Urban Futures Strategy & Planning Scheme Review – Key Findings

The Surf Coast Shire project team have reviewed the feedback from the community engagement that was undertaken in November-December last year for the Urban Futures Strategy and Planning Scheme Review 2023 projects. An Engagement Summary Report has been prepared which provides details of key engagement activities undertaken and a summary of engagement findings for both projects. For any questions or enquiries, please email info@surfcoast.vic.gov.au or alternatively call the Strategic Planning team on (03) 5261 0600.

Key Findings

4.1 Urban Futures Strategy

Torquay/Jan Juc and Bells Beach/ Mount Duneed

• Settlement Background paper and the Surf Coast Character Assessment produced as part of the DAL which identify many of the constraints.
• Separate description of Jan Juc should be provided which has its own individual character.
• Other beaches should be highlighted (not just Bells Beach) in profile to identify it as a coastal town rather than a suburb of Melbourne.
• Local town/coastal character (no emphasis on this in recent study and DAL process).
• Failure to include and recognise the coast as an environmental and landscape asset contributing to the uniqueness of the shire which underpins demand for housing and drives tourism economy.
• Interrelationships between private and public land should be made clear.
• Lack of information about coastal erosion and other climate-change affected coastal processes as an environmental risk.
• Profile provides very limited information on which the community can provide informed feedback.
• Environmental risks.
• Deep Creek and Karaaf Wetlands not shown on Environmental Assets and Landscape Assets Map in DP.

Deans Marsh and Pennyroyal/ Boonah and Wensleydale

• No mention of Bambra or the community infrastructure including the community hall, playground and tennis courts.

Anglesea

• Alcoa land use opportunities for residential and commercial use.

Lorne

• Scant attention to problems in Lorne detailed, including the implications for a town with an ageing population and a high dwelling vacancy rate (affordability and essential workers).

Winchelsea and Northern District/Winchelsea South

• Dual carriageway through town biggest threat; noise, pollution and amenity impacts.

4.1.2. Future Housing Needs

The survey also provided an opportunity to identify future housing needs in the Shire’s townships. The identification of specific housing needs primarily stems from the current issues experienced by communities in the municipality, particularly surrounding the underutilised existing housing stock (used as holiday homes or short-term rentals) and high dwelling vacancy rates in the coastal townships, and associated lack of affordable housing for permanent residents, including essential and key workers.

4.1.3. Housing Types and Diversity

The provision of housing for permanent residents, specifically key and essential workers (and particularly in Lorne and the coastal towns), and affordable, low cost housing in all townships was identified as a key priority by a large proportion of respondents. There is a general consensus that a growth strategy must prioritise those most in need of housing, as opposed to providing short term holiday accommodation and unaffordable options. A diversity of housing was identified as a key requirement, including community and social housing, houses to suit an aging population/downsizers, and housing for young families. Smaller housing types to provide more affordable options were also recognised as an important need. It was identified that a key growth outcome for Winchelsea should be to achieve a diverse township to accommodate all types of residents, housing needs and businesses. The importance of understanding housing needs and dwelling sizes people are comfortable with/require should determine what additional growth looks like. Specific housing projects such as the women’s affordable housing project were cited as assisting in creating a sense of community.

4.2 Growth

4.2.1. Attitudes to Growth

Questions 4, 5 and 6 of the survey were designed to gain an insight into community member’s attitudes towards where, and in what form urban growth should be accommodated. The questions indicated different options for accommodating future growth and provided a sliding scale for participants to indicate their support from 1 (no support) to 10 (strong support). The open field questions gave valuable insight into opinions regarding previous growth and development, as well as future growth

4.2.2. Attitudes to Recent growth

There is a prevailing view from residents in Torquay that the character, environment, identity and amenity of the township has been severely impacted, particularly in recent years, due to its rapid growth and overdevelopment, and high levels of tourism. There is general discontent with the past planning of Torquay and problems associated with recent growth and development were noted including:

• overpopulation
• lack of public transport
• car dependency and parking issues
• lack of services and infrastructure to service the population
• lack of investment in streetscapes
• a negative impact on the coastal environment
• health and wellbeing issues
• small lots with large houses overshadowing outdoor space ( such as Torquay North).
• Inefficient energy features on new houses such as black roofs and lack of garden/permeable areas.

“Torquay development is out of control. Big houses on tiny lots needs to stop.”

Failure to recognise community support for low levels of development in past 20 years (first captured in the Sustainable Futures Plan –Torquay-Jan Juc 2040 and other subsequent strategies) was cited. Some respondents indicated that a low growth scenario has been supported by community members in the past and is the preferred community option.

