Draft Surf Coast Phase Two Engagement Final Report_ · Web viewThis report presents a summary of the key findings from the second phase of engagement for the Surf Coast DAL project

Surf Coast Distinctive Area and Landscape

Phase Two Engagement Report

Department of Environment, Land, Water and PlanningFinal Report, 3 February 2020

PrivacyCapire Consulting Group and any person(s) acting on our behalf is committed to protecting Privacy

Capire Consulting Group and any person(s) acting on our behalf is committed to protecting privacy and personally identifiable information by meeting our responsibilities under the Victorian Privacy Act 1988 and the Australian Privacy Principles 2014 as well as relevant industry codes of ethics and conduct.

For the purpose of program delivery, and on behalf of our clients, we collect personal information from individuals, such as e-mail addresses, contact details, demographic data and program feedback to enable us to facilitate participation in consultation activities. We follow a strict procedure for the collection, use, disclosure, storage and destruction of personal information. Any information we collect is stored securely on our server for the duration of the program and only disclosed to our client or the program team. Written notes from consultation activities are manually transferred to our server and disposed of securely.

Comments recorded during any consultation activities are faithfully transcribed however not attributed to individuals. Diligence is taken to ensure that any comments or sensitive information does not become personally identifiable in our reporting, or at any stage of the program.

Capire operates an in-office server with security measures that include, but are not limited to, password protected access, restrictions to sensitive data and the encrypted transfer of data.

For more information about the way we collect information, how we use, store and disclose information as well as our complaints procedure, please see www.capire.com.au or telephone (03) 9285 9000.

Consultation Unless otherwise stated, all feedback documented by Capire Consulting Group and any person(s) acting on our behalf is written and/or recorded during our program/consultation activities.

Capire staff and associates take great care while transcribing participant feedback but unfortunately cannot guarantee the accuracy of all notes. We are however confident that we capture the full range of ideas, concerns and views expressed during our consultation activities.

Unless otherwise noted, the views expressed in our work represent those of the participants and not necessarily those of our consultants or our clients.

© Capire Consulting Group Pty Ltd.

This document belongs to and will remain the property of Capire Consulting Group Pty Ltd.

All content is subject to copyright and may not be reproduced in any form without express written consent of Capire Consulting Group Pty Ltd.Authorisation can be obtained via email to [email protected] or in writing to: 96 Pelham Street Carlton VIC Australia 3053.

Executive summary

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

1.2 Purpose of report

1.3 Limitations

2. Engagement approach

2.1 Objectives

2.2 Engagement activities

3. Participation

3.1 Face-to-Face

3.2 Online

4. Public engagement findings

4.1 Landscape4.1.1 Draft vision statement1.1.1 Approaches

4.2 Environment and biodiversity4.2.1 Draft vision statement4.2.2 Approaches

4.3 Risk and resilience4.3.1 Draft vision statement4.3.2 Approaches

4.4 Aboriginal cultural heritage4.4.1 Draft vision statement4.4.2 Approaches

4.5 Post-contact heritage4.5.1 Draft vision statement4.5.2 Approaches

4.6 Economy and infrastructure4.6.1 Draft vision statement4.6.2 Approaches

4.7 Settlement4.7.1 Draft vision statement4.7.2 Approaches

4.8 Responsible Public Entities and State Government stakeholders’ workshop

4.8.1 Presentation and question period4.8.2 Vision statements and draft objectives

4.8.3 Environment and biodiversity4.8.4 Risk and resilience4.8.5 Economy and infrastructure4.8.6 Overall

4.9 Extended responses

5. Next steps

SURF COAST DISTINCTIVE AREA AND LANDSCAPE, FINAL REPORT, 3 FEBRUARY 2020

Executive summary The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) is working in collaboration with the Surf Coast Shire Council, the City of Greater Geelong (COGG) and the Wadawurrung, to prepare a draft Statement of Planning Policy (SPP) following the declaration of the Surf Coast as a Distinctive Area and Landscape (DAL) under the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

The draft SPP is being developed to better protect the unique features of the Surf Coast area’s valued landscapes, environment, and lifestyle.

This report presents a summary of the key findings from the second phase of engagement for the Surf Coast DAL project. The engagement commenced on 18 October 2019 and finished on 15 November 2019. The engagement process sought to reach a broad range of Surf Coast Shire and COGG residents and stakeholders to communicate that DELWP had declared Surf Coast as a DAL. The engagement sought feedback from the community on a series of draft vision statements and potential approaches to achieve the vision statements. Feedback received during Phase One engagement helped to prepare the proposed statements and approaches. The process was designed and delivered by Capire Consulting Group and supported by DELWP in collaboration with the Surf Coast Shire Council and the COGG.

Approximately 693 people were engaged with either online or through participation in face-to-face engagement activities. This includes public engagement as well as engagement with Responsible Public Entities (RPEs) and State Government stakeholders. RPEs include public land managers such as Councils, Parks Victoria, VicRoads and water authorities. Additionally, 14 extended responses were submitted by groups and individuals.

The participants were asked to consider vision statements and approaches under the following seven policy domains: landscape, environment and biodiversity, risk and resilience, Aboriginal cultural heritage, post-contact heritage, economy and infrastructure, and settlement. The general findings from the feedback provided is summarised below:

There was a strong level of agreement with most proposed vision statements.

Most approaches were viewed predominantly as important or very important, with a few exceptions.

Feedback was divided regarding the specificity and strength of the language in the vision statements. Some participants felt that the language was too vague or weak, while others felt it was overly specific or narrow.

Some respondents felt that it was difficult to consider the potential approaches without knowing exactly where it applies to or what this would look like in action. This particularly applied to the Settlement policy domain.

Some respondents felt that the declared area should not include Mount Duneed or Lower Armstrong Creek (within the COGG). These participants felt that these areas do

1 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU


not share the same cultural heritage, environmental, or landscape significance as the rest of the Surf Coast declared area. Residents of Mt Duneed and lower Armstrong Creek also expressed dissatisfaction with the timing and level of communication throughout the DAL Phase One and Two engagements.

Many respondents felt that settlement boundaries were an important factor to consider in the protection of the declared area, particularly around Torquay. Settlement boundaries was raised in relation to multiple policy domains, including landscape, environment and biodiversity, risk and resilience, and settlement.

Respondents were divided over development in Spring Creek, with some suggesting that the undeveloped Spring Creek Valley contributes to the visual amenity of the area and proposed that Duffields Road serve as a development boundary for Torquay. Conversely, some suggested that development of Spring Creek should be allowed as defined in the Spring Creek Precinct Structure Plan (PSP).

A summary of the key ideas and messages in relation to the specific policy domains is provided below:

LANDSCAPE

There was strong support for the vision statement and all approaches, with some variation in the strength of support between approaches.

Respondents suggested that the vision statement could be clearer and more specific, perhaps referring to additional locations.

Many respondents supported the protection and conservation of landscapes but questioned the application and purpose of enhancement, as opposed to leaving landscapes in a natural state.

ENVIRONMENT AND BIODIVERSITY

There was strong support for the vision statement and all approaches.

Many respondents felt that the vision statement for environment and biodiversity could be more strongly worded.

There was division over the specificity of the draft vision statement regarding locations and species. Some felt it could be more specific, while others felt that naming specific locations or species was limiting.

Some respondents noted that there are competing demands between the vision statement and existing policies, such as protecting remnant vegetation and increasing road safety.

RISK AND RESILIENCE


Many respondents were concerned with how growing population and visitation would impact risk and resilience in the declared area.

There was division regarding restrictions on development in areas at high risk of bushfires and coastal erosion.

2


Some respondents noted that risk and resilience should be considered across all policy domains.

ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE


Many non-Aboriginal respondents felt they did not have the knowledge or expertise to comment on this vision statement and the associated approaches, but nonetheless felt it was an important domain.

There was strong support for consideration of Aboriginal cultural heritage and input across all planning activities.

The majority of respondents said they were aware that the Wadawurrung are the Traditional Owners of the area and expressed a strong desire to learn more via cultural activities or programs.

POST-CONTACT HERITAGE


Many respondents felt that the vision statement lacked references to key locations, such as Bells Beach.

Many respondents connected specific planning controls, such as height limits, to the protection of heritage in terms of the coastal aesthetic of buildings.

ECONOMY AND INFRASTRUCTURE

The economy and infrastructure vision statement received the most divided responses of all the vision statements.

Some respondents expressed concern regarding the place of extractive industries in the Surf Coast, whilst others supported extractive industries.

Some respondents felt that tourism levels and capacity was a key factor to consider in this policy domain.

SETTLEMENT

Many respondents felt that the wording of the vision statement was not visionary enough or that it was too vague.

Many respondents felt that the vision statement needed to refer to defined settlement boundaries.

Some workshop participants felt that they could not answer or participate in the discussions as they felt that they needed to know the location of any new growth, development or proposed settlement boundary before they could respond.

The approach which focused on increasing building heights (Approach G) received the lowest support of all approaches. Though some participants supported limiting greenfield development, there was limited interest in increasing economic performance at the perceived cost of increasing building heights.

The feedback received through this phase of engagement will help DELWP to prepare a draft SPP for the declared area.

3 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU


Further engagement opportunities will be provided in the third phase of public engagement, scheduled to occur in the first half of 2020, where written submissions on the draft SPP will be invited.

Following consideration of the feedback received, the SPP will then be finalised for endorsement by RPEs and the Ministers responsible for the RPEs and approved by the State Government.

4


1. Introduction

1.1 Background

In September 2018, the Victorian State Government committed to protecting the significant economic, environmental, cultural and community values found in the Surf Coast region.

