future planning controls and management responsibilities to this land and not be constrained by the 50-year overlay of planning restrictions, which will be a result of DAL Surf Coast Policy outcome

o Feel they are being "bullied" into this State Government driven process o The residents within the CoGG land holder's area weren't given any notification that their

land was included in the DAL prior to the commencement of Stage 2 o All the stage 1 & 2 outcomes, community feedback and survey responses have been Surf

Coast centric, with no reflection or input from residents of Mt Duneed

- 10 -

5977373_4\C

• The desire by both municipalities to maintain township separation via an urban-free, green break o This has already been long recognised by both the Surf Coast Shire and the City of

Greater Geelong – where the breakdown has occurred in the past is both Councils have given in to strong arguments from previous property owners wanting to make substantial gains and willing developers to undertake intensive residential development

o An urban-free green break is encouraged but ONLY to the immediate south of Mount Duneed Rd and back toward the Torquay settlement boundary

• Protection of the Thompson Creek plain from development o The Mount Duneed and Lower Armstrong Creek Corridor is not considered as part of the

Thompson Creek Valley. Whilst the southern and part of the south eastern and south western slopes of Mount Duneed are in the upper reaches of the catchment area of this valley. The protection of the Thompson Creek Plain from development is not a valid reason to include our properties along the abovementioned corridor.

• Preservation of significant geographical landforms, namely Mount Duneed from development o the only significant geographical landform is the Mount Duneed summit and the

immediate surrounds which is already owned by the crown. However, the description in the draft Surf Coast Planning Policy says the Mt. Duneed plains (“low volcanic rise”) is not a hill. This is another example of the focus of the report being Torquay & Jan Juc centric and not including the Mt Duneed area. Therefore the Mt. Duneed area should not be included in the Surf Coast DAL plans as there is little information regarding the slopes/rise of Mt. Duneed.

• In the local region there are many other examples of significant geographical landforms which have gone totally ignored in the past and been developed.

• Protection of environmental wetlands, salt marshes and land drainage lines o In the case of the lower part of this “corridor” in question this area totally drains north

into the Barwon River system ultimately via Armstrong Creek and the many constructed stormwater drainage wetlands to the north and north east. Therefore, any impact on the wetlands and salt marshes of Thompsons Creek from the properties in these areas is nil, since there is no drainage going to the south from these corridor properties

o Any form of protection whatever that may be, needs to be more focused on future activities in the middle of the valley and to the west

Tim Rickman (2492)

• Torquay - Jan Juc protected settlement boundary o Option 1 should be disregarded and Option 2 adopted to reflect the wishes of the vast

majority of the residents, maintain the character of old Torquay/Jan Juc, minimize the environmental impact on Spring Creek due to urban development and comply with the promises of the Premier and liberal politicians that there would be no development to the west of Duffields Road

• Torquay - Jan Juc housing change areas o Torquay / Jan Juc is nationally and internationally identified as the home of surfing and

as a ‘laidback’ beach holiday destination, which was established based on its laid low intensity lifestyle and development. To allow multi storied development would create a level of urban development which is in total conflict to the image of the area

• Comments on significant landscape overlays • Development in Spring Creek, including along the Great Ocean Road would be visible from the

Great Ocean Road creating an urban vista as people drive towards Torquay/Jan Juc which would sorely impact on the visual amenity of the Nationally significant Bells Beach landscape and the State significant landscape of Spring Creek

- 11 -

5977373_4\C

• Arguments against developers marketing of Option 1: o if all towns were to maintain a 15 year lot supply in perpetuity then all towns

would continue to grow unrestrained for evermore o most local contractors are already heavily committed to works at Armstrong

Creek or on existing development areas in Torquay o Yellow Gums are already legally protected and can only be removed subject to a

planning permit • Arguments against Option 1:

o there has been very strong objection to the development of this land over many years by the majority of residents of Torquay/Jan Juc, despite continued pressure by developers at both local and state level. If the state wants Torquay/Jan Juc to remain an iconic tourist centre it must support the wishes of the community who know best what is required to maintain what they have created

o an estimated 10 000 people demonstrated their objection to development in Spring Creek and have done so in various other ways since. Such strong commitment to this should not be discounted

o Before the last election the Premier, Danial Andrews committed his government to no development west of Duffields Road, as did the Liberal party. To recommend rezoning this land for development would result in Planning Panels Victoria contravening a documented public promise of the Premier

o The development of this land and the proposed associated linear paths etc along Spring Creek towards the town will result in increased pressure on the already fragile flora and fauna areas downstream due to increased pedestrian access, as it will provide the most direct pedestrian access to the town

• Torquay - Jan Juc housing change areas: o The majority of the towns do not have footpaths, if density increases there will

be more vehicles parked on roads and will affect pedestrian safety o There have been a number of previous developments which have been

unsuccessful or opposed o Commercial developments should be restricted to 3 storeys

• Significant landscape overlays: o Spring Creek is a State Significant landscape and should not even be

considered for housing

Lynton Smith (2572)

• Option 1 provides an opportunity for large blocks for development and a solution for the ongoing need for land to continue to meet the demand

Surfers Appreciating the Natural Environment (2580)

• The Spring Creek Valley is a vital connecting part of the Otways to the Ocean wildlife corridor. This corridor provides an essential continuous link between coastal and hinterland ecosystems of this area as well as to the Otway Range foothills.

• SANE would like to see appropriate zoning applied to the land west of Duffields Road that serves the double purpose of: ensuring no possibility of urban development and acknowledges significance as wildlife corridor.

• Option 2 protects the brand name of the Great Ocean Road along with its Heritage Listed values. This is particularly important in an economic sense because the GOR runs parallel to Spring Creek valley.

• Option 2 also reduces community risk to extreme fire events; all of which are part of well-documented Climate Science forecasts.

- 12 -

5977373_4\C

• supports the Victorian Government ‘Biodiversity 2037 Policy to reverse accepted and acknowledged biodiversity decline.

• secures the future of Spring Creek valley as a habitat corridor for a raft of woodland birds and animals that rely on Grassy Woodlands for their existence.

• Option 2 provides for the long term community aspiration to reintroduce native flora and fauna species back into Spring Creek valley.

• Within the DAL boundaries SANE also supports the call to: o Initiate an Impact Study which assesses the regional effects of tourism and growth on

future planning. o Acknowledge that town character and culture are important features and should be

maintained. This requires legal parameters to provide certainty. o Therefore, building heights should be maintained at 2 storeys for residential

development and 3 storeys for those zoned as commercial. o Indigenous heritage protection is recognised through economic opportunity rather

than the current situation where culture is seen as an additional cost to overcome to allow western development.

o importance of the protection of Karaaf Wetlands from further urban impact, particularly stormwater inflows and pollutants into the Karaaf saltmarsh. The Karaaf saltmarsh is preferred habitat for the critically endangered Orange-bellied Parrot and has been nominated as a RAMSAR site. It should be considered as part of the larger Connewarre wetlands system and not as a stand- alone, isolated ecosystem. The Connewarre wetlands are already RAMSAR listed. The ‘area under investigation’ in the DAL lies in the catchment area of the Karaaf wetland and we strongly object to it being considered for urban development. It also lies outside of the current settlement boundary.

o Retain and grow biodiversity o Retain and support surrounding farmlands with alternative recurrent income streams

that do not involve urban sub-division. David Merrett (2592)

• Submission is focussed on urban development abutting the foreshore within Torquay. o The reason it is significant to the submitter is because since 2018, they have been

fighting an apartment proposal across 4 residential lots at 86-92 The Esplanade which has a direct rear abuttal to our property.

o Discusses implementation actions such as SLOs and zoning and proposed development restrictions such as building height limitations. Contains the following recommendations:

Recommendation 1 - Redraft the character statements for incremental and minimal change areas so they are distinct from each other. Councils existing Housing Areas descriptions should be used as an information source.

Recommendation 2 - Identify The Esplanade north of Taylor Park to The Sands Gold Course as a minimal change area, excluding the Wyndham Resort.

Recommendation 3 - Rezone land fronting The Esplanade north of Taylor Park to The Sand golf course to Neighbourhood Residential Zone as part of the implementation amendment.

Recommendation 4 - Consider retaining The Esplanade south of Torquay Central SUZ5 area in the incremental change as this is where apartment style development has been approved and is supported by current local policy (refer to the Housing Area 1 - Urban Consolidation).

Action 15: That once the Surf Coast SPP is approved, existing planning provisions applying to The Esplanade be amended to provide:

• a mandatory maximum building height of two storeys or 9 metres • a preferred maximum building height of two storeys and 7.5 metres

- 13 -

5977373_4\C

• consistent private open space requirements • reduced building site coverage • new landscaping provisions to increase permeability and maintain the

area’s landscape character. Recommendation 5 - Clarify the reference in SLO9 to future development is

restricted to development within the public foreshore the subject of the SLO9 or adjacent development on The Esplanade.

Recommendation 6 - Redraft and extend the SLO9 to land that fronts The Esplanade north of Taylor Park to ensure visual impact concerns can be addressed.

Geoff and Carolyn Blyth (2638)

• Object to the inclusion of their property located at 91 Lower Duneed Road, Mt Duneed within the Surf Coast Distinctive Area and Landscape (DAL) declared area

• Consider that the CoGG through its Planning Scheme has adequate controls in place over property to ensure that any future development meets its planning strategies and objectives without the additional burden of DELWP’s Surf Coast Distinctive Area and Landscape Draft Statement of Planning Policy November 2020 which is primarily Torquay, Jan Juc and Bells Beach centric. There is no concentration of unique attributes of State and/or National significance on our property or in the immediate area which relate to the draft Surf Coast DAL Statement of Planning Policy.

• Further, our property and those in the immediate area within the CoGG do not meet the requirements / criteria as set out in Section 46AP of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to be included in the Surf Coast DAL. There is no concentration of unique attributes of State and/or National significance that are under threat of significant or irreversible change.

• Address each of the 8 domains: 1. Environmental risks and resilience

o Natural drainage flows into Armstrong Creek and into Lake Connewarre, and does not impact the salinity concerns raised in the draft policy with Thompsons Creek and the Karaaf Wetlands / flora and fauna marshes of Breamlea.

o Have planted thousands of native trees and shrubs on our property since purchase o manage beef cattle grazing activities in a sustainable manner with improved pastures,

regular fertilizer applications and weed and vermin control. 2. Landscape

o Although located on the lower volcanic slopes of Mt Duneed, it does not form part of the Thompsons Creek catchment and has no remnant eucalypts as highlighted as important landscape characteristics in the draft.

o Any proposed development on our property would not restrict views to the rise of Mt Duneed or vistas from the Surf Coast Highway which appear to be important considerations in the draft policy.

3. Environment and biodiversity o It is noted that the draft policy does not specifically mention the district of Mt Duneed.

