Planning and Environment Act 1987
Panel Report
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme
Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Murradoc Road, Drysdale
22 December 2014
Planning and Environment Act 1987
Panel Report pursuant to Section 25 of the Act
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Murradoc Road, Drysdale
Kathryn Mitchell, Chair
William O’Neil, Member
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
Contents
Page
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... i
1
Introduction..............................................................................................................1
2
The Proposal .............................................................................................................3
2.1 The Subject Site and Surrounds .............................................................................. 3
2.2 Background to the Proposal .................................................................................... 6
2.3 Issues dealt with in this Report ............................................................................... 6
3
Strategic Planning Context ........................................................................................7
3.1 Policy Framework .................................................................................................... 7
3.2 Other Planning Strategies...................................................................................... 12
3.3 Zones and Overlays ............................................................................................... 15
3.4 Strategic Assessment............................................................................................. 15
4
Impact on the Jetty Road NAC ................................................................................. 18
4.1 The Issue ................................................................................................................ 18
4.2 Evidence and Submissions..................................................................................... 18
4.3 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 24
4.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 24
5
Traffic and Urban Design Issues ............................................................................... 26
5.1 The Issue ................................................................................................................ 26
5.2 Evidence and Submissions..................................................................................... 26
5.3 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 28
5.4 Conclusions............................................................................................................ 28
6
Planning Permit Conditions ..................................................................................... 29
6.1 The Issue ................................................................................................................ 29
6.2 Evidence and Submissions..................................................................................... 29
6.3 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 30
6.4 Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................... 30
Appendix A
List of Submitters
Appendix B
Hearing Document List
Appendix C
Panel Recommended Version of Planning Permit No. 765/2013
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
List of Tables
Page
Table 1
Parties to the Panel Hearing .................................................................................... 2
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1:
Existing Zoning Plan ................................................................................................. 1
Figure 2:
Aerial Photo of Subject Site and Surrounds ............................................................ 3
Figure 3:
Site Context ............................................................................................................. 4
Figure 4:
Bellarine Peninsula Context Plan............................................................................. 5
Figure 5:
Clause 21.14-10 – Drysdale Clifton Springs Structure Plan Map .......................... 10
Figure 6:
Drysdale Urban Design Framework....................................................................... 14
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
Amendment Summary
The Amendment and
Planning Permit
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning
Permit 765/2013
Common Name
Murradoc Road, Drysdale
Subject Site
Land at 24-32 Murradoc Road, Drysdale
Purpose of Amendment
Rezone the land from Commercial 2 Zone to Commercial 1 Zone
Planning Permit
Seek approval for:
 Buildings and works to construct a supermarket
 The display of identification signage
 Reduction in car parking requirements
 Alteration of access to a road in Road Zone Category 1
 Create a carriageway easement.
The Proponent
Coles Group Property Developments Ltd
Planning Authority
City of Greater Geelong
Authorisation
AO2808 on 23 May 2014
Exhibition
3 July to 4 August 2014
Panel Process
The Panel
Kathryn Mitchell, Chair and William O’Neil, Member
Directions Hearing
2 October 2014 at Planning Panels Victoria
Panel Hearing
25 November 2014 at Geelong, and 26, 27 and 28 November 2014 at
Planning Panels Victoria
Site Inspections
Unaccompanied on 24 November 2014
Appearances
See Table 1
Submissions
20 Submissions, as listed in Appendix A
Date of this Report
22 December 2014
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
Executive Summary
Amendment C297 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme proposes to rezone land at 32
Murradoc Road, Drysdale from the Commercial 2 Zone to the Commercial 1 Zone. The
Amendment is accompanied by Planning Permit Application 765/2013. The rezoning and
Permit Application seek to facilitate the development of a 3,892 square metre Coles
supermarket in the Drysdale-Clifton Springs Town Centre.
There is broad community support for the proposed development, reflected in the 16
supporting submissions received in response to the exhibition of the combined Amendment
and Planning Permit Application. Key benefits of the development cited in submissions
included that there will be improved retail competition given that the existing retail offer is
dominated by Woolworths, it will strengthen the role and function of the Drysdale Town
Centre, and it will create additional short and long term employment.
Four opposing submissions were lodged, including two submissions by local traders in the
Drysdale Town Centre that expressed concern regarding economic impacts arising from the
new supermarket. A third local trader was concerned about the impact on traffic flow. The
key opposing submitter was Dalgo Pty Ltd and Libnom Pty Ltd which are land owners and
developers within the Jetty Road Neighbourhood Activity Centre and wider Jetty Road
Growth Area. Their key concern is that approval of the Amendment and Planning Permit
Application, at this time, will cause an unacceptable impact on the retail hierarchy and in
particular on the development and functioning of the Jetty Road Neighbourhood Activity
Centre. The Panel notes that neither Woolworths nor Aldi opposed the Amendment or
Permit Application.
Having considered the submissions and evidence, the Panel concludes that there is strong
State and Local Planning Policy support for the proposed development. Further, the Panel is
satisfied that the development of a full-line Coles supermarket on the subject site is
strategically justified and warranted, and that the development will strengthen the role and
function of the Drysdale Town Centre. The Panel considers that the role and function of the
Jetty Road Neighbourhood Activity Centre will not be compromised by the proposed
development although its trading performance will be affected in the short term. In
reaching this conclusion the Panel notes that all economic witnesses agreed that the
Woolworths supermarket at the Jetty Road Neighbourhood Activity Centre will not be
jeopardised by approval of the Coles supermarket, although some of the accompanying
speciality stores may be likely to experience high vacancy levels in the short term.
The Panel is satisfied that approval of Amendment C297 and the accompanying Planning
Permit Application 765/2013 will facilitate a retail outcome that will improve retail
competition for residents on the Bellarine Peninsula and also strengthen Geelong’s retail
hierarchy. The Panel accepts the submissions of Council and the proponent that
development of a full-line supermarket on the subject site will represent a net community
benefit.
Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Panel recommends:
1.
Adopt Amendment C297 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme as exhibited, and
replace the exhibited version of Planning Permit 765/2013 with the Panel
Recommended Version contained in Appendix C of this Report.
Page i
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
1
Introduction
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013 (the
proposal) was prepared by the City of Greater Geelong as Planning Authority.
The subject land for the proposal consists of three titles, these being 24–26 and 28-30
Murradoc Road, Drysdale, located in the Commercial 1 Zone; and 32 Murradoc Road,
Drysdale located in the Commercial 2 Zone. All three titles are owned by the proponent,
Coles Group Property Development Ltd (Coles). The subject land is predominantly vacant
and sits alongside the Drysdale ALDI store.
The Amendment proposes to rezone the land at 32 Murradoc Road, Drysdale from the
Commercial 2 Zone to the Commercial 1 Zone (Refer Figure 1 – Existing Zoning Plan).
Figure 1:
Existing Zoning Plan
Page 1 of 30
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
The Planning Permit Application exhibited concurrently with the Amendment seeks approval
for:
 Buildings and works to construct a supermarket (total leasable floor area of 3,892
square metres)
 The display of identification signage
 Reduction in car parking requirements
 Alteration of access to a road in the Road Zone Category 1
 Creation of a carriageway easement.
The Amendment was prepared at the request of ERM Australia of behalf of Coles. It was
authorised by the Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (DTPLI) as
AO2808 on 23 May 2014.
The Amendment was placed on public exhibition between 3 July and 4 August 2014, with 20
submissions received, of which 16 were in support of the Amendment.
At its meeting of 23 September 2014, Council resolved to refer the submissions to a Panel.
As a result, a Panel to consider the Amendment was appointed under delegation from the
Minister for Planning on 29 September 2014 and comprised Kathryn Mitchell (Chair) and
William O’Neil (Member).
A Directions Hearing was held in relation to the proposal on 2 October 2014. Prior to the
Public Hearings on 24 November 2014, the Panel undertook an unaccompanied inspection of
the subject site, its surrounds and the Jetty Road Urban Growth Area.
The Panel then met in the offices of the City of Greater Geelong and Planning Panels Victoria
from 25 to 28 November 2014 to hear submissions in respect of the Amendment and
Planning Permit Application. Those in attendance at the Panel Hearing are listed in Table 1.
Table 1
Parties to the Panel Hearing
Submitter
Represented by
City of Greater Geelong
Peter Schembri and Peter Smith who called the
following expert witness:
- Tim Nott of Tim Nott in economics
Dalgo Pty Ltd and Libnom Pty Ltd
(Submitter No 3)
Nick Tweedie SC of Counsel, instructed by Best
Hooper, who called the following expert witness:
- Gavin Duane of Location I.Q. in economics
Coles Group Property Developments
Susan Brennan SC and Emily Porter of Counsel,
instructed by Norton Rose Fulbright, who called the
following expert witnesses:
- Brian Haratsis of MacroPlan Dimasi in economics
- Stuart McGurn of ERM in planning
Note: A traffic evidence statement from Tim de Young
of GTA Consultants was circulated however he was
not called to present his evidence.
Page 2 of 30
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
2
The Proposal
2.1
The Subject Site and Surrounds
The subject land is vacant expect for a derelict weatherboard dwelling on 32 Murradoc Road
(Refer Figure 2 - Aerial Photo of Subject Site and Surrounds). The site has direct access to
Murradoc Road which is a Category 1 zoned road. The total site area is approximately one
hectare.
There is a two metre fall from Murradoc Road to the rear of the property and a natural
depression runs through the centre of the site. Land to the west is developed with an Aldi
Store. Land to the east is developed with a retail/storage unit facility. This facility has a six
metre high concrete wall along its entire length. Land to the south is the developing Central
Walk residential estate.