The first phase of community engagement for this project occurred from 14 May to 14 June 2019. Community and stakeholders gave feedback about what they valued about the Surf Coast region, the threats to those values and suggestions for how those values could be protected. This feedback was an important input into the declaration of the area as a DAL (Figure 2), which occurred in September 2019. It has also informed the second phase of engagement.

Now that the area has been declared as a DAL, under the Planning and Environment Act 1987, a SPP must be prepared. The SPP will include a 50-year vision and land use strategies to better protect the unique features of the Surf Coast for current and future generations. It also provides the opportunity to designate long term, protected settlement boundaries.

The second phase of engagement sought feedback to help inform the development of a draft SPP. Feedback was sought on draft vision statements and potential approaches from community members, RPE representatives and State Government stakeholders.

5 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU

Project commencement

Phase 1Public Engagement

Understanding the environment, landscape

and lifestyle values thecommunity want to

protect

Declaration of Surf coast as a DAL

Phase 2 Public

EngagementDevelopment of the SPP

Phase 3Public EngagementConsultation on draft SPP

(public submissions process)

Final Statement of Planning Policy


Figure 1 : Surf Coast DAL project timelines

6


Figure 2 : Map of Surf Coast DAL Distinctive Area Landscape declared area

1.2 Purpose of report7 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU


This report is a summary of the second phase of the community and stakeholder engagement for the Surf Coast DAL area. Participants’ contributions, both through online engagement and face-to-face workshops have been compiled to capture community and stakeholder perceptions of draft vision statements and potential policy approaches.

1.3 Limitations

The information in this report does not reflect the views of a representative sample of the community and stakeholders. People who participated in the engagement process self-selected to take part in the project. The overall results therefore must not be regarded as a representation of the views of a statistically validated sample of the community.

The report presents key points of discussion and includes a broad range of feedback expressed by participants. It provides an overview of participant sentiment but does not report on the sentiment of individuals, nor does it represent views of the entire community.

It is possible that participants may have taken part in multiple engagement activities. For example, they may have provided an online comment and attended a workshop, or both. Therefore, their views may have been captured more than once.

Some comments, issues or opportunities included in this report may be factually incorrect or unfeasible. The information has not been validated or adopted as it is purely a summary of participants' opinions, ideas and feedback.

Quotes have been used to illustrate sentiment; in some instances, they have been paraphrased.

There was a slight variation in the activities facilitated at the two community workshops which has resulted in different data collected for the assessment of the possible approaches. In the first workshop, participants voted in groups. In the second workshop, participants voluntarily completed work booklets in which they were able to complete some, or all, of the questions in relation to the different policy domains and their values. Within the work booklets, participants did not always complete a response to all the questions.

In some instances, participants did not answer all questions, this meant that some questions received fewer responses than others.

The online survey provided one opportunity for the participants to respond to all approaches for each policy domain, and as such, feedback on individual approaches was limited. This meant that participants did not always provide comment on each approach, whereas in the workshops the responses to each approach was invited through a facilitated discussion allowing for more detailed feedback.

8


2. Engagement approach

2.1 Objectives

The objectives for the Surf Coast DAL engagement were:

to inform the community about the outcome of the first phase engagement and preparation of a draft vision and possible policy approaches

to inform the community about what declaration means and what an SPP involves

to inform the community about future stages of the project, opportunities to be involved and what will be considered through future engagement

to seek feedback from the community, RPEs and State Government stakeholders on the draft vision and possible policy approaches

to build the community’s capacity to understand the policy implications of possible strategies

to understand the key issues for RPEs and State Government stakeholders and possible impacts on policy implementation

to provide the community with engagement opportunities that are easy to access, understand, and take part in.

2.2 Engagement activities

Engagement activities were undertaken between 18 October and 15 November 2019. These included an online survey, two face-to-face workshops for the general public, one face-to-face workshop for RPEs and one face-to-face information session for COGG residents.

Online engagement was hosted on the Victorian Government engagement platform engage.vic.gov.au with a specific page and survey dedicated to the Surf Coast DAL.

9 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU


3. ParticipationAn overview of the levels of participation in these engagement activities is outlined in Figure 3.

Figure 3 : Overview of engagement participation

3.1 Face-to-Face

A total of 190 people attended the two workshops for the general public. Approximately 70 people attended an Information session for COGG residents in Mount Duneed and lower Arm-strong Creek.

A total of 11 participants attended the workshop for RPEs and State Government stakeholders, including representatives from Surf Coast Shire Council, Department of Jobs, Precincts and Re-gions (DJPR), Department of Transport (DOT), Corangamite Catchment Management Authority (CMA), Parks Victoria, Department of Environment Land Water and Planning (DELWP), Re-gional Development Victoria, Barwon Water and Great Ocean Road Coast Committee.

The break-down of attendees at each event is outlined in Table 1. Figure 4 shows the participa-tion numbers by location.

Table 1 : Summary of face-to-face engagement events

Date Location Number of participants

25 October 2019 Community workshop, Torquay Football Club, Spring Creek Reserve

110

29 October 2019 RPEs workshop, Torquay Football Club, Spring Creek Reserve

11

6 November 2019 Community workshop, Torquay Football Club, Spring Creek Reserve

80

10

271FACE-TO-FACE

Participants

3,151VISITORS

to the webpage

422ONLINE SURVEYS

14 EXTENDED

RESPONSES


13 November Information session for COGG residents in Mount Duneed and lower Armstrong Creek, Armstrong Creek East Community Hub

70

Figure 4 : General public engagement participation online (survey responses) and face-to-face (by workshop location) (n=595)

3.2 Online

The dedicated webpage received 3,151 visits, with a total of 422 surveys completed. Online participants were asked to identify what their connection was to the Surf Coast declared area and which town they most associated with. Most respondents identified that the declared area was the where their primary residence was located, with smaller proportions identifying employment, business, recreation, visitation, secondary residence or tourism as their connection to the area (Figure 5).

A large majority of respondents most associated with Torquay-Jan Juc, with small numbers stating Bellbrae, Geelong, or Breamlea (Figure 6). There were a small number of respondents who said they most associated with other towns. These included Anglesea, Thompson’s Creek, Mt Duneed, Freshwater Creek, Spring Creek, Moriac, and Winchelsea.

11 WWW.CAPIRE.COM.AU


Primary residence

Employment

Local business owner/operator

Recreation

Regular visitor

Volunteer

Secondary residence

Tourist

Other

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

349

53

49

48

31

29

27

8

16

Number of connections

Con

nect

ion

to S

urf C

oast

Figure 5 : Online participants’ connections to Surf Coast declared area; note participants could select more than one option (where n=610)

Torquay-Jan Juc

Bellbrae

Geelong

Breamlea

Other

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

345

25

18

8

17

Number of participants

Tow

nshi

ps

Figure 6 : Townships which online participants' most associated with (where n=413)

12


4. Public engagement findingsParticipants provided feedback through online surveys and participation at community workshops. They were asked to consider proposed vision statements and potential approaches to achieve these visions. The vision statements related to seven different policy domains; landscape, environment and biodiversity, risk and resilience, aboriginal cultural heritage, post-contact heritage, economy and infrastructure, settlement. For each policy domain, participants were asked:

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the draft vision statement?

Do you have suggestions for how this could be improved? Is anything missing?

How important are the potential approaches to you?

Do you have any other suggestions that could help achieve the draft vision?

For each policy domain potential approaches were proposed for how to achieve the respective vision statement. Participants provided feedback about how important each of those approaches were for achieving each draft vision; they could also suggest additional approaches that could help achieve the proposed vision. The feedback provided through the public workshops and online have been combined and is summarised in this section.

The overarching key messages emerging from the feedback were:

There was a strong level of agreement with most vision statements

The vision statements reflect the current state and could be more aspirational to reflect a 50-year horizon.

The economy and infrastructure vision statement received the most divided responses of all the vision statements, with respondents largely agreeing but many neither agreeing nor disagreeing with it.

Overall, most approaches were viewed predominantly as important or very important, with a few exceptions.

Feedback was divided regarding the specificity of the language in the vision statements. Some participants felt that the language was too vague, while others felt it was overly specific. This often related to naming specific locations or species in the statements. Some felt that it diminished other places, so none should be mentioned. While others felt that there were additional locations or species which should be included in the visions, and that overall the vision statements could be more specific.

Similarly, some respondents felt that it was difficult to consider the potential approaches without knowing exactly where it applies to or what this would look like in action. This particularly applied to the settlement domain.



Some respondents felt that the declared area should not include Mount Duneed or Lower Armstrong Creek (within the COGG). These participants felt that these areas do not share the same cultural heritage, environmental, or landscape significance as the rest of the Surf Coast declared area.

Many respondents felt that settlement boundaries were an important factor to consider in the protection of the declared area, particularly around Torquay. Settlement boundaries were raised in relation to multiple policy domains, including landscape, environment and biodiversity, risk and resilience, and settlement. Some participants found it difficult to provide comment about the implications of settlement boundaries without settlement boundary options being shown.

4.1 Landscape

4.1.1 Draft vision statement The Surf Coast declared area is a celebrated area of Victoria, known for its picturesque landscapes and pristine beaches. The distinct landscapes of Point Addis, Bells Beach, the surrounding coastline and hinterlands are treasured and protected landscapes, enhanced by the natural backdrop of the Otway Ranges. The open rural areas between settlements are safeguarded to maintain the important views across the landscape and sense of openness.

