Council Minutes - Section B: Reports 2-7 - 26 November 2013
Contents | Previous Page: Section B - Report 1 | Next Page: Section C - Notice of Motion
Contents | Previous Page: Section B - Report 1 | Next Page: Section C - Notice of Motion
Reports tabled at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on Tuesday date held at City Hall, Little Malop Street in Geelong.
Submission to Plan Melbourne - Metrolopolitan Planning Strategy
Purchace of Land for Drainage Purposes - McClelland Avenue, Lara
Portfolio: |
Planning – Cr Macdonald |
Source: |
Economic Development, Planning and Tourism – Planning Strategy |
General Manager: |
Peter Bettess |
Index Reference: |
G21 Regional Growth Plan |
To provide an overview of the development of the final G21 Regional Growth Plan – Implementation Plan including responses to community feedback and submissions on the draft Plan. The report recommends that the final Implementation Plan be endorsed.
The G21 Regional Growth Plan – draft Implementation Plan was released for community engagement and consultation for a six week period from 1st July 2013 to 9th August 2013.
The draft Implementation Plan comprised - a regional level Infrastructure Plan to support the housing and employment growth directions of the Regional Growth Plan; detailed residential and industrial land supply reports; a Strategic Housing Incentives Action Plan; and, detailed analysis of and suggested responses for the two Further Investigation Areas identified for medium to longer term growth in the Regional Growth Plan.
Consultation activities included six Open House information sessions around the region and on line surveys and polls. During the consultation period, the project website had over 4,200 visits and a similar number of document downloads.
A total of 34 written submissions, 53 polls and 20 surveys were received to the draft Plan in addition to a substantial number of participant comments captured at Open Houses.
Overall the response to consultation activities and the draft plan was positive. The submissions and feedback received focused primarily on projects identified in the Infrastructure Plan and provided a range of views relating to the suggestions, extent and timing of the Further Investigation Areas.
The draft Implementation Plan was revised in response to a number of submissions, following further discussions with project partners and infrastructure providers and to address a range of subsequent infrastructure announcements and recently released strategies.
The final Implementation Plan has been approved by the Project Steering Group for consideration by Councils and, consistent with the approved governance and reporting procedures, is now being presented to the five G21 Councils for endorsement.
The Implementation Plan is primarily an infrastructure planning advocacy document for G21 and a planning tool for Councils and service agencies. It makes a range of suggestions for consideration and does make recommendations on key local planning decisions that are appropriately those of individual Councils.
Cr Macdonald moved Cr Heagney seconded -
That Council endorses the G21 Regional Growth Plan – Implementation Plan October 2013.
Carried.
Amendment C246 has been prepared by the Greater Geelong City Council which is the planning authority for this Amendment. In August 2012 the five G21 Councils adopted the G21 Regional Growth Plan (Growth Plan) which provided a planning framework for the management the region’s growth to 500,000+ persons by 2050. The Plan seeks to direct growth to the identified Structure Plan growth and infill areas of urban Geelong and eight District Towns and areas (Bannockburn, Colac, Drysdale Clifton Springs, Lara, Leopold, Ocean Grove, Torquay/Jan Juc and Armstrong Creek) ahead of other sewered towns and longer term growth areas or Further Investigation Areas (FIAs) located to the north and west of Geelong.
The Growth Plan was launched by the Minister for Planning without change in April 2013 and is awaiting planning scheme implementation. The Plan was led by G21 (a Planning and Services Pillar project) in partnership with state government (as the key funder and manager of seven other Regional Growth Plans), VicRoads, Barwon Water, Corangamite Catchment Management Authority and Committee for Geelong. The Growth Plan identified the development of an Infrastructure Plan, detailed land supply analysis, identification of incentives for housing diversification in key strategic nodes and further analysis of the identified Further Investigation Areas (FIAs) adjacent to urban Geelong as priorities for an Implementation Plan.
The draft Implementation Plan was developed under the same governance and reporting structure of the Growth Plan, over a nine month period, involving extensive consultation with infrastructure providers and managers including Councils as well as other key stakeholders. Two project briefings and executive briefing processes have been previously provided to keep Council appraised of the projects development.
Implementation Plan
The G21 Regional Growth Plan – draft Implementation Plan was released for public comment on the 1st July 2013 for a six week period ending on the 9th August 2013.
Following consideration of submissions and feedback and after making a number of document changes the final Implementation Plan was approved by the Project Steering Group on the 28 October 2013. It’s now being presented to each of the G21 Councils for consideration.
The Implementation Plan is supported by:
a detailed Background Report including project methodology, project context, detailed analysis and supporting data. The report includes extensive analysis of the two FIAs and identifies a range of issues and challenges including those associated with too many growth fronts/over supply of land;
five residential land supply reports (one for each municipality) and four industrial land supply reports. These reports identify land supply and supply adequacy for different residential and commercial/industrial zones at a municipal, District town and in the case of Geelong – urban Geelong and the Bellarine Peninsula. An online land supply monitoring and reporting tool which was released in late July;
a Strategic Housing Incentives Action Plan, which identifies key actions to support housing diversity and development within District Towns, identified growth areas and higher density housing nodes.
The Implementation Plan comprises three sections:
a holistic regional level Infrastructure Plan Attachment 1 – comprising around 240 infrastructure projects across five themes (Transport, Utilities, Community, Business and Tourism, Environment) that are considered critical at a regional or subregional level to drive and support the housing and employment growth directions of the Growth Plan or address major regional challenges.
Projects were identified through extensive consultation with project partners and infrastructure and service providers and through alignment with local, regional and state strategies such as council township or area Structure Plans, the G21 Public Transport Plan and Economic Development Strategy, state government’s Freight and Logistics Plan and Metropolitan Planning Strategy. Timing and infrastructure gaps were considered based on anticipated growth levels of District Towns and an understanding of infrastructure capacity. Each project was analysed to establish levels of economic, social and environmental benefit, regional impact and level of commitment or project business case development. This has informed critical projects and priorities. All projects are represented in a series of theme maps and tables indentifying status, cost and desirable deliver timeframes.
The Plan also identifies critical projects for the region such as the Great Ocean Road and link road upagerades, Geelong Ring Road and rail freight connections to Geelong Port and the GREP, Avalon Airport precinct development and rail link as well as a number of further work priorities;
Land supply and strategic housing incentives - The residential and industrial land supply reports identify healthy levels of zoned land supply and future supply (as yet unzoned) around the region and within District Towns as well as urban Geelong and the Bellarine Peninsula based on current growth projections and housing activity.
Centre |
Zoned |
Unzoned |
|
Geelong LGA |
18 |
14 |
|
Urban Geelong |
16 |
13 |
|
Bellarine Peninsula |
23 |
14 |
|
Bannockburn |
13 |
25 |
|
Colac |
18 |
- |
|
Torquay/Jan Juc |
13 |
9 |
|
Winchelsea |
8 |
8 |
Based on a typical measure of zoned supply adequacy of 15 years only Bannockburn and Torquay require structure plan identified unzoned supply to be brought forward in the short term. A structure plan for Winchelsea will identify future supply stocks to meet its growth potential. From an industrial land supply perspective most centres have sufficient zoned or future zoned supply stocks. Low levels of supply for Bannockburn are being met through rezoning processes and identification of future capacity at Gheringhap.
A range of regional, District Town and strategic area (such as central Geelong, Fyans - West Fyans precinct) incentives and actions have been identified ranging from critical infrastructure provision and coordination to enable land release, to rate incentives, post code campaigns and investment promotion.
Planning for longer term growth – comprising a detailed analysis of the two FIAs identified for medium to longer term growth to the north and west of urban Geelong.
The Plan identifies the opportunities and constraints associated with both FIA locations in terms of suitability for future housing and makes suggestions as to how to maximise the community and economic opportunities and manage site challenges such as traffic, integration, infrastructure provision and environment.
The Plan identifies the need to balance sufficient supply of housing land to maintain affordability and reasonable level of choice with the risks of too many growth fronts and an oversupply of land which include:
spreading of infrastructure demands resulting in provision lags across multiple areas;
higher cost of infrastructure provision resulting in higher housing costs and service pricing passed on to the community;
impacts on current community infrastructure needs, priorities and commitments and funding capacity.
The Plan includes suggestions relating to achieving more sustainable communities and urban outcomes, managing interfaces, infrastructure planning, housing diversity and development staging, timing and future planning and policy development steps.
Based on existing and strategically (Structure Plan) identified land supply in Geelong in addition to infill housing capacity, and a development sequencing strategy linked to the efficient and affordable provision of future infrastructure the Plan suggests that:
neither of the FIAs is required for 20 years based on current land supply levels. This is qualified by the need to regularly monitor land supply take to ensure supply levels are responsive to changes in growth rates;
that one FIA be developed before the other;
that the City of Greater Geelong, not the Implementation Plan, should determine the priority FIA;
planning policy is needed to identify the roles of the FIAs and to ensure interim land use proposals do not compromise their medium to longer term strategic outcomes.
Consultation and feedback
During the consultation period on the draft Implementation Plan and supporting documents approximately 80 community members attended one of six Open Houses around the region and the project website received over 4000 visits with over 2500 project documents downloaded. In addition to the extensive feedback from the Open Houses, 33 written submissions were received as well as 53 completed polls and 20 completed surveys. Generally submissions and feedback received were positive about the collaborative and holistic nature of the project as well as the quality and extent of reports, engagement materials and Open House presentations.
The key issues identified in written submissions (refer Attachment 2), and generally reflected in poll, survey and Open House responses were focused on:
The Infrastructure Plan, including extent of projects, seeking project clarification or addition of new projects, seeking improved public transport outcomes. Submissions were received from agencies, service providers, local and state government including DTPLI, DEECD, CCMA, APA Group, Wyndham City, representative groups such as PTUA, Bicycle Users Geelong, GORCC, Queenscliff Community Association and Geelong Port;
The FIAs, including; extent of the Northern FIA (with a number of submissions seeking to extend the FIA north to Hams Road or opposite Barwon Prison); seeking support for rezoning of Lovely Banks area now; specific elements of the analysis being amended; amending directions around staging of the Western FIA; removing the strategy of one FIA being developed before the other; and removing development timing link to land supply triggers. In addition to land owner consultant submissions, submissions from Committee for Geelong, UDIA and Geelong Chamber of Commerce reiterated concerns around timing.
No submissions were received to the Strategic Housing Incentives Action Plan and only 3 submissions received relating to land supply reports (Geelong Residential Land Supply report) which related to suburb boundary differentiation and clarification of mapping interpretation rather than any significant commentary on the relative merits, methodology or validity of the data.
A number of submissions reflected on issues that were either outside the project scope (including local level issues or issues around environmental protection and management) or already addressed in the Growth Plan (i.e role of agricultural land, the case for or against growth) or other strategies such as the G21 Economic Development Strategy (role of SME’s, specific economic development strategies). In some cases submissions were forwarded to other project partners for local follow up or in the case of specific public transport projects the team managing the G21 Public Transport Plan.
Responses to feedback and key document changes:
More detailed responses to individual submissions can be viewed in Attachment 2.
A number of changes have been included in the Infrastructure Plan including:
additional project commentary and clarification in both the Background Report and Implementation Plan particularly in the Transport theme;
general infrastructure theme commentary particularly in the Transport (PTUA, DTPLI, BUG) and Environment themes (GORC, CCMA).
While a number of changes to the FIAs analysis and directions have been made including clarifying analysis, additional commentary around logical extensions to notional boundaries and staging and removal of summary of FIA differences the following key elements remain:
timeframe for FIAs – the commentary around a 20 year time frame for the need of an FIA is based on a detailed understanding of land supply and infrastructure needs, priorities and funding implications and an understanding that land supply should be regularly monitored to ensure that it keeps pace with changing growth rates (up or down). This suggestion is not trying to curtail growth opportunities but merely reflect current and forecast growth rate activity. The FIAs provide the opportunity to accommodate longer term growth or a high growth scenario in the short to medium term. The specific wording has been amended to confirm that the FIAs have a medium to longer term role based on current land supply levels in existing and identified (Structure Plan) and current growth activity neither of these sites are likely to be required for up to 20 years. This is qualified by the need to regularly monitor land supply take up, availability and adequacy to ensure supply levels are responsive to changes in growth rates or major changes in planning policy direction such as the Metropolitan Planning Strategy;
one area should be developed before the other – there are significant infrastructure cost and provision implications of two FIAs being developed at once that substantially outweigh competition factors.
A number of other document changes have been made to the draft Plan including:
Updating references to recently released strategies including the Victorian Freight and Logistics Plan, the Geelong Port and Land Infrastructure Plan and Metropolitan Planning Strategy, Great Ocean Road Destination Management Plan and recent directions relating to the Health and Wellbeing Plan, G21 Public Transport Strategy and commentary about the State of Australian Cities 2013 report;
Updating specific projects descriptions or timing including Geelong Northern Suburbs Community Hospital;
Including new projects such as the Winchelsea and Bannockburn Community Health Centres following conversations with Hesse Rural Health, Winchelsea Station upagerades, Fort Queenscliff project and identifying a Lake Colac Precinct Masterplan and Batesford Quarry Lake as future projects;
Consolidating a number of transport projects, including commentary about fast rail links and removing close to completed projects such as the Surfcoast Secondary College.
The final Implementation Plan Next steps and Review
The final Implementation Plan is now being considered for endorsement by each of the G21 Councils. Once endorsed the Implementation Plan becomes a G21 advocacy document.
It is proposed that the Implementation plan be reviewed every three years with a more regular review of Infrastructure Plan project priorities to both monitor progress and ensure the Plan is responsive to changing circumstances. It is also proposed that regular land supply monitoring be undertaken around key centres in the region. These activities are to be coordinated by the G21 Planning Services Pillar as budgets/funding permits.
The Implementation Plan includes directions for environmental infrastructure projects aimed at responding to coastal vulnerability to sea level rise and building resilience in regional, state and regional parks and coastal reserves, major rivers and bays. The Suggestions for FIAs include promoting zero carbon, zero waste and sustainable transport outcomes.
The project was undertaken within funds remaining from the Growth Plan project. The Infrastructure plan identifies costs for major infrastructure including likely funding sources but does not commit agencies to provision within identified timeframes. Ongoing costs such as land supply updates, website hosting costs and Implementation Plan review will be subject to future budget considerations or funding submissions.
No impact to budget.
The Implementation Plan’s role is as an advocacy document and planning tool for local level strategic land and infrastructure planning and to inform future G21 Pillar projects or support the development of future planning policy. There are no legal or statutory implications associated with the Implementation Plan.
The Implementation Plan aligns with a number of elements of City Plan including Community Wellbeing (by identifying key community infrastructure to support growth and respond to key community health and wellbeing challenges and integrating with key strategies and priorities); Growing our economy (by identifying key infrastructure required to supported job diversity and growth of key economic sectors); Sustainable Built and Natural Environment (by identifying projects and growth area outcomes that build environmental resilience and minimise ecological and carbon footprints).
Officers involved in the development of the Implementation Plan or the preparation of this report do not have a direct or indirect interest in this matter.
There are no notable risks associated with the report recommendation or Implementation Plan.
There are no notable risks associated with the report recommendation or Implementation Plan.
The Implementation Plan and report have been influenced by and enhance a number of Human Rights considerations including: freedom of movement, through a focus on improving road capacity and particularly improved public transport services and active transport linkages; freedom of expression and taking part in public life, by providing a range of opportunities for the community to view, inform and make comment on the Plan; right to privacy by protecting confidentiality or release of personal information received through submissions or feedback.