Figure 2:
Aerial Photo of Subject Site and Surrounds
Page 3 of 30
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
Murradoc Road is a key east-west route through the commercial precinct of Drysdale and is
intended to be widened in the future. It will be become a key entry point into Drysdale
when the proposed Drysdale Bypass is constructed, for which the timing is unknown (Refer
Figure 3 – Site Context).
Figure 3:
Site Context
The subject land is within the designated Drysdale Town Centre (the Town Centre). The
Town Centre contains two supermarkets, the Aldi Store immediately to the west of the
subject site, and a 2,600 square metre Woolworths Store to the west. In addition to these
supermarkets the Town Centre contains a range of small shops, restaurants and cafes,
professional and community facilities and services. The Site Context Plan highlights the
Page 4 of 30
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
location of additional commercial rezonings that were recently approved via Amendment
C283. When developed this land will reinforce the eastern expansion of the Drysdale Town
Centre.
In addition, the Site Context Plan identifies the location of the Jetty Road Neighbourhood
Activity Centre (Jetty Road NAC) located approximately two kilometres to the west of the
Drysdale Town Centre. The Jetty Road NAC is planned to serve the 310 hectare Jetty Road
Growth Area which at build out will comprise approximately 3,300 dwellings with in excess
of 8,000 people. As at August 2014, approximately 550 lots had been developed. A permit
for the development of a 3,200 square metres Woolworths supermarket and eleven
specialities shops was issued for the Jetty Road NAC site in January 2013 and construction of
the supermarket commenced in August 2014. The supermarket is expected to open in
August 2015.
The twin towns of Drysdale/Clifton Springs are centrally located on the Bellarine Peninsula.
Along with Ocean Grove and Leopold, these are the only townships on the Bellarine
Peninsula designated in State and Local Planning Policy to accommodate population growth.
(Refer Figure 4 – Bellarine Peninsula Context Plan).
Figure 4:
Bellarine Peninsula Context Plan
Page 5 of 30
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
2.2
Background to the Proposal
Prior to Amendment VC123 being gazetted on 13 November 2014, the Commercial 2 Zone in
the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme prohibited supermarkets with a floor space over 1800
square metres. With the gazettal of Amendment VC123, supermarkets up to 1800 square
metres are as-of-right, and supermarkets of more than 1800 square metres are
discretionary.
The Panel was advised by Ms Brennan for Coles that notwithstanding Amendment VC123,
Coles still wished to pursue the rezoning of 32 Murradoc Road from the Commercial 2 Zone
to the Commercial 1 Zone. Ms Brennan submitted the proposed rezoning should be
supported for the following reasons:
2.3
(a)
It is consistent with strategic planning set out in the UDF and Amendment C283;
(b)
If the Application is successful:
(i)
The Commercial 1 Zone will reflect the extent of the Drysdale Town Centre on the
ground;
(ii)
The purposes of the Commercial 1 Zone are more suited to intensive retailing,
and in particular for the strategically supported use of the Land as a
supermarket, than the purposes of the Commercial 2 Zone; and
(iii)
It is preferable for the Land, in single ownership and accommodating the one
proposed use and development, to be in one zone.
Issues dealt with in this Report
The Panel considered all written submissions, as well as submissions and evidence presented
to it during the Hearing. Mr Schembri for Council submitted that the 16 supporting
submissions highlighted the following benefits of the proposal:
 Improved retail facilities, competition, choice and retention of dollar spend in
the Town Centre.
Mr Schembri noted that Council’s assessment of the issues raised in the four opposing
submissions included:
 Concerns about worsening traffic conditions;
 Insufficient economic justification for another full line supermarket at this
time and consequential impacts to local traders and Jetty Road developers;
and
 Urban design flaws.
In addressing the issues raised in submissions, the Panel has been assisted by the
information provided to it as well as its observations from inspections of the subject land
and its surrounds.
This report deals with the issues under the following headings:
 Strategic Planning Context
 Impact on the Jetty Road NAC
 Traffic and Urban Design
 Planning Permit Conditions.
Page 6 of 30
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
3
Strategic Planning Context
Council provided a response to the Strategic Assessment Guidelines as part of the
Explanatory Report. The Panel has reviewed the policy context of the proposal and the
submissions by parties made in response. This section of the Report summarises the views
of Council, the proponent (Coles) and the key opposing submitter (Dalgo and Libnom)
regarding compliance of the Amendment with key aspects of State and Local Planning Policy
and other relevant planning strategies. The Panel’s overarching strategic assessment of the
proposal against the planning policy framework is provided in Chapter 3.4.
3.1
Policy Framework
3.1.1
State Planning Policy Framework
The following State Planning Policies are considered by the Panel to be particularly relevant
to the consideration of the proposal.
(i)
Clause 11.01-2 Activity centre planning
The objective of this policy is to encourage the concentration of major retail, residential,
commercial, administrative, entertainment and cultural developments into activity centres
which provide for a variety of land uses that are highly accessible to the community.
Supporting strategies include the preparation of necessary strategic plans to guide the use
and development of land in and around the activity centres, and to give clear direction in
relation to preferred locations for investment.
In response this policy, Council submitted that the Drysdale Town Centre is the service hub
for the northern Bellarine. Both Council and the proponent considered the addition of the
Coles supermarket will strengthen the Drysdale Town Centre in its higher order retail and
Town Centre role. Council and the proponent noted that the recently adopted Drysdale
Urban Design Framework identified the subject land for a new supermarket within this
precinct.
(ii)
Clauses 15.01-1 Urban design and 15.01-2 Urban design principles
These policies promote good urban design that creates safe and functional environments.
Council’s assessment is that the proposed development is considered to generally accord
with the design principles listed in Clause 15.01-2. Council submitted that Schedule 33 to
the Design and Development Overlay and the Drysdale Urban Design Framework are directly
applicable to the proposal. Both Council’s assessment and the submission on behalf of Coles
concluded that the proposal is compliant with the directions provided in these relevant
strategic documents. Mr Tweedie on behalf Dalgo and Libnom noted that while his client’s
submission to the exhibited proposal raised a number of urban design, car parking and
traffic issues, “these matters were no longer being pursued as they are not considered to be
determinative”.
Page 7 of 30
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
(iii) Clause 17 Economic development; Clause 17.01 Commercial, 17.01-1 Business
The objective of the policy is “to encourage development which meet the communities’
needs for retail, entertainment, office and other commercial services and provides net
community benefit in relation to accessibility, efficient infrastructure use and the
aggregation and sustainability of commercial facilities”. Strategies in support of the Policy
include (but are not limited to the following):
 Locate commercial facilities in existing or planned activity centres
 Provide new convenience shopping facilities to provide for the needs of the
local population in new residential areas and within, or immediately adjacent
to, existing commercial centres
 Provide small scale shopping opportunities that meet the needs of local
residents and workers in convenient locations.
Council emphasised that the Amendment was consistent with this policy in so far as the
subject land is within the commercial core of the existing Drysdale Town Centre, a position
agreed by the proponent. Mr Tweedie, however, submitted that the Amendment and the
Coles proposal threatens the “vibrancy and viability” of the Jetty Road NAC and therefore a
functioning network of activity centres is at risk. On this basis, Mr Tweedie submitted that
the Amendment is inconsistent with this aspect of the policy.
3.1.2
Local Planning Policy Framework
The following Local Planning Policies are particularly relevant to the consideration of the
Amendment and Planning Permit Application.
(i)
Clause 21.07 – Economic development and employment
The policy addresses a range of economic themes. In relation to retail planning the policy
outlines a Retail Activity Centre Hierarchy and encourages the development of vibrant and
viable retail centres in accordance with the Hierarchy. A key strategy is to:
 Ensure that new retail development is directed to activity centres and is
consistent with the role and function described in the Retail Activity Centre
Hierarchy included at Clause 21.07-8.
The Explanatory Report for the proposal stated that the proposed Coles supermarket will
strengthen the role and function of the Drysdale Town Centre. Further, it states that Town
Centres are identified in the Hierarchy as the focus for convenience shopping and
community facilities serving the surrounding township and rural hinterland.
Council submitted:
There can be no doubt that the Drysdale Town Centre is at the top of the local
activity centre hierarchy serving the northern Bellarine catchment. It is entirely
appropriate that the largest supermarket in the catchment is located there.
Both Council and the proponent concluded that the Amendment and proposed development
are consistent with Clause 21.07.
Council advised that it was satisfied that based on the evidence before the Panel, it is
unlikely that the Drysdale Woolworths, the Aldi Store nor the Woolworths currently being
Page 8 of 30
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
constructed at the Jetty Road NAC would close as a result of the approval and construction
of the Coles supermarket. Council noted that it would be seriously concerned if the Coles
proposal did not proceed in its proposed location, as this would result in the largest
supermarket in the trade area being located at the Jetty Road NAC which “will set up
conflicts about the location of future investment as smaller retailers seek to be close to where
the biggest drawcard is”.
The proponent highlighted that the rezoning and proposed Coles supermarket on the
subject land was entirely consistent with the Local Planning Policy at Clause 21.07 and that
the starting point for any analysis of the economic impact of the Application is that:
(a) the Land is located within a Town Centre that is intended to operate as the
primary retail centre in the area;
(b) upon gazettal of Amendment C283, the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme
will contain specific strategic support for the location of an additional
supermarket on the Land;
(c) only 10,000m2 of retail floorspace has been developed in Drysdale (Nott), in a
Town Centre designated to have up to 15,000m2;
(d) there are no retail floorspace caps within the Drysdale Town Centre;
(e) in contrast, there is a retail floorspace cap of 6,000m2 on the Jetty Road NAC,
precisely in order to prevent it from overtaking the higher-order centre at
Drysdale;
(f) the proposed use within the Commercial 1 zone is as-of-right, and (at least
on Mr Duane's evidence) a supermarket of between 2,500-3000m2 could be
developed on the Commercial 1 zoned part of the Land as-of-right;
(g) even within the Commercial 2 zone it is now permissible above 1800m2;
(h) there is no Coles supermarket on the northern Bellarine peninsula, forcing
residents to travel to Leopold or Ocean Grove if that is where they wish to
shop; and
(i) by 2016, Woolworths at Jetty Road NAC will be drawing residents away from
Drysdale Town Centre, with a corresponding impact on existing specialties in
that higher-order centre.