4. Aboriginal cultural heritage. o property has no known aboriginal cultural heritage sites.

5. Historic heritage. o property has no known historic heritage attributes.

6. Tourism, agriculture and natural resources o operate a beef vealer operation and our activities are conducted within the controls of

the “Farming” zone of the CoGG Planning Scheme. We relate to the rural service providers located in both Geelong and Colac for farm machinery sales and servicing, fertiliser, livestock agents, fuel and other farm inputs.

7. Strategic Infrastructure

- 14 -

5977373_4\C

o planning approval has been granted and preliminary works commenced for an APCO Service Station at the north-east corner of the Surf Coast Highway/ Mt Duneed Road/ Lower Duneed Road roundabout located at the crest of the rise. This proposed development with its associated lighting and signage will undoubtedly be clearly visible for kilometres around and a blight on the existing landscape.

8. Settlements o Whilst opportunity exists for property in the short term, do not wish to have our

property included in the Surf Coast DAL with additional planning controls and a 50 year vision.

Mark Stockdale (2561)

• Submission supports option 2 noting there is no evidence provided in the development of Option 1 that the Bellarine Yellow-gum population or associated threatened species habitats will be protected in perpetuity.

Fleur Thomson (2719)

• Submission states "draft SPP places too much emphasis on the environment in this proposal, and gives little consideration to the social and economic needs of the area".

David O'Brien (Glenkeen Pastoral Partnership) (2733)

• Concern about boundaries of classification of landscape areas (those properties on edge of SLO10 zone, arguing they should be subject to SLO8 instead). Glenkeen property has more relationship to the Bellbrae hinterland (as do the other properties north of Bones Road and west of Bells 3 Boulevard) than it does with the “Bells Beach Hinterland” or the proposed Addiscott Road Estate area.

• Arguments are summarised: o SPP fails to have regard to the site’s strategic Great Ocean Road location and importance

of sensitively sited tourism and accommodation proposals o No strategic basis for:

o limiting development in the Bellbrae South commercial shopping strip along the Great Ocean Road between the Bellbrae Roundabout and the Gundry’s/Addiscott Road offset intersection

o proposed rezoning of the “Addiscott Road Estate” from its present triangular wedge to the west of Addiscott Road and expanding that over our property (notes this was debated in Amendment C121 Panel.)

• SLO10 does not consistently identify/distinguish boundaries of the Bells Beach Hinterland and the proposed “Addiscott Road Estate”, meaning expressions of community concern for that area are vague.

• There are strong strategic planning grounds for shifting the present zoning boundary on the property southwards either to Bones Road or at least the geographic boundary of the Jan Juc Creek (noting that Council’s initial proposal to rezone the farming section of the Glenkeen property to Rural Conservation zone has been abandoned)

• There is merit to the submission of neighbour Peter Stott that the best way to ensure continued shared values amongst the residential properties would be to rezone the portion of the property fronting Bones Road and Addiscott Road to a Low Density Residential Zone (with a 5 acre minimum) so that this land can be sensibly developed at a scale and consistency equivalent to its immediate neighbours to the south and east (both closer to Bells Beach) and also to the West.

Department of Transport (2742)

- 15 -

5977373_4\C

• recommended that the draft SPP should not contain a specific locational reference to a future terminal location and should mark the corridor as being subject to further investigation; including by changes to Map 9 in the draft SPP (removing the southbound directional arrow).

Cameron Walsh (2750)

• Submission states "The restriction of future housing supply will require a wider policy review at the state level (and separate reviews at a federal level) to reduce the incentives for housing purchases and investment".

Damien Cole - Surfrider Foundation Australia (2763)

• Submission made by Surfrider Foundation Australia. The submission attaches a marked up version of the Draft SPP with suggested changes.

Sandra Walsh - Torqair Pty Ltd (2778)

• The submission argues that the SL09, as per the Surf Coast Distinctive Area and Landscape Draft Statement of Planning Policy, provides significant disincentives for landholders to positively transition to environmentally considered land use. Suggests that the existing overlays and zoning provide relevant protection and dictation of land use respectively.

DF (Sprague Farm) Developments Pty Ltd and The Camerons/DFC Services Pty Ltd (2784)

• Affected properties: DFC is a related entity of the Dennis Family Corporation and has an existing development agreement with the Sprague Family, being the owner of the land at 372-450 Charlemont Road, Armstrong Creek (located within the Greater Geelong municipal boundary).

• Makes several specific recommendations: o Amend the description of the future Armstrong Creek protected settlement boundary

in the legend to Maps 3 – 9 (inclusive) as follows: Existing Geelong urban boundary: extent, location and characteristics of a Pprotected settlement boundary for the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area to be investigated, confirmed and implemented subject to local strategic planning work.

o Amend Maps 3-9 by applying the ‘Further Investigation Required’ hatching to the land north of Lower Duneed Road.

o Amend the 2nd paragraph under the heading ‘Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area’ at page 61 as follows: The resolution of the location of this settlement boundary and its relationship with the green break between Geelong and Torquay – Jan Juc, is subject to, and will be informed and confirmed by strategic planning work led by the City of Greater Geelong in consultation with DELWP and other relevant agencies once Amendment C395 – Settlement Strategy and the Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan has been given effect.

o Under the heading ‘Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area’, at page 61, add the following additional paragraph: The SPP will be amended once this work is completed.

o "Amend Strategy 2.7 at page 36 as follows: Manage development and infrastructure to retain the dominance of identified significant views to the rural hinterland and/or coast from main road corridors within the landscape."

o Suggested amending the description of the ‘Road Corridor views’ designation in the legend to Map 3 as follows: "Road corridor views – Manage the development of infrastructure to maintain identified significant views to the rural hinterland and/or coast."

- 16 -

5977373_4\C

Committee for Geelong Ltd (2786)

• Position on the DAL/SPP: Do not support the imposition of a PSB in Torquay. Want a SB under planning scheme instead. Key reasons: "The potential outcome to limit or stop residential development in Spring Creek will impact on future residential supply in Torquay-Jan Juc and has not properly been considered. The overall settlement boundary should be re-considered if the Spring Creek development is not supported by the development. The application of the legislated settlement boundary could increase complexity of this review"

Surf Coast Energy Group (2791)

• concern re lack of impact assessment done for environmental risk outcomes • proposed a Spring Creek Community Urban Woodland Concept which proposes a model of

community ownership to manage part of the land for community outcomes (eg, protection of nature, sense of community and place, and contribute to local economy).

Anseed Pty Ltd (2795)

• Seeking to change the status of the proposed boundary from a 'protected settlement boundary' to a 'settlement boundary' in the vicinity of 1350 Surfcoast Highway and amend the location of the protected settlement boundary in the north-west Torquay

• Key reasons for the amendments are - o Settlement boundaries defined in the SPP and supporting documentation do not

include projections for population growth, visitor growth and land supply requirements over the 50-year vision period

o The SPP defines areas of marginal landscape significance in isolation to competing significant social and economic requirements

Greater Torquay Alliance (2805)

• Spring Creek: Strongly in favour of Option 2, and opposes Option 1. • Building Heights and Coastal character: recommend following planning provisions should

apply to Torquay and Jan Juc: o Maximum 2 storey / 7.5m in Residential areas, o Maximum 3 storey / 10.5m in commercial areas, o No 4 storey buildings in the Town Centre, o No increase in building or housing density, o More open space requirements in new subdivisions and around buildings allowing for

large canopy trees. o Rezoning residential areas to Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ), as suggested in

the SPP studies, with appropriate overlays. • Torquay North East - The Karaaf Wetlands: concern about the stormwater runoff into the

wetlands. Future investigation area shown in the documents be removed. It appears the protection of vegetation and habitat has not been included in the Karaaf Wetland section.

• Bells Beach and Winki Pop: Protect views of landscape from the water (ie. for surfers and ocean users viewpoint).

• SPP should some language that matches the various parts of the Planning Scheme and the Bells CMP, like ‘minimise development’.

• Transit Corridor: concern that train line would have negative impact on fabric of Torquay, preference for an electric bus system with dedicated bike path

- 17 -

5977373_4\C

• Marine and Coastal Policy 2020: The submission identifies aspects of DAL documentation that do not comply with the Policy - Option 1 for Spring Creek, future urban development in Torquay North East, and a future train line to Torquay (proposed Armstrong Creek to Torquay transit corridor) are said to be at odds with Policy; and various specific strategies/objectives that are said to not comply.

• Impact Assessment: Impact Assessment should be undertaken to establish the effects of population growth on the town and local area, so as to inform future planning decisions.

• Bushfire Management: Spring Creek in bushfire prone area. Note objective 1.1 is in contradiction of Option 1.

• Additional vantage points considered when considering visual impact and viewsheds: o Bells Boulevard travelling south when you get to the crest in the road (just before

Bones Road) that affords the first view of the ocean, o Surf Coast Highway/Geelong Road travelling south approaching Spring Creek

recreation Reserve that affords the first view of the ocean for those arriving in Torquay,

o The walking track between Point impossible and The Sands, o Views from The Sands Golf Course overlooking the Karaaf Wetlands, o Views from Rocky Point (Torquay Point), Point Danger, Bird Rock and Boobs/Steps

Lookouts in Jan Juc, everywhere within the Bells Beach Surfing Recreation Reserve, Point Addis, all of Surf Coast Walk.

o Views from the water should be considered within all of the DAL coastal areas, from Breamlea to the west side of point Addis aligning with Hurst Road.

Heather Grossman (2806)

• Property: 375 Grossman's Road Torquay (falling within the Torquay Coast and Hinterland landscape character on Map 6. Southern aprts - state significant, low-medium biodiversity values)

• Position on the DAL/SPP: supportive of the Vision, Policy domains and objectives/strategies but concerned some of the strategies lack specificity to achieve objectives and vision. Needs to have more guidance to assist decision-makers and developers (while not being prescriptive).

• Recommendations: o Tourism, agriculture and natural resources: Strategies 6a.3 and 6a.4 do not go far enough

because of the current zoning of most of land in Map 6 is zeoned Farming (usually a ground for refusal of permits for non-agricultural uses). Suggests introduction of Rural Activity Zone. Suggests additional strategy:

"Encourage the use of the Rural Activity Zone and appropriate Schedules to support use and development of tourist facilities in the areas marked on Map 6 as well suited to tourism activities."

o Settlements: Spring Creek - supports Option 1, noting extensive planning documents support this. Spring Creek - suggest an identical statement which appears in Messmate Rd

commentary should be included for Spring Creek: "Alternative non-residential uses (such as sensitive eco-tourism development and community infrastructure) may also be accommodated in this area"

Richy Bennett (2822)

• This submissions was interesting as it looked at the mental health impacts (and supporting studies) of overdevelopment, and urged the decision makers to consider not only the values

- 18 -

5977373_4\C

listed in the Draft Proposal, but also the impact that development could have on residents who value the areas natural beauty highly and see it as significant to their lifestyle happiness:

"One of the largest studies in Sweden looked at population trends over a four year period and found that greater population density was associated with higher rates of mental health problems, specifically depression and psychosis, and as population density increased the prevalence of mental health problems increased…Investigations by VicHealth between 2018-2020 show that locally both increased population density and noise is associated with depressed mood. Conversely, living near open green and blue space, such as rural coastlines and inland water areas, is associated with lower levels of depression and anxiety, and increased quality and quantity of green space is associated with positive mental health, particularly for children and adolescents. Biological diversity is consistently found to enrich human happiness and provides a preventative buffer for sound mental health. In Victoria, where we currently spend $14.2billion annually on mental health, for every dollar spent on prevention we can achieve a threefold return on investment, so economically it clearly makes sense to invest in nature conservation."