The draft Plan was informed by extensive consultation with infrastructure service providers and planners and other key stakeholders. The final Plan has been informed by submissions and feedback to the draft Implementation Plan. Community engagement opportunities were promoted via direct email via partner email databases, an extensive newspaper notice campaign, media briefings, project website including online polls and surveys, targeted community and business group phone contact, social media etc. Six Open House ‘drop-in’ information sessions were held around the region, while copies of the draft plan and supporting documents and information brochures were available at council customer service centres.
|
Ref. |
Project title |
Current status |
2014-2017 |
2017-2020 |
2020-2025 |
2025-2035 |
2035-2050 |
Indicative cost $M |
Funding source |
|
|
Transport |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Road |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regional |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R1.01 |
Great Ocean Road upagerades |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
50m |
S, F |
|
|
Princes Highway upagerades |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R1.02 |
Waurn Ponds to Winchelsea duplication |
Construction |
|
|
|
|
|
220m |
S, F |
|
R1.03 |
Winchelsea to Colac duplication |
Pre-construct |
|
|
|
|
|
515m |
S, F |
|
R1.04 |
Colac to SA border safety improvements |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
50-100m |
S |
|
|
Geelong Road Road Connection to Bellarine Peninsula |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R1.05 |
Anglesea Rd to Surf Coast Hwy (Section 4C) |
Pre-construct |
|
|
|
|
|
110m |
S |
|
R1.06 |
Surf Coast Highway to Barwon Heads Road |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
60m |
S |
|
R1.07 |
Barwon Heads Road to Portarlington Road |
Feasibility |
|
|
|
|
|
200-300m |
S |
|
|
Barwon Heads Road duplication |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R1.08 |
Stage 1: Corio-Waurn Ponds Rd to Reserve Rd |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
70-140m |
S |
|
R1.09 |
Stage 2: Reserve Rd to Lower Duneed Road |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
70-100m |
S |
|
|
Anglesea Road duplication |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R1.10 |
Ring Road to Mount Duneed Road |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
17.4m |
S |
|
R1.11 |
Mt Duneed Road to Great Ocean Road treatment |
Feasibility |
|
|
|
|
|
20m |
S |
|
|
Southern link road |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R1.12 |
Anglesea Road to Surf Coast Highway |
Feasibility |
|
|
|
|
|
50-60m |
S |
|
R1.13 |
Surf Coast Highway to Barwon Heads Road |
Feasibility |
|
|
|
|
|
50-60m |
S |
|
R1.14 |
Barwon Heads Road to Barwon Heads |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
15-20m |
S |
|
|
Other projects |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R1.15 |
Surf Coast Highway widening |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
50-80m |
S |
|
R1.16 |
Midland Highway duplication to Bannockburn |
Feasibility |
|
|
|
|
|
130-160m |
S |
|
R1.17 |
Hamilton Highway upagerade to Inverleigh |
Feasibility |
|
|
|
|
|
3-4m |
S |
|
R1.18 |
Deans Marsh-Lorne Road upagerade |
Feasibility |
|
|
|
|
|
5-10m |
S |
|
|
Urban Geelong |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geelong Port-GREP-Ring freight connections |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G1.19 |
Bacchus Marsh Road duplication - South |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
18m |
S |
|
G1.20 |
Bacchus Marsh Road duplication - North |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
30-40m |
S |
|
G1.21 |
Rebuilding of Heales Road for heavy freight |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
11.5m |
L, S |
|
G1.22 |
Port access and truck route improvements |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
10m |
L, S, F |
|
G1.23 |
Geelong Port - GREP - Princes Freeway heavy vehicle link |
Concept * |
|
|
|
|
|
80-150m |
S, F |
|
|
Lara |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L1.24 |
McClelland Ave bypass and rail overpass |
Feasibility |
|
|
|
|
|
50m |
S |
|
L1.25 |
6-way intersection Forest Rd-Station Lake Rd |
Feasibility |
|
|
|
|
|
3-5m |
S |
|
L1.26 |
Forest Road South duplication |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
30-50m |
S |
|
|
Bellarine Peninsula |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P1.27 |
Drysdale bypass |
Feasibility |
|
|
|
|
|
100m |
S |
|
P1.28 |
Grubb Rd duplication Ocean Grove |
Feasibility |
|
|
|
|
|
30m |
S |
|
P1.29 |
Bellarine Hwy duplication Grubb Rd - Queenscliff |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
60-80m |
S |
|
P1.30 |
Portarlington Road upagerades Drysdale - Portarlington |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
10-15m |
S |
|
|
Southern Golden Plains |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B1.31 |
Bannockburn town centre road upagerades |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
5m |
L, S |
|
B1.32 |
Miltons Road bridge over Bruce’s Creek |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
4-6m |
L, D |
|
B1.33 |
Bannockburn heavy vehicle route |
Feasibility |
|
|
|
|
|
15-20m |
S |
|
B1.34 |
Bannockburn-Skipton (C143) road upagerade |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
1-2m |
S |
|
|
Colac |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C1.35 |
Colac-Apollo Bay road link improvements |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
30m |
S |
|
C1.36 |
Colac bypass |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
240m |
S, F |
|
C1.37 |
Access roads for timber and other industries |
Pre-construct |
|
|
|
|
|
3m |
S |
|
C1.38 |
Interior road and bridge upagerades |
Pre-construct |
|
|
|
|
|
13.5m |
L, S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rail |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regional |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R1.39 |
Regional Rail Link |
Construction |
|
|
|
|
|
5.3b |
S, F |
|
|
Torquay-Geelong Transit Link |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R1.40 |
Torquay rail link: Stage 1 to Armstrong Creek |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
70m |
S |
|
R1.41 |
Torquay rail link: Stage 2 to Torquay |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
310m |
S |
|
|
Urban Geelong |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G1.42 |
Geelong Railway Station redevelopment |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
8-10m |
S |
|
G1.43 |
North Shore station redevelopment |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
3.5m |
S, F |
|
G1.44 |
Corio station relocation and redevelopment |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
50m |
S |
|
G1.45 |
Passenger train stabling yards relocation |
Concept * |
|
|
|
|
|
200m |
S |
|
G1.46 |
Partial duplication Grovedale to Geelong |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
200-300m |
S |
|
|
Grovedale Station |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G1.47 |
Stage 1: Station construction |
Construction |
|
|
|
|
|
25m |
S |
|
G1.48 |
Stage 2: South side development |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
75m |
S, O |
|
|
Marshall Station development |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G1.49 |
Stage 1: Additional parking and access |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
3-5m |
S |
|
G1.50 |
Stage 2: Area revitalisation and parking |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
15-20m |
S, O |
|
|
Rail freight connections |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G1.51 |
Rail freight connection to GREP |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
15-20m |
S, F, O |
|
G1.52 |
Rail freight connection to Lascelles wharf |
Feasibility |
|
|
|
|
|
11m |
S, F, O |
|
G1.53 |
Rail siding and loop extensions Geelong Port |
Concept * |
|
|
|
|
|
4m |
S, F, O |
|
|
Lara |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L1.54 |
Rail link to Avalon Airport |
Feasibility |
|
|
|
|
|
300-400m |
S, F |
|
|
Bellarine Peninsula |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P1.55 |
Geelong - Drysdale rail line reinstatement |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
400-500m |
S |
|
|
Southern Golden Plains |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B1.56 |
Geelong - Ballarat passenger rail link |
Feasibility |
|
|
|
|
|
300-400m |
S |
|
B1.57 |
Bannockburn railway station infrastructure |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
5m |
S |
|
|
Winchelsea |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W1.58 |
Winchelsea railway station infrastructure |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
5m |
S |
|
W1.59 |
Moriac railway station reinstatement |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
5-10m |
S |
|
|
Colac |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C1.60 |
Colac railway station redevelopment |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
5-7m |
L, S |
|
C1.61 |
Colac rail-intermodal freight hub |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
20m |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Public Transport services |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regional |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R1.62 |
Geelong-Torquay premium bus service |
Feasibility |
|
|
|
|
|
N/A |
S |
|
R1.63 |
Services increase to Ballarat and Apollo Bay |
Feasibility |
|
|
|
|
|
N/A |
S |
|
R1.64 |
Warrnambool rail line services increase |
Feasibility |
|
|
|
|
|
N/A |
S |
|
|
Urban Geelong |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G1.65 |
Reorganisation of bus network |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
N/A |
S |
|
G1.66 |
Smartbus routes Geelong |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
4m p.a. |
S |
|
|
Bellarine Peninsula |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P1.67 |
Improvements to main trunk bus services |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
N/A |
S |
|
P1.68 |
Local buses servicing district towns |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
N/A |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active transport |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regional |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R1.69 |
Principal Cycling Connections |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
N/A |
S, F |
|
R1.70 |
Principal Pedestrian Connections |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
N/A |
L, S, F |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Utilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Water supply |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Urban Geelong |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G2.01 |
Geelong water supply upagerades |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
93m |
O, D |
|
G2.02 |
Armstrong Creek water supply system |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
31m |
O, D |
|
G2.03 |
Armstrong Creek recycled water system |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
47m |
O, D |
|
|
Lara |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L2.04 |
Lara water supply upagerades |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
13m |
O, D |
|
|
Bellarine Peninsula |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P2.05 |
Clifton Springs water supply upagerades |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
7.2m |
O, D |
|
P2.06 |
Leopold water supply upagerades |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
3.9m |
O, D |
|
P2.07 |
Ocean Grove water supply upagerades |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
26m |
O, D |
|
P2.08 |
Portarlington water supply upagerades |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
3.3m |
O, D |
|
P2.09 |
Pt Lonsdale-Queenscliff water supply upagerades |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
7.5m |
O, D |
|
|
Southern Golden Plains |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B2.10 |
Bannockburn water supply upagerades |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
19m |
O, D |
|
B2.11 |
Bannockburn recycled water augmentation |
Feasibility |
|
|
|
|
|
15-20m |
O, D |
|
B2.12 |
Inverleigh water supply upagerades |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
12m |
O, D |
|
B2.13 |
Lethbridge water supply upagerades |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
18m |
O, D |
|
B2.14 |
Potable water trunk line for intensive agriculture near Lethbridge |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
11.8m |
S, F, O |
|
B2.15 |
Gheringhap infrastructure servicing |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
2-3m |
O, D |
|
|
Torquay |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T2.16 |
Torquay water supply upagerades |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
61m |
O, D |
|
T2.17 |
Torquay recycled water upagerades |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
20m |
F, O |
|
T2.18 |
Thompson Valley water supply |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
5m |
L, O |
|
|
Winchelsea |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W2.19 |
Winchelsea water supply upagerades |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
4.3m |
O, D |
|
W2.20 |
Winchelsea water supply upagerades for additional growth |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
20m |
O, D |
|
|
Colac |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C2.21 |
Colac water supply upagerades |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
40m |
O, D |
|
C2.22 |
Apollo Bay water supply upagerades |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
26m |
O, D |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sewerage |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Urban Geelong |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G2.23 |
Geelong sewerage upagerades |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
88m |
O, D |
|
G2.24 |
Main Outfall Sewer duplication |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
82m |
O, D |
|
G2.25 |
West Fyans sewer odour control works |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
5.5m |
L, O |
|
G2.26 |
Armstrong Creek sewerage system |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
36m |
O, D |
|
|
Lara |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L2.27 |
Lara sewerage upagerades |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
24m |
O, D |
|
|
Bellarine Peninsula |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P2.28 |
Clifton Springs sewerage upagerades |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
34m |
O, D |
|
P2.29 |
Leopold sewer upagerades |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
21m |
O, D |
|
P2.30 |
Ocean Grove sewer upagerades |
131126minutes-16.jpage Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
30m |
O, D |
|
P2.31 |
Portarlington sewerage upagerades |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
26m |
O, D |
|
P2.32 |
Pt Lonsdale-Queenscliff sewerage upagerades |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
17m |
O, D |
|
|
Southern Golden Plains |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B2.33 |
Bannockburn sewerage upagerades |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
16m |
O, D |
|
|
Torquay |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T2.34 |
Torquay sewerage upagerades |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
9.3m |
O, D |
|
|
Winchelsea |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W2.35 |
Winchelsea sewerage upagerades for additional growth |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
40m |
O, D |
|
|
Colac |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C2.36 |
Colac sewerage upagerades |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
16m |
O, D |
|
C2.37 |
Apollo Bay sewerage upagerades |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
2.8m |
O, D |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stormwater drainage & flooding |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Urban Geelong |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G2.38 |
Geelong major drainage works |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
77m |
L, D |
|
G2.39 |
Armstrong Creek major drainage works |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
170m |
D |
|
G2.40 |
GREP northern catchment infrastructure |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
10.3m |
L, S, F, D |
|
|
Lara |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L2.41 |
Lara major drainage works |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
70m |
L, D |
|
|
Bellarine Peninsula |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P2.42 |
Bellarine major drainage works |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
112m |
L, D |
|
|
Southern Golden Plains |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B2.43 |
Bannockburn centre main drainage upagerades |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
1m |
L, D |
|
|
Colac |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C2.44 |
Colac major drainage infrastructure |
Concept * |
|
|
|
|
|
4.5m |
L |
|
C2.45 |
Apollo Bay drainage infrastructure |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
3.8m |
S, F |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gas |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regional |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South West (main transmission) Pipeline upagerades |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R2.46 |
Compressor station Birregurra-Winchelsea |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
40m |
O |
|
R2.47 |
Compressor station Stonehaven |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
40m |
O |
|
R2.48 |
Pipeline looping and extensions |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
250m |
O |
|
|
Urban Geelong |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G2.49 |
Transmission pipeline to south Geelong upagerade |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
|
O, D |
|
G2.50 |
Armstrong Creek reticulated gas rollout |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
|
O, D |
|
|
Lara |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L2.51 |
Lara distribution pipeline upagerade |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
|
O, D |
|
|
Bellarine Peninsula |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P2.52 |
Point Henry to Leopold-Drysdale transmission pipeline upagerade |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
|
O |
|
P2.53 |
Bellarine Peninsula distribution pipeline upagerade |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
|
O, D |
|
P2.54 |
Ocean Grove distribution pipeline upagerade |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
|
O, D |
|
P2.55 |
Point Lonsdale distribution pipeline upagerade |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
|
O |
|
|
Southern Golden Plains |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B2.56 |
Gas provision to Bannockburn |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
|
O, D |
|
|
Torquay |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T2.57 |
South Geelong to Torquay-Jan Juc transmission line extension |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
|
O |
|
|
Winchelsea |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W2.58 |
Gas provision to Winchelsea |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
|
O, D |
|
|
Colac |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C2.59 |