There are similar opinions regarding recent development in Winchelsea, with sprawling car-dependent suburbs considered unsustainable with no regard to the climate emergency. A lack of retail and medical services and other infrastructure to meet the needs of the increased population was also noted. A lack of industrial land with highway exposure, as well as light industrial opportunities to enable living and working in the same town was also mentioned.

There is also an opinion that housing need should be considered differently to housing demand, with recent demand for houses larger than reasonable household needs a key issue (small households choosing to live in large houses).

4.2.3. Attitudes to Future Growth

The community expressed a range of opinions about future growth.

“It is not just where we build that matters, but importantly what we build, how we build and who we are building for.”

4.2.3.1 Opposition to Future Growth of Coastal Towns

A small number of respondents recorded a complete anti-growth/development sentiment in relation to Torquay (predominantly) and the coastal towns; these towns were considered overpopulated and under resourced, and locations where no further development or housing should be allowed. Some submitters consider that Torquay has reached its maximum population and sustainable limit and cannot accommodate additional growth. There was some opinion that the township should not continue to provide the majority of future housing for the Shire.

“Torquay’s character and amenity has been dramatically eroded, particularly over the last 10-15 years because of the rapid overdevelopment. Torquay /Jan Juc should not have to continue to provide the majority of housing – hopefully the implementation of the SPP will go a long way to ensure this.”

Many submitters referenced the Distinctive Areas and Landscape SPP (DALSPP) and the importance of adhering to this policy in planning for future growth (and using it to determine future growth), and the importance of retaining and protecting the “green break” between the urban area of Geelong and Torquay/Jan Juc which should be a key priority.

Specifically, the UFS should ensure that the residential development of land north of Grossmans Road and Messmate Road (known as the Messmate Road Growth Area) is restricted so that no further compromise of the “green break” occurs. The development of Spring Creek and the Flower Farm land was not supported. There is strong community support for limiting the outward growth of the coastal towns and containing growth within the established settlement boundaries. Some community members cited alternatives to further subdivision and development to meet housing needs (discussed below) in order to protect the environment and character of the towns. Question 6 sought to understand respondents support or otherwise for directing growth away from the coast to the hinterland townships. The average response was 6.3 with 28 people having a high level of support (choosing 6 or above), 11 of which choosing 9 or10 (the highest level of support) and only 4 people having a very low level of support and choosing 1 or below. This reflects the apparent lack of support for further growth of Torquay and the coastal towns that was reflected in the commentary. A future growth strategy capped at 40,000 was cited by one respondent as appropriate which would also support community values and growth expectations.

4.2.3.2 Bushfire

Bushfire risk was identified as one of the most important issues for the coastal townships and a key factor in limiting the outward growth of the towns. A need to ensure all future planning related decisions look at bushfire prevention at a landscape level was identified.

The increasing risk of fire in the Torquay-Jan Juc area reinforces the need to limit growth.

Well managed farmland was identified as a potential protective element to towns and settlements.

4.2.3.3. Protection of the Environment

Protection of the environment (including the health of the waterways) and biodiversity was identified in multiple submissions as one of the highest priorities in terms of accommodating growth as opposed to economic and growth objectives. There is strong opinion that there should be no compromise of native vegetation and wildlife habitats to accommodate future development, and areas of high ecological, cultural, and environmental values should be preserved and enhanced at all costs.

The tree canopy and landscape setting of Lorne were commonly cited by residents as a key priority to maintain in respect of any future growth.

The possibility of multi-faceted climate change events occurring in the coastal areas was highlighted.

4.2.3.4. Strategic Locations for Growth

In contrast, there is some opinion that the rezoning of suitable land for housing is urgent to enable supply to meet the high demand, and to provide affordable and suitable social housing opportunities in Torquay, and that this land should be prioritised for permanent residents rather than visitors. It was submitted that the provision of land supply should not be at the expense of the existing town character in Torquay. This response to question 6 (above) reflects commentary in the survey responses that areas other than Torquay should be opened up for housing and that the majority of future growth should be directed away from Torquay and the coast to hinterland towns such as Winchelsea and Moriac (both of which were identified as suitable for growth due to the existence of a trainline). Indeed, one submitter identified Winchelsea as the Shire’s best opportunity to provide land for urban growth, providing there is a long-term vision that considers optimal size and carrying capacity. Deans Marsh was also identified as a possible location for growth. The existing neighbourhood character of Winchelsea was identified as a feature of high regard for the Winchelsea community which should be preserved and enhanced as Winchelsea grows. The character is considered to promote the ‘feeling’ of the town and this should be identified. It was highlighted that it is important for the community to have the opportunity to have their say on the character of Winchelsea to inform future growth and development.