MAKE ventures (2824)

• Messmate Road Precinct Boundary: Supports designation of the precinct in the DAL noting the unsettled northern boundary. Submits that an appropriate precinct boundary could be designated within the DALS documentation. The work undertaken by Hansen for MAKE provides an appropriately identified ridgeline and a sound methodology, which should be used to guide the extent of development of the precinct.

• Interface Treatment: The urban-rural transition zone referred to throughout the DALS should be further detailed within the DALS for the Messmate Road precinct area, to ensure that there are no impediments to progressing the rezoning of the precinct.

o MAKE proposes an urban transition zone, which allows for an appropriate landscape and fire protection buffer(Attachment to submission) should be represented in the DALS.

o Notes that - anticipated planning controls for the precinct will include design guidelines in relation to detailed dwelling design outcomes, such as heights, materials, colours, heights and landscaping. Understand this level of detail may not be appropriate to include into the SPP; but content it is important to provide a level of certainty of the transitional requirements as it relates to minimising visual intrusion on the landscape.

• Population Growth: As the township is set to continue to experience significant growth over the next 50 years, careful consideration of the sustainable long term growth opportunities must occur:

o Support for Precinct boundary does not mean support for permanent settlement boundary

o Consider more work required re forecasting of growth re impacts on township/landscapes; referring to SCSC submission and concern about population growth.

o That work not to delay rezoning of the Messmate Rd Precinct

Christian College Geelong - Spring Creek Landowner (2837)

• Spring Creek - Support Option 1 (with criticism of low density approach): o The historical planning investigations and assessment of the area cumulatively

support development within Spring Creek, 1km west of Duffield’s Road; support keeping established boundary.

- 19 -

5977373_4\C

o Do NOT support: low density option on its current drafting as it is unnecessarily restrictive. Not all areas require sensitive development, or retention of landscape features. Can be addressed at the point of detailed planning and not at the higher level document.

o Refers to C66 and C114 report excerpts in support of existing boundary. • Landscape controls:

o Not consistent with development within an established urban boundary and would unnecessarily complicate decision making in the precinct and further frustrate planning objectives for housing and development.

o SLO8 should be redrafted to the extent it applies to the land 1km west of Duffield’s Road or more likely, a new control introduced.

o Other areas of developed Torquay/Jan Juc are within Significant Landscape Overlays. It is incongruous that a control would apply to a large area of green break outside of 1km west which is zoned for farming and the same control would apply in a future urban area.

• Landscape o College does not accept that Spring Creek, 1km west of Duffields road, is of State

significance. • Balancing of environment/landscape v economic factors:

o DAL requires all planning objectives to be considered: "not only landscape and environment, but also policies concerning urban development and economic factors that assist the community". Need to be more balanced in this approach.

Rural Estates (Torquay) Pty Ltd rep by Christopher Townshend QC and Emily Porter of Counsel, instructed by Planning Property Partners (2848) - Spring Creek landowner

• This submission relates primarily to Spring Creek area. Supports Option 1 over Option 2, however proposes further changes to the approach to development in the area under Option 1. It also makes comments in regards to the landscape and biodiversity values of the area; comments on the agriculture policy domain.

• In relation to the SLO: o The SLO8 overlay has taken a similarly broad approach as the SCSPP resulting in an

overstatement of the underlying values of the land in the Spring Creek Valley and in particular the Rural Estate Land. As noted in the background documents to the SCSPP, ‘[t]here are no significant landscapes or landscape features to speak of in the hinterland. This area appears to be the lowest rated in the declared area such that its inclusion, in conjunction with the political nature of the town boundary decision, remains questionable.

o The overlay also introduces landscape character objectives, permit requirements and decision guidelines which will create more hurdles and restrictions, ultimately hindering agricultural use of the land.

Zeally Investments Pty and Duffields Road Pty Ltd - Spring Creek landowners (2884)

• Notes potential legal issues in not pursuing Option 1 on basis of procedural fairness and perceived bias.

Geelong Field Naturalists Club (2896)

• Submission supports PSB Option 2, and makes references to preserving the flora and fauna native to the area, particularly the Bellarine Yellow Gum woodlands. Also believes this option will protect the landscape values and rural outlook of Spring Creek.

- 20 -

5977373_4\C

• Recommends consulting the Wadawarrung people and ecological experts in fire management planning for the area.

• Additionally, recommends including habitat fragmentation as a key threatening process in the Environmental Risks section of the SPP.

David and Glennis Branagh (2898)

• Submission made by landowners, property located at the northeast corner of Ghazeepore and Mount Duneed roads - an area impacted by the DELWP Surf Coast Declared Area extension into adjoining City of Greater Geelong (COGG) territory under the planning policy and proposed landscape controls.

• Submission highlights the weaknesses in the Draft Surf Coast SPP and counters DELWP's arguments for including COGG landholders in a Surf Coast-centric planning proposal. Furthermore, notes there was no consultation with affected COGG property owners during the DAL process.

Donald Lawrie (2905)

• Submission made by landowners, property located at 235 Grossmans Road, Torquay and abuts directly onto the western boundary of the current C114 Spring Creek Urban Growth Zone, i.e. the urban/rural interface.

• If Option 1 is implemented recommends that the landholders adjacent to the western boundary be fully consulted and have input into the design of the so called "generous urban-rural transition" and DELWP advisory committee representatives make a site visit to the properties that are bordered by the western Spring Creek Precinct Urban boundary.

• If Option 2 is implemented recommends Appendix 1 (map in submission) be treated as a special investigation area for low density residential development, much like the Ocean Acres estate on the north side of Grossmans Road, noting there will be a lack of future LDRZ supply in Torquay.

Surfrider Foundation Surf Coast Branch (2953)

• Supports Option 2 and makes particular reference to over-tourism and overdevelopment negatively impacting the marine environment. Additionally, the submission supports protecting the coast and distinctive character of the town; imposing building height controls and low density zones; and recommends undertaking an impact study to inform future population growth. Also notes the need to minimise human impacts in the area, and preserve flora and fauna, particularly the Karaaf wetlands from storm water runoff and contamination.

DFC Services Pty Ltd (Dennis Family)) (2966)

• Property: 413 – 491 Charlemont Road, Armstrong Creek VIC 3217 • Position on the DAL/SPP: Seek any land north of Lower Duneed Road and east of Horseshoe

Bend Road should not have formed part of the Surf Coast DAL and instead should be consumed within the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area as part of the City of Greater Geelong’s future logical inclusions review process. Further to that statement, the subject site in our view does not meet any of the five qualifying attributes detailed above and should not have been considered to be what in effect ought to be a Surf Coast focused Declared Area concentrating on the townships of Torquay, Jan-Juc and all surrounding land south of the City of Greater Geelong municipal boundary.

• General comments: o The Cameron Family will be expressing to the City of Greater Geelong that the site at

413-491 Charlemont Road, Armstrong Creek should be considered for inclusion within

- 21 -

5977373_4\C

the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area as part of a logical inclusions review process that the C395 Planning Panel recommended to commence as soon as possible and for this process to ultimately inform the Surf Coast DAL

Mack Property Development Group - Spring Creek Landowner (2967)

• criticised the draft SPPs reference to divisive views in community on Spring Creek, arguing it "undermines the integrity of the planning processes that have occurred since the Torquay-Jan Juc Structure Plan was first prepared in 1992"

Parks Victoria (3045)

• raised concern for planning permit triggers that may impact maintenance and upgrade works on facilities such as boardwalks, shelters, replacing rails on viewing platforms etc.

Surf Coast City Council (3050)

• Position on the DAL/SPP: SCSC supports the objectives of the project: 'to establish permanent town boundaries for Torquay/Jan Juc and protect the natural environment, significant landscapes, heritage and resources of this extraordinary area, are supported'

• General comments: o Climate change:

Submission notes SCSC declaration of climate emergency and other work on environmentally sustainable design (including One Planet Principles)

Supports inclusion of the following in the SPP: use of renewable energy sources, canopy trees in the public realm, retention of indigenous vegetation, development of Integrated Water Cycle Management Plans and Water Sensitive Urban Design principles.

Additional Strategies for Objective 1 should be added to focus more on emission reduction (rather than adaption). *See mark ups in Appendix 2 to the Objectives and Strategies implementing this.

o Water security: SPP should highlight water security and measures such reduction in demand and alternative water sources.

o Criticism that the SPP puts too great a weight on environmental considerations and not others. In particular, in regards to job creation and township character.

o SPP needs to contemplate the social and economic future of the town in the way that current structure plans are developed":

SPP does not consider job creation. Residential intensification will need job creation. SPP does not consider where jobs will be sited in next 16 year and 50 years. Key sectors: service industries (construction, health), and population driven (retail, home business)

Likelihood commuting population would have to increase if not (approx. 7,000 people (50% SC working population) who commute to Geelong/Melbourne.)

Tourism: SPP does not provide sufficient platform for this industry meaning Torquay won't be able to capitalise on visitation (accommodation, retail, hospitality), but will still bear burden of public infrastructure expectations (parking, beach visits, vehicles).

Township character: too much weight on environment over other considerations, for eg, tourism, innovation, surfing, Great Ocean Road, and coastal town close to large city populations.

Commercial area footprint (Gilbert town centre) is too limited for 50 year vision, threatening intensification, loss of weatherboard houses and shifting of town centre (eg to Baines Crescent). SCSC has a commercial land strategy for Torquay/Jan Juc: “Torquay Jan Juc Retail and Employment Land Strategy” (the

- 22 -

5977373_4\C

strategy) (to be released in coming months) which considers industrial and retail land supply and demand and will set future directions for activity centres and employment land. SCSC recommend:

• That the strategy informs the final version of the SPP; or • If the strategy directions cannot be incorporated into the SPP due to

timing, SPP should be modified to allow for more flexibility in how the commercial centres are described or mapped to allow for future growth and/or change.

o Affordable and social housing: PSBs may increase market prices, need to consider these issues. Housing affordability is already a substantial concern in Torquay/Jan Juc and is worsening.

