SUBMISSION TO SPRING CREEK PSP - Amazon S3

2

SUBMISSION TO SPRING CREEK PSP 200 and 220 Great Ocean Road, Torquay EXPERT WITNESS STATEMENT – MARK WOODLAND 26/10/2016

1.0 Introduction. .................................................................................................................... 3

2.0 Expert Witness Statement. ................................................................................................ 4

3.0 Summary of Evidence. ....................................................................................................... 6

3.2 What long term ownership and management regime should apply to the proposed

conservation reserve on the subject site? .......................................................................................... 7

3.3 Is the proposed alignment of the connector street through the subject site appropriately

located? ............................................................................................................................................... 7

3.4 Are the residential densities proposed in the Spring Creek Precinct Plan appropriate? ....... 8

4.0 The subject sites and surrounding context. ........................................................................ 9

5.0 Amendment C114. .......................................................................................................... 10

5.1 Scope of Amendment C114. ................................................................................................. 10

5.2 The Spring Creek Precinct Structure Plan. ............................................................................ 10

5.2.1 Open Space. ......................................................................................................................... 10

5.2.2 Integrated Water Cycle Management. ................................................................................ 14

5.2.3 The Spring Creek Native Vegetation Precinct Plan (NVPP). ................................................. 16

5.2.4 Road Layouts. ....................................................................................................................... 16

5.2.5 Residential yields and densities. .......................................................................................... 18

6.0 State Planning Policy Framework..................................................................................... 19

7.0 Ministerial Direction No. 12 - Urban Growth Areas. ......................................................... 20

8.0 The Precinct Structure Planning Guidelines (2009). .......................................................... 21

9.0 Local Policy – Torquay Jan Juc Strategy. ........................................................................... 23

10.0 Waterway Corridors Guidelines. ...................................................................................... 24

11.0 Clause 56 – Residential Subdivision Provisions. ................................................................ 25

12.0 Planning Considerations. ................................................................................................. 26

12.1 Is the allocation of land for open space purposes in the Spring Creek Precinct Structure

Plan appropriate? ............................................................................................................................. 26

12.2 What long term ownership and management regime should apply to the proposed

conservation reserve on the subject site? ........................................................................................ 30

12.3 Is the proposed alignment of the connector street through the subject site appropriately

located? 32

12.4 Are the residential densities proposed in the Spring Creek Precinct Plan appropriate? . 34

Appendix 1 ................................................................................................................................ 35

State Planning Policies which are of general relevance to the assessment of Amendment C114. .. 35

3


1.0 Introduction.

I have been instructed in this matter by Norton Rose Fulbright Lawyers who acts for Mack Property 1.

Development Pty Ltd who have entered into contracts to purchase 200 and 220 Great Ocean Road, Torquay (‘the subject sites’) , both of which are located within the Spring Creek Precinct Structure Plan area.

I have been asked to consider the following specific questions in relation the Spring Creek Precinct 2.

Structure Plan and associated statutory provisions:

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

appropriate?

What long term ownership and management regime should apply to the proposed conservation

reserve on the subject site?

Is the proposed alignment of the connector street through the subject site appropriately located?

Are the residential densities proposed in the Spring Creek Precinct Plan appropriate?

I have not previously had any dealings with Mack Property Development Pty Ltd nor the current or past 3.planning activities in relation to the Spring Creek Precinct Structure Plan area.

In preparing my assessment I have had regard to the following documents: 4.

Amendment C114 to the Surf Coast Planning Scheme, comprising:

the draft Spring Creek Precinct Structure Plan

the draft Spring Creek Native Vegetation Precinct Plan

the proposed Urban growth Zone (Schedule 1) and associated statutory provisions that accompany Amendment C114

The following background reports that accompany the draft Spring Creek PSP: o the draft Spring Creek Precinct Structure Plan Background report o Community Infrastructure Needs Assessment – Stage Two (ASR, September 2015) o Integrated Water Cycle Management Plan for Spring Creek (Barwon Water, September 2015) o Spring Creek Transport Infrastructure Assessment (Traffix Group March 2016)

Community Panel – Recommendations (August 2015)

Community Panel Recommendations – Council Response (November 2015)

Council officer report to Council on submission (August 2016)

Various submissions by Niche Planning Studio to Council, and supporting technical reports.

Correspondence from Council to Niche Planning Studio , 9th

August 2016

4


2.0 Expert Witness Statement.

The name and address of the expert. Mark Woodland of 420 Victoria Street, Brunswick 3044. The expert qualification and experience. Mark Woodland holds a Bachelor of Planning and Design from the University of Melbourne. He is a member of the Victorian Planning and Environment Law Association and the Property Council of Australia. A Curriculum Vitae is included attachment 1. The expert’s area of expertise to make this report. Mark has a broad range of experience in planning and development matters with a sound understanding of statutory planning provisions and significant experience in strategic planning and policy development enabling him to comment on a wide range of planning and development issues. Other significant contributors to the report. Not applicable. Instructions that define the scope of the report Mark Woodland has been instructed by Norton Rose Fulbright Lawyers who acts for Mack Property Development Pty Ltd in regard to this proceeding. The identity of any person who carried out tests or experiments upon which the expert has relied on and the qualifications of that report. Not applicable. The facts and matters and all assumptions upon which the report proceeds. Mark Woodland relies upon the reports and documents listed in section 1.0 of this report. Documents and other materials the expert has been instructed to consider or take into account in preparing his report, and the literature of other material used in making the report. Mark Woodlands has reviewed and taken into account the following reports and materials listed in section 1 of this report. A summary of the opinion or opinions of the expert witness A summary of Mark Woodlands opinions are provided for within section 3 of this report. Any opinions that are not fully researched for any reason Not applicable. Questions falling out of the expert’s expertise and completeness of the report.

5


Mark Woodland has not been asked to make comment on any matters outside of his area of expertise. This report is a complete statement of evidence. Expert Declaration I have made all the inquiries that I believe are necessary and desirable to prepare and present expert evidence in this matter and no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Panel.

Mark Woodland October 2016

6


3.0 Summary of Evidence.

I have been asked to consider the following specific questions in relation the Spring Creek Precinct 5.Structure Plan and associated statutory provisions:

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

appropriate?

What long term ownership and management regime should apply to the proposed conservation

reserve on the subject site ?



The following is a summary of my opinions in relation to this this question. 6.

3.1 Is the allocation of land for open space purposes in the Spring Creek Precinct Structure Plan appropriate?

Amendment C114 proposes to amend the schedule to clause 5.201 to require all owners to make a 7.

contribution of 10 percent of net developable area (nda) upon the subdivision of land (via the schedule to clause 52.1). The draft PSP identifies that 9.76% of the nda within the PSP itself must be set aside for passive open space along waterways and drainage corridors.

The draft PSP does not make provision for active open space within the precinct. However, the 8.

explanatory material accompanying Amendment C114 suggest that Council expects to collect development contributions from the Spring Creek precinct for the delivery active open space outside the precinct at some future time. Such contributions would be in addition to the passive open space contributions proposed in the PSP and at clause 52.01 of the planning scheme.

This requirement is well in excess of the open space standards set out in the Victorian Government PSP 9.

Guidelines. The PSP guidelines specify that the overall quantum of open space (including active and passive open space) should be circa 10 percent of the net developable area of the precinct, and that 6% of the open space contribution be for active open space purposes.

I do not consider that a case has been made in Amendment C114 (or the material that supports it) to 10.

depart from the open space standards set out in the PSP Guidelines.

The draft PSP proposes very wide open space corridors along Spring Creek and the northern tributaries. 11.The proposed width of these open space corridors is what has led passive open space figure of almost 10 % of the net developable area of the precinct needing to be set aside.

The proposed waterway corridors are substantially wider than that contemplated under State policy, 12.

the draft Spring Creek IWCM Plan, and the waterway corridor widths typically delivered in the majority of regional and metropolitan growth plans in Victoria. They are also substantially wider than the waterway corridor widths referred to in the Torquay Jan Juc Sustainable Futures Plan 2040 (which is a reference document in the planning scheme.