Colac growth area reticulated gas rollout |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
|
O, D |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Electricity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Urban Geelong |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G2.60 |
East Geelong terminal station |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
100-150m |
O |
|
G2.61 |
Marshall zone substation |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
20m |
O |
|
|
Lara |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L2.62 |
Lara zone substation |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
20m |
O |
|
L2.63 |
Avalon Airport zone substation |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
20m |
O |
|
|
Bellarine Peninsula |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P2.64 |
Ocean Grove zone substation |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
20m |
O |
|
|
Southern Golden Plains |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B2.65 |
Bannockburn zone substation |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
20m |
O |
|
|
Torquay |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T2.66 |
Torquay zone substation |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
20m |
O |
|
T2.67 |
Lorne zone substation |
Planned |
|
|
|
|
|
20m |
O |
|
|
Alternative energy projects - regional |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R2.68 |
Geelong Geothermal Power Project |
Feasibility |
|
|
|
|
|
100m |
S, F, O |
|
R2.69 |
Mount Gellibrand wind farm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R2.70 |
Winchelsea wind farm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Community Facilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Education and Training |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Urban Geelong |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G3.01 |
Regional Research and Information Centre |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
5m |
S, F, O |
|
G3.02 |
Centre for Advanced Design in Engineering Training (CADET) |
Construction |
|
|
|
|
|
55m |
F, O |
|
G3.03 |
Northern Geelong vocational training school |
Feasibility |
|
|
|
|
|
3-5m |
S |
|
G3.04 |
Armstrong Creek trade training centre |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
10-15m |
F, O |
|
|
Lara |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L3.05 |
Lara multipurpose community centre |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
10m |
D |
|
|
Bellarine Peninsula |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P3.06 |
Jetty Road neighbourhood centre |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
1-2m |
L, S |
|
P3.07 |
Ocean Grove early years hub and neighbourhood house redevelopment |
Pre-construct |
|
|
|
|
|
11m |
L, S |
|
|
Southern Golden Plains |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B3.08 |
Bannockburn K-12 school |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
35m |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Health |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Urban Geelong |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G3.09 |
Geelong Centre for Emerging Infectious Diseases |
Pre-construct |
|
|
|
|
|
12.1m |
F, O |
|
G3.10 |
Geelong hospital expansion |
Pre-construct |
|
|
|
|
|
103m |
S |
|
G3.11 |
Geelong hospital multi-storey extension |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
650m |
S |
|
G3.12 |
Epworth teaching hospital development |
Construction |
|
|
|
|
|
255m |
O |
|
G3.13 |
Waurn Ponds community hospital |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
85m |
S |
|
G3.14 |
Geelong Northern Suburbs community hospital |
Feasibility |
|
|
|
|
|
35-45m |
S, O |
|
|
Lara |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L3.15 |
Lara community health centre |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
5-10m |
S |
|
|
Bellarine Peninsula |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P3.16 |
Drysdale community health centre upagerade |
Pre-construct |
|
|
|
|
|
3m |
S |
|
P3.17 |
Drysdale early years hub |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
10m |
L, S |
|
P3.18 |
Ocean Grove sub-acute facility |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
7-10m |
S, F |
|
P3.19 |
Point Lonsdale community health centre upagerade |
Construction |
|
|
|
|
|
3.2m |
F |
|
|
Southern Golden Plains |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B3.20 |
Bannockburn community health facility |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
5-10m |
S |
|
|
Torquay |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T3.21 |
Torquay-Jan Juc childrens services hub |
Feasibility |
|
|
|
|
|
8m |
L, S, F, O |
|
|
Winchelsea |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W2.22 |
Winchelsea community health hub |
Feasibility |
|
|
|
|
|
4-6m |
S |
|
|
Colac |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C3.23 |
Colac early years centre |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
7.5m |
S, F |
|
C3.24 |
Colac hospital expansion |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
8-10m |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arts and Culture |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Urban Geelong |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G3.25 |
Integrated regional library and heritage centre |
Construction |
|
|
|
|
|
45m |
L, S, F |
|
G3.26 |
GPAC redevelopment |
Pre-construct |
|
|
|
|
|
140m |
S, F |
|
G3.27 |
Geelong Gallery expansion |
Feasibility |
|
|
|
|
|
20-30m |
S, F |
|
G3.28 |
Corio-Norlane sub-regional library expansion |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
2m |
L, S |
|
G3.29 |
Armstrong Creek sub-regional library |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
12m |
L, S, F, D |
|
|
Lara |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L3.30 |
Lara permanent branch library |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
8m |
L, S |
|
|
Bellarine Peninsula |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P3.31 |
Leopold community hub |
Pre-construct |
|
|
|
|
|
16m |
L, S, F |
|
P3.32 |
Drysdale sub-regional library |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
7.2m |
L, S |
|
P3.33 |
Drysdale community and cultural precinct |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
8m |
L, S, O |
|
P3.34 |
Ocean Grove library expansion and upagerade |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
6m |
L, S |
|
|
Torquay |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T3.35 |
Torquay sub-regional library |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
9m |
L, S, F |
|
|
Winchelsea |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W3.36 |
Winchelsea branch library |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
8-10m |
L, S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Emergency Services and Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regional |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R3.37 |
Barwon Prison 40 bed high-security unit |
Construction |
|
|
|
|
|
53m |
S |
|
|
Urban Geelong |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G3.38 |
Waurn Ponds emergency services complex |
Construction |
|
|
|
|
|
15.6m |
S |
|
G3.39 |
Armstrong Creek emergency services hub |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
20-25m |
S |
|
|
Southern Golden Plains |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B3.40 |
Bannockburn emergency services precinct |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
5m |
S |
|
|
Colac |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C3.41 |
Colac emergency services and courts facility |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
15-20m |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sport and Recreation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regional |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R3.42 |
Simonds Stadium development completion |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
140m |
L, S, F, O |
|
R3.43 |
Regional trails network |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
35m |
S |
|
R3.44 |
Regional motocross facility |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
4-5m |
L, S |
|
R3.45 |
South-west Geelong basketball stadium |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
8m |
L, S |
|
R3.46 |
Southern Geelong regional aquatic centre |
Feasibility |
|
|
|
|
|
20-25m |
L, S |
|
|
Urban Geelong |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G3.47 |
Stead Park synthetic hockey pitch |
Construction |
|
|
|
|
|
2m |
L, S |
|
G3.48 |
Stead Park master plan implementation |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
8m |
S |
|
G3.49 |
Regional sports & entertainment centre |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
5m |
S, F |
|
G3.50 |
Regional tennis hub |
Feasibility |
|
|
|
|
|
6m |
S, D |
|
G3.51 |
Regional soccer & hockey facility |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
12m |
S, F |
|
G3.52 |
Corio Leisuretime Centre redevelopment |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
10m |
L, S |
|
G3.53 |
Eastern Park project |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
10m |
L, S |
|
G3.54 |
Geelong regional play space |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
2m |
L, S |
|
G3.55 |
Indoor bowls facility |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
30m |
S, F |
|
G3.56 |
Indoor highball sports facility |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
30-40m |
L, S |
|
|
Lara |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L3.57 |
You Yangs regional mountain bike facility |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
5m |
S |
|
|
Bellarine Peninsula |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P3.58 |
Drysdale-Clifton Springs sub-regional sports precinct |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
30m |
L, S, F |
|
|
Torquay |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T3.59 |
Torquay indoor sports stadium |
Feasibility |
|
|
|
|
|
11m |
L, S, F, O |
|
|
Winchelsea |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W3.60 |
Moriac regional questrian centre |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
2m |
L, S |
|
|
Colac |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C3.61 |
Apollo Bay aquatic centre |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
10m |
S, F |
|
C3.62 |
Apollo Bay loop trails |
Feasibility |
|
|
|
|
|
1m |
S, F |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Waste management |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regional |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R3.63 |
High-tech processing facility for residual waste |
Feasibility * |
|
|
|
|
|
50m |
S |
|
R3.64 |
Temporary garden organics waste facility |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
5m |
L, S |
|
R3.65 |
Processing facility for garden organics |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
10-20m |
L, S |
|
|
Urban Geelong |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G3.66 |
Geelong Cleantech Centre of Excellence |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
6-10m |
S, F |
|
G3.67 |
Reorganisation of transfer facilities |
Feasibility |
|
|
|
|
|
5-10m |
L, S |
|
G3.68 |
Timber recovery facilities |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bellarine Peninsula |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P3.69 |
Drysdale landfill expansion |
Feasibility |
|
|
|
|
|
10m |
L, S |
|
P3.70 |
Queenscliff food organics processing plant |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
1-2m |
L, S |
|
|
Southern Golden Plains |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B3.71 |
Lethbridge animal incinerator and landfill |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
50m |
O |
|
|
Torquay |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T3.72 |
Torquay transfer station |
Feasibility |
|
|
|
|
|
5-10m |
L, S |
|
T3.73 |
Anglesea transfer station |
Feasibility |
|
|
|
|
|
5m |
L, S |
|
|
Colac |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C3.74 |
Colac biogas facility |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
25m |
O |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Business and Tourism |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Airports |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lara - Avalon Airport |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L4.01 |
Avalon Airport facilities expansion |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
30m |
O |
|
L4.02 |
Intermodal freight interchange |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
|
S, O |
|
L4.03 |
Regional airport relocation |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
3m |
S, O |
|
|
Southern Golden Plains |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B4.04 |
Lethbridge Airpark development |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
1.8m |
S, O |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ports and Harbours |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Urban Geelong |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G4.05 |
Navigation channel enlargement |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
320m |
S, F, O |
|
G4.06 |
Lascelles berth expansion |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
50m |
S, O |
|
G4.07 |
Corio Quay berth expansion |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
250-300m |
S, F, O |
|
G4.08 |
Port facilities expansion to Point Wilson |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
N/A |
S, O |
|
|
Bellarine Peninsula |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P4.09 |
Portarlington Safe Harbour project |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
58m |
S, O |
|
P4.10 |
Queenscliff ferry terminal upagerade |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
14m |
L, S, O |
|
|
Colac |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C4.11 |
Apollo Bay harbour precinct redevelopment |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
20m |
S, F |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agriculture |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Colac |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C4.12 |
Colac Livestock Selling Centre redevelopment |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
6.5m |
L, S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Urban Precincts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Urban Geelong |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G4.13 |
Yarra Sreet Pier cruise ship berth |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
33m |
L, S, O |
|
G4.14 |
Geelong Convention and Exhibition Centre |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
164m |
S, F, O |
|
G4.15 |
Innovative employment hubs |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
4m |
S, F, O |
|
G4.16 |
NDIA headquarters establishment |
Feasibility |
|
|
|
|
|
25m |
S, F |
|
G4.17 |
Waterworld site redevelopment Norlane |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
5-20m |
L, S, O |
|
|
Bellarine Peninsula |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P4.18 |
Point Lonsdale lighthouse reserve development |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
|
L, O |
|
P4.19 |
Fort Queenscliff precinct |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
10m |
S, F, O |
|
|
Southern Golden Plains |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B4.20 |
Bannockburn central shopping precinct |
Pre-construct |
|
|
|
|
|
14m |
O |
|
|
Torquay |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T4.21 |
Torquay Surf City precinct |
Feasibility |
|
|
|
|
|
45m |
L, S, F, O |
|
T4.22 |
Lorne Point Grey precinct |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
5m |
L, S, F |
|
|
Colac |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C4.23 |
Colac CBD & Entrances project |
Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
50m |
L, S, F |
|
C4.24 |
Colac Beechy Precinct facilities |
Pre-construct |
|
|
|
|
|
8m |
S, F |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Environment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regional Projects |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R5.01 |
CCMA Regional Catchment Strategy major waterways enhancement and linkage projects |
Pre-construct |
|
|
|
|
|
15m |
L, S, F |
|
R5.02 |
Implementation of Barwon River Parklands projects |
Pre-construct |
|
|
|
|
|
13.2m |
L, S, F |
|
|
Strategies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rivers and Parks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R5.03 |
Regional Natural Assets and Open Space Strategy |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
N/A |
L, S |
|
R5.04 |
Barwon-Otway Strategic Bushfire Management Plan |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
N/A |
L, S |
|
R5.05 |
Moorabool River Health Strategy |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
N/A |
L, S |
|
|
Sea level rise |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R5.06 |
Coastal vulnerability assessment Surf Coast - Colac-Otway coast |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
N/A |
L, S |
|
R5.07 |
Coastal vulnerability assets management strategy |
Concept |
|
|
|
|
|
N/A |
L, S |
|
No. |
Submitter |
Submission summary |
Proposed response |
|
1 |
C. Marshall - TGM |
Suggests that Surf Coast lot supply report include mapping detail for Moriac showing proposed LDRZ areas identified in Structure Plan |
No change - Report references this area however the Structure Plan has not been implemented into the Surf Coast planning Scheme (subject to current amendment process). Area will be picked up in subsequent review. |
|
2 |
C. Marshall - TGM on behalf of Costa Group |
Lot supply data for St Leonards contained in Geelong Residential Land Supply Report is flawed because it is not consistent with their consultant’s lot supply data and is inconsistent with other G21 strategies. Addendum submission seeks changes to land take up rates for St Leonards. |
No change - difference in data reflected in different methodologies. Lot supply report in context of St Leonards relies on boundaries set by Structure Plan and makes no specific township commentary of timing of future identified growth areas such as this one. Timing identified in the land supply report maps is purely indicative of anticipated release timing (typically overstated) and not a reflection of years supply or adequacy of supply. It is considered unnecessary to include riders in the reports as to how Councils should interpret them. |
|
3 |
L Tozer - Robert Luxmoore Project Management |
Seeks extension of closing date for submissions until Metropolitan Planning Strategy (MPS) released |
Advised no change in submission timeframe given time frame for MPS release not clear, adopted RGP sets strategic direction not Implementation Plan and allows for growth to be accommodated in response to changes in growth rates. Additional commentary relating to MPS has been included in the final Plan. |
|
4 |
D Sheridan |
Unhappy about restrictions on erecting a second dwelling on a rural lot near Leopold. |
No change - raises issues about existing zoning and Council Structure Plan directions. Out of scope of project - no directions provided in Implementation Plan around zoning other than for identified FIAs |
|
5 |
S Copland -National Pacific Properties |
Positive feedback on land supply tool. Identifies suggestions to improve data including inclusion of previous year’s data, different categories of data, updated suburb names/boundaries.
