Planning and Act 1987 Panel Report - surfcoast.vic.gov.au · Planning and Environment Act 1987 Panel Report pursuant to Sections 153 and 155 of the Act Amendment C74 to the Surf Coast

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report

Surf Coast Planning Scheme

Amendment C74

‘Bellbrae Structure Plan’

13 May 2013

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report pursuant to Sections 153 and 155 of the Act

Amendment C74 to the Surf Coast Planning Scheme

‘Bellbrae Structure Plan’

Michael Kirsch, Chair David Whitney, Member

Page i Amendment C74 to the Surf Coast Planning Scheme Report of the Panel 13 May 2013

Contents Page

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 The Amendment ...................................................................................................... 1 1.2 The Panel Hearing ................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Council’s proposed revisions ................................................................................... 4 1.4 Surf Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C66........................................................ 4 1.5 Issues dealt with in this report ................................................................................ 5

2 Planning Context ......................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Policy framework ..................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Planning scheme provisions .................................................................................... 9 2.3 Planning strategies ................................................................................................ 10

3 Bellbrae .................................................................................................................... 13

4 Discussion of Issues................................................................................................... 15 4.1 Future Infill Area and Design and Development Overlay Schedule 24 ................. 15 4.2 Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 7 ............................................................ 22 4.3 The ‘Green Break’ between Bellbrae and Torquay ‐ Jan Juc ................................. 27 4.4 Development to the north of Bellbrae .................................................................. 30 4.5 Anglesea Road ....................................................................................................... 32 4.6 Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 1 ........................................................... 33 4.7 Other issues ........................................................................................................... 34

5 Conclusion and Recommendations ........................................................................... 35 5.1 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 35 5.2 Recommendations ................................................................................................ 35

Appendix A Document List

Appendix B List of Submitters

Page ii Amendment C74 to the Surf Coast Planning Scheme Report of the Panel 13 May 2013

List of Figures Figure 1 Exhibited Bellbrae Strategic Framework Plan at Clause 21.14‐4 ............................ 2

Figure 2 Municipal Land Use Framework Plan (Map 2 to Clause 21.01) .............................. 7

Figure 3 Bellbrae Framework Plan, Clause 21.14 .................................................................. 8

Figure 4 Victorian Coastal Strategy, Figure 12 b: Coastal Settlement Framework ............................................................................................................ 12

Figure 5 Exhibited SLO7 ....................................................................................................... 23

Figure 6 Map 1 to Clause 22.01 – Bellbrae Township ......................................................... 24

Figure 7 Proposed extent of Council’s revised SLO7 ........................................................... 25

Figure 8 1922 Bellbrae Township Plan ................................................................................ 31

Figure 9 1982 Bellbrae Township Structure Plan ................................................................ 31

List of Abbreviations CCMA Corangamite Catchment Management Authority

DDO Design and Development Overlay

DPCD Department of Planning and Community Development

DPO Development Plan Overlay

DSE Department of Sustainability and Environment

FZ Farming Zone

LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework

MSS Municipal Strategic Statement

PAO Public Acquisition Overlay

PCRZ Public Conservation and Resource Zone

PPRZ Public Park and Recreation Zone

RZ Road Zone

SLO Significant Landscape Overlay

SPPF State Planning Policy Framework

TZ Township Zone

VPO Vegetation Protection Overlay

VPP Victoria Planning Provisions

WSUD Water Sensitive Urban Design

Page 1 of 38 Amendment C74 to the Surf Coast Planning Scheme Report of the Panel 13 May 2013

1 Introduction

1.1 The Amendment

(i) Content

Amendment C74 to the Surf Coast Planning Scheme, as exhibited, seeks to implement the Bellbrae Structure Plan, 2010 and proposes to:

Replace the Bellbrae Strategy (Clause 21.14) with a revised strategy and Framework Plan (the revised Framework Plan is included as Figure 1 below);

Include a defined settlement boundary within the revised Bellbrae Framework Plan;

Rezone the balance of the land within the newly defined settlement boundary area from Farming Zone to Township Zone;

Apply a Design and Development Overlay Schedule 24 (DDO24) to all land covered by the Township Zone;

Apply a Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 7 (SLO7) to the northern entry of the town, identified as having high landscape values;

Apply the Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 1 (VPO1) to sites of biodiversity significance in and on the periphery of the township;

Remove the Road Zone from all land within the Anglesea Road reservation that is not in the ownership of VicRoads (within the broader settlement area only) and apply either the Township Zone or the Farming Zone as appropriate;

Apply the Public Acquisition Overlay to all land within the Anglesea Road reservation where the current application of the Road Zone is to be deleted but required for future widening to a four lane highway;

Rezone the Bellbrae town hall from Farming Zone to Public Park and Recreation Zone;

Remove the Public Park and Recreation Zone from the portion of the Spring Creek reserve that is used as a nature reserve and rezone to Public Conservation and Resource Zone;

Remove the Public Park and Recreation Zone from the portion of the Bellbrae recreation reserve that is used as a nature reserve and rezone to Public Conservation and Resource Zone; and

Remove the Road Zone from the portion of Menzels reserve that will not be required for the future widening of the Anglesea Road and apply the Public Conservation and Resource Zone.

The amendment will replace and update the current planning scheme provisions, many of which were drawn from the Bellbrae Structure Plan, 1982.

The planning authority and proponent is the Surf Coast Shire.


Figure 1 Exhibited Bellbrae Strategic Framework Plan at Clause 21.14‐4


(ii) Authorisation and exhibition

The amendment was authorised by the Minister for Planning on 4 September, 2012 (Authorisation A02369). The amendment was exhibited between 1 November and 3 December, 2012 and notices were placed in the Surf Coast Times and the Victorian Government Gazette. The exhibition included a mail‐out to all owners and occupiers in Bellbrae and the broader area, and included tailored covering letters that advised of specific changes that might impact on individual properties.

1.2 The Panel Hearing

(i) Appointment

This Panel was appointed under delegation on the 6 February, 2013 pursuant to Sections 153 and 155 of the Planning and Environment Act, 1987 to hear and consider submissions in respect of the Amendment.

The Panel consisted of:

Michael Kirsch (Chair); and

David Whitney (Member).

(ii) Hearings and inspections

A Directions Hearing was held on Thursday 14 March, 2013 at the Surf Coast Shire office. The Panel Hearing was held on Wednesday 10 and Thursday 11 April, 2013 at the Surf Coast Shire Office, Torquay.

The Panel inspected the sites referred to in submissions and the general township area, prior to and during the Hearing.

A list of documents submitted at the Panel Hearing is included at Appendix A.

(iii) Submissions

The Panel has considered all written and oral submissions and all material presented to it in connection with this matter.

The Panel heard the parties listed in Table 1.

Submitter Represented by

Surf Coast Shire Barbara Noelker, Adam Lee, Peter McLean and Ross Lister

VicRoads Brendan Grace

Rural Estates (Torquay) Pty Ltd Emily Porter (Counsel)

Christian College Geelong Greg Tobin (Harwood Andrews Lawyers)

Jason MacMartin

Owners of 55 School Road, Bellbrae Cameron Gray, St Quentin Consulting

Graham Smith

Dave Fredericks and Sue Fielder

Julie‐Ann Richardson

Joseph Badr

Table 1 Parties to the Panel Hearing


A list of all submitters is included in Appendix B.

1.3 Council’s proposed revisions

Following its consideration of submissions Council proposed various revisions to the amendment. Ms Noelker described these revisions as follows:

Including reference to a ‘Bellbrae Stormwater Masterplan’ Surf Coast Shire (2013) within the Bellbrae Strategy Clause 21.14 and the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 24.

Modifying the wording within the Bellbrae Strategy (Clause 21.14) relating to the subdivision requirements specific to 55 School Road, Bellbrae.

Removal of all references to Bellbrae from the Rural Residential Living Strategy (Clause 21.07).

Modifying wording within the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 24 relating to:

- Stormwater management to ensure future infill subdivision design meets the requirements of the ‘Bellbrae Stormwater Masterplan’ (2013).

- Subdivision requirements specific to 55 School Road, Bellbrae. - Subdivision area calculation to ensure the strategic rational of the

controls can be delivered.

Modifications to the subdivision lot size map (Map 2 to Schedule 24 to Clause 43.02) to realign the boundary between precinct A and B at 55 School Road, Bellbrae within the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 24.

Modification to the infill requirements map (Map 3 to Schedule 24 to Clause 43.02) for greater visual clarity and for consistency with the above mentioned subdivision requirements at 55 School Road, Bellbrae.

