Greater Geelong C225 Panel Report - City of Greater Geelong

geelongaustralia.com.au

Greater Geelong C225 Panel Report - City of Greater Geelong

GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME

AMENDMENT C225

LARA TOWN CENTRE EXPANSION

PANEL REPORT

FEBRUARY 2011


GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME

AMENDMENT C225

LARA TOWN CENTRE EXPANSION

PANEL REPORT

Trevor McCullough, Chair

FEBRUARY 2011


GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C225

PANEL REPORT: FEBRUARY 2011

Contents

1. SUMMARY................................................................................................................ 3

2. BACKGROUND....................................................................................................... 4

2.1 The Amendment........................................................................................................ 4

2.2 The Panel .................................................................................................................... 4

3. THE PROPOSAL...................................................................................................... 7

3.1 The subject site........................................................................................................... 7

3.2 Background to the proposal..................................................................................... 7

3.3 The proposal............................................................................................................... 8

4. IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES ............................................................................ 9

4.1 Summary of issues .................................................................................................... 9

4.2 Issues dealt with in this Report ............................................................................. 10

5. STRATEGIC JUSTIFICATION........................................................................... 11

5.1 The Issue ................................................................................................................... 11

5.2 Policy framework .................................................................................................... 11

5.2.1 State Planning Policy Framework ................................................................. 11

5.2.2 Local Planning Policy Framework................................................................ 11

5.2.3 Other planning strategies............................................................................... 12

5.3 Evidence and submissions ..................................................................................... 13

5.4 Discussion................................................................................................................. 14

5.5 Conclusions and recommendations...................................................................... 14

6. FORM AND CONTENT OF THE AMENDMENT ......................................... 15

6.1 The Issue ................................................................................................................... 15

6.2 The Most Appropriate Site for Expansion ........................................................... 15

6.2.1 Evidence and Submissions............................................................................ 15

6.2.2 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 16

6.3 Integration of new development with existing Town Centre........................... 16

6.3.1 Evidence and Submissions............................................................................ 16

6.3.2 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 17

6.4 Municipal Strategic Statement............................................................................... 17

6.4.1 Evidence and Submissions............................................................................ 17

6.4.2 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 18

6.5 Content of the Design and Development Overlay ............................................. 19

6.5.1 Evidence and Submissions............................................................................ 19

6.5.2 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 21

6.6 Conclusions and recommendations...................................................................... 23

7. FLOODING AND DRAINAGE ISSUES........................................................... 24

7.1 The Issue ................................................................................................................... 24

7.2 Evidence and submissions ..................................................................................... 24

7.3 Discussion................................................................................................................. 25

7.4 Conclusions and recommendations...................................................................... 25

8. TRAFFIC AND ACCESS ISSUES....................................................................... 26

8.1 The Issue ................................................................................................................... 26

8.2 Evidence and submissions ..................................................................................... 26

PAGE 1


GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C225

PANEL REPORT: FEBRUARY 2011

8.3 Discussion................................................................................................................. 27

8.4 Conclusions and recommendations ................................................................................... 28

9. LOCATION OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES .................................................. 29

9.1 The Issue ................................................................................................................... 29

9.2 Evidence and Submissions..................................................................................... 29

9.3 Discussion................................................................................................................. 29

9.4 Conclusions and Recommendations.................................................................................. 29

10. RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................... 30

Appendices

APPENDIX A – EXHIBITED ZONING MAP............................................................ 32

APPENDIX B – EXHIBITED DDO25 MAP ............................................................... 33

APPENDIX C – AMENDED ZONING MAP ............................................................ 34

APPENDIX D – PANEL PREFERRED DDO25 ......................................................... 36

PAGE 2


GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C225

PANEL REPORT: FEBRUARY 2011

1. Summary

Amendment C225 is proposed in order to facilitate expansion of the Lara

Town Centre, providing for additional retail and commercial floor space.

The Amendment proposes to rezone the site to Business 1 Zone and apply a

Design and Development Overlay Schedule (DDO25). Other zone changes

are proposed to be applied to crown land and road reserves (Road Zone

Category 2) in the immediate area of the expansion site which will facilitate

the realignment of Station Lake Road and the reconfiguration of Austin Park.

A change is also proposed to the Municipal Strategic Statement at Clause

21.13 to remove reference to the rezoning from the Applying Zones and

overlays section at 21.13‐3.

At the Panel Hearing Greater Geelong City Council proposed a further

amendment to the exhibited Road Zone Category 2 to allow an improved

alignment of Station Lake Road.

A total of twelve submissions were received in response to an exhibition

process. Eight of these submissions offered strong support for the

Amendment and the remaining four, while all offering general support for

the proposed Town Centre expansion, raised issues regarding: the form and

content of the proposed changes to the planning scheme; traffic and access;

flood management; and whether other expansion options have been fully

explored.

The Panel has considered all written submissions and presentations, and

recommends that Amendment C225 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme

be adopted as exhibited subject to the recommended changes set out in this

report.

PAGE 3


GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C225

PANEL REPORT: FEBRUARY 2011

2. Background

2.1 The Amendment

Amendment C 225 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, as exhibited,

proposes to:

• rezone part of 87 Station Lake Road and 120 Station Lake Road,

Lara from Public Park and Recreation Zone to Business 1 Zone to

enable expansion of the Lara Town Centre;

• rezone part of Station Lake Road, Lara from Road Zone Category

2 to part Business 1 and part Public Park and Recreation Zone to

enable expansion of the Lara Town Centre and reconfiguration of

Austin Park;

• rezone part of Waverley Road, Lara from Residential 1 Zone to

Business 1 Zone;

• apply a Design and Development Overlay Schedule 25 to the Lara

Town Centre expansion site (similar to area proposed to be

rezoned to Business 1 Zone) and exempt applications from notice

and review under the Schedule;

• rezone part of 120 Station Lake Road, Lara and the adjoining road

reserve from Public Park and Recreation Zone to Road Zone

Category 2 to enable realignment of Station Lake Road, Lara; and

• Make minor changes to Clause 21.13 of the Municipal Strategic

Statement.

The planning authority is the City of Greater Geelong.

2.2 The Panel

This Panel was appointed under delegation on 30 November 2010 pursuant

to Section 153 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to hear and consider

submissions in respect to the Amendment.