|
Noted. Limited capacity to include previous year’s data. Future land supply reporting data will be easily updated to tool. Suburb boundaries used reflect ABS suburb boundaries for data comparability (which are different to LGA suburb boundaries). To consider additional advice on boundaries in tool User Guide. |
|
6 |
Great Ocean Road Coast Committee |
Supports project and identification of a Regional Natural Assets and Open Space Strategy. Suggests these directions would be enhanced by:
|
Agree in part. Suggest changes including:
|
|
7 |
Tony Grgurevic - Bicycle Users Geelong Inc |
PBN directions cater for recreational cyclists rather than commuter/daily rides. Considered this is a more important focus with a more meaningful impact on future transport options. Considered that there should be greater emphasis on enhancing local connections between activity areas within towns. Identifies a range of Geelong specific connections/ safety upagerades. |
Agree with general sentiment. Include commentary reinforcing commuting cycling importance in Transport theme and some additional details in identified Geelong Integrated Transport Plan project. The suggested cycle linkages while important they are localised rather than regional/subregional (other than Rail Trail upagerades) which are not focus of plan. Opportunity to include |
|
8 |
Golder Assoc. for McCann Family & ors |
Seeks range of changes to Background Report Analysis and Implementation Plan directions around staging and timing. |
Refer more detailed submission analysis and response below. |
|
9 |
Daniel Tucci - APA Group |
Makes comment about restriction of development near south west gas pipeline and easement in FIA areas (Lovely Banks) and Batesford areas including Gheringhap. Identifies setback distances for sensitive uses. Also makes comment about local distribution network including planning for connections to Winchelsea and Bannockburn. |
Provide additional commentary in Background Report and Growth Plan around planning for FIAs near gas pipeline easement. Add additional commentary in Background Report around local gas distribution network works to Winchelsea/Torquay. |
|
10 |
Spiire for Ledge P/L and others |
Seeks range of changes to Background Report Analysis around Western FIA (north of Midland Highway). Advocates for this area to be considered on merit in the short term and a change to staging arrangements. Consider that both areas should be able to be considered on merits (i.e determination of a preferred area is not required). |
Refer more detailed submission analysis and response |
|
11 |
Department of Education and E.C.D |
Bannockburn School designation should be for a P9 school only (not K or P-12) based on current Department planning. |
No change – full primary/secondary range school considered necessary to meet current and future growth role as a key District Town. Background Report retains school provision in 3 stages: P-9, early years, 10-12. |
|
12 |
F. Speare |
Requests consideration/identification of a dog park(s) as part of open space directions. |
No change - local infrastructure consideration
|
|
13 |
D. Carson |
Concern no directions to address obesity etc other than Point Lonsdale medical facility or no money allocated to sports precinct at Drysdale. No emergency services facilities identified for Bellarine. |
No change - at a subregional level, health facilities captured as identified by CoGG, BH & BCH. No future planning data for emergency services could be obtained from relevant agencies. |
|
14 |
L. Hughes |
Submissions raises a range of concerns and criticism around G21 vision, directions around jobs and housing and congestion, G21, identification of road projects, convention centre, need for more open space, community facilities and training facilities, Avalon Airport directions, Open House content and information. View that document largely spin. |
No changes - apart from negative feedback to broad range of projects no project inclusion or amendment suggestions were made. |
|
15 |
M. Wrest |
Offers congratulations on quality of projects identified. Promotes consideration of off shore wind structures as potential local industry construction employer and related energy and fisheries (artificial reefs) benefits. |
Include reference to offshore energy options under sustainable energy commentary although noted that key wind energy opportunities lie in Great South Coast region. |
|
16 |
P. Westcott - PTUA Geelong Branch |
Provides a range of detailed comments about transport infrastructure directions including:
|
Suggest a number of changes be made to Implementation Plan and Background Report project descriptions generally
Copy of submission provided to G21 Public Transport Strategy project |
|
17 |
SMEC Urban for ABC Project Management |
Seeks various changes to Plan to extend Northern FIA north of Staceys Road to Hams Road (approx 250ha) as a logical extension of Lara and to enable drainage and services catchment planning for the Lara NW growth area. |
Considered not appropriate to extend notional FIA boundary north of Staceys Road given potential impact on Chemring future operations by extending urban development to its eastern flank and the identity of Lara. While sensitive use buffers can be provided for, first planning principles would suggest that further intrusion of urban activities near the Chemring operations would impact future investment decisions and should be avoided. It is considered that further FIA expansion substantially north (and west of Lara) is as much a policy question for Lara as it is for Geelong. Despite drainage catchment arrangements it is not considered that this area is a logical extension of Lara given major road separation, distance from town centre, community and services infrastructure capacity of town and impact on overall town character with substantial growth areas and infill opportunities already identified in the Lara Structure Plan. Extension of the FIA north to a point approximate to Lara’s northern boundary will reinforce a continuous conurbation from Lara to the Ring Road impacting on any opportunity to create a strong separation (and thereby identity) for Lara. Should this area be considered as a future logical extension to the FIA (assuming interface and buffer issues can be managed). Sewerage infrastructure can be accommodated via a Bacchus Marsh Road interceptor main. The Northern FIA also has potential to grow to the west to avoid further industrial buffer or landscape intrusion to the north. Propose wording changes in Implementation Plan in relation to logical extent considerations to west. |
|
18 |
Tract for ICD Property |
Makes comments on Western FIA directions relating to impacts on future planning for Fyansford, identifying supporting directions or seeking clarification around water/sewerage infrastructure treatment capacity to accommodate FIA growth and role of disused rail reserve as future transit corridor. |
Agree in part – remove reference to using infrastructure capacity within Fyansford Green development. This comment reflected previous proposal to establish a waster water treatment facility (no longer being proposed) which may have been able to accommodate future growth to the west. To further acknowledge traffic impacts through Fyansford. No changes to rail corridor directions as these are notional only. |
|
19 |
President Geelong Chamber of Commerce |
Congratulates G21 on Plan and its broad vision and focus on key infrastructure projects. Concern little discussion on supporting SME's and seek more opportunities to support small business i.e business hubs. Concerned about 20 year timeframe for development of FIAs suggesting that these timelines be removed to allow a more flexible approach. Supports integration of directions with Metropolitan Planning Strategy. |
Limited opportunity to identify tangible infrastructure projects at a regional/subregional scale for SME's beyond those identified. Roles of SME's identified although the Implementation Plan does not function as an Economic Strategy but seeks to identify enabling infrastructure linked to the RGP and Economic Development Strategy directions. Considered that localised business or incubator hubs while important are part of a local economic strategy and are out of scope. To include revised language clarifying medium – longer term role of FIAs. |
|
20 |
Robert Luxmoore Project Management and Tract Consultants for Lovely Banks land owners consortium |
Seeks range of changes to Implementation Plan and Background Report relating to FIAs generally and Northern FIA specifically. Seeks zoning of land now to enable infrastructure planning to take place and to respond to anticipated growth in short - medium term of 3 to 5%. Seeks removal of specific timeframe. Reinforces preferred FIA role. |
Refer more detailed submission analysis and response. |
|
21 |
Insight Planning Consultants |
Seeks various changes to Plan to extend Northern FIA north of Hams Road to a point opposite Barwon Prison (an extension of 562ha). |
Suggest no change – this area is well outside the suggested northern extent of the FIA and would result in urban development extending from the Ring Road to Barwon prison, potentially impact on landscape and environmental values and create a continuous urban area as large as Armstrong Creek. Refer similar comments to submission 17 – the addition of these 2 additional areas to the Northern FIA would accommodate a further 25,000+ people. The landscape and amenity tradeoffs to accommodate this much longer term growth is not necessary given the availability of another FIA and potential extension opportunities to the west of the Northern FIA. |
|
22 |
J. Suann - Capire |
Congratulates G21 on collaborative engagement approach and use of a variety of engagement tools. Seek opportunity to be involved in further implementation of the Plan. |
Noted |
|
23 |
UDIA |
Suggests plan should recognise both FIA's and removal of 20 year timeframe to meet increased demand and be supported by a commitment to infrastructure delivery timeframes. Also reinforce need to tie MPS and G21RGP directions. |
The link to a 20 year timeframe is based on a rigorous review of land supply and demand activity. The RGP and Implementation Plan clearly identify a strategy linked to regular land supply review as a basis for development of the FIAs and infrastructure priorities and sequencing. This enables the Plan to respond to significant changes in future growth activity (up or down) rather than speculating about quantum of future growth activity. While a commitment to infrastructure timeline delivery would be welcomed this is not likely to be a reality given the state government will not be signing off the Implementation Plan. To include revised language clarifying medium – longer term role of FIAs and role of Metropolitan Planning Strategy. |
|
24 |
Committee for Geelong |
Identifies members concerns over the specified (20 year) timeframe for development of FIAs rather than them being market led. Identifies the importance of this investment and employment to Geelong's development. |
As above. 20 year time frame based on current supply analysis and growth projections (based on VIF2012) linked to efficient and effective roll out of infrastructure and sustainable long term growth activity. To include revised language clarifying medium – longer term role of FIAs. |
|
25 |
C Low |
Very detailed and considered submission. Makes a number of observations about infrastructure directions particularly in relation to transport and shipping infrastructure projects. Supports many of the transport projects identified. Considers Port projects dubious given focus on Hastings; number of comments highlighting need for sufficient car parking (at least 1000 bays) at key stations (Grovedale, Marshall, Bannockburn and Moriac); considers Geelong – Queenscliff railway not require. Suggests more planning for cemeteries. |
Comments noted – No change to Port projects as it is considered that Geelong Port has a significant future as the states key bulk and break bulk port. While recognised that parking areas provided with new stations/station upagerades may not meet full peak demand a balance needs to be struck with affordably providing land for parking and investing in/encouraging use of other modes of travel to stations i.e buses, bicycle and walking. Consider cemetery planning outside scope of plan as it is not a key growth or economic driver. |
|
26 |
Wyndham City |
Range of comments about CoGG role/relationship with future planning for Melbourne and the development of a Metropolitan Planning Authority (MPA). Other comments made around including reference to major infrastructure projects such as: a) OMR Transport Corridor; b) Spur line connection to Wyndham Vale and Werribee from RRL which would improve connections to Werribee and Geelong employment precincts; and c) completion of Port Phillip Bay Trail. Submission also suggests map changes to show shipping channels and reinforce ferry connection as well as introducing a 6th theme 'Tourism' and including more direction around Port Phillip Bay under environment. |
To include suggestions re transport projects. Unnecessary to separate Business and Tourism into separate themes. Review environment commentary as it relates to Port Phillip Bay and Bay Trail. |
|
27 |
DTPLI |
Range of comments made around document changes or additions around transport projects including public transport services including: Public transport
Arterial Roads
Other
|
|
|
28 |
Kawarren Recreation Reserve Committee Inc |
Suggests further community infrastructure investment in smaller rural communities such as Kawarren (community facility) near Colac to support lifestyle housing options and community capacity building. |
No change - identifies project of local importance but which are out of project scope |
|
29 |
Queenscliffe Community Association |
Makes positive comments about a number of Infrastructure Plan projects and directions although notes that plan is focused towards development. Considers that issues of food and water security considerations should match population growth. Concern with continual loss of agricultural land to expanded settlements. Plan lacks regional strategies to create needed employment and affordable housing. Plan should reinforce planning directions around settlement boundaries, protection of open space, wetlands and rural areas etc. Should not use bore water as part of water supply system. Should identify greater use of water based transport options (ferries etc). Should identify more than Lethbridge as an agricultural hub. |
Local planning directions and revisiting Growth Plan directions is out of project scope however the Growth Plan reinforces settlement boundary planning and protection of rural land assets. The Plan is also not an economic strategy but instead relies on key regional directions of the RGP and Economic Development Strategy to identify infrastructure projects that will help drive job growth across a range of regional competitive advantage employment sectors. The Plan identifies a number of port/harbour projects aimed at supporting a broader network of passenger and freight transport options. |
|
30 |
CCMA |
Supports project and implementation. Comments informed by RCS and Waterway Strategy under development. Seeks a range of changes including: identifying a broader range of asset values; referencing a range of CCMA strategies and projects; aligning Open Space Assets Strategy with RCS. Number of minor suggestions re Environment Infrastructure and FIAs |
To include feedback in commentary where relevant to scope. A number of suggestions such as a broader description of regional environment assets etc are considered to be outside the scope of the Infrastructure Plan. |
|
31 |
Geelong Port |
Submission highlights port activity and future opportunities to increase trade volumes and activity at the Port. Identified a number of recent reports undertaken which have enabled key road and rail connection projects to service the Port. For identified rail projects suggests Plan be revised to identify expanding use and availability of dual gauge rail connections to port or enable conveyor delivery options and updating port throughput volumes. |
Review commentary to align with Victorian freight and Logistics Plan and the Geelong Port and Land Freight Infrastructure Plan. |
|
32 |
Steve Wickham |
Raises a number of concerns about the status and veracity of RGP directions relating to settlement planning and boundaries in the context of CoGG decision to prepare an amendment to rezone land south of Armstrong Creek. |
Noted – Inclusion of G21RGP in SPPF will give the document greater strategic/statutory weight. |
|
33 |
Margaret Watts |
Submission identifies a) the need for more buses; b) a hard waste collection and cheap recycling shop; c) unified centre for food relief operations; d) tourist info videos at various locations; e) care required when mixing up housing types and densities. |
Comment on bus services noted – consistent with directions of the draft Implementation Plan. The submission identifies other projects and potential solutions that are local in nature. Comment about housing noted – local scheme provisions appropriately deal with amenity and design considerations. |
|
34 |
Amex Corporation |
Submission flags the potential modification of the RGP settlement map directions to reflect the potential inclusion of 80 Duffields Road Torquay (Spring Creek) within the settlement boundary should their submission to C66 being upheld. |
Noted - Amendment C66 is some way off its final inclusion into the Surfcoast Planning Scheme so any change to the RGP directions map is premature particularly given any SPPF implementation of the RGP is also likely some way off (given linking to final series of RGP’s and the Metropolitan Planning Strategy). The RGP is intended to be an adaptable document and reviewed from time to time to respond to any major planning policy changes. |
Submission 8: Golder Associates on behalf of McCann family and Adelaide Brighton Cement Limited (Note: IP – Implementation Plan; BR – background Report; GRR – Geelong Ring Road)
Doc |
Issue description |
Discussion |
Response |
Implementation Plan |
Submission claims that water quality of the lake is not an issue ant that it will be suitable for public use |
Page 90 doesn’t say that “water quality is unlikely to be suitable for public use”. IP does in fact states that “modelling indicated water quality in the lake is suitable for public use” which is the fact. Statement qualified by indicating that water quality “may” at times in practice be unsuitable (for public use. Statement also reasonably and appropriately qualified by requiring further technical analysis. |
No change |
Submission asserts that the lake could bring significant environmental benefit. |
The environmental benefit directly attributable to the lake is not clearly obvious and evidenced. There is only “potential” for benefit and that is not very clear about how the lake will directly contribute to an environmental benefit. There is enough doubt (eg increasing salinity, stratification, blue green algae) in regard to the water quality to therefore raise questions about on the extent of the ultimate environmental benefit. Submission bases the assertion on precedents and international studies. Page 90 dot points 1(2) and (3) reasonably covers off on broad benefits of lake. |
Add “and possible environmental benefit” at page 90 end of dot point 3, second row of table |
|
|
Submission asserts that ring road is well integrated into the land form and will not be a barrier. |
The statement in the IP is reasonable, appropriate and properly qualified. While the GRR is integrated into the landform it is still more of a barrier than if it was not there at all. Plan only indicates it “may” be a barrier in regard to “social integration”. |
No change |
|
|
Assertion that there is an opportunity to disperse traffic coming from development in the south of the western FIA through upagerades to Church St, Autumn St and Hyland St |
This may be partly true however the impact on traffic congestion through highly urbanised suburbs from upagerading these roads could be substantial. Prepared to accept there is an opportunity but that it should be qualified that it comes at a cost and potential amenity impacts in other urban areas. |
page 91, first row, 5th dot point. Replace with: Potential to upagerade existing road network including Hyland St, Autumn St and Church St and an over-bridge at Hamlyn Heights, although costly to construct. page 90, 2nd row, 1st dot point - replace with: While there is an opportunity to upagerade carrying capacities on Autumn, Hyland and Church Streets, this may constrain traffic movements and increase congestion. page 107 BR, add text which suggests exploring upagerades as above. |
|
|
Suggests there is plenty of time to negate/manage risks associated the complex approval process and land management challengers. |
The statement in the IP is reasonable, appropriate and properly qualified, indicating that the complexities are less north of the Midland, and around the Hamilton Highway. While there may be adequate timeframes this does not reduce the relevance of the statement as a potential threat/weakness. |
No change |
|
|
Submission asserts that open space management and maintenance costs are not an issue |
There is a lot of land not under a long term funding and management model (ie not part of the extractive licence). The need for integration of open space and conservation planning and ongoing management including rehabilitation of biodiversity assets will come at a cost and require coordination/integration across multiple tenures and titles etc. |