Extension of the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 7 to cover all of 90 Moores Road, Bellbrae and 1435 Anglesea Road, Bellbrae (Lot 2 on LP 221341) which were only partially covered in the exhibited documents.

1.4 Surf Coast Planning Scheme Amendment C66

The submission on behalf of Rural Estates (Torquay) Pty Ltd argued that Amendments C74 and C66 were inter‐related and that Amendment C66 should proceed first.

Amendment C66 implements various strategic studies relating to the Torquay/Jan Juc area, and proposes revisions to the growth area designations in the current planning scheme that are applied to the general Spring Creek area to the east of Bellbrae.

The issue concerned how the area between Bellbrae and Torquay should be treated, specifically whether Amendment C74 should designate a ‘green break’ between the two settlements.

Ms Noelker advised that Amendment C66 had been exhibited and that a Panel Hearing would be held later in the year.

The proposed ‘green break’ and Amendment C66 are discussed in section 4.3 of this report.


1.5 Issues dealt with in this report

The Panel has considered all written submissions, as well as submissions presented to it during the Hearing. In addressing the issues raised in those submissions, the Panel has been assisted by the information provided to it as well as its observations from inspections of specific sites.

A number of submissions supported the amendment or specific elements of it and the Panel has not specifically referred to these submissions except in relation to matters that are in contention.

This Report deals with the issues under the following headings:

Future Infill Area and Design and Development Overlay Schedule 24.

Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 7.

The ‘Green Break’ between Bellbrae and Torquay – Jan Juc.

Development to the north of Bellbrae.

Anglesea Road.

Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 1.

Other issues.


2 Planning Context

2.1 Policy framework

Ms Noelker provided a detailed description and analysis of the policy framework that applies to the amendment. Rather than repeat the detail of that material, the Panel highlights the key elements of the framework that are relevant to its assessment of the amendment and the submissions.

(i) State Planning Policy Framework

The key elements of the State Planning Policy Framework are described below:

Clause 11.02‐1 (Supply of urban land) seeks to ensure a sufficient supply of land is available for residential, commercial, retail, industrial, recreational, institutional and other community uses.

Clause 11.02‐3 (Structure planning) supports the preparation of structure plans that: - Take into account the strategic and physical context of the location. - Provide the broad planning framework for an area as well as the more

detailed planning requirements for neighbourhoods and precincts, where appropriate.

- Provide for the development of sustainable and liveable urban areas in an integrated manner.

- Assist the development of walkable neighbourhoods. - Facilitate the logical and efficient provision of infrastructure and use of

existing infrastructure and services.

Clause 12.02‐6 (The Great Ocean Road Region) includes the strategies:

Protect public land and parks and identified significant landscapes.

Ensure development responds to the identified landscape character of the area.

Manage the impact of development on catchments and coastal areas.

Manage the impact of development on the environmental and cultural values of the area.

Manage the growth of towns by:

Respecting the character of coastal towns and promoting best practice design for new development.

Directing urban growth to strategically identified areas

It also requires that: Planning must consider as relevant:

The Victorian Coastal Strategy (Victorian Coastal Council, 2008).

The Great Ocean Road Landscape Assessment Study (Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2004).

The Great Ocean Road Region ‐ A Land Use and Transport Strategy (Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2004).

Clause 12.04‐2 (Landscapes) supports the protection of landscapes and significant open spaces that contribute to character, identity and sustainable environments.


Clause 15.01‐1 (Urban design) supports urban environments that are safe, functional and provide good quality environments with a sense of place and cultural identity.

Clause 15.01‐5 (Cultural identity and neighbourhood character) promotes the recognition and protection of cultural identity, neighbourhood character and sense of place.

Clause 16.02‐1 (Rural residential development) includes the strategy:

Reduce the proportion of new housing development provided in rural areas and encourage the consolidation in existing settlements where investment in physical and community infrastructure and services has already been made.

Clause 18.02‐4 (Management of the road system) supports an efficient and safe road network and making the most of existing infrastructure.

(ii) Local Planning Policy Framework

Municipal Strategic Statement

The Municipal Strategic Statement identifies Bellbrae as a ‘Rural Township’ on the Municipal Land Use Framework Plan (Map 2 to Clause 21.01) shown below:

Figure 2 Municipal Land Use Framework Plan (Map 2 to Clause 21.01)


Clause 21.06 (Rural landscape) highlights the areas of landscape significance within the Shire and identifies the area within and around Bellbrae as being within two ‘landscape units’ – ‘Gherang/Bellbrae West’ and ‘Bellbrae Hinterland'.

Clause 21.07‐2 (Providing Rural Living and Rural Residential Development) includes the strategy:

Direct new rural residential or rural living subdivision to existing areas and areas identified in Torquay/Jan Juc, Winchelsea, Moriac and Bellbrae as having ‘potential future development areas’.

The Clause also indicates Council’s intention to:

Investigate opportunities to increase the densities of existing rural living lots to the east and south of Bellbrae, considering servicing constraints, access and landscaping.

Clause 21.14 (Bellbrae) contains a range of objectives and strategies under the themes of ‘Population, Housing and Residential Development’, ‘Township Character’ and ‘Community Facilities’. The Clause is largely based on the Bellbrae Structure Plan, 1982 and includes the Framework Plan, provided below.

Figure 3 Bellbrae Framework Plan, Clause 21.14


The amendment proposes to replace this Clause with a new ‘Bellbrae Strategy’ based on the Bellbrae Structure Plan, 2010.

Local Planning Policy

Clause 22.01 (Rural Tenement Policy) applies to all land in the Farming Zone and Rural Conservation Zone and includes provisions relating to subdivision and dwellings. It identifies lots within and around Bellbrae on which a maximum of one dwelling on each lot is permissible.

2.2 Planning scheme provisions

(i) Zones

The amendment proposes to apply the Township Zone to south‐west area of the town and to two parcels associated with the future widening of the Anglesea Road. The ‘purposes of the Township Zone are:

To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

To provide for residential development and a range of commercial, industrial and other uses in small towns.

To encourage residential development that respects the neighbourhood character

(ii) Overlays

The amendment proposes to apply a new Design and Development Overlay Schedule 24 (Bellbrae Township) to the areas currently and proposed to be zoned Township. The ‘design objectives’ within the exhibited schedule are:

To protect and enhance the historic, village character of Bellbrae.

Infill development

To create a permeable street network that incorporates the village characteristics of the town.

To provide pedestrian access into the rear of the school and through the site from Cunningham Drive through to School Road.

To provide a soft edge to the township when viewed from the Anglesea Road and to reduce the impact of noise from passing traffic.

To manage stormwater from infill development and to promote best practice stormwater management.

School Road ‘active frontage’

To consolidate the community facilities and reinforce School Road as a village ‘main street’.

To promote activity and an active edge along the main street.


To increase the on street car parking on School Road, particularly in the vicinity of the primary school.

To encourage design that will enhance the ‘village’ character of the town.

The amendment also proposes to apply a new Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 7 (Bellbrae Township) to the area to the north of Spring Creek and the Bellbrae ‘township’.

The ‘Statement of nature and key elements of landscape’ in the SLO7 is:

The village of Bellbrae is located on a north facing hillside that sits within an enclosed valley landform. The undulating topography together with a significant cover of Eucalyptus sp provides a sense of enclosure with panoramic views available when entering the town from the north and from various view points within the town itself.

The town includes numerous historic buildings which reinforces the towns ‘historic’ character. The sporadic cover of vegetation both within the township, along the Spring Creek and on the encircling hills provides a filtering effect to the built form giving the overall appearance that the village is ‘nestled’ within a canopy of native and exotic trees.

The town is contained around School Road with a sprinkling of discreet houses visible on the north facing hills. There is the potential for additional development to occur in the vicinity of Moores Road which could be highly prominent from within the town and from the Anglesea Road. It will be important to ensure that any new residential development in this area is respectful of the landscape, historic and rural setting and does not detract from School Road as the village core.

The ‘landscape character objectives to be achieved’ are:

To protect the open rural landscape setting of the northern entry into the town and to reinforce School Road as the village core.

To ensure development north of the settlement boundary is sited and designed to ‘nestle’ into the landscape, incorporating elements reflective of the rural/historic setting.

To enhance the vegetated appearance of the northern entry to the town.

2.3 Planning strategies

(i) Bellbrae Structure Plan, September 2010

The Structure Plan involved extensive community consultation and was based on a comprehensive set of ‘Background Papers’ that addressed:

Community, people and values;

Strategic framework;

Population characteristics and projections;

Sustainable development and opportunities;

Environment, heritage and landscape;

Economy and employment;

Community and leisure; and


Transport and infrastructure.