The opposing submission on behalf of Dalgo and Libnom considered that the proposal is
inconsistent with intent of Clause 21.07 for the same reasons outlined in response to Clause
17 of the State Planning Policy, that being that the vibrancy and viability of the Jetty Road
NAC will be threatened by the establishment of a Coles supermarket on the subject site at
this time.
(ii)
Clause 21.14 – The Bellarine Peninsula
Drysdale/Clifton Springs is recognised as a hub for development and service provision on the
Bellarine Peninsula. Amendment C283 which was gazetted on 27 November 2014 (during
the Panel Hearing for Amendment C297) updated Clause 21.14 by including the following
strategy:
Page 9 of 30
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
 Reinforce the Drysdale Town Centre as the primary retail centre including the
development of an additional supermarket on the south side of Murradoc
Road.
The “south side of Murradoc Road” reference specifically relates to the subject land. Council
submitted that this reference reflects the outcomes of the Drysdale Urban Design
Framework 2012. In addition to the change in the policy wording, Amendment C283
modified the Drysdale/Clifton Springs Structure Plan Map at Clause 21.14-10 by identifying
the subject land as ‘Town Centre Expansion – Rezone to Commercial 1 Zone’ (Refer to the
Legend and Plan at Figure 5).
Figure 5:
Clause 21.14-10 – Drysdale Clifton Springs Structure Plan Map
Page 10 of 30
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
Council’s submission noted that another strategy at Clause 21.14 is to support the
development of the Jetty Road Urban Growth Area. In support of this Strategy, Council
submitted that it had approved a number of residential development stages and a number
of houses are under construction. The submission stated “Likewise, land has been rezoned
to the Commercial 1 Zone for a neighbourhood activity centre and construction of a new
supermarket has commenced”. Council concluded that the proposed Coles supermarket is
entirely consistent with Clause 21.14.
With specific reference to the changes to Clause 21.14 given effect as a result of the gazettal
of Amendment C283, the evidence of Mr McGurn concluded that the changes “provide clear
support for the eastern portion of the subject land to be rezoned to facilitate the
development of a full line supermarket”. This view was reiterated in the submission on
behalf of the proponent which concluded:
There is therefore significant strategic support for the rezoning of 32 Murradoc
Road to Commercial 1 Zone, and for the development of a supermarket on the
Land. The specific support for the proposal within the Scheme (upon gazettal)
will not be qualified by any question of timing, and the contents of the Scheme
cannot be outweighed by the contents of any reference document.
The opposing submission on behalf of Dalgo and Libnom noted that while the subject site
has recently been validated for future rezoning, “it is clear that the strategic support for the
rezoning of the Land is based upon this taking place in the future, and certainly not now”.
(iii) Clause 22.03 – Assessment Criteria for Retail Planning Applications
This local policy sets out retail assessment criteria to be used as a basis for considering
applications for new or expanded retail floor space. The Explanatory Report stated that “the
information submitted to support the Amendment and Permit, particularly with an updated
economic impact assessment that captures the Jetty Road NAC, is considered appropriate”.
Council advised that it commissioned a peer review of the submitted Economic Assessment
prepared in support of the exhibited proposal. It noted that the policy requires that
applications for new centres to “respond to retail need” is difficult in the context of the
current Coles application given that “the subject land is in the Town Centre, two-thirds
appropriately zoned (i.e in the C1Z were the use is as-of-right), and at a location identified for
a supermarket in the Geelong Planning Scheme”. Having noted this, the Council submission
concluded:
Ultimately Council considers that the proposed Coles will deliver a clear net
community benefit. It will reinforce the role of the Drysdale Town Centre as the
largest centre serving the northern Bellarine. It will improve competition and
choice in the food and grocery sector. It will create more long and short term
employment. It will be convenient and accessible for all trade area residents
whether they visit on foot, by bicycle by car or by public bus. It will also help
stimulate the redevelopment of Murradoc Road, which not only is planned for a
range of retail and commercial uses, but includes beautification works to
Murradoc Road itself and the replacement of the central roundabout with
signals.
Page 11 of 30
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
The submission on behalf of the proponent noted that that are many issues to consider in
the assessment of retail need:
Given the lack of a Coles supermarket on the northern Bellarine, compared with
three Woolworths, there is a clear retail need for a Coles supermarket in
Drysdale/Clifton Springs. This is emphasised in the high level of support for the
proposal from the local community.
The opposing submission from Dalgo and Libnom noted that the impact assessments do not
adequately demonstrate that there is a “need” for additional retail floorspace. It considered
that it has not been adequately demonstrated that approval of the proposal will not
adversely impact on the retail hierarchy; and that the proposal will provide a clear net
community benefit.
3.2
Other Planning Strategies
Council submitted that the Amendment and Planning Permit Application are supported by
the following other planning strategies.
(i)
Drysdale Clifton Springs Structure Plan
The Drysdale Clifton Springs Structure Plan was prepared by the City of Greater Geelong and
adopted in September 2010, and is a reference document at Clause 21.14. Council
submitted that the key influences relevant to the Coles proposal drawn from Section 2.0 of
the Structure Plan include:
 Drysdale Clifton Springs is a designated growth area
 There is a need to ensure retail growth is consistent with the established
retail hierarchy
 Drysdale Clifton Springs will continue to receive strong population growth
 The town has a single retail centre which provides retail and community
facilities for the town and also the surrounding rural hinterland
 Traffic congestion issues at key transport points such as the Geelong –
Portarlington roundabout and along High Street
 There is a demand for additional retail floor space, including another
supermarket.
Section 3.3.3 of the Structure Plan discusses retail land use directions. It notes that it is
important that the Town Centre remains the focal point for commercial development within
Drysdale Clifton Springs to help foster vitality and avoid fragmentation of uses and activities.
Council’s submission acknowledged that the Structure Plan conceded that another
supermarket may be viable, but may result in adverse impacts to the Drysdale Town Centre
and Jetty Road, therefore an economic impact assessment would be required to justify any
proposal. Further, Part B of the Structure Plan states that further strategic works is to be
undertaken to “Develop and implement an Urban Design Framework for the Drysdale Town
Centre, including the Business 4 zoned land along Murradoc Road”.
Council concluded that it was satisfied that the proposal is generally consistent with the
intent of the Drysdale Clifton Springs Structure Plan. It said that the weight that should be
afforded to the key imperatives of the Structure Plan should be guided by its status as a
Page 12 of 30
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
Reference Document (The Panel notes that the Structure Plan was prepared in 2010, and it
has been further advanced by the 2012 Drysdale Urban Design Framework and the 2014
Amendment C283).
The submission on behalf of the proponent noted that the Drysdale Clifton Springs Structure
Plan states that “other than a small scale commercial area (local centre) with the Jetty Road
Urban Growth Area the focus of retailing should remain the Town Centre”. The proponent
highlighted that the Structure Plan clearly states the importance of the Drysdale Town
Centre as a “focal point for commercial development within Drysdale Clifton Springs to help
foster vitality and avoid fragmentation of uses and activities”.
The opposing submission on behalf of Dalgo and Libnom highlighted various references in
the 2010 Drysdale Clifton Springs Structure Plan that indicate that a large supermarket may
not be viable for some time in the Drysdale Town Centre. Based on these references the
submission argued that “it is reasonable for the community to expect that Council will follow
the course articulated in the Structure Plan, namely that if Aldi goes ahead that a further
large supermarket would not be required for some time”.
(ii)
Drysdale Urban Design Framework
The Drysdale Urban Design Framework was prepared by the City of Greater Geelong and
adopted in August 2012. The Structure Plan is a Reference Document at Clause 21.14 of the
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme having been implemented via gazettal of Amendment
C283. The Urban Design Framework includes a ‘Part A. Urban Design Framework’, a ‘Part B.
Background Report’ and a ‘Part C. Appendix Enquiry by Design Report’.
The objectives of the Drysdale Urban Design Framework are to:
 Improve the functionality of the centre by providing guidance on future
growth and development, built form, streetscapes, traffic and pedestrian
movements, car parking and land use.
 Provide a vision for how the place might develop, provide flexible design
principles and recommend improvements to existing infrastructure and
functionality of the town.
Council’s submission noted that the Urban Design Framework includes a number of key
directions and recommendations that are directly relevant to this Application. Objective
Number 15 in the Drysdale Urban Design Framework Plan (Refer Figure 6) includes the
following reference to the subject site:
Support the development of large format retail on this site (supermarket).
In relation to this designation, Council’s submission reiterated:
What is clear (and has not been opposed in any submission) is that the location
for a new supermarket identified in the UDF is entirely consistent with the site of
the current Coles proposal.
A number of urban design and traffic considerations are also articulated in the Urban Design
Framework. The consistency of the proposal with these elements are discussed in Chapter 5
of this Report.
Page 13 of 30
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
Figure 6:
Drysdale Urban Design Framework
Page 14 of 30
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
3.3
(i)
Zones and Overlays
Zones
Two thirds of the site (the western portion) is currently included in the Commercial 1 Zone.