• SCSC have provided specific comments, in summary: o Spring Creek - support Option 2 o Residential Change areas - notes there is confusion about these areas. The Council

makes specific comments in relation to certain areas in relation to zoning, height limits, and recommending a visual impact assessment be commissioned for Surf Coast Highway. Also notes concerns in regards to zoning for activity centres in Torquay.

o Messmate Road Growth Area and Ridgelines: recommends survey to identify exact ridgeline, further clarification on how to measure (whether of building, or settlement, whether includes infrastructure, role of vegetation), Recommend a separate description of this area in the SPP with a more directive vision for greenfield growth for clarity.

o Low density residential areas: The SPP needs to have greater clarity, for eg, a separate section on low density residential areas which describes the future directions for each precinct. Specific issues for the area north of Briody Drive West (shown as ‘minimal change’); and the low density residential area in Addiscott Road (recommending that the right to one dwelling on each lot should be maintained and strategy Objective 4, Strategy 2 should be altered accordingly, as the term “infill development” is ambiguous in this context)

o North East Investigation Area: Certainty regarding the future of the area should be confirmed prior to finalisation of the SPP.

o Green Breaks: Support green breaks but Strategy 3 under Objective 2 is too restrictive in current form and should be modified to allow complementary uses such as group accommodation, wineries etc (notes Rural Hinterland Futures Strategy)

o Water and Ecologically Sustainable Development: SPP should have a separate section on water security and particular strategies, further definition and explanation of certain broad phrases re ESD, recommend more emphasis in SPP of various factors (see table below), should support environmental forms of transport more. Note that the current strategies reflect the status quo and SPP risks not being relevant no this area.

o New Significant Landscape Overlays: If Option 1 for SC approved, SPP needs to be amended to minimise number of permits required (ie. as a result of SLO), specific issues with SLO8 re inconsistency in application to uses and an issue with permit requirements around floor areas.

o Implementation: DELWP should be responsible.

Stephen John Prendergast (3063)

• expertise is social research and economic data modelling. • The Surf Coast’s distinctiveness is characterised by its scenic coastal and rural landscapes,

significant environmental values, and important indigenous heritage.

- 23 -

5977373_4\C

Torquay has already shouldered more than its fair share of Surf Coast and Victorian regional population growth.

• The available housing lot supply will cause the Torquay-Jan Juc population to greatly exceed the G21 target well before the plan’s time horizon is reached.

• Substantial demand for land in or near Torquay because it possesses a set of characteristics that make it extremely attractive to the Australian buyer – it offers beach and rural living possibilities, a surfer culture, employment opportunities, transport and proximity to both Geelong and Melbourne metropolises. The fact that there is likely to be inherent demand to live in a place is not in itself a justification for offering an ever-increasing amount of land there.

• It is vital that the SPP looks to slow down the population growth of Torquay because the current pace of change dramatically exceeds the G21 plan and is contrary to a sustainable future for the area. This means it needs to place additional scrutiny on all planned broad hectare and infill development

• Torquay’s demand for fresh water has expanded in line with population growth placing a significant burden on water supply and significant challenges for the future. With the projected population growth for the greater Geelong region, which from a water supply perspective includes Torquay, means that dams will not be capable of delivering future water requirements.

• Torquay's relaxed lifestyle, beachside and rural character has already been severely impacted by residential and industrial development. However, there are still vestiges of distinctiveness that must be protected by the SPP.

• strongly opposed to Option 1 and in favour of Option 2 for several important reasons: 1. Spring Creek Valley West possesses highly distinctive environmental and visually

appealing attributes that must be preserved. It makes a substantial contribution to the distinctive landscape of the Surf Coast as a whole.

2. Spring Creek is regarded by residents as important to the landscape character of Torquay as iconic locations such as Bells Beach.

3. An appropriate rural zoning of Spring Creek Valley West would encourage land uses that would further enhance the distinctiveness of the Surf Coast, unlike a residential development.

4. Spring Creek Valley West is an inappropriate area for development due to its highly sloping landform and creek catchment nature. Other greenfield residential sites that have already been approved are more suitable and would be less likely to create downstream issues and environmental problems. If there is a need for additional residential land the Surf Coast Shire should actively investigate areas closer to Geelong and proximate to the Colac road near Moriac and Winchelsea.

5. Spring Creek Valley West is entirely declared State Significant Landscape with vestiges of National Significant Landscape. 30% of the land that would be developed under Option 1 is considered high biodiversity value. Residential development would negatively impact both aspects.

6. Torquay Jan Juc area has an abundant supply of housing lots already approved for residential development to reach the town’s population target even if development of Spring Creek Valley West is excluded. The building and construction industry has access to a huge amount of future residential projects in the local area and this development is not required for this.

o In summary, the low-density residential development of Option 1 would irretrievably impact the Surf Coast’s distinctiveness and cause significant environmental damage. Importantly, it is unnecessarily destructive given the other residential developments that have already been approved or are likely to be approved.

o Option 2 provides the correct protection and with the appropriate rural zoning would further enhance the contribution the area makes to the distinctive landscape of the Surf Coast. This would encourage forward thinking landholders to introduce tourism initiatives:

- 24 -

5977373_4\C

• Low impact tourism activities such as an outdoor arts precinct in a natural environment,

• Tourism oriented farming enterprises. • Small scale eco-accommodation

o An appropriate land zoning for Spring Creek Valley West could also encourage land uses that display the Surf Coast as a true leader in sustainable practices such as: • the revegetation of woodlands and riparian areas using modern scientific and

traditional indigenous methods and custodianship. • landowner-community partnerships to foster bike and walking trails • renewable energy technology, low visual impact solar electricity generation, electricity

storage (e.g. the new Australian hydrogen battery). • sustainable productive land use; for example, sustainable food farming and direct to

public offerings. • Discusses distinctiveness of Spring Creek Valley West including:

1. The highly visible, aesthetically attractive landscape. 2. Environmental significance 3. Importance to the Torquay Community 4. Designated Significant Landscape 5. Productive Values / Economy

• Reasons for Opposing Option 1 o Option 1 is not consistent with protecting and enhancing the distinctive landscape of the

surf coast: 1. The reference to “low density” residential development is misleading. 2. The reference in Option 1 to a “sustainable” residential development is also misleading. 3. Any residential development in Spring Creek Valley West, no matter what density or level

of sustainability, is an unacceptable change to the character and aesthetic of this rural land, which is important to the distinctiveness of Torquay, the Great Ocean Road and to the Surf Coast.

4. The Torquay community is strongly opposed to residential development in Spring Creek Valley West. While the history of opposition to developing this land should be ample evidence of this point, it is only emphasized by an objective assessment of the recent data presented in the SPP Phase 1 public engagement report. Indeed, largely those in support of the residential development of Spring Creek are not residents in the local area.

5. The Option 1 residential development is unnecessary for population growth reasons. 6. The environmental impact of residential development of Spring Creek Valley West would

be profound, given the existing remnant woodland, riparian vegetation and hilly water catchment nature of this land:

7. Damage to the Surf Coast’s economy. The conversion of this rural land to residential development would impact important vistas that significantly contribute to Torquay’s distinctiveness and to the attraction of the Great Ocean Road and be likely to damage the tourism economy

8. Bushfire Hazard. According to the Victorian Government’s bushfire planning, the southern boundary of Spring Creek Valley West is designated as an “urban/bushfire hazard interface”. Logic would suggest that if this land was developed for residential purposes it would place more people and houses in closer proximity to fire hazard than at present. All the other major residential developments under consideration are further away from fire hazard than Spring Creek Valley West.

Susan Wardrop and Judith Townley (3076)

• The writer claims their land has been included as part of the DAL, but their land isn't Surf Coast Shire land, they are part of the Greater City of Geelong.

- 25 -

5977373_4\C

555 Great Ocean Road (3093)

o Affected property: 555 Great Ocean Road, Bellbrae o Key issues/concerns:

o Comments on SLOs: Map 1 to SLO10 indecipherable Land either side of GOR should be impacted by same landscape control (ie.

not use road as boundary), recommend SLO8 to apply not SLO10, noting lack of viewsheds to Bells Beach/Point Addis.

Align SLO controls with Landscape Significance Overlay (from Map 5 of SPP).

David Merrett - Purdies Paddock Development Pty Ltd (3121)

• Purdies Paddock has a total land area of 16.32 hectares across 2 titles; 55 Williams Road (2.02 hectares) and 75 Williams Road (14.3 hectares). Currently farming zone and not affected by any overlay controls.

• Notes there would be a strong net community benefit that would accrue from this private development

• The DAL interface with Greater Geelong is our principal concern. • Strategy 6b2 should be amended to refer to minimising impacts on the ACUGA settlement

area in the following manner: o Use best practice measures to ensure the use and development of land for extractive

industries and the rehabilitation of excavated areas avoid and minimise impacts on the landscape significance, environment and biodiversity values, Aboriginal cultural heritage values, and historic heritage values of the declared area and the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area.

• Agree with and support the role of what has been called the logical inclusions process to settle this boundary with Geelong. However, we note the strategies relevant to Objective 8 do not refer to the role of the logical inclusions process. We therefore recommend a new strategy be inserted that states:

o Implement a permanent settlement boundary for the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area informed by local strategic planning work (a logical inclusions process).

Jennifer Bantow OAM - Geelong and Region Members Branch - National Trust of Australia (3160)

• This is the state’s largest community-based heritage advocacy organisation actively working towards conserving and protecting built, cultural and natural heritage. Supports the Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy and the Draft Statement of Planning Policy but lists the following considerations which should be taken into account when considering development:

• There are five landscapes classified as 'National Trust Classified Landscapes' in Surf Coast Shire. Two landscape areas are within the defined area of the DELWP Surf Coast Distinctive Area Landscape, Bells Beach and the Great Ocean Road, L10278 Great Ocean Road and L10261 Bells Beach (NTAV register).

• Bells Beach - Property No L10261 - File Number L10261 o Historical connections with the most important surfing events in Australia, including

international competitions. A significant surf-related industry developed nearby (comprising two companies, Rip Curl and Quicksilver, based in Torquay and with international sales and overseas offices). Association with surf industry gives I social significance.

o Significant aesthetic value - irregular coastline with rocky outcrops, steep cliffs, sandy beaches and coastal heathland.