4.2.5. Options to Accommodate Growth

4.2.5.1. Greenfield versus infill

Greenfield development (and its association with poorly planned ‘sprawling suburbs’) is not supported in any form by a number of respondents, and is considered an unsustainable option that does not does account of the impacts of climate change.

Reference was made to the DALSPP and its direction to accommodate further residential development in activity centres, through infill in strategic areas and with limited expansion of greenfield sites, which was considered by some respondents as an appropriate response.

There is opinion that any future greenfield development in the Shire must be of the highest sustainability standards, must protect the environment, and should only occur in locations where active and public transport services are provided at the outset.

The land at Briody Drive West (Torquay) was identified as an area which should set an example of the highest level of sustainability in a greenfield development, and future development should protect both Deep Creek and Spring Creek, as well as tree cover and wildlife.

There was some support for development in the Coombes Road/Messmate Road area (Torquay), and there is opinion that the land at Messmate Road identified for further growth should only be developed for residential purposes if part of a transit corridor, and must retain a wide wildlife corridor to Grasstree Park. The importance of a Precinct Structure Plan to guide development was raised.
There was commentary around any further development of Torquay North (the Stretton Park Estate) needing to protect the Karaaf Wetlands and consider opportunities for essential workers (along with the nearby hospital site), as well as access to public and active transport.

Land at 140 Duffields Road, Torquay (in the current UGZ) was identified as an opportunity to provide community facilities (including a school), in conjunction with tourism related development and sustainable residential development.
Community members from Winchelsea identified the UFS as an opportunity to review policy that currently does not direct development to the West of Winchelsea ( which would provide additional greenfield land), and identified the current opportunity to rezone and develop a large area of land on both sides of Batson Street that is currently within the settlement boundary.
Activity centres were identified as priority locations for providing significant opportunities for redevelopment/infill including shop top housing and a residential component to create mixed use developments that are more affordable. A common response was that Infill development should be prioritised above shops and offices.

Torquay North (Dunes Village) was one centre identified as having potential for expansion which should include a residential component, as well as the Surf City and Baines Crescent precincts. Opportunities to provide housing above car parks was also cited, as well as along the active transport corridor of the Surf Coast Highway/Geelong Road in locations close to bus stops. One community member expressed that the development of the horse paddock site should have included mixed-use development.

There is some acknowledgement that land in Old Torquay is inefficiently used and offers opportunities for residential development within close proximity to essential services. However, infill development should be managed sensitively and look to meet housing needs by minimising the increase in footprint, as well as any impact on neighbouring properties and neighourhood character. The land at 2 Pimelea Way was identified as a potential opportunity to incorporate existing community services and community housing.

The potential for infill housing opportunities in Lorne was identified including the sale of Council owned land parcels to fund community housing development, consideration of the slaughterhouse paddock and former quarry site and the relocation of the kinder to the school precinct.

The train station environs in Moriac was identified as an opportunity for development.

4.2.5.2. Higher Density

Question 4 sought to explore the participant’s level of support for an increase in housing density (such as smaller lots) in new greenfield development. A sliding scale from 1(no support) to 10 (strong support) was provided.

The average response for increasing density through smaller lot sizes in new greenfield development was 3.9, thus indicating a lack of support. 19 responses had a very low level of support (choosing 1 or under)and only 3 people had a very strong level of support (choosing 9 or over). It is acknowledged that to some extent the answer choices are likely to be influenced by participants overall opinion of greenfield development.

Whilst the need for smaller dwellings and lots was acknowledged and supported by some (as well as town houses and terraces), caveats for acceptability were cited from survey participants including the importance of providing public open space within developments, community gardens, high environmental standards, integration with public and active transport, requiring small lots to only accommodate small houses, and requiring adequate vegetation on lots. Large houses on small lots tightly packed together (with no tree or vegetation coverage) are identified as creating urban heat sinks. There is opinion that smaller lot sizes are not the answer to accommodate additional growth and that to mitigate the impacts of climate change, large lots with adequate vegetation are needed to reduce greenhouse emissions.

There is also an opinion that there is, and will continue to be demand for larger lots and these should be retained and provided in new developments, particularly in Winchelsea.

Specific opportunities identified for the provision of larger lots in Torquay include the remaining land within the protected settlement boundary in the Karaaf wetlands catchment. It was recognised that an Integrated Water Management Plan will be required for the Messmate Road Growth Area (which may have implications for growth/lot capacity).

Question 5 sought to explore opinion regarding an increase in housing density in appropriate locations within established townships. A sliding scale from 1(no support) to 10 (strong support) was again provided.