I have found no compelling environmental, cultural or social reason to establish such exceptionally wide 13.

open space corridors along Spring Creek and its tributaries. I do not think that setting aside such large passive open space areas is warranted in order to meet the local passive recreation needs of the future residents of Spring Creek, particularly in the context of there still being a need to deliver additional active open space facilities in Torquay to cater for the active recreation needs of a growing community.

7


Having regard to the fact that Council has flagged that it intends to collect development contributions 14.

from land within the PSP area for the establishment of active open space elsewhere in Torquay, and to fact that the precinct already has a number of high amenity ‘encumbered’ open spaces areas within its boundaries, I consider that the passive open space contribution specified in Amendment C114 should be closer to the 4% contribution envisaged in the PSP Guidelines.

3.2 What long term ownership and management regime should apply to the proposed conservation reserve on the subject site?

In my opinion, the proposed conservation reserve should ideally be placed into public ownership and I 15.

consider that Council should be open to the possibility of having the land transferred to it and managing it for conservation purposes (subject to establishment of contractual arrangements for reasonable management and monitoring costs.

I acknowledge Council’s reservations about accepting the land as an offset due to the constraints it 16.

places on the use and management of the land. There may be opportunities for part of the proposed conservation reserve to form part of the passive open space network. Whilst a large section of the proposed conservation reserve would need to be managed exclusively for conservation purposes, the balance of the land could potentially be made available for passive recreation activities that are designed to respect the environmental values of the reserve. Under this alternative scenario, at least part of the land could be credited as passive open space under the Planning Scheme.

I consider that the following opportunities should be more thoroughly examined before coming to a 17.

final positon about the treatment of the proposed conservation reserve under Amendment C114:

Review the extent and shape of the proposed conservation reserve, with a view to creating a simpler, more regular reserve boundary, which can better integrate with the drainage reserve, passive open space and adjoining urban development;

Review opportunities for parts of the native vegetation patch to be treated as (credited) passive open space under the planning scheme;

Revisit whether Council is prepared to own and manage the conservation reserve, as either a native vegetation offset site, sensitively managed passive open space reserve or a combination thereof.

3.3 Is the proposed alignment of the connector street through the subject site appropriately located?

The western connector street proposed in the draft PSP is identified as having a pronounced ‘dog leg’ 18.

configuration approximately 150m north of the Great ocean Road intersection. I consider this arrangement to be unsatisfactory for the following reasons:

It results in a narrow strip of residential land (perhaps 50m deep and 150m long) that will be difficult to integrate within the balance of the residential development;

The road alignment at the ‘dog leg’ will be difficult to negotiate for drivers and appears not to serve any traffic management/calming purpose;

The proposed road alignment creates a long section of road that has no development alongside it, or only has development on one side of it. This is an unnecessarily inefficient and costly approach to residential estate design.

I consider that there are opportunities to ‘smooth out’ the collector road alignment so that it continued 19.

norther then east around the conservation reserve/passible open space, rather than taking a sharp left hand turn and then sweeping right. In my opinion this would be a superior urban structure because it would create a more efficient rectilinear road grid (with potential sight lines to public spaces rather than housing). It would also enable development to font onto both sides of the road which is a more efficient, cost effective form of residential development.

8


3.4 Are the residential densities proposed in the Spring Creek Precinct Plan appropriate?

The draft Spring Creek PSP notes that the precinct is expected to yield 1,761 lots with an average 20.

density of approximately 10 dwellings per net developable hectare.

This is considerably lower than the residential density policy of average overall residential densities in 21.the growth areas of a minimum of 15 dwellings per net developable hectare set out in clause 11 of the State Planning Policy Framework.

I acknowledge that the housing framework for Torquay set out at Clause 21.08 give policy support to 22.

encouraging ‘lower densities’ in Spring Creek than in other locations within Torquay. However, the policy also contains support for the provision of housing diversity – it makes specific mention of promoting a range of lot sizes and housing types (including medium density development) in the new growth areas.

I do not consider that the lot range described in the draft PSP offers much housing diversity. Under the 23.

PSP around 90 percent of all lots are expected to exceed 600 square metres in area – in my view there ought to be capacity to accommodate a greater proportion of lots less than 600 square metres without compromising the specific lower density environmental character sought for this precinct.

Accordingly, it is my view that PSP ought to encourage a greater percentage of residential lots that 24.

would deliver circa 14.5 dwellings ha than is currently suggested in the SPP land budget. For example, if the number of lots to be delivered in the range of 14.5 dwellings per ndha were doubled from 149 lots to 300 lots this would have the dual benefit of increasing housing diversity within the precinct, and incrementally raising the overall residential density above the current proposed density of 10 lots per ndha.

I also suggest that Plan 5 of the PSP be amended to identify a more extensive area of land south of the 25.

creek as being potentially suitable for ‘smaller lots’ and that the PSP should contain a Guideline encouraging (but not mandating) the delivery of greater housing diversity within the walking catchment of the town centre.

9


4.0 The subject sites and surrounding context.

The subject sites are 32.93 ha in overall area. Each lot has a frontage to the Great Ocean Road and the 26.rear of each lot extends to the Spring Creek reservation. The sites are undulating and bisected by a drainage line. There are a number patches of native vegetation located in the southern half of the properties.

The land to the immediate west of the subject sites has approval for construction a private primary and 27.secondary college. Land to the south of the sites have been developed for residential purposes.

Figure 1 - Plan 2 from Spring Creek PSP, with property boundaries marked.

10


5.0 Amendment C114.

5.1 Scope of Amendment C114.

The Amendment applies to approximately 245 hectares of land located to the west of the township of 28.Torquay. The land within the Spring Creek Precinct extends one kilometre west of Duffields Road and is bounded by the Great Ocean Road to the south and Grossmans Road to the north.

The amendment proposes to incorporate the Spring Creek Precinct Structure Plan into the Surf Coast 29.

Planning Scheme; amend Schedule 1 to the Urban Growth Zone and rezone part of land within the precinct to Urban Growth Zone (UGZ1); apply the Development Contributions Plan Overlay Schedule 3 (DCPO3) to all land zoned; and include the Spring Creek Native Vegetation Precinct Plan.

More specifically, the Amendment proposes the following changes to the Surf Coast Planning Scheme: 30.

Amend Schedule 1 to Clause 37.07 Urban Growth Zone (UGZ1) to facilitate the development of the land in accordance with the Spring Creek Precinct Structure Plan (PSP).

Rezone land from Clause 37.01 Special Use Zone Schedule 9 (SUZ9) to 37.07 Urban Growth Zone Schedule 1 (UGZ1) within the amendment area.

Amend the Schedule to Clause 36.03 Public Conservation and Resource Zone (PCRZ) to include reference to the Spring Creek PSP.

Delete the Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 1 (VPO1) from land within the amendment area.

Insert Schedule 3 to Clause 45.06 Development Contributions Plan Overlay (DCPO).

Apply the Development Contributions Plan Overlay Schedule 3 (DCPO3) to all land zoned Urban Growth Zone within the amendment area.

Amend the schedule to Clause 52.01 to provide for open space contributions within the amendment area. Amend the schedule to Clause 52.16 to include the Spring Creek Native Vegetation Precinct Plan.

Amend the schedule to Clause 81.01 to include two new incorporated documents titled “Spring Creek Precinct Structure Plan” and “Spring Creek Native Vegetation Precinct Plan”.

5.2 The Spring Creek Precinct Structure Plan.

The Spring Creek Precinct Structure Plan (PSP) provides direction for urban development in the area 31.

known as Spring Creek, west of the existing Torquay township. It describes how land use expected to be used and developed and it identifies how and when community infrastructure and services are planned to support development.

My summary of the Spring Creek PSP focusses on those elements of the plan that are relevant to the 32.

questions that I have been asked to address in my evidence statement. 5.2.1 Open Space.

Open space elements of the Spring Creek PSP were informed by the Spring Creek PSP Community 33.Infrastructure Needs Assessment (September 2015).

The purpose of the Spring Creek PSP Community Infrastructure Needs Assessment (the CINA) is to: 34.