- 26 -

5977373_4\C

o Vegetation in the Bells Beach Reserve is of State significance as it contains Coastal Moonah Woodland communities, Swamp Diuris, Bellarine Yellow Gums and Small Milkwort all of which are listed under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988, as threatened or vulnerable. The vegetation provides valuable habitat for rare and endangered fauna species of State, regional and local significance.

o The coastal, intertidal and marine environment of Bells Beach is considered of State and national significance (invertebrate communities, rugged cliff and bluffs, species-rich heathlands) Point Addis limestone is also of geological significance.

o Bells Beach was placed on the Victorian Heritage Register in July 2003, VHR No H2032. • Great Ocean Road

o combination of built engineering heritage as well as natural heritage landscapes. o It is extremely well described and mapped in the Victorian Heritage Register VHR No

H2261 Statement of Significance Report • Supports option 2 taking into account the following:

o Rich Aboriginal cultural heritage: the declared area is of great significance to the Wadawurrung people.

o Environment and biodiversity, including the habitat of endangered and threatened species, and distinctive places (such as Point Addis Marine National Park, Karaaf Wetlands, Breamlea Flora and Fauna Reserve and other coastal reserves).

o Environmental resilience, including climate change resilience. o Historic heritage: rich surfing history, culture and international attractions (such as

Bells Beach and the Great Ocean Road). o Landscape significance: coastal settings, superb views, woodlands, wetlands and the

rural vistas between settlements. o Natural resources and productive land of significance, which support a flourishing

economy based on sustainable and responsible tourism, agriculture and natural resources, manufacturing and other industries

o Strategic infrastructure and built form of significance: Torquay–Jan Juc is a vibrant and cohesive regional service centre, and development must be sympathetic to the coastal and hinterland landscape setting.

• Request that places on the National Trust Register, including the classified significant trees, and on the Victorian Heritage Register, that lie within the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscapes defined area, are identified and all these relevant identified places are specifically listed, and then recommended for protection and conservation in the final considerations of the Panel.

• Suggests that the Crown Land River Reserve along both banks of Spring Creek be defined to enable the public enjoyment of access to Spring Creek.

• Proposes that policy and controls be recommended specifically addressing the retention of the rural nature of the land surrounding the Bellbrae and Breamlea settlements.

• Also that the description of settlement boundaries be strongly worded such as ‘designated’, and not ambiguous such as ‘indicative’.

Macedon Ranges Shire Council (3161)

• Council is supportive of the proposed controls set out in the Proposed Landscape Planning Controls (noting commonalities between what is proposed in this document, and what has been proposed in Planning Scheme Amendment C133macr for the Macedon Ranges); however raises concerns about the degree to which the draft SPP provides sufficient guidance on how landscape objectives are to be achieved where those landscape values present bushfire risks.

• In particular, the objective to: “To minimise the removal of remnant native and indigenous vegetation and faunal habitat”, and the proposed Decision Guidelines “Whether the buildings or works: – are screened by vegetation or landscaping

- 27 -

5977373_4\C

– are an adequate distance from waterways to protect their undeveloped landscape character and riparian vegetation”.

• In particular, makes notes about: o Decision Guidelines that seek to establish buildings and works among established

vegetation or screened with landscaping of an appropriate native species, with consideration of bushfire risk; and the effect of removing vegetation on the landscape character and significance of the area, and any alternative means of locating buildings or works in order to conserve the trees

o Increased fuel loads o Development of decision guidelines for a methodology for making an assessment of

bushfire risk and having that assessment be given weight in decision making. • Council's view is that it is not a matter of planting of vegetation that creates bushfire risk, but

rather where and how planting occurs that increases bushfire risk.

Privacy Statement

Any personal information about you or a third party in your correspondence will be protected under the provisions of the Privacy and Data

Protection Act 2014. It will only be used or disclosed to appropriate Ministerial, Statutory Authority, or departmental staff in regard to the purpose

for which it was provided, unless required or authorised by law. Enquiries about access to information about you held by the Department should be

directed to the Privacy Coordinator, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, PO Box 500, East Melbourne, Victoria 8002

1 Spring Street

Melbourne Victoria 3000

GPO Box 2392

Melbourne, Victoria 3001

Telephone (03) 8392 5115

OFFICIAL

17 February 2021

As addressed

Dear Submitter,

Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Standing Advisory Committee: Surf Coast

The Committee held a Directions Hearing for the above matter on 11 February 2021 by Microsoft Teams video conference. Please find attached:

• Committee Directions

• Hearing Timetable – Version 1

This letter and the attached Directions contains important information about the Hearing process, so please read it all carefully.

A recording was made of the Directions Hearing, a copy of which can be obtained by contacting Georgia Thomas, Project Officer of Planning Panels Victoria at [email protected]

The following dates apply:

Time Date

2.00pm Wednesday, 24 February 2021

Parties must provide details of all representation and evidence to be called (by whom and in what field). Further, provide the breakdown and order of submissions and witnesses if their case exceeds one business day.

1

4.00pm Friday 26 February 2021 Parties must in writing nominate any sites or areas it considers the Committee should view in its initial unaccompanied site inspection.

3

2.00pm Tuesday, 2 March 2021 The Proponent (DELWP) must file all evidence 11

2.00pm Friday, 5 March 2021 All other Parties must file evidence 12

2.00pm Tuesday, 9 March 2021 Any (like) evidence in reply must be filed 13

2.00pm Tuesday, 9 March 2021 Opening submission from DELWP must be filed 8

4.00pm Tuesday 9 March 2021 The Proponent provide a finalised site inspection itinerary with acompanying maps to PPV

4

2.00pm Friday, 12 March 2021 Opening submissions from nominated ‘Day 1’ parties must be filed

9

2.00pm The preceding business day to any submission

Any other material and documents must be filed 21

10.00am Monday, 15 March 2021 The Hearing commences

mailto:[email protected]

OFFICIAL

Declarations

At the Directions Hearing, the Chair made the following declarations:

• Two submitters who made submissions are sessional members of Planning Panels Victoria. Firstly, Mr David Merrett made three submissions, one as a personal submission (2592), two on behalf of clients (3093 and 3121). Mr Merrett is presenting his personal submission and Mr Carey of Minter Ellison Lawyers is presenting the other two. Secondly, Dr Jacquelle Gorski made a personal submission (2788). Dr Gorski is currently sitting with the Chair on the Crib Point EES Project, the Hearings of which were held in October to December last year. The Crib Point Inquiry and Advisory Committee are currently finalising its report, due to be submitted by 23 February. The Chair was not aware Dr Gorski was making a submission on this matter until recently. Dr Gorski advised the Chair verbally by telephone while discussing matters about Crib Point Project. The Chair has had no discussions or comments about this with Dr Gorski. The EES report will be submitted and the job of the Inquiry finalised well before this Hearing commences.

• The Chair has undertaken numerous matters in the Greater Geelong and Surf Coast area in the past, including Chair of the Cape Otway Road Australia (CORA) Development Advisory Committee of 2019-2020, the overall Armstrong Creek Framework Plan and then various other Armstrong Creek precinct plans, Amendment C6 to the Surf Coast Planning Scheme regarding the industrial estate.

• Ms Davies runs a small planning practice in Gippsland and one of her clients has engaged Mr Cicero, author of submission 2884. Ms Davies has had some direct conversations with Mr Cicero relating to her clients interests in the Warragul Growth Area. We note Mr Cicero appears to have engaged counsel to appear on behalf of his clients at the hearing. Ms Davies undertakes to have no further communications with Mr Cicero for the duration of this proceeding.

• In 2019 Ms Davies engaged Ecology & Heritage Partners to complete a background report for a project that she is currently working on. This same firm has prepared a background report for DELWP titled ‘Ecological Opportunities and Constraints Assessment’. The authors of the DELWP report are not the same as the ones engaged by Ms Davies and that project is unrelated to the Surf Coast DAL.

• Ms Davies advised that Mr Wood of TRACT appeared on behalf of one of her clients for a VCAT hearing in 2020, instructed by HWL Ebsworth Lawyers. Mr Wadeson of TRACT will be giving evidence before the Committee. The VCAT case has been finalised and is unrelated to the Surf Coast DAL.

• Ms Burdett previously worked as a sub-consultant to Capire Consulting Group Pty Ltd, 2017-2019 which included community engagement assistance for the North Fitzroy Gasworks remediation project and City of Yarra Aged Care Services Community Panel.

All parties in attendance were specifically invited to raise any issues about this declaration and no party or individual raised any issues in response.

Procedural matters

The Committee noted it has retained the service of Mr Nick Tweedie SC of Counsel Bar to provide legal advice or opinion as required.

The Committee’s notification letter of 27 January 2021 directed that any submitters seeking to raise a procedural matter or ask a question to provide written notice of such. The Committee received the following requests:

1. Submitter 2592 sought clarification about the role of the Committee and quoted part of his submission.

OFFICIAL

In response, the Committee considered this to be submission that can be addressed at the appropriate time. However, it notes the letter of referral from the Minister for Planning needs to be considered, as well as the request of the Committee for more detail about the extent of controls proposed through its Directions.

2. Zeally Investments Pty Ltd and Duffields Road Pty Ltd (Submitter 2884) sought firstly, to break the hearing into geographic locations and deal with each separately, and in that regard, have the Torquay component be in any week but not 15 March. Secondly, it sought leave to have Mr Milner’s planning evidence filed by 5 March due to his current leave arrangements.

In response, the Committee advised that taking into account the availability of many parties it would be difficult to break the Hearing into geographic locations and noted that each party is required to provide its submissions and evidence in full.

Further, due to the Committee agreeing to DELWP requesting a week later to lodge its evidence, the lodgement date for other evidence is now 5 March 2021.

3. Late on Wednesday, 10 February 2021 the Committee received a letter from Macedon Ranges Shire Council, seeking to lodge a late submission. The request to lodge a late submission was referred to DELWP.

In response, the Committee notes DELWP has granted this request and it gave Council until 2.00pm, Monday 15 February to provide its submission (which it has).

Matters requiring clarification

At the Directions Hearing the Committee sought clarification from the Proponent (DELWP/Minister for Planning) about a number of matters. The Committee directs DELWP to respond to each of the following matters in writing by 2 March 2021, except for matters 5, 6, and 7, which can form part of DELWP’s opening submission:

1. Clarify in writing whether the Proponent is DELWP or the Minister for Planning.

2. Provide an update on the status of Amendment C114 to the Surf Coast Planning Scheme.

3. Identify issues raised by submitters and a response to these, noting what can be resolved, and what remains in contention. This should be thematic based rather than a response to each individual submission.

4. In particular, a more detailed response to the primary submissions of both Surf Coast Shire Council and the City of Greater Geelong is required.

5. Prepare and maintain a Hearing book.

6. While there is no Planning Scheme Amendment before the Committee, explain the approach in considering the issues raised about the Draft Statement of Planning Policy (SPP) and the Proposed Landscape Planning Controls. On the Committee’s preliminary review, the proposed policies are not in the form of planning scheme amendments documents nor has the exhibited information addressed Planning Practice Notes (in particular PPN46) or Ministerial Direction on Form and Content of the Planning Scheme.