The Panel consisted of:

• Chairperson: Trevor McCullough.

PAGE 4


GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C225

PANEL REPORT: FEBRUARY 2011

Exhibition

The Amendment was exhibited between 27 August 2010 and 27 September

2010. Notices were placed in the Independent Newspaper, and letters were

sent to adjoining property owners and occupiers.

Hearings and inspections

A Directions Hearing was held on 17 December 2010 at Geelong. The Panel

Hearing was held on 19 January 2011 at the Geelong City Hall in Geelong.

The Panel inspected the site and surrounding areas, making unaccompanied

visits on 17 December 2010 and 19 January 2011.

Submissions

The Panel have 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 below:

Table 1

Submitter

Greater Geelong City Council

Lara Chamber of Commerce

APCO Service Stations

Represented By

Ms Sarah Storen

Mr Bryden and Ms Patricia Peart

Mr Peter Anderson

A list of all written submissions to the Amendment is included in Table 2.

Table 2

Submitter

Organisation (if any)

1. Ms Kerrie Scott Department of Treasury and Finance

2. Mr Brian and Ms Anne Faithfull

3. Mr Andrew Hillard

4. Ms Libby Bate Lara Chamber of Commerce

5. Mr Ian and Ms Christine Leishman

6. Ms Teresa McManus

7. Ms Laura Crone Minter Ellison Lawyers on behalf of Shalari

Pty Ltd

8. Ms Patricia Peart

9. Mr Rue Skoba St Laurence Community Services

10. Mr Neville Trevena

PAGE 5


GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C225

PANEL REPORT: FEBRUARY 2011

Submitter

Organisation (if any)

11. Mr Trent Wallis Corangamite Catchment Management

Authority (Late submission)

12. Mr Peter Anderson APCO Service Stations (Late submission)

Procedural issues

One of the submitters, Minter Ellison, on behalf of Shalari Pty Ltd, was

unable to attend on any of the dates proposed by the Panel for the hearing

and elected to provide a more detailed written submission. Minter Ellison

was given until 25 January 2011 to provide the written submission and

Council were given until 28 January 2011 to respond to the further

submission.

Council received a late submission from APCO Service Stations Pty Ltd on 24

December 2010 and referred the submission to the Panel for consideration.

Mr Trevena had also intended to appear at the Hearing but had to withdraw

at the last moment. He forwarded a written confirmation that the concerns

he had raised in his submission had now been satisfactorily responded to.

Further directions

At the close of the hearing on 19 January 2011 the Panel directed Council to

more formally confirm the informal email correspondence received from the

Corangamite Catchment Management Authority withdrawing their objection

to the Amendment.

PAGE 6


GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C225

PANEL REPORT: FEBRUARY 2011

3. The Proposal

3.1 The subject site

The subject site is a 1.93 hectare site known as the Lara Town Centre

expansion site. The site is currently bordered on the north western side by

Waverley Road and spans across part of Austin Park, Station Lake Road and

the Lara Bowling Club.

Aerial Photo showing the subject site

3.2 Background to the proposal

The Amendment aims to implement the principles of the Lara Town Centre

Urban Design Framework 2006, by rezoning the area designated for the

expansion of the Town Centre to Business 1 Zone.

The Lara Town Centre Urban Design Framework 2006 was implemented into the

planning scheme via Amendment C123 by including the Urban Design

Framework as a reference document and introducing relevant objectives and

strategies into the Municipal Strategic Statement at clause 21.13.

PAGE 7


GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C225

PANEL REPORT: FEBRUARY 2011

Amendment C225 is proposed in order to facilitate expansion of the Lara

Town Centre, providing for additional retail and commercial floor space.

The Amendment is being undertaken concurrently with a range of other

tasks to deliver the broader Lara Town Centre Expansion Project, including

an expression of interest process to select a preferred developer, statutory

road closures processes and agreeing on a process with the government for

transfer of land to Council.

3.3 The proposal

The Amendment proposes to rezone the site to Business 1 Zone and apply a

Design and Development Overlay Schedule (DDO25). The proposed Design

and Development Overlay Schedule 25 includes an exemption from notice

and review for buildings and works.

Other zone changes are proposed to be applied to crown land and road

reserves (Road Zone Category 2) in the immediate area of the expansion site

which will facilitate the realignment of Station Lake Road and the

reconfiguration of Austin Park.

A change is also proposed to the Municipal Strategic Statement at Clause

21.13 to remove reference to the application of Business 1 Zone,

Development Plan Overlay and amendments to other zones from the

Applying Zones and overlays section at 21.13‐3.

The proposed zoning map changes are shown at Appendix A, and the

proposed Design and Development Overlay map is shown at Appendix B.

At the Panel Hearing Greater Geelong City Council proposed a further minor

amendment to the exhibited Road Zone Category 2 to allow an improved

alignment of Station Lake Road. The revised proposed zoning map is shown

at Appendix C.

PAGE 8


GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C225

PANEL REPORT: FEBRUARY 2011

4. Identification of issues

4.1 Summary of issues

The key issues raised in the submissions of the various parties are briefly

summarised as follows:

Planning Authority:

The key issues for the Council were:

• the desire to progress the implementation of the Lara Town Centre

Expansion Project;

• the desire to create a viable commercial and cultural hub for Lara;

and

• the objective of incorporating any new development on the subject

site with the existing Town Centre and community facilities.

Corangamite Catchment Management Authority

The key issue for the Corangamite Catchment Management Authority

(CCMA) was:

• potential impact of the proposed development on flood flow paths

and temporary flood storage.

Individual Submitters:

The key issues raised by submitters were:

• objection to the proposed removal of third party review rights in

Design and Development Overlay Schedule 25;

• the proposed changes to the planning scheme are inadequate to

ensure integration of the new development with the existing

Town Centre;

• traffic and access issues;

• commercial and economic issues (generally in support of the

Amendment); and

• the location of proposed community facilities.

Issues from the Strategic Assessment Guidelines

The Panel has considered the response to the Strategic Assessment

Guidelines included in the exhibited Explanatory Report for the

PAGE 9


GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C225

PANEL REPORT: FEBRUARY 2011

Amendment, together with submissions on the guidelines from Council. The

Panel has also made a number of comments with regard to the form and

content of the proposed changes to the Municipal Strategic Statement and the

proposed Design and Development Overlay Schedule.