No change |
|
|
Requests that emphasis is placed on opportunity for shared trail connectivity between north and south nodes of the Western FIA and integration as part of a wider Geelong trail network |
This opportunity is appropriately covered in the IP. Make minor amendment to page 112 of BR. |
Make minor amendment to page 112 of BR at 2nd column, 1st para. Add open space linkage opportunity on map 13. |
|
|
Submission claims that electricity easement in south east will not “limit development potential” as stated on page 91 of IP |
Accepted this point could be further qualified |
Make minor amendment / qualification to last dot point, 2nd column, page 91 |
|
|
Suggests that the formation of a lake is likely to lead to significant net carbon assimilation and storage that would more than mitigate carbon footprint mentioned on page 92 of IP. |
Remove the reference to carbon footprint from the text as the comment is not backed up with evidence and doesn’t take into account other positive and negative factors in the carbon budget. |
Remove reference to carbon footprint at first dot point, 2nd column, page 92. |
|
|
Asserts that the interface issues identified to the west are unlikely. |
IP statement is appropriate and properly qualified |
No change |
|
|
Submission asserts that rural view sheds will be enhanced by development |
IP statement is appropriate and properly qualified |
No change |
|
|
Submission claims that potential higher development costs due to complex topography will be partially offset by broader net community social and economic benefit. |
The Situation Analysis presents opportunities and threats. The factors which offset the possible costs due to topography, such as social and economic benefits, are also listed in the Analysis as positives. IP and BR both point out the benefits, such as diverse living experiences, which the complex topography brings. |
No change |
|
|
Asserts that last dot point, 2nd column (starting with “Highly ..”) on page 92 is not a relevant weakness against that particular goal |
Accepted, delete last part (starting “which …”) of paragraph. |
Make minor amendment to last para, 2nd column, page 92 |
|
|
Requests a series of amendments to key differences summary for page 94. |
The value of the first three paragraphs on page 94 has been reviewed and as a result these paragraphs including dot points will be replaced with two generic paragraphs giving a simplified high level synopsis. |
Replace first three paras on page 94 with generic wording. |
|
|
Recommends acknowledgement of the need for housing diversity throughout the spectrum of residential market including higher value properties. |
Accept this is a valid point. Both northern and western FIAs can deliver this diversity, including the higher valued properties, to differing degrees. |
Add new dot point to 1st para at 4.3.4 on page 97 |
|
|
Submission requests correction to Situation Analysis Map to show correct position of conveyor belt |
Accepted. Make change to Map 13 IP and Map 11 in BR. |
Correct Map 13 IP and Map 11 of BR |
|
|
Numerous objections to the manner which the IP and BR identify and describe the drainage issues to the south of the Western FIA around the Fyansford-Gheringhap Road. Submission asserts generally that drainage issues are less severe than IP describes. |
Disagree. Advice from CoGG drainage engineers concurs with wording used in both the IP and BR and that it is reasonable and appropriately qualified. Notwithstanding consider removing the word “major” from the label in Map 13 of IP. The legend of the map denotes this issue a “weakness” which is adequate. The use of word “major” is arbitrary and cannot really be validated. Additionally there is ample commentary and qualification on this matter both in the text of the IP and BR. |
Remove work “major” from drainage in southern part of FIA Situational Analysis Map 13. |
|
|
Submission proposes a two phase approach to geotechnical risk assessment and investigation, being a first a desk top assessment and then a targeted investigations |
Statement is appropriate and properly qualified. The methodology /approach of the geotechnical assessment/investigation would need to be discussed and agreed with by independent and qualified technical experts. It is recommended that in regards to the assessment of geotechnical risk, a conservative approach is adopted, as an input into the PSP process. |
No change |
|
|
Submission explains that future quarry rehab would be expected to address needs of any future PSP development |
Agreed but no change needed |
No change |
|
|
Submission claims that the future of the basalt quarry is clear. |
IP statement is appropriate and properly qualified. Work still to be done as part of the PSP, re land stability and land use of the basalt quarry. |
No change |
|
|
Submission asserts that south east portion of the FIA should be the initial phase of development and this should be recognised. |
Assertion based on generally access to Fyansford green precinct and existing facilities and infrastructure and services associated with that development. Similar to reasons why the IP suggests Bell Post Hill should be the first phase of development. Drainage and traffic remain major obstacles to residential development in south east corner. |
Amend Map 14 (Staging Map) to remove open space component from first stage and to also reconfigure stage 2. Revise text on page 104 to reflect changes to map, place importance of development of open space and include logical inclusion comments |
|
|
Suggests 1st para, 2nd column (starts “In order ..”) on page 103 is confusing |
Accepted. The ordering and drafting of this para in relation to the preceding paragraphs is slightly confusing and will be revised. |
Review/re-write first para, right column, page 103 |
|
|
Submission proposes an alternative development phasing approach |
Seeks to develop southern portion first before land adjacent to quarry. Also seeks to include narrow strip of land between Moorabool River and Ring Road and exclusion of Moorabool River corridor. Accept this position in part given development economics. Have extended stage (phase) 2 to Fyansford – Gheringhap Road to accommodate additional developable land but leave drainage affected ares and employment areas within stage 3 acknowledging retail impacts on other centres and traffic considerations. Exclude river corridor from stage 2 to enable earlier development but reaffirm need to plan and provide for corridor early in development life. Inclusion of additional land in stage 1 enabled subject to resolution of water treatment plant site and other site assessment considerations. |
Amend Map 14 (Staging Map) to remove open space component from first stage and to also reconfigure stage (phase) 2. Revise text on page 104 to reflect changes to map, place importance of development of open space and include logical inclusion comments. |
|
|
Suitable siting of required Water Reclamation Plant in the Western FIA remains an issue to be further investigated. |
A number of options for the location of the WRP exist and these require further targeted investigation. One option, and it seems the most progressed option in terms of Barwon Water analysis, is to locate the WRP adjacent to the existing quarry. There are a number of impacts identified with this option such as impact on open space, amenity, odour, access etc. |
Add dot point to page 99 of IP, 2nd column.
Add text to page 117 of BR. |
|
|
Background Report |
Submission proposes a two phase approach to geotechnical risk assessment and investigation, being a desk top assessment then targeted investigations |
Refer to other comments above |
No change |
|
Submission makes the point that all future quarry rehab can be done in accordance with any PSP development however certainty, regarding which FIA will be developed, is first required. |
This raises an important point worth briefly exploring in the IP. Any future rehab of the quarry should ideally be done based on the ultimate land use situation. If this is not known, then rehab of the quarry will continue in accordance with the current rehab plan which may compromise the final land use. Review of quarry rehabilitation plan should be done as part of (or before) PSP process so the rehab responds to the needs of the PSP. The conflict is that rehabilitation of quarry is presently underway and will continue while mining operations continue. |
Amend dot point on page 101 of IP |
|
|
Suggests that the proposed batter slopes on southern escarpment of quarry were assessed according to a number of groundwater conditions. |
Submission comment relates to the battering of the quarry scarps, however the comment in the BR relates to the risk of a rebounding water table to the entire extent of the drawdown which is a matter of kilometres. Statement in the BR is reasonable and appropriately qualified |
No change |
|
|
Suggests that if western FIA was selected, the Rehab plan would need to be revisited to address land issues between the quarry edge and the surrounding urban development. |
Discussed above - essentially concurs with BR on page 66. |
No change |
|
|
In regard to risk of rebounding of groundwater after dewatering ceases, submission makes point that there are many proven ways to stabilise pit walls. |
Submission comment is not relevant and misses the point made in BR. BR identifies risk to the kms of land surrounding the quarry that has been dried out due to cone of depression, which will be ultimately be wet again once dewatering ceases. Refer to other comments above. |
No change |
|
|
Assertion that there is no uncertainty about the basalt quarry. |
This is not the case –uncertainty remains. Golders/McCann/ABCL has no apparent authority to talk on behalf of the quarry owners/operators. |
No change |
|
|
Submissions concurs that land slip susceptibility areas would need to be further investigated |
Submission essentially concurs with BR on page 67. |
No change |
|
|
Submissions comments on environmental enhancement opportunities at a landscape scale. |
BR and IP make sufficient comment on these opportunities, and nothing further is necessary. |
No change |
|
|
Submission makes multiple objections to commentary in both IP and BR re. flood and drainage constraints between Fyansford/Gheringhap Rd and Hamilton Highway. |
Refer to other comments above |
No change |
|
|
Submission asserts that because the FIA has a large green space component and a high degree of infiltration and groundwater re-charges, a lower run-off coefficient is expected and that this would result in smaller peak floods. |
This assertion is not backed up with specific evidence relating to this particular land or expert opinion and appears to be conjecture. |
No change |
|
|
Submission claims there is no statutory requirement to locate sensitive uses beyond areas that have potentially been contaminated and that this requirement be removed. |
BR statement is reasonable, appropriate and qualified. However prepared to add further qualification. |
Insert “From a planning first principles perspective, sensitive uses should ..” at start of 3rd para in 2nd column on page 78 of BR. |
|
|
Assert that contamination is unlikely to be an impediment to the location of particular uses. |
The BR does not make any claims that contamination is likely to be an impediment to the location of particular uses. It merely draws appropriate and reasonable level of attention to the potential for land contamination and further investigation. |
No change |
|
|
Submission makes a point that early identification of the end land use for the area would ensure that progressive mine rehab and closure can happen in accordance with an end land use in mind. |
Agree that in relation to progressive quarry rehabilitation and mine closure, it would be highly beneficial to have certainty in regard to the end land use. If this is not the case then rehab will progress independent to the end land use, or based on the current default land use being mainly agriculture. This is particularly relevant for geotech stabilisation, regrading of quarry edges, burial of water dumps, and targeted dewatering etc. Refer to related issue above. |
Insert commentary at 101 that convey importance of quarry rehabilitation to progress in with end land use which has timing implications. |
|
|
Submission concurs that Water quality investigations may be required |
Submission does confirm that if the Western FIA was selected further water quality and hydrological studies would be done if required. This supports statements made in the IP and BR re water quality but interestingly seems to contradict other statements made in the submission. |
No change |
|
|
Alternative uses for the lake are not currently feasible due to the inability to continue dewatering into perpetuity. |
Submission suggests that if there is an intention for the lake to be used as a recreational community asset then the only way for this to be realised is through the western FIA to be selected as a growth area. While this is probably true it is not necessarily the case – other mechanisms would be open to authorities should the opportunity be identified. |
No change |
|
|
Does not agree that the lake will necessarily be too saline for fish. |
The BR makes a reasonable and appropriate statement that is properly qualified. The Nolan IT water quality report states “…it seems likely that the Batesford Quarry lake will provide good environment for euryhaline fish …” The term “it seems likely” is hardly a definitive statement of support by the report’s author. |
No change |
|
|
Submission provides commentary on pre-contact Aboriginal heritage. |
Agreed but no change needed. BR statement is appropriate and properly qualified |
No change |
|
|
Opportunity to disperse some generated traffic via upagerades to existing road network, eg Church St connection |
BR statement is appropriate and properly qualified. Could add some more words to reflect that this should be explored as part of the overall traffic management. |
Add words to page 108 of BR, 2nd column, third row. |
|
|
Golders making point that established community facilities to the south and north of the western FIA further support the argument to prioritise both these areas for development. |
BR statement is appropriate and properly qualified. Refer to other related comments above |
No change |
Submission 10: Spiire on behalf of Edge Pty Ltd and Landowners
Doc |
Issue description |
Discussion |
Response |
|
Implementation Plan |
Submission recommends a raft of changes to the text in the Situation Analysis, Figure 9, page 90. |
Suggested amendments to Figure 9 have been dealt with by exception. Only evidence-based changes that have a justifiable, valid and substantive impact are supported. Suggested text changes which merely reflect a differing perspective/writing style or are seen to be partial and advancing the interests of the client are not supported. |
No changes |
|
Submission suggests deletions and additions to Map 13. |
Suggested deletions are not supported. Accept suggested additions except the shared path where Moorabool River crosses under the Geelong Ring Road - the presence of the open space corridor would obviously include shared path connections and this is also mentioned in supporting text. |
Make amendments to Map 13 to include suggested additions(and also Map 12 to ensure consistent terminology in both maps) |
|
|
Submission proposes changes to page 94 which summarises the differences between the two FIA is a general way |
Submission asserts that the key differences summary on page 94 does not accurately present the differences and the situation analyses. Agreed that these paragraphs require review and re-write. |
Replace this key differences summary on page 94 of IP with more general statements. |
|
|
Submission advocates for creation of a ‘green corridor’ to connect Barwon River, Moorabool River and Cowies Creek and a shared path that aligns with the green corridor |
In principle agree with this opportunity and the community/environmental/social value of the proposal. |
Amend two paras on page 100 to reflect potential benefits of this opportunity under Transport Choices and Environment |
|
|
Submission presents a concept plan that addresses and incorporates many of outcomes set out in 4.3 of the IP. |
Concept plan goes into a level of detail inappropriate for purposes of the IP. Many features of this concept plan would be more appropriate as part of a PSP process. However Map 13 could be updated to include an open space link network linking a green corridor along the Moorabool with a corridor on Cowies Creek with potential for shared paths. |
Amend map 13 to show open space linkage. |
|
|
Submissions asserts that Bell Post Hill component of western FIA is ‘development ready’ and is a logical extension of existing community, rather than a major new growth front. Submission asserts that there is ‘development creep’ already occurring and it seems inevitable that this area will be developed, therefore BPH should be developed now. Objects to having BPH areas held to the 20 year timing and that it has the services and infrastructure already in place to give council the flexibility to develop this area now, before the remainder of the FIA is developed |
Barwon Water has advised that BPH is not ‘development ready’ and Barwon Water have not advised that there is capacity within existing infrastructure to facilitate immediate development. Modelling and targeting investigations would need to be done by Barwon Water to quantify if and where capacity that exists. Other infrastructure providers would also need to confirm capacity also. BR at page 117 already acknowledges there may be capacity in the existing system as an interim measure which is appropriate and reasonable. The link to a 20 year timeframe is based on a rigorous review of land supply and demand activity. The RGP and Implementation Plan clearly identify a strategy linked to regular land supply review as a basis for development of the FIAs and infrastructure priorities and sequencing. This enables the Plan to respond to significant changes in future growth activity (up or down) rather than speculating about quantum of future growth activity. |
No change to 4.4.1. No change to BR. |
|
|
Does not agree with the IP recommending that CoGG choose one of the identified FIAs over the other as the next growth area. The submission purports that any request for rezoning should be assessed on its individual merits and be market driven. |
IP/ G21 maintains that only one growth front should be supported to ensure efficiency of infrastructure provision (social and physical) and to ensure ‘cost of growth’ is managed and minimised. |
No change |
|
|
The submission suggests a series of changes to Section 4.4 of the IP. |
Suggested amendments to section 4.4 have been dealt with by exception. Only evidence-based changes that have a justifiable, valid and substantive impact will be supported. Suggested changes which merely reflect a differing perspective/writing style or are seen to be partial and advancing the interests of the client are not supported. |
No change |
|
|
Submission suggests an alternative phasing approach |
Refer comments and response to same issue in Golder’s submission. Submission also suggests use of ‘phasing’ rather than ‘staging’. s. |
As per submission 8. ‘Staging language replaced with ‘phasing’. |
Submission 20: Robert Luxmoore Project Management and Tract Consultants on behalf of Lovely Banks land owners consortium
Doc |
Issue description |
Discussion |
Response |
Implementation Plan |
The submission seeks remove reference to the residential land supply adequacy of 20-years as it claims this stifles economic progress and innovation in Geelong. |
The link to a 20 year timeframe is based on a rigorous review of land supply and demand activity. The RGP and Implementation Plan clearly identify a strategy linked to regular land supply review as a basis for development of the FIAs and infrastructure priorities and sequencing. This enables the Plan to respond to significant changes in future growth activity (up or down) rather than speculating about quantum of future growth activity. While a commitment to infrastructure timeline delivery would be welcomed this is not likely to be a reality given the state government will not be signing off the Implementation Plan. |
Include reference to impacts of Metropolitan Strategy directions in context of land supply monitoring |
|
The submission seeks to ensure that the final IP takes into account the Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Strategy |
At the time of finalising the plan the release of the MPS or the date for its finalisation was unclear. The IP relies on and recommends ongoing monitoring of land supply taking into account population growth and land uptake activity, which would reflect any future directions and policies in respect to MPS. |
As above |
|
|
Submission seeks to have the G21 IP support the immediate recognition of the Northern FIA into strategic policy and the application of the UGZ in the planning scheme. |
The G21 IP does not identify a priority area. Each area has its relative merits and challenges. The IP suggests that CoGG consider the analysis and directions provided in the IP to determine which area delivers the greatest benefit to Geelong. |
No change |
|
|
Submission seeks to have the Northern FIA zoned immediately to provide certainty to infrastructure providers such as Barwon Water and CoGG, so as it claims, infrastructure and services can be coordinated and integrated.
