Amendment C73

Apollo Bay Harbour Master Plan 2013

CRG Briefing 10 February 2014

Purpose

• To update CRG on Council officer’s response and recommendations to submissions on Amendment C73

• To use this as a basis for reporting to Council on 26 February 2014

Apollo Bay Harbour Masterplan 2013

Amendment C73 overview

• Rezone the Harbour from Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ) to Special Use Zone (SUZ) and introduce Schedule 2 of the SUZ (SUZ2).

• Amend the Schedule to Clause 81 by listing the Apollo Bay Harbour Master Plan 2013 as an Incorporated Document in the planning scheme.

• Amend the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay for item HO300 (Pier Precinct Apollo Bay) by listing the Apollo Bay Harbour Master Plan 2013 as an incorporated document.

Exhibition

• Amendment on exhibition from 19 September to 30 October 2013– 27 submissions received– 21 of the 27 object to the amendment or a part of it – No objection from Corangamite CMA, EPA or DEPI

Issues raised in submissions• Procedural issues

• Lack of detail/need for Development Plan

• Accommodation/Hotel

• Preference for Otway Forum proposal

• Aboriginal well and Cultural Centre

• Built form and height/Visual impact

• Location of the sailing club

• Type of boat moorings

• Impact on town centre

• Landscaping

• Climate change impacts

• Amenities

• Parking

• Location of indoor pool

Workshop with submitters• Many CRG members attended the submitter briefing held on 25 November 2013 at the Apollo Bay Hotel• Attended by Council staff, Councillors, submitters and non-submitters• This was followed by a briefing of Council on 15 January 2014

Procedural issues

• Concern over the lack of formal consultation over the 2013 Master Plan

Response and report to Council

– Significant consultation over five year period

– 2013 version of Master Plan based on EbD Plan from 2008 & deletion of hotel (Feb 2012 Council decision)

– 2013 Plan has been on exhibition with amendment

– Submitter meeting held November 2013 and CRG meeting February 2014

Lack of detail/need for a development plan• Concern the Master Plan is too general and an

added level of detail is required/notificationResponse and report to Council

– The SUZ schedule requires a Development Plan to be completed which will resolve issues with Precinct 1 - principally how the commercial port operations will interact with public areas and new buildings

– Likely to be completed after the amendment has been approved

– Recommend wording to be inserted that allows for a period of community review of the Development Plan

– Amend SUZ2 to require DP to provide locations for BBQs, toilets, showers etc

Accommodation/Hotel

• Concern the amendment does not prohibit the hotel

Response

– The SUZ2 has been structured to prohibit the hotel

– This is definitive and consistent with the Feb 2012 Council resolution

– However, recommend inserting a ‘Hotel’ as a Section 3 use to make this entirely clear

Location of the sailing club

• Concern the location is on a ‘moving’ sand dune, not enough room for boat storage and costs would be beyond capacity of the club

Response and report to Council– The Club’s relocation has been part of all versions of the

Master Plan since 2005. Its relocation is important as it provides for a site for the Aboriginal Cultural Centre.

– However with the loss of the Hotel, the cultural centre could be located there, leaving the sailing club to retain its current position. This would address a significant number of the concerns expressed in submissions

– In regard to the costs of the new building, many of the key projects will need to be publically funded via grants from various levels of government.

Preference for Otway Forum proposal

• A number of submitters supported the Otway Forum (OF) proposal

Response and report to Council

– The amendment is implementing a Plan developed by Council in partnership with State Govt, not the OF proposal

– The 2013 Master Plan results from significant community engagement

– With the retention of the Sailing Club in its current position and the cultural centre to its west (former Hotel site) there are a limited number of differences remaining

– It is considered development under the Master Plan will not be visually prominent & will be low key

Aboriginal Well and Cultural Centre

• The well is under the Port operations building & this is where the cultural centre should be

Response

– Given the significant works proposed in this area and differing opinions of where the well is, it is unlikely this could be made a feature of this part of the precinct

Built form & height/Visual impact

• Concern over double storey nature of buildings & visual impact from various locations

Response and report to Council

– The height and intensity of buildings has reduced significantly from those originally proposed.

– Council has resolved to support two storey development on the foreshore as it provides for added community space and commercial activity in an area where increased activity is sought.