The Structure Plan highlights key themes that emerged from the consultation program, including:

Protecting the local environment, in particular through sustainable living and protecting native flora and fauna.

Strong sense of community.

Local character, highlighted as being reliant on a green buffer between Bellbrae and Torquay and low density living.

Better path links needed to surrounding towns.

The Structure Plan notes that:

Within the context of the region and the role of Bellbrae is to provide for ‘limited growth’ with urban growth being directed to Torquay and Winchelsea, ‘where it can best be accommodated’ by using existing services and infrastructure.

The Surf Coast Shire Strategic Framework Plan in the Surf Coast Planning Scheme identifies Bellbrae as a rural township’ with limited potential for growth.

However, even if only limited growth is to occur in Bellbrae it must still occur in a sustainable manner that respects the environment, rural character and high scenic values of the area as valued by the community.

The Structure Plan’s ‘Implementation’ section includes various recommended ‘actions’, many of which are included in Amendment C74.

(ii) Great Ocean Road Region, A Land Use and Transport Strategy, 2004

The Great Ocean Road Region Strategy is a ‘Policy Guideline’ document at Clause 12.02‐6 (The Great Ocean Road Region) of the Surf Coast Planning Scheme and must be considered where relevant.

The Strategy ‘focuses on the sustainable development of the region through balanced and managed growth of selected towns along the coast and inland’ and is built around four key themes: Environment, Settlement, Access and Prosperity.

Although the Strategy does not specifically refer to Bellbrae, Council assumed (for the purposes of the Bellbrae Structure Plan) that it has the status of a ‘settlement’ as, for example, do Moriac and Deans Marsh. This suggests that Bellbrae’s growth potential is limited, in contrast to those settlements (such as Torquay and Winchelsea) that have been specifically identified for urban growth. Similarly, Bellbrae is not specifically mentioned in the Victorian Coastal Strategy, 2008.

The Panel is satisfied that Council’s strategic vision for Bellbrae, reflected in the proposed Settlement Boundary, Township Zone and subdivision restrictions in the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 24 is consistent with the Great Ocean Road Region Strategy. This vision recognises that Bellbrae has limited scope for development, largely as a consequence of infrastructure constraints.


(iii) Victorian Coastal Strategy, 2008

The Victorian Coastal Strategy (VCS) is a ‘Policy Guideline’ document in the SPPF and must be considered where relevant.

The VCS does not specifically refer to Bellbrae, but identifies the role and growth potential of other towns in the region, including Torquay, Winchelsea and Anglesea (refer to Figure 4).

Figure 4 Victorian Coastal Strategy, Figure 12 b: Coastal Settlement Framework

The VCS also includes some general principles that are relevant to Bellbrae and the amendment. Council highlighted various policy statements in Section 4.2 (Coastal settlements and communities) including:

3 Maintain existing non‐urban breaks between all coastal settlements to support community identity, sense of place and limit urban sprawl.

4 Avoid linear development along the coastal edge and major transport routes and within rural landscapes to preserve areas between settlements for non‐urban use.

5 Retain non‐urban uses between settlements and protect visually significant landscapes, views and vistas.


3 Bellbrae

Ms Noelker’s submission provided the following overview of Bellbrae which provides useful context for the amendment and submissions:

Bellbrae is located 21 kilometres south of Geelong and 5km west of Torquay in the Surf Coast Shire. Bellbrae has a minor role to play at a regional level, with both the Victorian Coastal Strategy (2008) and the Great Ocean Road Region Strategy (2004) designating it as a ‘village’ and ‘settlement’, facilitating limited growth.

Figure 1 (included below) shows the settlement planning for the Great Ocean Road region which appears as Figure 5 in the Bellbrae Structure Plan (2010). Bellbrae is not identified in the plan but is located due west of Torquay on the Great Ocean Road. It was assumed to be a ‘settlement’ in the Structure plan, as it plays a similar role to Moriac and Deans Marsh in the Local Planning Policy Framework.

‘Figure 1: Settlement map for the Great Ocean Road Region, DSE (2004) (Source: Bellbrae Structure Plan, 2010)’

The area covered by the Amendment includes all of the land in Bellbrae currently zoned ‘township’, located on the southern side of Spring Creek and the broader settlement area which consists of numerous small farm holdings directly abutting the township area, similar in size to low density or rural living allotments.

Figure 2 (included below) shows the Township Zone in Bellbrae and the broader settlement area which appears as Map A in the ‘Introduction’ of the Bellbrae Structure Plan (2010).


Figure 2: Bellbrae Township and Broader Settlement Area plan

The Bellbrae Structure Plan indicates that the Bellbrae township, including the immediate settlement area, was estimated by Council officers to have a population of 217 persons in 2009. It also includes population forecasts undertaken by Id Consulting for the broader Bellbrae/Bells Beach/ Jan Juc area which predict a population of approximately 268 persons for Bellbrae by 2026.


4 Discussion of Issues

4.1 Future Infill Area and Design and Development Overlay Schedule 24

(i) What is the issue?

The issues are whether the proposed ‘infill area’ should be developed and whether the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 24 (DDO24) provides a suitable planning framework for its development.

The amendment proposes to rezone some 17.4 hectares of land in the vicinity of School Road from Farming Zone to Township Zone. This land was identified in the Structure Plan Background Paper – ‘Sustainable development and opportunities’ as being the most suitable location for future urban development in Bellbrae. It was also identified as the area which presented the best opportunity for sustainable development and the area least constrained by natural or physical characteristics. Further, it was an area noted as providing for enhanced walkability by being within 400m of services in Bellbrae.

The amendment also proposes to apply the DDO24 over the land to be rezoned whose purpose includes protecting and enhancing the historic village character of the township.

(ii) Submissions

Eleven submitters made reference to the proposed rezoning of the infill area, of which, ten (including three from the same address) supported the proposal.

Notwithstanding this support, a submission by David Fredericks and Sue Fielder raised a number of concerns in opposition to the development of this area. These included:

The negative impact development of lots to 4,000 sqm would have on the area’s character and scenic values. They submitted that the principle of ensuring that Bellbrae will retain and foster its identity, upon which the Bellbrae Structure Plan is based, will not be achieved through the growth provided for under the proposed rezoning. Rather, it was their contention that Bellbrae’s identity could best be strengthened by building on the township core;

The subdivision of properties along School Road into lots of 2,500 sqm would result in increased storm water flows into an area already faced with a significant storm water problem. Further, they were concerned that the introduction of additional waste water treatment systems into properties along School Road may result in increased overland storm water flows (including effluent) due to the inundation of soils on these smaller lots;

Negative security and privacy implications of the proposed pedestrian access between Cunningham Drive and School Road as shown on the Infill Infrastructure Requirements Plan included in the proposed DDO24; and

Various potential issues associated with the subdivision of the property at 61 Cunningham Street that abuts their property.

Graeme Mills also questioned the need for a pedestrian access between Cunningham Drive and School Road, while Julie‐Ann Richardson and Stephen Birney strongly favoured this element of the DDO24.


Cameron Gray of St Quentin Consulting (on behalf of Geoff Millman) raised various issues in relation to the proposed DDO24. Mr Gray submitted firstly on behalf of the owners of 55 School Road that:

The use of portion of their land to facilitate parking for the school, while supported, should not be acquired through the use of a local policy where the issue of compensation is undetermined;

The permit trigger for dwellings over 7.5m or for two storey dwellings is unclear where land is sloping;

The requirement to locate buildings within 4m of the front boundary to create an active frontage may be inappropriate where land is to be used for a dwelling and where the ability to landscape appropriately may be compromised.; and

The drainage buffer shown on the Infill Infrastructure Requirements Plan should not be excluded from lot area calculation.

With respect to land at 40 School Road, Mr Gray made similar submissions in respect to the building height and setback provisions of DDO24 and also raised concerns regarding the requirement for MUSIC modelling to be undertaken on a collective basis to determine how stormwater generated by a number of properties west of School Road is to be treated and retarded. It was Mr Gray’s submission that modelling on the property has demonstrated that subdivision could appropriately deal with stormwater on the land without the need to be included in a broader strategy involving other parties.

The Panel also notes a submission from Colin Morris who also claimed to be the owner of land at 40 School Road. Mr Morris advised that he had ‘carefully considered the proposal to amend the planning scheme and support the changes recommended in Amendment C74’.

Ms Noelker described the strategic support for the amendment and submitted that:

The strategic planning documents have consistently identified Bellbrae’s rural character as a driving factor in planning for the town’s future growth. The restriction on subdivision to provide for low density sized allotments through the DDO24 directly responds to this issue. The Township Zone does not specify a minimum lot size and any current planning application for a subdivision in Bellbrae would be determined on the lands capability to retain wastewater on site and character would not be a defining factor.

