Amendment C267 to the Greater
Geelong Planning Scheme
Statement of Town Planning Evidence prepared by
Stuart McGurn on behalf of Coles Group Property Pty Ltd
October 2013
Reference 0175508_EvidenceColesArmstrongCreek
www.erm.com
The world’s leading sustainability consultancy
STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE
Amendment C267 to the
Greater Geelong Planning
Scheme
Statement of Town Planning Evidence
prepared by Stuart McGurn on behalf of Coles
Group Property Development Pty Ltd
October 2013
Reference: 0175508 Evidence Coles Armstrong
Creek.docx
Environmental Resources Management
Australia
Level 3, Tower 3 (WTC)
18-38 Siddeley Street, DOCKLANDS VIC 3005
AUSTRALIA
Telephone +61 3 9696 8011
Facsimile +61 3 9696 8022
www.erm.com
INTRODUCTION
1.
My name is Stuart Andrew McGurn and I am a Partner of the firm
Environmental Resources Management Australia Pty Ltd (ERM) that conducts
its business at Level 3, Tower 3, 18-38 Siddeley Street, Docklands. My
qualifications and experience are described in Appendix A.
2.
I have been requested by Norton Rose Fulbright on behalf of Coles Group
Property Developments Pty Ltd (Coles) to prepare a town planning
assessment of exhibited Amendment C267 to the Greater Geelong Planning
Scheme (the Planning Scheme).
3.
Amendment C267 proposes to introduce the Armstrong Creek Town Centre
Precinct Structure Plan (PSP) and Design Guidelines into the Planning Scheme
as an Incorporated Document and to facilitate the use and development of the
Armstrong Creek Town Centre Precinct (ACTCP) through various changes to
the Planning Scheme.
4.
I note that my office made a submission to Amendment C267, dated 5 July
2013 on behalf of Coles, however I was not directly involved in the
preparation of that submission.
5.
In the course of preparing this evidence, I have inspected the subject site and
its environs, and have reviewed the proposal with reference to the Greater
Geelong Planning Scheme. In addition I have read the relevant background
documentation supporting the amendments, the Council officer’s report and
the summary of submissions to the amendment. I have also had regard to the
‘Strategic Assessment Guidelines’ General Practice Notes.
6.
My comments in this report in relation to Amendment C267 are primarily
focused on the Coles owned land.
7.
A summary of my opinions is as follows.
• In overall terms, I am supportive of Amendment C267 in so far as it
provides the planning and urban design framework for the use and
development of the Armstrong Creek Town Centre Precinct.
• Notwithstanding the above, I consider that the proposed design
guidelines are overly prescriptive and should not be drafted in a
mandatory fashion. Furthermore, given the nature of the guidelines,
they would be better expressed as a reference document rather than an
incorporated document, which makes their application even more
unwieldy.
• The proposed floor space caps and their intended application do not
allow for sufficient flexibility.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA
1
0175508/STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE/OCTOBER 13
8.
I declare that I have made all the enquiries that I believe are desirable and
appropriate and that no matters of significance which I regard as relevant
have, to my knowledge, been withheld from the Panel.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA
2
0175508/STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE/OCTOBER 13
SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDS
9.
The site owned by Coles Group Property Development Pty Ltd (the Coles
Land), is known as No. 500-540 Torquay Road, Mount Duneed, which is
located at the south west corner of the Armstrong Creek Town Centre
Precinct.
10.
More specifically, the subject site is described as follows.
• The land is generally square in shape with frontages to the Surf Coast
Highway (to the west) and Burvilles Road (to the south) of approximately
400 metres each.
• The site has an overall area of approximately 16.09 hectares.
• The site is predominantly used for agricultural purposes.
• The site has direct access to the Surf Coast Highway.
11.
Land to the north, east and west is generally utilised for agricultural activities
and rural living dwellings. However, all this land will ultimately form part of
the Town Centre or residential development components of the Armstrong
Creek Growth Area.
12.
To the south is the Geelong Lutheran College and to the south-east is the
Geelong Memorial Park and Crematorium.
13.
The Coles Land comprises one portion of the Armstrong Creek Town Centre
which is proposed to occupy approximately 92 hectares. The Town Centre
Precinct has been planned to provide retail, commercial, civic, and
recreational land uses to support the broader Armstrong Creek Growth Area.