The average response for increasing density in appropriate locations within established townships was 5 indicating mixed opinions between community members. However, 14 people indicated a very low level of support choosing 1 or below compared to 8 respondents choosing 9 or above indicating a very high level of support.

The open field questions support this divided opinion, with one response indicating that a dramatic increase in density is needed in all existing urban areas (especially coastal towns) and other responses indicating a lack of support for higher densities and/or higher buildings in coastal townships. In respect of the coastal townships there is a strong sense that better use should be made of the existing underutilised housing stock prior to increasing housing density. Alternative solutions that were cited to achieve this are discussed below.

“I believe that we need to restrict the building of both high density and high rise buildings. In reality, the region is already growing beyond capacity and needs more core services to support the existing footprint of people and transport requirements.”

“The Torquay/Jan Juc district is unaffordable, car-dependent, high per-capita CO2 emitting, very low density and has low public investment in its streetscapes. These things are all connected. Urban density should be dramatically increased. Stop (literally) fearing shadows.”

The responses also captured locations that are considered appropriate for higher densities by participants including:

Torquay

• Along the Surf Coast Highway
• Torquay Heights.
• Centred around Gilbert Street and Bell Street Activity Centre (with opportunities in the town centre for housing above shops and offices and subdivision of existing lots)

Winchelsea

• Land that is in close proximity to the shopping area and other key services.
• Train Station environs.

The provision of open space in development is considered a key element of ‘density done well’, as well as providing higher buildings that are appealing to the community.

It was noted by some community members that density needs to be determined through carrying capacity studies which would identify the appropriate level of growth for Surf Coast Shire townships.

Increasing density through the reduction of existing minimum lot sizes in Aireys Inlet and Lorne was not supported by some respondents, although was cited as an opportunity in Lorne by others.

The opportunities to make better use of larger lots (some with restrictive covenants) in Anglesea and Torquay were identified.

4.2.6. Alternative Solutions

4.2.6.1. Second Dwelling and THOW Opportunities

Opportunities to make better use of larger lots to accommodate multiple houses or second dwellings (without subdivision) particularly in Old Torquay and other estates in Torquay and Jan Juc, as well as Lorne, were raised. The use of tiny houses on wheels (THOW) and modular homes to help with housing demand was also highlighted.

4.2.6.2. Low Density Residential Zone and Rural Land

The provision of larger ‘lifestyle blocks’, Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ) land and rural areas for future housing were also identified as a demand by some survey participants, with a view that rural land should be assessed as part of the strategy.

70 hectares of flat land on the southern side of Grossman’s Road (Torquay) was identified as a potential opportunity for LDRZ land due to it being unproductive. It was cited as an ideal opportunity to provide Torquay with future supply of LDRZ land whilst having no impact on Great Ocean Road viewsheds and State Significant Landscapes. There is opinion that this type of development has more appeal than the denser development such as Torquay North and that to reasonably achieve growth to the numbers predicted this land is required. There is opinion that unproductive land should be utilised instead of productive land.

4.2.6.3. Incentives to increase Land Supply

Some respondents cited alternative solutions to further development and subdivision, that could go some way to assisting in meeting future housing needs and particularly in the provision of affordable housing for essential workers. This centred around making better use of existing under-utilised housing stock and land and providing financial incentives. These include:

• Stamp duty cuts to enable downsizing.
• Financial schemes (Shared equity and housing co-operatives) to enabling essential workers to buy properties
• Sale of council land to start a not-for-profit entity
• Encouraging short term rentals to long term rentals
• Use of land leased to Mantra in Lorne for aged persons /down sizers and for key/essential workers.

“We don’t have a shortage of houses in Torquay. We have a shortage of homes.”

It is generally recognised by the community that more creative solutions are needed with support from the State government.

4.2.7. Key Principles and Outcomes for Future Growth

The open field questions also gave some insight into what community members consider important outcomes for future growth (other than those discussed above):

• Improved services and infrastructure to meet the needs of existing and future populations in townships (to include schools, and retail precinct in Winchelsea).
• Identification of a definite school site in Winchelsea
• Protection of services and public spaces in Aireys Inlet.
• Provision of parks and open spaces, and wide treed streets within new developments (specifically mentioned for Winchelsea).
• Improved transport options (roads and train services) particularly in Winchelsea and Torquay.
• Improved public transport links (fast, frequent and reliable services) between surf coast towns and Geelong (job opportunities), as well as safe, off-road cycling route from Torquay to Geelong.
• Provision of train services to Moriac and re-instatement of station.
• Walking and cycling trails to provide access to services including shopping, schools, sporting facilities etc. (specifically mentioned for Winchelsea).
• Provision of local job opportunities (in Winchelsea specifically through provision of light industry and opportunities for dual purpose developments to live and work in same place).
• Extension of industrial estate to ridgeline (in Messmate Road).
• Stronger controls for the types and design of houses.
• Provision of high quality, sustainable housing.
• Incorporation of ESD principles with new development to enable capture of solar and rainwater, and re-use of wastewater.
• Overhead power lines underground.