Amendment C74 aims to formalise this low density (rural) character by applying a minimum lot size within the settlement boundary, at a rate that will provide for sufficient growth whilst balancing the need for urban consolidation (with a focus on activating the main street) with maintaining the open character predominantly along the towns outward edge.

The land capability assessment undertaken through the Bellbrae Structure Plan found that lots as small as 1000sqm would be capable of retaining wastewater on site. However enabling the creation of urban sized lots (albeit of a large size) was considered through the structure plan as being contrary to the towns character and it was therefore resolved that lot sizes of 4000sqm, with lot sizes of 2500sqm along School Road, would be more sympathetic with the rural character (and the towns strategic status as a rural settlement with limited growth).


(iii) Discussion

Character and amenity

In relation to the concerns expressed by David Fredericks and Sue Fielder about the impact of additional development on the character of Bellbrae, the Panel agrees with Council that provision should be made to facilitate some additional growth within the township. This will take advantage of existing infrastructure and services.

The Panel also accepts that the infill area has been strategically justified as the most appropriate area in which growth should be allowed to occur. Council highlighted the fact that currently no minimum lot sizes are prescribed under the Township Zone and lot size is determined by the land’s ability to retain waste water on site. Council also indicated that a land capability study has shown that while lots down to 1,000 sqm could retain waste water on site, the decision to restrict lots fronting School Road to an area of 2,500 sqm and lots elsewhere in the Township Zone to 4,000 sqm would limit the extent to which the township could grow and ensure future growth was sympathetic to the township’s rural character.

In general terms, the Panel supports the proposed application of the Township Zone and is satisfied that the area to which it will be applied is well located for additional development. In addition, the lot sizes provided for under the DDO24 will assist in maintaining the rural character of the township and protecting its scenic values.

Nevertheless, a number of detailed issues were raised in submissions about the content of the DDO24 and the Structure Plan, and the potential implication of future development. These are discussed below.

Design and Development Overlay Schedule 24

Following its consideration of submissions, Council resolved to make a number of modifications to DDO24 to address the concerns raised in the submissions made by Mr Gray and others.

At the Hearing, Mr Gray acknowledged that most of his concerns had been resolved and that his appearance before the Panel was essentially to address the issue of the acquisition of land at 55 School Road to enable Council to formalise angled on‐street parking opposite the primary school.

Ms Noelker advised the Panel in response to this issue that:

Since the preparation of this concept plan Councils engineering department have designed angled parking within the road reservation of School Road. The design does not require any land from 55 School Road for carparking however in the future a footpath and street trees will need to be provided. A copy of the design for the carparking was sent to St Quentin Consulting and the wording within the Bellbrae Strategy and DDO24 modified to reflect the changes in the subdivision requirements:

A portion of 55 School Road will be acquired by Council as part of any future subdivision of this site to enable the construction of a footpath and the planting of shade trees within the road reservation as defined on Map 3 to this schedule.

Notwithstanding Council’s advice that the land to be acquired would be used for a footpath and street trees rather than for carparking, it was Mr Gray’s submission that there was no nexus between the subdivision of the land at 55 School Road and the works Council


proposed in School Road to overcome the carparking and traffic issues associated with the school. He stated, however, that the land owner was willing to facilitate an appropriate outcome which did not involve acquisition. He suggested that for this to occur further changes to the wording of both Clause 21.14‐8 and the DDO24 were required to ensure future transparency and equity in relation to the nature of acquisition, the extent of acquisition, compensation and the effect of any acquisition on future lot sizes.

In the Panel’s opinion, while there is no problem in referring to the acquisition of a portion of 55 School Road in both the DDO24 and Clause 21.14‐8, the only way for such an acquisition to be transparent would be to include the required land in a Public Acquisition Overlay (PAO). Should it be considered by Council that a negotiated outcome could be achieved with the landowner without the use of a PAO, then it may be appropriate to avoid the use of the term ‘acquisition’ in both Clause 21.14‐8 and the DDO24. In this context, the Panel has recommended that these ‘acquisition’ references be deleted from the amendment.

With respect to the wording changes designed to address the building height, setback and subdivision provisions, the Panel supports the modified wording of the DDO24 tabled by Ms Noelker at the Hearing. They are a reasonable response to submissions and will improve the clarity and performance of the provisions.

Pedestrian access to the school

The need for a pedestrian access between Cunningham Drive and School Road was addressed by Ms Noelker in her submission to the Panel. She stated that:

The DDO24 as part of the future infill infrastructure requirements stipulates the inclusion of a pedestrian link from Cunningham Drive through the future drainage reserve. The original intent at the structure planning stage was to provide vehicle access through to Cunningham Drive to provide a permeable street network that enabled access from School Road through the infill area through to Cunningham Drive. This proved to be impractical due to the land configuration at the rear of 61 Cunningham Drive which is owned by the Bellbrae Primary School (Department of Education and Early Childhood Development).

Although a street could not be provided pedestrian access is still feasible and is encouraged within the requirements of the DDO24.

Ms Noelker added:

Following the creation of a drainage reserve through the subdivision process as stipulated by the DDO24, the rear access into the Bellbrae Primary School will be directly abutting public land. A pedestrian access can then be provided into the rear of the school providing a more direct access into the school for pedestrians on the western side of the town or within Cunningham Drive itself. The volume of pedestrian traffic is envisaged to be low but has the benefit of directing children away from School Road which is recognised as being an unsafe environment during drop off and pick up times.

In contrast to the concerns that a pedestrian access would impact on privacy and security, Ms Noelker pointed to other submissions that strongly favoured this aspect of the DDO24.

The desirability of a rear pedestrian access to the school is a fundamental element of the Structure Plan and is reflected in the DDO24 which includes the ‘Design objective’:


To provide pedestrian access into the rear of the school and through the site from Cunningham Drive through to School Road.

In addition, the DDO24 includes the ‘Subdivision requirement’ that:

Pedestrian access is to be provided within the infill area, as shown on Map 3 to this schedule, providing access from either Anglesea Road or Cunningham Drive to the rear of the Bellbrae Primary School.

The Panel notes that Council now proposes to add the words ‘The footpath is to be constructed following the construction of the stormwater wetland and prior to Council’s acquisition of the land.’

The Panel supports the concept of pedestrian access to School Road from the west and is satisfied that it is consistent with contemporary urban design practices. The Panel believes that the concerns about privacy and security are overstated, although it agrees that these issues will need to be considered in the detailed design of the access. It agrees with Ms Noelker that:

Providing a choice of direct routes for pedestrians is essential in every town and although the Bellbrae population would not generate a large volume of foot traffic, access to the school as a key destination within the town is very important.

In terms of the detailed references to the pedestrian access in the amendment, the Panel notes that while the concept of the access appears as a subdivisional requirement, Map 3 of the DDO24 indicates that the access is to be ‘investigated’. In the Panel’s opinion, this wording creates an ambiguity. Either the access is a requirement or it is a matter to be investigated.

Given that the access is both a ‘Design objective’ and a ‘Subdivision requirement’ the Panel recommends that Council remove the ambiguity by having the notation on Map 3 read ‘Possible route for pedestrian access’.

Stormwater

David Fredericks and Sue Fielder submitted that:

The dam currently located at Cunningham Drive fails to contain the water currently flowing to it and it appears that the amendment seeks to reduce the capacity of any water catchment in the ‘storm water treatment and retardation area’ despite the likelihood of additional catchment requirements in the event of the construction of houses, roads, driveways and the like.

Ms Noelker addressed this issue at some length in her submission and made available for questioning Messrs McLean, Lee and Lister from the Council’s Engineering Department. Ms Noelker submitted that:

Following the completion of the Bellbrae Structure Plan and prior to the drafting of the Amendment documents Council’s stormwater engineer undertook basic MUSIC modelling in order to provide guidance to the planning authority. The modelling was undertaken to ensure an integrated stormwater management solution could be provided as part of the future subdivision requirements for the infill area.


This planning is of particular importance to Council as any future wetland will become a Council asset. The engineers brief was to ensure best practice stormwater management could be provided for in a system that would not result in onerous ongoing maintenance costs to Council. Basic modelling was undertaken which concluded that a wetland of approximately 2,350sqm (2.5% of the entire site) should be provided in the northern western part of the infill catchment.