Figure 7 Figure 7 shows the respondent’s level of agreement with the draft vision statement for the landscape policy domain. There was a strong level of agreement, with approximately 75 percent of respondents stating they agree or strongly agree with this vision statement.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

279

Strongly agree Agree Neither Agree or Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree

Figure 7 : Respondents’ level of agreement with landscape vision statement (where n=445)

Respondents suggested that the vision statement could be clearer and more specific, perhaps including certain locations. Many respondents felt the listing of specific locations neglected other significant locations which they felt should be included. Below is a summary of the respondents’ suggestions for improving the vision statement grouped under two themes: locations and language.

Locations

14


Locations suggested for inclusion were Thompson Creek valley, Jan Juc, Whites Beach, Breamlea beach, Point Impossible, Point Danger, Lake Modewarre, Rocky Point, Freshwater and Spring Creek.

The townships are to be considered as part of, and a feature of the landscape.

Language

The language of the vision statement needs to be stronger and more specific. The statement reflects what the area is like now or was years ago and could instead be more visionary. Additionally, the language is too vague as it is unclear where this statement applies to and what kind of protection it would involve.

The meaning of hinterland in the vision statement is unclear and does not capture the diversity of the landscapes within the hinterland. In addition, it was noted that some landscapes in the hinterland are not productive agricultural land.

The word ‘safeguard’ is too weak and/or vague, and many suggested the word ‘protect’

1.1.1 Approaches The potential approaches that were tested for the landscape policy domain can be found in Table 2. Figure 8 shows respondents’ perceptions of the level of importance for each of the potential approaches to achieve the landscape vision.

Predominantly, respondents rated all five approaches (A to E) as important or very important. Approaches A, C, D and E all received highly positive responses in terms of level of importance. Approach B receiving the least positive response, still with over 60 per cent of respondents agreeing that this approach is very important or important.


“what is stated is not a vision but rather statement of what it is believed to be now. It needs to change to reflect the aspirational desire of what the area will hopefully look like in the future”

“I think this Landscape vision is too restrictive. It principally refers to the role of the non-urban coastline with the backdrop of the Otway Ranges. It ignores the significant social landscape of our urban beaches which arguably is under more intense pressure than the rural coastline. I acknowledge the Settlement policy may address this but at the very least there should be a recognition that important landscapes are not just restricted to non-urban areas.”


Table 2 : Potential approaches to achieve the proposed landscape vision

Approach Description

A Maintaining and enhancing the rural landscapes between the townships of Bellbrae, Torquay, Jan-Juc and greater Geelong would improve the distinctive feel of the declared area.

B There is a need to protect existing and create new vantage points for all to see the valued landscapes of the Surf Coast.

C New urban development and infrastructure should be designed to fit in with the existing landscape features of the Surf Coast.

D Planning should help to conserve and enhance areas with identified geological or landscape value by increasing efforts towards protecting the health of ecological systems and the biodiversity they support.

E Planning should help to conserve and enhance areas with identified geological or landscape value by increasing efforts towards protecting the cultural heritage values they support.

Approach A

Approach B

Approach C

Approach D

Approach E

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Very important Important Neutral Low importance Not at all important

Figure 8 : Level of importance of landscape approaches to respondents (where n=448, n=443, n=443, n=447, and n=447 for approaches A to E respectively)

Many respondents felt that landscapes did not need to be enhanced, but rather left in their natural state. Respondents offered additional comments and suggestions on how the potential approaches could be improved to achieve the vision. These are summarised below in Table 3 and grouped by the approach they relate to.

Table 3 : Participants’ comments on landscape approaches

Approach Response

16


A – Maintaining and enhancing the rural landscapes between the townships of Bellbrae, Torquay, Jan-Juc and greater Geelong would improve the distinctive feel of the declared area.

state ‘how’ the landscapes will be enhanced and maintained

remove ‘enhance’ as it is unclear

needs reference to supporting farmers who are responsible for maintaining rural landscapes

‘distinctive feel’ is too imprecise, suggested change to ‘distinctive visual amenity’

many people in this area are farmers, and bigger farms need more consideration and representation

could be achieved through using existing settlement boundaries

statement could be clarified by stating that no new "urban development" occur in those landscapes

embrace the future, and don’t stop all development

B – There is a need to protect existing and create new vantage points for all to see the valued landscapes of the Surf Coast.

concern around the creation of new viewpoints as they could be intrusive in terms of height or privacy, such as Winkipop

viewpoints might limit the sense of being away from people, referring to a fishbowl effect

viewpoints are additional infrastructure that might be impactful to landscapes in terms of traffic flow and environmental impact

C – New urban development and infrastructure should be designed to fit in with the existing landscape features of the Surf Coast.

new urban development and infrastructure should be considered with regard to long-term environmental impact rather than design amenity

too open to interpretation, add the words ‘within town boundaries’

this is the most important consideration in this process

could include additional planning controls around housing development, such as height limits and limiting extent and rate of development

D – Planning should help to conserve and enhance areas with identified geological or landscape value by increasing efforts towards protecting the health of

geological and landscape value requires research and assessment

conservation of farming landscapes and resources could be included

valued farmland needs assessment for its viability, and otherwise causes detriment to ecosystems as



ecological systems and the biodiversity they support.

supporting weeds and pests

change wording to ‘actively encourage the conservation’

concern that conserving biodiversity will not protect geological features

change “should help” to “must help” to strengthen this approach

E – Planning should help to conserve and enhance areas with identified geological or landscape value by increasing efforts towards protecting the cultural heritage values they support.

cultural value of farmland may not be viable to maintain due to scarcity of resources (including water and finance)

needs to support landowners in participating in conservation

change wording to ‘actively encourage the conservation’

Spring Creek Valley is vital to the overall visual amenity of Torquay Jan Juc

concern that conserving cultural heritage values will not protect geological features

Additional suggested approaches include:

community should identify what and where is valued landscape

specific protection for remnant coastal mana gum and pigmy perch in Thompson Creek

restrict advertising billboards and signage on roadways and coastline

revegetating verges and other areas with native bush

limit urban sprawl and building heights

plan strategically, rather than just stopping development

re-vegetating paddocks, road verges and other available land with native bush

improved weed control

improved litter management

cap population and development.

4.2 Environment and biodiversity

4.2.1 Draft vision statement

18


Creeks, wetlands, saltmarshes, woodlands and beaches in the declared area provide habitat for rare flora and fauna like the Bellarine Yellow Gum, Orange Bellied Parrot and Hooded Plover. Areas of remnant vegetation, along roadways and across the hinterland, are not only protected but are also increasing.

The Point Addis Marine National Park, Point Danger Marine Sanctuary and coastal reserves provide a home for a variety of aquatic life for locals and visitors to enjoy.

Figure 9 shows the respondent’s level of agreement with the draft vision statement for the environment and biodiversity policy domain. There was a strong level of agreement, with over 85 per cent of respondents stating they agree or strongly agree with this vision statement.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

291


Figure 9 : Respondents’ level of agreement with environment and biodiversity vision statement (where n=438)

As with the landscape domain vision statement, respondents felt that the vision statement for environment and biodiversity could be more strongly worded. Some felt that the vision could be more specific whilst others felt that being too specific could be limiting. Below is a summary of the respondents’ suggestions for improving the vision statement grouped by theme.

Language The language needs to be stronger and is missing strategic aspects.

There were suggestions for statements and words to add to strengthen the vision:

could say ‘…provide quality home for aquatic life…’

‘re-habitation’, ‘re-vegetation’ or ‘rewilding’ are words that could be included

add “waterways” after “roadways”

‘beaches’ could be ‘coastline’ to capture intertidal as well

use ‘areas of native vegetation’ not ‘remnant vegetation’

the term ‘rare’ is limiting, could instead say ‘significant, ‘rare and threatened’ or ‘native’.

There were also suggestions of words that could be removed or replaced including:

remove ‘for locals and visitors to enjoy’

Scope of area / locations



Consider rivers, lakes and wetlands such as Lake Modewarre and its southern wetlands.

Include protection for old trees, particularly those which are locally significant, such as the Moonah hedges.

‘Areas of remnant vegetation, along roadways and across the hinterland…’ is too limiting.

‘Marine environment and coastal reserve’ could be used instead of specific examples.

Grassland not considered.

Moonah Woodlands could be included.

Settlements and human access Add a statement about protection from human impacts such as development.

Overall, there could be more of a focus on flora, fauna, and biodiversity, rather than providing for humans.

Acknowledge the role of settlement boundaries (as they are now) and seek to reduce further development.

The declared area should not include Mount Duneed or Lower Armstrong Creek as they do not have the environmental values to the same degree.

Farming does not work beside high-density housing.

4.2.2 Approaches The potential approaches tested for the environment and biodiversity policy domain can be found in Table 4. Figure 10 shows respondents’ perceptions of the level of importance of each of the potential approaches for achieving the environment and biodiversity vision.

For each of the three approaches (A to C), over 80 per cent of respondents rated them as important or very important. Approaches C received the most positive responses in terms of level of importance. Approach B had the least positive response of the three approaches; however, it was still considered very important or important for over 8 per cent of respondents.

Table 4: Potential approaches to achieve the proposed environment and biodiversity vision


A Ensure development provides a buffer for sensitive wetlands, creeks and sites of significant biodiversity.

B Empower landowners and Responsible Public Entities to prepare and implement

20

“The coastal areas, wetlands, creeks (most of which don't flow) need to be preserved and repaired, but farmland is never going to be returned to its former glory, so including it in landscape preservation is just a waste of time”


strategies to control invasive flora and fauna species.

C Encourage ecological restoration works in areas of identified significance as well as ongoing management plans using best practise techniques.