‘We need to get clever, creative and future-thinking when it comes to residential development.”

4.3 Other Matters

4.3.1. Community Engagement

The importance of ongoing engagement with the community to identify their needs during the planning process was highlighted; ensuring there is a broad demographic captured and engaging broadly and robustly.

It was indicated that the community want more empowerment in the planning and development process and that more meaningful and palatable communication and engagement from the Shire is required. Face to face interactions are considered important, as well as addressing and engaging with different demographics, businesses and organisations. An opportunity to increase communication regarding the drop-in sessions in November 2023 was highlighted.

Lack of direct and meaningful consultation with the community regarding past long term strategic planning decisions was cited.

4.3.2. Omissions from Background Report/ UFS Development

The survey responses identified key considerations that community members consider important when planning for growth and preparing the UFS. There was also some concerns raised with the work undertaken so far and that some considerations have been omitted. These include:

• Lack of linkages and references between the profiles and background report.
• Currently minimal consideration to the impact of growth on the environment and the documents do not give appropriate consideration to what these environmental risks are.
• Incorrect references to sea level rise estimations in the documents as 0.8m by 2100 (latest IPCC reports estimates 1.2m). Error bands should be taken into account as sea level rise will provide many infrastructure challenges.
• Role of Regional Growth Plan.
• Lack of carrying capacity studies of public land in the entire Surf Coast Shire particularly in coastal areas. Gap in data on the impact of population growth which challenges integrity of UFS.
• Population target should be set by the Shire rather than state government.
• Lack of study into impact of overdevelopment on the community, environment and economy of Torquay and the Surf Coast as part of the project.
• Lack of focus on beaches and coastline in background report; strategy should take this context into account.
• UFS should recognise and refer to the Marine and Coastal Act 2018 (and Marine and Coastal Policy 2020 which implements the Act). This should be the foundation of for all decision making in the coastal towns.
• All relevant parts of Torquay-Jan Juc 2040 Plan relating to population should be retained (which is not superseded by the SPP which has no population targets).
• Future population should not be determined by past growth rate.
• Undertake investigations to determine the impacts of different future growth scenarios to community values.

5.0 Key findings: Planning Scheme Review

5.1 Survey Responses

5.1.1. The importance of Recommendations

Question 8 of the survey asked, “how important are these (below) recommendations to you?”

These recommendations were:

• Plan for and improve resilience to climate change and other environmental risks.
• Finalise the Urban Futures Strategy to determine how growth will be accommodated in the municipality.
• Undertake further strategic work in Winchelsea and Torquay, consistent with the Statement of Planning Policy (DAL).
• Review planning controls for coastal townships from Anglesea to Lorne, to balance preserving significant landscapes, character outcomes and managing bushfire risk.
• Undertake infrastructure planning in response to planned growth.

Participants chose either High Priority, Medium Priority or Low Priority as measures to rate the above priority items. 

5.1.2 Comments

The next survey question, also part of survey question number 8 was, “Do you have any comments about the planning scheme review recommendations?”

Torquay/Jan Juc and Bells Beach/ Mount Duneed

• The planning scheme should be clear, and outcomes should be monitored.
• The Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Statement of Planning Policy should be adhered to.
• The environment and community values are of high importance (multiple submissions).
• Housing affordability should be of primary importance (multiple submissions).
• There is a need for more social housing.
• Make more land in Torquay-Jan Juc available for housing to help drive affordability (multiple submissions).
• Growth estimates need to be realistic.
• No more growth in Torquay-Jan Juc (multiple submissions).
• Open up other areas of the municipality to growth.
• Infrastructure to support existing areas, in addition to Growth Areas, is important (multiple submissions).
• The road network in Torquay needs improvement.
• The lack of good public transport is an issue.
• Planning for the transport corridor should be brought forward.

Winchelsea and Northern District/Winchelsea South

• There should be a greater emphasis on the industrial centre (of Winchelsea) and the growth of light industry. 

Lorne and Benwerrin

• The liveability of towns is of primary importance.
• Growth should not be at the expense of the environment and the wellbeing of people.
• There should be a greater focus on improving the occupation of existing dwellings (multiple submissions).
• Further strategic work to balance landscape, character and bushfire risk should be thorough and evidence based.