|
IP advocates (page 103) for CoGG to select a preferred FIA and to incorporate this into planning policy within the next 18 months. This will provide the certainty required for infrastructure providers and CoGG to ensure infrastructure and services are coordinated and integrated. |
No change |
|
|
The submission supports a PSP process, should the northern FIA be selected, which is administered and managed by the planning authority, and supported by land owners. |
Noted - Statement is appropriate and properly qualified |
No change |
|
|
The submission sets out a design elements to improve access to the GREP and the Port of Geelong |
This infrastructure project is identified in the IP as the “Geelong Port-GREP-Princess Freeway Direct Access”. This level of detailed design would be undertaken at a later date and is premature for the purposes of this IP. |
No change |
|
|
The submission sets out design elements for anew rail station at Heales Road. |
A station at Heales Road has been identified in the draft IP FIA analysis as a possibility only and is not currently part of PTV considerations. An understanding of viability and system/service impacts on the Melbourne – Geelong services would need to be considered with any new or relocated station proposal. Proposal or more specific directions are premature for the purposes of the IP. |
No change |
Portfolio: |
Planning - Cr Macdonald |
Source |
Economic Development, Planning and Tourism- Strategic Implementation |
General Manager: |
Peter Bettess |
Index Reference: |
Metropolitan Planning Strategy |
The purpose of this report is to provide a summary for Council of the Metropolitan Planning Strategy for Melbourne which the State Government has put out for comment until December 6, 2013. The report provides an explanation of the strategy and recommends the specifics of a submission to be lodged to the Draft Strategy.
Council approved a submission responding to the preliminary discussion paper of the Metropolitan Planning Strategy in April 2013. The Council recommended six points to be addressed in the submission.
The State Government has now completed a Draft Strategy with a vision “Melbourne will be a global city of opportunity and choice”. The Draft Strategy is open for submissions until 6 December 2013.
The Draft Strategy details challenges and opportunities for Melbourne and Victoria and outlines nine key concepts: delivering a new integrated economic triangle; protecting the suburbs by delivering density and defined location; a state of cities; delivering a pipeline of investment opportunity; better use of existing assets; 20 minute neighbourhoods; housing choice and affordability; transitioning to a more sustainable city; and good governance and strong partnerships.
The strategy further outlines seven objectives, each with detailed specific directions. The objectives are: delivering jobs and investment; housing choice and affordability; a more connected Melbourne; liveable communities and neighbourhoods; environment and water; a state of cities; and implementation – delivering better governance.
It is considered that the primary matters raised in Council’s March submission on the discussion paper have generally been addressed, and further that the strategy provides a good basis for future planning. However, it is considered appropriate to lodge a submission which addresses a number of key issues prior to the finalisation of the strategy. This submission is detailed in Appendix 1.
The key issues addressed in the submission are: 1) The Draft Strategy should elevate the importance of Geelong to the broader future of Victoria, and recognise its’ second city status in relation to investment in infrastructure and support for new major employment growth. 2) Council recognise the potential for a future third airport in south eastern Melbourne, however submit that further policy support and infrastructure investment is timely and necessary to allow Avalon Airport to grow air traffic, passengers and freight capacity, and to maximise the competitive advantage that Victoria enjoys with this second airport in proximity to the Metropolitan area. 3) There is a necessity to undertake another level of detailed planning on the feasibility of the Port of Hastings to service Victoria’s transport needs of the future before committing to the major investment into this facility as the second container port for Melbourne.
Cr Macdonald moved, Cr S Kontelj seconded -
That Council resolves to:
endorse the response detailed in Appendix 1 to be sent to the State Government as Council submission to the draft Metropolitan Planning Strategy;
authorise the Chief Executive Officer and other relevant officers to engage in any process discussion/workshops in relation to the finalisation of the Metropolitan Planning Strategy, to ensure that Council submissions are appropriately considered.
Carried.
The Council considered the discussion paper on the Metropolitan Planning Strategy “Melbourne – let’s talk about the future” earlier in 2013. Council resolved to make a submission to that discussion paper focussing on six key points, detailed in the Discussion section of this Report.
The State Government has now produced Plan Melbourne – Metropolitan Planning Strategy published for comment in October, 2013. The submission period is open until the December 6, 2013.
The Draft Strategy includes a vision for Melbourne until 2050. It discusses challenges for the future of Melbourne namely congestion, affordability, accessibility, a changing climate, rural encroachment and implementation. Opportunities are also identified, such as a productive and vibrant central city, diverse industry base, educated, flexible and multicultural workforce, liveable neighbourhoods and suburbs, a network of regional cities, integrated high capacity transport system, internationally recognised university sector, clean environment and valuable natural assets, sporting arts and cultural capital.
The Draft Strategy covers nine key concepts or ‘major strategic insights’:
Delivering a new integrated economic triangle
The integrated economic triangle will connect the Hastings-Dandenong corridor with the Hume corridor to the north and the Wyndham-Geelong corridor to the south west, with the triangle to encompass the following elements: expanded central city, Port of Hastings, East West and North East Link, Melbourne Metro (connecting Dandenong and Sunbury) and the outer Metropolitan Ring Road.
Protecting the suburbs by defining density in defined locations
Five new Metropolitan sub-regions are to be established, including a new central sub-region with the intent to achieve a better balance between jobs and population growth across the city and encourage collaboration between Local Governments. A further initiative is a permanent urban growth boundary with the intent of protecting high value agricultural land on the outskirts of the city, reducing growth in the urban fringes and supporting growth in regional cities. The stated intent is to protect existing “Melbourne suburbs from significant housing densification”.
A state of cities
This concept recognises that regional centres are well connected, within viable commuting distance of Melbourne, offer attractive housing and employment opportunities, and can reduce pressure on Melbourne by absorbing some of its growing population: “Victoria’s long term prosperity will be supported by investments that facilitate the growth of regional Victoria and enable it to be better integrated with Melbourne, and national and international markets.”
Delivering a pipeline of Investment opportunities
The benefits delivered by projects such as CityLink, the City Loop, Southbank, Docklands and the Western Ring Road are noted, and the Strategy aims to support infrastructure of this nature by establishing “a pipeline of defined new investment opportunities for the private sector in and around Melbourne’s existing and planned transport network”.
Better use of existing assets
Owing to the significant cost of maintenance and upagerade of Melbourne infrastructure, this concept recommends doing more with existing assets, for example, planning for population growth by designating urban renewal sites that are co-located with existing and planned infrastructure. Further there is recognition that “smart technologies can improve the load capacity and efficiency of existing transport, water, waste and energy infrastructure in established urban areas”.
20-Minute Neighbourhood
These Neighbourhoods have access to local shops, schools, parks, jobs and a range of community services within a 20 minute trip from each household. Current initiatives which assist in achieving this are: introducing reformed commercial and residential zones; and updating Precinct Structure Planning Guidelines to increase activity centres in growth areas and making neighbourhoods pedestrian friendly.
Housing choice and affordability
The Draft Strategy recognises that affordability is more than just a price of a house, but includes the cost of living. It suggests “the Government have made a conscious effort to significantly increase supply of housing in growth areas”, and is now working on a pipeline of urban renewal projects near jobs and services including Fishermans Bend.
Transitioning to a more sustainable City
Initiatives include: “creating more compact cities; making better use of transport infrastructure; greening metropolitan areas; creating more open space; reforming energy and water supply and use; conserving biodiversity; improving building design; and encouraging active forms of transport such as walking and cycling.”
Good governance and strong partnerships
The Draft Strategy suggests that “good governance processes harness local innovation, create opportunities for local advocates and neighbourhood-based participation and strengthen social networks and bonds.”
Policy context
There is a detailed explanation within the strategy around population and employment projected growth and the current population and estimated growth within Melbourne.
The Draft Strategy then outlines seven objectives, each with a range of solutions identified.
For the convenience of Council each of these objectives are quoted below with a selection of the high level solutions which are relevant to Geelong.
“Delivering jobs and investment”
As part of the integrated land use and transport strategy, recognise the evolution an integrated economic triangle running between the Dandenong-Hastings corridor, the Hume corridor and the Wyndham-Geelong corridor over the life of the strategy to 2050.
Facilitate investment in Melbourne’s growth areas to increase local access to employment, and improve job choices, particularly in growth areas. Increase the competitiveness of employment land by reducing development costs for industry.
Identify a pipeline of urban renewal sites around the existing and planned rail and wider transport network to unlock investment opportunities for the private sector and maximise the state’s return on infrastructure investment.
Plan and facilitate private sector tourism investment opportunities in Melbourne and rural regional Victoria.
Housing choice and affordability
Develop a different approach to multi-unit development including preparing a new ‘good planning guide’ to provide guidance for multi-unit development and the application in the reformed residential zones.
Work with local governments on mechanisms to facilitate greater diversity of housing within new developments including family-friendly housing, affordable and social housing and housing for key workers.
A more connected Melbourne
Commence construction of East West Link Stage 1 in 2014.
Expand Port of Melbourne container capacity and commence planning and development of the Port of Hastings to ensure it is operational and available to supplement the capacity of the Port of Melbourne from the mid-2020s.
Increase the volume of freight carried on rail by investigating a south-east rail link to provide a dedicated rail link between Dandenong and Dynon for freight and V/Line trains as part of planning for rail connection to the Port of Hastings. Plan for the intestate Freight Terminal and the proposed Donnybrook/Beveridge Interstate Freight Terminal.
Establish Intermodal terminals linking ports to major distribution centres.
Ensure sufficient airport capacity with efficient landside access for passengers and freight including completion of planning for a rail link to Melbourne Airport. Investigate potential sites for a new airport to serve the long term needs of south east Melbourne and Gippsland.
Liveable communities and neighbourhoods
Implement healthy design guidelines to support healthier neighbourhoods design and ensure that the municipal pubic health and wellbeing plans to inform and shape the municipal strategic statements.
Create health precincts to meet the needs of residents across Melbourne and include health precincts in the State Planning Policy Framework and in my urban renewal planning guidelines.
Coordinate a whole-of-government approach to the delivery of education, health, recreation and cultural facilities and remove planning impediments to not-for-profit community services in the planning system.
Environment and water
Accommodate the majority of new dwellings in established areas within walking distance to the public transport network and ensure settlement planning in growth areas and pre-urban areas responds to natural hazards.
Protect high-quality agricultural land in Melbourne’s non-urban areas for food production and assess and protect strategically significant agricultural land through the development of appropriate planning provisions.
A state of cities
Establish a permanent metropolitan urban boundary, having regard to input from local governments and the report of the Logical Inclusions Advisory Committee of November 2011.
Better manage Melbourne’s peri-urban region, including designating towns for growth.
Strengthen the economic, social and amenity roles of the regional city CBDs by encouraging increased business and residential densities as well as social, civic and cultural facilities in these locations.
Identify a pipeline of new renewal and fill opportunities in regional cities and centres that optimise infrastructure and investment and surplus government land.
Identify pipeline of new rural village-style developments to attract growth out of Melbourne and into the peri-urban area and regional Victoria.
Bring together planning strategies for the metropolitan Melbourne and regional Victoria.
Continue to provide road and rail upagerades between Melbourne, the peri-urban area and regional cities.
Develop long term plans for freight and logistics infrastructure along key corridors linking Melbourne and regional Victoria (such as the Hume Highway, between Geelong and the South Australia border, the Western and Midland Highways and Gippsland).
Implementation: delivering better governance
Reform development contribution including implementing a new state wide contributions system and investigate the use of value capture to change the way we fund city-shaping infrastructure.
Implement clear framework for consideration of unsolicited private sector proposals for investment including establishing an application and decision making process for unsolicited proposals.”
The Draft Strategy outlines specific Directions under each of these Objectives. Some of these are additionally broken down into short term, medium term and long term directions, with State Government departments allocated.
The City of Greater Geelong submission is detailed in Appendix 1 which addresses these matters accordingly.
In the previous submission of April 2013 relating to the Discussion Paper, the City of Greater Geelong focussed on the following six items:
Support for closer links between Melbourne and regional cities and the need for additional investment in infrastructure particularly public transport.
Support for the location of an employment cluster in Melbourne’s west which would benefit from the proximity of Avalon Airport, the Port of Geelong and the accessibility provided by the Geelong Ring Road, Princes Highway and the standard and broad gauge rail lines.
Acknowledgement of the Metropolitan Planning Strategy identifying the need for integration between the G21 Regional Growth Plan and the Metropolitan Strategy particularly on interface issues.
The benefits that Geelong and the region can offer residents in the west of Melbourne in terms of service provision particularly in health and education, and the importance of ensuring infrastructure investment in health and education services in Geelong keeps pace with population growth in Geelong and West Melbourne.
The continued support for transport projects including the East West Link as an alternative to the Westgate Bridge and the rail link to Avalon.
The support and the need to consolidate investment in Avalon in advance of the development of a third airport for Victoria.
It is considered that in general, the Draft Strategy addresses these items, in particular, items 1, 2, 3 and 5. The solutions and directions identified under the ‘A state of cities’ concept/objective clearly address the submission which the City of Greater Geelong made to the earlier Discussion Paper (Items 1, 3 and 5). The ‘Delivering a new integrated economic triangle’ concept also recognises the economic significance of Geelong in the broader regional context (Item 2).
Items 4 and 6 are not explicitly addressed, and the City of Greater Geelong considers that a submission is required to ensure that these messages are considered. The key points the City of Greater Geelong offers as part of this second submission are the following:
Geelong merits recognition as Victoria’s second city and for the very key role it plays to accommodate potential Melbourne growth. Given its proximity to metropolitan Melbourne and the capacity of the Port of Geelong and Avalon, Geelong should be identified much more strongly in the Draft Strategy, rather than simply parcelled up with the other regional cities across Victoria.
The Draft Strategy does no service to growing Avalon as a key economic development tool for the south-west region and for the State of Victoria. The Draft Strategy needs to recognise the important role of Avalon now and in the future to leverage our competitive advantage in air passenger and freight movement both internationally and domestically, given the proximity of this major airport facility to the metropolitan region of Melbourne. The planning for a third airport in Melbourne’s south east is considered to need further consideration by Government prior to finalisation of the Draft Strategy.
In addition, a new issue has emerged.
The Council recognises the policy position of the State Government in relation to Hastings as the next container port for Melbourne; however it is considered that explicit strategic support for this initiative is premature given the feasibility study work which is currently being undertaken on the Port of Hastings development. As such it is recommended that options be left open for consideration of alternate container ports subject to completion of feasibility assessments.
The justification for the proposed rezoning and subdivision application is confirmed through the conflicting nature of the current use of the land in the Public Park and Recreation Zone and also, through the process of preparing Council owned land for sale.