Approach A

Approach B

Approach C

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Figure 10 : Level of importance of environment and biodiversity approaches to respondents (where n=445, n=443, and n=438 for approaches A to C respectively)

Participants also offered comments and suggestions for how the potential approaches could be improved to achieve the vision. These are been summarised below and grouped by the approach they relate to (Table 5).

Table 5 : Participants’ comments on environment and biodiversity approaches

Approach Response

A – Ensure development provides a buffer for sensitive wetlands, creeks and sites of significant biodiversity.

Add that development adjacent to the buffer is sustainable.

Encourage responsible development within existing overlays.

Add integration of development into the existing landscape.

Development could be ‘designed to protect’ sensitive areas, rather than simply providing a buffer.

Add clarity to the definition of buffer such as size and environmental makeup.

Provide a buffer for all-natural areas, including agriculture.

Include that the land is being actively restored and managed.

B – Empower landowners and responsible public entities

Action is missing to simplify this process, as action is impeded by bureaucracy. One respondent stated: “at the moment one might need to deal with five to six organisations”.

Include financial incentives or subsidies, not just the provision



to prepare and implement strategies to control invasive flora and fauna species.

of information

Education is needed to support people to identify, protect and preserve native fauna and flora.

Add those imported or invasive plants.

Add targeted pest plant and animal control in areas of high biodiversity values.

This could specifically exclude use of super toxin 1080 poison.

Say “to protect, grow and maintain landscape”.

C – Encourage ecological restoration works in areas of identified significance as well as ongoing management plans using best practise techniques.

Don’t limit to ‘area of significance’ – expand this to all areas outside of existing settlement boundaries.

Include reintroduction of lost species, such as wallaby grass and yam daisy.

Identify who is responsible for the ecological restoration.

Ecological restoration works could be done in a ‘catchment’ approach and according to best practice.

Plant as many trees as possible.


Target pest plant and animal control in difficult to access areas (such as waterways or steep terrain) of medium to high biodiversity value.

Increase in size areas of native vegetation and habitat.

Support community groups to conduct revegetation projects.

Encourage the planting of native species endemic to the area in both urban and rural areas.

Increase funding to Parks Victoria, DELWP and Council environmental teams.

Create a mechanism to allow privately owned land around waterways to be acquired as public land.

Encourage ecological restoration on private land and require this of new developments.

Allow the Spring Creek PSP to proceed as it supports the achievement of the proposed approaches. The vision and approaches for environment and biodiversity could apply to the whole of the declared area and not just the “green spaces”.

22


4.3 Risk and resilience

4.3.1 Draft vision statement The significant features of the declared area, such as the beaches and natural landscapes, are conserved and enhanced and impacts from coastal erosion, sea level rise, bushfire and extreme weather events are minimised. Settlement areas are planned to reduce risks and respond appropriately to climate change impacts.

Figure 11 shows the participants’ level of agreement with the draft vision statement for the risk and resilience policy domain. There was a strong level of agreement, with over 80 per cent of respondents stating they agree or strongly agree with this vision statement.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

267


Figure 11 : Respondents’ level of agreement with risk and resilience vision statement (where n=438)

Again, many respondents felt that the language was too vague, and offered comments and suggestions for how the vision statement could be improved. Many were concerned about how growing population and visitation would impact on risk and resilience. Below is a summary of these suggestions for improving the vision statement, grouped by theme.

Language Some participants suggested that this vision is too vague as to how settlements will

be planned to reduce risk. For example, some comments suggested that it lacks vision, while others stated it should look forward for 100 years.

Participants noted the following language changes that could strengthen the vision:

‘conserved’ instead of ‘conserved and enhanced’

add ‘settlement character’ after biodiversity

add conservation of wetlands and floodplains

refer to ‘existing and future settlement areas’

‘beaches and natural landscape’ are too limiting, consider adding township character and rural character as significant.



Population, settlements, and visitation Participants commented on the impacts of population and visitation, and in

particular:

The vision could consider time of day, week and seasonality of visitation and flow on effects in transport and movement.

There is difficulty in accommodating more people (visitors and permanent population) while also protecting the natural environment; and impacts to people as a result of this population and visitation growth also need to be considered.

Environmental crisis could be considered in in terms of ecology, energy, equity, and economy.

There is potential risk to families in high density living directly beside farming.

4.3.2 Approaches Potential approaches for the risk and resilience policy domain can be found in Table 6. Figure 12 shows respondents’ perceptions of the level of importance of each of the potential approaches for achieving the risk and resilience vision.

For each of the three approaches (A to C), over 80 per cent of respondents rated them as important or very important. Approaches C received the most positive responses in terms of level of importance. Approach B had the least positive response of the three approaches; however, it was still considered very important or important for over 85 per cent of respondents.

Table 6 : Potential approaches to achieve the proposed risk and resilience vision


A Work is undertaken in conjunction with government agencies to maintain and enhance the natural landscape and ensure the ecological and biodiversity characteristics of the area remain.

B New developments or land uses in areas at high risk of bushfire or coastal erosion are avoided.

C The levels of coastal erosion occurring throughout the declared area are monitored and reviewed.

24

“The significant features of the Surf Coast landscapes are preserved and enhanced reducing impacts from coastal erosion, sea level rise, bushfire and extreme weather where practical to do so. Settlement areas are well planned to reduce these risks and respond to the landscape.”


Approach A

Approach B

Approach C

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Figure 12 : Level of importance of risk and resilience approaches to respondents (where n=440, n=437, and n=434 for approaches A to C respectively)

Participants also offered comments and suggestions for how the potential approaches could be improved to achieve the vision. These are been summarised in Table 7 and grouped by the approach they relate to.

Table 7 : Participants’ comments on risk and resilience approaches

Approach Response

A – Work is undertaken in conjunction with government agencies to maintain and enhance the natural landscape and ensure the ecological and biodiversity characteristics of the area remain.

This needs to consider population, visitation and tourism.

This needs to consider ‘conserved’ rather than ‘maintain and enhance’.

Consider changing phrasing to ‘biodiversity of the area remains and enhance integrity.’

B – New developments or land uses in areas at high risk of bushfire or coastal erosion are avoided.

New developments could be prohibited in high risk bushfire areas.

New development could consider ecological carrying capacity, bushfire risk, waste management and energy consumption.

Consider road safety improvements for bushfire events and planning for underground powerlines in crucial areas

C – The levels of Monitoring is insufficient, action on coastal erosion is



coastal erosion occurring throughout the declared area are monitored and reviewed.

needed.

Include reference to the effects of sea level rise and storm surges.

Educate visitors and new residents on the risks.

Consider restrictions on development.

No blanket approach to each area, needs to be performance-based.


using public land as buffers to protect areas of high risk of erosion or fire danger

limiting population and visitor numbers to allow escape routes in the event of disaster

improving recycling and waste disposal strategies

reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

4.4 Aboriginal cultural heritage

4.4.1 Draft vision statement There is a healthy, balanced ecological system, incorporating Wadawurrung cultural (including natural) values, stories and creations. A recognised connection to land, sea, sky and water, where sacred sites are respected and existing Wadawurrung cultural heritage is appreciated for its ancient and contemporary use and is conserved for future generations.

Figure 13 shows the participants’ level of agreement with the draft vision statement for the Aboriginal cultural heritage policy domain. There was a strong level of agreement, with over 80 per cent of respondents stating they agree or strongly agree with this vision statement.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

242


Figure 13 : Respondents’ level of agreement with Aboriginal cultural heritage vision statement (where n=420)

Many respondents felt that they didn’t have the knowledge to comment on this vision statement however expressed that this was an important domain. They also noted that the Wadawurrung

26


should be consulted regarding this vision. Respondents also offered the following comments or suggestions to improve the vision:

Add ‘Above all’. That is, Aboriginal culture should be an overarching consideration for other development.

In all matters, First Nations’ input is not only considered but is recognised as the deciding voice.

4.4.2 Approaches Potential approaches for the Aboriginal cultural heritage policy domain can be found in Table 8. Figure 14 shows respondents’ perceptions of the level of importance of each of the potential approaches for achieving the Aboriginal cultural heritage vision.

For both Approaches (A and B), nearly 80 per cent of respondents rated them as important or very important. Approach A received a slightly more positive response in terms of level of importance compared to Approach B.

Table 8 : Potential approaches to achieve the proposed Aboriginal cultural heritage vision


A With Traditional Owners, identify, protect, conserve and enhance sites, landscapes and views of Aboriginal cultural significance, consistent with the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and Cultural Heritage Management Plans.

B With Traditional Owners, acknowledge, protect, promote and interpret tangible and intangible Aboriginal cultural values, heritage and knowledge when planning and managing land use and development, water and other environmental resources


“Educate the local communities and school pupils to the value of using traditional sustainable methods of conservation of the land.”


Approach A

Approach B

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Figure 14 : Level of importance of Aboriginal cultural heritage approaches to respondents (where n=421 and n=415 for approaches A and B respectively)

Participants also offered comments and suggestions on how the potential approaches could be improved to achieve the vision. These are been summarised below in Table 9.

Table 9 : Participants’ comments on Aboriginal cultural heritage approaches

Approach Response

A – With Traditional Owners, identify, protect, conserve and enhance sites, landscapes and views of Aboriginal cultural significance, consistent with the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and Cultural Heritage Management Plans.

Traditional Owners to determine what is significant.

Create employment opportunities for Traditional Owners in protection and conservation of areas of Aboriginal cultural significance.

Ensure landowners and developers are aware and respect heritage sites.