7. Provide timing and clarification about whether there will be a separate process for implementation of the final controls. If a separate amendment is required, advise who would prepare the relevant documentation, whether there be further consultation, and how it would be implemented in the relevant planning schemes. Both the City of Greater Geelong and Surf Coast Shire Council have indicated that they are not prepared to do this work, and that it should be led and resourced by DELWP.

8. Address the outcomes arising from this DAL process, in particular:

OFFICIAL

a. how the benefit of applying the SLO to public land i.e. foreshore and parks b. for the Councils, when will they be required to consider the proposed SPP, and the

weight to be afforded to it in assessing future development applications and planning scheme amendments.

c. clarify the inclusion of the Significant Landscape Overlays (SLO) in the planning schemes, as well as addressing:

i. for Option 1, whether the SLO will be applied to the Urban Growth Zone area, and if so, whether there may be conflict between the Urban Growth Zone/Precinct Structure Plan and the SLO.

ii. whether there may be conflict between the Bushfire Management Overlay and the SLO.

d. clarify whether rezonings are proposed eg. Breamlea/Bellbrae – as indicated in Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy: Proposed Landscape Planning Controls (pages 14 and 20).

e. clarify and discuss proposed planning policies for the Surf Coast and Geelong Planning Schemes, including as relevant, how the incremental/minimal change areas will be delivered, applied and implemented or whether any other changes to urban or commercial areas are proposed.

9. Provide the following:

a. existing zoning maps for the areas covered by the proposed SPP b. maps of areas where the SLO overlaps with the Bushfire Management Overlay and/or

the Vegetation Protection Overlay controls and/or other relevant controls.

Engagement with the Wadawurrung people

The engagement with the Wadawurrung people in the work of the Committee is important in ensuring our deliberations are fully informed and give due and proper consideration to Aboriginal Cultural Heritage.

The Committee is aware the engagement with the Wadawurrung needs to take account of the history and treatment of Aboriginal people by government in the exercise of authority and decision making. Accordingly, the Committee will provide the opportunity for the Wadawurrung to make submissions on terms and in ways that give them the greatest confidence and assurance that they are heard without systemic exclusion. This should not be regarded giving an advantage that others do not have, but rather, is providing an equity of opportunity to participate.

The Committee notes that Clause 14(e) requires it to consider the views of the traditional owners. The Committee did not receive a written submission from the Wadawurrung, but it will endeavour through the office of Planning Panels Victoria to invite a submission.

If you have questions, please contact Georgia Thomas on [email protected].

Yours sincerely,

Kathy Mitchell Chair, Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Standing Advisory Committee


DIRECTIONS

Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Standing Advisory Committee

OFFICIAL

All communication with the Standing Advisory Committee including the filing of documents, must be made through Planning Panels Victoria at [email protected]

Before the Hearing

Update to witnesses

10. All Parties must provide details of all representation and evidence to be called (by whom and in what field). Further, provide the breakdown and order of submissions and witnesses if their case exceeds one business day by Wednesday 24 February 2021.

Unaccompanied Site inspection

11. (COVID permitting), the Committee will undertake an unaccompanied site inspection on Thursday 11 March 2021.

12. Parties are to advise the Committee of any sites it considers necessary for the Committee to inspect by Error! Use the Home tab to apply AA Doc Time reference to the text that you want to appear here. on Friday 26 February 2021, noting the Committee is not able to enter private property. For ease of arrangements, it is preferable that sites nominated are publicly accessible. The nomination of sites for inspection must be provided in writing to the Committee through Ms Thomas at [email protected]

13. The Proponent must provide a finalised site inspection itinerary with acompanying maps to Planning Panels Victoria by 4.00pm on Tuesday 9 March 2021.

Documentation

14. All documents should be provided electronically to [email protected].

15. Hard copy materials should only be provided in exceptional circumstances or where parties do not have access to the required technology or the internet.

16. The Committee will not circulate material to parties on a distribution list, rather all material will be uploaded to the Committees Engage Victoria webpage: https://engage.vic.gov.au/dalsac

Opening submissions:

DELWP:

17. Must circulate its opening submission by 2.00pm on Tuesday, 9 March 2021.

Note: The opening submission will be taken as read by the Committee at the Hearing. The Proponent should allow time for questions about its opening submission by the Committee on Day 1.

18. The following listed parties are invited to make a Day 1 opening submission and must file this by 2.00pm on Friday 12 March 2021 if they wish to take that offer up. These will be undertaken in accordance with the following timeframes (noting at the Directions Hearing, the Chair indicated 30 minutes for all, except Minister for Planning/DELWP, however those timeframes were not able to be accommodated within the Hearing day, so have been modified):

Day 1 Opening:

a) Minister for Planning/DELWP – 60 minutes

b) Surf Coast Shire Council – 30 minutes

c) City of Greater Geelong – 30 minutes

d) Christian College Geelong – 20 minutes





Directions: Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Standing Advisory Committee: Surf Coast

Page 2 of 3

OFFICIAL OFFICIAL

e) DF Sprague Farm Developments Pty Ltd and The Camerons/DFC Services Pty Ltd – 20 minutes

f) Zeally Investments Pty Ltd and Duffeilds Road Pty Ltd – 20 minutes

g) Mack Property Development Group Pty Ltd – 20 minutes

h) 3228 Residents Association Inc. – 20 minutes

i) Greater Torquay Alliance – 20 minutes

j) Surfrider Foundation Australia/Surf Coast Branch – 20 minutes

Expert Witness reports

19. All expert witness reports must:

a) comply with the PPV Guide to Expert Evidence (April 2019) (https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/panels-and-committees/planning-panel-guides)

b) refer to any individual submitter by their submission number, not their name

c) be provided to the Committee as an unlocked document

d) provide a declaration at the time of giving evidence in accordance with the PPV Direction for witnesses providing expert evidence through remote conferencing (https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0030/489117/G11-Expert-witness-declaration-for-video-conferencing.pdf)

20. DELWP must file its expert witness reports with Planning Panels Victoria by 2.00pm on Tuesday, 2 March 2021

21. All other Parties must provide expert witness reports to Planning Panels Victoria by 4.00pm on Friday, 5 March 2021.

22. Any party may file responses to ‘like’ evidence (that is, within the same area of expertise) with Planning Panels Victoria by 2.00pm on Tuesday, 9 March 2021.

At the Hearing

Hearing Arrangements

23. The Hearing will run for 6 – 8 weeks by video conference

24. Further details regarding these arrangements, and the video conference link will be provided to all parties and published on the Committee’s Engage Victoria webpage by Tuesday, 9 March 2021.

Recording Hearings and use of personal information

25. Parties must not record any part of the hearing.

26. The video conference Hearing will be recorded as audio only. Recordings will be progressively uploaded to the Committees Engage Victoria webpage.

27. Parties must not publish or distribute video conference recordings, or to use it for any purpose other than for the Hearing.

28. Parties must not record, keep, distribute or publish contact details of any other party obtained in the course of an electronic hearing, or to use those contact details for any purpose other than for the Hearing.

Cross Examination

29. All parties and submitters who seek put questions to one or more witnesses must be present for the giving of that evidence and must advise of that intent when each relevant witness is called. Priority will be given to parties or submitters who have filed like evidence.

https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/panels-and-committees/planning-panel-guides

https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0030/489117/G11-Expert-witness-declaration-for-video-conferencing.pdf

https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0030/489117/G11-Expert-witness-declaration-for-video-conferencing.pdf

Directions: Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Standing Advisory Committee: Surf Coast

Page 3 of 3

OFFICIAL OFFICIAL

Other information

30. Parties must provide any written material it intends to rely upon to Planning Panels Victoria by 2.00pm the preceding business day to their submission.

31. All information presented at the Hearing is a public document unless the Committee directs otherwise.

32. Many submitters indicated they wished to be heard but did not provide a time. Some of these may have ticked the box in error, so Planning Panels Victoria will be contacting those submitters not included on the timetable separately to confirm if they wished to be heard.

33. Planning Panels Victoria will prepare and provide a guide to participating in this Hearing which will be of benefit to community submitters. This will be made available before 15 March 2021.

34. Planning Panels Victoria will not be updating any party or submitter with information by email, all future contact will be by the Engage Victoria website at https://engage.vic.gov.au/dalsac


Timetable Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Standing Advisory Committee – Surf Coast

OFFICIAL

Timetable Version 1: 17 February 2021

Day 1: Monday 15 March 2021 - Opening submissions

Convened by videoconference

Time Party Sub No Allocated

10.00am – 10.30am Preliminary matters 30 mins

10.30am – 11.30am Opening submissions – Minister for Planning, represented by Marita Foley SC and Marissa Chorn, instructed by Victorian Government Solicitors Office

60 mins

11.30am – 11.45am Break 15 mins

11.45am – 12.15pm Opening submissions – Surf Coast Shire Council, represented by Louise Hicks and Natalie Blok of Counsel, instructed by Karen Hose of Council

3050 30 mins

12.15pm – 12.45pm Opening submissions – City of Greater Geelong, represented by Peter Smith and Jami Chalmers of Council

742 30 mins

12.45pm – 1.05pm Opening submissions - Christian College Geelong, represented by Greg Tobin of Harwood Andrews

2837 20 mins

1.05pm – 2.05pm Lunch Break 1 hour

2.05pm – 2.25pm Opening submissions - DF (Sprague Farm) Developments Pty Ltd and The Camerons/DFC Services Pty Ltd, represented by Christopher Townshend QC and Paul Chiappi of Counsel, instructed by Planning and Property Partners

2784, 2966

20 mins

2.25pm – 2.45pm Opening submissions – Zeally Investments and Duffield Road Pty Ltd, represented by Stuart Morris QC and Geoff Lake of Counsel, instructed by best Hooper Lawyers

20 mins

2.45pm – 3.05pm Opening submissions - Mack Property Development Group Pty Ltd, represented by Paul Chiappi of Counsel, instructed by Norton Rose Fulbright

2967 20 mins

3.05pm – 3.20pm Break 15 mins

3.20pm – 3.40pm Opening submissions – 3228 Residents Association Inc. represented by Andrew Cherubin

2760 20 mins

3.40pm – 4.00pm Opening submissions – Greater Torquay Alliance, represented by Joanne Lardner of Counsel, instructed by Darren Noyes-Brown

2805 20 mins

4.00pm – 4.20pm Opening submissions – Surfrider Foundation Australia/Surf Coast Branch, represented by Damien Cole and John Foss

2763, 2953

20 mins

Timetable Version 1: 17 February 2021: Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Standing Advisory Committee- Surf Coast

Page 2 of 14

Day 2: Tuesday 16 March 2021 - Proponent



10.00am – 10.15am Preliminary matters

10.15am – 11.15am Minister for Planning, represented by Marita Foley SC and Marissa Chorn, instructed by Victorian Government Solicitors Office, calling evidence from:

- Claire Scott of Claire Scott Planning in landscape character and values

- Kevin Hazell of KH Planning Services in bushfire risk assessment

- Tim Fletcher of the University of Melbourne in hydrological assessment

- Mark Woodland of Echelon in strategic planning and landscape character

NOTE: the breakdown of the order of witnesses for relevant days will be provided in a Version 2 timetable.