The use of the land as a food and drink premises conducted by/on behalf of a private operator conflicts with the underlying purpose of the Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ). A purpose of the PPRZ is:
“To recognise areas for public recreation and open space.”
The PPRZ is the main zone for public open space and public recreation areas. Generally, land in the PPRZ is overseen by a public land manager, for example, a Council, and any use is conducted on their behalf.
Ministerial Direction on The Form and Content of Planning Schemes advises that:
“A planning scheme may only include land in a Public Use Zone, a Public Park and Recreation Zone or a Public Conservation Zone and Resource Zone if the land is Crown land, or is owned by, vested in or controlled by a Minister, government, public authority or municipal council.”
The land is in Council ownership but it is not available for public use or as a park and it has been leased to McDonalds since the 1980’s. Should the land be sold to a private buyer whilst in the PPRZ, this would conflict with the Ministerial Direction.
To reflect the historic use of the land and to accord with the best practice advice provided by the Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (DTPLI) for the sale of public land, consideration must be given to the appropriate zone for the land. Clause 34.02 Commercial 2 Zone is the most appropriate zone.
A purpose of the Commercial 2 Zone is:
“To develop commercial areas for offices, appropriate manufacturing and industries, bulky goods retailing, other retail uses, and associated business and commercial services.”
The Commercial 2 Zone allows the current use of the land subject to obtaining a planning permit. Given the McDonalds restaurant is an established use, a permit is not required for the use in this instance. The Commercial 2 Zone is considered the most appropriate zone in the context of the current use of the site and the likely uses and development that Council would support in the future.
In addition to the above, the Best Practice Note (Page 7) advises that consideration be given to the highest and best use of the land being proposed for sale, whether subdivision would be appropriate, an environmental report where there is possible contamination, where contaminated, a strategy for remediation is prepared. Fundamentally, the preparation of land for sale should be cost-effective and be consistent with the nature of the land being proposed for sale as well as the circumstances which have led to the proposed sale.
The introduction of the Environmental Audit Overlay is in line with the above State Government guidance and with Ministerial Direction No. 1 Potentially Contaminated. Direction No.1 requires that planning authorities when preparing amendments to satisfy themselves that the environmental conditions of the land proposed to be used for a sensitive use defined as residential use, a child care centre, a pre-school centre or a primary school, or agriculture or public open space, are or will be, suitable for that use.
The proposed Environmental Audit Overlay recognises the previous use of the land for landfill and will ensure that the requirement of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme and Ministerial Direction No. 1 are met before the commencement of a sensitive use or any associated building or works. In the case of the proposed Commercial 2 Zone, a sensitive use could potentially be an “Education Centre”- a primary school.
The permit to subdivide the land from the Reserve and remove the Reserve restriction is a logical proposal and will facilitate the sale of the land. The subdivision of the land will form a new lot for the McDonalds site, including a carriageway easement over the Reserve land to the north in favour of the proposed lot, thereby ensuring continued rights of access (See Appendix 5).
Internal referrals were sent to Council’s Engineering (Drainage) Unit, Environmental Health and Recreation and Open Space. A number of comments were received by these units, which have informed the initial assessment of the application. VicRoads was also notified and offered no objection.
Council provides the following reasons of justification for the proposed rezoning:
Deppeler Park has no immediate association with a residential area and will continue in its current role as a landscaped former land fill site with walking trails and wetland.
There is no identified shortage of open space;
The size of land owned by Council in the Deppeler Park area will be reduced by approximately 1.8% following the sale of the lot to be created.
The land to be sold has not been used for public park purposes since the restaurant was constructed in 1980 and is unlikely to revert to a park in the future.
The Council has sold parts of Deppeler Park in recent years to various owners and authorities. Council has no plans to sell other parts of the Park.
The combined planning scheme amendment and planning permit application is considered a logical proposal and will lead to a good planning outcome. It will assist Council to sell Council owned land that is considered to have a better financial outcome over leasing the property.
It is noted that this Council report, which seeks support to prepare and exhibit the combined planning scheme amendment and planning permit application, is supported by a Sale report prepared by Council. The Sale report discusses the detailed financial implications for the affected land.
The Draft Strategy obviously takes into consideration a raft of environmental considerations, none of which are in conflict with the City of Greater Geelong’s environmental strategy and or initiatives.
There are no immediate financial implications associated with Council making a submission in relation to this strategy, however the strategy does have implications in relation to potential long term investment into Geelong from the State Government and to that end it is considered important that a submission is lodged in relation to this strategy.
Lodging a submission to the State Government’s Plan Melbourne – Metropolitan Planning Strategy will not result in any financial implication for Council.
This strategy obviously is an extremely important government position in respect to ongoing commitment and investment across metropolitan Melbourne and broader Victoria. Hence it is important that Council involve itself in a detailed response to the strategy accordingly.
There are no explicit conflicts with Council’s City Plan as a result of the Metropolitan Strategy recommendations. However, it is considered that the matters discussed above need to be addressed in order to ensure that Geelong’s significant role in the broader Victorian economy and landscape is appropriately recognised in this Metropolitan Strategy.
No officer involved in the preparation or drafting of this report has any direct or indirect interest in matters contained within the report.
There is no requirement for risk assessment to be undertaken as part of preparation of a submission to the Metropolitan strategy.
There are no adverse social implications as a result of Council making a submission to the Metropolitan Strategy. It is considered important that a submission addressing the abovementioned issues be lodged to ensure that the broader social, community benefits, which might flow from the Metropolitan Strategy are taken into consideration in the final adoption of a Metropolitan Strategy.
There is no requirement for any further consideration by Council in relation to the Human Rights Charter, with consultation and engagement the responsibility of the State Government in respect to the Metropolitan Strategy.
The Council’s submission in relation to the Metropolitan Strategy should be broadly communicated to stakeholders and interested parties across Geelong to ensure that Council’s position in relation to the Metropolitan Strategy is clearly understood.
Portfolio: |
Environment & Sustainability – Cr Richards |
Source: |
Economic Development, Planning & Tourism |
General Manager: |
Peter Bettess |
Index Reference: |
Subject: Future Proofing Geelong |
This report provides an update to the Council on the achievements of Future Proofing Geelong and an outline of the activities to be delivered during this financial year.
Future Proofing Geelong (FPG) is now in its third year of operation. Future Proofing Geelong was established to promote initiatives which seek to support the region in working towards a low carbon future. The Low Carbon Growth Plan for Geelong provides a road map to achieve this.
A Sustainability Covenant was signed by the founding partners of Future Proofing Geelong which include the City of Greater Geelong, the Geelong Manufacturing Council, EPA Victoria, Deakin University, the Geelong Chamber of Commerce, Barwon Water, and Committee for Geelong.
The covenant expires in March 2014, all partners need to consider Future Proofing Geelong’s role beyond this point.
Key initiatives of Future Proofing Geelong include engagement with commercial building owners to support energy efficient building upagerades (161 builders owners have been actively engaged), support with funding applications for companies seeking to make business improvements with $1 million secured for projects and $9 million pending (50 companies have been supported) and engagement with the community through 56 events involving over 6000 participants.
Armstrong Creek Sustainable House has been delivered which provides an information hub to new home builders to help them build environmentally friendly and energy efficient homes which will minimise carbon emissions and ongoing costs.
FPG has partnered with the Geelong Manufacturing Council to establish Cleantech Innovations Geelong. Cleantech Innovations Geelong is an alliance of business and industry looking to develop Geelong as a centre of excellence for cleantech in Australia.
Cr Richards moved, Cr Ansett seconded -
That Council notes the progress of the Future Proofing Geelong project.
Carried.
Future Proofing Geelong was launched on 12 May 2011 and coincided with the release of the Low Carbon Growth Plan for Geelong and the signing of the Sustainability Covenant amongst program partners.
Partners that signed the Sustainability Covenant include the City of Greater Geelong, the Geelong Manufacturing Council, EPA Victoria, Deakin University, the Geelong Chamber of Commerce, Barwon Water, and Committee for Geelong.
The Low Carbon Growth Plan for Geelong highlights where Geelong's carbon emissions are coming from and provides a roadmap of actions as to where to target our efforts to reduce emissions. Three of the key actions areas include:
Retrofitting residential and commercial buildings to maximise energy efficiency;
Supporting local small and medium sized businesses to capture energy efficiency savings and abatement potential; and
Localised power generation through cleaner technologies such as cogeneration, solar, waste-to-energy and geothermal.
The FPG vision is that in 2030, Geelong is internationally recognised as one of the world’s most resilient cities through collaboration and innovation in the following three focus areas:
Sustainability – through efficient resource use and the protection and enhancement of environmental assets
Liveability – building healthy communities, which are connected and care for each other
Productivity – through a transition to a low carbon economy; cleaner, leaner and smarter businesses and industries powered by an informed, educated and skilled workforce that thinks and acts for the long term.
Future Proofing Geelong engages with business and industry, commercial building operators and the community through a range of avenues.
Engagement with commercial building operators occurs through provision of grants to assist with energy audits through paying for half the cost of an audit. Building owners are then well placed to prepare a business case for energy efficient building upagerades and retrofits. In the 2011/12 financial year 14 grants were provided. These grants are continuing to be offered as they provide valuable incentives to encourage building owners to undertake energy efficiency upagerades.
Business and industry are supported by providing support through grant sourcing and grant writing. FPG has also co-funded Cleantech Innovations Geelong with the Geelong Manufacturing Council and the Manufacturing Productivity Network Program. Cleantech Innovations Geelong is an alliance of business and industry looking to develop Geelong as a centre of excellence for cleantech in Australia. A market development plan will be produced by December 2013, this will outline the market and skills needs of clean tech for Greater Geelong. A list of projects, which will develop businesses, create jobs and stimulate markets, will be listed in the plan and funding will be sought to support delivery.
Engaging with the community is a key component of Future Proofing Geelong. Raising awareness and supporting community action has the ability to provide significant benefits in transitioning to a low carbon future. Community members are represented on the Project Task Group and provide input into projects and actions.
FPG was a key sponsor of Sustainable House Day delivered by Geelong Sustainability Group. Other awareness raising events that FPG has participating in include 2013 Sustainable Living Festival and the Better Blocks program.
The Smarter Homes Smarter Living program is an initiative developed through FPG to engage with new home builders to encourage energy efficient homes. The Armstrong Creek Sustainable House (ACSH) is now open in the Warralily display village. The house provides existing and new residents with sustainability information to assist in improving the energy efficiency of their home. Influencing decision making at this level will minimise carbon emissions. The information suite includes a website www.armstrongcreeksustainablehouse.com.au based around four themes energy, water waste and garden, and provides detailed information on ideas for environmental sustainability and cost savings for people building or renovating a home.
The Future Proofing Geelong project is delivering positive environmental outcomes through education and assistance to businesses and the wider community to improve energy efficiency and reduce carbon emissions.
Future Proofing Geelong is fully funded in the 2012/3 budget.
There is no policy, legal or statutory implications resulting from this report.
Future Proofing Geelong aligns with the City Plan in the following ways:
Armstrong Creek; helping to achieve the vision for this urban development by meeting the highest standards of sustainable living.
Growing the economy; by working with business and industry to transition to their next generation of being, through the market development work of Cleantech Innovations Geelong.
Sustainable built and natural environment; by working with commercial building operators to improve energy efficiency.
No Council Officers have a direct or indirect interest in accordance with Section 80(c) of the Local Government Act in the issue to which this report relates.
There are no risks associated with this report.
The Future Proofing Geelong project has positive social impacts through community engagement with the Project Task Group and the Community Energy Efficiency Program.
This report has no impact on the human rights charter, however it is noted that the aims of Future Proofing Geelong support the human rights charter.
The Future Proofing Geelong website is regularly updated to showcase the work the City of Greater Geelong and other Future Proofing Geelong partners are doing to deliver the vision of the program, and to deliver the recommendations in the Low Carbon Growth Plan.
Portfolio: |
Governance – Cr Harwood (Acting Mayor) |
Source: |
Corporate Services - Corporate Strategy |
General Manager: |
Jeff Wall |
Index Reference: |
Corporate Management |
Council at its meeting on 25 June 2013 adopted City Plan 2013-2017, that outlined the Strategic Directions and Priorities planned by the City over that four-year period, and the Annual Business Plan Actions planned for 2013-2014.
This report is the progress report to Council of the organisations achievements against these actions.
Attachment A details the status and provides commentary against the Annual Business Plan actions. The key to the status of actions is:
On Schedule: |
Green | 219 |
| Completed: | Black | 11 |
| Major Issue: | Red | 2 |
| Minor Issue: | Yellow | 6 |
| Not Started: | White | 20 |
Total Actions |
|
258 |
Cr S Kontelj moved, Cr Nelson seconded -
That Council receives and notes the City Plan Progress Report to 30 September 2013.
Carried.
That Council at its meeting on 25 June 2013 adopted City Plan 2013-2017, which has been developed within a framework of four strategic directions.:
Community Wellbeing
Healthy Together Geelong: to enhance health, wellbeing and quality of life of Greater Geelong Communities.
Growing Our Economy
Securing Geelong’s economic future
A Sustainable Built and Natural Environment
Partnering with our community to protect and enhance our natural ecosystems and to encourage sustainable design and reduced resource consumption.
How We Do Business
We will focus on developing and maintaining effective working relationships to deliver Council’s strategic directions and cost effective services that meet the changing needs of the community.
This report and attachment indicates the status of the actions in City Plan for the 2013-2014 financial year.
Status and comments are provided for each of the 258 actions within the four strategic directions.
There have been a number of significant achievements made against the actions in 2013-2014 including:
Status Summary:
| On Schedule: | 123 |
Completed: | 6 |
Major Issue: | 1 |
| Minor Issue: | 6 |
Not Started: | 13 |
A number of projects have been completed including the Thomson Reserve change room extension, Newcomb and District Sports Club social room refurbishment, Friers Reserve pavilion upagerade, and upagerades to the Burdoo Reserve roads and carpark. Planning is also well underway for a number of sport and recreation reserve and facility upagerades with the majority of design and/or construction works beginning from the second quarter of the financial year.
Barwon Heads Early Learning Centre is progressing well with the concept design of the new centre recently adopted. The project will be moving into the schematic design stage in the coming months, which will include considering the movement of cars around the centre. The new centre will include a double room kindergarten, spaces for maternal and child health services and a multi-purpose community space. The total project cost is expected to be $4.12 million with the State Government contributing $1 million.
Works on the Geelong West Town Hall forecourt upagerade are now complete. The area has been transformed to reinstate the former open plan style and refocus the area onto the soldiers’ memorial plinth. The new seats and lawn area are now suitable for events as well as everyday recreational use.
Planning for the Children’s Week activity program has taken place and been publicised through local media during September. Children’s Week will take place in October and consists of approximately 70 events and will involve thousands of children and their families. This event celebrates and focuses community attention to the importance of children as they thrive, learn and grow.
The Windsor Park Children and Family Centre is progressing well with the announcement that Perkins Architects have been appointed for the design, and the detailed design stage to be undertaken shortly. The centre will include a two room preschool with 66 places, two maternal and child health consulting rooms, three consulting spaces for visiting support services, a multi-purpose playgroup room and shared playground areas with future scope for long or casual day care.
Construction of the Ocean Grove Integrated Children’s Centre is now entering the final stage and is scheduled for completion shortly. Once construction is complete, Council will set up the facility to be ready for the start of the 2014 school year. The building covers an entire area of approximately 4000m2 and will be of great benefit to all young families in the region.