The future street network is envisaged to contain open grassed swales and each lot would be required to drain to the swale system that would ultimately drain to the wetland. The MUSIC modelling determined the catchment size and capacity of the wetland. Basic requirements were included within Amendment C74 in the infill requirements of the DDO24 as follows:

MUSIC modelling must be undertaken prior to any new lot being created within the infill area located on the western side of School Road, defined on Map 3 to this schedule, that demonstrates how stormwater generated by the collective area is to be treated and retarded to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Stormwater retardation and treatment for the infill area on the western side of School Road is to be located generally in accordance with Map 3 to this schedule.

Stormwater easements are to be provided on all new lots to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Adequate land is to be set aside within the road reservation for:

Grassed swales, design and location informed by MUSIC modelling.

Following the exhibition period Council requested that Councils Stormwater engineer investigate the stormwater matter further to provide more certainty as to the stormwater requirements and to consider the matters raised by submitter 6 (David Fredericks and Sue Fielder). A Stormwater Masterplan was prepared by Council in 2013 which confirmed the location, size and required capacity of the wetland.

The masterplan assumed that future development on the land could potentially development up to 35% hard surface coverage to ensure runoff was overestimated and to adopt a conservative approach to stormwater management. The masterplan has been included as a reference document in the modified version of the Bellbrae Strategy and the wording within the DDO24 modified as follows:

A stormwater management plan, generally in accordance with the Bellbrae Stormwater Master plan (2013) must be undertaken prior to any new lot being created within the infill area located on the western side of School Road, defined on Map 3 to this schedule to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Stormwater retardation and treatment for the infill area on the western side of School Road is to be designed and located in accordance with the Bellbrae Stormwater Master plan (2013).

Stormwater easements are to be provided in accordance with the Bellbrae Stormwater Master plan (2013) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Adequate land is to be set aside within the road reservation for:


Grassed swales, design and location informed by the stormwater management plan submitted with the application.

With respect to the concern expressed by Mr Gray on behalf of the owners of land at 40 School Road that stormwater on this land could be addressed independently, Ms Noelker advised that the stormwater master planning process assessed the MUSIC modelling provided for this particular property and determined that stormwater could be treated on this property inclusively, provided development was restricted from the north western part of the land via building envelopes. She added that the modified version of the DDO24 will require stormwater to be managed in accordance with the masterplan and this will enable this site to be excluded from the integrated stormwater system.

The Panel considers the inclusion of references to the Bellbrae Stormwater Master Plan, 2013 in the wording of the ‘Subdivision requirements’ and the ‘Decision guidelines’ of the DDO24, and the inclusion of the Master Plan as a reference document and strategy in Clause 21.14 are appropriate mechanisms to ensure that the concerns that have been raised in relation to stormwater can be appropriately addressed.

Soil capability and effluent disposal

David Fredericks and Sue Fielder expressed concerns about the potential for effluent flows associated with future development of 61 Cunningham Drive that is adjacent to their property. They were particularly concerned about the proximity of the existing dam to the west of their property and its capacity to retain stormwater flows that might include effluent. They cited various EPA requirements and a 2004 soil test conducted for 65 Cunningham Drive.

Ms Noelker reiterated how the requirements of the stormwater masterplan for the area would require a comprehensive solution to stormwater issues in the area and provide a mechanism to address existing problems raised in submissions.

In relation to the existing dam and effluent disposal, Ms Noelker advised that:

Councils Environmental Health Co‐ordinator confirmed that the effluent disposal area does not comply with the EPA 60m setback requirement but that the approval process for that septic system included conditional consent that the land between the disposal envelope and the dam be planted out with shallow rooted plans and that a cut off drain be installed to ensure seepage into the dam was prevented.

Councils Environmental Health Co‐ordinator noted that the engineering of a wetland would vastly improve the current situation by increasing the separation distance between the wetland and effluent disposal area. Furthermore it was suggested that the Stormwater Master plan include a requirement that the eastern bank of the wetland be designed to restrict flows entering from the 65 Cunningham Drive.

Ms Noelker also noted that the soil test conducted for 65 Cunningham Drive: ‘was for engineering purposes which is classified differently to domestic wastewater and aligning the two is not possible’. Ms Noelker added that:

Regardless of any inconsistencies found between the two reports, Councils Environmental Health Co‐ordinator highlighted that any future development application for the site would be required to submit an individual land capability


assessment with a requirement that all wastewater must be contained within the lot.

While the Panel acknowledges the concerns raised by David Fredericks and Sue Fielder, it is satisfied that the amendment includes adequate provisions to require that stormwater and effluent disposal will be adequately managed and that Council and EPA requirements will be met. The Panel was not presented with any evidence that supported the contention that stormwater or effluent disposal issues could not be effectively managed or that they should preclude development of the infill area to the west of School Road.

(iv) Recommendations

The Panel recommends that Amendment C74 be modified to:

Include the revised version of the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 24 tabled by Council at the Hearing (Document 2), subject to:

Replacing the designation ‘Investigate pedestrian access’ in Map 3 with ‘Possible route for pedestrian access’;

Replacing the designation ‘Acquisition area for future footpath and street trees’ in Map 3 with ‘Provision to be made for footpaths and shade trees’; and

Replacing the reference to 55 School Road in Section 3 (Subdivision) with ‘Subdivision of land at 55 School Road should not prevent the treatment of School Road to provide footpaths and shade trees.’

Include the revised version of Clause 21.14 tabled by Council at the Hearing (Document 2) subject to:

Replacing the ninth strategy in Clause 21.14‐8 with ‘Provide a standard footpath and street tree planting within a modified road reservation that provides angled on street car parking opposite the Primary School.’

4.2 Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 7

(i) What are the issues?

The issues are whether there is adequate justification for applying the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 7 (SLO7) and whether the proposed boundaries should be modified.

The amendment proposes to introduce the SLO7 over land in the vicinity of Moores Road to the north of Bellbrae to protect the open rural landscape setting of the northern entry into the town and to reinforce School Road as the village core (refer to Figure 5). Section 2.2 (ii) of this report describes the key objectives that are sought to be achieved in the SLO7.

The effect of the overlay will be to require an application for any buildings and works to be accompanied by information which includes details about site layout, building materials and colour, landscaping and topography to enable the Council to consider how a proposal will impact on the rural/historic setting of the township’s northern entrance and how the identification of School Road as the town’s centre can be maintained.


(ii) Submissions

Dianne and Neil McQuinn (in separate submissions) raised issues with the wording of the schedule’s ‘Statement of nature and key elements of landscape’ and considered that the area covered by the overlay should be extended further north to Coombes Road and include all of the lots in Moores Road. Neil McQuinn believed the wording of the ‘Statement of nature and key elements of landscape’ gave the impression that there could be significant additional development in the area, whereas the planning scheme prevents anything more than a single dwelling on lots currently existing in the area. Dianne McQuinn submitted that the wording regarding additional development was ambiguous and confusing, and suggested that the ‘Statement’ should apply to all vacant lots in Bellbrae without specific reference to Moores Road. Both submissions questioned the exhibited SLO7 Map which excluded parts of lots in Moores Road.

Jason MacMartin opposed the application of the SLO7 to his property at 85 Moores Road. He submitted that the overlay will be onerous, add to the costs of construction and devalue his property.

Ms Noelker highlighted the ‘policy context’ in support of the SLO7, including the Great Ocean Road Region Landscape Assessment Study, 2003 (GORRLAS) and various elements of the SPPF. The submission also discussed the background reports that provide the basis for the overlay and addressed issues raised in submissions associated with the coverage and content of the SLO7 and its impacts. Following its consideration of submissions, Council resolved to make minor changes to the SLO7 including clarifying development potential in the area and slightly extending it to cover all of 90 Moores Road and 1435 Anglesea Road.

Figure 5 Exhibited SLO7


(iii) Discussion

Justification

It was Council’s view that the application of an SLO7 in the area around Moores Road has the primary intention of retaining a hard edge to the township, which is focused around School Road. Dwellings on the highly visible northern approach are more sporadic and less visually intrusive by being incorporated into the landscape.

The Panel notes that the Rural Tenement Policy (Clause 22.01) within the Surf Coast Planning Scheme permits the use of each lot on the periphery of Bellbrae (shown on Figure 6) for a single dwelling.

Ms Noelker pointed out that there are three vacant lots on the northern entry into the town, in the vicinity of Moores Road, that would be entitled to a dwelling under the above policy and that these lots are highly visible from the Anglesea Road.

The Panel agrees that the siting of new development on these prominent sites should ensure that the rural character is not compromised and that the landscape remains the dominant feature. For these reasons it is appropriate to apply a landscape protection control.