The remaining one third (the eastern portion at 32 Murradoc Road) is included in the
Commercial 2 Zone. A purpose of the Commercial 1 Zone is to “create vibrant mixed use
commercial centres for retail, office, business, entertainment and community uses”. A
supermarket is included within the definition of ‘shop’ in the Planning Scheme which is a
Section 1 use in the Commercial 1 Zone, provided the leasable floor area for all shops does
not exceed any amount specified in the Schedule to the Zone. As there is no amount of
leasable floor area specified for the site in the Schedule to the Zone, the use is ‘as of right’
and does not require a planning permit within the Commercial 1 Zone.
A purpose of the Commercial 2 Zone is to “encourage areas for offices, appropriate
manufacturing and industries, bulky goods retailing, other retail uses, and associated
business and commercial services”. As a result of the recently approved Amendment VC123,
a supermarket in the Commercial 2 Zone is a Section 1 use subject to the leasable floor area
not exceeding 1800 square metres. Approval of a supermarket with a floor area greater
than 1800 square metres can now be considered.
Council and the proponent agreed that having the whole site within the one zone is
desirable and that the Commercial 1 Zone is the most appropriate zone for the development
of the site for a supermarket.
(ii)
Overlays
With approval of Amendment C283, the subject land is covered by Schedule 33 to the Design
and Development Overlay (DDO33 – Drysdale Town Centre). The schedule includes the
following buildings and works requirements for the site:
 Development should be setback 12 metres from Murradoc Road to allow for
future road widening and the construction of a service road.
 Any additional car parking areas should be integrated with the car parking
layout associated with the existing supermarket.
Council advised it is satisfied that the plans accompanying the Permit Application adequately
respond to these design requirements.
3.4
Strategic Assessment
The Panel considers the most relevant aspects of State Planning Policy to consideration of
the Amendment are the Activity Centres Policy at Clause 11.01 and the Commercial Policy at
Clause 17. The Panel notes that Clause 11 includes the following policy statement “Support
the role and function of the centre given its classification”. Relevant strategies under Clause
11.02 include “Undertake strategic planning for the use and development of land in and
around the Activity Centres” and “Give clear direction in relation to preferred locations for
investment”. Clause 17 reiterates this policy position by stating that commercial facilities are
to be located in existing or planned activity centres.
Page 15 of 30
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
The Panel accepts that Council has undertaken extensive strategic planning to guide the
development of its activity centres, and its activity centre hierarchy as required by State
Planning Policy. The Panel acknowledges that the Drysdale Clifton Springs Town Centre is
the highest order activity centre in the northern Bellarine Peninsula. There is agreement
that the subject site is within the commercial core of the Drysdale Town Centre, albeit on
the eastern edge of the core. The Panel acknowledges that the commercial core is
expanding to the east. Given these circumstances, the Panel considers that the proposed
rezoning and development of a Coles supermarket on the subject land responds positively to
State Planning Policy that encourages planning to “support the role and function of the
centre given its classification”.
Subject to other relevant planning considerations, as a matter of principle the Panel accepts
the submissions by Council and the planning evidence and submissions of the proponent
that construction of the proposed Coles supermarket on the subject site in the commercial
core will strengthen the regional and local service role of the Town Centre. This outcome is
consistent with State activity centre and commercial planning policy.
In relation to the strategic direction provided the Local Planning Policy Framework contained
in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, the Panel considers that the proposal has strong
strategic support, particularly with the modifications to Clause 21.14 approved via the
gazettal of Amendment C283 during the course of the Hearing. The strategies listed at
Clause 21.14-2, under Drysdale/Clifton Springs, now include the following reference to the
subject site:
 Reinforce the Drysdale Town Centre as the primary retail centre including the
development of an additional supermarket on the south side of Murradoc
Road.
In support of this strategy, the Drysdale/Clifton Springs Structure Plan Map at Clause 21.1410 has been modified by Amendment C283. The subject site now has the following
annotation ‘Town Centre Expansion – Rezone to Commercial 1’. Importantly, the revised and
updated LPPF does not include time constraints on the rezoning, either implied or specified.
The above policy directions contained in the Local Planning Policy Framework have been
distilled from the Drysdale Urban Design Framework (adopted by Council in August 2012)
and to a lesser degree from the Drysdale Clifton Springs Structure Plan (September 2010).
The Panel accepts Council’s submission and the planning evidence and submission on behalf
of the proponent that Drysdale Urban Design Framework is unambiguous in its support for
the development of a large format supermarket on the subject land. The proposal’s
response to a number of urban design and traffic initiatives outlined in the Urban Design
Framework are discussed in Chapters 5 and 6 of this Report.
The Panel concludes that the State and Local Planning Policy Framework of the Greater
Geelong Planning Scheme provides strong strategic planning policy support for both
Amendment C297 and Planning Permit Application 765/2013. Further, the Panel accepts
that it is desirable for the subject site to be within one commercial zone, and that the most
appropriate commercial zone for a commercial core of a town, and the most appropriate
commercial zone to accommodate a supermarket, is the Commercial 1 Zone.
Page 16 of 30
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
Having observed the above, the Panel accepts the submissions by Mr Tweedie for Dalgo and
Libnom that the impact of the proposal (and in particular the timing of its development) on
the functioning of the Jetty Road NAC and the broader retail hierarchy are relevant planning
considerations. This matter is addressed in Chapter 4.
Page 17 of 30
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
4
Impact on the Jetty Road NAC
4.1
The Issue
The issue is whether the approval of the proposal at this time will cause an unacceptable
impact on the retail hierarchy, and in particular on the development and functioning of the
Jetty Road NAC.
4.2
(i)
Evidence and Submissions
Greater Geelong City Council
The submission by Mr Schembri highlighted that Council does not accept the submissions on
behalf of Dalgo and Libnom and the other two submissions (Submission 11 and Submission
12) which expressed concern and opposition for the proposal on economic grounds. The
submission stated:
The opposing arguments presented by Dalgo and Libnom and others are rejected.
The number of positive submissions from local residents demonstrates strong
support for the new supermarket. The two traders that are concerned about
impacts on small businesses need to be weighed against the many other traders
who do not oppose the Amendment. The fact that neither Woolworths nor ALDI
– the main competitors to Coles – also do not object is compelling.
Further the submission stated:
Council takes exception to the submission of Dalgo and Libnom where it asserts:
A substantial investment has been made by the community in the Jetty Road
Growth Area. That investment has been predicated on assumptions including
that a supermarket and specialty shop would be able to be established within the
Activity Centre without the economic impact that would be occasioned if a third
supermarket in the Drysdale Town Centre was permitted prematurely.
There is no policy or strategy or even reference to such a claim in the Greater
Geelong Planning Scheme. In fact the opposite is the case – planning for the Jetty
Road Growth Area always envisaged an activity centre to primarily serve future
residents of the growth area.
Council’s submission concluded that the proposed Amendment and Coles supermarket will
deliver a clear net community benefit by:
1. Reinforcing the role of the Drysdale Town Centre as the largest centre serving
the northern Bellarine;
2. Improving competition and choice in the food and grocery sector and offering
better services for trade area residents;
3. Creating more long and short term employment;
4. Providing a convenient and accessible destination for all trade area residents
whether they visit on foot, by bicycle, by car or by public bus;
5. Maximizing the provision of car parking availability for Town Centre
customers;
Page 18 of 30
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
6. Delivering a contemporary and functional design and built form that
appropriately addresses Murradoc Road and the ALDI store;
7. Stimulating the redevelopment of the business corridor along Murradoc Road;
and
8. Not unreasonably impacting on the role of the Jetty Road NAC, which, with an
anchor supermarket currently under construction will conveniently serve local
residents of the growth area.
Council called and relied upon the economic evidence of Mr Tim Nott. In relation to impact
on the retail hierarchy Mr Nott’s witness statement concluded that:
The Coles proposal does not appear likely to challenge the role of the existing
centres in the trade area or elsewhere.
In reaching the above conclusion, Mr Nott expressed concern regarding the impact of the
proposal on the Jetty Road NAC. He made the following observation:
I estimate that the Jetty Road NAC would suffer a loss of around 16% in total
retail sales compared with what is currently anticipated. This is significant and
could mean that the investment as currently planned would not proceed.
Having expressed concern that the proposed Coles development may negatively impact on
investment at the Jetty Road NAC, Mr Nott suggested the following possible remedial action:
To mitigate the impact of the Coles development, it may be possible to stage the
growth of the activity centre serving the Jetty Road Growth Area, starting with a
local centre and developing a supermarket facility in increments to match the
growing neighbourhood demand.
When questioned further on the issue of staging, Mr Nott expressed the opinion that if a
choice had to be made, investment in a new supermarket located in the Town Centre should
take priority over the development of a supermarket at the Jetty Road NAC at this time. He
argued that it would be appropriate to prioritise investment in the Town Centre particularly
given that the prime retail role of the Jetty Road NAC is to serve the convenience shopping
needs of the growth area which has not yet developed. Mr Nott clarified that he agreed that
it was unlikely that the Woolworths supermarket currently being constructed in the Jetty
Road NAC would close as a result of the development of a Coles supermarket in the Town
Centre. Mr Nott agreed with the proposition put by Ms Brennan that “Woolworths have
made a commercial decision ‘to go early’ before sufficient population has established in the
growth area to support it”. In accepting this proposition, Mr Nott stated that supermarket
operators often are willing to trade below average performance rates early in a store’s life in
order to establish market presence and develop brand loyalty.