4.2 Issues dealt with in this Report

The Panel 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 site inspections.

This Report deals with the issues under the following headings:

• Strategic justification;

• Form and content of the Amendment:

- The most appropriate site for expansion;

- Integration of new development with existing Town Centre;

- Municipal Strategic Statement; and

- Content of the Design and Development Overlay;

• Flooding and drainage issues;

• Traffic and access issues; and

• Location of community facilities.

PAGE 10


GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C225

PANEL REPORT: FEBRUARY 2011

5. Strategic Justification

5.1 The Issue

This section of the Report considers the policy context for the Amendment

and focuses on the strategic and policy issues. It assesses how the

Amendment meets the objectives of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.

5.2 Policy framework

5.2.1 State Planning Policy Framework

The Amendment is consistent with the State Planning Policy Framework and

the Panel supports the assessment made in the Explanatory Report. Of

particular relevance is the objective at Clause 11.01‐2 which states:

“To encourage the concentration of major retail, residential, commercial,

administrative, entertainment and cultural developments into activity centres

which provide a variety of land uses and are highly accessible to the

community.”

5.2.2 Local Planning Policy Framework

The Lara Town Centre is defined as a ‘Town Centre’ in the City of Greater

Geelong Retail Activity Centre hierarchy (Clause 27.01). The expansion of

the Centre is consistent with the hierarchy as it will provide for a full line

supermarket and additional convenience retail within the 15,000 square

metre floor space limit. Clause 21.07‐3 supports new retail development in

existing centres and the proposed Amendment will facilitate this strategy.

The Amendment is supported by Clause 21.13 which relates to the Lara

township:

“A key issue to be addressed for the township is the expansion of the

Town Centre to provide more shops and better facilities for the current

and future population of Lara.”

The following objectives of Clause 21.13 are relative to the Town Centre

expansion:

· To reinforce the area around The Centreway Shopping Centre as the

primary activity centre in Lara.

PAGE 11


GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C225

PANEL REPORT: FEBRUARY 2011

· To provide a wider range of commercial services and community

facilities within the Town Centre to service the projected population

growth of Lara.

The strategies of Clause 21.13 are implemented by using policy and the

exercise of discretion:

Consolidate and develop the Lara Town Centre as the primary retail,

commercial and cultural centre for Lara in accord with principles of Lara

Town Centre Urban Design Framework March 2006.

Clause 22.03 – Assessment Criteria for Retail Planning Applications ‐ applies

when a planning application is required for a new or increased provision of

retail floorspace. The policy objectives are:

· To ensure that applications for new centres establish the retail need

for such use and development and demonstrate that there are no

adverse impacts on the operation of the retail activity centres

hierarchy.

· To ensure that applications involving a planning scheme amendment

in or adjoining existing activity centres clearly establish a retail need

for such use and development and demonstrate that there are no

adverse impacts on the operation of the retail activity centres

hierarchy.

· To ensure all major retail use and development provide clear net

community benefit.

· To allow/guide consideration of applications involving an increase in

an identified floor space cap, in order to accommodate the changing

retail trends and retail demands.

Clause 22.03 requires an Economic Impact Assessment for applications over

2,000 square metres and/or when a supermarket is proposed.

The need for the Town Centre expansion is well supported in background

documents in particular the Lara Town Centre Urban Design Framework 2006

and the report prepared by Tim Nott ‐ Lara Structure Plan – Retail Development

Issues 2009.

5.2.3 Other planning strategies

The Amendment is consistent with the City of Greater Geelong Retail Strategy

2006 in that retail expansion of the existing centre will not adversely affect

the activity centre hierarchy in the area. The proposal would add to the retail

mix for food shopping.

PAGE 12


GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C225

PANEL REPORT: FEBRUARY 2011

5.3 Evidence and submissions

There is a high level of strategic support for the Amendment from all

submitters.

The Panel heard from Ms Storen representing Council that the Amendment

enables the next stage of implementation of the Lara Town Centre Expansion

project and in particular the development of a full line supermarket. Council

has commenced a process to transfer the portions of the subject site that are

Crown land to Council and has run a concurrent expression of interest

process to select a developer for the site.

Council submitted that a full line supermarket is essential for the longer term

viability of the Lara Town Centre, particularly in terms of reducing retail

escape expenditure, currently estimated at 79%. In support Council drew on

the report by Tim Nott ‐ Lara Structure Plan – Retail Development Issues 2009

which concluded as follows (based on what the Amendment C198 Panel

concluded were somewhat conservatively low population projections):

9. If the Lara trade area can capture a more normal 35% share of resident

spending, and assuming that the share of sales contributed by visitors

remains the same, then Lara could support a further 6,800 sq m of retail

floorspace by 2021. Of this, 3,300 sq m would be in food and grocery

retailing. This would be sufficient to allow development of a full line

supermarket in Lara in addition to the existing supermarket. There is

market demand for a full‐line supermarket by 2011 if the existing

supermarket were to expand, rather than construction of a new

additional facility.

11. By 2021, Lara’s activity centres are forecast to require an additional

10,500 sq m of commercial floorspace. This level of floorspace gives rise

to a land requirement of approximately 2.7 ha to accommodate

commercial functions in Lara’s activity centres by 2021.

16. There are good reasons why further significant retail development should

take place at the Lara Town Centre in preference to any other centre

serving the trade area:

· Reduction in trips for residents and more sustainable development

outcomes

· Improved use of infrastructure and existing assets, both public and

private

· Increased customer traffic at businesses

· Greater likelihood of investment in higher order retail activities

· Enhanced confidence that assets will retain their value

PAGE 13


GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C225

PANEL REPORT: FEBRUARY 2011

· The existing centre remains central to the township

For these reasons the idea of the alternative supermarket‐centre should be

abandoned and the effort channelled into making the existing Town

Centre work. Whether or not a full‐line supermarket should be provided

on the site of the existing supermarket or on Austin Park is a tactical

development issue for Council.

The consolidation of retail and commercial activities in the existing Town

Centre is supported by all submitters and was endorsed by both the

Amendment C123 and Amendment C198 Panel Reports.