14.
The Armstrong Creek Growth Area is ultimately anticipated to accommodate
up to 60,000 people and provide approximately 22,000 jobs.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA
3
0175508/STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE/OCTOBER 13
PROPOSED AMENDMENT C267
15.
As an overview, Amendment C267 proposes to undertake the following key
revisions to the Planning Scheme:
• Apply Schedule 5 to the Urban Growth Zone (UGZ5) to support
commercial, civic, residential and recreation use and development of the
land.
• Revise the Schedules to the Mixed Use and Commercial 1 Zones to manage
commercial land uses.
• Apply Schedule 6 to the Development Contributions Plan Overlay
(DCPO6) to support the delivery of key infrastructure in the ACTCP.
• Apply Schedule 1 to the Parking Overlay to support development of the
land.
• Remove the application of the Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 1
from some roadsides (including Burvilles Road to the south of the Coles
Land).
• Modify the Municipal Strategic Framework (MSS) (Clauses 21.04, 21.07 and
21.11) to reflect the sub-regional role of the Armstrong Creek Town Centre
and the importance of sustainability outcomes in the Armstrong Creek
Urban Growth Area.
• Incorporate into the Planning Scheme the Armstrong Creek Town Centre
Precinct Structure Plan (PSP) (with the Armstrong Creek Town Centre
Design Guidelines annexed to the PSP), Native Vegetation Precinct Plan
(NVPP), Development Contributions Plan (DCP) and the Small Lot
Housing Code Standards for construction of a single Class 1 building and
associated Class 10a buildings on an allotment.
16.
The PSP divides the ACTCP into five Precincts as shown in Figure 1. The
proposed applied zone provisions under UGZ5 relate to these Precincts.
These are:
• Precinct 1 – Commercial 1 Zone (C1Z) (Central Core);
• Precinct 2 – C1Z (Surf Coast Boulevard – Central Core frontage);
• Precinct 3 – Mixed Use Zone (MUZ) (Surf Coast Boulevard);
• Precinct 4 – MUZ (Central Mixed Use); and
• Precinct 5 – MUZ (Residential Mixed Use).
17.
Coles Land is located within Precincts 1 – 4, which is outlined below at Figure
1.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA
4
0175508/STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE/OCTOBER 13
Coles Land
Figure 1
Precinct Plan
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA
5
0175508/STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE/OCTOBER 13
18.
The UGZ5 also proposes to introduce specific provisions in relation to the use
of the land within each of the Precincts. These specific provisions vary the
applied zone provisions and provide a greater level of ‘control’ than that
provided via the Applied Zones. Of particular relevance to Coles are the
following:
Precinct 1
• A permit requirement for a Department Store with a leasable area of 7,000
square metres or less per individual tenancy (I note that this requirement
has been removed in the revised zone provisions [version 2] circulated on 4
October 2013).
• A Department Store with a leasable floor area of over 7,000 square metres
per individual tenancy is prohibited.
• Restricted Retail is a prohibited use.
• A permit requirement for a Supermarket with a leasable area of 5,500
square metres or less per individual tenancy (again I note that this
requirement has been removed in the revised zone provisions [version 2]
circulated on 4 October 2013).
• A supermarket with a leasable floor area of over 5,500 square metres per
individual tenancy is prohibited.
• Trades Supplies is a prohibited use.
Precinct 2
• A permit requirement for a Restricted Retail Premises with a leasable area
of 2,000 square metres or less.
• A Restricted Retail Premises with a leasable floor area of over 2,000 square
metres per individual tenancy is prohibited.
• A permit requirement for Trade Supplies (other than a Timber Yard) with a
leasable area of 2,000 square metres or less per individual tenancy (this
requirement was added in the revised zone provisions [version 2]
circulated on 4 October 2013).
• Trade Supplies (other than a Timber Yard) with a leasable floor area of over
2,000 square metres per individual tenancy is prohibited.
• A Shop (other than a Restricted Retail Premises) is prohibited in Precinct 2.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA
6
0175508/STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE/OCTOBER 13
Precinct 3
• A permit requirement for a Restricted Retail Premises with a leasable area
of 2,000 square metres or less.
• A Restricted Retail Premises with a leasable floor area of over 2,000 square
metres per individual tenancy is prohibited.