Further, Mr Nott expressed the opinion that if the Amendment and Coles proposal was
delayed, there is “a potential danger” that the Jetty Road NAC will unbalance the retail
hierarchy, in that the largest supermarket in the trade area will be located at the lower order
centre. He noted that this outcome “would potentially create confusion for investors” and
may result in a shifting of specialities away from the Town Centre to the lower order NAC.
Mr Nott reiterated that a shift of the butcher, baker, pharmacist or newsagent from the
Town Centre to the Jetty Road NAC would “be a bad outcome for the Town Centre and
Page 19 of 30
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
Catchment” and that ultimately such stores “will be needed in both locations”. Mr Nott
agreed with Ms Brennan that a new full line supermarket in Drysdale Town Centre will
improve competition compared to a new supermarket in Jetty Road and that “the
introduction of Coles will help re-balance the retail hierarchy that will be caused by having
the largest supermarket in the trade area being located at the Jetty Road NAC”.
(ii)
The Proponent - Coles
In discussing economic impacts, Ms Brennan agreed that development of a Coles
supermarket on the subject site in the Town Centre will have an economic impact on local
traders including the Woolworths store in the Town Centre and the Woolworths store that
will then be operating at Jetty Road. In noting that there will be an impact on these traders,
Ms Brennan noted that the current Woolworths store is currently trading at approximately
$16,000 per square metre, which is almost double the Australian average.
In respect of the issue of timing of development, Ms Brennan submitted that:
It was Woolworths choice to commence construction of a second and bigger fullline supermarket in the Jetty Road growth area, well ahead of a supportable
population within that growth area and in direct competition with the incumbent
Woolworths. That was not a situation that strategic planning for the Jetty Road
NAC had contemplated.
Ms Brennan submitted that it is not the role of the planning system to protect and entrench
one commercial operator, noting Woolworths has made a fully informed commercial
investment decision to consolidate its presence in the market ahead of a supportable trade
area catchment. The submission highlighted that Fabcot/Woolworths has not made a
submission to Amendment C297 nor objected to the Application.
On the issue of competition, Ms Brennan submitted:
It is critical to note that none of the retail economists projects the closure of
either the Drysdale or Jetty Road Woolworths supermarkets.
The question then becomes what will be the economic impact on specialty stores,
both from the Coles proposal going ahead and the Coles proposal being refused.
…
The evidence is clear that there are very few specialty shops in Drysdale Town
Centre that will directly or even indirectly compete with Coles. Even on Mr
Duane's analysis, the potential impact on non-supermarket trading within
Drysdale Town Centre is considerably less than 10% (cf the 10-15% impact in
Fabcot v Hawkesbury).
The greater risk is that, upon opening of the Jetty Road Woolworths, existing
specialty stores in Drysdale will seek to relocate to Jetty Road.
Further, Ms Brennan highlighted that as there is no Coles supermarket in Drysdale Clifton
Springs, and residents seeking to shop at a Coles have to travel to Leopold or Ocean Grove.
She said:
Page 20 of 30
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
In contrast, there are Woolworths supermarkets at Drysdale, Jetty Road (under
construction), Portarlington, Leopold and Ocean Grove. At 3,200 square metres,
the Woolworths at Jetty Road will be the biggest supermarket on the northern
Bellarine.
The submission emphasised that 16 submissions were lodged in support of the proposal and
that this level of support “is a clear indicator” of the lack of competition in the retail sector
on the northern Bellarine and a desire of local residents to shop at the Town Centre. Ms
Brennan highlighted that if the proposed Coles development does not proceed, competition
will be stifled and the retail hierarchy will be threatened given that the Jetty Road NAC will
have the largest supermarket in the trade area, with convenient access, and may result in a
shift of speciality retail investment. She submitted that this outcome “undoubtedly has the
potential to undermine the role and function of the Drysdale Town Centre”.
Ms Brennan reiterated that the Coles proposal offers a significant investment within the
higher-order centre in the retail hierarchy, and submitted that such investment will:
a) reinforce the role of the Town Centre in the retail centre hierarchy;
b) reduce escape expenditure from the Town Centre;
c) counter the inevitable economic impact (in the order of 10% as
estimated by Mr Duane) of the Jetty Road Woolworths and associated
specialties;
d) prevent specialty stores from relocating out of Drysdale to the Jetty
Road NAC, where the Woolworths will otherwise be the biggest
supermarket on the northern Bellarine;
e) lessen travel times and therefore energy use;
f) create local jobs; and
g) give existing customers of the Drysdale Town Centre a reason to
continue using that centre for their primary retail needs.
Accordingly, Ms Brennan contended that the range of economic and social benefits
outweighs the short-term economic impacts on Jetty Road NAC. She emphasised that it is
very significant and highly relevant to note that the primary trade area for the Jetty Road
NAC is the Jetty Road Growth Area, and the level of development in that growth area is not
yet sufficient to support the retail offer developing in the NAC. Despite this, Ms Brennan
contended that Woolworths was content to establish a presence in the growth area early for
commercial reasons, consistent with its past investment strategies. Ms Brennan concluded:
The economic impact of Amendment C297 and the Application on the Jetty Road
NAC is one consideration among many. No retail economists predict the closure
of any competing supermarket, and Woolworths and ALDI have not objected.
Rather than simply considering the economic impact of the proposed Coles being
developed, the Panel also needs to consider the impact of the proposal not going
ahead. A refusal has far greater implications for the economic health of Drysdale
Town Centre, and for the integrity of Council’s retail hierarchy, than does an
approval.
Page 21 of 30
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
Further, the proposal offers competition, convenience, choice, a revitalised entry
point to Drysdale Town Centre and the integration with residential land to the
south.
It offers a net community benefit for the current and future residents of
Drysdale/Clifton Springs and beyond.
The proponent called and relied upon the economic evidence of Mr Haratsis. Mr Haratsis
opined that no supermarket will close as a result of the proposed Coles supermarket
commencing trade. He predicted that all supermarkets would trade at levels in excess of
$7,700 per square metres. When challenged on this projection, Mr Haratsis conceded that
even if trading levels for the Woolworths store at Jetty Road fell to $6,000 per square metres
for two years upon Coles entering the market, it would survive and trade through this period
while its primary trade area within the Jetty Road growth area established. Further, he
stated that the existing Woolworths in the Drysdale Town Centre is likely to remain
“underinvested” if the Coles is not developed, due to lack of competition which would
enable Woolworths to maintain its “full-line supermarket monopoly” on the Bellarine
Peninsula.
Mr Haratsis reiterated his opinion that development of the Coles supermarket in Drysdale at
this time represents a net community benefit to the broader Drysdale-Clifton Springs area
and Bellarine Peninsula, as it will enhance the role and function of the Town Centre which
has primacy in the retail hierarchy.
The evidence statement of Mr Haratsis noted that the development of Woolworths at the
Jetty Road NAC at this time has not been undertaken on the basis of economic need, and
that it will undoubtedly draw expenditure away from the Town Centre to the lower order
Jetty Road NAC.
Mr Haratsis concluded that the proposed Coles supermarket will “generate fair competition,
choice for local residents (of the Bellarine peninsula) and will underpin a larger and more
vibrant Drysdale Town Centre”.
(iii) Dalgo and Libnom
A detailed overview of the background to the Jetty Road NAC was provided in the
submission on behalf of the Dalgo and Libnom. Mr Tweedie explained that on 22 January
2013, the City of Greater Geelong Council issued Planning Permit 584/2012 which allowed
for the development of a full line 3,200 square metre supermarket and 11 speciality shops
(totalling an area of 1,244 square metres) at the Jetty Road NAC. Mr Tweedie advised that
“construction of the approved supermarket has commenced and it is expected that the
supermarket will commence trading on 4 August 2015”.
The opposing submission from Mr Tweedie advanced the view that approval of the
Amendment would have unacceptable economic and social impacts on the Jetty Road NAC
and the Drysdale Town Centre. Further Dalgo and Libnom considered that approval of the
proposal would prejudice the retail hierarchy by prejudicing the ability of the Jetty Road NAC
to properly fulfil its role in that hierarchy, and that the centre’s “vibrancy and viability”
would be negatively impacted.
Page 22 of 30
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
Dalgo and Libnom called and relied upon the economic evidence of Mr Duane of Location IQ.
Mr Duane concluded that there is only sufficient demand for one additional full-line
supermarket in the Drysdale catchment over the period to 2018. He considered that the
ability for a further full-line supermarket is unlike to accrue until after 2021 at the earliest.
In respect of economic impact from the proposed Coles supermarket, his evidence
concluded that the trading impact would be particularly high on the Jetty Road NAC and on
the Drysdale Plaza specialty stores in the Town Centre. In noting this, he stated:
Although Woolworths are unlikely to close at either of these locations, the impact
on speciality stores and the provision of facilities for residents in the immediate
Jetty Road region would be reduced as a result of the inability to lease speciality
(stores). This will impact on choice, convenience and completion for the Jetty
Road growth area residents as well as residents in the broader Drysdale/Clifton
Springs urban area.
In response to questions from the other parties and the Panel, Mr Duane expanded upon his
conclusions. He acknowledged that the Jetty Road NAC full line Woolworths supermarket
currently being constructed would have at least 12 months trading to establish its market
position without additional competition from Coles, and that once the full line Coles
supermarket opened, trading levels at the Woolworths Jetty Road NAC could drop to
approximately $6,000 square metres. While Mr Duane indicated that this is a low trading
figure, he reiterated his conclusion that it would be unlikely that the Jetty Road NAC would
close even if it was experiencing low trading figures, because, in the longer term, with the
continued development of the growth area, the Jetty Road Woolworths and the NAC as a
whole would be viable.