B – With Traditional Owners, acknowledge, protect, promote and interpret tangible and intangible Aboriginal cultural values, heritage and knowledge when planning and managing land use and development, water and other environmental resources

Provide opportunities for people to learn more about the Wadawurrung culture, through schools, a cultural centre or guided tours.

Additional suggested approaches included:

Include Lake Modewarre and its wetlands (for cultural significance).

Enforcement and regulation could be considered as a means of protection.

28


Enable support for the Aboriginal community involvement.

Invest in mapping Aboriginal cultural sites.

Provide additional funding for Indigenous groups to support their ability to engage and create new initiatives.

Acquire land of Aboriginal significance for protection and for a cultural centre.

Declare language groups and areas.

Provide education for the non-Indigenous community on Indigenous cultural heritage of the local area.

Integrate the protection and enhancement of Aboriginal cultural heritage into standard planning approaches.

In order to understand how best to protect Aboriginal cultural heritage, online participants were asked about their knowledge and experience with cultural heritage; the survey found that:

Ten per cent of participants said that they had seen objects of cultural significance on a piece of land that they own.

One third (33 per cent) of participants said they know the appropriate process to identify and record cultural objects.

93 percent of participants said they are aware that the Wadawurrung are the Traditional Owner group for land in the declared area.

Many respondents expressed that they would be interested in participating in cultural activities and/or programs. Respondents stated that they would like to hear this from paid indigenous educators who have cultural heritage in the area. Additionally, they would like to hear about topics such as the past and present indigenous life, food, craft, language, how to respect/care for country (e.g. land management), and how to identify cultural objects. Formats that respondents liked included walks, forums, short courses, cultural centres, and food workshops.

4.5 Post-contact heritage

4.5.1 Draft vision statement There continues to be a strong surfing and associated leisure culture that is internationally renowned. The declared area’s history as the gateway to the Great Ocean Road and as an important shipping lane with numerous shipwrecks also contributes to the community’s identity and sense of place.

Figure 15 shows the participants’ level of agreement with the draft vision statement for the post-contact heritage policy domain. There was a strong level of agreement, with over 85 per cent of respondents stating they agree or strongly agree with this vision statement.



0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

227


Figure 15: Respondents’ level of agreement with post-contact heritage vision statement (where n=420)

Many respondents felt that the vision statement lacked references to key locations, such as Bells Beach. Respondents also offered some additional comments and suggestions for how the vision statement could be improved; these are summarised below according to theme. There were also some overarching suggestions that the vision needs to encompass human impact upon the distinctive landscape; and the strategy needs an agreed understanding of what is considered a heritage place.

Locations and landmarks

Bells Beach needs specific recognition as it is internationally recognised and is an important piece of heritage.

Shipwrecks are less important.

Consider changing ‘shipping lane’ to ‘passage of ships, over time our connection to a global world’

Leisure culture is strongly associated with local history, but the area has gradually changed.

Homesteads could be included, such as Addiscott Homestead

The vision needs to consider the impact humans have had on heritage

The strategy needs to include an agreed understanding of what constitutes a ‘heritage place’.

Local community groups

Recognising local community groups and surf clubs, groups such as Torquay Surf Club and Board riders Clubs could be included.

Built form

Township character could be protected using controls like parking and height restrictions, ensuring that new buildings contribute to character.

Development controls in Bells Beach and Winkipop areas could be considered.

30

“Bells beach reserve be protected in its current form or that its natural environment be restored whenever possible. That the recreational surfing community have a significant say in the running of Bells Beach. That the local resident community of the GOR be represented on any board of management.”


4.5.2 Approaches Potential approaches for the post-contact heritage policy domain can be found in Table 10. Figure 16 shows respondents’ perceptions of the level of importance of each of the potential approaches for achieving the post-contact heritage vision.

Around 85 per cent of respondents rated both Approaches (A and B) as important or very important. Approach B received a slightly more positive response in terms of level of importance compared to Approach A.

Table 10 : Potential approaches to achieve the proposed post-contact heritage vision


A Consider the impact of buildings and works on heritage places and ensure that the distinct cultural, aesthetic and landscape values are being conserved and enhanced by bearing in mind the impact on significant views from and to heritage places.

B Acknowledge and promote the areas unique intangible heritage which appreciates the areas long history with recreation, leisure and surfing culture.

Approach A

Approach B

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Figure 16 : Level of importance of post-contact heritage approaches to respondents (where n=426 and n=416 for approaches A and B respectively)

Participants also offered comments and suggestions for how the potential approaches could be improved to achieve the vision. These are summarised in Table 11 below and grouped by the approach they relate to.

Table 11 : Participants’ comments on post-contact heritage approaches

Approach Response

A – Consider the impact of buildings and works on heritage places and ensure

Add height limits to protect heritage.

Encourage high quality new design to respect



that the distinct cultural, aesthetic and landscape values are being conserved and enhanced by bearing in mind the impact on significant views from and to heritage places.

heritage.

Consider views from different vantage points, including pedestrian scale.

Bells Beach should have greater protection.

B – Acknowledge and promote the areas unique intangible heritage which appreciates the areas long history with recreation, leisure and surfing culture.

Use ‘protect’ instead of ‘promote’.

Consider areas of significance within the hinterland.

Additional discussion regarding approaches included the following comments:

Safety on the Great Ocean Road is more important than heritage.

Strengthen planning controls to protect coastal look.

Limit development to protect heritage

Identify and protect additional areas of significance within the Hinterland.

Exclude the properties located on Whites Road, Mount Duneed from the declared area as these properties do not share the same cultural heritage as the Surf Coast.

4.6 Economy and infrastructure

4.6.1 Draft vision statement The Surf Coast has a thriving tourism industry that prioritises the sustainable management of the area’s distinctive cultural heritage, environments and landscapes, and recognises the management of the Wadawurrung People. Agriculture, retail and extractive industries continue to support the regional economy in a managed and sustainable way.

Existing infrastructure is improved and opportunities for future infrastructure, such as the Armstrong Creek Transit corridor to Torquay, are supported to facilitate economic growth in the region.

Figure 17 shows the participants’ level of agreement with the draft vision statement for the economy and infrastructure policy domain. This vision statement received the most divided response of all the vision statements, with just over 50 per cent of respondents stating that they agree or strongly agree and a large portion neither agreeing nor disagreeing with it.

32


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

107


Figure 17 : Respondents’ level of agreement with economy and infrastructure vision statement (where n=435)

Respondents also offered some additional comments and suggestions for how the vision statement could be improved; these are summarised below according to theme. There was also some more high-level feedback about the vision including that economy and infrastructure could be split into two policy domains.

Language Participants suggested the following language changes:

Replace ‘thriving’ with ‘significant and sustainable’ regarding tourism.

Replace ‘tourism’ with ‘economy’.

Vision encourages Torquay to be a growth node; but Torquay has enough development.

Address economy and infrastructure separately in their own vision statements.

Changing industries Participants noted that industries are changing and emerging in the area; they

suggested the following:

Recognise existing employment needs are changing for example surfing industry is declining and new emerging industries are increasing like services.

The manufacturing industry could be included.

Include education industry

Cottage industries and creative industries are emerging.

Consider the balance between development of housing and the development of industries.

Torquay has had enough development and should be reconsidered as a growth node.

The surf industry should be supported.

Encourage arts and culture.



Concerns about extractive industries were raised. Some stated they wanted no extractive industries in the area, especially fracking.

Agriculture Consider changing importance of agriculture.

Land outside settlements is not necessarily suitable for agriculture.

A land capability study is needed for agricultural zones.

4.6.2 Approaches Potential approaches for the economy and infrastructure policy domain can be found in Table 12. Figure 18 shows respondents’ perceptions of the level of importance of each of the potential approaches for achieving the economy and infrastructure vision.

All Approaches (A to F) received predominantly positive responses. For Approaches A and F, over 80 per cent of respondents felt that they were important or very important. Approach D received the least positive response of all of the approaches, with just under 70 per cent of respondents viewing it as an important or very important approach.

Table 12 : Potential approaches to achieve the proposed economy and infrastructure vision


A A sustainable visitation management strategy for the region will facilitate a strong tourism economy that is respectful of the cultural heritage, environmental and landscape features of the area.

B Agricultural land uses located in between settlement areas should be supported and encouraged for their contribution to the regional economy.

C Agricultural land uses located in between settlement areas should be supported and encouraged because they create a sense of rural openness between settlements.

D Strategic extractive resource areas should be protected from encroachment from urban development.

E Local retail, accommodation and food services should be supported through facilitating commercial developments in defined locations within townships.

F Support strategic infrastructure projects and upgrades that are designed to be sympathetic to the area’s distinctive cultural heritage, environments and

34

“I believe that the development of the surf Coast is providing ongoing employment for the local population. I think that it would be reasonable to include a reference to ‘trades’ as a core employment sector in the vision statement”


landscapes.

Approach A

Approach B

Approach C

Approach D

Approach E

Approach F

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Figure 18 : Level of importance of economy and infrastructure approaches to respondents (where n=454, n=449, n=456, n=434, n=450 and n=446 for approaches A to F respectively)

Participants also offered comments and suggestions on how the potential approaches could be improved to achieve the vision. These are been summarised below in Table 13 and grouped by the approach they relate to.

Table 13 : Participants’ comments on economy and infrastructure approaches

Approach Response

A – A sustainable visitation management strategy for the region will facilitate a strong tourism economy that is respectful of the cultural heritage, environmental and landscape features of the area.

Protect and maintain the Great Ocean Road, Spring Creek, and the beaches.

Complete a tourism and urban growth impact study.

Consider that tourism is already nearly at capacity.