Identify the community infrastructure needs of the future Spring Creek community;

Asses the capacity of existing and planned community infrastructure in Torquay Jan Juc and the broader G21 Region to meet these needs;

Identify gaps in infrastructure provision and recommend how these gaps should be met;

11


Compile an assessment Report which contains a community infrastructure plan for the Spring Creek PSP area.

In relation to the need for active open space, the CINA relied upon the finding of the Council’s open 35.

space strategy which found that a total of 21ha of additional active open space will be required in Torquay Jan Juc by 2036. The CINA concluded that land within the Spring Creek PSP area was unsuitable for active open space facilities due to topographic and environmental constraints, and it noted that provision should be made for such a facility in the norther part of Torquay.

In relation to the need for passive open space, the CINA suggests that local open space network should, 36.

where possible, provide for a variety of passive spaces for waking/jogging/cycling, social events, informal play and cultural/environmental/visual appreciation.

The CINA recommended that the passive open space network in Spring Creek should contain the 37.

following:

At least two local parks with playgrounds, located within reasonable walking distance of every household and which provide for informal play and social activities;

A total of 1.4ha of local parkland;

A linear park and trail along the full length of Spring Creek;

A linear open space network and internal path/train network which links the Creek and the proposed community facilities and residential areas and connects to external trains and links;

Land that is required for drainage purposes and/or to protect sites that have significant environmental, heritage and conservation values.

The proposed layout of open space within the precinct is shown in Plan 6 of the PSP, as set out below. 38.

12


Figure 2 – Plan 6 from Spring Creek PSP

13


Amendment C 114 proposes to specify a passive open space contribution of 10 percent of the lot’s Net 39.

Developable Area (NDA) via a schedule to Clause 52.01.

The Future Urban Structure Plan does not propose to establish active open space within the precinct. 40.Instead, it proposes to establish 18.26ha (9.79% of the NDA of the overall PSP) of passive open space, general co-located with conservation reserves and waterways across the precinct.

The proposed allocation open space with in the precinct, and on the subject sites is summarised in 41.

Figure 3 below:

Figure 3 - proposed allocation open space with in the precinct, and on the subject sites.

Requirements R15 sets out how the transfer of land, cash contributions and reimbursements for passive 42.open space are to be managed.

The remaining Requirements and Guidelines in the PSP set out ow passive open space is to be designed, 43.

and integrated with waterways and drainage reserves.

Amendment C114 also proposes to apply a Development Contributions Plan overlay (DCPO Schedule 3) 44.to land within the precinct. A document titled ‘Spring Creek Precinct – Interim Indicative Infrastructure list’ explains the following in relation to development contributions and the Spring Creek PSP:

“Development Contributions Plan Overlay Schedule 3 (DCPO3) applies to the Spring Creek Precinct, introduced concurrently to implementing the Spring Creek Precinct Structure Plan (PSP). Resources for the Surf Coast Shire to prepare a Development Contributions Plan (DCP) for the Precinct were not available at the time DCPO3 was applied. As an interim measure, DCPO3 requires land developers to enter a Section 173 Agreement under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to provide monetary contributions with a rise and fall clause to allow fees to be balanced when the DCP is final. These Agreements will ensure the Shire can collect required funds whilst ensuring land owners are ultimately charged accurately.” “If the Spring Creek Precinct was included [into the existing Torquay Jan Juc DCP] , this would likely require the addition of new items as well as the redistribution of existing DCP items for which the Spring Creek community will need to contribute, such as higher order active sports facilities.” (my emphasis).

The ‘Interim Indicative Infrastructure List’ sets out a table of possible infrastructure projects across 45.

Torquay and it categorises each infrastructure item as follows:

Description Entire PSP

200 Great

Ocean

Road

220 Great

Ocean

Road

ha % NDA ha % NDA ha % NDA

Service Open Space

Conservation reserve 9.7 5.20% 3.24 33.4% 2.29 22.9%

Waterway & Drainage reserve 28.06 15.04% 1.29 13.3% 2.14 21.4%

Other 1.21 0.65% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Sub-total 38.97 20.89% 4.53 46.70% 4.43 44.30%

Credited Open Space

Active open space 0 0.00% 0 0% 0 0

Local network park 18.26 9.79% 1.93 16% 2.08 20.8%

Sub-total 18.26 9.79% 1.93 16.08% 2.08 20.80%

Total all open space 57.23 30.67% 6.46 62.78% 6.51 65.10%

14


Existing TJJ DCP items for which the Spring Creek Precinct will contribute, including proposed Spring Creek charge areas;

New TJJ DCP items suggested for assessment outside the Spring Creek Precinct, including indicative charge areas;

New DCP items for development of the within Spring Creek Precinct, including proposed Spring Creek charge areas.

This list contains a number of higher order active open space facilities such as sporting ovals, pavilions, 46.

tennis courts and recreation reserves. 5.2.2 Integrated Water Cycle Management.

The Spring Creek PSP contains the following Objective in relation to integrated water cycle 47.management:

“Deliver an integrated water cycle management system that reduces reliance on reticulated potable water, increases the reuse of alternative water, minimises flood risk, ensures waterway health, and contributes towards a sustainable and green urban environment.”

The proposed layout of water infrastructure within the precinct is shown in Plan 8 of the PSP, as set out 48.

below.

Figure 4 - Plan 8 from Spring Creek PSP

15


The draft PSP was informed by the Integrated Water Cycle Management Plan for Spring Creek (Barwon 49.Water, September 2015). The purpose of this Plan is to help embed best practice for urban water cycle management in the Spring Creek PSP. The IWCM identifies a series of options for the design and management of waterways, drainage lines, open space, stormwater infrastructure, potable water and sewerage supply.

In relation to waterways, the IWCM identifies the following objective: 50.

“Protect and maintain the ecological conditions and functionality of natural waterways and floodplain assets and integrate urban design to optimise their value as internal pathways connecting people.”

1

The IWCM identifies three options for achieving this objective

2: 51.

Option 1 (‘Base Case’) – Meet regulatory requirements for buffer zones along creeks and drainage lines, limited restoration/enhancement of waterways Option 2 - Meet Sustainable Futures Plan Torquay – Jan Juc 2040 (referred to as ‘SPF 2040 TJJ’) requirements for buffer zones along creeks (30m each side) and drainage lines (10m each side); some restoration/enhancement of waterways. Option 3 - Exceed ‘SPF 2040 TJJ’ requirements for buffer zones along creeks (50m each side) and drainage lines (30m each side); full restoration/enhancement of waterways.

The IWCM applied a screening of all options, which resulted in Option 1 not being advanced because it 52.

was not considered to meet the relevant waterway objective, and it ‘would not meet community, environmental and strategic/political requirements

3’.

The IWCM included a further screening of 5 IWCM option ‘packages’ and it short-lists three packages of 53.

IWCM solutions for further consideration.

Both Solutions 1 (described as ‘meets objectives’) and Solution 2 (described as exceeds some 54.objectives’) proposed 30m creek setbacks and 10m drainage line setbacks. Solution 3 (described as ‘exceeds all objectives’) proposed 30m creek setbacks and 20m drainage line setbacks

4.

The IWCM Strategy concludes that a preferred solution has not been selected, but rather the 3 55.

‘Solution’ options have been put forward for further consideration in the development of the PSP process.

The IWCM Strategy notes the following in respect to Solution 3 (‘exceeds all objectives’)

5: 56.

Solution 3 generally goes above and beyond the original IWCM objectives set for Spring Creek;

It may involve more community costs to deliver, and;

This trade-off is to be debated as part of the Spring Creek PSP process.

1 Spring Creek IWCM (September 2015), page 11.

2 Ibid, page 11

3 Ibid, page 18

4 Ibid, page 24. Note that there is no discussion of why the option of 50m creek setbacks and 30m drainage line

setbacks was not included in the final ’exceeds all objectives’ solution, other than a comment that the three IWCM solutions packages were developed by a Technical Reference Group, having had regard to the options screening process described in the IWCM Strategy. 5 Ibid, page 24

16


5.2.3 The Spring Creek Native Vegetation Precinct Plan (NVPP).

Amendment C114 proposes to incorporate the draft Spring Creek NVPP to the Surf Coast Planning 57.Scheme (at clause 52.16). The effect of incorporating the NVPP into the planning scheme will be to streamline planning approvals In that vegetation identified as ‘removed’ within the draft NVPP can be cleared without additional planning approval under clause 52.17 of the Planning Scheme. Areas identified as being ‘retained’ under the draft NVPP must be retained unless a separate planning approval is granted for its removal under the planning scheme.