– It is noted these two storey buildings are set lower in the landscape than the Co-op building and will not exceed the current height of the pitch of the Co-op building. Development Plan will address this issue in more detail

– Recommend clarifying in amendment that maximum two stories, and buildings to taper down towards the east

Built form & height/Visual impact

Type of boat moorings • Concern over the use of Mediterranean mooringsResponse and report to Council

– If there are difficulties with Mediterranean design moorings then the Incorporated Document should not be too prescriptive.

– It is therefore proposed that the text be amended in the Incorporated Document to provide for other suitable mooring mechanisms.

Width of boardwalk• Issue raised at workshop with submitters. Concern that 6m may not be wide enough given café outdoor seatingResponse and report to Council­ To avoid being too prescriptive, the reference to width should be ‘at least 6m’ and let the Development Plan identify its appropriate width

Broadening uses that could be considered

• Issue raised at workshop. SUZ2 should allow consideration of conference/function centre, education centre (boat building) etc.

Response and report to Council­ To make it clear the sailing club will not require further approval

for use it is proposed to include an ‘Outdoor Recreation Facility’ as a Section 1 use with a condition that it be for the sailing club

­ A Museum will be listed as a Section 2 Use. ­ Boat building that is consistent with Master Plan and not require

a permit for use ­ Place of Assembly already in Section 2 – could allow

functions/conferences, etc­ Market in Section 2 – subject to a permit

Impact on town centre

• Concern that any retail development would impact opportunities at the town centre

Response and report to Council– The 2013 Master Plan proposes only limited retail

opportunities at a scale consistent with the context of the Harbour & designed to protect the role of the town centre.

– The SUZ2 does not require a permit for a food and drink premises (ie café) provided the floor area does not exceed 200 sqm per premises. A permit would be required if a larger café /restaurant was proposed.

– This appropriately constrains the size of café/restaurant and ensures a permit process would test a larger facility.

– Amend the purpose of the SUZ2 ‘to encourage small scale development that does not…………’

More flexibility for café/community uses• Issue raised at workshop. Provisions should allow for a café to be on the first floor, perhaps as a two storey use, or other commercial uses eg function centreResponse and report to Council

­ There is no need to amend the SUZ2 however the Incorporated Document should allow for this flexibility

Landscaping

• Concern any additional landscaping should be with locally indigenous species and specifically objected to the use of Norfolk pines.

Response

– Landscaping within the Harbour area will be with locally indigenous species however the entry roads will be enhanced by the use of Norfolk pines

– Will compliment those already there to achieve an avenue entry affect. This is appropriate as the Norfolk pines are a key feature of the Harbour entry experience.

Climate change impacts

• New development should address future sea level rise and storm surge events. A town wide assessment should be completed.Response

– A broad Coastal Hazard Vulnerability Assessment (CHVA) was completed as part of the 2013 Master Plan.

– It concluded that whilst the Harbour will be affected by sea level rise, it would be buffered from storm surges by the breakwater, and proposed development was at “low risk”

– Report recommended new buildings should take this into consideration. This will be done via the permit approval process.

Amenities

• Concern that amenities such as toilets, changing rooms and showers have not been identified on the Master Plan.

Response

– The Master Plan identifies building 5 and the sailing club building 10 for opportunities to include improved amenities as part of future development of the harbour.

– All toilet facilities are linked to key projects not specific projects in itself - this will be made more obvious in the Plan

Parking

• Concern that some initiatives contained in the Master Plan would compromise car parking and boat trailer parking at the harbour.

Response and report to Council

– The formalisation of the two key parking areas will improve safety and efficiency for users of the harbour but are not intended to address parking demand during peak periods.

– Don’t consider the limited range of uses in the Plan will compromise parking for boats & trailers.

Indoor aquatic pool

• Concern that the SUZ2 should allow for an indoor aquatic pool to be constructed at the Harbour

Response and report to Council­ Defined as an ‘Indoor Recreation Facility’ in planning scheme.

Currently prohibited in SUZ2. ­ As this facility is not dependent on a coastal location it is not

recommended this be supported (previous DEPI advice). ­ Significant change to Plan – could not occur at this late stage

in process. Submitters can ask Panel to consider its merit.

Reporting to Council

• Council will consider a report that responds to the submissions on 26 February 2014

• If supported, referral of submissions to a panel