Careful design of a ’sustainable visitation management strategy’ is needed.

B – Agricultural land uses located in between settlement areas should be supported and encouraged for their contribution to the regional economy.

Changing agricultural trade, should consider promotion of wineries and food tourism.

This lacks a means of support for agriculture.

C – Agricultural land uses located in between settlement areas should be supported and encouraged because they create a sense of rural openness between

This does not recognise that rural landscapes also contribute to the economy.



settlements.

D – Strategic extractive resource areas should be protected from encroachment from urban development.

There should not be any extractive industries in the DAL.

There is a preference for not allowing oil and gas.

E – Local retail, accommodation and food services should be supported through facilitating commercial developments in defined locations within townships.

This is limiting to providing opportunities in rural areas.

Have a greater focus on ‘local’, not chain stores.

F – Support strategic infrastructure projects and upgrades that are designed to be sympathetic to the area’s distinctive cultural heritage, environments and landscapes.

There were suggestions to increase green energy use.

Include actions on separated bike paths and improved public transport network.

Sustainable infrastructure could be considered through design.

Manage growth simultaneously.


Complete a comprehensive study of infrastructure needs.

Identify funding opportunities for infrastructure.

Ensure better planning for growth, particularly for Torquay town centre.

Change focus from traditional industries to a focus on possibilities for the future including service industries and coworking spaces.

Consider the economic role of developers and the construction industry in the local economy.

4.7 Settlement

4.7.1 Draft vision statement Torquay-Jan Juc is a thriving coastal settlement that provides residents with access to a diversity of services, amenities and jobs. It supports a relaxed coastal lifestyle for its residents, visitors and people living and working within the region.

All settlements have their own distinct character.

36


Figure 19 shows the participants’ level of agreement with the draft vision statement for the settlement policy domain. There was a strong level of agreement, with over 80 per cent of respondents stating they agree or strongly agree with this vision statement.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

222


Figure 19 : Respondents’ level of agreement with settlement vision statement (where n=454)

Many respondents felt that the wording of the vision statement was not visionary enough and is vague, for example, phrases such as ‘thriving’ or ‘own distinct character’. Additionally, many respondents felt that the vision statement needed to refer to defined settlement boundaries, particularly for Torquay however others felt that other settlements should also be identified, not just Torquay and Jan Juc. Settlement boundaries and placing limitations on development were also raised in relation to landscape, environment and biodiversity, and risk and resilience policy domains.

Some workshop participants felt that they could not answer or participate in the discussions as they felt that they needed to know the location of any new growth, development or proposed settlement boundary before they could respond.

Respondents also offered some additional comments and suggestions for how the vision statement could be improved, these are summarised in Table 15.

Language Include the word ‘sustainable’, that is, ensure good quality growth.

The word ‘thriving’ suggests growth, consider an alternative word such as ‘prosperity’.

Sentences one and two don’t work well together as the first sentence could fit in with economy and infrastructure policy domain better.

This should say ‘all settlements continue to have their own distinct characters’.

It was unclear what ‘protection’ would include or involve or what ‘access to diversity of services’ would encompass, these should be clarified.

Planning

Town boundaries are an important component for achieving this vision, so should therefore be included in the statement.

Acknowledge that sensible and well-planned development will help provide access to a diversity of services, education, amenities and jobs.



Address health and wellbeing as higher density development has mental and physical health impacts.

Consider specifically including improvements to infrastructure.

4.7.2 Approaches Potential approaches for the settlement policy domain can be found in Table 14. Figure 20 shows respondents’ perceptions of the level of importance for each of the potential approaches for achieving the settlement vision.

Approaches A to F received predominantly positive responses. Approaches A and C received the most positive responses, with over 85 percent of respondents felt that these were important or very important approaches. Approach G received the most negative responses with approximately 50 per cent of respondents stating it was of low importance or not at all important.

Table 14 : Potential approaches to achieve the proposed settlement vision


A Clarifying the preferred locations for future growth and implementing settlement boundaries will ease pressure on the environmental, cultural heritage and natural resource values, while providing greater certainty for residents and businesses.

B Opportunities for infill development within the boundary of existing townships should be encouraged ahead of developing further greenfield land.

C New urban development and infrastructure should be designed to fit in with the unique coastal character and history of townships and their natural settings, including foreshore areas and biodiversity corridors.

D Defining the roles, functions and identities of each township, and sub-precincts within Torquay-Jan Juc, will help settlements to thrive by supporting the local economy, encouraging jobs growth and meeting the needs of residents and workers.

E Defining an urban-to-rural transition area within the boundary of townships would help protect and enhance environmental, cultural heritage, landscape and natural resource values, and reduce bushfire risks.

F Mandating that development be not located on ridgelines would better protect existing vantage points and view lines of hills and environmental values.

G Increasing building heights in defined locations would help strengthen the economic performance of townships and help curb the need for increased

38

“Good start but the statement misses things like, access to natural amenity, character sensitive development, stopping sprawling growth, etc”


greenfield growth.

Approach A

Approach B

Approach C

Approach D

Approach E

Approach F

Approach G

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Figure 20 : Level of importance of settlement approaches to respondents (where n=454, n=451, n=447, n=443, n=447, n=447 and n=447 for approaches A to G respectively)

Participants also offered comments and suggestions for how the potential approaches could be improved to achieve the vision. These are been summarised below and grouped by the approach they relate to.

Table 15 : Participants’ responses to settlement approaches

Approach Response

A – Clarifying the preferred locations for future growth and implementing settlement boundaries will ease pressure on the environmental, cultural heritage and natural resource values, while providing greater certainty for residents and businesses.

Clarify how is this related to existing and proposed settlement boundaries.

Include land plot size.

Growth needs to be controlled

Acknowledge health and wellbeing impacts of higher density living.

The community needs to be involved in planning their town.

B – Opportunities for infill development within the boundary of existing townships should be encouraged ahead of developing further greenfield land.

Include both infill and greenfield, not to prioritise either one.

Allow infill development only, with provision of protection for low density.

Consider the sharing of views when assessing options for infill.

Some workshop participants felt that they



could not comment on this as it was framed as an either / or statement. Some people agreed with infill ahead of greenfield growth, some wanted both, and some said they could not comment unless they know where the locations of both infill and greenfield growth may be.

C – New urban development and infrastructure should be designed to fit in with the unique coastal character and history of townships and their natural settings, including foreshore areas and biodiversity corridors.

Strengthen planning controls to protect coastal look.

D – Defining the roles, functions and identities of each township, and sub-precincts within Torquay-Jan Juc, will help settlements to thrive by supporting the local economy, encouraging jobs growth and meeting the needs of residents and workers

Settlements have their own distinct character and settlement boundaries can help maintain community and character.

Consider the role of the transitory population.

E – Defining an urban-to-rural transition area within the boundary of townships would help protect and enhance environmental, cultural heritage, landscape and natural resource values, and reduce bushfire risks.

Plan for transition from rural to urban.

F – Mandating that development be not located on ridgelines would better protect existing vantage points and view lines of hills and environmental values.

Clarify justification of stopping development on ridgelines.

G – Increasing building heights in defined locations would help strengthen the economic performance of townships and help curb the need for

It’s difficult to interpret the meaning of ‘increasing building heights’.

Increasing economic performance should not be pursued at the perceived cost of

40


increased greenfield growth. increasing building heights.

Be cautious about heights - ‘We do not want a Gold Coast’.

Ensure a comprehensive process to determine future town heights and boundaries.


The statement needs to be more flexible to adapt to change.

Identify a measure for growth control, not as a reactive response.

The community needs to be involved in planning for their town.

Consider how settlement impacts on views.

Consider adding housing diversity.

4.8 Responsible Public Entities and State Government stakeholders’ workshop

A separate workshop was held to provide information and gather feedback from representatives from RPEs and State Government stakeholder organisations.

4.8.1 Presentation and question period Participants at the RPE workshop were presented an overview of the DAL project by the DELWP project manager, followed by an opportunity to ask questions. The questions that arose following the presentation were:

What does this [the declaration of a Distinctive Area Landscape] bring that is above and over the existing land use planning system?

What are you trying to safeguard from?

Are you confident in the timing?

Will this just be a statement, or will it include changes to the Surf Coast and Greater Geelong Planning Schemes?

4.8.2 Vision statements and draft objectives Participants were then asked to select which vision statements were most important to discuss. They voted (with two votes each) to focus conversations about:

environment and biodiversity

risk and resilience



economy and infrastructure.

The workshop findings are summarised according to each of the three sections below.

4.8.3 Environment and biodiversity Participants gave feedback on the draft vision statement relating to environment and biodiversity. Feedback related to the following:

low-level ambition: Participants reflected that the statement seems like a 5-10-year work plan; but is not visionary, aspirational or challenging. There were comments that the vision could be more ambitious, if it is seeking more than business as usual. Some participants suggested the vision should strive for net-gain and should cover the broader landscape. One participant noted that it can only be as aspirational as the ability the DAL has to impact change.

unnecessary specification: Participants said that highlighting rare flora and fauna; Great Otway National Park; remnant vegetation and separating marine and terrestrial life are all unnecessary and do not add to the vision.

vegetation: Participants noted that remnant vegetation cannot be increased. They said that buffering or enhancement would be more appropriate.

consideration of competing demands: Participants discussed the potential conflicts between this vision and other policies and existing pieces of work, such as VicRoads: Movement and Place (between remnant vegetation and road safety), or the interaction with local planning policies including clause 52.17 of the local planning scheme.

intrinsic values: Some participants suggested removal of the part of the vision that relates to biodiversity values as ‘for people to enjoy’, as it overlooks the inherent and intrinsic values of species.