Both the draft Spring Creek NVPP and Biodiversity Assessment were prepared by Ecology and Heritage 58.Partners. The draft NVPP appears to generally identify areas for retention of native vegetation based on the recommendations set out in Chapter 5 of the Biodiversity Assessment report. However, the basis for why certain areas are identified for retention and others are identified for removal is not made clear within the NVPP document itself.

The draft NVPP identifies the majority of native vegetation on the subject site for retention. 59.

5.2.4 Road Layouts.

The road layout contained within the Spring Creek PSP was informed by the Traffic Infrastructure 60.Assessment (Traffix, March 2015). This Assessment considered a number of road layout and access scenarios, and it recommended the establishment of two connector roads connections with the Great Ocean Road (together with signalised intersections) at Strathmore Drive east and west.

Figure 5 - Figure 24 from Traffic Impact Assessment, Spring Creek PSP (Traffix)

17


The proposed layout of roads and intersections within the precinct is shown in Plan 7 of the PSP, as set out below.

Figure 6 - Plan 7 from the Spring Creek PSP

The main variation from the road layout (as it related to the subject sites) recommended by Traffix and 61.the PSP is that the Traffix report assumed that he western connector road could align directly north from Strathmore Drive West, without needing to do a ‘dog leg’ to the west and then deviate east around a wider conservation reserve.

18


5.2.5 Residential yields and densities.

The summary land use budget contained within the draft PSP notes that the precinct is expected to 62.yield 1,761 lots with an average density of approximately 10 dwellings per net developable hectare. The majority of these lots (80 percent) are expected to be sized between 600 and 900 square metres, with the balance being between 500—600 square metres and 1500-2000 square metres.

Table 2 of the drat PSP sets out detailed residential design controls relating to matters such as dwelling 63.

setbacks, site coverage, fencing, materials ,etc.

19


6.0 State Planning Policy Framework

There are a number of objectives and strategies contained within the State Planning Policy Framework 64.

(SPPF) which are of broad relevance to the assessment of Amendment C114. The policies that I consider to be of general relevant are identified in Appendix 1 to this statement.

The following policies are of particular relevance to the specific matters that I have been asked to 65.

address in my evidence statement. Clause 11.02 – Urban Growth.

Clauses 11.02-2 and 11.02-3 contain the following relevant strategies and guidelines: 66.

Encourage average overall residential densities in the growth areas of a minimum of 15 dwellings per net developable hectare; Facilitate the preparation of a hierarchy of structure plans or precinct 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.

Develop precinct structure plans consistent with the Precinct Structure Planning Guidelines (Growth Areas Authority, 2009) approved by the Minister for Planning; Planning must consider as relevant:

Precinct Structure Planning Guidelines (Growth Areas Authority, 2009).

Ministerial Direction No. 12 – Urban Growth Areas in the preparation and assessment of planning scheme amendments that provide for urban growth.

Clause 11.03 – Open Space.

Clause 11.03 contains a number of strategies relating to the delivery of integrated open space networks 67.in urban areas. These strategies have a focus on creating linkages, setting land aside for a variety of types of open space to meet community needs and protect important natural and cultural areas.

The following strategies are of particular relevance to the matters that I have been asked to address in 68.

my evidence statement:

‘Plan for regional and local open space networks for both recreation and conservation of natural and cultural environments.’ ‘Ensure that urban open space provides for nature conservation, recreation and play, formal and informal sport, social interaction and peace and solitude.’

The Guidelines at Clause 11.03 also note that Planning must consider the Precinct Structure Planning 69.

Guidelines (Growth Areas Authority, 2009).

20


Clause 11.07 – Geelong (G21) Regional Plan.

Clause 11.07 supports the growth of Torquay/Jan Juc as a district town by building on existing and 70.planned infrastructure and focussing growth along key road and rail networks.

Clause 12.01 Biodiversity.

Clause 12.01 contains the following relevant strategies: 71.

“Ensure strategic planning:

Avoids and minimises significant impacts, including cumulative impacts, of land use and development on Victoria’s biodiversity.

Assists in the protection and management of sites containing high value biodiversity.

Assists in the re-establishment of links between isolated habitat remnants that contain high value biodiversity.”

“Ensure that decision making takes into account the impacts of land use and development on Victoria’s high value biodiversity.”

The Guidelines at Clause 12.01 also note that Planning must consider ‘Permitted clearing of native 72.

vegetation – Biodiversity assessment guidelines’ (Department of Environment and Primary Industries, September 2013).

Clause 14.02 Water.

Clause 14.02 contains the following relevant strategy: 73.

‘Retain natural drainage corridors with vegetated buffer zones at least 30m wide along each side of a waterway to maintain the natural drainage function, stream habitat and wildlife corridors and landscape values, to minimise erosion of stream banks and verges and to reduce polluted surface runoff from adjacent land uses.’

7.0 Ministerial Direction No. 12 - Urban Growth Areas.

This Direction applies to the preparation of any planning scheme amendment that provides for: 74.

The rezoning of land to the Urban Growth Zone;

The incorporation of a precinct structure plan in the scheme, or changes to an incorporated precinct structure plan, applying to land in the Urban Growth Zone.

The introduction of, or changes to, provisions in a schedule to the Urban Growth Zone.

The Direction requires (amongst other things) that a Planning Authority demonstrate that a precinct 75.structure plan is in accordance with any applicable Precinct Structure Plan Guidelines approved by the Minister for Planning.

21


8.0 The Precinct Structure Planning Guidelines (2009).

The Precinct Structure Planning Guidelines (the PSP Guidelines) were prepared in 2009, and are 76.referenced in Clause 11 of the SPPF.

The PSP Guidelines provide guidance on seven separate elements of urban development. The following 77.

Standards from the PSP Guidelines are of particular relevance to the specific matters that I have been asked to address in my evidence statement.

‘Setting the scene’: S4 - A network of open space is provided across the precinct that connects to regional open space networks. S5 - The location and scale of open space responds to existing drainage channels, landforms, biodiversity areas and cultural heritage values.

Element 1 – Image and character: S1 - Landscape and topographical features (including water bodies and waterways) and the visual and historical/cultural characteristics of the precinct are used to guide the pattern of streets and public spaces and incorporated into views where appropriate.

Element 4 - Community facilities: S2 - Primary schools (both government and non-government) are located on connector streets carrying a local bus service, with a bus stop at the school boundary. S3 - Secondary schools (both government and non-government) are located on connector streets with direct access to the PPTN (rail and/or bus based), where possible. Element 5 – Open Space and natural systems: Open Space: S1 - Provide a network of quality, well-distributed, multi-functional and cost effective open space, catering for a broad range of users that includes:

Local parks within 400m safe walking distance of at least 95% of all dwellings;

Active open space within one kilometre of 95% of all dwellings;

Linear parks and trails, most often along waterways, but also linked to vegetation corridors and road reserves within one kilometre of 95% of all dwellings.

S2 - In residential areas, approximately 10% of the net developable area as total public open space, of which 6% is active open space. S4 - In meeting standards S2 and S3, encumbered land should be used productively for open space. The network of local and district parks should be efficiently designed to maximise the integration and sharing of space with publicly accessible encumbered land. Encumbered land usually includes land retained for drainage, electricity, biodiversity and cultural heritage purposes.

22


The parkland created by such sharing and integration should be suitable for the intended open space function/s, including maintenance. In this way, encumbered land will be well utilised, while the total amount of open space can be optimised without adversely impacting on the quality and functionality of the network. S7 - The public open space network is combined with techniques for managing urban run-off and biodiversity. Biodiversity:

S3 - Areas set aside for biodiversity protection are planned as part of the precinct’s open space network or otherwise appropriately managed in the long-term in an urban context. Integrated water management: S1 - Urban run-off management systems are integrated into the overall plan and incorporated into the open space network, ideally by avoiding alteration of the natural drainage network and limiting the amount of cut and fill required. S3 - Existing natural waterways, wetlands and their riparian vegetation are incorporated into urban run-off systems where appropriate. Element 6 - Transport and Movement. S1 - Arterial roads spaced at approximately 1.6 kilometre intervals and connector streets spaced at approximately 800 metre intervals, having regard for existing and proposed land uses, public transport and property access requirements. S2- Local feeder bus routes are aligned with connector streets and these connect to the PPTN (both bus and rail) and town centres and community facilities.