• A Shop (other than a Restricted Retail Premises) is prohibited in Precinct 3.
Precinct 4
• A permit requirement for a Restricted Retail Premises with a leasable area
of 2,000 square metres or less per individual tenancy, provided that it is
used in conjunction with trade supplies.
• A Restricted Retail Premises with a leasable floor area of over 2,000 square
metres per individual tenancy, or not used in conjunction with trade
supplies is prohibited.
• A permit requirement for a Shop (other than a Restricted Retail Premises)
with a leasable area of 2,000 square metres or less per individual tenancy.
• A Shop (other than a Restricted Retail Premises) with a leasable floor area
of over 2,000 square metres per individual tenancy or a combined leasable
floorspace of over 4,000 square metres is prohibited.
• A permit requirement for Trade Supplies with a leasable area of 13,000
square metres or less per individual tenancy.
• Trade Supplies with a leasable floor area of over 13,000 square metres per
individual tenancy or a combined leasable floor space of 26,000 square
metres is prohibited.
19.
Revisions to the Schedule to the Mixed Use Zone that will apply to Precinct 4,
include the proposed maximum combined leasable floor area ‘cap’ for Shop in
Precinct 4 to be 4,000 square metres and a 26,000 square metres combined
leasable floor area for trade supplies.
20.
Revisions to the Schedule to the Commercial 1 Zone that will apply a ‘cap’ for
the maximum combined leasable floor area for Shop in Precinct 1. As
exhibited, the cap was identified to be 40,000 square metres. However,
Council have since proposed to reduce this figure to 35,000 square metres (as
confirmed in the letter from Maddocks dated 25 October 2013).
21.
The PSP also includes a Concept Plan which is reproduced at Figure 2 overleaf.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA
7
0175508/STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE/OCTOBER 13
Figure 2
Concept Plan in the PSP
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA
8
0175508/STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE/OCTOBER 13
22.
Key features of this plan in relation to the Coles Land are as follows:
• The north-eastern portion of the Coles Land forms the southern half of the
primary retail area (the northern half of the primary retail area is owned by
Woolworths). The retail area within Coles Land will comprise two retail
anchors with ground floor retail located between. Land to the rear of the
retail area will be at grade car parking.
• Main Street which will bisect through the primary retail area for the whole
of the Town Centre in an east-west direction is wholly contained within
land owned by Woolworths.
• The Coles Land has frontage to Main Street for less than half its northern
boundary.
• The proposed town square is mostly located within the Coles Land.
• A pedestrianised High Street will extend from the Town Square through
the retail area and car park in a north-south direction.
• The western portion of the Coles Land with frontage to Surf Coast
Boulevard (Highway) is identified for mixed use / commercial.
• The south-western portion of the Coles Land will accommodate a drainage
reserve, except for part of the frontage to the Surf Coast Boulevard which is
identified for mixed use.
• The south-east portion of the land is also identified to be mixed use.
• Connector roads will be located along the eastern and southern boundaries,
within the site. Other roads within Coles Land are identified to be primary
streets.
23.
The Design Guidelines (which include the Sustainability Guidelines) are
proposed to be incorporated into the Planning Scheme (as an annexure to the
PSP). I do not intend to recite all of the various guidelines that are relevant to
the Coles Land (given the range, volume and extent of them), however I deal
with specific issues in the assessment section of my evidence.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA
9
0175508/STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE/OCTOBER 13
EXISTING GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME
STATE PLANNING POLICIES
24.
Policies within the State Planning Policy Framework which are of relevance to
Amendment C267 are as follows:
• Clause 10.04 ‘Integrated Decision Making’;
• Clause 11 ‘Settlement’;
• Clause 11.01 ‘Activity Centres’;
• Clause 11.02-1 ‘Supply of Urban Land’;
• Clause 11.02-3 ‘Structure planning’;
• Clause 11.05-1 ‘Regional Settlement Networks’;
• Clause 11.05-4 ‘Regional planning strategies and principles’;
• Clause 15.01-1 ‘Urban Design’;
• Clause 15.01-2 ‘Urban Design Principles’;
• Clause 16.01 ‘Residential development’;
• Clause 17.01-1 ‘Business’;
• Clause 18.01-1 ‘Land Use and Transport Planning’.
LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES
25.
The local planning policy framework provides the existing policy context for
the development of the Armstrong Creek Town Centre. Relevant policies are
set out below.
26.
Clause 21.02 identifies the key components of the Sustainable Growth
Framework and states that Council will ‘set clear settlement boundaries and
consolidate development within those boundaries in a managed way’ and ‘deliver safe,
accessible linkages within and between towns that encourage walking, cycling and the
use of alternative modes of transport’.
27.
Clause 21.03 ‘Municipal Framework Plan’ identifies the site to be within the
Armstrong Creek Growth Area.
28.
Clause 21.06 ‘Settlement and Housing’ identifies that with respect to
‘settlement’ ‘there is an environmental, economic and social imperative to reduce
urban sprawl and improve accessibility to urban services, principally by consolidating
urban development around places of activity and public transport infrastructure’.
29.
Clause 21.07 ‘Economic Development and Employment’ highlights Geelong’s
role as the largest regional city in Victoria.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA
10
0175508/STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE/OCTOBER 13
In terms of retail development, the policy highlights that the retail hierarchy
supports the primacy of Central Geelong as the focus of retail activity in the
region and the role of the activity centre hierarchy which will be ‘enhanced’
through high quality urban design and good quality pedestrian and public
transport accessibility. Of relevance is the objective that seeks to ensure that
‘all major retail developments, and out of centre developments, provide a clear net
community benefit’ and the strategy ‘to encourage a mix of retail, office, cafes,
entertainment, housing, education and community facilities to locate within activity
centres.’
30.
Clause 21.07-8 ‘City of Greater Geelong Retail Activity Centre Hierarchy’
currently identifies the site as a ‘potential sub regional centre’.
31.
Clause 21.11 ‘Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area’ identifies that the
Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area (ACUGA) is the primary growth area
for the G21 Region and at capacity, the ACUGA is expected to accommodate
approximately 54,000 persons and 22,000 dwellings. The Clause includes the
following key objectives and strategies as relevant to the site:
• ‘To provide a wide range of housing types and densities in an urban structure
based on walkable neighbourhoods, public transport and mixed use activity centres.
• To establish a network of mixed use activity centres providing retail, community
and educational facilities for the incoming Armstrong Creek community.
• To create an economic and employment structure that complements the broader
Geelong region while providing employment areas, business opportunities and
local jobs.
• To protect and enhance the natural environmental features and cultural heritage
values of the Armstrong Creek area and provide a distinct urban character and
green setting.
• To provide a sustainable movement and access network within the Armstrong
Creek area.
• Ensure land use and development in the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area
proceeds generally in accordance with the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Framework Plan Incorporated Document.
• Ensure that Precinct Structure Plans in the ACUGA are generally in accordance
with the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan, Volume 1.’
32.
Clause 22.03 of the Scheme outlines assessment criteria for retail planning
applications and again highlights the need for new retail development to
provide a clear net community benefit.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA
11
0175508/STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE/OCTOBER 13
ZONE AND OVERLAY CONTROLS
33.
The Coles Land is located in the Urban Growth Zone pursuant to Clause
37.07. The purposes of this zone are:
• ‘To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning
Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local
planning policies.
• To manage the transition of non-urban land into urban land in accordance with a
precinct structure plan.
• To provide for a range of uses and the development of land in accordance with a
precinct structure plan.
• To contain urban use and development to areas identified for urban development in
a precinct structure plan.
• To provide for the continued non-urban use of the land until urban development in
accordance with a precinct structure plan occurs.
• To ensure that, before a precinct structure plan is applied, the use and development
of land does not prejudice the future urban use and development of the land.’
34.
The Surf Coast Highway (Torquay Road) is identified as a ‘Road Zone’
(Category 1) at Clause 52.29 which is a declared arterial road under the Road
Transport Act.
35.
The Coles land is not affected by any overlays.
36.
I note that land within Burvilles Road to the south of the site is affected by the
Vegetation Protection Overlay.
OTHER DOCUMENTS
Greater Geelong Retail Strategy 2006
37.
The City of Greater Geelong Retail Strategy 2006 is a reference document in
the Planning Scheme and outlines a hierarchy of activity centres within
Greater Geelong and also identifies criteria for assessing retail development
proposals within the municipality.