Participants also gave feedback regarding the draft objectives. They commented that working together with existing policies, such as Coastal and Marine Management Plans, the Surf Coast Planning Scheme, Biodiversity 2037 and stormwater guidelines, is important. Existing policies should be built on and refer to, not repeat. Participants noticed the importance of buffers, and how to protect wetlands noting that there needs to be specific information about what a buffer is, and how it is managed. One participant stressed the importance of working together with specialists such as hydro consultants and ecologists.

Regarding objectives, participants suggested that creating vegetation and environmentally significant overlays to connect corridors of habitat strategically. They pointed out that there is an

42

“I think it’s worthwhile to note that it’s not visionary. What is a resilient system, what’s re-creating systems, habitat and corridors? What does biodiversity mean? Think about those principles and recreate that across the landscape rather than stating what is or isn’t there”


opportunity for connection and positive impacts to landowners; though there may be conflicts with fire protection.

4.8.4 Risk and resilience Participants at the workshop discussed the risk and resilience vision, and provided the following feedback:

all visions should include risk and resilience: Participants noted that risk and resilience does not need to be a stand-alone vision and relates to other visions. They also noted inconsistencies between having this as a separate vision.

connection to existing policies: Some participants highlighted other policies that already exist for the area such as the Marine and Coastal Policy, and that this needs to align with it. In particular, the goal to minimise extreme weather events is not within DELWP’s power (and is not the focus of other policies), however the vision includes this.

focus on resilience: Participants said that a resilience vision could provide more guidance about how to get through shocks, build resilience, adaptability and innovation. They noted that the current vision is about emergency management, rather than resilience. In particular, people noted that climate change could be mentioned sooner in the vision and language could focus on robust systems.

missing content about sustainability: Participants said that the vision could specify sustainability, energy use and integrated water management as part of this vision.


“It needs to be a meaningful policy/process. I am hearing that we want to do something!”

“Protect the environment and wetlands” is not specific enough”

“As officers, what localised planning policies are better than what happened before? We need to look to where we are going from here. Don’t hang onto the old policies. There’s nothing different, hone the few points that you want to pick and advance. There are competing opportunities here.”

“I think it has to relate back to other visions… it needs to link back to other visions. Don’t look at this in isolation. Everything is interrelated”


Participants made observations about the risk and resilience objectives. Participants noted that there is a lot missing from the objectives regarding risk and resilience, and no reference to the large body of work (policies, documents and research) that has already happened in this space. There was further discussion about how to align objectives with other (competing) values such as heritage and vegetation.

4.8.5 Economy and infrastructure Participants gave feedback about their thoughts on the economy and infrastructure vision. These were about:

a strong focus on industry and agriculture: Participants noticed that the vision is focused highly on industry and agriculture, but does not suitably address infrastructure, or tourism. They also noticed that residential development is not included in the discussion on industry.

settlement boundaries: Participants discussed the potential role of fixing settlement boundaries to assist with infrastructure provision. They noted that infrastructure needs to be planned and built before residential development.

extractive industries: Some participants discussed the role of extractive industries in the region (such as providing materials for road networks, and sand and gravel required to support wind farm developments) and the infrastructure required to support extractive industries.

Participants gave feedback about the economy and infrastructure objectives. One participant noted the potential for conflict between objectives to protect strategic extractive resource areas as well as support agricultural land uses. In general, participants noted that regarding green breaks, there is further work to be done.

44

“Where has this come from? There is a lot missing - it needs a body of work, look at what has already been done. Test it with community later… It needs to be consistent with the other work that is happening in the area”

“My initial thought is whether it is about industry and agriculture or infrastructure?”

“This feels like the leftovers. It needs to be refined”.

“I think they’re all important, but it needs to go another few steps. It’s beige. The intent is okay, but it needs more work”.


4.8.6 Overall Participants also gave some comments that related to many visions. These included:

water is not mentioned: Participants observed that there is no vision statement that mentions water. They highlighted the importance of water for the region, and the future scarcity of water that impacts cultural and environmental values. Participants highlighted that water needs to be referenced, and so does the Barwon Water strategy, and the Water Futures Program.

4.9 Extended responses

Some resident groups, individual community members, and private businesses submitted extended written responses. These responses raised a range of concerns which are summarised in this section.

Private businesses

Four submissions were received from companies owning land located within the declared area. These are summarised below.

Two of the respondents (A and B) submitted that any SPP should be in line with current planning policy at state, regional and local levels, particularly the Spring Creek Precinct Structure Plan and Victorian Coastal Strategy. They also continue to dispute the declaration of the Surf Coast DAL area and dispute the way in which phase one engagement was conducted and reported on. Furthermore, they submitted that there were a number of problems with the vision statements and potential approaches, as summarised in Table 16.

Table 16 : Summary of comments on draft vision statements and potential approaches provided by business A and B

Policy domain

Response

Landscape Draft vision statement

- References to the ‘hinterlands’ being ‘treasured and protected landscapes’ is too broad and requires clarity as to which landscapes are proposed for protection.

- Reference to ‘open rural areas between settlements’ and the maintenance of ‘important views’ is too broad. There is no definition of ‘important views’ or ‘rural areas’.

Potential approaches

- Approach C: it is also unclear as to what is intended by "fit[ting] in" with existing landscape features.

Environment and biodiversity

Draft vision statement

- The protection of Bellarine Yellow in the Spring Creek area has



been assessed in the Spring Creek PSP and related Native Vegetation Precinct Plan.

Risk and resilience


- Support for the visions statement regarding the need to protect human life from risks of bushfire. However, clarity is needed in defining a ‘high risk’ area in which to avoid development. Noting that the vast majority of Victoria lies within a Designated Bushfire Prone Area.

Aboriginal cultural heritage


- No comments made regarding draft vision and potential approaches

Post-contact heritage

- No comments made regarding draft vision and potential approaches

Economy and infrastructure


- As above, the draft vision and potential approaches are too general.

- The vision lacks recognition of construction as a contributor to the Torquay-Jan Juc economy.

Settlement Draft vision statement

- The vision fails to acknowledge the role of Torquay-Jan Juc as a "growth node", as set out in the Victorian Coastal Strategy.


- Approach A: there are already town boundaries set within Torquay-Jan Juc. These boundaries were set after multiple intensive community consultation processes.

- Approach B

o There are existing Design and Development Overlays which have the intent of facilitating low-rise building form in Torquay-Jan Juc.

o There is no acknowledgment of existing, planned greenfield development, such as Spring Creek.

- Approach D: there is no need for sub-precincts to be defined within Torquay-Jan Juc, as the existing planning scheme controls manage these differences with various zones and overlays.

- Approach E: there is no clarity as to how or where an ‘urban-to-rural’ transition should occur, or what this form of transition is seeking to protect. The settlement boundary itself should be the limit of urban development, as currently defined by urban zoned land.

46


Two other private business, whose land lies within the COGG and the declared area, submitted extended responses. They contend that their site is suitable for inclusion within the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Boundary through a logical inclusion process and provided a copy of their submission to the City of Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C395 - Settlement Strategy & Northern and Western Geelong Growth Areas Framework Plan.

The respondents wished to confirm that there will be coordination between the Geelong Settlement Strategy (logical inclusions) and Surf Coast DAL project, and that the DAL project will be informed by, not only the outcome of Amendment C395, but also the logical inclusions process. The respondents submitted that their sites’ inclusion in the DAL area should not restrict its’ ability to be assessed in a logical inclusion process within the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Boundary and its ultimate urban development.

Community groups and individuals

Five community groups submitted extended responses. In addition, five extended responses were received from individual community members. The community groups and individual responses focused on some similar themes. Common themes emerged from these submissions, including:

Town boundaries: Many stated that they want the Torquay town boundary to stop at Duffields Road. This theme arose in most of the individual resident extended responses. Some respondents also highlighted the need for town boundaries to consider bushfire risk and management.

Built form: Many respondents felt there was a need to limit building heights, residential density, and mandate setbacks in order to protect the heritage and character of townships. Most of these responses recognised that different areas, commercial, residential, foreshore or industrial, require different limitations on these aspects of built form.

Studies: Many respondents felt there was a need to conduct studies into the carrying capacity of beaches and infrastructure to assess the sustainability of tourism and population growth.

Boundary of the declared area: Some respondents felt that the boundary of the declared area was set in such a way that did not meet the requirements for a DAL designation or was not part of the Surf Coast as a distinctive area. Specifically, this related to the Mount Duneed and Lower Armstrong Creek areas.

Vision statements: There was generally agreement with the draft vision statements. It was suggested they could be strengthened by defining words such as “surrounding coastline”.

Engagement process. Residents of Mt Duneed and lower Armstrong Creek felt dissatisfied with the DAL Phase One and Two engagement processes. This included the level and timing of communication, as well as the rationale as to why Mt Duneed and lower Armstrong Creek had been included in the declared area.

Two of the community groups (A and B) provided responses to the survey questions within their extended responses. Some of this feedback reflects the feedback summarised earlier in this report. Comments and suggestions offered in these extended responses which are different



from the feedback already summarised in the engagement findings is summarised below in Table 17 and Table 18.

Table 17 : Summary of comments on draft vision statements and potential approaches , com - munity group A

Policy domain

Response

Landscape Draft vision statement

- The vision statement could be strengthened by defining the “surrounding coastline”.


- Approach C: There were concerns over the meaning and implementation of this approach.

- Approach E: Support the protection and conservation of the health and cultural heritage values of all areas in the declared area.