The Panel received a presentation from Mr Bryden and Ms Peart on behalf of

the Lara Chamber of Commerce (Submission no. 4) that strongly supported

the Amendment. Mr Bryden informed the Panel that the Chamber of

Commerce members had responded positively to the proposed development

of the subject site and that the Chamber of Commerce fully agreed with the

conclusions of the Tim Nott report with regard to the justification for the

provision of a full line supermarket to help reduce escape expenditure from

the existing Lara Town Centre.

Submissions raising concerns regarding specific aspects of the Amendment

(Mr Anderson – submission no. 12, Mr Trevena – submission no. 10 and

Minter Ellison on behalf Shalari Pty Ltd – submission no. 7) did not oppose

the strategic merits of expanding the Lara Town Centre.

A number of submitters did, however, raise some issues with regard to the

form of the planning controls to be used to implement any expansion.

Council advised in the Hearing that it proposes to alter the area proposed to

be rezoned to Road Zone Category 2 from that exhibited to enable a more

appropriate realignment of Station Lake Road. This issue is discussed in

Chapter 7 of this report.

5.4 Discussion

The Panel agrees that the proposed Amendment is well supported by both

State and local policy and further supported by the strategic assessment of

the retail centre carried out in the Lara Structure Plan – Retail Development

Issues 2009.

5.5 Conclusions and recommendations

The Panel concludes that the proposed Amendment is strategically well

founded and there is strong support for the Town Centre expansion to

proceed from all submitters.

PAGE 14


GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C225

PANEL REPORT: FEBRUARY 2011

6. Form and Content of the Amendment

6.1 The Issue

Submitters raised a number concerns about whether the proposed changes to

the planning scheme would achieve the objective of integrating the proposed

new development with the existing Town Centre.

The Panel has examined the issues raised in relation to the form and content

of the Amendment under the following sub‐headings:

• The most appropriate site for expansion;

• Integration of new development with existing Town Centre

(including notice and review rights);

• Municipal Strategic Statement;

• Content of the Design and Development Overlay.

6.2 The Most Appropriate Site for Expansion

6.2.1 Evidence and Submissions

A submission (no. 7) was received from Minter Ellison on behalf of Shalari

Pty Ltd, owners of the existing supermarket site. The submission was

broadly supportive of the Amendment and agreed with the aims of Clause

21.13 of the Local Planning Policy Framework to consolidate and expand the

Lara Town Centre.

It was submitted, however, that the Amendment focuses only on one option

for the expansion of the Town Centre and does not adequately address the

option of providing additional retail floor space within the existing Town

Centre. Minter Ellison argued that there is land within the existing Town

Centre that, ‘if appropriately rezoned and developed, may appropriately provide for

more shops and better facilities for the current and future population of Lara.’ It

was submitted that the Amendment should acknowledge the

appropriateness of investigating existing land within the Town Centre.

In response Council submitted that other options had been considered

during the process of developing the Urban Design Framework, however

expansion on to the subject site provides a better solution. Council noted

that the Tim Nott report had examined various options for the location of a

full line supermarket, concluding that the Austin Park site provided the best

option.

PAGE 15


GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C225

PANEL REPORT: FEBRUARY 2011

6.2.2 Discussion

As noted in Chapter 5, there is strong strategic support for consolidation of

retail and commercial activities in the Lara Town Centre.

Both the Amendment C123 and Amendment C198 Panels supported the

consolidation of retail and commercial activities at an expanded Lara Town

Centre, generally in accordance with the Urban Design Framework.

In its report, the C198 Panel expressed concerns about the practicalities of

assembling the Austin Park site to enable the expansion of the Town Centre

leading to the conclusion, at the time, that ‘there may be other more attainable

central locations that are better suited in the short term’. The C225 Panel notes

that significant progress has now been made in securing the subject site and

therefore believes that it therefore now represents the most appropriate

expansion option. Other possible sites are in multiple ownerships and have

a variety of land uses, making them more difficult to assemble in the short

term. The existing supermarket site is limited in size and to date the Panel

understands that no workable options have been presented that demonstrate

that a full line supermarket, with appropriate access and parking, can be

accommodated on the site.

The Panel is satisfied with the evidence provided by Council that options for

alternative expansion sites were thoroughly examined in the process of

preparing the Urban Design Framework. Provided any development can be

well integrated with the existing Town Centre, the subject site represents the

best and most practical option for expansion on the scale envisaged.

6.3 Integration of new development with existing Town Centre

6.3.1 Evidence and Submissions

In a further written submission, Minter Ellison on behalf of Shalari Pty Ltd

submitted that the expansion of the Lara Town Centre should be supported

but that any expansion should be carefully managed so as to ‘be incorporated

into the existing Town Centre to achieve an integrated result.’ Minter Ellison also

submitted that ‘Council should seek to protect the existing retail offerings of Lara

through its amendment and development process.’

This position was supported by Mr Bryden representing the Lara Chamber

of Commerce, who conveyed the concerns of some of the members of the

Chamber of Commerce that any new development should be designed so as

not to “turn its back” on the existing Town Centre and, in particular, the

Centreway shops.

PAGE 16


GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C225

PANEL REPORT: FEBRUARY 2011

Council acknowledged the importance of integrating any new development

with the existing Town Centre and submitted that this was a fundamental

design principle embedded in the proposed Design and Development

Overlay Schedule.

6.3.2 Discussion

There is strong agreement from all parties that development on the subject

site should integrate with the existing Town Centre so as to ensure the ongoing

viability of existing retail and commercial businesses.

This position is well supported in the Municipal Strategic Statement at

Clause 21.13 ‐ Lara, which states under Implementation:

Consolidate and develop the Lara Town Centre as the primary retail,

commercial and cultural centre for Lara in accord with principles of Lara

Town Centre Urban Design Framework March 2006.

The most appropriate form of planning scheme controls to achieve this

policy outcome is discussed in more detail in the following sections.

6.4 Municipal Strategic Statement

6.4.1 Evidence and Submissions

Council have proposed to remove references to applying the Business 1 Zone

and Development Plan Overlay in Clause 21.13‐3 of the Municipal Strategic

Statement and remove the reference to amending the application of the

current Road Zone Category 2 and Public Park and Recreation Zone in the

vicinity of the Town Centre. It was submitted that these actions have now

been completed and the references are no longer necessary. This was not

opposed by any submitters.