Aireys Inlet (to Eastern View)

• No more growth.
• There should be a focus on making the town sustainable without relying on growth.

Anglesea (and Hinterland)

Nil comments

Bellbrae

Nil comments

Moriac and Barrabool/Freshwater Creek

Nil comments

Are there any additional priorities you think need to be added?

Torquay/Jan Juc and Bells Beach/ Mount Duneed

• Include planning controls to help reduce car dependency across the municipality.
• Improve facilities that support elderly residents.
• More commercial shopping should be made available in Torquay North.
• Stronger protections for native vegetation and wildlife habitat are needed.
• Native vegetation should not be cleared to make way for housing.
• Future growth. Consider:
  • Impacts of future growth on community values.
  • Impacts on public land from residents and visitors.
  • Carrying capacity of the foreshore and coast.
• No more growth.
• Need more infrastructure investment from Federal and State governments.
• There is a need to regulate the short-term rental market.

Winchelsea and Northern District/Winchelsea South

• The town should cater for diverse needs, including across different life stages, household types, all abilities and the like.
• The planning scheme should not prevent future industrial or commercial development on the highway, west of Winchelsea.
• There is a need to improve infrastructure, including the school and shopping centre.
• The Barwon River should be a focus for community, tourism, and economics.

Lorne and Benwerrin

• Creative problem solving (multiple).
• Housing affordability and housing diversity (multiple).
• Essential workers’ accommodation (multiple). Including:
  • Improved use of existing housing stock.
• Greater flexibility in allowing multiple dwellings.
• Prevention of the loss of canopy trees, which is important to the character of Lorne, to tourism and to climate change.

Aireys Inlet (to Eastern View)

• Inland roads

Anglesea (and Hinterland)

Nil comments

Bellbrae

Nil comments

Moriac and Barrabool/Freshwater Creek

Nil comments

5.1.3. Additional Priorities

Question 9 asked, “are there any additional priorities you think need to be added?”
(refer to the PDF report to see the response tables)

5.2 Planning Scheme Themes

This section report summarises the feedback from the survey, submissions, and community meetings by theme. In the text these are all referred to as submissions. Direct quotes from respondents are included.

5.2.1. Settlement and Growth

Settlement and growth were key themes raised in submissions, although it should be acknowledged that the Planning Scheme Review report was exhibited alongside the Urban Futures background documents. Irrespective, it is evident that there is a high level of understanding among members of the Surf Coast Shire community about the complex settlement issues that must be balanced and the strength of submissions in this area indicate that settlement issues are a high priority planning issue.

Balancing growth with the preservation of neighbourhood character outcomes (a town’s look and feel), is highly rated as a key issue in multiple submissions. In relation to character, multiple submissions echoed the following sentiment:

“… high regard for character and want the existing [town] character preserved and enhanced as an important growth consideration”.

Housing affordability was a repeated theme, although only one submission prioritised housing affordability over neighbourhood character.

Submissions relating to Lorne were received that emphasised the need to better utilise existing housing stock for permanent accommodation, including essential workers’ accommodation.

“… we must be looking at ways to use those homes for our permanent population, especially for our key and essential workers”.

Submissions also encouraged the Shire to incorporate clever and creative solutions for development, housing, and infrastructure, with one submission stating:

“it’s time to shake up thinking”.

One submission advocated for a review of the zoning of (specific) land in Grossmans Road; the land specified is currently outside of the settlement boundary.

5.2.2. Environmental Values

“We expect that the Environment will be given the highest priority.”

Most submissions highlighted the importance of the environment, and some called for stronger protections for native vegetation, biodiversity, and wildlife habitat.

Submissions also drew attention to importance of the natural environment for its intrinsic value and the role vegetation and landscape plays in contributing to the unique identity of the Shire, to incomes, and to the wellbeing of the community.

Multiple submissions indicated a concern that increasingly, development was adversely affecting the environment, including native vegetation, waterways, and water bodies.

“…it will be detrimental to the town with adverse impacts to the coastal environment and liveability of the town.”

The protection of coastal ecosystems was raised, and a concern was expressed regarding a perceived lack of focus on beaches and coast in the Planning Scheme Review.

Two submissions also raised concern about inconsistencies between the language used in the Marine and Coastal Act and planning scheme provisions, and the affect that this has on the consideration of cumulative impacts.

“…the planning scheme says to minimise impacts… the MACA says cumulative impacts need to be considered.”

While only one submission called for the Shire to develop a Significant Tree Register, multiple submissions were concerned about the preservation and native vegetation, including canopy trees, in townships.