Figure 6 Map 1 to Clause 22.01 – Bellbrae Township


Extent of the SLO7

Council did not support the northern expansion of the SLO7 to Grossmans Lane as sought in submissions. Ms Noelker explained that the potential impacts of development in the area further to the north were significantly less and that the size of these lots and the existing Farming Zone would adequately address siting and visual impact issues. In this context, Ms Noelker referred to the GORRLAS formula:

Significance + Pressure + Lack of Control = Priority Area (for additional control)

Nevertheless, Council resolved to make some minor boundary changes to extend the SLO7 to cover all of 90 Moores Road and 1435 Anglesea Road. Ms Noelker advised that further analysis had confirmed that these additional areas were visible from the Anglesea Road and warranted inclusion in the overlay. Ms Noelker also advised that the affected landowners had been notified of the proposed change and had not objected. Council’s revised application of the SLO7 is shown in Figure 7.

The Panel supports Council’s view that there is no compelling need to apply the SLO7 further north to Grossmans Lane at this time. It will serve little purpose given the large lot sizes and distance from Bellbrae. The Panel also notes that affected landowners have not had the opportunity to comment.

However, the Panel supports the minor additions to the SLO7 boundary proposed by Council following its more detailed analysis of the area around Moores Road. The Panel notes that these additions only affect land that was already partly subject to the exhibited SLO7 and that the landowners were advised of the proposed change and did not object.

Figure 7 Proposed extent of Council’s revised SLO7


Content of the SLO7

In regard to the concerns relating to the wording of the ‘Statement of nature and key elements of landscape’, Council proposed minor changes to remove any expectation that there was the prospect of significant additional development in the area of the SLO7. The Panel supports these changes.

Impacts of the SLO7

Mr MacMartin raised a number of concerns relating to the impacts if the SLO7, submitting that it was unnecessarily onerous and would devalue his property. Ms Noelker noted that when considering a planning permit application for a development within the Farming Zone, the Responsible Authority must consider any siting and design issues as specified in the ‘decision guidelines’. These require consideration of the potential visual impact a development may have on rural landscapes particularly those that are highly visible from the arterial network.

These ‘decision guidelines’ include:

The impact of the siting, design, height, bulk, colours and materials to be used, on the natural environment, major roads, vistas and water features and the measures to be undertaken to minimise any adverse impacts.

The impact on the character and appearance of the area or features of architectural, historic or scientific significance or of natural scenic beauty or importance.

The Panel agrees with Ms Noelker that the application of the SLO7 to the northern entry of the town will be no more onerous to the landowner than the ‘decision guidelines’ within the Farming Zone which require siting and design from major roads to be carefully considered. Importantly, the SLO7 will provide guidance to Council and applicants about how these issues might be addressed.

In addition, the Panel is unable to accept that the imposition of SLO7 will add to construction costs or lead to a devaluation of Mr MacMartin’s property given the existing siting and design requirements under the provisions of the Farming Zone. In any event, property values are not matters that affect the Panel’s findings which are focussed on the planning issues and merits of the proposed amendment.

(iv) Recommendations

The Panel recommends that Amendment C74 be modified to:

Include the revised version of the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 7 tabled by Council at the Hearing (Document 2).

Apply the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 7 to the additional areas (90 Moores Road and 1435 Anglesea Road) proposed by Council at the Hearing (Document 1).


4.3 The ‘Green Break’ between Bellbrae and Torquay ‐ Jan Juc


The issue is how the Bellbrae hinterland (specifically the area between Bellbrae and Torquay‐ Jan Juc) should be treated in the amendment.

As stated earlier, the amendment proposes to replace the Bellbrae Strategy at Clause 21.14 with a revised strategy and to include the Bellbrae Structure Plan, 2010 as a Reference Document. In doing so, the Planning Scheme will include a defined settlement boundary as shown on the new Bellbrae Strategic Framework Plan which forms part of the exhibited Clause 21.14 (Refer to Figure 1).

As can be seen on the Framework Plan, several notations have been applied to land that surrounds the settlement boundary:

To the north‐west and north‐east ‐ ‘Protect scenic values’.

To Spring Creek – ‘Protect and revegetate river environment’.

To the south – ‘Retain green break between Bellbrae and coastal settlements’.

To the east – ‘Protect scenic values’ and ‘Retain green break between Bellbrae and Torquay’.

In addition, the plan has notations within the settlement boundary indicating:

An area where remnant vegetation should be retained and enhanced.

An area which is an opportunity for infill development at a lower density.

A town centre which is to be strengthened and consolidated.

Each of these notations serves to strengthen the desire to ensure that Bellbrae remains a distinct and identifiable community.

The exhibited Clause 21.14 notes amongst the key influences and issues facing Bellbrae the threat of Torquay expanding into the hinterland to the east of Bellbrae and changing the rural outlook and character of the town. It notes that the vision for the town for the next 15 years includes the retention of a meaningful green/rural break between Bellbrae and the surrounding settlements. In addition, the environmental objectives include the retention of the rural setting around the town, while the settlement and housing objectives seek to encourage the retention of meaningful green breaks between the township and adjoining settlements.

(ii) Submissions

Rural Estates (Torquay) Pty Ltd lodged a late submission that was referred to the Panel by Council. Ms Porter, on behalf of Rural Estates, submitted that Amendment C74 should either be abandoned or modified to ensure that its approval would not impact on broader settlement planning in the Torquay – Jan Juc area being undertaken through Amendment C66 to the Surf Coast Planning Scheme.

Rural Estates owns land at 320 Great Ocean Road, Bellbrae which is located to the east of Bellbrae (west of Duffields Road and south of Spring Creek). It has an area of approximately 125 hectares and is the largest single land holding in the Spring Creek area. Rural Estates is concerned that Amendment C74, which promotes the protection of the Bellbrae hinterland, will impact on future growth scenarios in the Spring Creek area which has over time been


identified as having long term potential to accommodate the future expansion of the Torquay – Jan Juc area.

Council is currently seeking to implement a new Torquay – Jan Juc Strategy through Amendment C66, to which Rural Estates is a submitter, and it is anticipated that submissions to Amendment C66 will be considered by a Panel in or around July 2013. Rural Estates is concerned that Amendment 74 will impact on the outcome of Amendment C66.

At the Hearing, Ms Porter provided detailed submissions which included background to the strategic role of Torquay – Jan Juc as one of two major centres for urban growth within the Surf Coast Shire. Ms Porter also pointed out that while Amendment C66 proposed that the western boundary of the Torquay – Jan Juc area would be Duffields Road (excluding the Rural Estates land), that boundary was being contested by Rural Estates on the grounds that it lacked strategic justification and, amongst other things, that it was short sighted for an area where long term planning is appropriate. She noted with concern the wording of the proposed new Torquay – Jan Juc Strategy in Amendment C66 which also seeks to retain a green break between Bellbrae and Torquay.

A submission by Christian College Geelong, the owners of land at 248 Great Ocean Road, similarly opposed wording on the Bellbrae Structure Plan to the effect that a green break was to be retained between Bellbrae and Torquay. The College’s land is some 2.4km east of Bellbrae on the northern side of the Great Ocean Road and the College is concerned that reference to maintaining a green break will prejudice its chances of establishing an educational facility on its land.

Mr Tobin, on behalf of the College, submitted that it would be inappropriate for this Panel’s report to include an assessment or evaluating comments of any kind on the College’s proposal for a school on its land. He added that it would be inappropriate to recommend any changes to the planning scheme which may influence land use outside the area directly affected by changes to planning overlays and zones.

Ms Noelker submitted that:

Amendment C74 clearly delineates the settlement boundary around Bellbrae and removes the rural residential investigation area to the east based on growth analysis consistent with the towns function as a small village. The threat to the ‘green break’ between the settlements is therefore not a result of strategic planning for Bellbrae but is an issue driven by need for growth in Torquay which is a designated growth node. Because this issue is not driven by Bellbrae the framework plan and Strategy much be silent and ‘vague’ on this issue other than noting that the break is valued by the Bellbrae community and therefore this issue should be considered within this context through Amendment C66.

(iii) Discussion

That notation on land to the east of Bellbrae requiring the retention of the green break between Bellbrae and Torquay – Jan Juc indicates a strategic desire to ensure that development in Bellbrae is contained and that its community identity is maintained through the retention of areas of environmental and landscape value.

The basis for Council’s intention in this regard can be found in the Victorian Coastal Strategy (VCS) which, amongst other things, directs coastal settlement planning to:


Identify a clear settlement boundary around coastal settlements to ensure that growth in coastal areas is planned and coastal values protected. Where no settlement boundary is identified, the extent of a settlement is defined by the extent of existing urban zoned land and any land identified on a plan in the planning scheme for future urban settlement.