Minter Ellison, on behalf of Shalari, submitted that additional wording

should be included in Clause 21.13 to specifically address integration of the

Austin Park precinct with the existing Town Centre. Minter Ellison

proposed the following addition:

Redevelop the Austin Park Precinct in a manner that ensures integration

with the Centreway site and existing Town Centre and avoid the

fragmentation of the Town Centre, throughout the careful design and

location of the primary frontages of the Austin park development.

Council submitted that sufficient reference was contained in the proposed

Design and Development Overlay Schedule 25 to ensure integration of the

new development with existing. Council submitted that the addition

PAGE 17


GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C225

PANEL REPORT: FEBRUARY 2011

proposed by Minter Ellison is superfluous as the Design and Development

Overlay Schedule includes strategies in relation to the design for the Town

Centre expansion site.

6.4.2 Discussion

The Panel accepts that the references to the application and amendment of

zones in 21.13‐3 should be updated but considers that reference to the

application of Business Zone 1 and the proposed Design and Development

Overlay should be retained as follows:

Apply a Business 1 Zone to the areas for expansion of the Lara Town

Centre.

Apply the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 25 to the areas for

expansion of the Lara Town Centre.

The removal of reference to amending the application of the current Road

Zone Category 2 and Public Park and Recreation Zone in the vicinity of the

Town Centre is supported as this work would be completed once

Amendment C225 is approved.

The Panel notes Council’s comments in relation to the guidance offered by

the proposed Design and Development Overlay Schedule 25 on the design of

any new development on the expansion site. It is also noted that all parties

are agreed on the importance of integrating with the existing Town Centre.

The Panel is of the view that the importance of this outcome would be given

greater weight by inclusion of an additional Strategy in the Municipal

Strategic Statement that directly refers to integration. The Panel believes that

the reference to the Urban Design Guidelines in Clause 21.13‐3 requires some

degree of interpretation and would be made clearer with the addition of a

more specific reference to integration with the existing Town Centre. The

wording proposed by Minter Ellison is considered too specific and detailed,

and the following broader wording is suggested to be inserted under 21.13‐2

Strategies:

Ensure that any expansion of the Lara Town Centre integrates with the

existing retail, commercial and community facilities in the Town Centre.

The inclusion of this additional strategy would also provide clear guidance

for other future expansion on other sites around the Town Centre.

PAGE 18


GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C225

PANEL REPORT: FEBRUARY 2011

6.5 Content of the Design and Development Overlay

6.5.1 Evidence and Submissions

The existing Municipal Strategic Statement at Clause 21.13‐3 refers to the

application of a ‘Development Plan Overlay (DPO) to the areas for expansion of

the Town Centre at the time of implementing the Lara Town Centre Urban Design

Framework’. This is echoed in the Urban Design Framework which

recommends a Development Plan Overlay over the Town Centre

redevelopment site in conjunction with zone changes as one of the preferred

planning controls. Council have proposed the use of a Design and

Development Overlay and have submitted that a Design and Development

Overlay is more appropriate for a number of reasons:

· Built form and the built environment can be appropriately controlled

via a Design and Development Overlay;

· A development plan is not considered necessary in order to ensure

that the design principles contained in the UDF are achieved, it is

considered that this can be achieved through objectives and building

and works requirements specified in a Design and Development

Overlay;

· There is only one site that the overlay is proposed to be applied to as

opposed to a number of sites in different ownerships;

· The Design and Development Overlay provides greater flexibility

than a Development Plan Overlay which is considered desirable in

this instance.

Minter Ellison, on behalf of Shalari Pty Ltd, submitted that, in the absence of

notice and review requirements, the proposed wording of the Design and

Development Overlay schedule is too broad and does not provide sufficient

certainty of outcome, particularly in protecting the existing Town Centre. It

is further submitted by Minter Ellison that the proposed DDO25 does not

make reference the redevelopment layout proposed in the Urban Design

Framework, noting that the ultimate development design may, in the absence

of clear and specific controls, be very different from the Urban Design

Framework plan.

Minter Ellison argue that the level of integration is not adequately protected

in either policy (Clause 21.13 of the Local Planning Policy Framework) or in

the proposed Design and Development Overlay. They submitted that a

requirement for further consultation with existing landowners would add

further protection to ensure integration between new development and

existing. Minter Ellison also submitted that floorspace restrictions; the

PAGE 19


GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C225

PANEL REPORT: FEBRUARY 2011

timing and staging of road closures; and development contributions should

also be subject to third party appeal rights.

Minter Ellison referred to the Panel Report for Moreland Planning Scheme

Amendment C92 which observed that:

The removal of third party appeal rights reduces the acceptable degree of

flexibility compared to circumstances where the opportunity for full

participation in subsequent planning processes is maintained…

Minter Ellison submitted that, as Council is in this case both landowner and

development facilitator, there is need for even greater public scrutiny. It was

submitted that Council has failed to adequately justify the exemption from

notice and review (Note that the Council clarified in its submission that the

land transfer process would be undertaken in such a manner that Council

would not be the landowner at the time of any development).

Minter Ellison submitted that either: the Design and Development Overlay

should be altered to remove the exemption from notice and review and

strengthen the wording regarding integration with the existing Town Centre;

or, the Design and Development Overlay should be replaced with a

Development Plan Overlay that provides the opportunity for stakeholder

input to a Development Plan. Minter Ellison concluded their submission by

proposing amendments to DDO25 including: a requirement for more

detailed planning information demonstrating the level of integration of any

development; and additional decision guidelines.

In response, Council submitted that the proposed Design and Development

Overlay Schedule does not provide flexibility in relation to the need for

integration. Council also submitted that it is relevant to consider the

previous exhaustive consultation process undertaken in developing the

Urban Design Framework.

Council further submitted that there was no justification to include floor

space restrictions on the subject site and therefore there is no justification for

notice and review rights. It was also submitted that timing and staging of

road closures would be managed as a project management issue. Council

also advised that there is no plan to apply developer contributions to this or

any other site in the Town Centre.

Council submitted that the Minter Ellison submission failed to substantiate

its suggestion that Council is not capable of undertaking an appropriate

assessment against the Design and Development Overlay and the provisions

of the planning scheme.