Further, Mr Duane acknowledged that it is common for supermarket operators to establish a
market presence “early” in order to establish a customer base and market share. Mr Duane
accepted that the most likely economic impact on the Jetty Road NAC from approval of the
proposal would be on the capacity for the Jetty Road NAC to fully let and maintain tenants in
the proposed 11 speciality stores. He was not prepared to specify how many of the
specialities would remain vacant and for how long, but rather observed that there would
likely be vacancies and a churn of tenants.
Mr Duane accepted that the main competitive trading impact on the Jetty Road NAC would
be a period of approximately two years and that the hierarchy of centres in the trade area
would not be impacted by the approval of the Coles supermarket on the subject site. In
respect of the retail hierarchy, Mr Duane accepted that the Drysdale Town Centre is a higher
level in the hierarchy compared with the Jetty Road NAC. Further, the Greater Geelong
Planning Scheme does not impose a floorspace cap on the Town Centre, whereas there is a
cap of 6,000 square metres on the Jetty Road NAC. In response to questions regarding
competition, Mr Duane acknowledged that residents and consumers will benefit from the
retail competition arising from Coles entering the market and from improved choice.
Page 23 of 30
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
4.3
Discussion
With respect to the economic impacts and the likely impact of the proposed development
on the retail hierarchy, the Panel notes that all economic witnesses agreed that:
 The Drysdale Clifton Springs Town Centre is a higher order centre compared to the
Jetty Road NAC
 While development of the proposed Coles supermarket will impact trading levels of
existing supermarkets in the short term, it is unlikely to result in the closure of any
supermarket in the trade area
 Neither Woolworths nor Aldi have opposed the proposed development of the Coles
supermarket on the subject site.
Further, all economic witnesses agreed that the most significant impact arising from
approval of the Coles proposal is likely to be that it will be difficult for the Jetty Road NAC to
secure and retain a full contingent of 11 speciality shops in the first two years of the centre’s
operation. The Panel acknowledges that this outcome may affect the “vibrancy and vitality”
of the centre as put by Mr Tweedie, but it does not accept that on this basis approval of the
Coles supermarket in the Town Centre should be delayed. The Panel accepts the evidence
that the likely churn in tenants at the Jetty Road NAC, and the possible inability to attract
key speciality anchors will be a short-term issue for the centre. Further the Panel is satisfied
that the Jetty Road NACs likely under performance will be turned around once a sustainable
trade area population is reached in the Jetty Road Growth Area.
The Panel agrees with both Council and the proponent that the development of the
proposed Coles supermarket on the subject site will strengthen the function and vitality of
the Town Centre. If the proposed development was delayed as requested by Mr Tweedie,
there is a threat that investment in the speciality stores may shift from the Town Centre to
the Jetty Road NAC given that it would host the largest supermarket in the catchment, be a
new retail offer and accordingly would attract a high percentage of trade from the Town
Centre. The Panel agrees with submissions and evidence that this would be an undesirable
outcome for the Town Centre.
Having considered the economic matters, the Panel is satisfied that facilitating the
development of a Coles supermarket in the Town Centre at this time will not compromise
the role and function of any centre in the retail hierarchy, and that the proposed Coles
development will represent a net community benefit for residents and consumers.
4.4
Conclusions
The Panel concludes that the development of a full-line Coles supermarket on the subject
site, at this time, is strategically justified and warranted. Based on the economic evidence
presented and tested during the Hearing, the Panel is satisfied that approval of the proposed
Coles supermarket will strengthen the role and function of the Drysdale Clifton Springs Town
Centre. Further, the Panel is satisfied that the role and function of the Jetty Road NAC will
not be compromised by the development of the proposed Coles supermarket in the Town
Centre although the trading performance of the Woolworths supermarket at Jetty Road may
likely be affected in the short term.
Page 24 of 30
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
In reaching this conclusion the Panel notes that all economic witnesses agreed that the
Woolworths supermarket at the Jetty Road NAC will not be jeopardised by approval of the
Coles supermarket, although some of the accompanying speciality stores are likely to
experience high vacancy levels in the short term. All witnesses agreed that the Jetty Road
NAC has a thriving and vibrant future.
The Panel is satisfied that approval of Amendment C297 and the accompanying Planning
Permit Application 765/2013 will facilitate a retail outcome that will improve retail
competition for residents on the Bellarine Peninsula and also strengthen Geelong’s retail
hierarchy. The Panel accepts the submissions of Council and the proponent that
development of a full-line supermarket on the subject site will represent a net community
benefit.
Page 25 of 30
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
5
Traffic and Urban Design Issues
5.1
The Issue
Concern was expressed in some submissions that the development of a large supermarket
on the subject site would cause unacceptable local traffic impacts, and was inconsistent with
a number of the urban design initiatives outlined in the Drysdale Urban Design Framework.
5.2
Evidence and Submissions
Council’s submission noted the four submissions that expressed concerns relating to traffic
impacts. In doing so, it observed that three of the four submissions were from local Town
Centre traders and the fourth was from Dalgo and Libnom, a landowner at the Jetty Road
NAC.
Council highlighted that the proponent submitted a Traffic and Transport Assessment in May
2014 that concluded, among other things, that “the level of traffic generated by the proposal
is considered to be low in traffic engineering terms and is expected to have no significant
effect on traffic conditions”. Further, Council noted:
The application was referred to VicRoads as the responsible authority of
Murradoc Road (being a Road Zone Category 1). VicRoads advised that it had no
objection to the proposed rezoning and planning permit application given its
conditions were included on Permit 765/2014.
VicRoads has more recently advised on 23 October 2014 that it is preparing a
Drysdale Road Network Planning Study to investigate suitable options to deal
with the traffic and amenity issues within the Township and surrounding areas.
This includes investigating a bypass option of Drysdale within the existing Public
Acquisition Overlay …
VicRoads are now developing a business case, which, when completed in late
2015 will recommend funding options for consideration by the Victorian
Government.
In response to the traffic concerns raised by submitters, Council reiterated that VicRoads is
currently undertaking the Drysdale Road Network Planning Study and that the 2012 Drysdale
Urban Design Framework identifies a signalised intersection will ultimately replace the
roundabout at High Street/Clifton Springs Road/Murradoc Road.
Widening and
improvements to Murradoc Road are also planned for the future.
On this issue, Council concluded:
As is often the case in towns experiencing strong growth, the lack of supporting
infrastructure as the population grows is a major issue for residents and traders.
The existing poorly integrated road network of the town also contributes to the
current conditions. However, delaying the construction of the proposed Coles
supermarket will not resolve the existing traffic problems. A new supermarket
may actually increase pressure on Government and authorities to address the
fundamental road network challenges in the Drysdale area.
Page 26 of 30
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
The Coles application is supported by a traffic assessment by Cardno. The
assessment concludes that the level of traffic generated by the proposal is
expected to have no significant effect on traffic conditions. As the responsible
authority for both Murradoc Road and High Street, VicRoads has not objected to
the proposed rezoning and permit subject to conditions to remove redundant
crossovers and construct new crossovers.
There is no expert evidence presented at this Hearing to dispute the Cardno
assessment.
Mr de Young from GTA Consultants submitted a traffic engineering and transport planning
expert witness statement on behalf of the proponent. In relation to issues raised by the
opposing submitters, Mr de Young’s evidence statement concluded:
i.
I do not share the views that a north-south road link is required or that it
should be pursued through the site;
ii.
I do not consider that sufficient need, nexus or equity exists to require the
upgrade of pedestrian crossings at the Collins Street/High Street/Murradoc
Road/Clifton Springs Road roundabout as part of the proposed
development.
iii.
I do not agree with the view that the assessment of the planning permit
application should be postponed until the outcomes of the VicRoads
Network Planning Study are known; and
iv.
I do not agree that the proposed on-site car parking provision is insufficient.
Mr de Young was not called to support his evidence as neither Council nor Dalgo and Libnom
contested his evidence. As noted in Section 3.1.1 (ii), Mr Tweedie stated that, while his
client’s submission to the exhibited proposal raised a number of urban design, car parking
and traffic issues, “these matters were no longer being pursued as they are not considered to
be determinative”.
Ms Brennan reiterated that her client relied on the evidence of Mr de Young and that
“VicRoads did not object to Amendment C297 and the Application” and that “the proposed
design is also in accordance with the relevant objectives and requirements of DDO33”.
While Dalgo and Libnom did not seek to pursue traffic or urban design issues during the
course of the Hearing, the Panel acknowledges that Submissions No 12, 13 and 14 raised
traffic concerns. Their primary traffic concerns were that the proposed development will
have major detrimental impact on local traffic flows. In particular, the functioning of the
roundabout will be compromised at peak times associated with school drop off and pick-up.
Further, Submission No 14 noted that VicRoads are assessing the traffic situation in Drysdale
and therefore the supermarket should be delayed until infrastructure improvements are
completed.
In respect of the Dalgo and Libnom submission that:
 the development was inconsistent with the Drysdale Urban Design Framework
particularly given the absence of a north-south road connection
 car parking being located primarily to the front of the Coles site instead of within the
site as intended by the UDF
 alleged poor pedestrian connectivity with the Town Centre.
Page 27 of 30
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
Council submitted that:
There were no opposing submissions by adjoining and nearby landowners,
residents, traders, or shoppers of the Drysdale Town Centre on any of these
issues. This indicates general support for the design and location of the Coles
supermarket. The fact that ALDI – whose store will share access and car parking
with Coles and would be most affected by the development – has not lodged a
submission, clearly shows it is satisfied with the proposed design.
Again, no expert evidence been called at this Hearing to oppose the design.
5.3
Discussion
The Panel has considered the traffic and urban design issues raised in opposing submissions
as well as the Council, VicRoads and the proponent response to these. The Panel considers it
compelling that VicRoads as the responsible road authority for Murradoc Road did not
oppose the Amendment and is satisfied with the design of the proposed development and
the conditions contained on the Permit Application.