PSP Note on Non-Government Schools:

The PSP note on government schools provides specific guidance on the planning of non-government 78.schools in growth areas It notes that Where ever possible the following criteria should be adopted for the location of schools:

Schools should be co-located with each other and with other community facilities, and located either close to a neighbourhood activity centre or with good visual and physical links to a local town centre.

Preference should be given to non government school sites immediately adjacent to areas of public open space.

Non government schools should be linked to the cycling and walking network, and the local and regional public transport network.

Non government primary schools should be located on connector streets carrying a local bus service, with a bus stop at the school boundary.

Non government secondary schools should be located on connector streets with direct access to the Principal Public Transport Network (PPTN) (rail and/or bus based).

Three road frontages should be provided for each non government school site.

The road network should provide adequate road cross-section widths to allow for school access, including parking.

Non government school sites should be separated from potential hazards such as high voltage transmission lines, quarries, sources of noise or smoke pollution, and high volume traffic routes.

Non government school sites should be able to accommodate suitable and sufficient buildings for the projected long term enrolment, associated outdoor learning areas, and active and passive recreational areas

23


9.0 Local Policy – Torquay Jan Juc Strategy.

Clause 21.08 of the Surf Coast Planning Scheme contains a local policy relating to the future 79.development of Torquay and Jan Juc. This policy contains various strategies relating to the future growth of these settlements, and it contains the following relevant strategies relating to housing locations and densities: “Promote a range of lot sizes and housing types, including medium density development in appropriate locations, in the new growth areas and ensure good access to surrounding areas, public transport, public open space and other facilities. Encourage lower housing densities in the Spring Creek valley up to one kilometre west of Duffields Road

Provide a range of housing types, sizes and configurations at suitable densities to cater for the changing housing needs of current and future populations, taking account of the differential capacity of the various areas to accommodate housing growth and change (in accordance with Map 2 to Clause 21.08 – Torquay-Jan Juc Residential Development Framework)”.

The policy also contains the following strategy in relation to the retention of valued native vegetation: 80. “Place high priority on the protection and enhancement of remnant vegetation throughout Torquay-Jan Juc, particularly Coastal Moonah Woodland community species and the Bellarine Yellow Gum”.

The policy contains a settlement framework map (extracted below) which identifies Spring Creek as a 81.

future urban growth area.

24


10.0 Waterway Corridors Guidelines.

I understand that Barwon Water has not formally adopted guidelines for waterway corridor widths in 82.greenfield development areas within its region. The minimum waterway width set out in Clause 14 of the SPPF applies to such settings, and the ultimate width of any given waterway corridor in greenfield development areas under the management of Barwon Water is typically determined by reference to variables such as the hydraulic, environmental and topographic conditions of the site.

The Melbourne Water publication ‘Waterway Corridors: Guidelines for greenfield development areas 83.

within the Port Phillip and Westernport Region’ (October 2013) provides guidance on the question of determining appropriate waterway widths in greenfield development settings.

Whilst these Guidelines does not apply in the current circumstances, a useful point of reference to the 84.

consideration of waterway corridor widths as they have been developed after many years of experience in managing waterways in greenfield development settings across metropolitan Melbourne.

The objectives of these Guidelines are: 85.

To protect, enhance or restore river health and biodiversity;

To enable some complementary use of waterways for recreational purposes and infrastructure (if appropriate) while maintaining primary river health, flood protection and biodiversity functions, and;

To provide effective flood protection.

The Guidelines note the following in respect to waterway corridor widths: 86.“Three standard setback widths apply to existing waterways in the Port Phillip and Westernport region: 20 m, 30 m and 50 m. These setback widths have been defined following a comprehensive review of waterway management science in Australia and worldwide. They provide a balance between achieving river health and biodiversity objectives, providing for recreation and visual amenity and maximising developable land.”

The three categories of setback width are assigned to stream orders under the Guidelines are as 87.

follows:

First and second order streams have a minimum 20 m setback on both banks.

Third order streams have a minimum 30 m setback on both banks

Fourth order and greater streams have a minimum 50 m setback on both banks.

The Guidelines note that it is necessary to undertake site specific investigations identify factors that 88.may lead to the variation in the waterway corridor widths, i.e. where the setback may need to be greater or narrower to locally account for site values and/or constraints.

The range of site values/constraints identified in the policy include: 89.

High value species and/or communities may require increased setbacks to protect habitat;

Where the site forms an important part of an existing, or potential high value habitat corridor;

Where the site contains high value geomorphic features;

Where a site has been determined to contain significant local or regional waterway values;

Where built assets require protection from potential future channel migration;

Where a waterway requires greater levels of protection to ensure significant upstream or downstream values are protected;

If the 100 year flood extent exceeds the standard waterway corridor width defined in these guidelines then the setback will be defined by the flood extent.

25


11.0 Clause 56 – Residential Subdivision Provisions.

The Residential Subdivision Provisions contained at Clause 56 of the Planning Scheme contain the 90.following standard in relation to planning open space areas in residential subdivisions:

Standard C13 - The provision of public open space should… provide a network of well-distributed

neighbourhood public open space that includes: ƒ

Local parks within 400 metres safe walking distance of at least 95 percent of all dwellings.

Where not designed to include active open space, local parks should be generally 1 hectare in

area and suitably dimensioned and designed to provide for their intended use and to allow

easy adaptation in response to changing community preferences.

Active open space of at least 8 hectares in area within 1 kilometre of 95 percent of all

dwellings that is:

Suitably dimensioned and designed to provide for the intended use, buffer areas

around sporting fields and passive open space

Sufficient to incorporate two football/cricket ovals

Appropriate for the intended use in terms of quality and orientation

Located on flat land (which can be cost effectively graded)

Located with access to, or making provision for, a recycled or sustainable water

supply

Adjoin schools and other community facilities where practical

Designed to achieve sharing of space between sports.

Linear parks and trails along waterways, vegetation corridors and road reserves within 1

kilometre of 95 percent of all dwellings.

26


12.0 Planning Considerations.

I have been asked to provide my town planning opinion on the following specific questions relating to 91.

the Spring Creek PSP and its implications for the subject site:

Is the allocation of land for open space purposes in the Spring Creek Precinct Structure Plan appropriate?

What long term ownership and management regime should apply to the proposed conservation reserve on the subject site?



The following sets out my opinions in relation to these questions. 92.

12.1 Is the allocation of land for open space purposes in the Spring Creek Precinct Structure Plan appropriate?

The question of whether land has been appropriately allocated for open space purposes in the Spring 93.

Creek PSP requires consideration of the following elements:

The overall quantum and nature of open space , and;

The distribution of open space within the precinct The overall quantum of open space.

In my opinion, the quantum of unencumbered passive open space proposed in the Spring Creek PSP is 94.well in excess of the open space standards set out in the Victorian Government PSP Guidelines.

The open space standard set out in the PSP Guidelines requires residential precincts to set aside 95.

approximately 10 percent of the net developable area as a total public open space contribution, of which 6% is typically expected to be active open space and the balance (4%) is typically expected to be passive open space.

I acknowledge that the actual quantum of open space (and the mix of active vs passive open space) will 96.

vary to some degree from location to location, depending on the local access to existing active/passive open space, the quantum and nature of encumbered open space and other variables. However, I do not consider that the local circumstances of the Spring Creek Precinct warrant substantial departure from the open space standard established by the PSP guidelines.

The Community Infrastructure Needs Assessment prepared by ASR to inform the Spring Creek PSP 97.

found that the Spring Creek precinct was not well suited to the creation of active open space due to its topographic and environmental constraints. It recommended that the active open space needs of the Spring Creek community be delivered by creating such facilities in the northern part of Torquay. I support logic of this conclusion.