The Victorian Health Promotion Achievement Program is being implemented through Healthy Together Geelong, a Council-managed initiative addressing the underlying causes of poor health in children's settings, workplaces and communities. Areas of priority for the program include healthy eating and oral health, mental health and wellbeing, and physical activity. Healthy Together Victoria is jointly funded by the State Government of Victoria and the Australian Government through the National Partnership Agreement on Preventive Health (NPAPH).
Growing Our Economy
Status Summary:
| On Schedule: | 43 |
Completed: | 2 |
Major Issue: | 0 |
| Minor Issue: | 0 |
Not Started: | 1 |
The construction phase of the Geelong Library and Heritage Centre will begin shortly following a ceremony held to mark the demolition of the old library building. The new centre will be an impressive addition to Geelong’s architectural and cultural landscape. It will be a six-storey state-of-the-art facility with all the modern conveniences for today’s library user. The project has been jointly funded by the City $20M, the State Government $15M and the Federal Government $10M.
The shopping centre at the Leopold Gateway Plaza is set for expansion following Council’s decision to support the submission of a rezoning amendment and planning permit to the Minister for Planning. The proposal involves an expansion of floor space from 7,000m2 to more than 22,000m2, and if approved will help to cater for the fast growing population of the Bellarine Peninsula. Consideration has been given with consultants currently engaged to investigate how the expanded centre will integrate with the current surroundings and nearby Leopold Memorial Park Recreation Reserve.
The National Disability Insurance Agency opened its doors in Geelong for the first time at the beginning of July this year. Geelong is one of five national launch sites for the agency and has been chosen as its head office location. Geelong was able to demonstrate experience and expertise in disability services, the right mix of infrastructure, a positive environment for growth, a strong and diverse economy and credentials as a proven corporate base for business.
The Geelong Small Business Festival was held in the month of August with over 40 information sessions, events and networking opportunities on offer at no or minimal cost to the community. Event topics included social media and marketing, recruiting and retaining staff, leadership, buying and selling a business and how to develop and grow your business. The festival also offered plenty of networking opportunities.
The free public wifi service in Central Geelong has been upageraded for faster service and longer connection times. The wifi upagerade will provide people with noticeably longer time online with a 50MG daily limit (10MG previously) and unlimited free access to council, community, tourism, health and public information websites. The City is also working with Deakin University to expand the free public wifi service to the Waterfront precinct in the near future.
Council has endorsed the Armstrong Creek East Precinct District Sports Reserve Master Plan. This plan was commissioned by the City to provide clear direction for the construction of sporting infrastructure at the first sporting reserve in Armstrong Creek, and to ensure the needs of the Armstrong Creek community are met. Key sporting infrastructure for the reserve have been determined through previously completed precinct structure planning.
A Sustainable Built and Natural Environment
Status Summary:
| On Schedule: | 28 |
Completed: | 1 |
Major Issue: | 0 |
| Minor Issue: | 0 |
Not Started: | 4 |
The Climate Change Adaptation Toolkit which the City developed in partnership with RMIT University and NetBalance has recently received praise from the local government sector. The City has as a result been invited by the Australian Centre for Excellence in Local Government to partner a select group of councils to create a practical manual to guide other councils through the challenges of climate change. The Toolkit was developed to guide council staff in considering and responding to the risks of climate change and support strategic planning to manage the complexities and uncertainty of climate change impacts.
National Tree Planting Day (28th July) had over twenty volunteers attend the Ted Wilson shared cycling and walking path in Hamlyn Heights to plant a further 650 trees along the trail. Trees planted included a mix of indigenous species. This initiative formed part of Council’s ongoing Greenway Project, which will eventually result in some 50-thousand indigenous trees, shrubs and grasses lining 13 kilometres of the pathway, with seven thousand trees already planted.
Sunday 8 September was Sustainable House Day, and to celebrate 12 eco-friendly homes and gardens around Greater Geelong opened their doors to the public. This year’s event was more popular than ever and attracted a record crowd of over 3000 visitors. The houses showcased how people have made practical changes to their existing homes or incorporated environmental sustainability into their new house design. The event was organised by the Geelong Sustainability Group with the City continuing to provide support through their Future Proofing Geelong and ecoCHALLENGE initiatives.
The City has recently adopted a master plan to protect Jerringot Wetland Reserve with an aim to guide Council, the GNFC (Geelong Field Naturalists Club) and other key stakeholders how best to protect, enhance and rehabilitate the reserve now and into the future. Many of the recommendations within the master plan will result in long term protection and enhancement of the biodiversity values within the reserve, in particular the protection of rare and threatened animals.
As part of the City’s Climate Change Adaptation program, a new study explores the characteristics of urban heat and a report has been created to help with future planning for community services, urban design, buildings, streetscapes and open space. The Urban Heat Island effect (UHI), and urban heat more broadly, has a range of potential impacts on health, infrastructure and resource consumption. Potential impacts associated with urban heat include heat stress leading to illness and mortality for humans and animals; and increased water and energy consumption (irrigation, air conditioning, increase transport usage). A range of short and long term priority actions for the City identified through this process have been developed to be implemented as a result of this study.
East Geelong traders and small businesses will be enjoying reduced energy bills thanks to a new Future Proofing Geelong partnership program with ‘Positive Charge’, an independent, not-for-profit enterprise. A free workshop on 29th July introduced the program, with retailers looking forward to reducing their bills and receiving free energy checks. Retailers will also be visited by Positive Charge experts offering free, on-the-spot, energy checks. The City is pleased to continue partnering with organisations through Future Proofing Geelong to deliver real energy-saving results for the community.
A new Community Sustainability Directory, developed by the Geelong Sustainability Group, has been launched to help people track down ‘green’ businesses and community organisations in Geelong. Future Proofing Geelong funded the group to build a database of environmentally conscious community groups, initiatives, courses, events, publications, websites, projects, services, businesses and professionals. The group includes not-for-profit community groups, projects and social enterprises working towards a sustainable future as well as accredited ‘green’ businesses.
The ’Rethink Your Rubbish’ program continues to be a success with a number of initiatives held during the last quarter. 29 new waste collection trucks were dispatched throughout Geelong, featuring a new design focussed on people, place and the environment. To help with the rising costs associated with the carbon tax and landfill levy all ratepayers have also received a tip voucher in their mail. An electrical drop off day has also been organised to occur on 17th November to help residents dispose of small electrical appliances which are often put into the garbage bin and end up in landfill wasting valuable resources and leading to environmental damage. These items contain a range of materials which can be separated for recycling and used in new products.
How We Do Business
Status Summary:
| On Schedule: | 25 |
Completed: | 2 |
Major Issue: | 1 |
| Minor Issue: | 0 |
Not Started: | 2 |
Council has approved the establishment of a Woman in Community Life Advisory Committee. This committee who’s members have now been appointed, will provide opportunity to further the work of Council with a range of community groups, businesses and organisations in advocating for, planning and influencing service delivery that impacts women’s lives. The advisory committee will be a valuable source of advice to Council on these matters and will seek, encourage, build on and create opportunities for a greater number of women of diverse backgrounds.
Special Rates and Charges to carry out roads, footpaths, kerb and channel and drainage works are underway, with Terrace and Wood Street complete and a panel hearing for Colite Street and The Avenue held. The tender process is now due for the Aberdeen Street carpark, Albert Street laneway and Prospect Road laneway. Manton Road is currently under construction.
The Implementation of a new Aged Care Management System is underway and progressing well with two of three data conversions undertaken resulting in 94% data compatibility which has exceeded all expectations. Mobile hardware has been acquired and pilot teams will be in place prior to the Christmas period.
A report on the recently conducted Financial Sustainability Review has been completed. The independent review found that the Council is in a strong financial position but also identifies four priority areas for action:
Greater emphasis on strategic asset management. Detailed analysis of the impact of increased capital investment and levels of maintenance and renewal expenditure required for the next 10 years.
Review of the 10 year Strategic Resource Plan, Financial Plan and Capital Works Plan.
Introduction of service planning to enable comparative choices to be made about the range, levels and cost of services balanced with the needs of the community.
Review of the budget process incorporating the outcomes of service planning and improved capital evaluation processes.
Publication of City News, Community Update and the City’s Annual Calendar are all on schedule. The next edition of Community Update is due for distribution late November.
A number of corporate training programs are currently underway including Plain English, OHS programs, and Council and Information Services induction programs.
The Geelong Road Safety Strategy 2012-2017 has been formally adopted and identifies partnership initiatives that aim to reduce the incidence and severity of road crashes and associated road trauma. The strategy provides an overview of road safety issues, a summary of road trauma in the Geelong Local Government Area (LGA) and takes a ‘safe system approach’ to improve road safety, promote safer roads and roadsides, safer road users and vehicles. This strategy also outlines our contributions to the Statewide Road Safety Strategy.
There are several actions under the Sustainable Built and Natural Environment Strategic Direction within City Plan that aim to enhance and protect natural areas and ecosystem health, support our community to live sustainably, advocate for and promote sustainable design and development, and minimise our environmental footprint.
The City’s Annual Budget provides the Resource Plan to support the initiatives identified within the adopted Annual Business Plan.
The City’s external auditors will undertake a Performance Audit of the planned Key Strategic Activities and prepare a report as part of the ‘sign off’ of the Annual Accounts.
This report is the progress report of the organisations achievements against the adopted City Plan 2013-2017, 2013-2014 actions.
There is no conflict of interest to be disclosed.
The risks arising from the actions are managed within the framework of the City’s adopted Policies, Procedures and Risk Management strategies.
Several of the actions identified within City Plan are aimed at improving the quality of life for the resident in the City of Greater Geelong. This is particularly the case for actions within the Community Wellbeing Strategic Direction.
This report provides and update on the implementation of City Plan 2013-2017 and will be made available on Council’s website and on request at Council’s Customer Service Centres as part of the Council meeting minutes. There are no known positive or negative effects.
A comprehensive report on the 2013-2014 City Plan actions will be published in the City of Greater Geelong Annual Report by 30 September 2014, which will be submitted to the Minister for Local Government and available to the public in hard copy and on the Geelong Australia website.
Portfolio: |
Infrastructure, Parks and Gardens – Cr Ellis |
Source: |
Corporate Services – Property Strategy |
General Manager: |
Jeff Wall |
Index Reference: |
Land Purchases |
The purpose of this report is to recommend that the Council purchase part of the land at 69-71 McClelland Ave, Lara for drainage purposes.
Land in north east Lara has a history of inundation due to the flatness of the land, the inadequate under ground drainage system and lack of overland flow paths. In major flood events flood levels rise above 100mm for much of the catchment including parts developed for conventional housing.
In 2002 the North East Lara Flood Study examined options for controlling flooding in the area and recommended a preferred option of diverting overland flows in a westerly direction along McClelland Avenue. Purchase of the land will allow for works to facilitate overland flows from the area around The Esperence and Kyema Drive onto McClelland Avenue.
A valuation of the land dated 7 June 2013 has been obtained and while the agreed price is higher than the valuation, the valuer has indicated that it is within an acceptable range. In addition all cost associated with the subdivision of the land, the Council will meet all the vendor’s reasonable costs.
An allocation of $500,000 has been made in the 2013/14 capital budget for the purchase of the land and associated works around site. Works required to direct flood waters from the site west along McClelland Avenue will be the subject of future budget proposals.
There are no statutory advertising requirements for the purchase of land.
Cr Ellis moved, Cr Ansett seconded -
That Council:
Purchase 1,666m2 of the property at 69-71 McClelland Avenue, Lara on the following terms:
Price $375,000;
Deposit 10% on signing of contracts;
Settlement is conditional upon registration of the required plan of subdivision;
Other such terms and conditions considered appropriate to be included in the contract of sale; and
Note that the General Manager – Corporate Services will sign the contract of sale; and
Sign and seal the Transfer of Land.
Carried.
It is proposed to purchase and area of 1,666m2 of land zoned Residential 1 from owner George Chernih at 69-71 McClelland Avenue Lara.
Extensive areas of the eastern part of the Lara Township east of Rennie Street and the railway are subject to inundation. The catchment is very flat and most of the western section has been developed for conventional housing. Flooding in this catchment is unrelated to flooding associated with Hovells Creek.
While there exists an underground drainage system running north south through the catchment, the ability of flood water to get away in significant flood events is significantly constrained. Lack of grade in the underground system makes it ineffective in larger flood events and there is a lack of defined overland flow paths for water to escape.
While the majority of the catchment is subject to flooding to depths of less than 100mm, substantial areas in the centre of the catchment particularly around McClelland Avenue are subject to inundation to depths of greater than 100mm.
In 2002 the Council commissioned the North East Lara Flood Study by WBM Oceanics Australia. That study modelled the flood characteristics of the catchment and examined a range of possible solutions including:
2 options for the construction of retarding basins of significant size in the low density residential areas located in the higher more northerly and easterly parts of the catchment.
Construction of a bank along the east west alignment of McClelland Avenue to divert flood waters from the northern part of the catchment in a westerly direction to the open drain along the railway.
Duplication of the existing underground drainage network.
Combination of options.
The study concluded that the only practicable mitigation measure was the diversion of floodwater from east to west along the alignment of McClelland Avenue which involves the construction of a raised footpath on the downstream side of the road and a floodway constructed in the road reserve to discharge flood waters into the drain located along the railway. This measure will alleviate much of the flooding in the catchment to the south of McClelland Avenue.
The 2013/14 budget provides an allocation to purchase the land and construct a floodway on the land to be purchased and associated works only. Further works are required for the direction of flood waters west along McClelland Avenue and will be the subject of future budget proposals.
There is no significant or endangered fauna or flora located on the land to be purchased or that will be affected by the proposed works.
The 2013/14 capital budget provides for $500,000 for the North East Lara Drainage and Flood Mitigation Works under item C14301.
In addition to the cost of land the Council will be responsible for costs associated with subdividing the land plus the vendor’s reasonable costs mainly being legal costs.
There are various ways in which the Council can obtain land for public works including purchase by agreement, or where the owner has a development application refused or proves loss on sale. Alternatively the Council may initiate compulsory acquisition subject to the requirements in the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act.
There are considerable advantages for both owners and the Council to purchase land by agreement including time saving and avoidance of a range of additional costs, most of which must be met by the Council. Costs associated with transactions coming under the principles of the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act add to the Council’s final costs.
There are no statutory notification requirements for the purchase of land. The Local Government Act (‘the Act”) and the Best Practice Guideline for the Sale, Exchange and Transfer of Land are silent on requirements and procedures for purchasing land.
For land purchases of this nature it is advisable to obtain and have regard to a certified valuation. A certified valuation of $360,000 has been obtained dated 7 June 2013 and while the purchase price is higher than the valuation the valuer has indicated that it is within an acceptable range.
City Plan identifies various drainage and flood management strategies and plans as part of its Sustainable Built and Natural Environment Strategic Direction.
There is no direct or indirect conflict of interest by any of the parties contributing to the preparation of this report.
The purchase of this land and implementation of works will reduce the on going risk of inundation of properties in the eastern parts of Lara.
Avoidance of inundation of dwellings will bring considerable benefits to lives of residents in this catchment affected by flood events from time to time.
There are no positive or negative human rights matters associated with the recommendation of this report.
The Council’s Engineering Department supports the purchase of the land.
Portfolio: |
Planning - Cr Macdonald |
Source: |
Corporate Services – Corporate Strategy |
Chief Executive Officer: |
Jeff Wall |
Cr Macdonald moved, Cr Richards seconded -
That in accordance with Section 89 (2) (d) of the Local Government Act 1989, this contractual matter be considered at the conclusion of all other business at which time the meeting be closed to members of the public.
Contents | Previous Page: Section B - Report 1 | Next Page: Section C - Notice of Motion