Having reviewed the evidence statement of Mr de Young, the Panel accepts his findings and
in particular the conclusion that a new north-south road on the subject land is not required.
In this regard the Panel notes that this finding is consistent with the finding of the Panel that
considered Amendment C283.
The Panel accepts that the Town Centre would benefit significantly from new investment in
its road infrastructure. Further the Panel does not consider that the proposed development
of a supermarket on the subject land should be delayed pending such public works.
5.4
Conclusions
The Panel is satisfied that the existing road network will adequately accommodate traffic
generated by the proposed development of the proposed supermarket on the subject land
and that the proposed Application responds appropriately to traffic and urban design
initiatives identified in the Drysdale Urban Design Framework.
Page 28 of 30
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
6
Planning Permit Conditions
6.1
The Issue
A revised Planning Permit was submitted by Council during the course of the Hearing which
included a number of additional conditions in response to submissions. The traffic and
planning evidence statements lodged on behalf of the proponent suggested further
conditions be added to the Planning Permit.
6.2
Evidence and Submissions
In respect of the proposed conditions on the Planning Permit Application, the traffic
evidence of Mr de Young noted:
 The proposed customer bicycle parking provision exceeds statutory requirements but it
is recommended that 6 staff bicycle parking spaces and 1 changeroom/shower should
be provided in accordance with statutory requirements.
 The proposed loading area exceeds statutory requirements and is considered to be
satisfactory although it is recommended that its use be managed such that 19m
articulated vehicles do not arrive during peak retail trading hours.
In respect of the proposed conditions, the town planning evidence of Mr McGurn noted:
In relation to the southern elevation of the proposal, I note that Condition 1 of
the draft planning permit requires some minor changes to the elevation including
future articulation and a decrease in height of that elevation to 7 metres (the
elevation currently proposed to have a maximum wall height of 8 metres).
I consider that further articulation along this elevation is justified given its
exposure to the residential area to the south. However, I do not believe that a
decrease in height to the elevation is necessary given the separation of the wall
from the south boundary of the site and the additional separation of the proposal
from the proposed residential lots to the south.
Council submitted that its revised Planning Permit tabled on Day 2 of the Hearing (Hearing
Document 31) accommodated a number of changes recommended by its Statutory Planning
Officers in response to their review of submissions. The key changes included:
 a new requirement for amended plans to show the treatment of the southern
elevation including landscaping
 revised wording of the drainage condition to include a minimum of 300mm freeboard
above the applicable 1% AEP peak flow flood level
 a revised condition regarding the landscaping and acoustic treatment of the loading
and deliveries area
 a new condition requiring lot consolidation of the three separate titles that comprise
the subject land.
Page 29 of 30
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
6.3
Discussion
Ms Brennan advised that her client did not oppose any of the revised conditions advanced
by Council in its updated version the Planning Permit. The Panel sought clarification if such
agreement extended to Council’s proposed reduction in height of the southern elevation of
the building to 7.0 metres. Ms Brennan confirmed that her client did not oppose Council’s
proposed 7.0 metre height limit. The Panel notes the proponent’s acceptance of Council’s
requirement.
Ms Brennan also confirmed that her client accepted the proposed additional requirements
advanced by Mr de Young.
Mr Schembri confirmed that Council supports the additional conditions regarding the
allocation of dedicated staff bicycle spaces, a staff change room with shower facilities as well
as a condition to manage access by articulated vehicles.
A round table discussion was facilitated by the Panel regarding how the revised conditions
should be worded. The Panel’s recommended version of the Planning Permit, including its
preferred wording of the new conditions is provided in Appendix C of this Report.
6.4
Conclusions and Recommendations
The Panel recommends:
1.
Adopt Amendment C297 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme as exhibited, and
replace the exhibited version of Planning Permit 765/2013 with the Panel
Recommended Version contained in Appendix C of this Report.
Page 30 of 30
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
Appendix A List of Submitters
No.
Submitter
1
R and G Allison
2
M Bellamy
3
Best Hooper for Dalgo Pty Ltd and Libnom Pty Ltd
4
D Blachford
5
A Brackley
6
Corangamite Catchment Management Authority
7
Country Fire Authority
8
Coles Group Property Developments Ltd
9
M and G Dennis
10
D Carson, Drysdale Clifton Springs Community Association
11
Tony Leahy, Drysdale Hotel
12
T Lloyd, Drysdale Newsagency
13
P Cramp and others, Drysdale Pharmacy
14
P Hommelhoff, Hommy’s Quality Meats
15
D Loader
16
S Pretty
17
Public Transport Victoria
18
J Roberts
19
J Sharp
20
VicRoads
Appendix A – List of Submitters - Page 1 of 1
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
Appendix B Hearing Document List
No. Date
Description
Tabled by
1
City of Greater Geelong Part A Submission
Mr Schembri
25/11/14
(Day 1)
2
“
Outline of Submission on behalf of Dalgo Pty Ltd and Libnom Pty Ltd
Mr Tweedie
3
“
KFC vs Gantidis and Another BC7900053
Mr Tweedie
4
“
Fabcot Pty Ltd v Hawkesbury City Council
Mr Tweedie
5
“
Clause 21.07 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme
Mr Tweedie
6
“
Clause 21.14 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme
Mr Tweedie
7
“
Clause 22.03 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme
Mr Tweedie
8
“
Authorisation Letter - No A1836, dated 29 Nov 2010
Mr Tweedie
9
“
Minutes of 28 June 2011 Ordinary Meeting – Amendment C188
Mr Tweedie
10
“
Approved Jetty Road Neighbourhood Activity Centre Master Plan, July
2011
Mr Tweedie
11
“
Planning Permit 584/2012 – 148-166 Jetty Road – ‘Development of land
for a Supermarket and 11 Shops…’
Mr Tweedie
12
“
Permit Application Plans – Planning Permit 584/2012
Mr Tweedie
13
“
Minutes of 23 March 2010 Ordinary Meeting – Amendment C194 –
Clifton Springs Structure Plan
Mr Tweedie
14
“
Economic Impact Assessment Tables from Mr Haratsis
Ms Brennan
15
“
Analysis of Mr Haratsis Tables by Mr Duane
Mr Tweedie
16
“
Extract from Statement of Evidence of Anthony Dimasi (March 2008) Re
Amendment C129
Ms Brennan
17
“
Extract from C129 Panel Report (June 2008)
Ms Brennan
Appendix B – Hearing Document List - Page 1 of 3
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
18
“
19
26/11/14
Jetty Road Urban Growth Plan Extract
Ms Brennon
Supermarket EIA, Feb 2013 (MacroPlan Dimasi)
Mr Tweedie
(Day 2)
20
“
Marked up Jetty Road Masterplan highlighting land ownership
Mr Tweedie
21
“
Bayview Estate Masterplan – Staging Plan
Mr Tweedie
22
“
City of Greater Geelong Main Submission
Mr Schembri
23
“
Minutes of 9 September 2014 Ordinary Council Meeting – Re:
Consideration of Amendment C283 Panel Report
Mr Smith
24
“
Amendment C283 Exhibition Material
Mr Smith
25
“
Letter from Tim Nott (9 April 2009) to Jani Chalmers - Comments on the
Drysdale Clifton Springs Structure Plan
Mr Tweedie
26
“
Letter from DMDA Development Advisory Re Draft Amendment C188
Mr Tweedie
27
“
A2 Version of Permit Plans
Mr Schembri
28
“
State Planning Policy Framework - Clause 10
Mr Schembri
29
“
Clause 21.03 Greater Geelong Planning Scheme
Mr Schembri
30
“
Planning Practice Note 13 (Oct 2013) Incorporated and Reference
Documents
Mr Schembri
31
“
Tracked Changes Version of Revised Draft Planning Permit No 765/2013
Mr Schembri
32
“
Brian Haratsis Statement of Evidence – List of Corrections
Ms Brennan
33
27/11/14
Meeting Correspondence – Nov 2012
Mr Schembri
(Day 3)
34
“
Amendment C188 Explanatory Report
Mr Tweedie
35
“
Schedule 20 to the Development Plan Overlay – Greater Geelong
Planning Scheme
Mr Tweedie
36
“
Submission on behalf of Coles Group Property Developments Ltd
Ms Brennan
Appendix B – Hearing Document List - Page 2 of 3
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
37
“
Drysdale Supermarket Economic Impact Statement, Feb 2013,
MacroPlan Dimasi
Ms Brennan
38
“
Map extracts from Amendment C129 to the Geelong Planning Scheme
Mr Tweedie
39
“
‘Timeline’ table
Mr Tweedie
Appendix B – Hearing Document List - Page 3 of 3
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
Appendix C Panel Recommended Version
Planning Permit No. 765/2013
of
Tracked Added
Tracked Deleted
PLANNING
PERMIT
Permit No.
765/2013
Planning Scheme
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme
Responsible Authority
Greater Geelong City Council
ADDRESS OF THE LAND
24-32 MURRADOC ROAD, DRYSDALE
THE PERMIT ALLOWS
BUILDINGS AND WORKS TO CONSTRUCT A SUPERMARKET,
REDUCTION OF THE STANDARD CAR PARKING
REQUIREMENTS, ERECTION AND DISPLAY OF BUSINESS
IDENTIFICATION SIGNAGE (INCLUDING ILLUMINATED
SIGNAGE), CREATION OF EASEMENT AND CREATION AND
ALTERATION OF ACCESS TO A ROAD IN A ROAD ZONE,
CATEGORY 1
GENERALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ENDORSED PLANS
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO THIS PERMIT:
PLANS
Amended plans
1. Prior to the commencement of the development, three (3) copies of amended plans to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible
Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.