The ASR report also recommended that circa 1.4ha of local parks/playgrounds would be needed within 98.

the precinct in order to support the community’s need for passive open space. It also referenced that additional land was expected to be set aside for linear passive parkland areas, but it did not quantify this land area.

The Spring Creek PSP allocates land for ‘service open space’ (conservation reserves, waterways, 99.

drainage reserves and other encumbered land) and ‘credited open space’ (unencumbered open space, in the form of ‘local network’ parkland).

27


It proposes to establish 18.26ha of ‘credited’ open space in the form of linear passive open spaces along 100.

the outer edges of Spring Creek, drainage lines and the conservation area on the subject site. In aggregate this ‘credited’ (unencumbered) local network parkland represents 9.76% of the net developable area of the precinct.

This credited open space is proposed to be in addition to (and co-located with) extensive ‘service’ open 101.

space areas along waterways and conservation areas which will make a very valuable contributions to the overall environment, amenity and liveability of the Spring Creek precinct. These encumbered open space areas represent 15.8% of the total precinct area (or 20.9 percent of the net developable area within the precinct).

I note that Amendment C114 itself does not propose to establish any active open space within the 102.

precinct, the reasons for which are set out in the ASR report. However, I do not take this to mean that there will not be any requirement for development within the precinct to make a contribution towards the delivery of active open space in the future.

Amendment C114 propose to introduce a Development Contributions Plan Overlay over land within the 103.

precinct, and whilst a full DCP schedule is yet to be prepared, the Overlay proposes an ‘interim’ measure to require monetary contributions to be made with a ‘rise and fall’ clause to allow fees to be balanced when the DCP is finalised.

The explanatory material that accompanied Amendment C114 identifies the prospect of either 104.

including the Spring Creek precinct into the existing Torquay Jan Juc DCP or creating a separate DCP specifically for Spring Creek. This material makes it clear that if the Spring Creek was included within a DCP (either the exiting one or a new one) then there would be a range of DCP items for which the Spring Creek Community will need to contribute, including active open space facilities.

The tables accompanying this explanatory note identify a number of active open space projects 105.

elsewhere within Torquay which appear to be items that Council is foreshadowing may need to be funded under a DCP regime that might apply to the Spring Creek precinct in future.

In my opinion it is clear from the wording of the Amendment, the PSP and the explanatory material 106.

relating to the future DCP scenarios for the Spring Creek precinct, that Council intends to require 9.79% percent of local passive open space to be delivered within the precinct (via Clause 52.01) as well as requiring development contributions to be made for the future delivery of active open space outside the precinct at some future time.

There is no question that the future residents of Spring Creek will require access to local passive open 107.

space as well as active open space (albeit that such facilities seem likely to be delivered on land outside of the precinct).

The question in the present case is how much open space should urban development be expected to 108.

deliver (in the form of local open space within the precinct and/or contributions towards the creation of active open space elsewhere in the township).

I do not consider the requiring a 10 percent passive open space contribution plus a yet to be specified 109.

contribution toward the delivery of active open space nearby in Torquay has support in State policy.

Both Clause 11.02 of the SPPF and Ministerial Direction no 12 direct that precinct structure plans should 110.be prepared so as to be consistent with the Precinct Structure Planning Guidelines. The PSP guidelines specify that the overall quantum of open space (including active and passive open space) should be circa 10 percent of the net developable area of the precinct.

I do not consider that a case has been made in Amendment C114 (or the material that supports it) to 111.

depart from the open space standards set out in the PSP Guidelines. .

28


It is my opinion the quantum of unencumbered open space that should be delivered via the Spring 112.Creek PSP should be in line with the standards set out in the PSP Guidelines.

Whilst I accept that the desired contribution toward delivery of active open space from development 113.

within the Spring Creek precinct is yet to be resolved, Council can more readily quantify the local passive open space requirements, based on it’s the PSP Guidelines, the ASR advice and its own municipal open space strategy.

Whilst I cannot offer an opinion on what the exact quantum/percentage of passive open space should 114.

be for this precinct (this is something that needs to be informed by closer analysis of the active open space needs and contributions), I consider that it should be closer to the 4% envisaged in the PSP Guidelines.

I say this in the knowledge that the precinct already has a number of high amenity ‘encumbered’ open 115.

spaces areas within its boundaries. The PSP guidelines make it clear that encumbered land should be used productively for open space, so that the total amount of open space can be optimised without adversely impacting on the quality and functionality of the network.

I note that 4% of the NDA of the precinct equates to circa 7.4 ha of land, which is well in excess of the 116.

1.4ha of local parkland suggested by ASR, meaning that a further circa 6ha of passive parkland could still be distributed along the edges of the Spring Creek waterway and other locations in order the satisfy the Aspiration of enhancing the waterway corridors with passive parkland areas.

The distribution of open space within the Precinct.

The Spring Creek PSP essentially distributes all of the proposed the unencumbered passive open space 117.along the waterway, drainage lines and conservation areas. It does not contemplate the creation of stand-alone neighbourhood parks, although presumably such facilities could be located on some form or another within the linear open space reserves.

I note that the impacts of distributing the passive open space in the manner proposed by Council result 118.

in the open space not being evenly distributed across the precinct. Whilst the majority of residents within the PSP areas would live within 400m of these linear passive open space reserves, the distribution of passive open space along these waterways would mean that residents living in the south-west part of the Precinct would not have access to local parkland within 400m of their homes.

I also note that the PSP concentrates a substantial quantum of open space (both unencumbered and 119.

unencumbered space) on the land south of the creekline. Table 1 of my statement illustrates that whilst the total quantum of open space to be provided across the precinct is circa 30% of the overall NDA, in the case of the subject sites, this figure is in excess of 60% of the NDA. If the quantum of passive open space were reduced and if that space were distributed more evenly across the precinct, then the impact of open space on the net developable areas of individual properties would be more equitably distributed

I also note that the elongated nature of these spaces would constrain their ability to be designed as the 120.

more typical rectangular informal play/kickabout areas of the type envisaged by Clause 56 (Standard C13) and the ASR report.

The distribution of open space along the waterways in the manner proposed by the Spring Creek PSP 121.

would result in the creation of exceptionally wide waterway reserves. I understand that the overall open space corridors proposed in the PSP extent circa 75m from Spring Creek, and 50m from the creek tributaries (both measured from edge of the 1 in 10 year flood level, rather than the top of the creek banks).

The proposed waterway corridor widths can be compared to the following: 122.

The ‘default’ 30 metre waterway corridor width referred to in Clause 14 of the SPPF;

29


Reference in the Sustainable Futures Plan Torquay Jan Juc 2040 6 to establishing 30 metre

setbacks on either side of Spring Creek and gully corridors;

The 20m, 30m and 50m waterway setbacks specified by Melbourne Water for first/second, third and fourth order streams with in the Port Phillip and Westernport Bay Catchment;

I have reviewed a number of recent metropolitan and regional precinct plans and I note that whilst it is 123.

not uncommon to co-locate some linear passive open spaces with waterway, drainage lines and wetlands areas, such areas rarely exceed 50 m in overall width.

It is uncommon for entire lengths of waterways or drainage lines be widened with linear open space. 124.

The more common approach is to create local nodes of passive (and occasionally even active) open space adjacent to the waterway.

In my experience and observation, waterway setbacks are typically only wider than 50 metres in 125.

circumstances where there are local flooding, ecological or cultural heritage values which dictate the need for wider setbacks. Some examples where this might be the case include:

Creeks dissecting low lying wetlands areas prone to extensive flooding (such as Kororiot Creek in Rockbank North for example)

Creeklines that adjoin areas of identified aboriginal cultural heritage significance

Creeklines that adjoin areas that are important habitat for threatened species such as the Growling grass frog (such as the Merri Creek in the Northern Growth Corridor)

In the case of the Spring Creek PSP I am not aware of there being any particular environmental or 126.

cultural heritage values that would warrant the creation of setbacks of the size proposed. I note that:

The 1 in 100 year flood extent along Spring Creek is well within the boundaries of the proposed open space corridor;

No specific aboriginal cultural heritage values are identified along the Spring Creek or drainage lines within PSP that suggest wider open space areas are necessary;

Neither the creek not the drainage lines have been identified as critical habitat for nationally significant threatened flora or fauna species that would suggest wider open space areas are necessary.