38.
The Strategy identifies that the Armstrong Creek area was under investigation
at the time of writing the Strategy and the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth
Plan will make specific recommendations in regard to the retail activity centre
hierarchy to service this area. The Strategy notes that there is likely to be the
potential for a sub-regional centre to service a catchment of 50,000 persons in
the Armstrong Creek Growth Area.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA
12
0175508/STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE/OCTOBER 13
Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan
39.
This Plan is a reference document in the Planning Scheme and was adopted by
Council on 13 May 2008 and amended in May 2010. The Plan sets the long
term strategic planning directions to guide the creation of sustainable urban
growth within Armstrong Creek.
40.
The Plan identifies the site to be within a Major Activity Centre (Sub-Regional
Centre). I note that the boundaries of the Major Activity Centre are different
to the current proposal in that the boundary does not extend out to Barwarre
Road at the south-eastern portion of the Centre. The eastern boundary of the
Coles land is identified to be a ‘subregional transit route’ with a ‘possible
future public transport interchange’ located along this route.
41.
In relation to the principles set out for the growth area, of relevance is the
following:
‘A Major Activity Centre should be developed alongside Torquay Road towards the
south of the growth area. This should provide a full range of convenience and
comparison retail together with a wide range of community facilities and services,
entertainment and employment opportunities, and high-density residential
accommodation. In particular, the Major Activity Centre should contain:
42.
−
all retail and entertainment activities with a sub-regional catchment (except
those located in the mixed use corridor along Torquay Road);
−
a privately-run medical/ wellness centre associated with allied health services,
indoor leisure centre and gymnasium;
−
a library/ culture/ adult learning centre (including TAFE, University of Third
Age and meeting rooms);
−
a City of Greater Geelong Customer Service Centre with police shopfront;
−
a multi-level aged care facility including independent living and supported low
level care;
−
a town square.’
The Plan identifies that it is estimated that the Major Activity Centre will:
• ‘accommodate approximately 35,000 sqm of retail space;
• target approximately 25,000 sqm of restricted retail space;
• target approximately 7,000 sqm of entertainment space;
• target approximately 35,000 sqm of office space; and
• target approximately 35,000 sqm of community services space.’
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA
13
0175508/STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE/OCTOBER 13
ASSESSMENT
Overview
43.
As outlined at the outset of my evidence, I am generally supportive of
Amendment C267 in so far as it provides the planning and urban design
framework to facilitate the use and development of the Armstrong Creek
Town Centre Precinct.
44.
However, I consider that the extent, drafting and application of the design
guidelines are overly prescriptive and unwieldy.
45.
Additionally I consider that the specific provisions for the zones, and in
particular the prohibition of certain uses above specific arbitrary floor caps, to
be unnecessary and inflexible.
46.
I discuss each of these matters below.
The contents and intention of the design guidelines
47.
I acknowledge the benefits of providing guidelines to developers to ensure
appropriate urban design outcomes are able to be achieved when developing
activity centres.
48.
However, in my opinion they should be used to assist in setting objectives and
providing guidance to achieve preferred outcomes, not as a mandated
framework dictating the only solution for the development of the Town
Centre.
49.
The approach currently favoured by Council is further exacerbated by the
inclusion of the guidelines as an Incorporated Document. This means that any
changes required to the Standards (as a result of a change in circumstance or
preference for an alternative method) would require a planning scheme
amendment to alter the document.
50.
This is particularly of concern given the long timeframe over which the Town
Centre is proposed to be developed. The current drafting provides limited
scope for modifications to the layout and design in the future. Accordingly,
there should be greater flexibility provided in the drafting of the Guidelines to
enable different ways for the objectives to be met without relying on overly
prescriptive standards.
51.
The reference document approach is consistent with other town centre
developments both in Greater Geelong and other regional areas. In particular
the Leopold Urban Design Framework and the Lara Town Centre Urban
Design Framework are reference documents in the Planning Scheme. Both
these documents include objectives and guidelines addressing similar issues
to those identified in the Armstrong Creek Town Centre Design Guidelines.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA
14
0175508/STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE/OCTOBER 13
52.
Certainly the drafting and sheer extent of prescription is troubling. The way
the Guidelines are drafted at present includes a mix of specific and general
‘standards’, many of which do not make sense being ‘mandatory’ standards as
they are either unachievable or ambiguous.