The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and must be generally in accordance with the
plans dated 12 December 2013 but modified to show:
a) Any acoustic measures for the rooftop condenser recommended by the acoustic report in
Condition 5.
b) An arrangement of materials to provide further articulation along the southern elevation of
the building and decrease in the overall height of the wall to a maximum of 7.0 metres.
Appendix C – Panel Recommended Version of Planning Permit - Page 1 of 7
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
c) Provision of at least 15 bicycle parking spaces, including 6 spaces for staff, and provision of a
staff change room with shower facilities.
d) Lockable gate and fence controlling access to the area between the southern boundary and
the southern elevation of the building (adjacent to the pedestrian path).
e) Location of lighting within the car park and the entire length of the pedestrian pathway.
f) Plans showing the treatment of the southern elevation including landscaping.
Endorsed plans
2.
The development and creation of easement as shown on the endorsed plans must not be
altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
PRIOR TO WORKS COMMENCING
Engineering
3.
Prior to works commencing, detailed engineer designed drainage plans must be submitted to
the Responsible Authority for approval. The plans must show all proposed works internal and
external to the site and demonstrate compliance with relevant Council and Australian
Standards and include, unless otherwise approved by the Responsible Authority:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
On-site detention to limit site discharge to equivalent pre-development rates for
storm, events up to and including the critical 20-year ARI event;
Treatment measures (WSUD) to achieve current best practice pollutant removal
targets;
Provision for overland flow through the site, with the capacity for a 1% AEP peak
flow of 0.54m3/s and that the proposed finished floor level of the supermarket
(including the access points to the supermarket) have a minimum of 300mm
freeboard above the applicable 1% AEP peak flow flood level;
Connection to the existing easement drain located on the southern boundary;
Interim arrangements for the discharge of major flows to the abutting land to the
south;
Any alterations to linemarking and signage within the road reserves; and
Concrete footpath across the Murradoc Road frontage;
to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority
4.
Prior to the works commencing, a detailed Construction Management Plan must be submitted
to the Responsible Authority. The plan must have regard to relevant EPA publications and CCF
Environmental Guidelines for Civil Construction, and must detail measures to ensure:
a)
b)
Only clean rainwater is discharged to Council’s stormwater drainage system;
No solid waste, sediment, sand soil, clay or stones from the site enters the
stormwater drainage system, adjoining properties or accumulates on abutting
roads;
Appendix C – Panel Recommended Version of Planning Permit - Page 2 of 7
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
c)
d)
e)
Waterways and Council assets are protected from adverse impact. Details of
action to be undertaken should damage occur must be provided;
All machinery and equipment is cleaned on site, not on adjacent roads or
footpaths; and
All litter is contained on site.
All development works must be carried out in accordance with the endorsed Construction
Management Plan, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Acoustic Measures
5.
Prior to works commencing, an acoustic report prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic
engineer must be submitted to the Responsible Authority. The report must outline the
appropriate level of acoustic abatement required to ensure no unreasonable detriment occurs
to the adjacent residential interface as a result of the rooftop condenser and loading and
deliveries to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Protection of trees during construction
6.
Prior to the works commencing, tree protection zones must be established around the large
Eucalypt tree at the front of the site within the road reserve and the planted trees within the
adjoining property to the south. The tree protection zones must be suitably fenced, along the
alignment of the drip line of the trees to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
7.
Within the tree protection zones there must be no vehicular or pedestrian access, trenching or
soil excavation, storage of waste, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The tree
protection zones must be maintained throughout the development phase, to the satisfaction
of the Responsible Authority.
PRIOR TO THE OCCUPATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT
Section 173 Agreement
8.
Prior to the occupation of the development, the applicant must enter into an agreement under
Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 with the Responsible Authority. The
agreement must be in a form to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, and the
applicant must be responsible for the expense of the preparation and registration of the
agreement, including the Responsible Authority’s reasonable costs and expense (including
legal expenses) incidental to the preparation, registration and enforcement of the agreement.
The agreement must contain covenants to be registered on the Title of the property so as to
run with the land, and must provide for the following:
a)
That public access through the site from Murradoc Road to the residential land to the
south will be available at all times, in the form of the pedestrian path shown on the
endorsed plans.
b)
That the path will be maintained in a safe and traversable state, including the
installation of signage indicating access through to the adjoining residential area,
provision of lighting and pruning of adjacent plantings to a low level.
Appendix C – Panel Recommended Version of Planning Permit - Page 3 of 7
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
The agreement will be registered on Title in accordance with Section 181 of the Planning and
Environment Act 1987.
Engineering
9.
Unless otherwise approved by the Responsible Authority, prior to the occupation of the
development, the areas set aside for the parking of vehicles, access lanes and pedestrian paths
as shown on the endorsed plans must, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
Be constructed;
Be properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans;
Be surfaced with an all weather seal coat;
Be drained;
Be line marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes;
Be clearly marked to show the direction of traffic along access lanes and driveways;
Have signage installed for all designated staff car parking spaces, as shown on the
endorsed plans;
Have line markings (or some other treatment, as appropriate) undertaken to indicate
pedestrian priority at the points where the pedestrian pathways cross the vehicle access
ways; and
Be lit.
10.
Prior to the occupation of the development, all drainage and road construction works internal
and external to the site must be completed in accordance with the endorsed plans, at the
developer’s full cost, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
11.
Prior to the occupation of the development, a footpath must be constructed adjacent to the
site on Murradoc Road, in accordance with engineering plans approved by the Responsible
Authority, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
12.
Prior to the occupation of the development all vehicle crossings shall be constructed in
accordance with Council specifications. Any redundant crossings must be removed and
necessary reinstatement works undertaken to match the surrounding construction in the
street, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Pedestrian Path
13.
Prior to the occupation of the development, the internal pedestrian path must be constructed
to the southern boundary. A temporary barrier must be installed at the southern boundary to
restrict pedestrian movement to the residential land to the south until such time that the land
to the immediate south is developed.
Completion of landscaping
14.
Prior to the occupation of the development, the landscaping works as shown on the endorsed
plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Appendix C – Panel Recommended Version of Planning Permit - Page 4 of 7
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
Waste Management
15.
Prior to the occupation of the development, a waste management plan must be submitted to
and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plan must provide details of a regular
garbage collection service to each of the uses on the subject land, including information
regarding the type of refuse bins, type/size of trucks, means of accessing bins and frequency of
refuse collection, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Once approved, the plan
must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority
Walls on boundaries
16.
Prior to occupation of the development all external walls on or facing property boundaries
must be cleaned and finished to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
GENERAL
Loading
17.
Prior to the occupation of the development, an appropriate acoustic screen shall be
constructed around the loading and deleveries deliveries area as per the recommendation of
the report of a suitably qualified acoustic engineer, as required by condition 5 and to
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
18.
Prior to the occupation of the development an articulated vehicle operational management
plan, that specifies access arrangements and delivery times, is to be prepared to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
19.
Waste and compactor collection must only take place between the following hours:
7.00am and 8.00pm (Monday to Saturday)
9.00am and 8.00pm (Sundays and Public Holidays).
Car spaces, access lanes, pedestrian paths and driveways
20.
Car spaces, access lanes, pedestrian paths and driveways must be kept available for these
purposes at all times.
Concealment of equipment
21.
With the exception of guttering, rainheads and downpipes, all pipes, fixtures, fittings, vents,
plant and equipment servicing any building on the land must be concealed in service ducts or
otherwise hidden from view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
NOISE
22.
Noise levels emanating from the premises must not exceed those required to be met under
the State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and
Trade), No. N-1.
Appendix C – Panel Recommended Version of Planning Permit - Page 5 of 7
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
ADVERTISING SIGNS
23.
The location and details of the signage, including those of the supporting structure, as shown
on the endorsed plans, must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible
Authority.
24.
All sign(s) must be constructed and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority.
25.
The signage hereby permitted must not contain any flashing or intermittent flashing light.
26.
The signage hereby permitted must be located wholly within the boundaries of the land.
27.
The signage lighting must be designed, baffled and located so as to prevent any adverse effect
on adjoining properties or roads to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
CONSOLIDATION
3228. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Responsible Authority, within three (3) months of
the date of Issue of this permit, Lot 3 on Plan of Subdivision 604121W, Lot 4 on Plan of
Subdivision 604121W and Lot 1 on Title Plan 001878J, must be consolidated under the
Subdivision Act 1988 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
VICROADS CONDITIONS
2829. The redundant vehicle crossovers shall be removed with kerb and channel reinstated to the
satisfaction of VicRoads.
2930. The proposed crossovers shall be constructed in accordance with the submitted plans (Ref No.
2012-159 Drawing No.TP03) to the satisfaction of VicRoads and the Responsible Authority.
EXPIRY
Development and creation of easement
3031. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
a)
b)
c)
The development is not commenced within two (2) years of the date of this permit.
The creation of the carriageway easement is not registered on Title within two (2) years
of the date of this permit.
The development is not completed within four (4) years of the date of this permit.
The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing
within six (6) months of the date of expiry.
Signage
3132. Unless otherwise extended in writing by the Responsible Authority, this permit, as it relates to
signage expires fifteen (15) years from the date of issue, at which time the signage and all
Appendix C – Panel Recommended Version of Planning Permit - Page 6 of 7
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C297 and Planning Permit 765/2013
Panel Report  22 December 2014
supporting structures must be removed and the site made good to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority.
Appendix C – Panel Recommended Version of Planning Permit - Page 7 of 7