Ensure coastal settlements and growth are appropriately planned and managed by:

supporting a network of diverse settlements as outlined within the Coastal Settlement Framework to provide for a broad range of opportunities and diversity;

implementing and reviewing coastal settlement boundaries as part of the settlement planning process, consistent with the Coastal Settlement Boundaries Planning Practice Note, and having regard to the best available information on sea‐level rise and climate change risks and impacts;

implementing the Coastal Spaces Landscape Assessment Study, State Overview Report, 2006 into relevant planning schemes directing residential, other urban development and infrastructure within defined settlement boundaries of existing settlements that are capable of accommodating growth;

encouraging urban renewal and redevelopment opportunities within existing settlements to reduce the demand for urban sprawl.

Maintain existing non‐urban breaks between all coastal settlements to support community identity, sense of place and limit urban sprawl.

Avoid linear development along the coastal edge and major transport routes and within rural landscapes to preserve areas between settlements for non‐urban use.

Retain non‐urban uses between settlements and protect visually significant landscapes, views and vistas.

As stated by Ms Noelker, Council was also guided in the preparation of the Framework Plan by the VPP Practice Note ‘Implementing a Coastal Settlement Boundary’ which contains a generic plan indicating a settlement boundary surrounded by notations indicating restrictions on development to protect landscapes, visual and environmentally significant values, productive agricultural land and the like.

The VCS does not appear to use the term ‘green break’ and the term is not defined in the Bellbrae Structure Plan. The Panel does not agree with Ms Porter that a meaningful green break ‘…is suggestive of a very large, although indeterminate, tract of land that could be easily understood to extend to Duffield’s Road, particularly when read in conjunction with the revised SAP 2040’. The Panel does not consider that the notation on the Bellbrae Structure Plan is intended to do anything more than suggest a break between settlements that would prevent development on environmentally sensitive lands and contribute to the maintenance of Bellbrae and Torquay – Jan Juc being separate, different and identifiable communities.

In the Panel’s opinion, the notation on the Bellbrae Structure Plan conforms entirely with State policy and it does nothing more than to suggest that the future does not lead to a merging of the Bellbrae and Torquay – Jan Juc communities. The notation does not in any way suggest the dimensions, nature or extent of a break nor does it suggest how land in the


break is to be used. Further, the Panel does not consider that the notation refers to any specific parcel of land.

This Panel accepts that the consideration of Amendment C66 will need to wrestle with the issues of how and where Torquay – Jan Juc might expand to the west in the future. But consideration of this will also need to be made in the context of State policy. Should the Rural Estates land be shown to be a worthy addition to the future growth of Torquay – Jan Juc then it does not follow that the notation on the Bellbrae Structure Plan would prevent such an outcome. It would only require treatment of the intervening land between Torquay – Jan Juc and Bellbrae to be such as to prevent the merging of the two communities and ensuring that each community maintains its own identity. This in turn would be the task of detailed and sensitive structure planning.

The Panel does not intend to comment on the proposal by Christian College Geelong to establish an educational facility on its land. It understands that this proposal will be the subject of a separate process. However, the Panel wishes to point out that as with the Rural Estates land, the intention to provide a green break between Bellbrae and Torquay ‐ Jan Juc should in no way be construed as preventing the merits of the College’s proposal being considered.

4.4 Development to the north of Bellbrae


The issue is whether the area to the north of Bellbrae should be included in the settlement boundary and consequently be available for ‘urban’ development.

(ii) Submissions

Jason MacMartin made submissions related to the disparity between the ‘settlement boundary’ shown on the Structure Plan and the historic Bellbrae Crown Township boundary (refer to Figure 8). He submitted that the Structure Plan does not accurately account for the historic township settlement and without consideration or appropriate recognition actually removes half the town from the settlement.

He submitted that when he purchased his property in 1992, he understood that it could be subdivided and that controls on building and development were no more restrictive than those applying to other landholdings.

Mr MacMartin also stated that half and quarter acre development represented the Bellbrae character and that it was erroneous to suggest that land in the north of the historic township was any different to land to the south. He supported his claims with a power point presentation containing photographs and a series of historic plans.

Mr MacMartin also raised issues relating to the SLO7 that are discussed in Section 4.2 of this report.

Ms Noelker advised that Council did not support the extension of the settlement boundary to the north and relied on the analysis in the Structure Plan and background reports in support of the exhibited settlement boundary. Ms Noelker noted that at the time he purchased it, MacMartin’s property was zoned Rural General Farming under the Geelong Regional Planning Scheme which was a zone designated for farming and agricultural purposes. Ms Noelker also noted that the 1982 Bellbrae Structure Plan identified the


northern ‘township’ boundary as coinciding with the northern end of School Road (refer to Figure 9).

(iii) Discussion

The Panel notes that Mr MacMartin’s property is contained within the historic Bellbrae Crown Township boundary as shown on the 1922 Bellbrae Township plan. However, Crown Township, Parish, County and Crown Allotment boundaries which are identified on all property titles are not planning boundaries. Since the introduction of planning controls in this State such plans have never determined how land may be used or developed and they have never determined allowable subdivision sizes.

At the time of his purchase, Mr MacMartin had the opportunity to be aware of the land’s use and development potential through the planning certificates provided with the associated purchase documentation.

At no time since Mr MacMartin’s purchase of the land has it ever been foreshadowed in any planning scheme as being suitable for inclusion in the urban part of Bellbrae nor has its potential subdivision or use ever been seen as anything other than for rural purposes.

For these reasons, the Panel does not agree that the 1922 Bellbrae Township Plan provides a basis for adopting a revised settlement boundary in the Structure Plan.

In terms of the suitability of Mr MacMartin’s land for development, the process undertaken by Council in determining the areas into which future development might be directed, involved an extensive analysis of the land on all sides of the area currently included in the Township Zone. In the Panel’s opinion, this process rationally identified the land to the south of the Township Zone as being the appropriate area in which to direct future development.

Figure 8 1922 Bellbrae Township Plan Figure 9 1982 Bellbrae Township Structure Plan


The area in which Mr MacMartin’s property is located (Precinct 5) was assessed in the background report ‘Sustainable Development and Opportunities’ and was found to be ‘constrained’ in terms of natural and physical barriers, scenic values and trunk services, and ‘partially constrained’ in terms of slope, drainage corridors, flooding, soil capability, and transport. This was in contrast to the area proposed for the Township Zone (Precinct 1) which was significantly less constrained and which would reinforce the existing township area.

The Panel also notes that various state and local policies, (including the Victorian Coastal Strategy, 2008 and the Great Ocean Road Region Land Use and Transport Strategy, 2004) recognise the limited potential for development at settlements such as Bellbrae and generally support a confined settlement boundary for them. Providing for growth within Precinct 1 is more consistent with this policy than allowing for growth in outlying areas such as Precinct 5.

The Panel agrees with Council that the amendment and revised Structure Plan simply reinforce Bellbrae’s northern settlement boundary as has applied in the relevant planning schemes for some decades. As such, nothing proposed in the amendment will alter the land’s use or subdivision potential. The Panel also accepts the logic in identifying the land south of the current Township Zone as being the most appropriate area into which future development should be directed in next 15 year planning period.

4.5 Anglesea Road


The issue is whether the proposed rezonings and overlays associated with the future widening of the Anglesea Road are appropriate.

The amendment proposes to apply the Public Acquisition Overlay to parts of the Anglesea Road in lieu of the Road Zone. It also replaces sections of the Road Zone with either the Township or Farming zones.

(ii) Submissions

Xavier and Sarah Davis raised concerns about the future widening of Anglesea Road, including potential impacts on the entry to their property (54 Cunningham Drive) and the potential removal of native vegetation.

Ms Noelker advised that:

Amendment C74 seeks to remove the Road Zone from all land in the vicinity of the Bellbrae Township that is not currently in the ownership of Vic Roads and rezone it according to the adjoining zoning and apply the Public Acquisition Overlay. This outcome is to better apply the Victoria Planning Provisions as the Road Zone should only be applied to land in the ownership of the Road Authority.

Amendment C74 does not propose to readjust the alignment of the acquisition area but proposes a direct translation of controls utilising existing boundaries. The historic application of the Road Zone was based on a survey undertaken by Vic Roads in 1977 that identified the future land requirements of a four lane highway.


Brendan Grace, on behalf of VicRoads, confirmed that the proposed widening was gazetted in 1977 and that Amendment C74 sought to correct a mapping anomaly rather than implement a new widening proposal. He noted that preliminary design work indicated that the proposed widening could be accommodated in the proposed PAO and that VicRoads will consult with affected landowners, including the Davies, as part of the detailed design process in the future. Other issues such as vegetation removal will also be considered during the detailed design process.