53.
I have included a number of examples which illustrate this above point.
54.
PR1-01 and PR1-02 include the Standard:
‘Maximise shading of public realm in the summer months whilst avoiding
overshadowing in cooler months.’
55.
Whilst this might be a desirable outcome, in reality this is difficult to achieve
and certainly should not be a mandatory standard.
56.
PR1-01, PR1-02 and PR1-03 include the Standard:
‘Provide street furniture, paving and landscaping that is consistent across the
precinct’.
57.
This is a problematic mandatory requirement when the Precinct is not in one
ownership and where individual circumstances may require a different
approach.
58.
BF4-01 includes the Standard:
‘Sleeve smaller format retail in front of large format stores that are setback from Main
Street and Connector Road A’.
59.
Whilst this is a desirable outcome in theory, it may constitute an unachievable
outcome on certain parcels given the relevant parking requirements and lot
sizes. Accordingly, in my view, this requirement (as with the others) should
be a ’guideline’ rather than a ‘standard’.
60.
Guidelines BF1-01 and BF1-02 require that the built form must be generally in
accordance with Plan 5 – Concept Plan. The Concept Plan in the PSP specifies
the locations of car park accesses. To prescribe the location of the car park
access points limits the ability to deliver site responsive design and efficient
car park layouts. Alternatively their issue would be resolved if the Standards
were not mandatory in nature.
61.
Whilst I acknowledge that ‘generally in accordance with’ provides some
flexibility, the car park access points should either be removed from the plan
or identified as ‘potential car park access points’ to provide some flexibility in
the final design outcome.
62.
For example, the Concept Plan for the Coles Land prepared by Clarke
Hopkins Clarks attached at Appendix B, shows an alternative car park layout
that can be achieved without strict compliance with the required car park
access points.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA
15
0175508/STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE/OCTOBER 13
63.
Whilst the desired outcome of activated street frontages is an important
component of vibrant and attractive Town Centres, there are some
requirements that, in my view, are too onerous and impractical.
64.
Guideline PR1-01 requires active frontages to all tenancies facing Main Street
and two storey built form. Whilst this is an outcome that I support in
principle, the mandatory nature of the guideline leaves little room for
alternative built form outcomes that would still result in appropriate
functionality, feasibility, and visual amenity for Main Street.
65.
Standard BF1-01 requires the development of a minimum 80% of the total
street frontage along Main Street between Service Street and Connector Road
A, prior to the approval of any internalised retail area. Whilst I support the
importance of creating the Main Street shopping street to provide the main
focus for retail activity, Main Street is under the control of Woolworths and
may not be developed for some time.
66.
This leaves Coles dependent on Woolworths progressing development in a
timely manner before Coles can commence on site. In my opinion this is not
an appropriate outcome and the controls should allow greater flexibility in the
staging of the development of the Town Centre. Furthermore, it could result
in a delay in providing supermarket floor space to service the growing
population.
67.
The Built Form Plan (Plan 8) in the PSP requires 70% activation of the
Connector Road A frontage. This outcome appears reliant on truck deliveries
and loading being accessed through the car park area. I am instructed that
Jason Walsh of Traffix Group is presenting evidence on traffic, parking and
loading. However, from a planning perspective, this arrangement will
undermine the desire to achieve a pedestrian friendly parking area and would
therefore be contrary to Built Form Guideline MA1-06. To avoid this conflict,
the Concept Plan prepared by Clarke Hopkins Clarke (attached at Appendix
B) shows how loading can alternatively be provided from Connector Road A.
68.
Furthermore, there is an active frontage requirement for Precinct 3 south of
Parking Road B to Surf Coast Boulevard and to the south, facing the drainage
reserve. I consider that this requirement is onerous and impractical on a
parcel of land that is earmarked as a potential location for a service station and
on land that is already compromised by encumbered open space.
69.
I consider that the requirement for 50% active frontage around three sides of
the land parcel in the south-east portion of the Coles Land in Precinct 4, whilst
reasonable in aspiration, could be difficult to achieve in reality. This land
parcel has the potential to accommodate larger format restricted retail
premises (subject to restricted retail being permissible above 2,000m2) and, I
am instructed, also is a potential location for a Bunnings store. Larger format
retail stores generally have car parking to the front and sides of the building
and therefore a 50% active frontage on three sides would potentially be
unachievable.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA
16
0175508/STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE/OCTOBER 13
70.