PAGE 20


GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C225

PANEL REPORT: FEBRUARY 2011

Both Minter Ellison and Council have suggested in their submissions that

some form of informal consultation process could be undertaken as an

alternative to a formal notice and review process. Minter Ellison has,

however, suggested this only in the context of replacing the Design and

Development Overlay with a Development Plan Overlay (which would

require a separate amendment process).

6.5.2 Discussion

The Panel understands that Council has chosen to use a Design and

Development Overlay rather than a Development Plan Overlay in order to

increase the level of flexibility in seeking design responses to the site from

prospective developers. The Panel is of the view that an appropriate balance

needs to be achieved between this level of flexibility to achieve the most

viable development outcome against the need for certainty of outcome and,

particularly in this case, the need to provide for a high level of integration

with the existing Town Centre.

Development Plan Overlay’s typically provide a higher level of certainty as

they rely on a more detailed and prescriptive development plan, usually

developed with input from all stakeholders. Development Plan Overlay’s

also typically include an exemption from notice and review, justified by the

higher level of prescription. Where a Design and Development Overlay is

used, exemption from notice and review is more likely to be applied if the

overlay schedule is more prescriptive. The Panel agrees with the

observations of the Moreland C92 Panel in this regard.

The Panel is of the view that a Development Plan Overlay would be a

preferable control to implement the Lara Town Centre expansion but agrees

that a Design and Development Overlay is also acceptable provided that it

achieves the desired outcomes, particularly with respect to ensuring

integration of development on the subject site with the existing Town Centre.

To this end the Panel agrees with the submission of Minter Ellison that the

wording of the Design and Development Overlay could be strengthened

with reference to the Urban Design Framework and more defined outcomes in

relation to the integration with the existing Town Centre. The Panel suggests

inclusion of a direct reference to the Urban Design Framework in the DDO25

Design Objectives and in the Decision Guidelines. Other minor amendments

are also suggested as shown in Appendix D to this report. Note that not all

of the suggestions made by Minter Ellison are supported. The proposed

Decision Guidelines already appropriately refer to the integration with the

existing Town Centre, Austin Park and other adjoining land uses. The Panel

considered the addition of Application Requirements but believes that the

PAGE 21


GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C225

PANEL REPORT: FEBRUARY 2011

Application Requirements as set out in 34.01‐4 (Business 1 Zone) provide

adequate information to enable Council to make a decision.

The Panel also notes the requirement of Clause 22.03 for an Economic Impact

Assessment to be prepared for new major retail developments greater than

2,000 square metres of gross leasable area and/or supermarket developments.

The requirements for an Economic Impact Assessment are set out in Clause

22.03, and include a requirement to assess the impact on existing retail

facilities. This requirement should give some comfort to existing traders that

economic impacts will be carefully assessed as part of the permit approval

process.

Even with the Panel preferred wording of Design and Development Overlay

Schedule 25, there remains a high level of flexibility in design options

available to developers. The Design and Development Overlay is still open

to some interpretation and is not, in the judgement of the Panel, sufficiently

prescriptive to warrant exemption from notice and review. The need for any

new development to relate to, and integrate with, the existing Town Centre

and other nearby land uses was identified by all parties, including Council,

as a key issue. The Panel agrees that the opportunity for consultation with

stakeholders on the preferred design would add significant value but does

not accept that informal consultation can necessarily be relied upon to

achieve an outcome that would be seen as fair and transparent by all parties.

The Panel accepts that Council is genuinely committed to consultation and to

the proper implementation of planning controls on the site in reaching any

decision. However the only way that this can be mandated in planning

controls is through requiring notice and review in accordance with the

Planning and Environment Act 1987. The Panel accepts that there was

extensive consultation carried out in developing the Urban Design Framework

but is of the view that this does not provide sufficient justification for

exemption from notice and review at the planning permit stage. Council has

acknowledged that the Urban Design Framework provides a strategic

framework and that there are a range of detailed design options possible. If

an exemption to notice and review were to be retained, the Panel believes

that the Design and Development Overlay would need to be much more

prescriptive with respect to design outcomes. This is not possible at this time

in the absence of a development plan or a preferred developer. The Panel

has also examined the Urban Design Framework and has formed the view that,

whilst it provides sufficient broad parameters for design, it could be widely

interpreted.

The Panel agrees with Council’s comments and reasoning that it is not

appropriate to specifically nominate floorspace restrictions; timing and

staging of road closures; or development contributions as issues requiring

third party scrutiny.

PAGE 22


GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C225

PANEL REPORT: FEBRUARY 2011

The Panel preferred Schedule to the Design and Development Overlay,

incorporating all proposed changes, is attached as Appendix D to this report.

6.6 Conclusions and recommendations

The Panel recommends that Amendment C225 to the Greater Geelong

Planning Scheme be adopted as exhibited subject to the following

recommended changes:

1. Amend Local Policy 21.13 Lara as follows:

• Add the following under clause 21.13‐2 ‐ Strategies:

Ensure that any expansion of the Lara Town Centre

integrates with the existing retail, commercial and

community facilities in the Town Centre.

• Include the following statements under the heading Applying

Zones and overlays at clause 21.13‐3:

Apply a Business 1 Zone to the areas for expansion of the

Lara Town Centre.

Apply the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 25 to

the areas for expansion of the Lara Town Centre.

2. Amend Schedule 25 to the Design and Development Overlay as

follows:

• Alter the first Design Objective to read:

To ensure that new development integrates with the existing

retail, commercial and community facilities in the Lara

Town Centre in accord with the principles of the Lara Town

Centre Urban Design Framework March 2006.

• Alter the third dot point under 2.0 Buildings and Works –

Access, Movement and Car parking to read:

Locate and design car parks to minimise adverse impacts on

pedestrians and traffic flow.

• Alter the fifth dot point under 2.0 Buildings and Works – Access,

Movement and Car parking to read:

Provide for safe pedestrian access to Centreway and the

existing Town Centre.

• Remove the Exemption from notice and review under Clause 2.0.

• Add the following dot point under 5.0 ‐ Decision Guidelines:

• Whether the design response is consistent with the Lara

Town Centre Urban Design Framework March 2006.

PAGE 23


GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C225

PANEL REPORT: FEBRUARY 2011

7.3 Discussion

There is now agreement between the Council and CCMA that flooding issues

can be dealt with at the detailed design phase rather than requiring further

work to be done prior to the Amendment being adopted. The proposed

Design and Development Overlay Schedule 25 refers to stormwater

management but not floodway management.