(iii) Discussion

The Panel notes that these elements of the amendment seek to correct mapping anomalies and are consistent with the gazetted route of the Anglesea Road widening. It also notes that the widening can be accommodated within the proposed PAO and that VicRoads will consult with affected landowners during the detailed design phase of the project to discuss issues such as access.

For these reasons the Panel supports these elements of the amendment.

4.6 Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 1


The issue is whether the Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 1 (VPO1) should be applied to land on School Road.

The amendment proposes to apply the VPO1 that is currently in the planning scheme to an area in the south of Bellbrae in accordance with Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) mapping.

(ii) Submissions

Cameron Gray (on behalf of the owners of 55 School Road) opposed the application of the VPO1 to this property and submitted that there was no significant vegetation on the land. It was his submission that in discussion with Council that this may be an error in the mapping of the VPO1.

Ms Noelker advised that:

The Vegetation Protection Overlay – Schedule 1 has been applied to the remnant vegetation within the township and broader settlement area, mapped by DSE in 2007. However Amendment C81 – Biodiversity Assets Review, currently being drafted by the Surf Coast Shire will review all of the assets across the Surf Coast Shire as a whole and as part of that process will utilise the relevant VPP practice notes to ascertain the most suitable overlay for the different assets.

(iii) Discussion

It was difficult for the Panel to determine the extent of native vegetation that might warrant the VPO1 from its inspections of 55 School Road. Nevertheless, it notes that the proposed area is consistent with DSE vegetation mapping referred to in the Structure Plan background report ‘Environment Heritage and Landscape’ and that only a very small area of 55 School


Road is affected. The Panel also notes that DSE did not refer to this issue in its written submission.

The Panel believes that this is a matter best addressed by Council. If indeed there has been an error in the mapping of the VPO1 then it is important that this be remedied in the adopted version of Amendment C74. It is important to note, however, that the VPO1 would not place any undue restrictions on the future use and development of the land. The Overlay is intended to protect areas of significant vegetation and to ensure that development minimises the loss of vegetation. As such, it would not be an imposition should there be no significant vegetation on the property.

(iv) Recommendation

The Panel recommends that prior to adopting the amendment Council review the proposed application of the Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 1 to 55 School Road to determine whether it is warranted.

4.7 Other issues

(i) Corangamite Catchment Management Authority submission

Discussion

The Corangamite Catchment Management Authority (CCMA) provided various comments on the amendment, noting the need for Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) and the protection of waterways, including the establishment of public reserves along waterways.

Ms Noelker noted that Council is currently preparing Amendment C81 (Biodiversity Assets Review) and that this process will provide an opportunity to further consider and address matters raised by the CCMA.

The Panel agrees with Council that the matters raised in the CCMA submission are best addressed as part of the Amendment C81 process and encourages Council to do so.

(ii) Clause 21.07 (Rural Residential Living)

Discussion

Ms Noelker advised that the Bellbrae Structure Plan and Amendment C74 seek the deletion of a ‘Rural Residential Investigation Area’ to the east of Bellbrae that is identified in the current Bellbrae Framework Plan at Clause 21.14. Ms Noelker submitted that this deletion also required consequential changes to Clause 21.07 (Rural Residential Living) that had not been included in the amendment. She included a set of proposed changes in her written submission that deleted references to this investigation area.

The Panel notes that there were no submissions in relation to the deletion of a ‘Rural Residential Investigation Area’ and agrees with Council that the proposed consequential changes to Clause 21.07 are appropriate.

Recommendation

The Panel recommends that Amendment C74 be modified to include the consequential changes to Clause 21.07 (Rural Residential Living) tabled by Council at the Hearing (Document 2).


5 Conclusion and Recommendations

5.1 Conclusion

Amendment C74 has been prepared to enable implementation of the Bellbrae Structure Plan. The Panel commends Council on the open manner in which it has prepared the Structure Plan, the comprehensive nature of the plan and the background papers, and the open manner it has dealt with submitters. It is a soundly based plan and one which enjoys strategic support. It is also a plan which enjoys considerable community support notwithstanding the fact that a small number of community members have questioned aspects of the amendment.

The Panel is grateful for the contribution made by the various submitters who appeared before it to outline their concerns. The issues raised assisted the Panel in its understanding of the intent behind some of the more contentious matters of concern to submitters. The Panel was also grateful to hear support for the amendment from several submitters.

The Panel considers that the revised Clause 21.14 (Bellbrae Strategy) sets out an appropriate policy framework within which to guide the future use and development of land in order to achieve the Structure Plan’s vision for Bellbrae over the next 15 years.

In so far as the amendment proposes to rezone land in the south‐western quadrant of Bellbrae from Farming Zone to Township Zone, the Panel accepts that the rationale for identifying this area as the area in which to accommodate future growth has been strategically justified.

The Panel also considers that the provisions of the DDO24 (as revised by Council following its consideration of submissions) will ensure that any future development is contained and will ensure that the rural character of the township is maintained.

The Panel also considers the application of the SLO7 (amended to include additional land in Moores Road) an appropriate mechanism to strengthen Council’s ability to ensure that future development on the township’s northern entrance does nothing to diminish the rural character of the land and that the landscape remains the dominant feature. While the overlay will strengthen the planning scheme controls over this visually important area, it will not in the Panel’s opinion be onerous.

The Panel also agrees with the intention to apply the VPO1 over areas of important vegetation in the south of the township, subject to Council clarifying potential errors in the mapping of the vegetation.

5.2 Recommendations

For the reasons set out in this Report, the Panel recommends that Amendment C74 to the Surf Coast Planning Scheme be adopted, as exhibited, subject to the following modifications and actions:

1 Include the revised version of the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 24 tabled by Council at the Hearing (Document 2), subject to:

Replacing the designation ‘Investigate pedestrian access’ in Map 3 with ‘Possible route for pedestrian access’.


Replacing the designation ‘Acquisition area for future footpath and street trees’ in Map 3 with ‘Provision to be made for footpaths and shade trees’.

Replacing the reference to 55 School Road in Section 3 (Subdivision) with ‘Subdivision of land at 55 School Road should not prevent the treatment of School Road to provide footpaths and shade trees.’

2 Include the revised version of Clause 21.14 tabled by Council at the Hearing (Document 2) subject to:

Replacing the ninth strategy in Clause 21.14‐8 with ‘Provide a standard footpath and street tree planting within a modified road reservation that provides angled on street car parking opposite the Primary School.’

3 Include the revised version of the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 7 tabled by Council at the Hearing (Document 2).

4 Apply the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 7 to the additional areas (90 Moores Road and 1435 Anglesea Road) proposed by Council at the Hearing (Document 1).

5 Include the consequential changes to Clause 21.07 (Rural Residential Living) tabled by Council at the Hearing (Document 2).

6 Review the proposed application of the Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 1 to 55 School Road to determine whether it is warranted.


Appendix A Document List

Document No.

Date Description Presented by

1 10/4/2013 Council Submission B Noelker

2 10/4/2013 Revised DDO, SLO, 21.14 and 21.07 B Noelker

3 10/4/2013 VicRoads Submission B Grace

4 10/4/2013 Moores Road Plan B Noelker

5 11/4/2013 Christian College Geelong Submission G Tobin

6 11/4/2013 SCPS Clause 21.08 G Tobin

7 11/4/2013 Rural Estates (Torquay) Pty Ltd Submission and Appendices

E Porter

8 11/4/2013 Submission J MacMartin

9 11/4/2013 Submission (55 School Road) C Gray

10 11/4/2013 Submission D Fredericks and S Fielder

11 11/4/2013 Submission J Badr


Appendix B List of Submitters

No. Submitter

1 Barwon Water

2 Dianne McQuinn

3 Graham Smith

4 Yvonne Smith

5 Country Fire Authority

6 David Fredericks and Sue Fiedler

7 John and Sonia Nurzenski

8 Joseph and Rebecca Badr

9 Kirby Smith

10 Corangamite CMA

11 Xavier and Sarah Davies

12 Colin Morris

13 Graeme Mills

14 Jason MacMartin

15 Julie‐Ann Richardson and Stephen Birney

16 Neil McQuinn

17 Department of Sustainability and Environment

18 St Quentin Consulting Pty Ltd for Geoff Millman

19 St Quentin Consulting Pty Ltd for 55 School Road, Bellbrae

20 VicRoads

21 Rural Estates (Torquay) Pty Ltd

22 Christian College Geelong

Documents

Planning and Act 1987 Panel Report - surfcoast.vic.gov.au · Planning and Environment Act 1987 Panel Report pursuant to Sections 153 and 155 of the Act Amendment C74 to the Surf Coast