The south-west corner of the Town Centre Precinct is indicated to be a
wetlands / drainage reserve. I am instructed that Coles has been involved in
lengthy discussions in relation to an alternative stormwater management
solution or alternative configuration of the wetlands. Accordingly, it would
be preferable for the PSP and the Guidelines to include some flexibility as to
the outcome for this area to enable the land to revert to a commercial use, if
and when an alternative solution is established.
71.
For example, this could be managed by adding the following sentences into
Section 4.11.1 Drainage and Floodplain Management of the PSP.
‘An area in the south west corner of the site has been identified as potential
encumbered open space for storm water quality and management. Where an alternate
system or configuration is established, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority,
the land may be developed in accordance with the underlying land use zone in
Precinct 3 – Mixed Use.’
72.
As can be seen from the above examples, alternative scenarios may well play
out over time which still meet the overarching objectives for the centre but are
frustrated by the prescribed mandatory standards.
The proposed specific provisions for the zones, in particular the prohibition of uses
above floor caps
73.
The Amendment proposes both combined retail floor space caps as well as
individual tenancy floor space caps for various retail land uses. Of note (but
not an exhaustive list) are the following:
Precinct 1
• Combined ‘shop’ retail floor space cap of 35,000m2 (noting Council’s
support for this reduced figure from the exhibited 40,000m2 as identified in
the Maddocks letter dated 25 October 2013).
• A supermarket with a leasable floor area of over 5,500 square metres per
individual tenancy is prohibited.
• A Department Store with a leasable floor area of over 7,000 square metres
per individual tenancy is prohibited.
Precincts 2 and 3
• A permit requirement for a Restricted Retail Premises with a leasable area
of 2,000 square metres or less and prohibited above this floor space cap.
• A permit requirement for Trade Supplies (other than a Timber Yard) with a
leasable floor area of up to 2,000 square metres per individual tenancy and
prohibited above this floor space cap.
• A Shop (other than a Restricted Retail Premises) is prohibited.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA
17
0175508/STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE/OCTOBER 13
Precinct 4
• A permit requirement for a Restricted Retail Premises with a leasable floor
area of up to 2,000 square metres per individual tenancy provided it is used
in conjunction with trade supplies, and prohibited above this floor cap or if
not used in conjunction with trade supplies.
74.
Retail floor space caps can be an appropriate planning tool in maintaining and
protecting activity centre hierarchies. However, the recent Commercial Zone
reforms which were introduced into the Planning Scheme in July 2013 are
based on the intention that the new Commercial Zones will ‘provide greater
flexibility and growth opportunities for Victoria’s commercial and business centres.’
75.
One of the stated objectives of the commercial zone reforms is to ‘broaden
business and employment opportunities and drive productivity growth by reducing
the need for approvals and removing floor area restrictions’. I consider that the
proposed restrictive floor caps, permit requirements for uses under stated
floor caps and prohibition of uses over floor caps runs counter to this
objective.
76.
Whilst floor caps are appropriate in certain circumstances, any floor space
above the proposed cap should be considered on an individual basis via a
rigorous permit application assessment.
77.
The arbitrary nature of the caps proposed is highlighted in the officers report
which states that ‘in order to maintain a greater degree of consistency between the
other sub-regional centres it is recommended that the figure for retail floor space
(Shop) within the ACTC be reduced back from 40,000m2 to 35,000m2’.
78.
In distinction to this is the detailed analysis undertaken by Essential
Economics in the Armstrong Creek Town Centre Retail and Economics
Assessment (May 2012), which concludes that ‘The Armstrong Creek Town
Centre in 2031 is forecast at $309 million (expressed in 2011 dollars), which allows
for 12% of total turnover (or $36 million) to be generated by non-residents of the trade
area. By applying turnover benchmarks, supportable retail floorspace at the
Armstrong Creek Town Centre in 2031 is estimated at 40,000m2 for shop uses and
35,000m2 for restricted retail.’
79.