I also note that that the final three WSUD options suggested in the Spring Creek WSUD Strategy all 127.

incorporated open space corridors along the waterway and drainage lines which are substantially narrower than what is proposed in the Spring Creek PSP. None of the final three WSUD options recommended waterway setbacks greater than 30 metres along the creek or 20m along the drainage line.

I am aware that the Community Panel recommendations in relation to the Spring Creek PSP called for 128.

the creek buffer to increase beyond 30 metres, with a rationale that wider buffers will improve biolinks, create beautification and more public open space.

Council’s response to the Community Panel recommendations notes that: 129.

‘the plan shows generous buffers of 75m wide along Spring Creek and 50 m along the northern tributaries…this is well above standard Victorian requirements,’

Whilst I acknowledge the sentiment expressed by the Community Panel that ‘the bigger the better’ 130.

should apply to setting the width of these waterway corridors, having reviewed the Spring Creek PSP and associated background material I find no compelling environmental, cultural or social reason to establish such exceptionally wide open space corridors along Spring creek and its tributaries.

6 Sustainable Futures Plan Torquay Jan Juc 2014, pp 25, 27

30


Creating corridors of the width proposed in the Spring Creek PSP necessitates that upwards of 10 % of 131.the net developable area of the precinct be set aside for passive open space in these locations. As I have noted previously, I do not think that setting aside such large passive open space areas is warranted in order to meet the local passive recreation needs of the future residents of Spring Creek, particularly in the context of there still being a need to deliver additional active open space facilities in Torquay to cater for the active recreation needs of a growing community.

In my opinion the distribution of open space proposed in the PSP is not supported by the WSUD 132.

Strategy (Barwon Water), Community Infrastructure Needs Assessment (ASR), PSP Guidelines or Clause 56 (Residential Subdivision Provisions).

12.2 What long term ownership and management regime should apply to the proposed conservation reserve on the subject site?

The Spring Creek NVPP identified areas of native vegetation that can be cleared without the need for 133.

further planning approval, and areas of native vegetation that must be maintained (unless separate panning approval is granted for its removal). It identifies the majority of remnant patches of native vegetation to be retained on the subject site.

The draft NVPP appears to generally identify areas for retention of native vegetation based on the 134.

recommendations set out in Chapter 5 of the Biodiversity Assessment report. In a general sense, the draft NVPP appears to identify the larger/more significant Aras of vegetation for retention, although I note that there are some large patches of native vegetation that have been identified as being acceptable for removal on the north side of Spring Creek. It is not apparent from reading of either the NVPP or the Biodiversity Assessment what specific considerations led to the decision to retain some patches of native vegetation with in the precinct and to remove other patches.

I note that the general shape of the patch of native vegetation shown for retention on the subject site 135.

has a complex and elongated edge. The PSP proposes that the central drainage line within the conservation reserve be categorised as a ‘drainage reserve’ and that the wedge of land between the western and eastern flanks of the native vegetation patch be identified as passive open space. The characteristics of the patch of native vegetation therefore present some management challenges because of the extensive boundary and the high ‘boundary to area’ ratio of the reserve.

I note that the assessment of this patch of native vegetation undertaken by Biosis on behalf of the 136.

landowner in June 2016 concluded that the western portion of this native vegetation patch was in generally poorer condition than the eastern portion, and that allowing the clearing of the western portion of patch would assist in the management of the conservation reserve.

I am not qualified to comment on the ecological merits of this suggestion. However I would observe 137.

that removing the western portion of this native vegetation patch would have substantial benefits to the urban structure in this location, in that it would:

Create much more flexibility in how passive open space, biodiversity and drainage areas could be co-located and masterplanned;

Create a much more regular edge and shape to the conservation areas (which I would expect to have benefits from the perspective of weed control, fencing and maintenance), and;

Create greater flexibility in relation to the alignment of the collector road network in this location.

I note that Amendment C114 proposes to apply the Pubic Conservation and Resource Zone (PCRZ) to 138.the proposed conservation area. The PCRZ zone is a ‘public land zone’ in that it is a zone intended to apply to land owned or managed by a public authority. The Planning Practice Note 2 (Public Land Zones) notes the following in relation to public land zones:

31


“A public land zone will normally be applied to public land owned or managed by a government department or public land manager, including national parks, state forests, coastal crown land and land reserved under the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978.”

I presume that at some point in the course of preparing Amendment C114, Council has had an 139.

expectation that this land would be transferred to Council, as land can only ordinarily be included in the PCRZ if it is in public ownership. If this is not intended to be the case, then an alternative zone would need to be applied to the proposed conservation reserve.

I understand that Council has expressed reservations recently about the terms on which it might 140.

ultimately take ownership of the proposed conservation reserve. I note that Council has offered the following advice in relation to the patch of native vegetation on the subject site

7:

The size of the patch and the number of Bellarine Yellow Gums is considered to be of quite extraordinary value. For this reason, Council is unlikely to change its position about the size of the conservation reserve as shown in the exhibited PSP, and;

Council does not accept the central Bellarine Yellow Gum woodland area as an offset site due to the restrictions this would place on future (passive) recreation use and the ongoing land management obligations for Council. As an offset site, the land would have to be exclusively managed for biodiversity , meaning it would be fenced and signed as a conservation areas with no pathways, public access or passive recreation activities occurring within the boundary. This conflicts with the planned passive recreation use of the area.

In my opinion, if a conservation area if of such value that passive recreation activities should be 141.

excluded from it entirely, then the owner of the land should be able to utilise the land for a biodiversity offsets.

I am aware that there are a number of ways in which native vegetation offsets can be secured. In my 142.

view because of the future urban context of the site and its size/shape, it will be challenging if not entirely impractical for the landowner secure the conservation reserve as native vegetation offset if the land cannot be transferred to a pubic authority. In this scenario, the landowner would either need to retain the land and manage it appropriately, or find a private purchaser of the offset to do likewise. I do not consider either of these scenarios as particularly viable over the longer term.

If the conservation area cannot be utilised as a native vegetation offset because the necessary land 143.

security requirements cannot be satisfied, then the landowner will be left with a substantial environmental liability to manage, without much incentive to do so. In my opinion this does not does it serve the interest of preserving the native vegetation in the longer term.

For this reason, it is my opinion that the conservation reserve should ideally find its way into public 144.

ownership and I consider that Council should be open to the possibility of having the land transferred to it and managing it for conservation purposes (subject to establishment of contractual arrangements for reasonable management and monitoring costs.

I acknowledge Council’s reservations about accepting the land as an offset due to the constraints it 145.

places on the use and management of the land. I consider that there may be opportunities for part of the proposed conservation reserve to form part of the passive open space network. Under this scenario, parts of the conservation reserve (or even possibly just individual trees) could be treated as offsets, and the balance of the land could be made available for passive recreation activities that are designed to respect the environmental values of the reserve. Under this alternative scenario, at least part of the land could be credited as passive open space under the Planning Scheme.

7 Council correspondence to Niche Planning Studio dated 9

th August 2016

32


I am aware of other circumstances in urban growth area contexts where land is considered to have 146.conservation values worthy of retention but there has also been consensus that such land might also be suitable for a limited range of passive open space purposes.

The Melbourne Biodiversity Conservation Strategy identifies open space areas that are considered to be 147.

important habitat for threatened species (such as the Growling Grass Frog) or to contain significant scattered trees where managing the land for both conservation and limited passive open space outcomes is considered acceptable.

I am aware of a number of Conservation Area Concept Plans that have been agreed in Melbourne’s 148.

growth areas where similar outcomes have been achieved.

In summary, I consider that the following opportunities should be more thoroughly examined before 149.coming to a final positon about the treatment of the proposed conservation reserve under Amendment C114:

Review the extent and shape of the proposed conservation reserve, with a view to creating a simpler, more regular reserve boundary, which can better integrate with the drainage reserve, passive open space and adjoining urban development;

Review opportunities for parts of the native vegetation patch to be treated as (credited) passive open space under the planning scheme;

Revisit whether Council is prepared to own and manage the conservation reserve, as either a native vegetation offset site, sensitively managed passive open space reserve or a combination thereof.