Day 1 of 6


2.00pm – 4.30pm Minister for Planning, cont

Day 3: Wednesday 17 March 2021 - Proponent



10.00am – 10.15am Preliminary matters

10.15am – 1.00pm Minister for Planning, cont Day 2 of 6



Day 4: Thursday 18 March 2021 - Proponent








Page 3 of 14

Day 5: Monday 22 March 2021 - Proponent







Day 6: Tuesday 23 March 2021 – Proponent







Day 7: Wednesday 24 March 2021 – Proponent








Page 4 of 14

Day 8: Thursday 25 March 2021 - Councils and Government




10.15am – 11.15am Surf Coast Shire Council, represented by Louise Hicks and Natalie Blok of Counsel

3050 2 hours


11.30am – 12.30pm Surf Coast Shire Council, cont


1.30pm – 3.00pm City of Greater Geelong, represented by Peter Smith and Jami Chalmers

742 1.5 hours


3.15pm – 3.45pm Macedon Ranges Shire Council, represented by Edward Irvine

3161 30 mins

3.45pm – 4.15pm Department of Transport, Barwon South West Region, represented by David Fari

2742 30 mins

4.15pm – 4.45pm Andy Meddick MP 3058 30 mins

Day 9: Monday 29 March 2021




10.15am – 10.35am Intrapac Properties, represented by David Hodge 2691 20 mins

10.35am – 10.45am Willana Urban Pty Ltd, represented by Stuart Harding

2800 10 mins

10.45am – 11.05am Landholdings South of Grossmans Road, represented by Cameron Gray of St Quentin Consulting

2065 20 mins

11.05am – 11.20am Wilcon Projects Pty Ltd, represented by Kris Wilson 2723 15 mins


11.35am – 12.05pm Heather Grossman, represented by Kings Lawyers 2806 30 mins

12.05pm – 12.35pm 555 Great Ocean Road, represented by John Carey of Minter Ellison Lawyers

3093 30 mins

12.35pm – 1.05pm Purdies Paddock Pty Ltd, represented by John Carey of Minter Ellison Lawyers

3121 30 mins


2.05pm – 3.05pm Land Development Consulting Pty Ltd, represented by Mark Tomkinson

2866 60 mins


Page 5 of 14


3.20pm – 3.50pm Urban Development Institute of Australia (Victorian Division), represented by Greg Bursill

3002 30 mins

3.50pm – 3.55pm Roslyn Griffiths 1128 5 mins

3.55pm – 4.00pm Margaret Dawson 1784 5 mins

Day 10: Tuesday 30 March 2021




10.15am – 1.00pm Mennoty Pty Ltd, represented by Sarah North of Reeds Consulting, evidence to be confirmed

491 3 hours


2.00pm – 3.00pm Lyndal and Justin Littleford 2174 60 mins


3.15pm – 3.45pm Vincent and Marie Kelly, represented by Chris Marshall of Cardno

2109 30 mins

Day 11: Wednesday 31 March 2021




10.15am – 1.00pm Boral Recycling Facility Pty Ltd, represented by Judy McKittrock and Stephen Hafer of Boral, calling evidence from:

- Alan Wyatt of XURBAN in landscape and visual

2429 3 hours


2.00pm – 4.30pm Christian College Geelong, represented by Greg Tobin of Harwood Andrews

2837 2.5 hours


Page 6 of 14

Day 12: Wednesday 7 April 2021




10.15am – 1.00pm Mack Property Development Group, represented by Paul Chiappi of Counsel, instructed by Norton Rose Fulbright, calling evidence from:

- David Crowder of Ratio Consultants in planning

- Aaron Harvey of Biosis in ecology/biodiversity

- Steve Schutt of Hansen Partnership in landscape

2697 1.5 days


2.00pm – 4.30pm Mack Property Development Group, cont 2697

Day 13: Thursday 8 April 2021




10.15am – 1.00pm Mack Property Development Group, cont 2697 3 hours

Day 14: Friday 9 April 2021




10.15am – 1.00pm Fortress Holdings Pty Ltd, represented by Chris Wren QC of Counsel, with Matthew Allen Solicitor, instructed by Cameron Gray of St Quentin Consulting, calling evidence from:

Alan Wyatt of XURBAN in landscape

1463 4 hours


2.00pm – 3.00pm Fortress Holdings Pty Ltd, cont 1463


Page 7 of 14

Day 15: Monday 12 April 2021




10.15am – 1.00pm DF (Sprague Farm) Developments Pty Ltd and The Camerons/DFC Services Pty Ltd, represented by Christopher Townshend QC and Paul Chiappi of Counsel, instructed by Planning and Property Partners, calling evidence from:

- Rob Milner of Kinetica in strategic planning

- Craig Czarny of Hansen Partnership in landscape design

- Steve Schutt of Hansen Partnership in landscape visual impacts

2784, 2966

1 day


2.00pm – 4.30pm DF (Sprague Farm) Developments Pty Ltd, cont 2784, 2966

Day 16: Tuesday 13 April 2021




10.15am – 1.00pm Rural Estates (Torquay) Pty Ltd, represented by Christopher Townshend QC and Emily Porter of Counsel, instructed by Planning Property Partners

2848 1 day


2.00pm – 4.30pm Rural Estates (Torquay) Pty Ltd, cont 2848





10.15am – 1.00pm MAKE ventures, represented by Emily Porter of Counsel, instructed by Planning Property Partners, calling evidence from:

- Steve Schutt of Hansen Partnership on landscape and visual impacts

2824 4 hours


2.00pm – 3.00pm MAKE ventures, cont. 2824


Page 8 of 14





10.15am – 1.00pm Zeally Investments Pty and Duffields Road Pty Ltd, represented by Stuart Morris QC and Geoff Lake of Counsel, instructed by John Cicero and Eliza Minney of Best Hooper Lawyers, calling evidence from:

- Rob Milner of Kinetica in strategic planning

- Justin Ganly of Deep End Services in economic

- Steve Mueck of Biosis in biodiversity and cultural heritage

2884 1 of 2 days


2.00pm – 4.30pm Zeally Investments Pty and Duffields Road Pty Ltd, cont

2884





10.15am – 11.15am Zeally Investments Pty and Duffields Road Pty Ltd, cont

2884 2 of 2 days


2.00pm – 4.30pm Zeally Investments Pty and Duffields Road Pty Ltd, cont

2884





10.15am – 12.30pm Anseed Pty Ltd, represented by Stuart Morris QC of Counsel, calling evidence from:

- Nevan Wadeson of Tract in planning

2795 2 hours

12.30pm – 1.30pm Lunch 1 hour

1.30pm – 2.30pm Torquay Museum without walls, represented by Christine Barr, calling evidence from:

- Cheryl Bauch, Spencer Leighton and Jennifer Bantow on local history

2693 60 mins


Page 9 of 14

2.30pm – 2.40pm Torquay and District Landcare, represented by Caitlin Stuart and Lesley Evans

2817 10 mins

2.40pm – 3.00pm Tea break 20 mins

3.00pm – 3.10pm Breamlee Coast Care, represented by Pam St Leger and Ann O’Connor

2827 10 mins

3.10pm – 3.20pm Rewilding Freshwater Creek, represented by Mary Rose Alma Coleman

423 10 mins

3.20pm – 3.40pm Surfrider Foundation Australia, represented by Damien Cole

2763 20 mins

3.40pm – 3.55pm Surfrider Foundation Surf Coast Branch, represented by John Foss

2953 15 mins

3.55pm – 4.10pm Surfers Appreciating the Natural Environment, represented by Charles Brooks

2580 15 mins

4.10pm – 4.15pm The Spirit of the Ocean, represented by Camm Strutt

1689 5 mins

4.15pm – 4.20pm Tabitha Lowden Photography, represented by Tabitha Lowden

2843 5 mins

4.20pm – 4.40pm Bellbrae Estate, represented by Richard Macdougall

1732 20 mins

4.40pm – 4.50pm Plastic Wise Torquay, represented by Robert Skehan

347 10 mins





10.15am – 1.00pm Greater Torquay Alliance, represented by Joanne Lardner of Counsel, instructed by Darren-Noyes Brown

2805 3 hours


2.00pm – 2.30pm Geelong Environment Council, represented by Joan Lindros

2911 30 mins

2.30pm – 4.30pm 3228 Residents Group Inc, represented by Andrew Cherubin and Sue O’Shannasy

2760 2 hours


Page 10 of 14





10.15am – 1.00pm Surf Coast Energy Group, representation to be advised, instructed by Graeme Stockton, calling evidence from:

- Mark Trengrove of Ecological Services in flora, fauna and planning

- Guy Dutson in fauna and planning

- Stephen Prendergast in social research

2791 1 day


2.00pm – 4.30pm Surf Coast Energy Group, cont 2791





10.15am – 12.15pm David O’Brien, represented by Paul Connor SC 2733 2 hours


1.15pm – 1.25pm Geoffrey Fulton 1119 10 mins

1.25pm – 1.35pm Peter Ashton 1747 10 mins

1.35pm – 1.45pm John Foss 2421 10 mins

1.45pm – 1.55pm Simon Loone 2514 10 mins

1.55pm – 2.05pm Jeff Hausler 2555 10 mins

2.05pm – 2.10pm Peter Donelley 2809 10 mins

2.10pm – 2.20pm David and Glennis Branagh 2898 10 mins

2.20pm – 2.30pm Dale Tepper 2920 10 mins


2.45pm – 3.00pm David Merritt 2592 15 mins

3.00pm – 3.15pm Andrew Townley 2875 15 mins

3.15pm – 3.30pm Sue O’Shanassy 2997 15 mins

3.30pm – 3.45pm Peter Brighton 3047 15 mins

3.45pm – 4.00pm Stephen Prendergast 3063 15 mins

4.00pm – 4.15pm William Welsh 3096 15 mins


Page 11 of 14





10.15am – 10.20am Francis Swain 30 All 5 mins

10.20am – 10.25am Brieuc Wilmart 151

10.25am – 10.30am Michael Baker 161

10.30am – 10.35am Fiona Tabart 186

10.35am – 10.40am Geoffrey Collins 422

10.40am – 10.45am Matthew Benson 463

10.45am – 10.50am Kelli Lavelle 474

10.50am – 10.55am Jacob Chaplin 494

10.55am – 11.00am Courtney Roosje 511

11.00am – 11.05am Richard Muntz 514

11.05am – 11.10am John Teague 542

11.10am – 11.15am Marie-claire Marks 550


11.30am – 11.35am Rodney Foord 634

11.35am – 11.40am Lawrence St Leger 635

11.40am – 11.45am Peter Donelly 641

11.45am – 11.50am Roman Goeppert 642

11.50am – 11.55am David Green 652

11.55am – 12noon Adriana Carrington 673

12noon – 12.05pm Kayla Perry 744

12.05pm – 12.10pm Glenys and John Jardine 798

12.10pm – 12.15pm Diethard Kottek 872

12.15pm – 12.20pm Cormac Hanrahan 886

12.20pm – 12.25pm Perry Mills 909

12.25pm – 12.30pm Celia Bolton 916

12.30pm – 12.35pm Patricia Contessotto 942

12.35pm – 12.40pm Bruce Anderson 968

12.40pm – 12.45pm Darcy Kelleher 987

12.45pm – 12.50pm Phil Roache 1068

12.50pm – 12.55pm Zeb Walsh 1086


Page 12 of 14

12.55pm – 1.00pm Elizabeth Hamilton 1136


2.00pm – 2.05pm William Shaw 1159

2.05pm – 2.10pm Phillip Stammers

2.10pm – 2.15pm Brian Kuit 1245

2.15pm – 2.20pm Karan Dawson 1278

2.20pm – 2.25pm Graeme Stockton 1282

2.25pm – 2.30pm Grant Norris 1283

2.30pm – 2.35pm Charles Brooks 1306

2.35pm – 2.40pm Jacqueline Dunlop 1356

2.40pm – 2.45pm Andrew McCauley 1465

2.45pm – 2.50pm Alexis March 1566

2.55pm – 3.00pm Vicki Ryan 1608

3.00pm – 3.05pm Margot Hobba 1622

3.05pm – 3.10pm Peter Miller 1656

3.10pm – 3.15pm Brigid Papaix 1767


3.30pm – 3.35pm Cassandra Curnow 1875

3.35pm – 3.40pm Ann Bullen 1910

3.40pm – 3.45pm Alison Deane 1936

3.45pm – 3.50pm Kaitlin Lowden 2091

3.50pm – 3.55pm Peter Currie 2243

3.55pm – 4.00pm Matthew Pattulock 2244

4.00pm – 4.05pm John Spierings 2382

4.05pm – 4.10pm Peter Griffiths 2388

4.10pm – 4.15pm Patrick Murnane 2399

4.15pm – 4.20pm A Naylor 2482

4.20pm – 4.35pm Mark Stockdale 2561


Page 13 of 14





10.15am – 10.20am Anita Barnacle 2715 All 5 mins

10.20am – 10.25am Ian Anderson 2734

10.25am – 10.30am Gary Dunne 2743

10.30am – 10.35am Ronald Lowe 2753

10.35am – 10.40am Matt Fox 2759

10.40am – 10.45am Emma Barr 2773

10.45am – 10.50am David Attard 2776

10.50am – 10.55am Jacquelle Gorski 2788

10.55am – 11.00am Michelle Wright 2789

11.00am – 11.05am David Bell 2802

11.05am – 11.10am Robert Bullen 2813

11.10am – 11.15am Richy Bennett 2822


11.30am – 11.35am Cherry Nuguid 2825

11.35am – 11.40am Roger Thomson 2838

11.40am – 11.45am Andrew Smith 2962

11.45am – 11.50am Jan Calaby 3046

11.50am – 11.55am David Turnbull 3128

11.55am – 12noon Celia Clarke 265

12noon – 12.05pm Daryl Leslie Mahon 1005

12.05pm – 12.10pm Phillip Ronald Stammers 1221

12.10pm – 12.15pm Melissa O’Neill 1505

12.15pm – 12.20pm Debra Beaton 167


1.30pm – 4.00pm Remainder of day held for submitters that need to confirm times


Page 14 of 14





10.15am – 11.15am Closing submissions – Surf Coast Shire Council 3050 60 mins


11.30am – 12.30pm Closing submissions – City of Greater Geelong 742 60 mins

12.30pm - 1.30pm Lunch Break 1 hour

1.30pm – 4.30pm Closing submissions – Minister for Planning 3 hours

**End of Hearing**

Hearing Timetable Notes:

1. The Committee may amend the timetable without notice.

2. Please log into the videoconference platform at least 15 to 20 minutes before your scheduled commencement time.

3. Time will be made for morning and afternoon breaks each day if it is not specified.

4. If you are unable to be present at your scheduled time, please contact Planning Panels Victoria as soon as possible.

5. If you have any questions about the timetable, please contact Ms Thomas of Planning Panels Victoria at [email protected]


Expert Witnesses

April 2019

Introduction An expert witness has specialised knowledge from training, study or experience. A Panel may rely on that specialised knowledge to form an opinion about an issue that is relevant to the Hearing. Generally more weight will be given to expert evidence that is independent.

This Guide applies to: • instructing an expert witness preparing expert evidence • the preparation of the expert’s evidence • the presentation of the evidence at the Hearing • questioning (‘cross examination’) of an expert witness.

The Guide explains what happens when an expert witness is to be called at a Hearing. A Panel may make specific Directions that vary this Guide.

Parties calling an expert witness must make sure that the expert is made aware of this guide when they are retained.

Expert witness' duty to the Panel An expert witness:

• has a paramount duty to the Panel • has an overriding duty to assist the Panel on matters relevant to the expert's expertise • is not an advocate for a party • must not withhold material matters known to the witness even if it may be unfavourable to a

particular party.

The expert witness statement An expert witness preparing a written statement for a Hearing must do so in accordance with this Guide. The statement must include:

• the expert’s name and address • the expert’s qualifications, experience and area of expertise • details of any other significant contributors to the statement (if there are any), and their expertise • all instructions that define the scope of the statement (original and supplementary and whether in

writing or verbal) • details and qualifications of any person who carried out any tests or experiments upon which the

expert has relied in preparing the statement.

All experts must declare in their statements:

‘I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Panel.’

Planning Panels Victoria | Expert witnesses

Page 2

Sometimes, an expert witness may have prepared an earlier report or advice that informed the Planning Scheme Amendment or proposal under consideration by the Panel. In these circumstances, the expert should not provide a revised version of that report. Instead, the expert’s witness statement should include:

• a clear reference to the earlier report(s) • details of the expert’s role in preparing or overseeing the earlier report(s) • confirmation that the expert adopts the earlier report(s) and identifying:

- any key assumptions made in preparing the earlier report(s) - any departure from findings or opinion expressed in the earlier report(s), and why - any questions falling outside the expert's expertise - whether the earlier report is incomplete or inaccurate in any respect

• details of any changed circumstances or assumptions since the earlier report(s) were prepared, and whether these affect the opinions expressed in the earlier report(s).

Where the expert was not involved in the preparation of earlier reports or advice that informed the Planning Scheme Amendment or proposal, the expert’s statement should include:

• the facts, matters and assumptions on which the expert relies in preparing the statement • reference to documents and materials the expert has used in preparing the statement • a summary of the expert’s opinion(s), including provisional opinions.

Where the expert materially changes their opinion An expert witness who changes their opinion on a material matter after the circulation of evidence must communicate that change in writing to the Panel and all parties to the Hearing and explain why their opinion has changed.

Privacy Expert witness reports are usually published on a website. They are also available to all parties to a proceeding. An expert witness statement should not refer to submitters by name. Where necessary, submitters should be referenced by submission number.

Expert witnesses should inform themselves of their obligations under the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014. Personal information contained in submissions should be used in accordance with the principles in the Act.

For more information on Privacy refer to the separate Guide to Privacy at Planning Panels Victoria.

Form of statement Expert witness statements must be provided in the following form.

All copies

Witness statements and any supporting information must: • be prepared at A4 page size, unless otherwise directed • use a black, 12 point font (Arial or Calibri preferred) • have numbered paragraphs and pages.

Maps, images or plans must be at a high-definition resolution of at least 600 pixels per inch.


Page 3

Electronic copies

An electronic version of a document must be less than 10MB in size and provided to: • parties on the distribution list in accordance with the Panel’s Direction • the Panel in unlocked ‘pdf’ or Microsoft Word format • the Planning Authority in a format suitable for uploading to its website.

Paper copies

Paper copies of evidence are generally not required. Where the Panel directs a paper copy, each document must be:

• two-hole punched • stapled, not bound • printed on both sides of each page.

Maps, images or plans may be printed at A3 and be folded within the report so they can be read without being removed.

Circulation of expert reports Parties must confirm at the Directions Hearing any evidence they will be calling at the Public Hearing.

Expert reports must be circulated five working days before the Hearing starts or as directed by the Panel.

People not on the evidence circulation list can obtain electronic copies by contacting the Panel Co-ordinator on 8392 5115.

Directions relating to expert witnesses The Panel may direct that expert witnesses address certain matters in their evidence, to enable all parties to gain a clear understanding of the basis of evidence to be presented. Examples include a response to specific questions asked by the Panel, or to explain the methodology, assumptions and inputs that contributed to the expert’s assessment.

Expert meeting prior to the Hearing The Panel may direct that expert witnesses in the same technical area meet before the Hearing and prepare a statement of agreed opinions and facts.

The expert meeting is for technical experts to discuss the issues without instructors, to identify (and if possible reduce) areas of disagreement in the Hearing. This ensures a more efficient and effective process. The Panel will provide specific directions for an expert meeting where required.

Evidence at the Hearing Experts should identify any errors in their statement at the Hearing at the start of giving evidence. Witnesses should summarise key opinions in their evidence in no more than 30 minutes.

Experts can prepare a summary statement or presentation for the Hearing, but this must be drawn from the circulated evidence. Responses to other expert reports that constitute new material must be clearly identified.


Page 4

Cross examination An expert witness may be questioned by parties, advocates and the Panel. Questions put to expert witnesses must be relevant, directed to matters of fact or professional opinion, and must genuinely assist the Panel in understanding the issues. To ask questions of a witness, a party must be present for the whole of the evidence summary and questioning of the witness.

The Panel may regulate cross-examination to ensure an efficient hearing and that the cross examination remains relevant to the issues. The Panel may limit cross-examination that is not of benefit to the Panel.

Consequences of not complying with a Direction The Panel has a broad range of powers to control Hearings under Division 2, Part 8 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

It is important to comply with Directions. The consequences of a failure to comply may be significant. For example, a Panel may refuse to allow an expert to present evidence at the Hearing.

Other witnesses A range of other people with specialist expertise appear at Panels including:

• technical staff from agencies or Councils, who might make submissions in place of giving evidence • lay witnesses who may have specialist knowledge. Past examples have included business owners,

farmers and boat skippers.

These witnesses are generally not subject to cross examination but may be asked questions by the Panel or by other parties through the Chair.

Further information Further information about Planning Panels Victoria can be found at:

https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/panels-and-committees/panels-and-committees

https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/panels-and-committees/panels-and-committees

27


Appendix 2 – CV