I note that the revised Commercial 1 Zone provisions circulated on 4 October
2013, proposed to include supermarkets up to 5,500m2 and department stores
up to 7,000m2 as ‘as-of-right’ uses in the Commercial 1 Zone. I support this
revision.
80.
In my opinion, the caps proposed in Precinct 1 should not preclude or prohibit
additional floor space, rather these uses should become Section 2 – ‘permit
required’ uses whereby an assessment of the impact of the use can be carried
out against Clause 22.03 of the Planning Scheme. This would allow for greater
flexibility in the composition of the Town Centre, in line with the Commercial
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA
18
0175508/STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE/OCTOBER 13
Zone reforms, and enable appropriate planning consideration to be given on a
case by case basis rather than a blanket prohibition.
81.
Similarly, with respect to Precinct 2, this is proposed to use the applied zone
of the Commercial 1 Zone. This is the least restrictive zone in terms of retail
provision and therefore to be consistent with the intention of the zone reforms,
I am of the view that ‘shop’ should not be a prohibited use and that restricted
retail premises should be ‘as of right’ up to 2,000m2 and ‘permissible’ over
this floor cap.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA
19
0175508/STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE/OCTOBER 13
CONCLUSION
82.
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that:
• In overall terms, I am supportive of Amendment C267 in so far as it
provides the planning and urban design framework for the use and
development of the Armstrong Creek Town Centre Precinct.
• Notwithstanding the above, I consider that the proposed design
guidelines are overly prescriptive and should not be drafted in a
mandatory fashion. Furthermore, given the nature of the guidelines they
would be better expressed as a reference document rather than an
incorporated document, which makes their application even more
unwieldy.
• The proposed floor space caps and their intended application do not
allow for sufficient flexibility.
Stuart McGurn
Environmental Resources Management Australia Pty Ltd
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA
20
0175508/STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE/OCTOBER 13
Appendix A
Statement of Qualifications
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERTISE
NAME AND ADDRESS
Stuart Andrew McGurn
Environmental Resources Management Australia Pty Ltd
Level 3, Tower 3
18-38 Siddeley Street
DOCKLANDS VIC 3005
QUALIFICATIONS
• Bachelor of Arts 1984
• Graduate Diploma Urban Planning 1986
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
• Current Position
• 1998 - 2010
• 1986 – 1998:
Partner, Environmental Resources Management
Australia Pty Ltd
Director, Fulcrum Town Planners Pty Ltd
Town Planner in local government – Cities of
Broadmeadows and Melbourne, including role as
Principal Planner – City of Melbourne
AREA OF EXPERTISE
• Statutory planning for local and state government on a range of residential,
commercial and industrial issues.
• Consulting advice to a wide range of commercial and local government
clients addressing the management of urban development and the
statutory planning process.
• Extensive planning advice to architects, project managers and other
professionals involved in a range of projects and the built form and visual
impact issues associated with the development of land.
EXPERTISE TO PREPARE THIS REPORT
Professional qualifications and expertise in town planning both in the public
and private sectors.
INSTRUCTIONS WHICH DEFINED THE SCOPE OF THE REPORT
My instructions required me to undertake a town planning assessment of
Amendment C267 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme primarily focusing
on the Coles Land located in the south-west corner of the Town Centre
Precinct. In so doing, I have relied upon those matters set down below.
FACTS, MATTERS AND ASSUMPTIONS RELIED UPON
I have relied upon the following in the preparation of this
report:
• Inspection of the subject site and surrounds.
• Review of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.
• Review of the relevant Amendment C267 documents and
supporting documents.
DOCUMENTS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT
Relevant documents are described above.
IDENTITY OF PERSONS UNDERTAKING THE WORK
Stuart McGurn, assisted by Claire Betteridge.
SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
A summary of my opinions in relation to this matter is included
at paragraph 7 of the accompanying report.
I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and
appropriate and no matters of significance which I regard as
relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Panel.
Stuart McGurn
Environmental Resources Management Australia Pty Ltd
Appendix B
Concept Plan for the Coles Land
prepared by Clarke Hopkins Clarke
ERM consulting services worldwide www.erm.com
Environmental Resources Management Australia
Level 3, Tower 3, World Trade Centre
18-38 Siddeley Street, Docklands VIC 3005
Telephone (03) 9696 8011
Facsimile (03) 9696 8022