12.3 Is the proposed alignment of the connector street through the subject site

appropriately located?

The Spring Creek PSP identifies Connector Streets intersecting with the Great Ocean Road at 150.Strathmore Drive (east and west). It proposes that both intersections be signalised. Each of these north-south connector streets intersects with a proposed east-west connector street that intersects with Duffields Road at Ocean View Crescent.

I note that the proposed connector road network is more closely spaced than the PSP Guidelines 151.

recommend (ie circa 450 metre spacing vs the suggested 800 m spacing). However, I defer to the expertise of traffic engineers in relation to whether the proposed network will result in the balanced distribution of traffic into the adjoining road network, and the capacity of the proposed intersections.

I note that the western connector proposed in the draft PSP is identified as having a pronounced ‘dog 152.

leg’ configuration approximately 150m north of the Great ocean Road intersection. I consider this arrangement to be unsatisfactory for the following reasons:

It results in a narrow strip of residential land (perhaps 50m deep and 150m long) that will be difficult to integrate within the balance of the residential development;

The road alignment at the ‘dog leg’ is will be difficult to negotiate for drivers and appears not to serve any traffic management/calming purpose;

The proposed road alignment creates a long section of road that has no development alongside it, or only has development on one side of it. This is an unnecessarily inefficient and costly approach to residential estate design.

As noted earlier in my evidence, I consider that there may be opportunities to amend the western 153.

boundary of the proposed conservation reserve on the subject site. If this were possible then it would be possible to ‘smooth out’ the collector road alignment so that it continued norther then east around the conservation reserve/passible open space, rather than taking a sharp left hand turn and then sweeping right. In my opinion this would be a superior urban structure because it would create a stronger, more efficient rectilinear road grid (with potential sight lines to public spaces rather than

33


housing). It would also enable development to font onto both sides of the road which is a more efficient, cost effective form of residential development.

I note that the PSP Guidance Note on private schools notes that the planning of new private schools in 154.

precinct plans should cater for:

Non government primary schools and secondary on connector streets carrying a local bus service, with a bus stop at the school boundary, and

Three road frontages should be provided for each non government school site.

The non-government school was approved prior to the precinct plan being prepared. Whilst no 155.precinct plan was in place at that time, the PSP note relating to the siting of such school in urban areas was in existence and could have been taken into account in the assessment of the school proposal. In my opinion, the access needs of the school should have been (and no doubt were) factored into granting its approval in the first instance, and it would be unreasonable to now expect adjoining landowners to develop their land in a sub-optimal manner merely because there is a desire to create enhanced road access arrangements to the school via the precinct planning process.

Having said that, I expect that the precinct plan can deliver three road frontages to the school site. I 156.understand that the school site is approximately 6ha in area, and that it has been designed with its principal access to the Great Ocean road (via a service road). The PSP provides for a key local access street on the north boundary of the school site, and the depth of land between the proposed key access street to the west of the school site caters for the creation of a local street frontage along this boundary.

However, the siting of the school relative to existing intersections south of the Great Ocean Road and 157.

other features with in the PSP area (including the remnant vegetation patch) mean that it is not a simple matter to create a collector road edge to the school as envisaged in the PSP Guidance Note.

If the revised connector road layout is amended to smooth its alignment out as I have suggested in my 158.

evidence, then the school will still have reasonable access to the collector road – the east west key local access street to the north of the school will only be approximately one block depth away from the intersection of the connector road at the northern boundary of the school site. A bus stop could be located in a number of places along this road, either close to the Great Ocean road intersection, at the intersection with the key local access street on the northern boundary to the school, or at a mid-block location (noting that this would require a road or pedestrian access to the school from the collector road at s location).

I consider that on balance there is considerable benefit to removing the dog-leg in the connector road 159.

at this location, and that the objective of providing direct access to the school from the connector road for public transport trips and student drop-offs can be reasonably achieved without needing to realign the collector road to run along the north-eastern school boundary.

34


12.4 Are the residential densities proposed in the Spring Creek Precinct Plan appropriate?

The draft Spring Creek PSP notes that the precinct is expected to yield 1,761 lots with an average 160.density of approximately 10 dwellings per net developable hectare.

This is considerably lower than the residential density policy of average overall residential densities in 161.

the growth areas of a minimum of 15 dwellings per net developable hectare; set out in clause 11 of the State Planning Policy Framework.

The Torquay Jan Juc Sustainable Future Plan 2014 (the SFP) acknowledges the state government density 162.

benchmark of 15 dwellings per net developable hectare, and it notes that that SFP will achieve this overall figure over the next 30 years. This Plan is now reference in the Surf Coast Planning Scheme.

Clause 21.08 of the Surf Coast Planning Scheme sets out the key elements of the SFP for Torquay. It 163.

identifies a range of development densities for various locations across the township (at Map 2). Whilst the Spring Creek area is identified for ‘residential growth’, clause 21,08-2 of the local policy contains a strategy to “encourage lower housing densities in the Spring Creek valley up to one kilometre west of Duffields Road”. The policy does not define the term ‘lower housing densities’.

It is difficult to determine whether the overall housing framework for Torquay described in Clause 21.08 164.

has a realistic potential to achieve 15 dwellings per net hectare or not, without undertaking a detailed assessment. I have not undertaken any detailed analysis of this question.

I acknowledge that the housing framework for Torquay set out at Clause 21.08 give policy support to 165.

encouraging ‘lower densities’ in Spring Creek than in other locations within Torquay.

However, the policy also contains support for the provision of housing diversity – it makes specific 166.mention of promoting a range of lot sizes and housing types, including medium density development, in the new growth areas.

I do not consider that the lot range described in the draft PSP offers much housing diversity. I note that 167.

under the PSP around 90 percent of all lots are expected to exceed 600 square metres in area – in my view there ought to be capacity to accommodate a greater proportion of lots under 600 square metres without compromising the specific lower density environmental character sought for this precinct.

Accordingly, it is my view that PSP ought to encourage a greater percentage of residential lots that 168.

would deliver circa 14.5 dwellings ha than is currently suggested in the SPP land budget. For example, if the number of lots to be delivered in the range of 14.5 dwellings per ndha were doubled from 149 lots to 300 lots this would have the dual benefit of increasing housing diversity within the precinct, and incrementally raising the overall residential density above the current proposed density of 10 lots per ndha.

I note that Plan 5 in the PSP identifies the preferred location of different lot types in different parts of 169.

the precinct. For instance, it identifies that ‘smaller lots (500-600m in area) could be located close to the town centre. I consider that all of the land south of the Creek (and east of the school site) would be suitable for ‘smaller’ lots given that it will be within walking distance of the town centre and located on a bus route.

I suggest that Plan 5 of the PSP be amended to identify a more extensive area of land south of the creek 170.

as being potentially suitable for ‘smaller lots’ and that the PSP should contain a guideline encouraging (but not mandating) the delivery of greater housing diversity within the walking catchment of the town centre.

35


Appendix 1

State Planning Policies which are of general relevance to the assessment of Amendment C114.

Clause 11 – Settlement

11.01 Activity Centres 11.02 Urban Growth 11.03 Open Space 11.05 Regional Development 11.07 Geelong (G21) Regional Plan

Clause 12 – Environment and Landscape Value

12.01 Biodiversity 12.02 Coastal Areas

Clause 13 – Environmental Risks

13.01 Climate Change 13.02 Floodplains 13.05 Bushfires

Clause 14 – Natural Resource Management

14.02 Water

Clause 15 – Built Environment

15.01 Urban Environment 15.02 Sustainable Development 15.03 Heritage

Clause 16 - Housing

16.01 Residential Development 16.02 Housing Form

Clause 18 – Transport

18.01 Integrated transport 18.02 Movement networks

Clause 19 – Infrastructure

19.01 Community Infrastructure 19.02 Development Infrastructure

36


SUBMISSION TO SPRING CREEK PSP - Amazon S3

Documents

Transcript of SUBMISSION TO SPRING CREEK PSP - Amazon S3