The Panel believes that this does not adequately take account of the known

flooding issues of the site and surrounding area. The Panel believes the

reference in the proposed Design and Development Overlay may be

interpreted as relating to the design of stormwater management from the

runoff on the site and may not adequately consider flooding from off site

sources. As the subject site is on a known floodway path, this is considered

by the Panel to be an oversight.

7.4 Conclusions and recommendations

The Panel recommends that the proposed Design and Development Overlay

Schedule 25 should be amended as follows:

3. Add the following additional dot point under Schedule 25 to the

Design and Development Overlay Clause 2.0 ‐ Building and Works:

All buildings and works should:

• Be designed to avoid increased flood levels and flood frequency

on the site and on land upstream and downstream of the site.

4. Add the following additional dot point under Schedule 25 to the

Design and Development Overlay Clause 5.0 ‐ Decision Guidelines:

Before deciding on an application the Responsible Authority must

consider:

• The views of the floodplain management authority.

PAGE 25


GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C225

PANEL REPORT: FEBRUARY 2011

8. Traffic and Access Issues

8.1 The Issue

Does the proposed Amendment appropriately address traffic and access

issues?

8.2 Evidence and submissions

Council submitted at the Hearing that the area proposed as Road Zone

Category 2 should be extended to cover the entire width of the road reserve

for Station Lake Road south of the subject site. An amended zoning map was

provided (see Appendix C to this report) and is proposed to be adopted as

part the Amendment. Council submitted that the wider area of Road Zone

Category 2 land is intended to provide the opportunity to design a safer road

alignment with improved sight distances.

Council wrote to St Laurence Community Services as the only adjoining land

owner to seek comments on the proposed change. The Panel also wrote to St

Laurence Community Services to provide an opportunity to make a further

submission. St Laurence Community Services did not respond.

A submission was received from Mr Trevena (Submission no. 10) that was

generally supportive of the Amendment but raised a number of issues in

relation to the design of roads and intersections around the proposed

development site. Mr Trevena had intended to present to the Hearing but

provided further correspondence to the Council on 19 January 2011 advising

that he was unable to attend. He also advised that the road design matters

that he had raised have now been satisfactorily dealt with in his discussions

with Council staff.

The Panel heard from Mr Anderson representing APCO Service Stations Pty

Ltd (Submission no. 12.) who submitted that the possible rail overpass

mentioned in the Lara Urban Design Framework may seriously compromise

access to his business. Mr Anderson acknowledged that the Amendment

C225 Hearing was probably not the right place to have this matter heard as

the Urban Design Framework had already been incorporated into the planning

scheme as part of Amendment C123.

In response to Mr Anderson’s submission, Council advised the Panel that

there are currently no proposals to fund design and construction of an

overpass. Council submitted that the Urban Design Framework notes the

PAGE 26


GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C225

PANEL REPORT: FEBRUARY 2011

current delays at the level crossing in McClelland Avenue and that, ‘in the

longer term, particularly if a fourth track through Lara is installed, there will be a

need for a future vehicular overpass.’

Council argued that the current Amendment ‘does not impact on accessibility to

the existing APCO service station and in no way prejudices the position of APCO in

relation to any future decision that may be taken in respect to grade separation.’

Council further submitted that the issues raised by Mr Anderson are not

relevant to what the Panel is considering as part of this Amendment.

The proposed Schedule 25 to the Design and Development Overlay requires

that (amongst other things):

All buildings and works should:

· Integrate and link with the existing Town Centre having regard to

vehicle and pedestrian connections, access, built form, visual

surveillance and landscaping;

· Minimise conflict points and provide appropriate intersection and

crossing treatments.

And in the Decision guidelines:

8.3 Discussion

Before deciding on an application the Responsible Authority must

consider:

· Whether there is an appropriate interface treatment with adjoining

zones and land uses.

The Panel accepts the reasoning behind the change to the area proposed to be

zoned Road Zone Category 2, and agrees that the change would provide an

improved road design outcome.

The Panel agrees with Council’s submission that the issues raised by Mr

Anderson in relation to the possible future rail overpass are not particularly

relevant to the current Amendment. The Panel is also of the view that there

is nothing in the content of Amendment C225 that would compromise future

decision making with respect to a future overpass.

The proposed wording of Schedule 25 to the Design and Development

Overlay provides a level of protection for surrounding land uses in terms of

the design of any development on the subject site.

PAGE 27


GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C225

PANEL REPORT: FEBRUARY 2011

8.4 Conclusions and recommendations

The Panel recommends as follows:

5. Amend the area in Station Lake Road to be zoned Road Zone Category

2 as proposed by Council and as shown on the revised zoning map in

Appendix C to this report.

PAGE 28


GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C225

PANEL REPORT: FEBRUARY 2011

9. Location of Community Facilities

9.1 The Issue

Does the proposed Amendment compromise options in relation to the

location of community facilities in the Lara Town Centre?

9.2 Evidence and Submissions

Minter Ellison, on behalf of Shalari Pty Ltd, submitted that the proposed

Design and Development Overlay makes no mention of community facilities

and infrastructure to be accommodated on the subject site. Minter Ellison

submitted that it could be deduced from this that existing retail premises

may be required to accommodate these community facilities. They

submitted that ‘it is neither equitable nor consistent with policy if Centreway or

other retailers must accommodate an unfair share or fund an inequitable share of

these proposed community facilities’.

In response, Council referred to the detailed explanation of how community

facilities are proposed to be implemented provided in their submission to the

Panel. The Council submission articulates Council plans to develop: a library

alongside other Council facilities in Austin Park; a community hub on

VicTrack land; and a Town Square within Austin Park adjacent to the northwest

corner of the subject site.

Council submitted that the location of community facilities is not an issue

relevant to the consideration of this Amendment.

9.3 Discussion

The Panel does not see any evidence to support Minter Ellison’s suggestion

that the existing retail area would be required to accommodate an unfair

proportion of community facilities. Council plans would appear to locate

community facilities on public land.

9.4 Conclusions and Recommendations

The Panel believes there is nothing in the planning controls proposed as part

of this Amendment that will compromise future options in relation to

locating community facilities in the Lara Town Centre. Indeed the proposed

Amendment does not include or exclude community facility options in any

development of the subject site.