- Additional potential approaches:

o Prevent any new infrastructure along the coastline, and any replacement of old for new should not be more intrusive in the landscape than what it is replacing.

o Control building heights to protect the landscape along the coastline and the sense of place.



- Strongly agree with the draft vision statement


- Approach B: Generally, agree, but the control of invasive flora and fauna must be done in such a way as to not impact on other species or the community.

- Additional potential approach:

o No urban development to occur in areas where rare flora/fauna have been identified.

o More funding for restoration and recognition of local Landcare group.

Risk and resilience


- Strongly agree with the draft vision statement.


- Additional potential approach:

48


o New development in areas at high risk of bushfire or coastal erosion should be prohibited, not just avoided, and ensure future growth is restricted and confined to the areas of least risk.



- Strongly agree with the draft vision statement.


- Improve by including “sharing” with the current and future generations.

- Recognize the importance of including the Wadawurrung in future land management and development decisions.



- Generally, agree with the draft vision statement, but feel it downplays the importance of local cultural connection to nature.

- Comment that being the gateway to the Great Ocean Road probably does not mean that much to most people. The preservation of beaches, low rise buildings and rural landscapes is more important. These are what are understood to create the sense of place.


- Approach A

o Need to consider the impact of buildings and works on all of the declared area, not just heritage places.

o It is essential to maintain the low-rise nature of buildings and protect the views along the Great Ocean Road and in the hinterland. Buildings on ridgelines should be avoided.

- Approach B: Protect Bells Beach and its views from commercialisation and obtrusive infrastructure.

- Additional potential approach

o Taylor Park is of great significance to Torquay’s history. Further encroachment into the park should be prohibited.

Economy and infrastructure


- Concerns over the draft vision. Needs to better define “thriving” and “sustainable”.


- Approach A: Unsure what a “sustainable visitation management strategy” would look like and how it would be implemented.

- Approach E: Agree with facilitating commercial developments in



defined locations to support local retail, accommodation and food services so long as those developments are restricted to the current commercial zones and current building heights.

- Approach F: Cannot give support for infrastructure projects without knowing the specifics.

- Additional potential approaches:

o Need an impact study on tourism numbers and capacity of beaches and infrastructure, and impact on social wellbeing.

o Encourage more innovative, non-tourist related industries which may provide a greater income than most tourist related jobs. For example, educational sector jobs given proximity to Deakin University.


- Generally, support the vision but would like the word “thriving” to be defined.

- Do not believe Torquay-Jan Juc needs to provide anything for people living and working in the region beyond what it currently provided to all visitors.


- Fully support approaches A, B, C and F.

- Approach D: Concerns over how defining the roles, functions and identities of each township will help settlements to thrive.

- Approach E: Would like to have “urban transition” defined. Do not support any residential development west of Duffields Rd. Unclear how this will provide the desired outcomes stated, such as reduction of bush fire risk.

- Approach G: Do not support an increase in building heights, anywhere in the declared area beyond the current Surf Coast Shire Planning Scheme – 2 storeys for Residential and 3 storeys for Commercial. Particularly opposed to an increase in building heights in Gilbert St.

Community group B often chose to provide their own revised vision statements which were applicable to their geographical area of interest. They also provided comments on the potential approaches.

Table 18 : Summary of comments on draft vision statements and potential approaches, com - munity group B

Policy Response

50


domain

Landscape Revised vision statement

- The appended corridor, consists of a rolling hillock and marginalised plain, constrained by encroaching urbanisation from the North and already existing and planned future low-density development from the South.

- This area is noted for its unproductive farming capability and capacity, due to uneconomic property sizes and its exposure to increasing climatic variation.


- Approach A: Existing and planned future development of the Surf Coast settlement boundary, of Torquay towards Greater Geelong, which will negate this objective.

- Approach B: There is limited or negligible opportunity, to create valued or value-adding vantage points, within the appended corridor.

- Approach C: This approach adds no value nor potential future benefits to the appended corridor.

- Approach D: The appended corridor1 offers limited or negligible opportunity to do so.

- Approach E. Planning should help conserve and enhance areas with identified geological or landscape value by increasing efforts towards protecting the cultural heritage values they support. The appended corridor offers limited opportunity to do so.


Revised vision statement

- There are limited opportunities to exercise significant environmental and biodiversity strategies within the appended corridor due to environmental quality and degradation.


- Approach B: Suggest change to “Empower responsible public entities to assist, support and fund landowners to prepare and implement strategies, to control invasive flora and fauna species, within the appended corridor.”

- Approach C: Suggest change to “Encourage and fund responsible public entities to conduct ecological restoration works, using best practise techniques within identified areas, having significant environmental or biodiversity opportunities.”

1 Participants from Armstrong Creek and Mount Duneed referred to their geographical area in COGG as an ‘appended corridor’ to identify it as separate from the Surf Coast declared area.



Risk and resilience


- The significant features of the appended corridor are not impacted by coastal erosion and sea-level rise.

- However, bushfire and extreme weather events, present a significant risk. The appended corridor provides a fire risk to the existing and future developments. Uncontrolled access in the appended corridor, impedes fire services response and increases the risk of future climate change impacts.


- Approach A

o Work at Governmental level must be undertaken, to reduce the increasing threat level posed to the natural landscape by increasing climate change impacts.

o The ecological and biodiversity characteristics of the appended corridor and the surrounding urban developments and associated human life should all be protected.

- Approach B: New adjoining developments or existing land uses in the appended corridor are subject to a high fire threat and should be designed to mitigate such an increasing threat bought on by climate change.

- Approach C: There are no threats posed to the appended corridor by coastal erosion or sea level rise.


No issues raised with draft vision and potential approaches



- There is no opportunity to conduct any surfing or associated leisure opportunities upon or around the appended corridor.

- The Torquay Road/Surf Coast Highway and Anglesea Roads provide gateways to the Great Ocean Road and access points to the many areas of interest along the shipwreck coast, though these are distant from the appended corridor.


- Approach A: Significant views from and to heritage places are limited from the appended corridor.

- Approach B: Such opportunities are currently limited or non-existent within the appended corridor.

Economy and

Comment on draft vision statement

52


infrastructure - 1st sentence: not relevant for the COGG properties within the appended corridor as they do not contribute to the tourism sector which is essentially based on the Surf Coast (Torquay).

- 2nd sentence: There are no retail activities carried out on the COGG properties within the appended corridor. There is one extractive industry site which is currently in a wind down phase. Agricultural income from properties within the appended corridor is comparatively minimal given the scale of the operations. Properties in the appended corridor contribute little to the economy of the Surf Coast area.

- 3rd sentence: The only input that the COGG properties within the appended corridor will contribute to this vision is the possible compulsory acquisition of the transit corridor.


- Approach A: The appended corridor will have virtually no impact on visitor numbers to the Surf Coast as road transport linkages are already in place

- Approach B: The agricultural output from the appended corridor in terms of production and economic returns are extremely modest if they exist at all.

- Approach C: The appended corridor is already a farming zone, apart from the Boral site (Special Use) under the COGG Planning Scheme. The "Farming" zone has adequate control over the use and development of the land and will enable the protection of the existing rural character of the area

- Approach D: The Boral site is already appropriately zoned as "Special Use Earth and Energy Resources Industry" under the COGG Planning Scheme and is therefore protected from urban development. There is no other land allocated or zoned with in the COGG Corridor for extraction purposes.

- Approach E: The COGG properties are not located within townships and hence this potential approach does not apply.

- Approach F: The COGG properties are already traversed by major roads, electricity transmission lines, gas mains, telephone lines, sewer and water mains servicing the Surf Coast. The COGG Planning Scheme provides adequate protection for the cultural heritage, environments and landscapes if additional services are provided in the future, including the Armstrong Creek Transit corridor to Torquay.


- The appended corridor within the COGG, affords the opportunity to



transition incrementally into the thriving Southern suburbs of Geelong's Armstrong Creek and to similarly support a relaxed semi-rural lifestyle for its residents, visitors and people living and working within the appended corridor.


- Approach A: Clarifying the preferred locations for growth and implementing settlement boundaries are equally important for the appended corridor, as to do so, will ease pressure on the environmental, cultural, heritage and natural resource values, while providing greater certainty for residents and businesses within the appended corridor.

- Approach B: Opportunities for infill development, in addition to logical inclusion practices within the appended corridor, should be encouraged ahead of developing further green-field land.

- Approach C: Any new development and infrastructure within the appended corridor, should seek to incorporate the appended corridor's natural setting, whilst maintaining existing biodiversity corridors.

- Approach D: Defining the roles, functions, and identity of the appended corridor is restricted by its current circumstances, due to the unproductive and uneconomic property sizes and its exposure to increasing climatic variation, which denies it an opportunity to provide any diversity of services, amenities or employment.

- Approach E: Defining an urban to rural transition area and boundary within the appended corridor, in addition to logical inclusion practices, will help to enhance environmental, cultural heritage, landscape and natural resource values and reduce future fire risks.

- Approach F: Mandating that development not be located on ridgelines has merit, however many of the view lines to or from existing vantage points, within or to the appended corridor, have already been impacted or restricted by existing developments.

5. Next steps54


The feedback received through this phase of engagement will help DELWP to prepare a draft SPP for the declared area.

Further engagement opportunities will be provided in the third phase of public engagement, scheduled to occur in 2020, where written submissions on the draft SPP will be invited.

Following consideration of the feedback received, the SPP will then be finalised for endorsement and approval.


Documents

Draft Surf Coast Phase Two Engagement Final Report_ · Web viewThis report presents a summary of the key findings from the second phase of engagement for the Surf Coast DAL project