“Tree destruction around [the town] has become a major issue. We cannot lose the canopy that makes up the character…(i)t is vital for tourism, as a bulwark against climate change and as a support for our environment.

Further comments about environmental values are addressed in the character section.

5.2.3. Environmental Risks and Natural Resource Management

Increasing climate and biodiversity emergencies were identified as a very important by most respondents. Support was given to the Shire’s declaration of a Climate Emergency.

The risk of bushfire to the wider environs of the Shire was widely acknowledged with the need to balance significant landscape, preferred character outcomes and bushfire risk as well as manage the quantity of vegetation on private property, nature strips and public land against the risk of bushfire.

One submission requested that scientific evidence about vegetation types and their fire risk profile be used by the Shire.

“Towns and settlements within the Surf Coast Shire are recognized as being among the highest bushfire prone areas in the world.”

Multiple submissions raised concern about the adequacy of stormwater infrastructure and the impact on receiving waters and one of these submissions also raised concern about floodplain management practices.

A lack of public discussion about future supplies of drinking water in Anglesea was also raised as a concern.

Submissions also raised concern that further development in Torquay North would irreversibly damage the Karaaf wetlands.

5.2.4. Sustainable Design

Submissions endorsed the use Environmentally Sustainable Development principles to, among other factors, ensure future residential developments have the minimum possible impact on infrastructure e.g. energy and water demands, wastewater and stormwater.

Aligned to this, another submission supported the Shire adopting the Built Environment Sustainability Scorecard (BESS) for medium to large non-residential developments, apartments, and townhouses.

“In line with the growing climate and biodiversity emergencies, residential planning will need to achieve new standards.”

Submissions were also received that indicated support for the adoption of the Sustainable Infrastructure Guidelines with one submission noting that:

“… adoption of the Sustainable Infrastructure Guidelines will achieve a more sustainable outcome.”

Another submission encouraged the use of stormwater runoff to be used as irrigation for street trees and local food growing areas.

5.2.5. Character

Submissions across various districts raised concerns about new buildings that appeared to be inconsistent with the requirements of the Neighbourhood Character Overlays.

“Overall, too many bulky and visually prominent homes are being built, with scant attention to landscaping.”

The importance of buildings in contributing to the character of a town or area is reflected in multiple submissions and across all districts.

Various concerns and recommendations were listed relating to:

• The space between buildings (not too close together).
• Maximum building heights.
• Buildings complementing the natural environment.
• Buildings footprints (should be of modest size).
• Style, shape, and bulk of buildings.
• External materials (blending into the surroundings).
• Maintaining the small town or village feel.

Submissions raised other factors that were felt to impinge or degrade the character, including:

• Tree destruction.
• Over-development.
• Large blocks being subdivided.
• Disappearing road verges and road verges having their vegetation removed or heavily cut back.

One submission focussing on Aireys Inlet-Eastern View, requested that Council develop a Surf Coast Lighting Policy based upon International Dark Sky Guidelines. To support the request, the submission cited studies previously undertaken by Surf Coast Shire that refer to the dark night sky as being a valued character attribute in the area.

Concern was raised about the impact of the “small second home’ provisions on the Neighbourhood Character Overlay (neighbourhood character).

The recent planning application seeking approval for a retirement village near Cypress Lane and the associated consideration of the sale of public land was referenced in multiple submissions with submitters feeling that the proposal did not have appropriate regard to the DAL Statement of Planning Policy (SPP).

“The decision … was against the objectives and intent of the SPP.”

Fencing in coastal towns was also raised by submitters with comments indicating a preference for maintaining low or no fences in residential areas.

Other submissions drew attention to the coast and surf as integral to Torquay-Jan Juc’s character, as well as to the economy of the Shire.

“… we live on the coast where there is a lot of open space and much-loved beaches, surf breaks and foreshore areas.”

5.2.6. Housing

Common themes relating to concerns about housing were raised across multiple submissions and included:

• affordability
• accommodation shortages
• short term rentals and underutilisation of existing housing stock
• a need for greater diversity
• density
• housing design

Many submissions relating to housing affordability suggested various solutions, including changes to planning controls and more strategic work, rezoning of suitable land, flexibility for permits for multiple dwellings, sensitive infill development and tiny homes.

Multiple submissions also raised the acute lack of housing available for key and essential workers, citing a need for greater regulation of the short-term rental market. The underutilisation of existing housing stock in coastal towns was also raised as an issue.

Submissions raised diversity in housing as a priority in order to accommodate the needs of, for example, people with disabilities, down-sizers, elderly residents and retirees, low-income earners, and young families.

The potential for shop-top housing was also raised as a solution to increasing housing stock in an affordable and sustainable manner.

One submission suggested that shop-top housing for any redevelopment of Torquay’s Surf City or Baines Crescent should also be considered.

“Any redevelopment of Surf City should include a residential component to the height of existing buildings.”

Many submissions relating to housing affordability and availability proposed that Council looks to other regions, states and overseas, for appropriate, adaptable solutions already implemented.

One submission requested that reference to Torquay as a growth node be removed.

5.2.7. Transport and infrastructure

Multiple submissions raised concern about a culture of car dependency in the Shire, requesting transport infrastructure to support alternative transport modes. Reference was made to improved public transport and safe, all-weather, off-road cycling routes.

One submission stated that the role of the existing infrastructure, such as the V/Line route through Winchelsea, provides an opportunity for transit-oriented development in the region of the Winchelsea train station.

A number of submissions referred to the need for infrastructure to service existing communities.

“Infrastructure planning for planned growth needs to be replaced with infrastructure provision for the current context.”

Multiple submissions raised concern that infrastructure has not kept pace with growth and felt that it was not supporting existing communities.

Submissions also highlighted that additional development would put pressure on existing infrastructure.

One submission suggested that by constraining growth largely to existing housing stock more fully (as discussed in Housing, above), the demand for new infrastructure might be limited.
Collectively, submissions called for more or improved infrastructure across most services, including:

• Bicycle and carparking, and electric vehicle charging
• Childcare, schools, medical services, and community centres
• Community gardens, public parks, and communal spaces, pool
• Shopping precincts
• Stormwater, wastewater, and water supply
• Transport (public transport and roads)

One submission requested that the planning scheme to include provisions to prohibit live stream broadcasting infrastructure from private property where it provides a view of the surf breaks.

5.2.8. Other Matters

Submissions also contained more general feedback relating to the process of developing the planning scheme review, general planning scheme improvements, planning process and Council’s role.

Some submissions suggested that the Planning Scheme offered too much discretion, particularly in relation to neighbourhood character performance measures, with one submission also putting forward the view that the planning process was “not performing uniformly well”.

One submission felt that the Planning Scheme Review should canvas a broader range of issues.

Another submission expressed disappointment that while the Planning Scheme Review identified areas of conflict within the planning scheme, the report did not detail how these might be resolved.

5.2.9. Consultation Process

Submissions expressed appreciation for the consultation process and the Shire was commended for engaging the community in the review of the Planning Scheme.

One submitter expressed disappointment with the Shire’s communication and felt that many in the community were unaware of it.

Multiple submissions expressed an ardent hope that the Shire would leverage community participation, engendered to date into formal or continuing relationships of community consultation.

“These relationships are with people who are committed to a sensible evolution of our Planning Scheme that will reflect current community wishes…”

5.2.10. Statement of Planning Policy

Multiple submissions referred to the Statement of Planning Policy (SPP), which is the output of the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscape (DAL) process led by the State Government. Concerns ranged from a perception that the SPP might not be adhered to, through to concerns about the lack of its implementation into the planning scheme to date.

5.2.11. Clarity in the Planning Scheme

Many submissions called for increased clarity in the Planning Scheme, for example, using mandatory ‘limits’ instead of discretionary ‘ranges’, as well as a greater use of prescriptive language.

5.2.12. Further Strategic Work

A general support was extended for the Council to press forward with further strategic work.

Many submissions requested that there be opportunities for broad community participation when the further strategic work was undertaken, particularly in the areas of planning for growth and coastal town character.

Concern was also expressed about how long the proposed further Strategic Work could take.

5.2.13. Evaluation and Monitoring

Submissions were received that raised concern about evaluation and monitoring practices in the Shire. An example was given of the population forecasts of past strategic plans being exceeded.

Submissions requested that the Shire consistently employ robust quantitative and qualitative methods to evaluate planning decisions.

5.2.14. Advocacy

Some submissions suggested that the Council should operate more strongly as an advocate, alongside other LGAs, for shared equity schemes, reclaiming state housing assets, and lower levels of growth.

5.2.15. Council Role vis a vis State and Federal Governments

One submission lodged a strong objection to the administration of the Surf Coast Shire Planning Scheme by the Minister for Planning.

Another submission highlighted that the State Government is the housing authority, not the Shire, and took the view that advocacy is a more appropriate role for the Shire.

Several submissions pointed to a tension between the local and State policy in relation to the Neighbourhood Character Overlay objectives.

One submission raised concern about the potential influence of developers who are allowed to donate to State and Opposition parties.