PAGE 29


GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C225

PANEL REPORT: FEBRUARY 2011

10. Recommendations

Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Panel recommends that

Amendment C225 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme be adopted as

exhibited subject to the following recommended changes:

1. Amend Local Policy 21.13 Lara as follows:

• Add the following under clause 21.13‐2 ‐ Strategies:

Ensure that any expansion of the Lara Town Centre

integrates with the existing retail, commercial and

community facilities in the Town Centre.

• Include the following statements under the heading Applying

Zones and overlays at clause 21.13‐3:

Apply a Business 1 Zone to the areas for expansion of the

Lara Town Centre.

Apply the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 25 to

the areas for expansion of the Lara Town Centre.

2. Amend Schedule 25 to the Design and Development Overlay as

follows:

• Alter the first Design Objective to read:

To ensure that new development integrates with the existing

retail, commercial and community facilities in the Lara

Town Centre in accord with the principles of the Lara Town

Centre Urban Design Framework March 2006.

• Alter the third dot point under 2.0 Buildings and Works –

Access, Movement and Car parking to read:

Locate and design car parks to minimise adverse impacts on

pedestrians and traffic flow.

• Alter the fifth dot point under 2.0 Buildings and Works – Access,

Movement and Car parking to read:

Provide for safe pedestrian access to Centreway and the

existing Town Centre.

• Remove the Exemption from notice and review under Clause 2.0

• Add the following dot point under 5.0 ‐ Decision Guidelines:

• Whether the design response is consistent with the Lara

Town Centre Urban Design Framework March 2006.

PAGE 30


GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C225

PANEL REPORT: FEBRUARY 2011

3. Add the following additional dot point under Schedule 25 to the

Design and Development Overlay Clause 2.0 ‐ Building and Works:

All buildings and works should:

• Be designed to avoid increased flood levels and flood frequency

on the site and on land upstream and downstream of the site.

4. Add the following additional dot point under Schedule 25 to the

Design and Development Overlay Clause 5.0 ‐ Decision Guidelines:

Before deciding on an application the Responsible Authority must

consider:

• The views of the floodplain management authority.

5. Amend the area in Station Lake Road to be zoned Road Zone Category

2 as proposed by Council and as shown on the revised zoning map in

Appendix C to this report.

PAGE 31


GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C225

PANEL REPORT: FEBRUARY 2011

Appendix A – Exhibited zoning map

PAGE 32


GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C225

PANEL REPORT: FEBRUARY 2011

Appendix B – Exhibited DDO25 map

PAGE 33


GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C225

PANEL REPORT: FEBRUARY 2011

Appendix C – Amended zoning map

PAGE 34


GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME

Appendix D – Panel Preferred DDO25

--/--/20--

SCHEDULE 25 TO THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY

Shown on the planning scheme map as DDO25

LARA TOWN CENTRE EXPANSION AREA

1.0 Design objectives

--/--/20--

To ensure that new development integrates with the existing retail, commercial and

community facilities in the Lara Town Centre in accord with principles of the Lara Town

Centre Urban Design Framework March 2006.

To ensure that new development integrates with the reconfigured area of Austin Park.

To achieve a high quality, innovative and contemporary urban design outcome.

To provide for safe, convenient pedestrian and vehicle movement in and around the town

centre.

To provide for a cohesive and vibrant town centre for Lara.

To create an expanded town centre that reflects the unique township character of Lara.

To ensure that new development responds to the landscape character of Lara.

2.0 Buildings and works

--/--/20--

All buildings and works should:

Design and Built Form

• Integrate and link with the existing town centre having regard to vehicle and

pedestrian connections, access, built form, visual surveillance and landscaping.

• Encourage ‘strip shopping’ along key pedestrian frontages.

• Provide opportunities for alfresco dining along key pedestrian routes.

• Provide active frontages and/or visual interest along key pedestrian routes.

• Provide for passive surveillance to key public areas.

• Provide for a high quality architectural outcome with a variety of building materials,

articulation and design features.

• Where practical, provide a design response that addresses both frontages where a

building is located on a corner.

• Incorporate best practice stormwater management and reuse principles into the

development.

• Ensure plant and equipment and storage areas are adequately screened and not visible

from key public areas.

• Be designed to avoid increased flood levels and flood frequency on the site and on

land upstream and downstream of the site.

DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY - SCHEDULE 25


GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME

Access, Movement and Car parking

• Ensure safe and convenient pedestrian access between any new development and the

existing retail area, community facilities and reconfigured Austin Park.

• Minimise conflict points and provide appropriate intersection and crossing treatments.

• Locate and design car parks to minimise adverse impacts on pedestrians and traffic

flow.

• Encourage multiple access points to allow traffic circulation.

• Provide for safe pedestrian areas access to Centreway and the existing Town Centre.

• Avoid access to loading areas along key pedestrian routes.

Landscaping

• Encourage landscaping (including canopy trees) to be provided within car parking

areas, where practical.

• Encourage street planting along key pedestrian routes.

3.0 Subdivision

--/--/20--

A planning permit is not required to subdivide land.

4.0 Advertising signs

--/--/20--

The design and siting of advertising sign(s) should satisfy the following design principles:

• Signs should be integrated into the design of the building façade;

• Signs should be of a size and height that is complementary to the built form of the

building and surrounding landscape;

• Signs should be limited in number and incorporate limited detail other than is

necessary to identify the building name and key tenants; and

• Signs should be consolidated in mixed use and commercial developments to avoid the

visual clutter of signage and displays.

5.0 Decision guidelines

--/--/20--

Before deciding on an application the Responsible Authority must consider:

• Whether the design response is consistent with the Lara Town Centre Urban Design

Framework March 2006.

• Whether the design for the new development site effectively integrates with the

existing Town Centre and Austin Park.

• Whether there is appropriate interface treatment with adjoining zones and land uses.

• Whether the design provides for high quality architecture that contributes positively to

creating a distinct town centre.

• Whether the design provides for a high quality, safe and walkable environment.

• Whether the design responds to the design and built form, access parking and

movement and landscaping requirements of this schedule.

• The views of the floodplain management authority.

DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY - SCHEDULE 25

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines