[Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback] Planning Panels Victoria

You are here: 

Queenscliff C16 (PSA) [2005] PPV 6 (27 January 2005)

Last Updated: 3 December 2009

PANEL REPORT

January 2005

QUEENSCLIFF PLANNING SCHEME
AMENDMENT C16

PANEL REPORT

CATHIE McROBERT, CHAIR

CHRIS BANON, MEMBER

STEVEN PORTER, MEMBER

JANUARY 2005

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDICES

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Ariel Photograph of Subject Site and Locality................................................11

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3 Summary of Parking Demand ...................................................................78

ACRONYMS

The following is a list of acronyms used in this report.

Departments, Organisations and Businesses

DSE Department of Sustainability and Environment

EPA Environment Protection Authority

PV Parks Victoria

Zones

B1Z Business 1 Zone

R1Z Residential 1 Zone

SUZ 1 Special Use 1 Zone Schedule 1 Queenscliff Harbour

Overlays

DDO 6 Design and Development Overlay Schedule 6

ESO 1 Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 1 Coastal and Foreshore Areas

ESO 2 Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 2 Swan Bay and Marine and Terrestrial Habitats

HO Heritage Overlay

IPO Incorporated Plan Overlay

SLO 1 Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 1 Swan Bay Landscape Area

Other Terms

ACD Admiralty Chart Datum

CMA Coastal Management Act 1995

EMP Environmental Management Plan

LPPF Local Planning Policy Framework

MSS Municipal Strategic Statement

QHFI Queenscliff Harbour Feasibility Investigation Egis Consulting Victoria Pty Ltd October 2002

QHID Queenscliff Harbour Implementation Document July 2004

QUC Borough of Queenscliffe Urban Character Study 2000

SEPP NC Interim Guidelines for Control of Noise from Industry in Country Victoria (EPA 1989)

SPPF State Planning Policy Framework

The Guidelines Queenscliff Harbour Siting and Design Guidelines June 2004

VCS Victorian Coastal Strategy 2002

VPP Victorian Planning Provisions

1. SUMMARY

WHAT IS PROPOSED?

The Amendment proposes to facilitate redevelopment of Queenscliffe Harbour by changing the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF), replacing the Queenscliff Harbour Special Use Zone Schedule (SUZ1), and incorporating an Implementation Plan. Rezoning land for the new Ferry access road and exemptions from permit requirements of overlays affecting parts of the site are also proposed.

The key elements of the proposal include expansion of the Harbour to increase the number of wet berths from 157 to 328 serviced berths, new and repaired seawalls, a new public boardwalk around the Harbour, a boat yard with dry storage facilities and a travel lift to improve vessel-lifting capacity, new commercial/retail space with an associated pedestrian promenade, new access roads to the ferry terminal and Fisherman’s Wharf, and associated car parking.

Queenscliff Harbour Pty. Ltd. responded to submissions and issues raised by Council by proposing the following changes to the SUZ1 Schedule and/or the incorporated Implementation Plan:

• pedestrian access through the boatyard,
• include car parking at the eastern end of the Harbour,
• increase the average building setback to the Harbour edge to 12.0 metres,
• identify a permissible building envelope (rather than a building footprint) and improved intersection treatments,
• Clarification of uses allowed, including an absolute limit on shop use of 2,500m2,
• Revision of provisions relating to the Traffic Management Plan, the Environmental Management Plan and the Conservation Management Plan. A requirement to consider comments on the EMP from DSE and the EPA was introduced.
• Increased mandatory building heights to allow 9.5 metres where the roof is pitched and 10.5 metres for a small enclosed area of roof top deck on the ‘signature building.
• Additional requirements to apply within the Building Envelope.

DOES THE PROPOSAL SUPPORT PLANNING POLICY DIRECTIONS?

The Panel considers that the local planning framework and the Victorian Coastal Strategy offer clear and consistent support for retention of the Harbour as a working facility and for further development of the precinct for tourism, boating, and marine services. However, this support is not unqualified. Planning policy, the ESO’s and the Victorian Coastal Strategy establish an imperative to ensure that the sensitive coastal environment, particularly the internationally significant Ramsar wetland of Swan Bay, is protected.

Planning policy also promotes good design, requires development to respect the character and heritage values of the locality, and supports uses that compliment, rather than compete with the town centre. Amenity impacts on surrounding uses must also be addressed. These issues are addressed below.

KEY PLANNING ISSUES
Departures from Concept Plans

The Panel recognises that the Final Concept Plan enjoyed a high level of community support and the changes reflected in the Amendment have undermined submitters’ goodwill towards the Harbour Redevelopment. However, the Panel’s role is to consider the planning merits of the proposal before it, not earlier plans or the tender process. It is noted that Government funding commitments of $5 million would not meet all the costs of even the minimal works identified in the Final Concept Plan stage 1 and project viability is required to achieve private investment and the benefits associated with upgrading the Harbour.

Environmental Impacts

Extensive environmental investigations have been undertaken and identified that a number of environmental values will either be improved or not impacted on by the proposed Harbour redevelopment. Potential impacts on Swan Bay must be a key concern given its international environmental significance. The evidence presented to the Panel was that the migration of pollutants from the Harbour into Swan Bay was not detectable and the proposed Harbour redevelopment and management will address risks to Swan Bay.

The Panel believes that Parks Victoria and QHPL have demonstrated an awareness of the environmental issues and have identified appropriate responses. It is satisfied that the redevelopment will be environmentally sustainable and indeed provides net environmental benefits through removal of the contaminated sediments near the slipway, and the introduction of stormwater, refuelling and waste management systems. The EMP will be essential in ensuring the anticipated net environmental benefits from the Harbour Redevelopment are realised.

Retail Uses

Planning policy requires the town centre function to be protected. The Panel accepts that it is appropriate for niche retailing and waterfront dining at the Harbour to complement Town Centre functions, support the Harbour uses and consolidate Queenscliff’s appeal to tourists. Retail impact assessment is not definitive and is dependant on a series of assumptions but the assessment undertaken does provide a high degree of confidence that the quantum of retail floor space proposed can be supported without significant adverse impacts on the town centre role and function.

The Panel agrees with Council and submittors that a firm limit on retail floor space should be imposed. It considers that the limit should be conservative and recommends that it be set at 2110 m2, which was the basis for assessments associated with the amendment. The Panel also supports changes to allow taverns (with conditions) and to prohibit core retail uses, including galleries, which would compete directly with the Town Centre.

Built Form and Landscaping Issues

The Harbour precinct has a distinct character that will be changed by the redevelopment. Overall, the Panel is satisfied that the recommended planning framework will result in development of a scale and form appropriate to the coastal landscape and Queenscliffe’s heritage townscape. The two-storey (8.5 metre) height limit that applies throughout Queenscliff is also appropriate to this precinct to support objectives that buildings remain a recessive element in the coastline and townscape. It is also considered that the scale of the boat yard will underpin its viability and contribute to the precinct’s working port character.

The south east corner of the site is appropriate for a ‘premium’ building but this does not justify increasing the height limit applied. Additional design flexibility should be available to consider a range of foot print options for the ‘signature building’ and a minimum setback of 4 metres from the water’s edge to accommodate the boardwalk is recommended.

An average setback of 15 metres for other new buildings facing the eastern harbour would accommodate necessary functions and provide a degree of flexibility in the use of this public space in a key location. This promenade would comfortably accommodate necessary functions, including informal public space where people can gather or picnic.

The Panel accepts that improvements in the pedestrian environment of the Harbour are a reasonable trade off for more limited views from cars. However, a sense of the Harbour from this important approach to the town should be maintained. The zone schedule should indicate that spaces between buildings on the Harbour are to be generous but a 4-metre width should not be specified. Fewer but wider breaks in the building would be more effective in achieving views to the Harbour from the south. Extending the building envelope adjoining the MAFRI building is an option if it facilitates larger gaps between buildings. The car park layout and landscaping should reinforce viewlines.

The Panel considers that the landscaping and engineering approaches advocated in the Guidelines and Mr Czarny’s evidence will mitigate the visual impact of the car park. The negotiated landscape concepts are acceptable and the Panel agrees that the EMP is an appropriate mechanism to identify vegetation that can be retained.

Heritage Issues

The Panel is satisfied that the continued operation of one slipway has some local heritage significance and community interest but the proponent does not intend to continue to operate them. Retention of part of one slipway as a static display is not justified. If a community or other organisation is prepared to upgrade and operate the northern slipway in a way that overcomes environmental, safety and economic viability issues, then there is heritage merit in retaining it. The Panel considers that this is unlikely but recommends that six months from the public release of this report should be provided to explore this option. Alternative use of this area should be identified on the Implementation Plan as car parking or public open space.

The Panel accepts that appropriate mechanisms are in place or proposed to protect heritage places, including HMVS Lonsdale and Fisherman’s Flat.

Traffic Management

The Panel accepts the evidence that the road network will comfortably accommodate the increase in traffic generated by the redeveloped Harbour. It has recommended that the Traffic Management Plan require the proponent to monitor traffic conditions in Fisherman’s Flat and mitigate traffic increases if they eventuate.

Parking

On site car parking provision should ensure that overflow parking demand from the Harbour, including ferry foot passengers, is limited to 50 car parks (ie 40 additional spaces in Weeroona Parade and 10 existing spaces in the area) for peak demand periods. Parking rates applicable to the proposed development and the limit on overflow parking should be specified in the SUZ1 schedule. The rates and reduction factors to be applied should be determined by Council after consideration of the rates recommended in the Queenscliff Harbour Traffic and Parking Study October 2004 and a peer review of the rates proposed in that study.

Pedestrian Access

Public access to the site will be greater than currently applies and pedestrian activity will be encouraged by the separation of vehicles and pedestrians, the proposed boardwalk around the new Harbour, the wider promenade, and the improved amenity and safety for pedestrians. Disability Discrimination Act requirements will ensure that access to the Harbour for people with limited mobility will be significantly enhanced.

The boatyard is a work area and its activities will be able to be viewed from the boardwalk and adjoining streets through mesh fencing. The Panel does not believe it is necessary or desirable to include the path through the boatyard. Pedestrian pathways should be shown on the incorporated Implementation Plan to provide the local community with greater certainty but the following changes should be made to submitted documentation:

• The pathway to the east of the former MAFRI building should provide a more generous space to reflect its role as a main pedestrian access point.
• Public access through the boatyard should not be shown.

Amenity Impacts on Fisherman’s Flat

The Panel considers that the Planning Framework proposed will allow amenity impacts on Fisherman’s Flat to be adequately addressed.

Associated Arrangements

The Panel’s role is to assess the planning merits of the proposal to determine whether it is acceptable and its role does not extend to decisions about the tenure and lease arrangements for this public land. However, it notes that the Coastal Strategy recognises that there is additional scope for the private sector in infrastructure development on the coast.

The Panel recognises that widely accessible boating opportunities are important to the community of Queenscliff. The Coastal Strategy indicates that user pays principles should apply to long term coastal uses. For current harbour berth holders, the 5 year deferral of increases to fees more in line with those commonly charged elsewhere in the central coastal region provides a reasonable buffer from adverse impacts of fee increases.

The Planning Framework

The Panel considers that the SUZ 1 schedule and the Implementation Plan should include further explicit requirements, including key elements of the Queenscliff Harbour Siting and Design Guidelines June 2004 to increase certainty about the basis for assessment of the Development Plan.

The Panel is satisfied that the requirements for further approval of the Development Plan and Management Plans establish appropriate mechanisms for further scrutiny by the Responsible Authority as the design is developed and during Harbour operation The exemptions from the overlay permit requirements are also reasonable, provided that:

• comments from specified agencies are required to be taken into account, and
• the decision guidelines in the SUZ1 schedule explicitly call up the objectives and decision guidelines of the relevant overlays.

The scrutiny of key issues during the Amendment process and the certainty provided by the recommended planning framework, justify exemptions from third party notice and independent review of proposals that are consistent with the zone provisions. Council may consult with the community as it sees fit but the Panel considers that there is a high risk that the alternative Advisory Committee process suggested for proposals that depart from the zone framework would be counter productive unless all parties agree to abide by its recommendations.

OVERALL CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Panel finds that the Harbour Redevelopment facilitated by the Amendment provides a net benefit to the community and is environmentally sustainable.

The Panel has recommended that the Amendment be adopted subject to a number of changes which are set out in section 8.2.

2. THE PANEL PROCESS

THE PANEL

This Panel was appointed under delegation on the 24 September 2004 pursuant to Sections 153 and 155 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to hear and consider submissions relating to Amendment C16. This amendment is intended to facilitate redevelopment of the Queenscliff Harbour.

The planning authority is the Borough of Queenscliff and the proponents are Parks Victoria and Queenscliff Harbour Pty Ltd.

The Panel consisted of:

• Chairperson: Cathie McRobert
• Member: Chris Banon
• Member: Steven Porter

HEARINGS, DIRECTIONS AND INSPECTIONS

A Directions Hearing was held on 7 October 2004 at Queenscliff. A number of directions were made, which related to the submission of further information and the exchange of expert reports.

The Panel Hearings were held on 8, 9, 11,12, 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25 November 2004 at Queenscliff.

The Panel members inspected the site and surrounding areas before the hearing, during an accompanied site visit on 10 November 2004 and after the hearing.

EXHIBITION AND SUBMISSIONS

Exhibition of the Amendment from 14 July 2004 to 16 August 2004 resulted in 187 submissions. A list of all written submissions to Amendment C16 is included in Appendix A. The key planning issues raised in submissions are summarised below:

• The complexity of the Amendment C16 and the associated process.
• Allowing uses/development without a permit where they are generally in accordance with the Queenscliff Harbour Implementation plan and removal of third party rights.
• Privatisation of public land, Crown land lease arrangements and private sector infrastructure investment.
• Berthing fees.
• Concern regarding the decommissioning of slipways which are of heritage value.
• Concerns about the lifting of height restrictions.
• Modification of the Heritage Overlay.
• The size of the proposal.
• Fencing.
• Size of the travel lift.
• Buffer for Fishermen's Flat residences.
• Noise and amenity impacts from harbour uses.
• Deletion of the Marine Park Interpretation Centre.
• Public amenities including seating and toilets.
• Protection of HMVS Lonsdale.
• Stormwater and rubbish management.
• Traffic impacts.
• Car parking provision and management.
• Security requirements for the Sea Pilots.
• Support for implementation of Stage 1 EGIS report.
• Environmental effects.

These issues are discussed and the Panel assessment is provided in section 6.

The Panel heard the following parties.

The Panel has considered all written and oral submissions and all material presented to it in connection with this matter.

3. WHAT IS PROPOSED?

3.1 THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDS

The Amendment applies to the Queenscliff Harbour area under the management of Parks Victoria, generally between The Cut and the foreshore reserve, east of properties in Fisherman's Flat, fronting Beach Street, and Wharf Street/Weeroona Parade, Queenscliff.

The Harbour currently consists of a combination of ‘wet’ and ‘dry’ facilities aligned along the Cut and Larkin Parade. The Harbour’s fixed timber jetties presently provide approximately 157 boat berths in an east and west basin for use by leisure craft, fishing vessels, charter boats, the Port Phillip Sea Pilots and visiting boats. The edge of the Harbour is retained by a flush concrete sea wall and an elevated steel sheet pile sea wall.

A disparate arrangement of freestanding working buildings front either Larkin Parade or Harbour Street. Existing buildings are not of particular note and house the Port Phillip Sea Pilots, the Ships Chandlery and Port Management, a series of Parks Victoria portable office buildings, and a substantial boat workshop building across Harbour Street. Numerous portable buildings relating to the relocating MAFRI Research Centre are in the south-east of the site within the broad coastal dune landscape.

Unlike other parts of Queenscliff, the public realm of the Harbour is decidedly informal and coastal in character, reflecting a distinctly industrial and working flavour. The Harbour’s roads and walkways are often unmade with ill defined boundaries.

Significant views are available from within the Harbour towards the Victorian and Edwardian elevation of Gellibrand Street and the Queenscliff Fort. Excellent views are also available from the Larkin Parade frontage to both the north and north east across Port Phillip Bay and to the north west towards Swan Bay and the elevated topography of the Bellarine Peninsula.

The Harbour represents an entry to Queenscliff and an edge to Fisherman’s Flat, the Port Philip Bay Beach and the Symond Street reserves. The uses of land adjoining the Amendment area consist of:

• To the west, the Harbour Precinct backs on to the historic Fisherman’s Flat area, which comprises predominantly single storey cottages on small blocks along north-south aligned streets.
• To the east, the Queenscliff-Sorrento Passenger and Vehicle Ferry toll building, a passenger terminal and car parking.
• To the south, the Queenscliff Maritime Museum faces Wharf Street. This is a broad 1 to 2 storey brick building with a large coloured barrel roof. Broad parklands with significant historic plantings are located further south across Wharf Street and Weeroona Parade.
• Queenscliff Beach is located to the south and east. This interface contains a particularly strong belt of coastal and native vegetation which forms part of the primary dune system. There is a walking trail from the Harbour towards and along the beach edge.
• To the north, across the Cut, are Sand Island and the ‘Spit’. Sand Island is a largely artificial landmass resulting from continued dredging operations within ‘The Cut’.

Figure 1 Ariel Photograph of Subject Site and Locality

Background

The Amendment is the result of a process commenced in the late 1980’s which consisted of the following key stages:

• Preparation of the Queenscliff Boating and Related Tourist Facilities Environmental Effects Statement[1] in 1990.
• The Queenscliff Coastal Action Plan 1999 was developed by the Central Coastal Board which included a concept plan for the Harbour with additional berths, a large mixed use area on the existing MAFRI site, a ferry road and residential development. Amendment C2 was prepared to implement the action plan but generated more than 500 submissions and was abandoned.
• The community based Queenscliff Harbour Steering Group submitted a report in January 2001 to the former Minister for Environment and Conservation which included a preferred Community Concept Plan.
• The Victorian Government accepted the Steering Committee Report, and committed $5 million to the redevelopment.
• Parks Victoria commissioned Egis Consulting Victoria Pty Ltd to undertake a technical, economic and environmental feasibility assessment of the Community Concept Plan. Their report Queenscliff Harbour Feasibility Investigation (QHFI), was completed in October 2002 and included a Final Concept Plan.
• After an expression of interest process, tenders were called. Tenderers were required to interpret the Final Concept Plan to provide an Implementation Master Plan that satisfied the community’s Contextual Principles. The successful tenderer, Queenscliff Harbour Pty. Ltd., was announced in June, 2004 and included the Implementation Master Plan that provided the basis for the preparation of Amendment C16.

Further details of the evolution of the plans for the Harbour are provided in section 6.1.

3.2 THE AMENDMENT

The Amendment proposes to:

• Change the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) including the Municipal Strategic Statement and Local Planning Policies as they relate to the Queenscliff Harbour;
• Replace the Queenscliff Harbour Special Use Zone Schedule. The key changes are:
  • - Revisions to the objectives to reflect the development concepts proposed.
  • - Nomination of a range of land uses that do not require a planning permit provided they are generally in accordance with the Incorporated Queenscliff Harbour Implementation Plan, June 2004.
  • - Nomination of a range of land uses that are prohibited within the zone.
  • - Exemptions from notice and appeal for applications to use land.
  • - No permit being required for buildings and works associated with a Section 1 use, provided that a development plan is approved by the responsible authority.
  • - Requirement for preparation of an Environmental Management Plan (EMP).
  • - Height controls restricting buildings to two storeys or 8.5 metres above ground level, with exceptions for architectural features and existing buildings which already exceed this height.
  • - Inclusion of QHID and the Queenscliff Harbour: Building Siting and Design Guidelines in the Decision Guidelines for applications and development plans.
• Amend the application of the Environmental Significance Overlays, Significant Landscape Overlay, Heritage Overlay and Design Development Overlay in relation to the Queenscliff Harbour;
• Include the Queenscliff Harbour Implementation Plan, June 2004 as an Incorporated document; and
• Make map changes to rezone land for a road.

3.3 NATURE OF THE PROPOSAL

The key elements of the Proposal include:

• Expansion of the Harbour, separated into three main basins with an overall increased depth of approximately 0.5m compared to current approved dredging depths. The basins define activity/operational zones which are designed to allow relatively independent operation so as to reduce conflict between competing uses. They are:
• The eastern (predominantly recreational) harbour zone;
• The western (predominantly commercial) harbour zone, consisting of the western, and southern basins and the travel lift facility, and
• The wharf zone, consisting of Fishermen's Wharf and West Wharf to provide wharfage for the commercial fishing fleet, and opportunities for dive operators, tour and fishing excursion operators, the sea pilots, and the like.
• The Fisherman’s Wharf section of the seawall is to be repaired and approximately 430 metres of new sea wall is proposed. New public boardwalk access is proposed around the Harbour perimeter sea walls and external wharf.
• An increase in the number of wet berths from 157 to 328 berths. The wet berths will be fully serviced with water, power, lighting, firefighting facilities, litter bins, and 24-hour security. The final configuration of the floating pontoons, and in turn the exact number of berths, will respond to demand for berths and will be refined during the detail design phase. The Port Phillip Sea Pilots’ alongside berths will be similar to current berths and a number of alongside berths would be available for visitor boats.
• Landside harbour facilities including:
  • - Central harbour refuelling and sewer bilge pump out facilities.
  • - Travel lift and associated equipment to improve vessel-lifting capacity for maintenance and dry storage.
  • - Undercover and open hardstand boatyard and dry storage facilities.
  • - A facility for maintenance and individual boat sheds.
• New commercial/retail space (up to 2,110 m2 without a permit) suitable for complementary marine and harbour related services, commercial and retail uses.
• A total of 433 car spaces are proposed, with 255 in the new main car park and the balance associated with access roads and satellite car parks.
• A total of 25 bicycle racks and some bicycle lockers for regular bicycle commuters located throughout the site. Bicycle commuters will also be able to use the shower and change facilities provided for harbour users.
• Development of a ‘bypass’ traffic and cycle link between the ferry terminal and the existing main road network to provide clearer delineation between the local harbour and associated parking and through traffic to and from the ferry.
• Pedestrian and cycle links are proposed within the site, to the ferry terminal and to Queenscliff.

Replacement of the existing 78 swing moorings located outside the Harbour between Sand Island and Rabbit Island will be the subject of a separate approval process.

Figure 2 Exhibited Implementation Plan

Post Exhibition Changes proposed

Queenscliff Harbour Pty Ltd. responded to submissions and issues raised by Council by proposing the following changes to the exhibited Implementation Plan:

• New pedestrian access through the boatyard.
• Additional car parking to the East end of the Harbour (adjacent to the Ferry Terminal).
• Improved intersection treatment at the entry to the Harbour Redevelopment area.
• Designation of a Permissible Building Envelope rather than a building footprint.
• 12.0metre average building setbacks to the Harbour edge.
• The Harbour edge boardwalk is indicated.

A revised schedule to the SUZ was also developed and agreed between Parks Victoria and Queenscliff Harbour Pty. Ltd. during the course of the hearing. The revised schedule is included in Appendix C and the revised Implementation plan is shown in figure 3 below. Specific changes proposed are discussed under the relevant issue and more generally in section 6.11.1. In addition to changes that are consistent with the changes noted above, revisions to the schedule included:

• Clarification of uses allowed, including prohibition of some retail uses and the imposition of an absolute limit on shop use of 2,500m2,
• Revision of Traffic Management Plan, the Environmental Management Plan and the Conservation Management Plan provisions including a requirement to consider comments on the EMP from DSE and the EPA.
• Additional requirements to apply to building within the East Harbour Building Envelope and increased mandatory building heights allowing 9.5 metre height where the roof is pitched and 10.5 metres for an enclosed area of roof top deck (up to 20 square metres)on the eastern ‘signature building’.

Figure 3 Revised Implementation Plan (22 October 2004)

4. STRATEGIC CONTEXT

This Section identifies the strategic context within which issues associated with the Amendment must be considered. The relevant documents that provide the strategic context for considering the Amendment are as follows:

• Existing Zones and Overlays
• Queenscliff Planning Scheme – SPPF and LPPF
• Victorian Coastal Strategy 2002
• Bays and Peninsulas Regional Tourism Development Plan

This section identifies relevant clauses of the Planning Scheme and key strategic planning documents but the assessment of the Amendment’s consistency with policies and strategies occurs in later sections of the report.

4.1 EXISTING ZONES AND OVERLAYS

Existing Special Use Zone 1 Queenscliff Harbour

Special Use Zone Schedule1 Queenscliff Harbour (SUZ1) affects the whole of the Amendment area. The detailed zone purposes relate very specifically to the Harbour precinct and emphasise development of expanding boating and related tourism facilities. The purposes of the zone recognise the cultural and heritage values of Queenscliff and the environmental values of Swan Bay and its islands.

The zone requires a permit for harbour and marine based uses, restaurants and take-away food premises. Other unspecified uses are prohibited. Buildings and works, other than maintenance and dredging, require a permit.

The existing SUZ 1 includes detailed decision guidelines requiring consideration of planning policy, the cultural, economic, environmental and social impacts and the Queenscliff Boating and Related Tourist Facilities Environmental Effects Statement Summary Report (Loder and Bayley Consulting Group et.al. May 1990). They also encourage renovation and reuse of old buildings and indicate maximum building heights of 4 metres adjoining the foreshore and Fisherman’s Flat and 10 metres elsewhere in the zone. The comments of Parks Victoria, the Department of Natural Resources and Environment (now DSE) and the Department of Infrastructure must be considered.

Existing Road Zone

Harbour Street and Larkin Parade are both declared main roads within a Road Zone. Clause 52.29 requires a planning permit for the access from the Road Zone to the Harbour development and the road authority is a referral authority.

Existing Overlays

Five overlays apply to portions of the Harbour Redevelopment area:

• Clause 42.01 Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 1 Coastal and Foreshore Areas applies to land north of Larkins Parade, including the Ferry terminal. The overlay objectives are:

To provide for the protection, conservation, maintenance and enhancement of the significant marine and landscape features to ensure the character, environmental qualities of the overlay area and Swan Bays National Estate Register listing is not compromised.

To maintain and protect the environmental diversity of the area, including marine and terrestrial flora and fauna habitats.

To maintain the stability of the foreshore, coastal cliffs and sand dunes.

To prevent nutrient and sedimentive input into Swan Bay.

To facilitate coastal management works which are beneficial to the environment or to the sustainable public use of the coast.

To manage the impact of human activity on the natural environment..

To discourage development and subdivision which is inconsistent with the environmental qualities of the site and surrounding area.

The exemptions for works in the overlay include routine or preventative maintenance to existing structures and dredging works undertaken by or on behalf of the Port Authority to maintain navigable depths in existing channels, waterways and harbours.

• Clause 42.01 Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 2 Swan Bay and Marine and Terrestrial Habitats applies to land north of Larkins Parade, including the Ferry terminal. The overlay objectives are:

To ensure that species listed under the provisions of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 are protected from inappropriate development..

To provide planning scheme protection complementary to the requirements of the Fauna and Flora Guarantee Act 1988.

To protect and encourage the long term future of both land based and marine flora and fauna habitats.

To conserve and minimise impacts on sites of significant flora and fauna listed on the Department of Sustainability and Environment’s site register data base.

To maintain identified movement corridors for fauna.

To acknowledge the importance of vegetation in maintaining flora and fauna habitats.

To protect and conserve sites of significant importance in relation to shore bird feeding areas and roosts for fauna;

To maintain essential ecological processes and life support systems, including tidal flows within the Bay.

All applications must:

- be accompanied by a report detailing the environmental effects of the proposal.
- demonstrate appropriate safeguards for the protection of native flora and fauna.
- be notified to DSE unless the proposal satisfies previously agreed requirements or conditions.

No permit is required for works carried out in accordance with a species recovery plan approved under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 and by the responsible authority.

• Clause 42.03 Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 1 Swan Bay Landscape Area affects a small area near Fisherman’s Flat. SLO1 is directed at preserving landscape features/values and their integrity (as identified on the National Estate Register) of Swan Bay and its foreshore from visual intrusion from inappropriate development.
• Clause 43.01 Heritage Overlay and Clause 43.02 Design and Development Overlay Schedule 6 also affect a small area in the north-west of the Amendment area which forms part of the Fisherman’s Flat precinct.

These overlays require a planning permit for buildings and works in the Harbour Redevelopment area, even if a development plan is approved under the SUZ1. To remove this duplication and streamline the approval regime, Amendment C16 proposes to insert an exemption clause into the buildings and works requirements of the ESO, SLO and DDO. These exemptions will only apply to land outside the Implementation Plan.

Section 6.2.2 sets out other relevant environmental legislation and policy guidelines.

4.2 PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

4.2.1 STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (SPPF)

Clause 11 of the SPPF sets out the broad principles for land use and development in Victoria and indicates that planning should integrate relevant environmental, social and economic factors in the interests of net community benefit and sustainable development. It indicates that:

• Planning is to anticipate and respond to the needs of existing and future communities.
• Planning is to contribute to the protection of air, land and water quality and the conservation of nature ecosystems, resources, energy and cultural heritage. The environment and resource management principles for ecologically sustainable development that have been established by existing national and international agreements, (such as Ramsar) are acknowledged. In particular, planning should:
  • - Adopt a best practice environmental management and risk management approach which aims to avoid or minimise environmental degradation and hazards.
  • - Prevent environmental problems created by siting incompatible land uses close together.
  • - Help to protect the health of ecological systems and the biodiversity they support.
  • - Protect places with significant historic, architectural, aesthetic, scientific and cultural values.
• Planning is to assist in the conservation and use of natural resources to support both environmental quality and sustainable development over the long term through judicious decisions on the location, pattern and timing of development.
• Planning for development of urban, physical and community infrastructure should enable provision in a way that is efficient, equitable, accessible and timely.
• Planning is to contribute to the economic well being of communities and the State as a whole by supporting and fostering economic growth and development.

Relevant elements of the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) include:

• Clause 15.01-2 Water Quality aims to protect and where possible restore marine environment.
• 15.05 Noise abatement aims to control noise effects on sensitive land use, through design and the separation of incompatible uses. It also applies the Interim Guidelines for Control of Noise from Industry in Country Victoria (EPA 1989).
• Clause 15.06 Soil Contamination aims to ensure that potentially contaminated land is suitable for its intended use.
• Clause 15.08 Coastal areas aims to protect and enhance the natural ecosystems and landscapes of the coastal and marine environment to ensure sustainable use of natural coastal resources and achieve development that provides an environmental, social and economic benefit. Planning decisions should be consistent with the hierarchy of principles set out in the Victorian Coastal Strategy 2002.
• Clause 15.09 Conservation of native flora and fauna seeks to protect and conserve biodiversity. Planning authorities must have regard to documents including the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity[2] strategies, orders and Action Statements under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988.
• Clause 15.11 Heritage aims to assist in the conservation of places of natural, environmental, aesthetic, historic, cultural, scientific or social significance.
• Clause 17.02 Business encourages major retail development in activity centres to meet community needs and provide net community benefit in relation to accessibility, efficient infrastructure use, and the aggregation and sustainability of commercial facilities.
• Clause l7.04 Tourism encourages facilities which are well designed and sited, and build upon the assets or qualities of surrounding activities and cultural and natural attractions.
• Clause 19.03 Design & Built Form aims to achieve high quality, attractive, urban design and architecture that:
  • - Reflects the particular characteristics, aspirations and cultural identity of the community.
  • - Enhances liveability, diversity, amenity and safety of the public realm.

4.2.2 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (LPPF)

The following elements of the Queenscliff Planning Scheme LPPF are particularly relevant to the Amendment.

Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS)

The MSS makes repeated references to the potential to realise benefits from further development of the Harbour. It foreshadows implementation of the 1999 Coastal Action which envisaged more extensive development than currently proposed and was rejected following exhibition of Amendment C2. Examples of specific references to the Harbour in the MSS are:

• Clause 21.02 The Economy refers to existing harbour facilities and expansion potential for recreational boating visitors, and new marine-based industries.
• Clause 21.03 Limited Employment Opportunities refers to development opportunity offered by the Harbour.
• Clause 21.03 Managing Tourism refers to the development opportunity offered by the Harbour in the context of balancing tourism against needs of permanent and temporary residents.
• Clause 21.04 Corporate Direction intends to facilitate substantial economic growth consistent with its environment and lifestyle. The Framework Plan in this clause designates the Harbour Redevelopment Area and notes that the Harbour provides the greatest opportunities for economic growth. It indicates that new tourism and commercial uses that will complement the existing functions and character of the area could be accommodated.
• Clause 21.05 Settlement Strategies refers to appropriate redevelopment of harbour to service marine and harbour based activities in a manner that complements town centre retail and commercial facilities. Implementation refers to including harbour and environs in Special Use Zone and Schedule to zone supporting marine, harbour and tourist activities.
• Clause 21.05-2 Environmental Strategies include ensuring development and use adjacent to significant natural areas minimises adverse impacts on those areas. Implementation refers to use of Environmental Significance, Vegetation Protection, and Significant Landscape Overlays. The Urban Character element refers to ensuring that new development complements the prevailing urban character of the area.
• Clause 21.05-3 Living, Leisure Recreation and Open Space objectives refer to improving boating facilities and the realisation of the Queenscliff Harbour as an important recreational and open space asset. Strategies include participating in the preparation and implementation of a Coastal Action Plan for development and improvement of the Harbour. A new cycle and pedestrian pathway is indicated through the Harbour.
• Clause 21.05-4 Economic Development, Tourism objectives include to retain and enhance the diversity and sustainability of tourism activities. Strategies include developing appropriate land and water based activities around the Harbour, which is a designated key tourist area, and identifying key infrastructure improvements that complement needs of tourism and the local community. Implementation refers to provision of boating facilities in the Harbour to promote Queenscliff as a boating destination. Commercial and Retail Uses Objectives include to encourage new tourist industry commercial and retail developments, and encourage development of harbour area with marine and tourist related uses that complement its function, whilst also complementing the existing commercial centre of Queenscliff. Other Business and Industry Objectives include maintaining a multi-faceted local economy, and retaining and encouraging a diversity of employment opportunities. Strategies and Implementation include developing existing and new marine industries in the Harbour area.

Local Policies

There are no local policies in the LPPF that specifically relate to the Harbour area redevelopment. However, the Clause 22.04 Urban Character Policy has recently been introduced and includes objectives:

• To ensure new development enhances and harmonises with the distinguishing cultural heritage identity of the Township.
• To minimise visual impact of development in foreshore areas.
• To require all new development to have regard to siting and design guidelines of the Urban Character Study.

The Harbour area is within the designated Queenscliff Urban Heritage area and the Clause 22.03 policy applies, including:

• Having regard to sea or townscape views from or across the site.
• Design of new development having regard to features of the site, coastal conditions, and view corridors.
• Interpreting traditional building designs.
• Height and setback of new buildings not to cause significant adverse impact on amenity of adjacent dwellings or land.

4.3 OTHER DOCUMENTS

4.3.1 VICTORIAN COASTAL STRATEGY 2002

The SPPF Clause 15.08 requires planning and planning decisions for coastal areas to be consistent with the Victorian Coastal Strategy 2002 (VCS), including the hierarchy of principles which accord priority to protection of the coastal environment. They provide for ‘suitable development on the coast within existing modified and resilient environments where the demand for services is evident and requires management’ but only where the use of coastal resources is sustainable, significant environmental features are protected and integrated planning has occurred.

Objectives and actions designed to achieve the VCS vision relevant to the proposal include:

Marine and Estuarine Environments

• Protect and improve the condition of marine biological diversity.
• Reduce the impact of effluent in the marine and estuarine environments.
• Reduce the impact of sea based activities on water quality.

People on the Coast

• Improve enjoyment and safety for beach and water users. Ensure active management of public risk.
• Manage tourism to maximise environmental, social and economic outcomes.

Access

• Improve opportunities for safe boating and water based activities.
• Reduce the impact of vehicles in the coastal environment.
• Improve access at strategic locations along the coast.

Built Environment and Coastal Infrastructure

• Provide direction for the location and scale of use and development on the coast.
• Improve design outcomes for buildings and structures in foreshore and coastal areas.
• Protect, improve and utilise the historic buildings and features along the coast.

Coastal Dependent Industry

• Ensure appropriate port and coastal dependent industrial development.
• Ensure appropriate local port infrastructure for commercial fishing and recreation.
• Improve facilities for tourism and provide opportunities for cultural and nature based tourism.

The VCS acknowledges the need for better boating facilities and the recreational boating facilities hierarchy to 2010 nominates Queenscliff as a Safe Harbour[3] which is defined as:

A Safe Harbour would be a major regional boating destination and a major activity focus of national, State and regional significance. It would include marinas, protected harbours, jetties and ramps, hire facilities, waterfront activities and marine services. A site satisfying this level of hierarchy generates activities and synergies that contribute to highly active waterfront areas.

4.3.2 BAYS AND PENINSULAS REGIONAL TOURISM DEVELOPMENT PLAN

The Bays and Peninsulas Tourism Development Plan aims to increase tourism and associated financial benefits. Two key product development issues to be implemented are:

Develop water access points within the region’s activity nodes, including such facilities as marinas, safe harbours and boat ramps.

Develop attractions, activities and supporting infrastructure with links to the water, such as foreshore restaurants, historic port redevelopments and marine tour operations.

Panel View

The Panel considers that the local planning framework and the Victorian Coastal Strategy offer clear and consistent support for retention of the Harbour as a working facility and for further development of the precinct for tourism, boating, marine services However, this support is not unqualified. Planning policy, the ESO’s and the Victorian Coastal Strategy establish an imperative to ensure that the sensitive coastal environment, particularly the internationally significant Ramsar wetland of Swan Bay, is protected.

Planning policy also promotes good design, requires development to respect the character and heritage values of the locality, and supports uses that compliment, rather than compete with the town centre. Amenity impacts on surrounding uses must also be addressed.

The ultimate test established by the SPPF is whether the Amendment would result in a net community benefit and sustainable development.

5. ISSUES

As noted above, planning policy at both State and local levels has supported redevelopment of the Harbour and this support has been confirmed in policy and strategies. It is also important to note that there was wide recognition in submissions to the Panel that the Harbour represents an opportunity for Queenscliff and its redevelopment in some form enjoys wide community support.

Submissions to the Panel indicated that the issues raised can be considered around the following key themes which form the basis of the Panel’s assessment in subsequent sections of the report:

• Departures from the Community Concept Plan
• Environmental Impacts
• Impacts of Retail Uses
• Urban Character and Built Form
• Heritage
• Traffic Management , Car Parking and Pedestrian Access
• Amenity Impacts
• Associated Arrangements such as leases, privatisation of public land, and berthing fees
• The Planning Framework Proposed

5.1 DEPARTURES FROM CONCEPT PLANS

The potential for redevelopment of the Harbour has been recognised for more than a decade and has been the subject of a series of planing initiatives commencing with the 1990 Environmental Effects Statement. A planning process guided by a community steering group, feasibility assessment and joint venture tendering preceded Amendment C16.

The Panel has emphasised throughout the process that it has been appointed to consider submissions specifically relating to the Amendment and the proposal facilitated by it. However, the extended planning history of the Harbour, the community’s expectations about the form of development at the Harbour and the current proposal’s departure from those community expectations were central to many submissions. Therefore the planning background is set out in some detail.

5.1.1 PREVIOUS PROPOSALS

Environmental Effects Statement - Preferred Development Concept 1990

In 1990 an Environmental Effects Statement[4] was undertaken to consider the demand and opportunities for development of harbour facilities at Queenscliff in the context of the environmental impacts. Plans showed an extra 253 wet pen berths (a total of 353 berths). The study recommended that “The Cut” be relocated some 110 metres northwards which would separate harbour waters from Swan Bay. More detailed economic and financial feasibility assessment and a more thorough coastal study to identify and evaluate the likely effects of on the coastal hydrodynamic and sedimentation processes were recommended.

In 1992 Amendment RL 52 introduced the Preferred Development Concept and Queenscliffe Harbour Zone in the Queenscliffe Planning Scheme in 1992. This zone was translated into the Queenscliffe’s new format Planning Scheme in 1999.

Queenscliffe Coastal Action Plan 1999

The Central Coastal Board developed the Queenscliffe Coastal Action Plan 1999 which included a concept plan for the Harbour providing for additional berths, a large mixed use area on the existing MAFRI site, a ferry road and residential development. Amendment C2 was prepared to implement this plan. Over 500 submissions against the proposal were lodged and in March 2000 Amendment C2 was abandoned.

Community Concept Plan 2001

In January 2001, the community based Queenscliff Harbour Steering Group submitted a report to the former Minister for Environment and Conservation which included a preferred Community Concept Plan (the ‘Community Plan’) based on the following principles:

• Human Scale Development - Queenscliff has a peaceful village atmosphere and any plan must reflect that quality. It is important that it retains its human scale, diversity and broad vistas of the bay and Port Phillip Heads.
• Sense Of History - The sense of history and heritage must be maintained and take account of the occupation by European communities and the cultures of those previously living in the area.
• Environmental Values - The environment is a very significant aspect of Queenscliff and any plan must ensure that environmental values are retained and improved.
• View Lines - Views of Swan Bay and Port Phillip should be preserved and views of the township from offshore and at key arrival points must also be considered in any plans.
• Working Port Character - The Harbour should maintain its character as a working port with facilities and infrastructure of high quality to support the demands of its many users. The range of seasonal, land and water based uses must be considered.
• Job Creation - Queenscliff is facing falling job opportunities and any plans should consider the potential to make a positive contribution to the overall economic viability of the Harbour and the town.
• Complementary Tourism - Tourism is a valued contributor to Queenscliff but should be balanced with the needs of the permanent local community. Ideally it should relate to the ecology, environment and heritage of the area. New plans should complement each other and the town.
• Accessibility - Opportunity for public access, linkages and activities must be maintained and where necessary enhanced.
• Functional Harbour - The Harbour design should be suitable for current and potential users.

The ‘Community Plan’ included the following key elements:

• Expansion of the Harbour to provide more than 260 berths;
• Enhanced vehicular and pedestrian access which reinforces the visual connections between the Harbour and the town of Queenscliff including new roads to the car ferry terminal and the commercial side of the Harbour, and provision of car parking on the MAFRI site;
• New and expanded maritime-based commercial and community facilities adjacent to the Harbour;
• Improved facilities for commercial boating interests such as charter boat operators, commercial fishermen and expanded marine service industry to further support the viability of the Harbour (the slipways were decommissioned);
• Protection of the sensitive Queenscliff beach dunal structure and foreshore area;
• Recycling and refurbishment of existing buildings.

The Victorian Government accepted the Steering Committee Report, and committed $5 million to the redevelopment. Parks Victoria was requested to undertake a technical, economic and environmental feasibility assessment of the Community Concept Plan.

Final Concept Plan

The feasibility study noted above was undertaken by Egis Consulting Victoria Pty Ltd and the report, Queenscliff Harbour Feasibility Investigation (QHFI), was completed in October 2002. The report concluded that the Concept Plan with some minor adjustments was technically feasible and would provide significant improvement to the operation and management of the Harbour.

A Final Concept Plan was prepared as part of QHFI which:

• Enlarged the eastern and western basins, and included a new inner basin;
• Included 615 metres of new timber quayside boardwalk around the Harbour perimeter;
• Modified jetty structures to rearrange openings for access from The Cut;
• Provided new roads directly to the ferry terminal and along the site’s western boundary;
• A new marine services hardstand area to the west of the Parks Victoria Workshop, including a boat lift basin and retention of the slipways;
• Provided a main car park of 236 spaces;
• Provided for refurbishment/reuse of the following buildings: Parks Victoria workshop, MAFRI Workshop, Sea Pilots building, Marine Research Centre, Marine Display Centre;
• Installation of a waste management system and clean-up of contaminated sediment at the slipway.

The project was estimated to cost a total of $20.5 million but available government funding to implement the project is $5 million. A minimum set of project components were identified (Stage1), with a cost of $8 million, and would require some contribution from private investment. Stage 1 elements included:

• Inner Basin - excavation and soil disposal, removal of sheetpiling, sloping seawall, new mooring piles and boardwalk
• Demolition of part of the existing jetty
• Fuel supply facility for the Pilot boats
• Slipway waste disposal system
• Car park construction and ferry and slipway access roads (with stormwater management)
• Marine services hardstand
• Parks Victoria building roof replacement
• Contaminated sediment clean-up - western basin

5.1.2 THE CURRENT PROPOSAL (JUNE 2004)

After an expression of interest process, tenders were called which required proposed development concepts that interpret the Final Concept Plan. The successful tenderer, Queenscliff Harbour Pty. Ltd., was announced on 9 June 2004. The Implementation Master Plan that formed part of the tender has been used as a basis for the preparation of Amendment C16. The key features of the plan have been summarised in section 4. The changes from the Final Concept Plan are summarised below:

Harbour Design

• Short inner basin provides for a larger commercial boat yard, 60 dry stack berths, 60 land berths and 15 boat sheds.
• Harbour layout altered to increase the number of wetberths from 260 to 328.
• The slipway is decommissioned and replaced by a travel lift with up to 200 tonne capacity.(The original Community Plan recommended a Travel Lift to replace the slipway.)
• The Harbour depths are increased.
• Future wharf development is identified.

Retail

• Retail space of 2110 m2 is at the upper limit of the range of 1390 to 2140 m2 identified in the Final Concept Plan.
• The retail space is located away from the boat maintenance and repair activities.
• Community facilities (WC, showers) and community open space (use by community meetings, yacht clubs, etc) is incorporated with retail space.

Car Parking

• Car parking is increased from 236 spaces in the Final Concept Plan to 433 spaces.

Road Alignments

• The western access road reverts to the Community Plan alignment around the Maritime Museum site. This requires measures to protect HMVS Lonsdale.

Discovery Centre Building Use

• This building is identified for caretaker use but earlier plans showed it as an environmental interpretative centre or future harbour related uses.

Parks Victoria and Queenscliff Harbour Pty Ltd. considered that the successful tender complied with the community’s Contextual Principles summarised above.

There were two main themes in the many submissions from residents and community groups that objected to the departures from earlier plans:

• The Community Concept Plan and the Final Concept Plan were the result of constructive processes that had been approached with a view to balancing alternative views and both Plans reflected a range of compromises that enjoyed substantial support within the community. The tender documents had foreshadowed that significant departures from the Final Concept Plan would necessitate extensive further consultation. It was argued that, despite a clear expectation that further consultation would occur if changes were substantial, the Amendment has proceeded without reference back to the community other than through formal exhibition processes.
• The increased intensity of the successful tender proposal compromises key principles and elements of the earlier plans. For example, the retail element had been accommodated in the existing MAFRI building but the extended retail area parallel to the eastern harbour changes the emphasis of the development, blocks views to the Harbour and poses a greater threat to the town centre. The extended boat yard function and reduced inner harbour have replaced an area with a clear presence from Wharf Street and a strong community focus with an industrial area with, at best, restricted public access. It was also suggested that the increased intensity ‘squeezes’ other aspects of the development with reduced opportunities for landscaping and public spaces, while extra land is devoted to car parking which would be a dominant element at a sensitive gateway to the town.

Parks Victoria emphasised that the tender process is not an issue for the Panel. However, it was submitted that:

• Analysis of the current form, layout and major elements of the implementation plan demonstrates that the current proposal is an evolution of the earlier concepts which is consistent with the 9 contextual principles which have been the subject of detailed scrutiny and community consultation processes. The current plan is ‘not a radical transformation’ and ‘both plans come from the same family tree.’
• The tender process contemplated that there would be deviations from the Final Concept Plan and consultation with the community has been extensive.

Queenscliff Harbour Pty. Ltd. also argued that the current plan builds on earlier plans to achieve a viable proposal that achieves improved environmental performance while maintaining a working harbour with community access and a human scale. The proposal provides sufficient critical mass to generate tourism and support improved services. The proposal allows implementation of a comprehensive redevelopment, with the associated benefits, which was not possible under previous plans.

Conclusion on Departures from Concept Plans

It is recognised that the planning process leading to the Final Concept Plan resulted in a high level of support in the community for that plan and the changes reflected in the Amendment have undermined submittors’ goodwill towards the Harbour Redevelopment. As Mr. Player said, the community feels ‘bruised’ and the history of redevelopment proposals for the Harbour has undermined community confidence in the planing process and magnified the issues.

However, the Panel’s role is to consider the planning merits of the proposal before it, not earlier plans or the tender process. It is accepted that proposals of this scale evolve with further assessment of the range of factors affecting the nature and form of the proposal.

All parties to the Panel Hearing process acknowledged the need for redevelopment of the Harbour and it was recognised that private sector involvement is necessary. The Panel is concerned with the costs and benefits to the community rather than private financial returns from the project. However, it does accept the proponents’ submissions that project benefits to the community will only be realised if the proposal includes a level of development that provides a commercial return. The Panel returns to this issue of whether the proposal would result in an overall net community benefit in section 8.1, after specific issues raised in submissions have been considered.

The Panel will not undertake a direct comparison of the various plans for the Amendment area but the approaches adopted in other proposals for the site do illustrate alternative solutions and some comparative comment is made in relation to submissions regarding specific aspects of the Amendment.

5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

5.2.1 PLANNING POLICY

The SPPF, particularly Clause 15.08 Coastal areas, requires natural ecosystems to be protected. It requires planning decisions to be consistent with the following Victorian Coastal Strategy 2002 hierarchy of principles:

1. Provide for the protection of significant environmental features.
2. Ensure the sustainable use of natural coastal resources.
3. Undertake integrated planning and provide direction for the future.
4. When the above principles have been met, facilitate suitable development on the coast within existing modified and resilient environments where the demand for services is evident and requires management.

The SPPF and the Coastal Strategy make it clear that development will only be facilitated on the coast if the environment is protected.

Clause 15.09 Conservation of native flora and fauna requires Planning authorities to have regard to documents including The National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity (Department of Environment, Sport and Territories 1996), strategies, orders and Action Statements under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. The Clause states

Planning and responsible authorities must ensure that any changes in land use or development would not adversely affect the habitat values of wetlands and wetland wildlife habitats designated under the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (the Ramsar Convention)

Swan Bay is identified as a wetland of international importance under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. EPBC-listed migratory species have been recorded in the area. Swan Bay also forms part of Port Phillip Heads Marine National Park. The study area is located adjacent to the Swan Bay sector of the Port Phillip Bay (Western Shoreline) and Bellarine Peninsula Ramsar Site. The Harbour (and Sand Island) is excluded from the Ramsar site. However, the Harbour’s proximity to such an environmentally significant area and the potential for water flushed from the Harbour into Swan Bay to adversely affect habitat values demand careful consideration of likely impacts.

The environmental values of coastal areas generally and Swan Bay which adjoins the site are also recognised in local provisions of the planning scheme, including the MSS Clause 21.05-2 Environment Natural Environment, ESO1 Coastal and Foreshore Areas and ESO 2 Swan Bay and Marine and Terrestrial Habitats. The environmental objectives of ESO 2 are:

To ensure that species listed under the provisions of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 are protected from inappropriate development.

To provide planning scheme protection complementary to the requirements of the Fauna and Flora Guarantee Act 1988.

To protect and encourage the long term future of both land based and marine flora and fauna habitats.

To conserve and minimise impacts on sites of significant flora and fauna listed on the Department of Sustainability and Environment’s site register data base.

To maintain identified movement corridors for fauna.

To acknowledge the importance of vegetation in maintaining flora and fauna habitats.

To protect and conserve sites of significant importance in relation to shore bird feeding areas and roosts for fauna;

To maintain essential ecological processes and life support systems, including tidal flows within the Bay.

There is a clear planning policy imperative that the proposal does not compromise environmental values, particularly given the Harbour’s proximity to a Ramsar wetland of international significance.

5.2.2 OTHER RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION

The planning scheme is only one component of the regulatory framework that would apply to protect environmental values at the Harbour. The Draft Environmental Management Plan for the proposal identifies the key environmental legislation relevant to the project as follows:

• Catchment and Land Protection Act, 1994
• Coastal Management Act, 1995
• Dangerous Goods Act, 1985
• Environment Protection Act, 1970
• Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 (Commonwealth)
• Environmental Protection (Prescribed Waste) Regulation, 1998
• Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act, 1988
• Industrial Waste Management Policy (Waste Acid Sulphate Soils), 1999
•  Litter Act, 1987 
• Marine Act, 1988
• Pollution of Waters by Oil and Noxious Substances Act, 1986
• Port Services (Port Reform Management) Act, 1995
• State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade), 2001
• State Environment Protection Policy (Groundwaters of Victoria), 1997
• State Environment Protection Policy (Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land), 2002
• State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria), 2003
• Water Act, 1989

Other environmental policies and guidelines relevant to the project include:

• Best Practice Environmental Management: Guidelines for Dredging, EPA 2001
• Borough of Queenscliff Stormwater Management Plan, 2002
• Bunding Guidelines, EPA
• Classification of Wastes, EPA, 1995
• Code of Practice for Antifouling and In-water Hull Cleaning and Maintenance, ANZECC
• Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control, EPA 1991
• Draft Environmental Management Guidelines for Operational Best Practice at Slipways and other Boat Repair and Maintenance Facilities, DPIWE, 2003
• Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites, EPA 1995
• Environment Protection (Prescribed Waste) Regulations, EPA 1998
• Guidelines for Cleaner Marinas, EPA 1998
• Noise Control Guidelines, EPA 1992
• Port Phillip Bay Dredging Strategy, Parks Victoria 2001
• Urban Stormwater Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines, CSIRO 1999
• Victorian Marine Pollution Contingency Plan (VICPLAN), Marine Safety Victoria, 2002

The Panel was also advised that the State Government is currently implementing a number of reforms to the Victorian port industry, including a requirement for a Safety Management Plan and an Environmental Management Plan for all trading and local ports. Ministerial Guidelines are currently being prepared that will specify certain mandatory components for Safety and Environmental Management Plans as well as appropriate means of achieving these requirements.

5.2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS FOR THE HARBOUR REDEVELOPMENT

Environmental Effects Act Determination

In January 2004 Parks Victoria requested advice from the Minister of Planning as to whether the proposed redevelopment required an Environmental Effects Statement (EES).

In a letter dated 10 June 2004 the Minister advised that the Queenscliff Harbour Redevelopment does not require an Environmental Effects Statement. The Minister however requested supporting environmental information, which was provided by Parks Victoria to DSE on 23 June 2004. The supporting information, with the exception of a comprehensive Environmental Management Plan (EMP), was assessed as satisfactory by the DSE on 27 August 2004. It was acknowledged by DSE that a detailed EMP would be prepared as part of the Development Plan.

Several submissions to the Amendment noted that the supporting information was not exhibited with the Amendment. The Panel requested confirmation from the DSE that it was satisfied with material exhibited during the Planning Scheme Amendment process and the approval of the EMP as a part of a Development Plan. On the 11 November 2004, during the course of the Panel Hearing, DSE confirmed that this was the case.

Environment Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act Determination

In January 2004 Parks Victoria referred the proposed Harbour redevelopment (Final Concept) to the Commonwealth Department of Environment & Heritage to determine whether the redevelopment was a ‘controlled’ action and required assessment and approval under the EPBC Act.

The Commonwealth replied in February 2004 stating that the proposed development was ’....not a controlled action.’

The final agreed QHPL plan for the redevelopment was also submitted to the Commonwealth in June 2004 and in September 2004 the Commonwealth replied that they ’.... considered that the proposed development was generally consistent with that considered under the EPBC Act.’

Later in September 2004 the Commonwealth sought clarification from Parks Victoria on a number of matters. This was in response to issues raised regarding the adequacy of the information on which their September 2004 determination that the new proposal was not a controlled action was made. After considering Parks Victoria’s response, the Commonwealth upheld their earlier decision. A letter from the Commonwealth Department of Environment and Heritage dated 4 November 2004 stated:

Based on the information available, I found that a significant impact on the ecological character of the Port Phillip Bay (Western Shoreline) and Bellarine Peninsula Ramsar site, or other protected matter under the EPBC Act, is unlikely. In considering this matter, I noted pollution control and vessel management measures proposed to be implemented as part of the proposed redevelopment, including the decommissioning of the slipway and the removal of contaminated sediments.

I have therefore concluded that revocation of the original decision and substitution of a new decision is not warranted. This means that further consideration of the proposal under the EPBC Act is not required.

Coastal Management Act 1995 Consents

Consent is required under the Coastal Management Act 1995 (CMA) to use or develop coastal Crown land. Prior to the redevelopment proceeding, consent for land based works will be required from the Minister for Planning under the Coastal Management Act 1995 (CMA).

Dredging within the Victorian coastal area requires consent under the CMA. Parks Victoria has an existing CMA consent, which is valid until 1 August 2011, for maintenance dredging within Port Phillip Bay including Queenscliff Harbour, Queenscliff Harbour Entrance and Queenscliff Inner Mooring Areas. The CMA consent requires all dredging to be consistent with the Dredging Strategy Port Phillip Bay (Parks Victoria, June 2001).

It is expected that an amendment to the existing CMA consent will be required for the dredging works associated with the Harbour Redevelopment, including the decontamination of sediments around the slipway, because dredging depths differ from those currently approved.

5.2.4 INVESTIGATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND VALUES

The 2002 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the Harbour Redevelopment undertaken by Egis drew on a number of studies undertaken by specialist environmental consultants including;

• Terrestrial Flora and Fauna
• Marine Ecology
• Archaeology
• Coastal Processes
• Sediment, Soil and Groundwater

These reports were incorporated as appendices in the Queenscliff Harbour Implementation Document (QHID) which was exhibited with the Amendment. Expert evidence regarding the environmental effects of the Harbour Redevelopment was presented at the hearing by:

• Mr. Doug Oldfield, in Relation to the 2002 Egis Report and Proposed Port and Marine Design and Construction.
• Mr. Lawrence Conole, Ecology Australia (Terrestial Flora & Fauna)
• Dr. Jan Watson, Marine Science & Ecology (Marine Ecology)
• Mr. S. Ord, Parks Victoria (Slip Way)
• Ms. Christine Wyatt, Maunsell (Planning, EMP and Operational Issues)

The following description of existing environmental values and the identification of key environmental issues is drawn from those reports and evidence statements. Key environmental issues are then considered in more detail in sections 6.2.6 to 6.2.11.

Coastal Processes

Egis reviewed its earlier findings, as set out in its Coastal Processes Study August 2002 report, assessing the effects of the redesigned Harbour as presented in the current proposal and concluded as follows:

• Current speed within The Cut is likely to remain more or less at present levels, and to diminish somewhat within the Harbour due to the wider flow paths of the new basins.
• The tidal conditions at each end of The Cut, at Swan Bay and Port Phillip, will be unaffected, and hence the littoral processes in The Cut will not be perceptibly modified by the redevelopment.
• The expanded harbour layout is expected to have little effect on the rate of sedimentation and sand accretion occurring within the Harbour, possibly increasing the rate of accumulation by 10%. Since the total footprint area of the Harbour is being substantially increased, the sand accretion rate, although greater, is predicted to result in less average depth of sand accretion across the Harbour floor than presently occurs. Maintenance dredging will continue to be necessary on a cycle of about five years.
• Wave incidence inside the Harbour is virtually negligible, even in very windy conditions and will not change for the new harbour layout.
• Water quality within the Queenscliff Harbour is anticipated to remain close to its present high level. Flushing time for the extended existing basins will remain approximately 12 hours and the southern end of the new basin will have a maximum flushing time of 5 days during extended calms.

Terrestrial Fauna

Seven fauna species (all birds) listed under Schedule 2 of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act, 1988 (FFG Act) have been recorded in the area. This includes the threatened Orange-Bellied Parrot which is the only threatened species occurring in the area listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 (EPBC Act). Evidence from Mr. Canole indicated that the redevelopment was not expected to impact on fauna. It was noted that:

• The orange bellied parrot was most reliant on the environment remote from the site (particularly the golf course on Swan Island),
• Birds appear to be habituated to noise from current Harbour activities.
• No plans exist to modify the rock wall on the northern side of ‘The Cut’ and therefore no impacts are expected on water-rat den sites that exist there.
• The habitat on Sand Island is changing. For example, Fairy terns used to breed there but the regeneration of vegetation has made it less attractive.
• Migratory shore birds forage in the wider Swan Bay and Mud Islands as changes to the tidal regime have made the Sand Island lagoon less suitable. Foraging activity on intertidal flats exposed at low tide is unlikely to be affected by increased boat activity at the Harbour as water depth precludes boat access, particularly when these areas are exposed.

If degradation of environmental conditions in Swan Bay occurred, then impacts on food sources and consequently migratory birds could be anticipated but the Harbour Redevelopment is not expected to have adverse impacts on Swan Bay (see section 6.2.8)

Terrestrial Flora

The existing Harbour is situated on a triangular foreland, built up from a trapping of northward-drifting sand mobilised as a consequence of the building of the breakwater at ‘The Cut’ in the 1930’s. Dredging activity at ‘The Cut’ and subsequent spoil dumping has helped form the area known as Sand Island. The proposed Harbour redevelopment is entirely on land reclaimed since the 1930’s and has no pre-1750 terrestrial native vegetation. Therefore Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management – a Framework for Action Net Gain policy does not apply.

There are no plant species found on the Harbour site that are listed under the EPBC Act or the FFG Act. Mr Canole advised that the Harbour Redevelopment is unlikely to have any impact on significant flora in the wider area.

Vegetation in the dunal area adjacent to the proposed development is degraded by the invasion of a number of exotic and environmental weeds but the proposed Harbour redevelopment includes rehabilitation of the dunal area. Landscaping issues, including the retention of existing planted vegetation, is discussed in section 6.4.2.

Marine Flora and Fauna in the Harbour

The marine habitats in the Harbour are considered to be generally representative of areas elsewhere in southern Port Phillip Bay. No unique or threatened marine species or communities under the FFG Act were identified.

Evidence from Dr. Watson indicated that the Harbour has a sandy sea-bed as the dominant sub-tidal marine habitat. Marine fauna is also present on the artificial structures within the Harbour. The Cut contains a relatively diverse reef ecosystem of algal and invertebrate species. Dr Watson expressed the opinion that:

• The expanded harbour will provide a larger area of artificial substrata for marine colonies similar to those currently resident in the Harbour, ie no net loss of habitat area (artificial or natural).
• The relatively diverse and healthy biota in the existing Harbour is evidence that water flushing (and thus oxygenation) is sufficient. Similarly high flushing times are expected after redevelopment of the Harbour. Even under worst (extended calm) conditions, flushing would continue to be sufficient taking a maximum of 5 days in the southern basin.
• The deeper harbour will assist in reducing turbidity due to propeller wash. If well managed, fines released during dredging, pile driving and boat traffic during water based construction activities should be only marginally greater than currently created by boat traffic at peak times and impacts would be transient. The impact on infaunal marine life was assessed as minimal and quickly able to re-establish itself. This was supported by the photos of marine life and seagrasses in the existing basins currently subjected to regular dredging.
• Resuspension and settlement of sea-bed sediments will continue to occur but good flushing mitigates impacts.
• Turbidity during land based excavation activities will require management to avoid impact on the surrounding marine environment.

Egis identified that sediment bound heavy metal toxins from boating pollution and stormwater runoff can concentrate in sediments. Mobilisation of sediment bound heavy metals and toxins could also pose a significant risk to biotic values both in the Harbour and Swan Bay. This issue is discussed in section 6.2.8.

Soil

The Egis investigation for the QHFI included drilling and grid sampling of surface soils and underlying sands across the site. The material was assessed as essentially clean sand except for areas of localised pollutants around two disused underground storage tanks.

Egis noted that, as part of the construction process, testing at additional locations would be required to ensure excavated land based soil from the Harbour development is characterised for disposal as ’clean fill’.

Parks Victoria has committed to cleaning up contaminated land and harbour areas as part of the remediation of the site and advised that the process would be addressed through the EMP.

Groundwater

Hydrogeological observations indicate a shallow fresh water sand aquifer that is continuous and persistent throughout the site. Groundwater is inferred to discharge into Port Phillip Bay but may vary due to local influences.

Egis investigations into groundwater quality for the QHFI revealed that zinc concentrations in two out of three groundwater boreholes at the Harbour site were above SEPP (Waters of Victoria) Port Phillip criterion (recorded levels of 15µg/L compared with SEPP trigger levels of 5µg/L). At the time no industrial sources for the elevated zinc levels could be clearly identified.

This issue was explored during the Panel hearing and Parks Victoria was requested to provide further information on the source of the elevated zinc levels and management measures to prevent adverse environmental impact.

Subsequent information provided by GHD on behalf of Parks Victoria indicated that the zinc levels could be related to runoff from galvanised roofing. GHD described the groundwater as free of any other contamination and is of potable quality. The drinking water standard for zinc levels is 3 mg/L (3000µg/L) compared to the level recorded of 15µg/L. GHD concluded that the zinc levels are harmless to marine fauna due to dilution rates in the order of 100,000 or greater as the groundwater moved into the marine environment. No adverse impact on local ecosystems from zinc in groundwater was expected by GHD.

In support of the GHD analysis the Panel notes the water quality testing that was carried out on 21 October 2004 at various locations in Swan Bay as part of a baseline monitoring study. Of the samples taken the highest recorded zinc level was 6µg/L at the Sand Island lagoon site.

Dredging

The QHID described the proposal to expand the existing east and west basins and include a short additional harbour to the south. The southern harbour will provide access to the travel lift and boatyard facilities. It is proposed that the east and west basins are generally dredged to maintain a depth of 3.0m Admiralty Chart Datum (ACD) and the channels and fairways be dredged to 4.0m (ACD). The final depth of this central access channel is anticipated to be no more than 5.0m (ACD). The existing cut depth is between 3.5m and 5.5m deep. This represents an increased depth of approximately 0.5m over the Harbour entire basin compared to currently approved dredging depths.

As previously stated dredging within the Victorian Coastal area requires a consent under the CMA. All dredging needs to be consistent with the Dredging Strategy Port Phillip Bay (Parks Victoria, June 2001) and in accordance with EPA dredging guidelines.

It was acknowledged by Parks Victoria that a revised dredging licence will be required to accommodate the new basin setout and address the decontamination of sediments around the slipway.

Submissions raised some concerns relating to dredging, mostly about the impact on marine life and transfer of polluted sands into Swan Bay. ‘The Cut’ and the Harbour are regularly dredged and the impacts from the proposed expansion of the Harbour is likely to have impacts similar to those that occur as a result of the current licensed operation. Marine life and seagrasses in the Harbour re-establish themselves quickly. As discussed in section 6.2.8, evidence from extensive testing has indicated that sediment transfer into Swan Bay is minimal and localised.

5.2.5 KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Management of the impact of the Harbour Redevelopment on the water quality within the Harbour and Swan Bay is of fundamental importance to protecting the environmental value of the area.

The subsequent consideration of environmental issues should be placed within the context of potential environmental benefits. Parks Victoria’s submission identified the following environmental benefits from the proposal:

the works involved in the Harbour redevelopment will respect the Ramsar-listed wetlands of Swan Bay by eliminating the current discharges of toxic wastes from the slipway;

existing contaminated sediments in the slipway basin will be removed in accordance with EPA best practice;

the slipway will cease operational work, reducing the discharge of contaminants into the Harbour. The northern slipway is proposed to be retained as an interpretive item with the potential for permanent heritage display;

the restriction of boating activity, the presence of the Swan Island Bridge, the shallowness of Swan Bay and the prohibition on fishing in Swan Bay will ensure that the resulting increase in the number of boats into The Cut as a result of the redevelopment, will not have any impact upon the Ramsar-listed wetlands of Swan Bay;

there will be an improved environmental regime for marine species and communities as a result of the extension of the Harbour;

the proposed reconfiguration of the Harbour will ensure that there is adequate water circulation and flushing times are adequate;

a better level of water quality will be maintained through the implementation of proper stormwater management and sewage pump-out facility;

two underground storage tanks at the rear of the existing PV site will be removed and the small, localised contamination around the tanks will be removed and the site cleaned up; and

the foreshore on the south side of the proposed new Ferry Access Road will be protected through a weed management plan to be prepared by the proponents and the Borough.

A range of stormwater and runoff control and treatment measures are proposed. Stormwater management systems in the roads and carparks will control and capture pollutants before they enter the Harbour. The QHID also:

• indicated that runoff from the proposed boatyard hardstand area will be captured and prevented from entering the Harbour; and
• detailed that sewage and bilge pumpout facilities are to be provided which will overcome a current source of pollution.

There appears to be little doubt that the proposed stormwater and waste management systems will have a beneficial effect on the quality of water within the Harbour, even with the increased number of boats, by preventing pollutants from entering the marine environment.

GHD undertook an Environmental Review and Ecological Risk Assessment in October 2004 to address issues of concern raised in submissions to the Amendment. The key issues identified were;

• Contaminants from slipway operation
• Turbidity plumes as a result of boating activity and during the construction phase
• Fuel and oil from accidental spills
• Bilge and sewage pump-outs within the Harbour
• Impacts from increased boating including leaching of anti-fouling products and
• Zinc from sacrificial anodes

GHD summarised the results of their risk assessment as follows;

Overall, when mitigation measures, clean-up processes, up-graded facilities and management strategies are considered, the redevelopment option poses less of a risk to the environment than would continuing activities in their current state.

Some submittors viewed the risk assessment as subjective. However, the Panel accepts that the assessment drew on various investigations and applies a structured, transparent interpretation of impacts by experts with training and experience in the subject.

The Panel will now consider in more detail these key areas of risk to the environment.

5.2.6 CONTAMINANTS FROM THE SLIPWAY

Contamination From Slipway Operation

Measures to manage the environmental impacts of the slipway are virtually nonexistent. The result is that pollutants such as oil, paint scrapings and chemicals used in boat maintenance are released directly into the Harbour.

It was recognised by all parties to the Panel process that current slipway arrangements are unacceptable and submittors questioned the lack of action to address the current deficiencies.

The exhibited proposal is to decommission the slipway and maintain a static display. The Commonwealths EPBC determination on 4 November 2004 specifically acknowledged the decommissioning of the slipway. Boat lifting would be undertaken by a travel lift and maintenance activities would occur in an area with effective management of contaminants to ensure they are not discharged to the marine environment. This proposal has obvious environmental benefits.

In section6.5.1, the Panel recommends that, given the cultural significance of an operational slipway to the local community, the option should be provided for a community organisation to upgrade and operate the northern slipway. If this option is realised, the works undertaken and management of the slipway must ensure that pollutants are not discharged to the environment.

Existing Contaminated Sediment Near the Slipway

The Egis report for the QHFI stated that:

The management of contaminated sediments in the vicinity of the slipway is the most potentially problematic issue with respect to potential environmental concerns during harbour redevelopment.

The issue was previously identified in the 1990 Loder & Bayley EES which detailed that sediments around the slipway contained elevated levels of copper, lead and zinc and there were concerns that the level of toxicants was unacceptably high and that significant portions were entering Swan Bay.

Parks Victoria has undertaken sampling of the sediments within the Harbour. The Harbour was assessed by Egis as essentially clean except within the vicinity of the slipway.

This point was questioned during the Stephens/Brown submission claiming that contaminated sediment was present in other areas of the Harbour besides the slipway. The Panel has re-examined the data and the EPA’s Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines For Dredging. The information presented to the Panel as detailed in Table 5.1 of the QHFI Environment Site Assessment, Sediment, Soil and Groundwater Investigations shows contaminants are below or within the guidelines except for the slipway and the area adjacent to the slipway.

Egis summarised the contaminated sediments as follows;

The area at the base of the Harbour slipway has levels of arsenic, lead, mercury, and zinc which would designate these sediments as “low level contaminated” sediments according to EPA guidelines;

The level of copper in one sample indicates that some sediments may be classified as “contaminated soil” according to EPA guidelines; and

There are also some potential exceedances for petroleum hydrocarbons and tributlytin in this area with respect to ANZECC contaminated land guidelines.

Parks Victoria proposes to clean up the slipway area by dredging, dewatering and disposal to a licensed industrial waste disposal site.

The Panel notes the concerns expressed by Mr. Stephens, the Geelong Environment Council and others during the hearing regarding the potential mobilisation of sediment and dispersal of contaminants into the water column during the remediation process.

The potential for mobilisation of contaminated sediments into Swan Bay was explored during the Panel Hearing and the results of Parks Victoria’s previous sediment sampling were discussed. Dr David Petch (GHD) described how copper levels in sediment had been sampled at a number of locations in and around Swan Bay. He stated that sediment testing provided an accurate picture of overall levels and the results of the sampling were that copper levels in sediment dropped rapidly and followed a general pattern of decreasing with increasing distance from the slipway. Dr Petch also noted that copper tended to quickly bind to organic matter and sediments and as such was not bioavailable.

During the Stephens/Brown submission it was claimed that the copper level in sediment at the Marine Reserve boundary was 100 times (10ug/g) the background level for Swan Bay as determined by the MAFRI relocation study (0.1ug/g).

Dr Petch provided additional comment to the Panel Hearing as follows:

The SEPP Waters of Victoria refers to the need for ‘no variation from background levels in waters in Aquatic Reserves’. Swan Bay is an Aquatic Reserve and as such the above applies to the waters of Swan Bay.

The background levels of contamination referred to by Mr Stevens of 0.1ug/g are those for sediment and not for waters and are therefore not covered by the SEPP, the SEPP refers to waters not sediments.

This issue of copper in Swan Bay sediments is also addressed in section 6.2.8.

In the QHFI report, Egis outlined sediment remediation strategies that included the use of sediment curtains to minimise the potential for dispersion and re-deposition of contaminated sediments during removal operations. Mechanisms for removing the contaminated sediments including the use of an excavator, cutter suction dredging or diver directed suction dredging were canvassed. Egis and Dr Petch recommended the use of diver directed suction as the most effective mechanism of removing contaminated sediment from the corners of the slipway, under the rails and in those areas abutting the seawall.

Another submittor Mr. David Kenwood observed black-grey material with quite a pungent smell the last time the Harbour was dredged. He was concerned about water quality and turbidity plumes and how the dredged material was going to be transported without affecting the amenity of the people living in Fisherman’s Flat. The Panel notes that the transfer of de-watered sediment to sites accepting low level contaminated soil, such as the Corio landfill, will need to be undertaken in a secure manner.

The Panel further notes that the dredging operations will be subject to EPA approval and the EPA’s Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines For Dredging will be applied. This specific approval, together with the EMP process provides a high degree of confidence that an environmental beneficial outcome will be achieved. Revisions to the SUZ1 schedule submitted after the hearing specifically requires the EMP to address these requirements. These further approvals will be based on detailed assessment of the most appropriate techniques to be adopted in removal of contaminated sediment. The Panel notes that diver directed suction in conjunction with a geotextile sediment curtain are techniques that have been identified as relevant to the Harbour.

The EPA approvals and the EMP will also ensure that the treatment, transport and disposal of contaminated sediments is appropriately managed.

The Panel believes that the removal of contaminated sediments is one of many environmental positives associated with the proposed harbour redevelopment. It is satisfied that techniques are available to ensure that the sediments are not mobilised and dispersed to Swan Bay.

5.2.7 TURBIDITY PLUMES

Dredging, construction activity and increased boating activity all have the potential to cause turbidity plumes within the Harbour.

As previously noted dredging will be subject to EPA approval and application of best practice guidelines.

Dr Petch stated that:

Sedimentation and turbidity as a result of construction activities can be minimised through adequate management practises and these should be addressed in the Construction Environmental Management Plan.

Dr Watson and Dr Petch both stated that the high sand content of the Harbour sediment indicated that any plumes would be localised and settle quickly. Dr Watson further stated during the Panel Hearing that the increased depth of approximately 0.5m over the entire harbour basin would reduce turbidity due to propeller wash.

The Panel notes that appropriate approval processes, the development and implementation of a comprehensive EMP will provide the mechanisms for managing turbidity plumes.

5.2.8 IMPACT OF CONTAMINANTS FROM ADDITIONAL BOATS IN THE HARBOUR

The major concern presented in submissions appears to centre on the possibility of contaminant increase in sediments and dissolved in water. The increase is related to the additional numbers of boats and boating activity resulting from expansion of the Harbour. The contaminant of most concern is copper from anti-fouling products which are released into the water through either leaching or abrasion.

The Panel notes that this concern was raised with the Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Heritage prompting them to seek further clarification from Parks Victoria after the initial EPBC determination.

GHD’s Environmental Review and Ecological Risk Assessment October 2004 detailed the background and use of anti-fouling products. The products are applied to the hulls of boats to reduce the amount of colonising marine organisms that attach to the hulls. Copper has become the most common anti-fouling agent after the widespread phasing out of tributyltin. GHD noted that copper-based hull coatings had been banned in a number of European countries and parts of the United States. A number of newer non-copper based products are either available or expected to be available shortly.

To assess the impact of copper from increased boating activity GHD provided information from the ANZECC – ARMCANZ guidelines for levels of copper in sediment and water as follows:

Sediment Low Trigger Level 65 mg/kg

High Trigger Level 270 mg/kg

Marine waters 1.3µg/L 95% protection of species

0.3µg/L 99% protection of species

(recommended for areas of high conservation significance)

The permissible sediment levels were compared against sediment sampling undertaken by Parks Victoria and the comparison indicated that copper levels in sediment in and around Swan Bay had generally been low and below trigger levels. Previous sampling had measured copper levels in sediment of between 10 and 14 mg/kg. Sampling undertaken prior to the Panel Hearing had recorded a highest level of 2 mg/kg.

Parks Victoria had also undertaken water quality sampling in and around Swan Bay prior to the Panel Hearing. The sampling results for copper were all presented to the Panel as <1µg/L. The Panel notes that the level of 0.3µg/L is the trigger value for marine waters to provide 99% protection of species (as recommended for areas of high conservation significance) as it is assumed that any levels above background are contamination and potentially dangerous.

The Stephens/Brown submission presented a case that copper input from hull diffusion alone would significantly add to the pollutant load entering Swan Bay over an extended (35-year) period.

Copper input from hull diffusion was re-assessed by GHD who analysed an extreme worst case scenario and calculated that the concentration of copper in the waters of Swan Bay would be below the existing background level of 0.3µg/L as established during the MAFRI relocation.

The Panel also notes that, given the level of awareness of the environmental impact of copper and alternative product development underway, it is likely that the use of copper based anti-foulants will be phased out in the longer term. QHPL propose to encourage Harbour berth owners not to use copper based anti-fouling agents and will provide the latest non-copper based anti-fouling product for purchase and use by boat owners at the Harbour. In addition, the proposed transfer of maintenance activities to the boat yard area will ensure that contaminants from abrasive boat maintenance are better managed.

On the basis of the sampling results presented, analysis by GHD of minimal increases in copper level from increased numbers of boats and the Harbour management plans proposed by QHPL, the Panel considers that the risk of increased levels of contamination occurring that would impact on Swan Bay is very low. The Panel notes that a comprehensive EMP that incorporates a sediment and water quality monitoring program will provide community reassurance and empirical data to refine the analysis undertaken to date.

5.2.9 BILGE AND SEWAGE PUMP-OUTS AND ACCIDENTAL SPILLS WITHIN THE HARBOUR

The Harbour does not currently have a fuel bowser and refuelling depends on individual boat owner’s arrangements. Bilge and sewage pump-outs within the Harbour are currently unregulated.

The proposal includes a fuel pump, together with accident protocols and ‘kits’. It also includes reticulated bilge and sewage pump-outs facilities within the Harbour and the Panel was advised that automatic pump systems would be banned in the Harbour. Submittors raised some concerns about the practical implications of this ban and circumstances where pumping may be acceptable should be considered in the formulation of the EMP.

The Panel is satisfied the management regime indicated in QHID and the Draft EMP will provide a far superior arrangement that, despite the increased number of boats using the Harbour, will reduce the current environmental risk of pollution associated with boat refuelling, bilge and sewerage pumping.

5.2.10 ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS TO SEPARATE HARBOUR AND SWAN BAY WATER

In recognition of the environmental significance of Swan Bay, the earlier Loder & Bayley EES detailed a proposal to separate the Harbour from the entrance into Swan Bay by relocating The Cut some 100m further to the north. This was to ensure that water from the Harbour is discharged to Port Phillip Bay and is diluted before reaching Swan Bay.

During the Stephens/Brown submission another alternative was put forward to retain the proposed harbour configuration but close all areas except the Harbour entrances with impermeable sheet piles.

The Commonwealth determined under the EPBC Act that the QHID proposal was not a controlled action and it indicated that it did not consider alternative design concepts for the Harbour relevant. The Commonwealth in making this determination noted the proposed pollution control and vessel management measures.

The Panel has previously stated that its role is to consider the planning merits of the proposal before it. The expert evidence presented during the Panel Hearing and assessed by the Panel indicates that the QHPL Harbour redevelopment will provide a net environmental benefit to the area and that a requirement for a significantly different design of the Harbour is not justified.

5.2.11 THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

The Panel believes that the management, mitigation and monitoring of the construction and operational stages is crucial to ensuring that the proposed redevelopment provides a net environmental benefit to the area. The importance of a comprehensive EMP in this process cannot be over-stated.

The QHID stated that;

The environmental aspects of the redevelopment will be managed through an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) to be prepared as part of the Development Plan.

It was acknowledged in QHID that environmental management would involve the participation of Parks Victoria, QHPL, any contractors, harbour and landside users.

QHID stated further that;

The EMP will ensure that potential environmental impacts associated with the redevelopment are minimised, ensure compliance with environmental laws, policies and procedures, and establish a formal reporting and document control system.

QHID committed to incorporating into the EMP the design, construction, and operation environmental management measures identified during the QHFI and subsequent technical studies for the QHID.

A framework for an EMP was included with the QHID. Several submissions from the community expressed concern that a complete EMP was not available for consideration. The Panel notes that the DSE understood and accepted that only a framework for an EMP had been submitted with other documentation during the exhibition of the Planning Scheme amendment. They acknowledged that a full EMP would be prepared as part of the Development Plan.

The DSE directed that Parks Victoria ‘...continue to liaise with DSE and other relevant agencies when drafting the EMP.’

QHID noted that the Harbour represented an evolving land use developed in consultation with key stakeholders and that;

Ongoing consultations with these stakeholders will need to occur during the detailed design and development phases, which will occur over a number of years.

Table 6.1 of the QHID detailed the environmental management measures identified through studies undertaken. An Initial Draft Environmental Management Plan prepared by Maunsell for QHPL was submitted at the Panel. The draft EMP covered the areas of;

• Visual Impact
• Marine Ecology
• Terrestrial Ecology
• Water Quality
• Groundwater Quality
• Groundwater Regime
• Coastal Processes
• Existing Contamination
• Waste and Litter
• Air Quality and Odour
• Noise

During the Panel Hearing it became obvious that community concerns especially with respect to mobilisation of copper in sediment and into the water column needed to be addressed.

Parks Victoria suggested a pilot study that would establish the baseline conditions as a reference against which the results of any monitoring may be compared. The Panel notes and supports Parks Victoria’s recommendation that establishment of the baseline should be undertaken before construction starts and once operations have commenced. The following parameters were presented to the Panel;

The Panel notes that the water quality parameters should include testing for heavy metals in line with the SEPP Waters of Victoria.

The Panel also notes the recommendation in GHD’s Environmental Review and Ecological Risk Assessment that an on-going monitoring program should involve taking quarterly/biannual samples from a range of sites in the Harbour, just outside of the Harbour, in the south of Swan Bay, and in the Sand Island lagoon.

The Panel acknowledges the considerable work completed to date which provides confidence that key environmental risk and appropriate management responses have been identified. Just as the Harbour development is an evolving project so to will be the EMP. The Panel cannot be prescriptive about all of the management measures that may need to be included in an EMP.

The Panel therefore supports the process detailed in the QHID, and incorporated in the revised Planning Scheme Amendment, that the Responsible Authority, Parks Victoria, DSE and EPA and any other relevant agency are consulted and participate in the development of the EMP. The Responsible Authority will be required to approve the final EMP.

5.2.12 CONCLUSIONS ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

There is a clear planning policy imperative for the proposed Harbour redevelopment not to compromise environmental values given the proximity of the area to the Swan Bay Ramsar listed wetland and Port Phillip Heads Marine National Park. The planning scheme however is only one component of the regulatory framework, environmental policies and guidelines that would apply to protect environmental values.

Extensive investigations by specialist environmental consultants have been undertaken and identified that a number of environmental values such as coastal processes, terrestrial flora and fauna, marine flora and fauna, soil, groundwater will either be improved or not impacted on by the proposed Harbour redevelopment.

One of the key risks explored during the Panel hearing related to the presence of contaminated sediments at the slipway in the Harbour. The evidence presented to the Panel was that these pollutants have not migrated into Swan Bay and will not migrate as a result of the proposed Harbour redevelopment. Clean up activities will be carefully managed to ensure that contaminated sediment is not dispersed.

Overall the environmental evidence submitted supported the assessment that the proposed Harbour will provide a net environmental benefit through removal of the contaminated sediments and by introducing stormwater and waste management systems.

Unless appropriate measures are taken to monitor and manage the construction of the proposed Harbour redevelopment and ongoing operation, there is a potential risk to this significant environmental area. The importance of a comprehensive EMP in ensuring the proposed harbour redevelopment provides the net environmental benefit is crucial. Revisions to the SUZ1 schedule submitted after the Panel Hearing specifically require consideration of the EMP to have regard to comments by relevant environmental and regulatory agencies.

The Panel believes that Parks Victoria and QHPL have demonstrated their awareness of the environmental issues and the community’s concerns, have identified appropriate responses and is satisfied that the identified risks can be managed through an appropriately developed and implemented EMP.

Panel Recommendations

The Draft EMP be revised taking into account the information, conclusions and recommendations presented during the Panel Hearing and in this report. The issues and recommendations included in the GHD Environmental Review and Ecological Risk Assessment, October 2004, should be specifically addressed in the EMP.

An environmental monitoring program be included in the EMP which includes baseline monitoring to be undertaken prior to commencement of construction. The environmental monitoring program should include, as a minimum, the parameters and frequency of monitoring described in this report.

That the Schedule to the SUZ1 is revised to specifically include the following:

• Baseline monitoring and audit program in the EMP
• Before approving the EMP, the responsible authority must consider the comments of the Department of Sustainability and Environment and the Environment Protection Authority

5.3 IMPACTS OF RETAIL USES

The exhibited changes to the SUZ allow most retail uses without a planning permit provided that the combined leaseable floor area does not exceed 2110 m2 and the use is consistent with the incorporated plan. Retail uses that do not meet these conditions require a permit. A number of uses, including supermarket, restricted retail and tavern, are prohibited.

The Proposal includes a retail component of 2,110 m2 and 1,640 m² of non-retail floorspace without permit. This represents an addition of 23%[5] to the existing retail floor space in the municipality. Amendment documentation indicated there would be approximately 13 retail businesses and a significant proportion would be food and drink premises (1,450 m2). The potential uses identified were boat sales and leasing, fuel sales, ship’s chandlery, fishing trips, diving excursions (with associated booking operations), boat hire/charter, fishing supplies, Café/Seafood restaurant/fish and chippery, seafood sales, Gallery/gift/art studio.

Submissions raised the following concerns:

• The retail element is significantly larger than in earlier concept plans.
• There has been insufficient analysis of the impact of the increased retail floorspace.
• The retail proposal is too large and will have a negative impact on the viability of businesses in the Town Centre”.

Council sought additional analysis of the economic impacts of the proposal. Queenscliff Harbour Pty Ltd commissioned Essential Economics to undertake an Economic Impact Assessment[6] and key findings of this report included:

• The Harbour Redevelopment will attract between 132,000 and 257,000 additional visitors to the Study Area per annum. Spending by these new visitors benefits the Study Area and wider Bellarine Peninsula and is forecast to generate a substantial net economic benefit in the order of $19.5 million to $35.9 million per annum.
• Based on an indicative tenancy schedule, the Harbour retail would need to generate total sales in the order of $7.8 million per annum to be viable. Visitor estimates under a low and high scenario, indicate that the Harbour Redevelopment would be viable, with expected sales generated in the order of $8.6 to $12.5 million per annum (2003 dollars).
• There are currently gaps in the retail goods and services in the Town Centre in relation to takeaway restaurants, affordable/family-friendly restaurants, and waterfront cafés.
• Mr. Lee’s evidence statement acknowledged that the estimates of impacts were based on a series of assumptions, including the transfer of existing spending from the existing town centre to the Harbour retailers and the proportion of spending from new visitors directed to the Harbour/town centre. The analysis found that the Harbour Redevelopment will result in an impact on total retail sales at the Town Centre ranging from -$880,000 to +$580,000. Even in a worst-case scenario, only a very low impact on Town Centre Traders is expected (approximately 3% share of existing sales). This level of impact would not be expected to have a measurable adverse effect and would be spread amongst a wide number of operators. The Proposal is expected to smooth otherwise seasonal fluctuations in trade.

Council submitted that Amendment C16 should be amended to clearly indicate the overall cap of 2,500 m2, place a limit on food and drink premises to ensure that an appropriate mix of uses, and prohibit certain types of retail uses.

5.3.1 ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

Ms. Baird questioned the methodology adopted in the Essential Economics Economic Impact Assessment. She highlighted: the absence of any interviews with traders and reliance on a floorspace survey and secondary data sources; the untested nature of estimates which could be described as ‘guesstimates’; and the results of their own survey of traders which indicated that ‘the data on this table (Table 5.3 Estimated retail turnover) bears no resemblance to their experiences regardless of seasonality.’

The Essential Economics report (page 3) set out the data sources it relied on which included 2003 ABS data for the Town Centre with some adjustments to take account of the type of potential tenancies at the Harbour and the seasonal nature of trade. The report acknowledged that the analysis is dependant on a series of assumptions relating to matters such as the extent of the increase in visitors, visitor spending and the extent to which spending would be diverted from/attracted to the Town Centre.

The Panel recognises that economic impact assessment is not a precise science and inevitably relies on assumptions. These assumptions have been made explicit in the report and this allows the basis for the findings to be evaluated. The Panel agrees with the assessment by Mr. Shimmin of Urbis JHD, a recognised retail economics expert, regarding the methodology adopted. He stated in a letter tabled at the hearing that:

Although one could challenge a number of the assumptions adopted in the EIA, ultimately any differences are at the margins in overall terms . I therefore consider the EIA prepared by Essential Economics to be a fair and reasonable assessment of the likely effects.

5.3.2 IMPACTS ON THE TOWN CENTRE

Mr. Mollison, the Geelong Environment League, the Queenscliff Harbour Forum and other individual submittors highlighted the risk that the significant ‘out of centre’ retail component of the development will establish a competing retail node that threatens the health of the town centre. It was noted that the strong economic performance of Queenscliff’s town centre is important to support the protection of its recognised heritage values. Some submittors also expressed concern that the extent of retail development at such a sensitive gateway location would be a dominant element in the Harbour and the town that would undermine one of Queenscliffe’s fundamental attractions - its heritage character.

State planning policy supports concentrating activity in activity centres (Clause 17.01). Local policy also aims to focus retail development in the town centre and maintain its viability. It anticipates commercial and tourism development at the Harbour subject to the qualification that it complements the Hesse Street centre (Clauses 21.04, 21.05-1, 21.05 –4). The Commercial and Retails uses component of the MSS also requires a retail impact assessment of all major retail developments or retail developments outside the established centres and this has now been undertaken. The Panel agrees with submissions that there is a clear planning policy basis for supporting the role and function of the town centre.

Ms. Bacon emphasised that given the acknowledged difficulty in predicting increases in visitation, sensitivity analysis in addition to the scenarios of 10% and 20% increases is warranted. She applied the projections on the basis of only 3% and 5% increase which indicated negative impacts of $1,829,000 and $1,597,00 respectively. This translates to an impact of less than 7% on Town Centre even if visitation increases by only 3%. The extended sensitivity analysis by Ms. Bacon also questioned the extent of retail floor space that could be supported if the pool of visitor spending is reduced.

The Panel notes that the Essential Economics evidence presented a worst case estimated impact of 3% on Town Centre trade. This is well below the 10% ‘rule of thumb’ often adopted in impact assessments as a level where careful scrutiny of effects is warranted. The Panel also notes that Mr. Shimmin of Urbis JHD endorsed the overall Essential Economics findings, stating:

I certainly agree that the potential for benefits is considerably greater than the prospect of negative trading effects within the Town Centre along Hesse Street; and that the negative effects are unlikely to result in any change in the role and function of the Town Centre or vacancy problems in the core.

Provided that the role and function of the Town Centre is protected, the Panel accepts that it is appropriate to provide for niche retailing (primarily provision for marine related retailing and food outlets) at the Harbour to support the Harbour uses and consolidate Queenscliff’s appeal to tourists.

Retail impact assessments is not definitive and is dependant on a series of assumptions but it does provide a high degree of confidence that the quantum of retail floor space is supportable without significant adverse impacts on the Town Centre role and function.

The Panel is not convinced that the opportunity should be provided for further retail floor space without further assessment of the actual impacts of the current proposal. The Panel also considers that the relative scale of the retail floor space in the Town Centre compared to the Harbour is a factor that would need to be given weight to ensure that the secondary or ‘niche role’ of the Harbour is maintained. Even if that analysis showed that further retail floorspace could be supported without significant impacts on the town centre, it may well be preferable to consolidate or extend retail uses within the Town Centre which has an extensive B1Z along Hesse Street and Mixed use zoning in side streets.

The exhibited Amendment provides for 2110m2 retail use as of right and additional retail floor space could be sought through a planning permit. At the completion of the hearing a revised schedule to the SUZ was submitted by the proponents which would allow permit applications for retail floor space between 2,110 and 2,500 square metres of shop floor area further retail space would be prohibited. The Panel agrees with Council and Mr. Mollison that a firm limit on retail floor space should be imposed. However, it considers that the limit should be set at 2,110 m2, which was the basis for assessments associated with the amendment, and any future request for additional space should be the subject of assessment through a further amendment.

5.3.3 NEED FOR DISCRETION OVER RETAIL MIX

Although there was an acceptance of marine related retailing and some café or restaurant facilities at the Harbour, submittors’ expressed concerns that a new retail centre in direct competition with the Town Centre would be facilitated by the Amendment. Some submittors noted that, while the intention may be to accommodate the uses specified in proposal documentation, if letting proves difficult, a range of uses that would compete directly with the Town Centre would be allowed as of right. Submittors also raised concerns about the extent of provision for food premises and the possibility of a fast food chain outlet at a sensitive gateway to the town.

The Economic Impact assessment identified a number of strategies to increase the benefits of the Harbour development to the Town Centre. These related to decreasing the level of spending redirected from the town centre to the Harbour and increasing the level of visitation, particularly in low season. It is the former strategy that is most capable of being influenced by the planning framework.

The Economic Impact assessment suggested that the retail mix in the Harbour development should be complementary to, as opposed to uses that directly compete with, Town Centre businesses. A range of uses that would be complimentary was identified, as were uses which it was considered should not be permitted.

There was a high degree of consistency between the uses supported in the impact assessment and those proposed in the development except that:

• Art gallery was identified as competing with the town centre but is an option identified in proposal documentation.
• Wine bar was identified as complementary but was prohibited in the exhibited SUZ1.

The Essential Economic report stated

Those retail uses which should not be permitted to locate at the Harbour would comprise core retail activities which meet the general needs of the surrounding catchment, such as:

supermarkets

pharmacy

full newsagency

fruit and vegetables

butcher

video hire

dry cleaners

art galleries

The revised SUZ1 schedule submitted at the completion of the hearing accepted that the above uses, other than art gallery, should be prohibited. There are a number of galleries in the town centre and the Panel considers that this use should also be excluded from the Harbour. The Panel supports wine bar (tavern) use being an option, subject to the qualifications identified in the revised schedule to the zone.

The Panel recognises that the Amendment allows a significant amount of development for food premises but considers that the Harbour provides an excellent opportunity for waterfront dining. This is likely to be a significant attraction for the Harbour and the town. The Amendment sets overall floor area limits and provides for the management of built form. The same parameters should apply to all food premises operators regardless of whether the business is part of a chain or not. However, the Panel has recommended that an advertising masterplan be added to the Development Plan requirements (see section 6.4.2) and this may address some of the adverse impacts often associated with fast food chain developments.

Conclusion on Impacts of Retail Uses

Planning policy requires the town centre function to be protected. The Panel accepts that it is appropriate for niche retailing and waterfront dining at the Harbour to complement Town Centre functions, support the Harbour uses and consolidate Queenscliff’s appeal to tourists. Retail impact assessment is not definitive and is dependant on a series of assumptions but the assessment undertaken does provide a high degree of confidence that the quantum of retail floor space proposed can be supported without significant adverse impacts on the town centre role and function.

The Panel agrees with Council that a firm limit on retail floor space should be imposed. It considers that the limit should be set at 2110 m2, which was the basis for assessments associated with the amendment, and any future request for additional space should be the subject of assessment through a further amendment. Such an assessment would take account of actual impacts and the desirability of consolidating the Town Centre’s retail functions. The Panel also supports changes to allow tavern (with conditions) and to prohibit core retail uses and galleries which would compete directly with the Town Centre.

Panel Recommendations

The schedule to the SUZ 1 zone be revised to:

• Include Tavern (not including accommodation, amusement machines and gambling) as a section 1 use subject to the condition that it ‘Must be generally in accordance with the Queenscliff Harbour Implementation Plan’.
• Limit retail floor space to 2,110 square metres.
• Prohibited uses identified in the Revised Schedule to the SUZ1 in Appendix C but with the addition of art gallery as a prohibited use.

5.4 NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER AND BUILT FORM

5.4.1 URBAN CHARACTER

Some submittors considered that the architecture, scale, configuration and location of the proposed new buildings are out of character in Queenscliff.

The Planning Policy Framework seeks to facilitate economic development, consolidation of urban areas and orderly planning but neighbourhood character must be respected (Clause 14.10-2). Urban design and architectural outcomes are sought that

Reflects the particular characteristics, aspirations and cultural identity of the community. (Clause 19.03-1 objective)

The key MSS objectives relating to character are:

To recognise and protect the significant cultural heritage and natural coastal atmosphere of the Borough which distinguish its special character, and which include:

- the significant viewlines to and from the sea, coastal dune environments and the Queenscliff townscape skyline;

the unique and intact building, landscape heritage, and natural foreshore qualities of the Borough;

- the prevailing Victorian and Edwardian built form and scale of Queenscliff; and

- the distinctive urban heritage and natural coastal settings of Queenscliff and Point Lonsdale respectively.

To ensure new development maintains, enhances and harmonises with the distinguishing cultural heritage identity of the township of Queenscliffe.

To ensure new development does not reduce the integrity of significant areas of intact native or remnant indigenous vegetation within Queenscliffe.

The analysis of Queenscliff’s urban character in the Borough of Queenscliffe Urban Character Study 2000 (QUC) specifically addressed the Harbour Precinct and stated:

This part of Queenscliff is critical to the urban character of the town because it is:

One of the two key entrance points into the Borough (from the water);

Adjacent to a highly valued heritage precinct (Fisherman’s Flat);

Has a strong association with Queenscliff’s maritime past; and

Has a distinctive and largely intact single storey urban form.

Accordingly, in its urban context, this area is considered to be highly sensitive to change. (Pages 24- 25)

The experience of the township from the sea and the coastal edge was identified as a valued character attribute. The built form along the coast should be considered in light of the important visual impact from the Bay(s) and beaches. From the water approach to Queenscliff the following key elements were identified: the prominence of the lighthouses and the fort on Shortlands Bluff, the historic skyline of the town, the pier, parks and grand hotels of Gellibrand Street. The QUC advocated management of built form near the coast ‘to reduce the visual prominence of the buildings from both the streetscape and the Bay’ (Page 40).

The QUC recognised the opportunity to improve the Harbour Precinct but advocated retaining its fishing village atmosphere and the informal layout of streets without footpaths, kerbs and channels (eg pages 15, 19). Excellent views towards Swan Island and Swan Bay, and to the south-west towards the Fort and Queenscliff landmarks were identified. The coastal dunes and grasslands on the southern edge of the precinct facing Port Philip were also nominated as providing a distinctive natural coastal contrast to the relatively severe maritime uses.

The QUC recommended the use of Urban Design Frameworks or other strategic planning tools for design objectives and guidelines for key sites, such as Queenscliff Harbour (Page 69). However, development in keeping with core built themes throughout the Borough, even in more diverse precincts such as the Harbour, was advocated:

The notion of managing new development (where incremental change is permitted) that will ‘contribute’ positively to the greater body of Queenscliffe’s core character is central to such a holistic urban character planning approach (page 40).

The Panel considering Amendment C7, which was introduced to implement the recommendations, found that Queenscliff has a unique natural and built environment that warrants protection. That Panel stated:

The Panel strongly supports the strategic work undertaken by Council and believes that it provides a sound strategic basis for the amendment.

Although Clause 22.04 Urban Character and Design Policy introduced by Amendment C7 makes particular reference to residential development, the Harbour is included in the Queenscliff Urban Heritage area and the policy applies to the precinct. Amendment C7 also applied Design and Development overlays to most of Queenscliff but not to the Harbour.

There was a high degree of consistency in the site context and urban character assessments in the QUC, the analysis by FMSA Architects in the QHID report, the Design Guidelines, and the expert evidence from both Mr Czarny and Mr Mitchell. In each case the Harbour Redevelopment site has been recognised as a separate precinct in the analysis of Queenscliff’s character. However, evidence from Mr Mitchell argued that:

The traditional, ‘heritage’ character of the Harbour Redevelopment area itself is questionable, existing as a collection of ad-hoc, industrial buildings constructed in the late 20th century. The Harbour Redevelopment area is a unique precinct within the Borough of Queenscliffe and does not conform to the heritage pattern of the main township. Strict application of ‘heritage’ design guidelines would lead to inappropriate development for the Harbour area.

Neither the existing planning scheme nor the Amendment seek to apply ‘heritage guidelines’ to the precinct, rather, specific guidelines have been developed that aim to take account of the Harbour’s sensitive coastal location at the gateway to a township with recognised heritage values. The Panel considers that the assessments undertaken and the planning policy framework provide clear support for ensuring that the redevelopment enhances and harmonises with Queenscliff’s cultural heritage and has particular regard to the effect of development on the townscape skyline. The informal character of the Harbour and contribution of the built form associated with its ‘working’ function have also been identified in assessments and submissions as valued existing characteristics of the precinct that should be maintained.

Concern was expressed in submissions to the Panel that the character of the Harbour Precinct would be transformed by the proposal from the small working harbour to a large marina with a major industrial boat yard and substantial retail precinct.

The Revised SUZ1 schedule specifies a maximum floor area which, although it is greater than suggested by the parking analysis, would impose a clear limit of the extent of development that could be considered without amending the planning scheme.

The Panel is satisfied by evidence from Captain Jean-Louis Mathieu Haybrard that the boat yard as proposed will serve the established harbour function by adopting current practices on a scale that will underpin its viability- this supports both planning policy and the following community plan principles

Working Port Character - The Harbour should maintain its character as a working port with facilities and infrastructure of high quality to support the demands of its many users. The range of seasonal, land and water based uses must be considered.

Job Creation - Queenscliff is facing falling job opportunities and any plans should consider the potential to make a positive contribution to the overall economic viability of the Harbour and the town.

The Panel discussed the economic impacts of the retail/ restaurant component of the scale envisaged in section 6.3.2. With regard to the effect of the introduction of these uses, the Panel acknowledges that they will affect the character of the precinct. While the ‘low key’ charm of the Harbour is acknowledged, it is also an area that has been neglected and has been acknowledged as presenting an opportunity for revitalisation. The Panel considers that, provided the built form is appropriately managed, the new active uses proposed should assist in achieving a vital and appealing area for both residents and visitors.

The subsequent Panel assessment of built form will take account of urban character analysis and policies. It considers whether the planing framework proposed in Amendment C16 supports character (and other) objectives with particular reference to contentious elements such as building height, the ‘signature building’, landscape treatments, and the design of the main car park.

5.4.2 BUILT FORM AND LANDSCAPE ISSUES

Submittors argued that the extent of buildings and associated facilities (such as car parking) in the Proposal is excessive and would result in overdevelopment of the site. Submissions argued that the “squeeze’ created in the current proposal by the extended harbour and boat yard, plus new retail/restaurant buildings, compromises the presentation to the wider area and the low key character of the precinct . Particular concerns were expressed about:

• the potential for building heights that are a dominant element in a sensitive location.
• visual permeability with the new retail/restaurant buildings creating a barrier to the Harbour.
• inadequate public spaces, particularly along the water’s edge and
• the visual impact of the main car park.

The Design Guidelines

Clause 19.03 Design & Built Form provides the principles for achieving high quality urban design whilst protecting the local urban character, enhancing the liveability and amenity of the public realm and minimising the detrimental impact on neighbouring properties. Key principles in this clause relate to: Context, the Public Realm, Landmarks, Views & Vistas, Pedestrian Spaces, Heritage, Consolidation of Sites & Empty Sites, Light & Shade, Energy & Resource Efficiency, Architectural Quality, Landscape Architecture.

Mr. Czarny, the primary author of the proposed Design Guidelines (and also the QUC), identified the following key attributes of the Harbour that contribute to its local significance:

• The generally low scale (1 and 2 storeys) which sit comfortably within, as opposed to above, the prevailing landscape cover.
• The concealed and progressively revealed nature of the Harbour, which is physically separated from the Town due to topography and vegetation.
• The positive interface that existing buildings have with the water’s edge and the gaps between buildings that allow for corridor views.
• Building alignment with the Harbour, Cut and Street network, allowing a defined built ‘edge’.
• The diversity of building form, finishes and functions reflecting the Harbour evolution.
• Existing buildings that communicate their working role and use.

The Amendment provides for:

• as of right buildings and works subject to approval of a development plan to a maximum height of 2 storeys and 8.5 metres.
• The various versions of the incorporated plan are also intended to nominate the location of 2 storey development although this was omitted from the Amended plan.
• The Development Plan must indicate how the buildings and works satisfy the Queenscliff Harbour Siting and Design Guidelines (the Guidelines) including guidelines that new building directly fronting the Cut are to be primarily single storey with roof form to 6m in height and there should be a transition of heights from Fisherman’s Flat.

Aspects of the Guidelines are discussed in relation to contentious issues but the key aspects include:

• Building Form & Siting should:
  • - Be low scale, of limited mass/extent, wider than they are tall and recessive in the coastal context and Queenscliff skyline.
  • - Address both the street and the water.
  • - Not overshadow or impact significantly on public spaces or adjoining properties.
  • - Be setback generously from the water, streets and other buildings to allow for activities and visual/physical links.
  • - Ensure a sensitive transition in form from adjoining residential or coastal areas.
  • - Protect existing view corridors from unnecessary encroachment.
• Building Design should recognise the strong role that the setting and maritime activity play in defining the image of the Precinct. Buildings should not visually dominate their setting and design objectives encourage buildings which:
  • - Are transparent to encourage views through to the Harbour.
  • - Reflect their coastal location in terms of materials and finishes.
  • - Have highly articulate forms which communicate their use and activities.
  • - Adopt ESD in materials selection.
  • - Are contemporary in design and do not rely on mimicry.
  • - Have varied roof forms which provide local visual interest.
• Existing buildings which are re-used should be upgraded in quality and image.
• Pedestrian Places should be safe, relatively informal, high quality settings with positive interfaces with water, streets, buildings and beach. Clear links should be provided to the water, parking areas, town centre and other recreational zones.
• Signage should not be themed and is best sensitively integrated into building facades, pavements and furnishings. Illuminated signage should not be permitted.
• Vehicular Places should be integrated with the existing network and public pedestrian places. These places should not be over ‘engineered’, but designed with sensitivity to the special coastal setting and to support ESD principles.
• Harbour Facilities A safe and clear delineation between public and private spaces should be established; materials and finishes should be consistent with adjacent pedestrian places; and sensitive interface treatments should be adopted. Mooring pontoons should generally be aligned perpendicular to the waterfront promenade, ensure clear barrier free access from primary public spaces and open visual display of vessels. Working Harbour and moorings security is particularly sensitive and, if gated entries to pontoons are necessary, they should be designed to be recessive in the context of the waterfront. High barbed wire fencing and/or chain mesh barriers are not appropriate and views to the western working Harbour precinct should be maintained.

It is noted that there was significant support for the guidelines in the planning evidence to the Panel, with some qualifications from Mr. Mitchell regarding specific elements. Ms. Wyatt, who was called by Parks Victoria, indicated that:

These analyses (QUC, QUID, 25 Seven and Tract) and the Guidelines will ensure that the future development of the Harbour will be carried out in a way that will reflect and respect the urban character of Queenscliff.

Mr. Mitchell, who was called by Queenscliff Harbour Pty. Ltd., submitted that:

The Queenscliff Harbour: Building Siting and Design Guidelines are the appropriate mechanism for development control in the Harbour Redevelopment area. Minor amendments would allow for a more flexible and innovative development to be delivered....

The modifications referred to by Mr. Mitchell related to provision for a taller ‘signature’ building and setbacks to the water’s edge and are discussed below with other contentious issues.

Overall, the Panel believes that the Guidelines address the key issues and have adopted a considered approach to future built form in the Amendment area. The Guidelines are consistent with the objectives of the Queenscliff urban character policy and promote development of a limited scale that responds to the characteristics of the site and its locality. In its final submission to the Panel, Council include many of the key elements of the guidelines in the SUZ schedule to accord them greater status. The planning scheme status of the Guidelines is discussed in section 6.11.1.

Building Height

The exhibited schedule to the SUZ imposed a mandatory height limit of 2 storeys (to a maximum of 8.5m) but ‘Architectural features or structures for public safety’ are exempt from the height limit. The Guidelines direct these encroachments of minor architectural features to the eastern edge of the site in association with a ‘signature’ form that distinguishes it from other buildings in the precinct. New buildings directly fronting the Cut are to be primarily single storey with roof form to 6m in height to achieve a ‘human’ scale. The scale of development to the west should reflect a transition in height towards the predominantly single storey Fisherman’s Flat. In its final reply, Council sought inclusion of these requirements within the SUZ schedule.

Queenscliff Harbour Pty. Ltd. sought a change to SUZ schedule and the Guidelines to indicate ‘No more than 45% of all buildings may be two storeys in height’ and to provide for taller buildings in the following circumstances:

• 9.5 metres above natural ground level to the highest part of the roof on a commercial building where the roof is pitched.
• A structure that partly encloses a rooftop deck on a building within the Entry Building Location as nominated on the Queenscliff Harbour Implementation Plan at the eastern end of the East Harbour Building Envelope. The rooftop deck must not exceed an area of 150 square metres and any enclosed portion must not exceed an area of 20 square metres. The height of any enclosing structure must not exceed a height of 10.5 metres above natural ground level.

Some submittors sought a one-storey limit on new development while Council and other submittors opposed any increase in height. Council submitted that:

The proponent has provided no strategic justification for lifting of height limits for this (the signature) building. The Panel should give great weight to the recommendations of C7 to the Queenscliff Planing Scheme which introduced mandatory height controls....In Council’s view the height limit of 8.5 metres would facilitate appropriate heights for a pitched roof as is the case in recent Hesse Street and Gellibrand street commercial developments.

Parks Victoria considered that the exhibited 8.5 metre height limit proposed is appropriate.

The rationale presented to this Panel for a greater height at the Harbour was:

1. To provide increased design flexibility for a ‘signature building’ to emphasise the Harbour and gateway to the Borough; and
2. To accommodate pitched roofs on commercial buildings which have higher floor-ceiling heights. Mr. Trethowan suggested that pitched roofs would provide for built form that relates to heritage forms in Queenscliff.

It is noted that Mr. Steven Mitchell acknowledged that greater height is one way of achieving a focus on a building but the quality of the design can also establish a ‘signature’ role for a building. The Panel agrees with Mr. Calwell that the south east corner of the site is appropriate for a ‘premium’ building and the proponent is encouraged to adopt this latter strategy.

The panel is not convinced that greater height is necessary at the Harbour. It agrees with Mr. Czarny and submittors such as Ms. Johnson, that it is the Harbour and natural environment that should determine the identity of the precinct. The Panel viewed the Amendment area from various vantage points, including the beach, the Fort area and public park lands, and at various times, including when the Ferry was berthing. The existing Parks building, Ferry buildings and the ferry itself provided useful reference points. The height limit proposed supports an objective that buildings remain a recessive townscape element by limiting the intrusion of new buildings in the important coastal and historic Queenscliff township skyline silhouette when viewed from key vantage points.

With regard to the need for a greater height to accommodate commercial buildings with roof forms that are compatible with Queenscliff’s heritage character, the Panel agrees with the Council response that:

... the height limit of 8.5 metres would facilitate appropriate heights for commercial uses and provide for a pitched roof as is the case in recent Hesse Street and Gellibrand Street, commercial development.

The basis for endorsing the mandatory height limits in Queenscliff was carefully considered in the Amendment C7 Panel. Although the Panel appreciates that the relaxation in the height limits sought by Queenscliff Harbour Pty Ltd. is limited, it has formed the view that the two storey/8.5 metre mandatory height limit that applies to the rest of Queenscliff (except where a lower height applies) should extend to the Harbour precinct.

Visual Permeability

Submittors expressed concern that, unlike the earlier Egis Plan which achieved clear views to the Harbour from the proposed car park and in the vicinity of the larger inner harbour, in the current plans buildings would obstruct views. It was also suggested that the development is introverted and the proposed new buildings “turn their backs” on the town. The new retail building(s) with limited gaps and the larger, fenced boat yard now proposed will isolate the Harbour. The potential for adverse visual impacts of building services, deliveries and waste collection areas in ‘gaps’ between the buildings were also raised.

The exhibited schedule addressed this issue through references to the Guidelines which indicate:

• Discernible ‘breaks’ of at least 4 metres in the waterfront should be included to provide visual linkage between parking areas to the south and the waterfront. These breaks should be aligned between pontoons towards water and to permit views from the waterfront towards the township skyline.
• New buildings are to have active frontages on both the northern and southern sides.

The exhibited Implementation Plan showed the new building footprints with a more significant gap between the building in the south east of the site and the new commercial/retail buildings adjoining the Harbour and a smaller gap between the new buildings and the existing sea pilots building.

In correspondence of the 14 September 2004, Queenscliff Harbour Pty Ltd states:

The importance of viewsheds is recognised. In terms of waterfront buildings, the intent is that an overall building envelopes be specified, outside which buildings would not go “as of right”. Buildings within this envelope will need to comply with the Siting and Design Guidelines, which establish clear parameters. Several key viewsheds are, however, identified as being essential. These include the viewshed along the parking access road on the east side of the MAFRI building, and through a gap between the Sea Pilot’s building and the proposed main building. The second is between the main building and the separate structure at the eastern end of the Harbour. There is also an intent to introduce at least 2 smaller viewshed opportunities through the new main building. Width of gaps will depend of final architectural design, but will include the two key views through gaps of approximately 5 metres.

The ‘Amended Implementation Plan’ and the ‘Panel Hearing Master Plan A3’ put forward by Queenscliff Harbour Pty Ltd at the hearing showed a building envelope (rather than footprint) for the new buildings that only showed a gap between the sea pilots building and the new building.

The proponents emphasised that the main existing opportunity for a view to the Harbour is from Wharf Street and along Harbour Street because the Harbour is generally concealed from the township by the extensive buildings and vegetation on the MAFRI site. They suggested that the opening up of the MAFRI site will provide greater opportunity for views to the Harbour. The setbacks, articulation and spaces between the retail and commercial development along the Harbour will also allow extensive views into the Harbour from the south and also from the Harbour to the south to the township and foreshore. Ms. Wyatt recommended that viewlines be included in the Implementation Plan to provide guidance for the future design and assessment of the development plan. The revised SUZ schedule proposed the following additional requirement:

Development within the Envelope must provide visual and pedestrian linkages from the East Basin to the car park in locations generally shown on the Queenscliff Harbour Implementation Plan. These linkages are to be a minimum width of 4 metres and can be provided by physical spacing between buildings or unobstructed viewing or pedestrian movement corridors within and through buildings.

Mr Czarny suggested that the Implementation Plan should be modified to:

• align building breaks and car park aisles to enhance view corridors.
• setback boat sheds backing onto the rear of the Fisherman’s Flat subdivision to protect view lines (and provide an appropriate relationship to adjoining property boundaries).

In its submission in reply Council sought inclusion of the following in the SUZ schedule:

Spaces between buildings on the Harbour should be generous and accommodate for views and ease of access to the water;

Car parking aisles should be aligned in a manner that encourages clear view lines towards the waterfront and between frontage buildings to the Harbour edge;

The design of new and existing buildings within the Harbour should be carefully configured to ensure that necessary service and access areas are well concealed from public view. This may require the use of surface screens or the building ‘sideages’ for service access;

The Panel agrees with the proponents that views to the Harbour from parks, the foreshore and the town are currently very limited but the existing vehicle approach to the town from the ferry along Larkin Parade passes through the Harbour and clearly provides unimpeded views.

Documentation from the proponents showed view corridors to the redeveloped Harbour through proposed gaps in buildings. However, as Mr. David Mitchell highlighted in cross-examination of Mr. Steven Mitchell, it would be necessary to turn ones head to gain a view through the proposed gaps when approaching the town from the ferry. The Panel notes that 4 metre gaps will be difficult to discern from oblique views along the Ferry access road.

The Panel accepts that improvements in the pedestrian environment of the Harbour are a reasonable trade off for more limited views of the Harbour from cars. However, the maintenance of a sense of the Harbour from an important approach to the town is a sound design objective.

The boatyard will be visible (albeit through mesh fencing) and will establish the presence of the working harbour. The significant break between the ‘signature building and the other new building(s), as shown on the exhibited plan, is particularly important and should be shown on the Implementation Plan to be incorporated. While the Panel accepts that a building envelope rather than specification of a footprint on the incorporated plan is a reasonable approach to achieve additional design flexibility, it is concerned that a 4 metre view corridor may not be enough to achieve a sense of the Harbour from the south. It would be better to have fewer but larger breaks in the building. This would not necessarily preclude some upper level element or verandah treatments to achieve appropriate linkages and avoid a disjointed built form. Mr. Calwell’s suggested that some relocation of retail uses that do not require a harbour frontage could occur by extending the envelope adjoining the existing MAFRI building and this could allow wider breaks to enhance views to the Harbour from the south. The Panel considers that this option is worth further consideration.

The Panel:

• Considers that fewer but larger breaks in the building would be more effective in achieving views to the Harbour from the south.
• Supports the Council submission that the zone schedule should indicate that spaces between buildings on the Harbour are to be generous but does not consider that a 4 metre width should be specified.
• Agrees that the incorporated Implementation Plan should identify view corridors.
• Supports further consideration of the building envelope adjoining the MAFRI building in order to facilitate larger gaps between buildings.

The Waterfront Corridor

The exhibited Implementation Plan and tender documents provided for setbacks from the waters edge of approximately 8 metres whereas the Guidelines envisage a setback of 15 metres. At the hearing both Queenscliff Harbour Pty Ltd and Parks Victoria supported modification of building set backs as follows:

Buildings must be setback an average of no less than 12 metres and a minimum of 8 metres from edge of the East Harbour Basin. In this setback, a pedestrian boardwalk must be provided adjacent to the Harbour basin edge having a minimum width of 4 metres.

Mr. Czarny acknowledged that the Guideline setback is generous and conceded that 12 metres in some sections would be acceptable. However, he considered it desirable to provide ample room to the northern sunlit ‘porch’ to accommodate a range of retail and dining activities, the general movement of pedestrians and access for emergency vehicles and vehicles associated with the Harbour. Significant pedestrian movement is anticipated along the promenade at peak times and a number of movement ‘corridors’ along the waters edge are needed. He advised that the recommended setback allows for shopfront pedestrian movement (3m corridor), an outdoor dining area (approximately 4m corridor) and an 8m pedestrian promenade (including a 3- 4m decked water edge treatment).

Submittors generally considered that a setback of at least 15 metres is necessary and considered the remaining public space to be a small proportion of the site.

Steven Mitchell’s Architectural Response and evidence that drew on examples of other waterfront promenades indicated that an average set back of 12 metres (including the 4m wide timber boardwalk) is appropriate for new buildings in the Harbour Redevelopment and he recommended that the Guidelines be amended accordingly. Ms. Wyatt endorsed this view.

The Panel does not believe that substantial setbacks from the Harbour are necessary in the vicinity of the ‘signature building’ provided that the continuity of the boardwalk is maintained. It sees merit in Mr. Calwell’s suggestion that a building (or part of a building) sitting virtually on the water in this location could add interest and contribute to its ‘premium’ status, as well as providing an attractive dining environment, particularly during adverse weather conditions. The Panel considers additional design flexibility should be available to the proponent to consider a range of foot print options in this location and the building envelope should be modified in the south east of the site to provide a minimum setback of 4 metres from the water’s edge.

Turning to the area between the water and new buildings to the south of the Harbour which the Panel Hearing Master Plan A3 indicated would extend for approximately 100 – 120 metres. It is the 3 metre component of the setback in that is contentious (less than 400 square metres).

The Panel does not support the provision of public spaces that are unnecessary or unlikely to be used effectively. Further, a larger space is not always better as expansive spaces can dilute the sense of activity. It also recognises that there are extensive parklands in the immediate area; the setback adopted will affect the land available for car parking; and the cumulative effect of additional obligations could threaten the viability of the project with implications for the overall quality of the development outcome.

However, the Panel is conscious that the waterfront land is a valuable public resource and the opportunity to add to the public space abutting the Harbour will not exist post development. The more generous average setback of 15 metres for new buildings would comfortably accommodate the boardwalk, outdoor eating areas associated with food premises, a promenade, occasional small events, landscaping, and emergency/harbour user vehicle access. The Panel considers that it is important that informal space is available for public use (eg picnicking, watching harbour activity, gathering of boat owners) without a perceived obligation to make purchases from the retail premises. The wider space provides a degree of flexibility that the Panel considers is important in this key location.

Visual Impacts Of The Parking Areas

Submittors expressed concern about the expansive ‘supermarket style’ car park at this important gateway to the town. It was acknowledged that significant car parking areas are necessary and that earlier plans also included a large car park in a similar location. However, submittors argued that the less intensive use of the site generated a lower car parking requirement and provided more space for treatments to minimise visual impacts.

Mr. Czarny also acknowledged the potential visual impact of car parking at the development frontage and stated:

The design guidelines recognise that the total effect of hardstand surface car parking can be significantly reduced through the use of permeable gravel and/or grasscrete pavement materials with open channel drainage measures. While the Harbour parking area may well be full at peak times, this expansive parking area will be presented as blank exposed hardstand surface for a majority of the year (ie at Hastings Marina). The use of permeable surfaces, with subtle signage and line marking effects (cats’ eyes only) and plentiful canopy landscape provides the opportunity for the Harbour parking area to further contribute to the informal quality of the Borough.

In its submission in reply Council sought inclusion of the following in the SUZ schedule:

Car parking areas should be well vegetated with established evergreen native canopy trees that reduce the overall extent of the parking surface and create ample shade and/or shelter. Trees in car parking areas should be located in aligned rows at generally 10m intervals and have regard to key view lines to the waters edge;

Surface car parking areas should be designed to reflect the informal character of Queenscliff’s urban and foreshore areas.

The Panel notes that the 10 metre spacing of trees nominated in the Guidelines and above does not coincide with combined carspace/aisle widths. It is assumed that the spacing nominated relates to along the swale/aisles.

The landscape concept for the carpark involves the use of swales planted with indigenous grasses (eg. Spiny-headed Mat-rush, Blue Tussock Grass) and small trees (eg Drooping Sheoak, Coast Banksia) to ensure maximum water retention and significantly reduce run-off from the site. These plantings are intended to allow a degree of visual penetration through the site, while softening the hard landscape of the carpark.

Mr. Calhoun agreed that reorienting the car park aisles would support landscape concepts and views to the Harbour. Discussion at the hearing about the effects on car space yields of reorienting the car park aisles indicated that few car spaces would be lost.

It was also queried whether sufficient space was provided in the swale treatment. Mr. Calhoun indicated that the swales would need to be 1.5 - 2 metres wide but this would not need be continuous. The QUID report, which was exhibited with the amendment, showed a swale area of 1.2 metres plus car overhang (which do not need be hard surfaced) and trees (possibly accommodated in car space corners where space for door opening is not required).

There was also some discussion of potential car park pavement treatments. The Panel agrees that the car park design should reinforce the informal character of the locality. Car park treatments should minimise impervious surfaces with hard, formal appearance but they must also be durable enough to satisfy the likely use requirements. There was consensus that gravel is unlikely to be suitable in the main car park. The surface treatment within the main car park may differ according to the durability requirements of the anticipated use. Panel inspections confirmed that asphalt incorporating local stone on local pathways achieves a similar appearance to gravel and minimises the visual impact. This may be an appropriate surface, particularly for the more heavily trafficked accessways and car spaces closest to the Harbour. In addition to the use of impervious treatments in the swales and car overhangs, the option of grasscrete was identified and this could be considered for car parking used mainly during off peak periods but further assessment would be necessary.

As was emphasised throughout the Panel hearing, the Panel is charged with evaluating the framework for future consideration of a development plan, not detailed design matters such as car park layout. However, the Panel does consider that the planning framework should provide clear guidance about the matters such as the landscape and pavement treatment of the car park because these treatments will have a significant influence on the visual impact of the development as a whole. The Panel considers that the landscaping and engineering approaches advocated in the Guidelines and Mr. Czarny’s evidence will mitigate the visual impact of the car park. The design of the car park should not be treated as a purely arithmetic process to maximise car space yields and should respond to the spirit of the Guidelines to achieve a space where the visual dominance of hard surfaces is minimised and landscaping is a significant element. The Panel supports the revisions to the SUZ1 schedule proposed by Council that relate to car park treatments.

The Landscaping Concept

The landscape design principles related to:

• Environmental sustainability issues, including use of water run-off, retention of existing vegetation where possible, and use of appropriate native and indigenous plants.
• Engaging contextually with the site and surrounding community by taking account of heritage and cultural aspects of the Harbour site, enhancement of local landscapes, useable space for locals and visitors, maximising views to both the water and town, and encouraging pedestrian and bicycle circulation.

The June 2004 Indicative Landscape Concept Plan was modified in October 2004 following exhibition to take account of modifications to architecture and site layout. It also responded to Council and submittors’ views by replacing avenue tree planting along the Harbour promenade with informal copses of indigenous trees. The Panel was advised that advanced plants would be used.

The Panel acknowledges the agreement in the expert views presented that exotic avenue planting would be appropriate on the Harbour promenade and was not out of place in Queenscliffe given the prominence of cultural planting and the contribution it makes to the town’s character. It also notes that Mr. Czarny agreed that clear trunked, canopy trees would be appropriate on the promenade.

Despite expert opinion and the potential advantages of exotic planting in terms of shade and maintaining harbour views, the Panel accepts that the use of clusters of native vegetation on the promenade is a negotiated response that is acceptable to the proponent. Mr. Calhoun was confident that the revised concept could work well.

Other submittor concerns relating to landscaping (and Panel responses) included:

• Retention of existing vegetation on the MAFRI site. The site does not contain remnant indigenous vegetation and the existing mature vegetation contributes to landscape values in the locality but is not of environmental significance. Although development will necessitate the loss of some vegetation, the Panel was advised existing vegetation will be retained where possible, including vegetation south of the new ferry access road. The EMP will identify vegetation that can be retained and measures to protect it ( including during construction). The Panel accepts that the approach adopted is acceptable.
• Buffer planting near Fisherman’s Flat. Ms Bell and Mr. Mitchell highlighted that the 0.7m planting strip between the western access road and the boatsheds would be of limited value. The Panel agrees and considers that the vegetated verge treatment adjoining the rear of Beach Street houses is adequate. As suggested by Ms. Bell, consideration could then be given to providing angle parking in this location.

Advertising Signs

The SUZ1 schedule indicates that the zone is in Category 3 in relation to Advertising sign requirements of Clause 52.05. This category applies to high amenity areas and has the purpose:

To ensure that signs in high-amenity areas are orderly, of good design and do not detract from the appearance of the building on which a sign is displayed or the surrounding area.

The category applied is appropriate. Only directional signs would be as of right. However, the Panel considers that it would be appropriate for the Development Plan to include an advertising master plan to ensure that advertising is considered during the design phase and a co-ordinated approach is adopted.

Conclusions on Built Form and Landscaping Issues

• The Harbour is a separate precinct within Queenscliffe and has a distinct character. The redevelopment will change the character of this currently neglected area. Overall, the Panel is satisfied that proposed zone provisions and Guidelines provide a framework that would result development of a scale and form that is compatible with the coastal landscape and the Queenscliffe townscape which is of recognised heritage value.
• The expanded boat yard will adopt current practices on a scale that will underpin its viability and will contribute to the precinct’s Working Port Character.
• The storey (8.5 metre) height limit that applies throughout Queenscliff supports an objective that buildings remain a recessive townscape element. The south east corner of the site is appropriate for a ‘premium’ building but this is not dependent on increasing the height of the building.
• Additional design flexibility should be available to the proponent to consider a range of foot print options for the ‘signature building’. The building envelope should be modified in the south east of the site to provide a minimum setback of 4 metres from the water’s edge to accommodate the boardwalk.
• An average setback of 15 metres for other new buildings facing the eastern harbour would provides a degree of flexibility in this key location and would comfortably accommodate necessary functions, including informal public space without a perceived obligation to make purchases from the retail premises.
• The Panel accepts that improvements in the pedestrian environment of the Harbour are a reasonable trade off for more limited views of the Harbour from cars. However, a sense of the Harbour from this important approach to the town should be maintained. The zone schedule should indicate that spaces between buildings on the Harbour are to be generous but a 4-metre width should not be specified. Fewer but wider breaks in the building would be more effective in achieving views to the Harbour from the south. Extending the building envelope adjoining the MAFRI building is an option that could be considered if it facilitates larger gaps between buildings. The car park layout and landscaping should reinforce viewlines.
• The Panel considers that the landscaping and engineering approaches advocated in the Guidelines and Mr. Czarny’s evidence will mitigate the visual impact of the car park.
• The Panel has recommended that key elements of the Guidelines should be extracted and included in the schedule to the zone and the incorporated Implementation Plan should identify view corridors (see section 6.11.1).
• The negotiated landscape concepts are acceptable. It is noted that existing vegetation (other than environmental weeds) south of the new Ferry access road will be maintained. The EMP is an appropriate mechanism to identify vegetation that can be retained elsewhere and measures to protect the vegetation to be retained.

Panel Recommendations

• Further consideration of the building envelope adjoining the MAFRI building in order to facilitate larger gaps between buildings.
• The Implementation Plan should be modified to:
  • Show two building envelopes east of the Sea Pilot’s building with a significant break south-west of the ‘signature building’ envelope.
  • Other viewlines through the car park may be shown conceptually.
  • show minimum building setbacks from the Harbour edge.
• The SUZ1 schedule be modified to indicate that:
  • An advertising master plan is to be submitted as part of the Development Plan.
  • New buildings on the water edge should be aligned parallel to the Cut.
  • New development fronting the Cut should be generally single storey in scale with a visible roof form that may extend above to a uniform height of 6m.
  • No more than 45% of all buildings may be two storeys in height.
  • Buildings must be setback an average of no less than 15 metres and a minimum of 8 metres from the East Harbour Basin except for the eastern ‘signature building’ where buildings must be setback no less than 4 metres.
  • Spaces between buildings on the Harbour should be generous and accommodate views and ease of access to the water.
  • Car parking aisles and tree planting should be aligned in a manner that encourages clear view lines towards the waterfront and between frontage buildings to the Harbour edge.
  • Car parking areas should be well vegetated with established evergreen native canopy trees that reduce the overall extent of the parking surface and create ample shade and/or shelter. Trees in car parking areas should generally be at 10m.
  • Car parking areas should be designed to reflect the informal character of Queenscliff’s urban and foreshore areas.

5.5 HERITAGE

5.5.1 SLIPWAYS

There are two existing operational slipways at the western end of the existing harbour. These are currently operated by Parks Victoria and provide facilities to remove boats from the water for maintenance and any other reason.

The slipways consist of concrete ramps supporting twin steel rails which extend into the water below water level. The rails support trolleys or cradles attached to an electric winch with a steel cable. The slipways operate by the boat to be removed from the water being positioned over the trolley in the water. It is then winched up the rails onto the concrete ramp clear of the water. The boat is then in a position to be worked on while secured on the concrete ramp.

The northern ramp can facilitate the servicing of two boats and the southern slipway is generally limited to a single boat. The maximum vessel size is 80 tonne for the southern slipway and 50 tonne for the northern slipway.

The slipways were constructed in the 1960s (northern slipway) and the 1970s (southern slipway) and are currently operated by Parks Victoria.

The Panel was informed that Queenscliff Harbour Pty Ltd, when it takes over the Harbour operations, intends to cease operating the slipways. Instead it proposes to provide an alternative method for removal of vessels from the water. This alternative method involves the use of a travel lift and motorised trolleys. The travel lift is to have a 200 tonne capacity. Vessels will be removed from the water by attaching slings placed under the vessel to be lifted and use the travel lift to hoist the vessel vertically from the water and then place it on a mechanised trolley.

It was stated by Queenscliff Harbour Pty Ltd and Parks Victoria that this system of vessel lifting is more cost efficient, can handle more vessels and has significant environmental benefits. Parks Victoria provided evidence that the slipways are in poor condition, are dangerous to use, are not economically viable and are a significant environmental hazard. Parks Victoria estimated that full upgrading of the slipways to achieve acceptable environmental standards and Occupational Health and Safety requirements would be in the order of $975,000 for full upgrading. This cost would be reduced if only the northern slipway is retained.

This evidence was challenged by several submittors. They claimed that the cost of repairs is overstated, the environmental hazards could be easily fixed and that the state of repair is a result of continued neglect over time by Parks Victoria. Some submittors also questioned whether the alternative travel lift would be a suitable alternative for some wooden boats, such as couta boats.

Regardless of the merits of both positions, the proponent and Parks Victoria have made it quite clear that the current slipways will not be continued as operational slipways by either party. The planning system can prevent their removal but cannot require their operation.

Several submittors and the Council supported a position that the slipways have heritage value and should be retained as operational slipways for this reason. In response to this position the proponent agreed to retain the northern slipway with removal of underwater rails in a non operational condition to be used as a static heritage display with possibly a decommissioned vessel fixed in place on the slipway. The southern slipway is to be entirely demolished. The underwater rails on the retained slipway are to be removed to allow 30 - 40 extra mooring berths.

The Council responded to this proposition by suggesting that a decision on the slipways should be deferred until all options were further investigated. This investigation could be implemented by an inclusion in the Schedule to the Special Use Zone of a requirement for a Conservation Management Plan which would detail works and management measures for partial retention of the slipway as an operational or non operational facility. Parks Victoria and Queenscliff Harbour Pty Ltd instead proposed that the Conservation Management Plan should be limited to management measures for the northern slipway as a non-operational facility.

The Council made it clear that its preferred position is that the slipways be retained as an operational facility. This was also the position of many of the submittors who saw the heritage value of the slipways being in the working operation of the slipways.

The Panel heard expert evidence on the heritage value of the slipways from Mr J Briggs for Queenscliff Harbour Pty. Ltd. and Ms. S Myers for Parks Victoria. The Council did not call any expert heritage evidence but relied upon quoted extracts from a report by Councils Heritage Advisor Ms N Gasparetto.

All of the heritage experts indicated that the heritage significance of the slipways arise from the slipways being operational. Ms Myers adopted the statement of significance prepared by Ms Gasparetto as follows:

The two existing slipways are of historical significance as one of the few operating examples of the boat repairing activity, not only in the region but also in Victoria. Although older slips and slipways exist in some ports (the Paynesville Slipway, 1887 and the Blunts Slipway in Williamstown, 1926 being the most significant in the State of Victoria), the Queenscliff slipways are important examples of the timber slips with fine timberwork, electric winches, cables and cradles. Many slipways have disappeared over time or have been changed substantially. These slips are currently used, and form part of the Harbour character which Queenscliff is renown for and have strong associations with the boat building industry in the region.

Mr Briggs adopted a modified statement of significance as follows:

The operation of the two existing slipways is of historical value as one of a dwindling number of demonstrations of slip technology, not only in the region but also in Victoria. Although older slips and slipways exist in some ports (the Paynesville Slipway, 1887 and the Blunts Slipway in Williamstown, 1926 being the most significant in the State of Victoria), the Queenscliff slipways are important examples of the traditional technology that remained current through the late Twentieth century and is now being superseded. Many slipways have disappeared over time or have been changed substantially. The Queenscliff slips are currently used. They form a notable part of the Harbour character and the Queenscliff heritage context, and have associations with the local boat building industry. The slipways in use also contribute to the aesthetic appeal of the locality.

The Panel was also informed that the slipways are not subject to the Heritage Overlay in the Planning Scheme nor are they on the Victorian Heritage Register. The Council Heritage Advisor has recommended that they be included in the Heritage Overlay.

The heritage/cultural significance of the slipways is dependant on them operating but Parks Victoria and Queenscliff Harbour Pty Ltd have stated that the slipways will not be operated by them after the travel lift becomes operational. There appears to be no heritage justification for retaining either structure as a non operational facility unless some other mechanism can be implemented to keep the slipways operational.

The Panel understands the Council position of further investigating the options. However, in the event that there is no organisation available to carry out the slipway upgrading and operation, it is clear that regardless of the outcome of the further investigation, the slipways will not be operational. The Panel appreciates that both Ms. Myer and Ms. Gasparetto recommended that one slipway be retained as a static display however this recommendation does not achieve protection of the stated heritage significance of the slipways.

Panel Conclusion on Slipways

The Panel is satisfied that there is some local heritage significance and community interest in the continued operation of the slipways and that this is sufficient to justify retention of one slipway including the rails in spite of this resulting in the loss of approximately 40 mooring berths. If a community or other organisation becomes available to upgrade and operate the northern slipway in a way that overcomes environmental, safety and economic viability issues, then there is heritage merit in retaining this slipway including the underwater rails.

The Panel considers that it is unlikely that such an organisation or body is likely to come forward. Nevertheless, such an opportunity should be provided. It is possible that the Couta Boat Association may be interested and it may be possible that the northern slipway could be repaired and made operational for smaller vessels with less cost than the estimates for full upgrading. Any such proposal would need careful scrutiny to ensure it was viable, safe and environmentally sound. The organisation would need to negotiate a suitable arrangement for tenure with Parks Victoria and the environmental/OH&S safeguards would need to be to the satisfaction of Parks Victoria.

The Panel is not satisfied, on the evidence before it, that there is sufficient justification for retaining any of the slipways if they cannot continue in operation. It is clear on the evidence that the fabric of the structures is not sufficiently significant to justify retention as a static non-operational display.

It follows that if an organisation does not come forward to take responsibility for upgrading and operation of the slipways then both slipways should, after appropriate historical recording, be demolished. The resultant space could then be identified on the incorporated Implementation Plan for use as car parking or public open space. If other uses or buildings were sought in this area, formal amendment of the Plan would be necessary.

It is necessary from a practical perspective to place a time limit on such proposals being finalised to the satisfaction of Parks Victoria and 6 months from the public release of Amendment C16 Panel Report appears reasonable. This allows sufficient time for an organisation to come forward with proposals without delaying the Harbour Redevelopment.

Panel Recommendations

The requirement for a Conservation Management Plan in the Schedule to the Special Use Zone should be altered to provide a six month period from the date of public release of this report to allow an organisation to submit a proposal for upgrading and continued operation of the Northern Slipway to the satisfaction of Parks Victoria. In addition, the plan should provide for historical recording of the slipways or parts thereof intended to be removed. Other references to the slipways to be removed as appropriate.

The Implementation Plan to be altered to:

• show removal of both slipways unless a proposal is submitted to and approved by Parks Victoria in accordance with the Conservation Management Plan requirements in the Schedule to the Special use Zone.
• Identify the alternative use of the slipway area as public open space or car parking.

5.5.2 HMAS LONSDALE

The wreck is highly significant for its association with the Victorian Navy. It is registered on the Victorian Heritage Register and is therefore a protected site. If disturbance of any kind was required within 10 metres of the wreck, an application must be made to Heritage Victoria for a Permit under the Heritage Act.

The remains of the vessel are located in the part of the Harbour designated to be part of the new road. There are two alternative proposals to address the issue of disturbance to HMAS Lonsdale described by Mr Lonie as follows:

To build a bridge over the site to preserve the vessel and enable access to the site for research, or

To excavate the vessel and include it in an interpretive display. In order for this option to be viable the expert witness statement of Ms S Myers and the submission from the Queenscliff Maritime Museum both recommend that an archaeological investigation be carried out to determine the condition, extent and integrity of the vessel. The cost of excavating and displaying the vessel would need to be determined.

Both options would require the approval of Heritage Victoria and Ms Myers indicated that both have been discussed with Heritage Victoria and have received in principle support.

The Schedule to the Special Use Zone includes provision for the preparation of a Conservation Plan to be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority prior to any works that may impact on HMAS Lonsdale.

Panel Conclusion on HMAS Lonsdale

The Panel agrees that the proposals to address the issue of HMAS Lonsdale are satisfactory.

5.5.3 FISHERMAN’S FLAT PRECINCT

The Fisherman’s Flat precinct including the land immediately to the north is currently subject to the Heritage Overlay. The area is defined as Fisherman’s Flat Urban Conservation Precinct. It has become apparent that part of the Fisherman’s Wharf complex is excluded from the Heritage Overlay. Council supported the submission of Ms Bell and Mr Stephens that Map 4 be amended to apply the Heritage Overlay over the Fisherman’s Wharf area as originally recommended in the ‘Urban Conservation Study 1984’. The Panel agrees and does not consider that exhibition is required.

Policy 22.04-1 Queenscliff also defines the whole of the Harbour area including Fisherman’s Flat as the Queenscliff Urban Heritage Area. This policy sets out amongst other matters, to protect views and vistas in areas that include the Fisherman’s Flat Precinct.

Amendment C16 proposes to change the application of the Heritage Overlay and the boundary of the area to which policy 22.04-1 applies.

These alterations are to be achieved by the following:

• In the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay the incorporated Implementation Plan is called up and this removes the requirement for a permit under the provisions of the Heritage Overlay for land covered by the incorporated Implementation Plan. The Implementation Plan applies to the area between the northern extremity of the residential part of Fisherman’s Flat and the wharf. The effect is to remove the need for a permit under the Heritage Overlay from this area.
• The area of application of local policy 22.04-1 (sic 22.03-1) is achieved by deletion from the map attached to the policy of all the area covered by the Implementation Plan. This deletion as for the Heritage Overlay includes the area immediately north of the residential area of Fisherman’s Flat.

The current provisions provide some measure of protection to the heritage values and urban design values of the Fisherman’s Flat residential area. This protection would be replaced in the proposed amendment as follows:

• The Heritage Overlay objectives and decision guidelines still apply.
• The incorporated Implementation Plan does not foreshadow any changes to the area affected by the Heritage Overlay although it does designate the area for future development.
• The Development Plan approval process replaces the requirement for a permit.
• The Guidelines require built form that is compatible with the heritage values of the town and Fisherman’s Flat.
• In addition, the provisions of the Clause 22.04 Urban Character policy still apply but the Clause 22.03 Heritage Policy would not.

The Council submission to the Panel also requested that the additional decision guidelines be included in the Schedule to the Special Use Zone in order to provide linkages in the decision making process. These additional decision guidelines to refer to the Heritage Overlay and Policies in Clause 22.04 Urban Character apply. These are required to be considered in the decision making process involving the approval of Development Plans.

The proponent did not indicate the nature of possible future development in the Fisherman’s Wharf area.

Panel Conclusion on Fisherman’s Flat Heritage Issues

The Panel considers that the part of the Amendment area affected by the Heritage Overlay clearly forms part of Fisherman’s Flat which has recognised heritage values that should be taken into account in the assessment of proposals affecting that area. However, the Panel accepts that the Amendment provides sufficient protection to the heritage values of Fisherman’s Flat. The alterations proposed in the amendment provide similar heritage protection to the area north of the residential part of Fisherman’s Flat as currently exists even though the mechanism for protection is changed.

The Panel agrees with the Council that additional decision guidelines should be inserted in the Schedule to the Special Use Zone to ensure appropriate linkages exist back to the Heritage Overlay and the Local Policy Framework. The reference to the Local Policy Framework should be to both Clauses 22.03 and 22.04.

As there has not been any indication of the nature of possible future development in the Fisherman’s Wharf area, the Panel has not been able to evaluate whether development of that area would be appropriate in terms of either potential impacts on heritage values and the environment. It considers that future options for this area should be subject to the approval with full third party rights and the Implementation Plan should be modified to delete reference to future development in the north west of the site.

Attention is drawn to a typographical error in the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay. In the column headed Name of Incorporated Plan the clause reference should be 43.01-2 not 42.02-3.

Panel Recommendations

The Heritage policy not be amended to delete the Harbour from the ‘Queenscliff Urban Heritage and Queenscliff Urban Contributory Areas’ map.

The decision guidelines in the Special Use Zone schedule be amended to include reference to the Heritage Overlay and clauses 22.03 and 22.04 local policies.

The incorporated Implementation Plan be modified to delete the reference to future development in the north west of the site in the vicinity of Fisherman’s wharf.

Planning Scheme map 4 be amended to apply the heritage overlay over the fisherman’s wharf area as originally recommended in the ‘Urban Conservation Study 1984’.

The schedule to the Heritage Overlay be corrected to refer to clause 43.01-2 instead of clause 42.02-3 in the heading to the column addressing incorporated plans.

5.6 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT

Existing Conditions

Harbour Street and Larkin Parade are both declared main roads and provide access to the Harbour and ferry terminal from Wharf Street. Larkin Parade carries up to 2,400 vehicles per day in peak periods. Beach Street, Bay Street and Bridge Street also provide access to Larkin Parade but are residential streets and are sign posted as ‘No Through Road’ to discourage use by through traffic.

The current road access to the area is circuitous and indirect which is not suitable, given that heavy vehicles (coaches, articulated vehicles, etc) and tourists who may be unfamiliar with the area, require access to the Harbour and ferry. The ferry operator has identified some operational issues with the existing road network, notably:

• Difficulties with coaches circulating around the roundabout on Larkin Parade.
• Circulation issues caused by queues from the ferry terminal entrance extending through the roundabout.

Traffic Generation

Existing, average daily traffic flows on Larkin Parade are 2,000 vehicles with volumes increasing to a daily average of 2,400 vehicles on a busy weekend day. During the busy Easter period between the hours of 11am and 12pm, this precinct typically generates a total of 400 to 450 vehicular trips.

Mr. Johnson, who gave traffic and parking evidence, estimated upper bound increase in traffic generated by the Harbour during the Saturday peak period (11am and 12pm) of 435 trips consisting of:

• Retail component: 365 trips (in and out)
• Berths: 70 trips[7]

Traffic generation for the retail development is expected to be lower than this conservative estimate given that many visitors would make multi-purpose trips to the Harbour and car occupancy is expected to be higher than that at usual retail developments.

5.6.1 ADEQUACY OF ROAD NETWORK

The development includes upgraded access to the Harbour and ferry terminal through replacement of Harbour Street and Larkin Parade with a link providing more direct access connecting with Wharf Street and the Bellarine Highway. The cross section of the access road will be similar to other locations along the Bellarine Highway which accommodate more than 9,000 vehicles on a busy weekend day.

Clearer connections to the Harbour and ferry terminal, reinforced with appropriate directional signage, are also expected to reduce the misuse of the residential road network (Beach Street and Bay Street) to access the area.

VicRoads' submission concerning the exhibited Implementation Plan addressed the need for traffic treatment at the entrance to the Ferry Terminal as a result of the removal of the existing roundabout at this location. The Implementation Plan was subsequently altered to allow for queuing of ferry traffic and to show directional restrictions for differing traffic destinations at this location.

It is noted that VicRoads’ approval and safety audits would be required for the new road works which would form part of the declared Main Road system and should ensure that the designs adopted would be capable of accommodating the type and volume of traffic expected. A planning permit would also be required for the access from the declared main road to the Harbour development.

Some submissions expressed concern that the surrounding road network, including the Bellarine Highway, has insufficient capacity to cater for the extra traffic likely to be generated by the Harbour development. Particular concern was expressed about the section of the Bellarine Highway at the Narrows. It was stated that, the Narrows would be difficult to widen due to physical constraints and would become a future problem due to significant extra traffic as a result of the Harbour development as well as the cumulative effect of other proposed developments in the area.

Mr Johnson’s evidence was that the existing road network including the Bellarine Highway has ample capacity to cater for the increased traffic from both the proposed harbour development and the other proposed developments. In support of this contention Mr Johnson indicated that the peak daily traffic volume on the Bellarine Highway is currently 13,000 vehicles per day but has a capacity of 20,000 vehicles per day.

There were several submissions concerning future traffic levels and composition through the residential area of Fisherman’s Flat. Roads through this residential area currently provide access to the Ferry Terminal though existing No Through Road Signage discourages such traffic. The new road layout will prevent ferry traffic from using these residential streets, however there is some potential for harbour traffic using the proposed Western Access Road to travel through Fisherman’s Flat.

Mr Johnson’s evidence was to the effect that less harbour traffic will travel through the residential areas than is currently the case. He proposed that traffic levels be monitored after the development is completed and if traffic levels do increase, then appropriate traffic treatment be implemented to discourage through traffic. These measures could include additional signage, traffic calming devices or road closure.

Conclusions on Adequacy of Road Network

The Panel accepts the evidence that the road network will comfortably accommodate the increase in traffic generated by the redeveloped Harbour.

VicRoads’ concerns regarding traffic accessing the Ferry Terminal have either been addressed in the amended Implementation Plan or can be appropriately addressed in the Development Plan. In arriving at this conclusion the Panel relies upon the requirement that necessary roads works must be to VicRoads’ approval.

The Schedule to the Special Use Zone should be amended to include a requirement in the Traffic Management Plan (TMP) forming part of the Development Plan, for monitoring of traffic through the residential areas of Fisherman’s Flat. The TMP should also provide for installation of appropriate traffic management measures to reduce through traffic in the event that traffic monitoring demonstrates increased traffic in these residential areas. The traffic monitoring and provision of management measures should be carried out by Queenscliff Harbour Pty Ltd, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

The Panel considered the possibility of an agreement under the provisions of Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act to guarantee performance by Queenscliff Harbour Pty Ltd. However, due to difficulties associated with registration of agreements on title the Panel concluded that setting out the requirements in the Planning Scheme is a better option.

5.6.2 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT DURING CONSTRUCTION

The Panel was advised that further consideration of construction phasing will address issues of maintaining access to uses such as the ferry terminal, the movements of materials and workforce to and from site, and the need for any traffic management measures that would minimise any potential impacts in the area.

The Panel was provided with plans indicating the proposed stages of development. These included a demolition stage and four construction stages.

The Panel notes that the proposed requirements for submission and approval of Development Plans envisage that these can be submitted and approved in stages. There is no specific provision to ensure that disruption to traffic, parking facilities and port operations (including those at the Ferry Terminal) is minimised during each stage of construction and that there is no unnecessary duplication of services.

Conclusion on Traffic Management During Construction

The Schedule to the Special Use Zone should be amended to provide for the Traffic Management Plan requiring each stage of the Development Plan to address traffic and parking provisions to allow continued efficient operation of the Harbour and the Ferry Terminal during. Such provisions to be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

5.7 PARKING

5.7.1 EXISTING PARKING

Publicly available informal parking within the Harbour and along Larkin Parade is estimated to provide in the order of 213 spaces and 50 private parking spaces are provided within the MAFRI site. No time restrictions are in place.

On street parking outside the site on Weeroona Parade, Hygeia Drive and Symonds Street provides approximately 160 spaces which are not subject to time restrictions. An additional 40 spaces could be provided on Weeroona Parade, by introducing a one-way condition and converting the existing parallel parking to angled parking.

Satellite parking is also available to supplement parking during events and peak periods, most notably at Jordan Reserve, the Ocean View car park and local primary school. A community/shuttle bus service operates during the Seafood Festival in Queenscliff and Point Lonsdale to provide access to these areas.

There is limited car parking provided at the ferry terminal which relies heavily on parking spaces located external to the terminal.

5.7.2 PROPOSED PARKING

The Amendment proposes alternative car parking requirements to those that would otherwise apply under Clause 52.06 of the Planning scheme. The exhibited amendment proposed that rates of parking provision must be consistent with the Queenscliff Harbour Implementation Document. These rates were further refined as a result of a Traffic and Parking Study prepared by Mr. Johnson. Queenscliff Harbour Pty Ltd. and Parks Victoria submitted that the parking rates set out in Mr Johnson’s Traffic and Parking Study should apply.

Where parking rates are provided in Clause 52.06 of the planning scheme these are adjusted in the Traffic and Parking Study to take account of a variety of factors relating to particular aspects of Queenscliff Harbour. These include:

• An expected higher then normal vehicle occupancy rate during peak usage periods associated with harbour development as compared to traditional shopping precincts.
• Numerous surveys, conducted by Arup of various shopping centres in regional areas which experience seasonal fluctuations in parking demand, show that the average parking demand for retail uses is significantly less than the 8 spaces per 100 square metres set out in clause 52.06.
• The adopted peak parking demand rates for land based activities should be reduced to allow for shared use of car parks by vehicles associated with boating activities.
• The adopted peak parking demand rates should be reduced to allow for different peak times in parking demand for different activities.
• Surveys conducted by Arup indicate that an appropriate car park demand for cafes, food premises and wine bar is 0.35 parks per seat instead of the 0.6 parks per seat in clause 52.06 for restaurants and for the wine bar the 60 spaces per 100 square metres for bar areas plus 30 spaces per 100 square metres for lounge floor area as set in clause 52.06. This reduced rate is supported by the Arup surveys and the likely large percentage of customers already in the centre for other land based pursuits, particularly at lunchtime.
• The rate of 3.5 car spaces per 100 square metres of office space is too high for regional and metropolitan areas based on a number of surveys conducted by Arup. A more appropriate rate is 3.0 spaces per 100 square metres of floor space and this is stated to be a conservative rate.
• The rate of 0.3 spaces per square metres of floor area for a community hall is too high because the hall usage during peak activity times is likely to be associated with yacht club members and the parking demand is allowed for in the parking rate per mooring/berth. When the hall is used during peak activity times by non yacht club members, those attending will usually arrive by bus. A nominal rate of 0.3 spaces per 100 square metres of floor area is allowed.

The peak parking demand rates adopted in the Traffic and Parking Study are then applied to the proposed individual non boating development components and adjusted by reduction factors for shared uses and occurrence of peak usage times. The resultant total demand for non-boating car parking is then calculated based on the peak demand at lunchtime during summer school holidays. The demand for parking for individual development components is shown in the following table.

Table 1 Parking Demand Generated from Commercial and Retail Component

(Derived from Table 11 Queenscliff Harbour Traffic and Parking Study)

The Planning Scheme does not provide parking rates to enable parking demand associated with boating activities to be calculated.

Mr Johnson’s evidence stated that parking rates should be 55 spaces per 100 moorings (15 spaces for normal demand and 40 additional spaces in peak periods). These rates were provided to Mr Johnson by marina consultants for the developer and are consistent with Arup’s own estimates of demand for Victorian marinas.

The rates are then applied to the numbers of wet berths as shown in the table below.

The Panel notes that the additional peak mooring rate is not applied to swing moorings or itinerant moorings.

The Panel also notes that a rate of 2 car spaces per 100 land berths is also applied with no adjustment for peak times and no stated justification for the 2 spaces per 100 land berths.

The table applies reduction factors to the nominated parking rates to allow for the occurrence off peak.

Table 2 Peak Parking demand generated from the Boating Component

Derived from Table 12 Queenscliff Harbour Traffic and Parking Study

The following table derived from Queenscliff Harbour Traffic and Parking Study combines the parking demand for boating and non boating components with an allowance of 50 spaces, external to the ferry terminal for ferry foot passengers. This figure is based on information from the ferry operator for peak ferry usage periods and 30% of ferry passengers being foot passenger. The 50 spaces have not been discounted to allow for shared use (ie a portion of ferry passengers may visit commercial and retail uses in the Harbour).

Table 3 Summary of Parking Demand

Derived from Table 13 Queenscliff Harbour Traffic and Parking Study.

Throughout the panel process Queenscliff Harbour Pty Ltd emphasised that the Panel was assessing a framework for assessment of future development plans possible under the Special Use Zone and the Incorporated Plan and was not assessing a specific development proposal. However, documentation supporting the Amendment suggested that a total of 377 spaces could be provided in the following locations:

• Main car park 196
• Fish co-op (Fishermen’s Wharf) 25
• South of slipway loading area 16
• West access road 40
• Parks Victoria 64
• Boat sheds 20
• Eastern basin 16

Key features of the possible parking supply are as follows:

• Short time restrictions outside the retail area year round.
• Three-hour time restriction for other spaces in the main car park during the peak season, with a permit scheme to exempt staff and berthholders.
• Spaces reserved for people with disabilities at the Main car park (5 spaces), Fish co-op (1 space), and Parks Victoria car park (2 spaces).
• Provision for bus parking outside the retail area.
• Loading zones adjacent to the retail uses.

The Panel also notes that additional car spaces may be able to be accommodated if the slipway is not retained (see discussion in section6.5.1), along the new western access road (see section 6.4.2) or in the boatyard (for employees).

5.7.3 ADEQUACY OF PARKING PROVISION

The Panel cannot accurately assess the required number of car parks finally required because this can only be determined after a specific proposal is defined and the development plans are finalised. The precise amount of car parking will depend on the final uses proposed and the floor areas or capacity of those uses.

Given that Amendment C16 proposes a framework for assessment of future detailed development plans it is entirely possible and even likely that final detailed proposals will vary to some extent from supporting development details placed before the Panel. These variations are likely to arise as a result of detailed design, the approval process associated with the development plans and recommendations from this Panel including alterations to the Schedule to the Special Use Zone, the Implementation Plan and the Queenscliff Harbour Siting and Design Guidelines.

The Amendment as exhibited and as proposed to be altered by both Parks Victoria and Queenscliff Harbour Pty Ltd does not propose to set aside a specific number of car parks. Instead it sets out that the car parking provisions in Section 52.06 of the Planning Scheme should not apply and it nominates alternative rates by reference to external documents. The Amendment also indicates the areas where the major car park is to be provided. Supporting documents, not part of the formal amendment, locate all car parks, including the number of spaces. These documents are useful in that they demonstrate how and where a particular number of spaces could be provided. They will also no doubt be useful for the Responsible Authority in its assessment of future development plans.

The Panel is not considering a specific proposal at this stage, rather it is considering a framework to allow proper assessment of the final detailed proposal ie the development plans. It follows that the Panel cannot reach final conclusions on the areas required for car parking. The Panel can and should arrive at conclusions regarding the appropriate methodology for calculating the required spaces to service a development, the details of which are not yet finalised. Such methodology involves the appropriate rates for particular uses and how these should be adjusted to allow for shared usage and differing peak demand times for different uses. It also involves the appropriateness of satisfying some parking demand off site.

Submissions highlight concerns regarding:

• Visual and functional impacts due to the size and location of the parking areas (see discussion in section 6.4.2).
• Whether the proposed on site parking provision is sufficient and would reduce the availability of off site parking currently available for other uses in the vicinity of the Harbour such as the Museum, the beach and the park, and may lead to overflow parking on the residential streets external to the site.
• The rates proposed to establish parking demand for land-based development, boating uses and ferry foot passengers.

Evidence presented by Mr. Johnson indicated that:

• He considered that planning scheme rates are inappropriate for application in this area due to the sharing between uses of the parking spaces, the number of visitors expected to travel by ferry, boat, bicycle and foot. Peak parking demand for various uses will not coincide; empirical assessment of parking demand for commercial developments in regional Victoria with a seasonal fluctuation in parking demand.
• After adjustment to take account of shared use and the timing of peaks for individual uses, Mr. Johnson assessed the peak parking demand as 256 spaces on a typical Saturday (lunchtime) outside the peak boating period, increasing to 377 during the peak boating period.
• This peak demand is matched by the proposed 377 spaces but at peak times parking demand from ferry passengers (approximately 50 spaces) would need to be accommodated elsewhere.
• The parking proposals do not cater for occasional events in the year (markets, Music Festival and Seafood Festival) that produce specific peaks in parking demand.

Parking Demand Rates

The proposed departure from the car parking provisions set out in clause 52.06 of the planning scheme results in a significant reduction in the number of spaces to be provided as illustrated by the table below, which has been compiled from the provisions of clause 52.06 where applicable.

Table 4 Clause 52.06 Parking Rates

The general approach proposed by Queenscliff Harbour Pty. Ltd. for car parking is sensible and is supported by the Panel. In essence this approach is to calculate the parking demand for the Harbour development as a whole including the Ferry Terminal. This has been done by allocating parking demand to individual components and adjusting these to allow for shared usage between different uses and for different peak demand times for different uses. Derivation of parking demand figures by adding the individual requirements of separate components without adjustment for shared usage or different peak times would clearly result in an unrealistic over supply of spaces.

The provisions of Clause 52.06 envisages that the rates specified for individual uses can be varied by either a permit or the provisions of an approved parking precinct plan. The Panel accepts these principles as being appropriate. The Panel, however recognises that the proposed rates are critically important and a small change to the rates can result in a significant change to the final demand figure.

The Panel appreciates that the only expert evidence before it is from Mr Johnson but it also heard several submissions which challenged Mr Johnson’s proposed parking rates as being arbitrary. Mr Johnson’s proposal that parking be monitored after completion of development does not provide much comfort if the parking rates are too low and the resultant number of car parks are too few. In these circumstances the Panel is of the view that before the rates for parking demand are finalised they should be subject to a peer review. After completion of this peer review the appropriate rates should then be included, in the schedule to the Special Use Zone, before adoption of the Amendment.

Off Site Car Parks

Mr Johnson’s evidence was that after application of the adjusted rates for individual components, there would be a shortfall of 50 spaces on site during normal peak demand periods ie. Saturday lunchtime during summer school holidays. He further identified a number of off-site locations where this shortfall could be accommodated and concluded that the parking provisions were adequate.

The available off site car parks identified by Mr Johnson are:

• Hygeia Drive - 43 existing spaces
• Weeroona Parade - 69 existing spaces
• Symonds Street - 49 existing spaces
• Weeroona Parade - 40 new spaces available by introducing a one way condition and converting existing parallel parking to angle parking

Mr Johnson did not provide any evidence relating to the usage of the above existing car park spaces at peak times and accordingly the availability of vacant car parks in these areas. The Panel notes however, that 40 new spaces are available in Weeroona Parade and that the Council offered no objection to the traffic arrangements necessary to make these new spaces available. On this basis the Panel is satisfied that the 40 extra spaces in Weeroona Parade can be made available to satisfy overflow demand from the Harbour. In the absence of any information concerning the occupancy rate of the existing off site car parking spaces, the Panel has no confidence as to their availability to provide significant room for overflow parking from the Harbour.

As discussed earlier the calculations resulting in a requirement for 50 off site car spaces are based on supporting documents which are not part of the formal amendment documentation. Accordingly, the requirement for 50 off site spaces would not a firm limit. The Panel is inclined to the view that no more than 50 off site spaces should be relied upon. These 50 spaces consist of 40 new spaces on Weeroona Parade and utilisation of 10 spaces from the 161 existing spaces in Hygeia Drive, Weeroona Parade and Symonds Street. Such a requirement will result in the final design of the Harbour being such that all parking calculated from approved rates being contained within the site except for a maximum of 50 off site spaces during peak conditions.

Peak Demand

The car parking rates as calculated by Mr Johnson are based on a peak demand stated to be Saturday lunchtime during summer school holidays. Mr Johnson identifies in his evidence that there are other higher peak parking demand times associated with special events such as the Music Festival and Seafood Festival.

The Panel accepts that on isolated occasions during a few special events that car parking spaces throughout Queenscliff will be not meet demand and that there is no justification for treating the Harbour development any differently. During these occasions parking will be at a premium. It is not realistic, nor is it normal practice, to provide sufficient car parking spaces to satisfy exceptional and infrequent peak demand situations.

5.7.4 PARKING PROVISIONS IN SCHEDULE

Queenscliff Harbour Pty. Ltd. proposed, in the final draft of the schedule to the Special Use Zone, that parking spaces should be addressed by including in the Development Plan provisions for a Traffic Management Plan (TMP). The TMP requires parking to be provided at a rate that is consistent with the Traffic and Parking Study, Arup October 2004.

The Council on the other hand, submitted that the appropriate parking rates should be included in the Schedule to the Special use Zone.

In order to satisfy the Council submission it would be necessary to include the appropriate tables of parking rates with reduction factors to take account of off peak use in the schedule to the Special Use Zone and these are quite lengthy and detailed. Nevertheless, in the interests of clarity and the need to include in the planning scheme material fundamental to decision making, the Panel agrees with the Council that the appropriate table should be included in the Schedule to the Special Use Zone.

Conclusion on Parking

The parking rates set out in clause 52.06 of the Planning Scheme should not be applied to the Harbour development.

Parking provision should be based on rates applicable to the proposed development and these rates should allow for shared usage of development and differing peak demand times for different development components.

The rates to be applied should be determined by Council after consideration of the rates recommended in the Queenscliff Harbour Traffic and Parking Study October 2004 by Arup and a peer review of the rates proposed in that study.

The appropriate rates as finally determined by the Council should be included in the Schedule to the Special Use Zone.

The rates proposed should not be based on peak parking demand associated with non-typical special events such as the Music Festival or the Seafood Food Festival.

Angle car parking for 40 additional spaces should be provided in Weeroona Parade together with necessary alterations to ensure one way traffic in this street and associated line marking.

Sufficient on site car parking should be provided so that overflow parking demand from the Harbour, including ferry foot passengers, is limited to 50 car parks for peak demand periods based on Saturday lunch time during summer school holidays.

In arriving at the above conclusions, the Panel also notes that the public parking spaces in the documents provided to the Panel but not forming part of the formal amendment, indicate an increase of 164 spaces combined with a regulated regime of parking time restrictions. The increased spaces and the regulated parking time regime is offset by the increased number of berths and the general increased development including the new retail component.

The Panel has a concern that the parking areas available may tend to be the variable in the final design and the actual number of spaces provided on site may suffer at the expense of other development. If this did occur, the result would be that there would be more demand on off site overflow spaces. To ensure that this does not occur, the Panel arrived at the position stated above that the maximum number of overflow space should be limited to 50 after applying the final approved car parking rates and reduction factors. This approach will result in the scale of development having a direct relationship to the space available for car parking without the need for excessive overflow.

5.7.5 BICYCLE FACILITIES

The proposal provides for 25 visitor bicycle spaces to be provided throughout the site. In addition, an unspecified number of bicycle lockers are proposed for staff throughout the site.

Since the Amendment was exhibited, the VPP have been amended to introduce Clause 52.34 Bicycle facilities. This clause requires 17 secure employee bicycle spaces and 19 rack bicycle spaces for visitors on the following basis:

* Overstated as based on gross floor area but rate applies to area available to the public.

A permit would be required to reduce or waive the above level of bicycle facilities. It is, however, clear that the requirements of Clause 52.34 can be complied with.

Conclusion on Bicycle Facilities

The Panel concludes that there is ample space on site for the provision of onsite storage of bicycle storage for visitors and employees.

Panel Recommendations

That a peer review by an independent traffic engineer be carried out of the peak car parking rates recommended in the Arup report dated October 2004 entitled Queenscliff Harbour Traffic and Parking Study.

That following consideration of this peer review and the Arup Report the Council determine the appropriate peak car parking rates.

The Schedule to the Special Use Zone under the Traffic Management Plan include the following:

• A table containing the appropriate car parking rates.
• The number of car parking spaces required for the final development calculated in accordance with peak demand as set out in the Tables above not to exceed the number of spaces available on site by more the 50 spaces.
• Monitoring of traffic levels through the residential parts of Fisherman’s Flat to be carried out in order to establish any changes in traffic as a result of the Harbour development. Following completion of monitoring, traffic management procedures and devices to be implemented and installed to minimise any increase to traffic levels.
• Traffic and parking provisions to allow continued efficient operation of the Harbour during construction including operation of the Ferry Terminal for each stage of the development.
• Angle car parking for 40 additional spaces in Weeroona Parade together with necessary alterations to ensure one way traffic in this street and associated line marking for angle parking.
• On site bicycle storage facilities to be provided on site in accordance with the provisions of clause 52.34.

5.8 PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

A Pedestrian Pathways Plan prepared by Queenscliff Harbour Pty. Ltd. and was submitted to Council in September 2004. Ms. Wyatt recommended that these pedestrian pathways be shown on the incorporated Implementation Plan to provide the local community with greater certainty. This plan shows the network of physical and controlled pathways throughout the site, which will include:

• A continuous 4 metre wide harbour boardwalk from Fisherman’s Wharf to the Ferry Terminal along the Harbour edge and boardwalks along the Harbour piers;
• Pathways from the new car park to the commercial/retail areas and the Harbour;
• A pathway to the east of the proposed workshops (former MAFRI building) providing access from the town and the car park;
• A path along the western access road providing a linkage to Fisherman’s Wharf from Wharf Street;
• Limits on public access to the boat yard and harbour but, at the request of Council, provision was made for a controlled pathway, consisting of a 4m distinguishable path and 4m of landscaped space to the west of the former MAFRI workshops through the boatyard;
• Upgrading of the existing foreshore pathway;
• Sea Pilot security requirements are yet to be determined but recent Maritime Transport Security Act 2003 may impose requirements that must be satisfied. The Panel considers that these security requirements should be addressed with a view to minimising impacts on public access, particularly along the boardwalk.

It is noted that upgrading of the slipway could also involve restricted access to that area to meet occupational health and safety requirements.

Public access to the MAFRI site and fenced land managed by Parks Victoria is currently restricted. The Panel agrees with Council and the proponents that public pedestrian access to the site will be greater than currently applies. Pedestrian activity will be encouraged by the separation of vehicles and pedestrians, the proposed boardwalk around the new Harbour, the wider promenade, and the improved amenity and safety for pedestrians.

It was noted during the hearing that current concept plans suggest that the pedestrian pathway to the east of the former MAFRI building has minimal dimensions given its role as a key pedestrian route. The Panel considers that the design of this pathway should provide a more generous space to reflect its role as a main pedestrian access point.

It is also noted that the Disability Discrimination Act requirements will require the access needs of people with limited mobility to be addressed and access to the Harbour for these people will be significantly enhanced.

Restricted access is identified in two areas, the boat yard and pontoons, and these areas are considered further below.

5.8.1 ACCESS TO THE BOATYARD

The Guidelines recognise that fencing of the boatyard is necessary and provide the following guidance:

Fencing within the working Harbour should be a maximum of 1.8m high and highly transparent so as to encourage open visibility between the working precinct and the recreational areas. Simple galvanised vertical post fencing or coated wire mesh fencing is appropriate to the perimeter of the working precinct. Barbed wire and brush fencing is strongly discouraged.

The Panel supports this approach to fencing of the boatyard which recognises the practical requirement for security while ensuring that visitors can view the boatyard activity. Black chainmesh fencing is proposed and this is consistent with the theme to reflect the working nature of the Harbour and limiting the obstruction of views.

In addition to the pathway through the site added at Council’s request, Queenscliff Harbour Pty. Ltd. have indicated that occasional access (eg 3-4 time per year) to the boatyard would be provided and addressed through an Events Management Plan within the Traffic Management Plan.

The Panel raised concerns about both the need for and practicality of a pathway through the boatyard. Questions to expert witnesses confirmed the following reservations about this aspect of the proposal:

• The path provides limited benefit to pedestrians in terms of linkages between the town and the Harbour, as alternative pedestrian access will be available on the eastern side of the former MAFRI building.
• The boat yard will be a working area with the associated occupational health and safety considerations. Safe public access could compromise boatyard operations.
• The inclusion of a landscape strip in association with the path would limit access between commercial uses in the former MAFRI building which is planned to benefit from access to both the car park and the boat yard.

It is noted that clear views of activity in the boatyard will be available to the public from the Harbour boardwalk and the adjoining roadway.

The Panel does not believe it is necessary or desirable to include the path and it would be better to improve the pedestrian environment on the eastern side of the former MAFRI building which has a limited width.

5.8.2 ACCESS TO HARBOUR PONTOONS

The Guidelines recognise that provision of security to Harbour pontoons is reasonable but these measures require sensitive design. The guidelines state:

Security barriers may be located at the entry interface between the public pedestrian promenade and individual pontoons. These should be designed as integrated and contemporary public domain elements in keeping with the architectural qualities of the Harbour. They should be visually recessive and must not dominate the waterfront.

The Panel considers that the approach adopted in the Guidelines is reasonable.

Panel Recommendations

The design of the pathway to the east of the former MAFRI building should provide a more generous space to reflect its role as a main pedestrian access point.

Pedestrian access through the boatyard not be required.

5.9 AMENITY IMPACTS FISHERMAN’S FLAT

The impact of the development on the amenity of residential area was raised in the following submissions from residents of the immediate area:

• Ms Jurecek, a resident of Wharf Street raised broad concern about noise and amenity impacts from 24 hour operation of an industrial boat yard;
• Mr Hurly of Bridge Street sought an increase in the buffer to 20 metres;
• Ms Bell, a resident of Beach Street acknowledged that the separation of Fisherman’s Flat from the Harbour provided by the road and boat sheds provides a reasonable buffer.

The orientation, height and solid fencing of adjoining houses in Fisherman’s Flat mean that views from the properties adjoining the Harbour development will generally not be adversely affected. Only the eastern most adjoining houses enjoy views to the south-east and these views would not be compromised by the development shown on the Implementation Plan. Objections were not received from the residents of these properties.

The Panel has commented in section 6.6.2 that less traffic is likely to filter through Fisherman’s Flat after redevelopment of the Harbour but it has recommended that monitoring occur and the proponent be responsible for any mitigating works that prove to be necessary.

Noise is probably the most significant risk to the amenity of nearby residents.

Clause 15.05-1 of the Queenscliff Planning Scheme requires that:

"Planning and responsible authorities should ensure that development is not prejudiced and community amenity is not reduced by noise emissions, by ensuring that there is suitable separation between potentially amenity reducing and sensitive land uses and developments.

This clause also requires planning decisions to be consistent with the Interim Guidelines for Control of Noise from Industry in Country Victoria (EPA 1989).

It is anticipated that the Harbour will be used at all hours by commercial operators, the Sea Pilots and various recreational users while the land-based components of the proposal will operate generally according to normal commercial hours for the type of use (eg. shop, restaurant). Boat maintenance activities could occur at weekends. The proposal separates houses in Beach Street (Fisherman’s Flat) from the Harbour development by a new link road with a total width of 13.7 metres. Single storey boat sheds within the development along much of this interface with Fisherman’s Flat and they would also provide some buffering for houses to the west that would back onto the new road.

Conclusion on Amenity Impacts on Fisherman’s Flat

The Panel considers that the Planning Framework proposed will allow amenity impacts on Fisherman’s Flat to be adequately addressed. It is noted that:

• The development plan process provides for specific consideration of the hours of operation for particular uses.
• An EMP is required and must address noise and air quality.
• The Interim Guidelines for Control of Noise from Industry in Country Victoria (EPA 1989) establish the performance requirements on which measures to manage noise impacts would be assessed.
• The Panel has recommended that the Traffic Management Plan (TMP) should include monitoring of traffic through the residential areas of Fisherman’s Flat and installation of appropriate traffic management measures to reduce through traffic if problems arise.

5.10 ASSOCIATED ARRANGEMENTS

5.10.1 PRIVATISATION OF PUBLIC LAND

Many submissions opposed the privatisation of public land facilitated by the Amendment. A related argument was that this results in profit driven development being squeezed onto the site with a loss of public spaces and access.

Parks Victoria noted that:

• The 1990 EES process did not result in any expressions of interest from the private sector due to the lack of development land associated with the proposal.
• The Egis analysis of the feasibility of the Final Concept Plan indicated that even partial implementation of that proposal (stage1) was dependant on private sector involvement and the concept also anticipated significant private sector participation in the project.

It was submitted that the redevelopment now proposed provides the necessary viability for this project to proceed and enable the associated benefits to the community to be realised. It was submitted that these benefits include:

• environmental improvements;
• improved opportunities for safe boating and water-based activities;
• a more attractive harbour environment for the local community and visitors;
• improvement of pedestrian access and views through the site;
• improved traffic and car parking facilities;
• economic benefits of consolidating tourism and maritime industries which would create both construction and long term jobs.

The Panel notes that the Coastal Strategy recognises that there is additional scope for the private sector in infrastructure development on the coast (page 50); market rents will be charged; and revenue generated from coastal crown land is to be directed to coastal management, protection, development or maintenance as determined by the relevant coastal manager (page 20).

Provided the coastal environment is protected, planning policy aims to ‘facilitate suitable development on the coast within existing modified and resilient environments where the demand for services is evident and requires management.’ (Clause 15.08 and Coastal Strategy Page 18). The Coastal Strategy identifies the need for improved boating facilities and identifies Queenscliffe as a recreation node and for a safe harbour (one of 5 around Port Phillip Bay). The Panel is satisfied that the environmental preconditions are satisfied (see section 6.2) and that the demand for the services proposed in the Harbour is evident. The Coastal Strategy also indicates that ‘Coastal Crown land leases should incorporate measures to widen community access to, and use of coastal and water based facilities and experiences.’

The Panel’s role is to assess the planning merits of the proposal to determine whether it is acceptable and its role does not extend to decisions about the tenure and lease arrangements for this public land. However, planning policy promotes public access to coastal areas. This is an important issue in the evaluation for the proposal and is discussed in more detail in section 6.8 where the Panel has found that the planning framework will ensure that public access to the Harbour area is enhanced, particularly for pedestrians and people with disabilities.

5.10.2 BERTHING FEES

Submissions raised concerns about the lack of information and the likelihood of substantial increases in berthing fees which would have significant social impacts.

Council submitted that Queenscliff’s harbour is a fundamental element in the social and cultural make up of the Borough and maintaining equity and access to all is important. However, Council recognised that it cannot regulate fees as it is the planning authority not the public land manager. Council has sought assurances from Parks Victoria that the lease agreement will ensure that an appropriate mix of berth sizes would be retained and consideration will be given to equity in access in setting berthing fees.

Parks Victoria’s submission reassured the Panel that a five year moratorium would be placed on fee increases for berths. It stated:

The lease provides that QH P/L must not change or increase mooring rates for any existing berth occupiers for a period of five years from the commencement date to a level or rate higher than the rate which would apply at the relevant time under PV's current schedule of rates for private marina berths.

Queenscliff Harbour Pty. Ltd. tabled indicative ‘wet’ berthing fees for new berth holders which also provides guidance regarding fees that would apply after the moratorium expires. These fees indicate significant increases over current fees, but

• Current fees for boats less than 15 m are substantially less than for any of the 13 facilities shown and for boats 15-25 m lower than all but 4 of the facilities.
• For boats less than 10 metres the new fees would be lower than apply elsewhere in Port Phillip Bay and Westernport, comparable to fees at Port Welshpool, Port Albert and Lakes Post Jetty but slightly higher than charged at San Remo, Lakes Entrance and Paynesville.
• For boats of more than 10 metres new charges would be significantly lower than apply elsewhere in Port Phillip Bay, but higher than for other facilities.

The Panel considers that the fees charged are only a relevant planning consideration to the extent that there are significant social or economic effects for the community as a whole. It recognises that widely accessible boating opportunities are important to the community of Queenscliff but does not consider that the ‘non-boating’ community should bear the cost of upgrading harbour facilities to achieve acceptable standards with the benefits going to harbour users. It is noted that the Coastal Strategy (page 50) indicates that user pays principles should apply to long term coastal uses. For current harbour berth holders, the 5 year deferral of increases to fees more in line with those commonly charged elsewhere in the central coastal region, provides a reasonable buffer from adverse impacts of increases for established users.

5.10.3 CARETAKER HOUSE

An existing building between the new extension of Wharf Street and the foreshore was identified as a caretaker’s house in the exhibited plan. The proponent responded to submissions opposing this use by changing the use of this building on the Implementation Plan to Queenscliff Harbour Pty. Ltd. office. The Panel agrees that the use of this building as a caretaker’s house was not appropriate.

5.11 THE PLANNING FRAMEWORK

In this section the Panel addresses the concerns raised by submittors about the complexity of the planning framework proposed, lack of certainty about the specific form of future development, the limited third party rights provided and the reliance on secondary approval processes. The Panel also considers whether the framework proposed is technically sound.

5.11.1 SPECIAL USE 1 ZONE PROVISIONS

The Design Guidelines

Both the exhibited and the revised SUZ schedule refer to the Guidelines as follows:

• A site context plan and a site context report that demonstrate how the building or works satisfy the relevant sections of the Guidelines must accompany the development plan.
• The Decision Guidelines indicate that before deciding on an application or to approve a development plan the responsible authority must consider the Guidelines.
• The Guidelines are specified as a reference document.

The VPP Practice Note Incorporated and Reference Documents states

A document must be incorporated if:

...

4. The document will be used to guide the exercise of discretion by the responsible authority (except for a development plan under the Development Plan Overlay, which does not need to be incorporated).

And under ‘How is a document incorporated?” the practice note states

Where possible, the best approach is to extract the specific planning decision requirements from a document and include them in the scheme as local planning policy, decision guidelines or requirements in a schedule rather than incorporating the document. This is particularly useful when only parts of the document are relevant or where the document is not written in a way that expresses specific requirements for planning decisions.

Reference documents clearly have lesser status in the decision making process. The Practice Note states

Reference documents provide background information to assist in understanding the context within which a particular policy or provision has been framed...... Reference documents have only a limited role in decision-making as they are not part of the planning scheme. They do not have the status of incorporated documents or carry the same weight.

Although some submissions questioned the lack of consultation in the development of the Guidelines and the scale of development they allow, there was a reasonable level of acceptance of the form of development envisaged. The issue was not so much whether the Guidelines should be apply, but the extent to which key aspects should be included in the schedule to the zone.

The exhibited SUZ schedule included the building heights from the Guidelines. The revised schedule agreed by the proponents included increased building heights, and added setbacks from the Harbour’s edge and visual permeability requirements that matched the Queenscliff Harbour Pty. Ltd. submissions (see section 4).

Both Parks Victoria and Queenscliff Harbour Pty. Ltd. argued that the planning framework established under the Amendment[8] provides adequate regulation and control over the development. It was suggested that this is particularly so in view of the level of design development of an actual project that has accompanied the Amendment.

However, Council submitted that the Guidelines are essential to the proper functioning of the SUZ and will be used to guide the exercise of discretion. As a minimum, Council sought inclusion of a number of statements derived from the Guidelines in the SUZ Schedule under a heading of “Building and Design Requirements”.

Overall, the Panel has commented that the Guidelines address the key issues and have adopted a considered approach to future built form in the Amendment area. The limitations on third party rights in the approval of the Development Plan mean that the Guidelines have a particularly important function in establishing a transparent framework for development approvals. Further, consideration of the Amendment has proceeded on the basis that the Guidelines will be implemented through the Development Plan. The Panel agrees with Council that Guidelines will be central to the exercise of discretion and key elements identified should be included in the planning scheme rather than according them the lesser weight of reference document provisions.

The Panel considers that some of the guidelines Council recommended for inclusion in the planning scheme are adequately addressed by the Implementation Plan. For example, the buildings identified on the implementation plan address specific provisions relating to Fisherman’s Flat. Editing is also recommended to achieve more concise planning scheme requirements.

The Panel recommendations elsewhere in this report, incorporation of aspects of the revised schedule (see Appendix C) that are supported by the Panel and editing of the extracted elements of the Guidelines recommended by Council, indicate that provisions to the following effect should be included in the SUZ1 schedule:

Text Box 1 Design Guidelines for Inclusion in the SUZ1 Schedule

The Incorporated Plan

The schedule to the SUZ1 accords significant status to the Queenscliff Harbour Implementation Plan which would be an incorporated document. The zone purpose includes

Promote the expansion of the Harbour and tourist related facilities consistent with the Queenscliff Harbour Implementation Plan

The Implementation Plan establishes the site layout, uses, the building envelope and building heights. It also determines whether third party rights exist in relation to use, and the development plan must be generally in accordance with the incorporated plan.

The Panel agrees with submittors that the inclusion of additional detail in the Implementation Plan would reinforce and/or clarify the intended framework for the development. The Panel considers that the Implementation Plan should:

• Identify a significant break in the building envelope to the south of the most eastern building (building 34) with one or more indicative/conceptual view lines shown in the envelope accommodating buildings 30-33.
• Show pedestrian linkages within the site but deleting the pedestrian path through the boatyard.
• Show setbacks from the Harbour edge.
• Identify the need for further investigation of upgrading and operation of the slipway by an organisation other than the proponent. Alternative use of the area for open space and car parking if a viable arrangement does not eventuate should be shown.
• Reference to further development near Fisherman’s Wharf should be deleted.

Reliance on Secondary Approvals

Submittors were concerned that the planning framework proposed does not provide sufficient certainty about either the ultimate form of development, or that responses to key issues will be appropriate.

The regulatory framework proposed in the Amendment requires subsequent approval by the Responsible Authority of a Development Plan and the following management plans:

• A Landscape Management Plan to form part of the Development Plan
• A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) to form part of the Development Plan
• An Environmental Management Plan (EMP) to be approved prior to construction
• A Conservation Management Plan to be approved prior to construction.

The Panel has recommended elsewhere that the schedule to the zone should incorporate key elements of the Guidelines to ensure that they are accorded appropriate weight in the approval of the development plan and further detail should be included on the incorporated Implementation Plan. Other recommendations have addressed the scope of management plans eg requiring consideration of the comments of other agencies such as the EPA and DSE. These changes increase the certainty about the basis for secondary approvals. With these modifications, investigations to date and documentation supporting the Amendment process have provided the Panel with a high degree of confidence that key issues will be addressed.

The planning framework’s provision for further approvals requires the development, approval and review of detailed management measures, many of which cannot be addressed effectively at this stage of the design process. The use of management plans has the further advantage of recognising the need for coordination and integration of responses to requirements under other legislation. Conditions of planning permits for large projects also commonly provide for matters such as materials and finishes, landscape plans, environmental management plans and traffic management plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority without further third party rights.

The Panel is satisfied that the requirements for further approval of the Development Plan and Management Plans establishes appropriate mechanisms for further scrutiny by the Responsible Authority as the design is developed and during Harbour operation.

SUZ 1 Areas Outside the Implementation Plan

The SUZ 1 zone extends beyond the Harbour Redevelopment site and includes the Ferry terminal, the Maritime Museum the Cut and a strip of land on Sand Island to the north of The Cut.

Submissions from the Swan Bay Integrated Catchment Management Committee and two individual submittors suggested that the area of Sand Island which is currently zoned SUZ1 should be rezoned to PCRZ.

Parks Victoria responded:

The northern boundary of the Special Use Zone relates to the current zoning under the planning scheme. There is no proposal for any development in this area, however, it is necessary for PV to retain some of the area north of the Cut to enable maintenance and repair of the northern embankment of the Cut.

The Panel notes that a permit would be required for uses that are not in accordance with (or not addressed by) the incorporated Implementation Plan. Buildings and works associated with these section 2 uses would also continue to require a planning permit.

While the zone purposes sit comfortably with the Ferry terminal and Maritime Museum uses within the zone, they are less appropriate for the land north of The Cut where public access is intended to be limited and tourism/harbour development is not currently intended. Rezoning of this area is beyond the scope of this Panel but could be considered in the future as part of a separate Amendment.

Swing Moorings

The Queenscliff Cruising Yacht Club submission to the Panel noted that the administration of moorings between Rabbit and Sand Islands, which they currently administer, will be the subject of a separate approval process. However, they noted that the Queenscliff Harbour Implementation Document, June 2004, Parks Victoria (QHID), is a document that the zone decision guidelines require to be considered, in relation to the development plan for the Harbour site. It states:

In addition there are existing 78 swing moorings located outside the Harbour between Sand Island and Rabbit Island. The existing swing moorings shall be replaced in their current location with a more environmentally friendly block and chain system. The management of the swing moorings will also be the responsibility of Queenscliff Harbour Pty Ltd. (QHID Volume 1 Page 23)

They were concerned that this statement could establish the first link in a chain of expectations as to the long term development and management of the swing moorings and sought deletion of the statement.

It was made clear throughout the Amendment process that any changes to the swing moorings would be subject to a separate approval process and the Panel emphasised that it is not a matter for it to assess. However, the Panel recognises that the zone decision guidelines do accord the QHID document some weight and agrees that the above statement should be modified to delete reference to future management of the swing moorings.

5.11.2 THIRD PARTY RIGHTS

The Amendment limits third party rights as follows:

• Applications for section 2 uses are exempt from notice and rights to independent review where the use is generally in accordance with the Queenscliff Harbour Implementation Plan. However, this exemption does not apply to permit applications for buildings and works associated with a section 2 use.
• Buildings and works associated with a section 1 use do not require a permit but are subject to a Development Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority (ie Council). The development plan must be generally in accordance with the Queenscliff Harbour Implementation Plan. Third parties do not have rights to notice or independent review under this process.

Parks Victoria submitted that Planing Panels have previously held that:

"the more steps that are taken to ensure that issues causing third party impact are resolved at the planning scheme amendment stage, the greater is the justification for the exclusion of third party rights thereafter".

Parks Victoria argued that:

In this case, the Borough, the State Government, PV and QH P/L have gone to great lengths to consult with the community prior to and during the development of this project. The current panel proceedings are the latest stage of consultation providing an excellent forum for submitters to raise their concerns and for those concerns to be addressed by the proponents.

....., given the level of consultation and investigation carried out in the resolution of issues associated with the development of the Implementation Master Plan, the Panel can be satisfied that the removal of third party rights in relation to uses generally in accordance with that plan will not lead to development that is inconsistent with the character of the Harbour and the intentions of this redevelopment. Instead, the use 'as of right' will provide certainty for the developer of the site that uses in accordance with the Implementation Plan can be conducted as a matter of course. It should be remembered also that any use proposed that is not in accordance with the Implementation Plan will require a planning permit and will be subject to third party review.

.....it is submitted that the combination of the EMP, the reference to the Guidelines, the requirement to obtain approval of the Development Plan and the EMP, together with the terms of the proposed lease between PV and QH P/L, are sufficient to ensure that the project will be properly implemented in both development and operational terms.

Council and Parks Victoria have agreed to an advisory committee process where development does not satisfy the Guidelines. Council submitted:

Council may, at its discretion, call a Planning and Environment Act Section 191 Advisory Committee to hear public submissions on that element. The Section 191 Advisory Committee would have the same representation as this current Panel (subject to availability). The use of a Section 191 Advisory Committee was suggested by DSE as a mechanism to allow some form of public review rights in the detailed development plan process. Council anticipates that the use of such an Advisory Committee is likely to be limited to development beyond the Amendment’s design guidelines. Council has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Parks Victoria. This MOU records the planning approvals process to be undertaken by the Borough of Queenscliffe in relation to the planning scheme amendment process for Queenscliff Harbour SUZ 1 and the mechanism for use of the an Advisory Committee.

The Panel considers that the Amendment and the various non-statutory consultative processes have allowed the issues associated with the development envisaged to be well ventilated.

The Panel has recommended strengthening of the SUZ schedule to extract key elements of the Guidelines and thereby provide greater certainty about development outcomes (see section 6.11.2). However, it is not possible to quantify all aspects of the framework for assessment of the specific design without the likelihood of compromising the outcome and the Panel accepts that the recommended planning framework will still require the exercise of some judgement by the Council. Nevertheless, the Panel considers that the planning scheme will establish a clear framework for Council assessment of proposals. It is noted that the recommended framework provides much greater certainty about the form and extent of the Harbour Redevelopment than commonly occurs where development plan overlays exclude third parties. It is also common practice for planning permits to require detailed design matters and management regimes (eg EMP’s) to be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority without further third party rights.

The Panel considers that it is reasonable to exempt proposals that are consistent with the recommended planning framework from third party notice and review.

Council can choose whether and how it consults with the community in its assessment of the Development Plan to be submitted. However, the Panel has the following fundamental reservations about Council’s proposal to appoint an advisory committee where development is ‘beyond the Amendment’s design guidelines’:

• The SUZ schedule indicates that buildings and works must be generally in accordance with the Implementation Plan. Therefore, significant departures from the Implementation Plan cannot be approved and an Amendment would be required to alter the incorporated Implementation Plan;
• The Panel and community evaluation of the planning framework occurred on the basis that the Guidelines would be implemented except in relation to several specific issues, such as building heights and setbacks. The Panel process has provided consideration and recommendations on the aspects of the Guidelines that were contentious. Much of the justification for limits on third party rights is derived from the scrutiny provided by the Amendment process and the certainty about key aspects of the Harbour Redevelopment provided by the recommended planning framework. Exemptions from notice/review should not extend to proposals that depart from the recommended framework.
• The proponent could exercise its rights for review by VCAT, which creates a real risk of duplication of review processes with associated delays and resource implications. If the Council did not accept an Advisory Committee’s recommendations on contentious issues, either community goodwill would be undermined or the proponents could be expected to pursue rights to review by VCAT. The Advisory Committee process would only be effective if both Council and the proponent agreed to adhere to recommendations of the Advisory Committee. In that case, there is little difference to VCAT undertaking the review function.

5.11.3 OVERLAY EXEMPTIONS

Five overlays currently apply to parts of the Harbour Redevelopment area.

• ESO1 Coastal and Foreshore Areas and ESO 2 Swan Bay and Marine and Terrestrial Habitats apply to the portion of the subject site north of Larkin Parade, including the Fisherman’s Wharf area.
• DDO6 Fisherman’s Flat and Environs, SLO1 Swan Bay Landscape Area and HO 1 only applies to the Fisherman’s Wharf area but the HO excludes part of the wharf (see section 6.5.3).

The Panel notes that the incorporated Implementation Plan does not provide for significant development in the Fisherman’s Flat area which are subject to DDO6, SLO 1 and HO1.

The requirements of these overlays would invoke the need for a planning permit for buildings and works in the Harbour Redevelopment area, even if a development plan is approved under the provisions of the Special Use Zone Schedule 1.

Amendment C16 proposes to insert an exemption clause into the buildings and works requirements in the relevant schedules to remove duplication of permit processes and streamline the approval regime for the Harbour Redevelopment. Council submitted that

Council considers that the removal of these overlays from small parts of the area does not mean that environmental, landscape, urban character and heritage issues will not be considered. These issues are clearly dealt with in the purpose of zone, decision guidelines and the Queenscliff Harbour: Building Siting and Design Guidelines.

The Panel agrees that approval processes should not be duplicated.

It is recognised that the SUZ 1 schedule decision guidelines do address the broad issues to which the overlays are directed, namely

The impact on coastal processes.

The visual impact of the development when viewed from surrounding land and water.

The environmental management measures proposed to ensure minimal impact on the Harbour and surrounding marine and terrestrial environment.

The Queenscliff Harbour Siting and Design Guidelines June 2004.

The impact of the proposed subdivision or development on the prevailing heritage character of adjoining and nearby buildings, and of the Queenscliff Township.

However, the overlays have quite specific purposes and decision guidelines that remain relevant to the portions of the subject site to which they apply. The Panel considers that the exemptions from the overlay permit requirements are reasonable, provided that the decision guidelines in the SUZ schedule for assessment of the Development Plan explicitly call up the objectives and decision guidelines of the relevant overlays where development affects a portion of the site affected by an overlay.

It was also noted that ESO 2 specifically requires consideration of comments from the Department of Sustainability and Environment and that, given the international environmental significance of Swan Bay, that input would be important to the decision making process. The Revised SUZ1 schedule submitted after the hearing addressed the need for comment from key agencies with specialist expertise by adding the following:

Before approving the EMP, the responsible authority must consider the comments of the Department of Sustainability and Environment and the Environment Protection Authority (in 3.1 under Environmental Management Plan).

The comments of Parks Victoria, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Barwon Water, Environment Protection Authority and VicRoads (new Decision Guideline).

The Panel also endorses these revisions.

Conclusion on the Planning Framework

The Panel considers that:

• The schedule to the SUZ 1 and the incorporated Implementation Plan should include further explicit requirements to increase certainty about the basis for assessment of the Development Plan. The SUZ1 schedule should include key elements of the Queenscliff Harbour Siting and Design Guidelines June 2004, and the incorporated plan should show further details including building height limits, setbacks, viewlines, pedestrian paths, and maximum retail floor space.
• The scrutiny of key issues during the Amendment process and the certainty provided by the recommended planning framework, justify exemption of proposals that are consistent with the site specific zone provisions from third party notice and independent review. Council may consult with the community as it sees fit during secondary approval processes but the Panel considers that there is a high risk that the alternative Advisory Committee review process suggested for proposals that depart from the zone framework could result in duplication of processes unless all parties agree to abide by its recommendations.
• The exemptions from the overlay permit requirements are reasonable, provided that:
  • - comments from agencies with specialist expertise are required to be taken into account, and
  • - the decision guidelines for consideration of Development Plans under the SUZ1 schedule explicitly call up the objectives and decision guidelines of the relevant overlays where development affects a portion of the site affected by an overlay.
• Rezoning of Land north of The Cut to PCRZ is beyond the scope of this Panel but could be considered in the future as part of a separate Amendment.

Panel Recommendations

The SUZ1 schedule:

• Include key provisions of the Queenscliff Harbour Siting and Design Guidelines June 2004 as set out in section 6.11.1.
• require comments from the agencies with specialist expertise that are nominated in the revised schedule to be taken into account.
• decision guidelines for assessment of the Development Plans should be revised to explicitly call up the objectives and decision guidelines of the relevant overlay(s) where development is proposed on a portion of the site affected by an overlay.

The Implementation plan should be modified as follows to reinforce and/or clarify the intended framework for the development:

• Identifying a significant break in the building envelope to the south of the most eastern building (building 34) with one or more indicative/conceptual view lines shown in the envelope accommodating buildings 30-33.
• Showing pedestrian linkages within the site but deleting the pedestrian path through the boatyard.
• Show setbacks from the Harbour edge.
• Identify the need for further investigation of upgrading and operation of the northern slipway by an organisation other than the proponent. The area should be identified for alternative use for open space and car parking if a viable arrangement does not eventuate.
• Delete reference to further development near Fisherman’s wharf.

The Queenscliff Harbour Implementation Document, June 2004, delete references to the future management of existing swing moorings located outside the Harbour between Sand Island and Rabbit Island.

6. STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES

As part of its assessment of C16, the Panel is required to assess the Amendment against the Strategic Assessment Guidelines contained in the General Practice Note on Strategic Assessment Guidelines for Planning Scheme Amendments. The matters to be considered and the Panel’s response follow.

6.1 IS AN AMENDMENT REQUIRED?

The existing SUZ1 facilitates the 1990 Loder and Bayley Preferred Development Concept. The proposed Amendment is required to facilitate the development now proposed.

6.2 STRATEGIC JUSTIFICATION

The changes proposed to SUZ1 in the Amendment support the SPPF, the LPPF, and the Victorian Coastal Strategy (see sections 5 and section 6).

6.3 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT

Does the amendment adequately address environmental effects?

The proposed Amendment provides an appropriate planning framework to ensure that environment effects are addressed. This is particularly important given the sites proximity to Swan Bay which is an internationally significant wetland. The SUZI requires submission of a detailed EMP. The Panel has found that the proposed development to be facilitated by the Amendment provides for net environmental benefits (see discussion in section 6.2)

Does the amendment adequately address the relevant social and economic effects?

The Panel has made recommendations to strengthen the mechanisms to protect the role and function of the Town Centre. This includes placing a limit on retail premises floor space and prohibiting specified core retail uses.

Does the amendment comply with the requirements of the Ministerial Direction on the form and content of Planning Schemes?

Yes.

Do any other Minister’s Directions apply to the Amendment? If so, have they been complied with?

Ministerial Direction No.1 - Potentially Contaminated Land relevant to Amendment C16. The direction requires that potentially contaminated land be suitable for the intended use, which is proposed under the Amendment. Areas of potentially contaminated land within the Harbour are restricted to the underground storage tanks in the western corner of the Parks Victoria site and sediments at the base of the slipway. Parks Victoria is proposing to undertake remediation of these areas although it is noted these areas are not identified for a ‘sensitive use’ and the direction therefore does not apply to them. The Panel accepts that the intent of the Direction has been complied with.

It is noted that Direction No.11 Strategic Assessment of Amendments was introduced after the Amendment was exhibited but the issues identified in those guidelines have been addressed through the Panel process.

6.4 STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK & LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

The relevant parts of the SPPF and LPPF are identified in section 5.2.

The Panel has found that the Amendment supports the relevant policies in the SPPF. The MSS makes repeated references to the potential to realise benefits from further development of the Harbour. It foreshadows implementation of the 1999 Coastal Action which envisaged more extensive development than currently proposed. However, the LPPF contains policies relating to Heritage (eg Clause 22.03) and Urban Character (Clause 22.04) Urban Character which broadly seek to ensure that new development enhances and harmonises with the distinguishing cultural heritage and coastal identity of the Township and its foreshore. Environment policies emphasise the protection of environmental and coastal values, particularly the internationally significant Swan Bay (see discussion in section 5.2).

What is the strategic basis for any change to the MSS? Has there been any community consultation with respect to proposed changes to the MSS?

The Amendment proposes to update the MSS to recognise the nature of development of the Harbour now envisaged, rather than the earlier Coastal Action Plan proposal which has been rejected as unacceptable.

Submissions raised concerns about the difficulty in identifying the nature of changes to the MSS. The Panel directed that a tracked changes version of the Amendment be made available but subsequent submissions to the Panel did not raise particular concerns relating to the changes to the MSS.

The Panel is satisfied that the proposed revision of the MSS is appropriate.

Does the change to the MSS address the format, content and language guidance in the VPP Practice Note Format of Municipal Strategic Statements?

Yes, the changes are to elements of text and are consistent with the structure and language used in the remainder of the MSS.

6.4.1 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY

What local planning policies will the amendment affect or be affected by? Are the proposed changes to local planning policy necessary?

The only change proposed to local policies is to exclude the Harbour site from the area affected by the Heritage Policy. The exclusion proposed was on the basis that the SUZ 1 establishes site specific provisions that take account of heritage issues. However, in section 6.5 the Panel recommended that the policy continue to apply and reference should be made to it in the SUZ1 decision guidelines.

6.5 ZONES, OVERLAYS AND SCHEDULES

Does the Amendment use the most appropriate VPP tools? To what extent do local provisions adopt a performance-based approach? What Planning Practice Notes are relevant? Is the amendment in accordance with any relevant Planning Practice Notes?

In section 6.11 the Panel has provided extensive comment on the planning scheme mechanisms proposed in the Amendment.

The option of applying the Comprehensive Development Zone (CDZ) was canvassed at the hearing. The Panel accepts that the CDZ and the SUZ1 as proposed have the same outcome. The SUZ of the land was maintained to avoid an exaggerated perception of the changes proposed. The Panel accepts that the planning framework required for the Harbour satisfies the criteria in the VPP Planning Practice note Applying the Special Use Zone (February 1999).

The Panel has accepted a number of prescriptive elements of the Amendment in order to provide certainty about key elements of the development. The use of mandatory height limits elsewhere in Queenscliffe has already been accepted as justified. The site-specific nature of the Amendment has allowed consideration of the particular circumstances that apply.

The Panel has suggested a number of further changes to the schedule to the SUZ1, in addition to or instead of those shown in the revised schedule in Appendix C. The intention of the recommended changes are to:

• provide greater certainty that retail uses within the development does not undermine the role and function of the Town Centre.
• clearly establish in the planning scheme that the Guidelines will provide the basis for subsequent evaluation of specific development proposals.
• Specify parking requirements within the planning scheme rather than relying on reference to an external document.
• Ensure that the views of DSE and the EPA are taken into account in secondary approval processes.
• Maintain the HO over the Fisherman’s Wharf area in recognition that it forms part of the Fisherman’s Flat Precinct.

The Panel has endorsed the exemption from relevant Overlay permit requirements but has recommended that SUZ 1 decision guidelines make it explicit that the overlay objectives and decision guidelines continue to apply.

6.6 REFERRAL AUTHORITIES

Does the Amendment contain new formal or informal referral requirements?

No.

Revision of the SUZ1 schedule requires comments from DSE, the EPA and Barwon Water to be taken into account in the decisions about the EMP. The existing ESO2 requires notice to be given to DSE. It is considered necessary to maintain recognition of the need for input from DSE in assessment of the EMP given the recognised environmental significance of the adjoining Ramsar wetlands and the emption from the requirement for a permit under overlays. The requirement to consider comments from the EPA is also considered important, particularly given their role in regulating dredging operations. This enables coordination of agency requirements from an early stage. A similar rationale applies in relation to Barwon Water in relation to infrastructure provision for the site. The comments from these agencies will also add to the expertise available to Council.

7. OVERALL CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS

The ultimate test established by the SPPF is whether the Amendment would result in a net community benefit and sustainable development.

The Coastal Strategy identifies a need to develop safe harbours and nominates Queenscliffe as one of the locations for this purpose. As already noted, the Panel finds that the local planning framework and the Victorian Coastal Strategy offer clear and consistent support for retention of the Harbour as a working facility and for further development of the precinct for tourism, boating, and marine services. The Amendment will facilitate the development of needed boating and port facilities.

The economic analysis presented to the Panel also indicates that redevelopment of the Harbour as proposed would generate significant economic benefits for Queenscliffe. In addition to the economic benefits derived from securing the long-term viability of the marine related harbour services, it will consolidate Queenscliffe’s appeal as a tourist destination. However, the Panel considers that it is vital that the retail activity at the Harbour complements the town centre and does not threaten its role or function. It is recommended that a conservative limit applies to retail floorspace and core retail uses be prohibited.

The upgrading of the currently neglected area, provision for water front dining, the improved pedestrian environment and incorporation of a generous, high quality public open space adjoining the Harbour, will also add to its appeal as a recreation destination for local residents.

The Panel is satisfied that the recommended zone provisions will manage the scale and form of development to ensure that buildings are a recessive element in the townscape and the coastal landscape and heritage character of Queenscliffe are respected. The planning framework also protects the amenity of nearby residents and incorporates appropriate traffic management measures. It has been recommended that traffic impacts on Fisherman’s Flat be monitored, rates of parking provision be verified and onsite parking provision should limit overflow car parking at peak times.

The proposed Conservation Management Plan and requirements for Heritage Victoria consents will ensure that the HMVS Lonsdale heritage values are protected but the proposed decommissioning of the slipways was contentious. The slipways have some local heritage interest if they continue to operate, but their significance does not justify a requirement to retain them being treated as a threshold issue for the redevelopment to proceed. One slipway should be retained if an organisation can be found to upgrade and operate it in a way that is acceptable. Otherwise, the lifting function (and interest in it) will be provided by the travel lift and the slipway area should be used for public open space and/or car parking.

Extensive investigations by specialist environmental consultants have been undertaken and identified that a number of environmental values such as coastal processes, terrestrial flora and fauna, marine flora and fauna, soil, and groundwater will either be improved or not impacted on by the proposed Harbour redevelopment.

Potential impacts on Swan Bay must be a key concern given its international environmental significance. The evidence presented to the Panel was that the migration of pollutants from the Harbour into Swan Bay is so small that it cannot be detected and the proposed Harbour redevelopment and management will reduce risks to Swan Bay.

The Panel believes that Parks Victoria and QHPL have demonstrated an awareness of the environmental issues, and have identified appropriate responses. The Panel is satisfied that the identified risks can be managed through an appropriately developed and implemented EMP. The EMP will be essential in ensuring the anticipated net environmental gain from the Harbour Redevelopment is realised.

The Panel is satisfied that the redevelopment will be environmentally sustainable and indeed provides net environmental benefits through removal of the contaminated sediments near the slipway, and the introduction of stormwater, refuelling and waste management systems.

The Panel finds that the Harbour Redevelopment facilitated by the Amendment provides a net benefit to the community and is environmentally sustainable.

7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the reasons set out in this report, the Panel makes the following recommendations to the planning authority:

Amendment C16 to the Queenscliffe Planning Scheme should be adopted subject to the following recommendations.

• Included Tavern (not including accommodation, amusement machines and gambling) as a section 1 use subject to the condition that it ‘Must be generally in accordance with the Queenscliff Harbour Implementation Plan’.
• Limit retail floor space to 2,110 square metres.
• Prohibited uses identified in the Revised Schedule to the SUZ1 in Appendix C but with the addition of art gallery as a prohibited use.
• Require an advertising master plan is to be submitted as part of the Development Plan.
• Include key provisions of the Queenscliff Harbour Siting and Design Guidelines June 2004 as set out in the test box ‘ Design Guidelines for Inclusion in the SUZ1 Schedule’ in section 6.11.1.
• Alter the requirement for a Conservation Management Plan to provide a six month period from the date of public release of this report to allow an organisation to submit a proposal for upgrading and continued operation of the Northern Slipway to the satisfaction of Parks Victoria. In addition, the plan should provide for historical recording of the slipways or parts thereof intended to be removed. Other references to the slipways should be removed as appropriate.
• Modify Traffic Management Plan provisions to include the following:
  • A table containing the car parking rates determined by the Planning Authority after the recommended peer review.
  • The number of car parking spaces provided on site must be calculated in accordance with peak demand as set out in the tables above but with allowance for use of a maximum of 50 off-site car spaces.
• Monitoring of traffic levels through the residential parts of Fisherman’s Flat to be carried out in order to establish any changes in traffic as a result of the Harbour development. Following completion of monitoring, traffic management procedures and devices to be implemented and installed to minimise any increase to traffic levels.
• Traffic and parking provisions to allow continued efficient operation of the Harbour and the Ferry Terminal during each stage of construction of the development.
• On site bicycle storage facilities to be provided in accordance with the provisions of clause 52.34.
• Make the changes shown in Appendix C unless those changes are inconsistent with other Panel recommendations.
• Dredging associated with harbour construction and maintenance activities in accordance with the Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines, Environment Protection Authority, October 2001.
• An environmental monitoring and audit program which includes baseline monitoring to be undertaken prior to commencement of construction. The environmental monitoring program should include, as a minimum, the parameters and frequency of monitoring described in this report.
• Include a requirement for the responsible authority to consider the comments of the Department of Sustainability and Environment and the Environment Protection Authority before approving the EMP.
• Amend the decision guidelines to require consideration of the objectives and decision guidelines of the relevant overlay(s) where development is proposed on a portion of the site affected by an overlay and local policies in clauses 22.03 and 22.04 as appropriate.
• Include the following addition matters in the provisions setting out matters to be addressed by the EMP:
• Two building envelopes east of the Sea Pilot’s building. A significant break in the building envelope should be shown to the south of the most eastern building (building 34).
• One or more view lines shown in the envelope accommodating buildings 30-33. These viewlines through this building envelope and car park may be shown conceptually.
• Minimum and average building setbacks from the Harbour edge.
• Identify the need for further investigation by an organisation other than the proponent.
• Removal of both slipways unless a proposal is submitted to and approved by Parks Victoria to upgrade and operate the northern slipway in accordance with the Conservation Management Plan.
• The alternative use of the slipway area as public open space or car parking.
• Pedestrian linkages within the site but deleting the pedestrian path through the boatyard.
• Delete the reference to future development in the north west of the site in the vicinity of Fisherman’s Wharf.

1. LIST OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
   

2. DOCUMENTS TABLED DURING THE HEARING

LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT HEARING

* Prefix identifies who tabled documents

C Council

P Parks Victoria

Q Queenscliff Harbour

Submittors’ Initials

100. REVISED SUZ1 SCHEDULE

SCHEDULE 1 TO THE SPECIAL USE ZONE

Shown on the planning scheme map as SUZ number.

QUEENSCLIFF HARBOUR

Purpose

Promote Queenscliff Harbour as a boating destination for Port Phillip and nearby coastal areas.

Provide a high level of service to boat users.

Promote the expansion of the harbour and tourist related facilities consistent with the Queenscliff Harbour Implementation Plan, June November, 2004.

Protect the rights of all users of the Queenscliff foreshore.

Provide opportunities for marine and coastal tourism and education development on Port Phillip and the local Queenscliff marine and terrestrial environment in accordance with the objectives of the Victorian Coastal Strategy.

Provide appropriate development that will create business and employment opportunities to complement the operation of the harbour and the township of Queenscliff, and contribute to the development and growth of regional tourism.

Minimise the impact of development on the Port Phillip and Swan Bay coastal environment.

Satisfy appropriate environment protection performance standards.

Encourage development that is consistent with the urban character and heritage values of the town of Queenscliff, Fishermen’s Flat and the harbour.

Provide for safe and efficient on-site vehicle movement and parking.

Provide safe and efficient vehicle ingress and egress to the harbour and ferry terminal areas.

Ensure that any increase in the area provided for parking only occurs through the consideration of specific development proposals.

1.0 Table of uses

Section 1 - Permit not required

Section 2 - Permit required

Section 3 - Prohibited

2.0 Use

Application requirements

An application to use land must be accompanied by the following information, as appropriate:

• The purpose of the use and the types of activities that will be carried out.
• Plans drawn to scale showing the layout of the proposed use, including all buildings, landscaping and works.
• Plans and elevations drawn to scale showing the colour, material and finishes of all buildings.
• The likely effects, if any, on adjoining land including noise levels, traffic, the hours of operation, light spill, and delivery and despatch of goods and materials.
• Details of anticipated traffic and car parking generation and management
• Details of all infrastructure, drainage and effluent disposal requirements.
  

Exemption from notice and appeal

An application is exempt from the notice requirements of Section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d), the decision requirements of Section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of Section 82(1) of the Act if it is generally in accordance with the Queenscliff Harbour Implementation Plan June November 2004.

3.0 Buildings and works

3.1 Buildings and works associated with a Section 1 use

No permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works for a use in Section 1 of Clause 1.0, however the following requirements apply.

Prior to the commencement of any buildings and works, a development plan must be prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Development Plan

The development plan must be generally in accordance with the Queenscliff Harbour Implementation Plan, June November 2004.

The development plan may be prepared in stages and must be submitted to the responsible authority for approval and endorsement.

The development plan must be accompanied by a site context plan and a site context report that demonstrate how the building or works satisfy the relevant sections of Queenscliff Harbour Siting and Design Guidelines June 2004.

The development plan or each stage of the development plan must include (but not be limited to) details on the following matters as appropriate:

• The location, height, dimensions, cross sections and floor area of all buildings and works.
• The proposed use of each building.
• The hours of operation of the use.
• The materials and finishes of all buildings.
• An analysis of the visual impacts of the development when viewed from surrounding land and water.
• The location of all open space, including areas available to the public
• Proposed landscaping and a management plan for controlling and maintaining open space. A landscape plan must be prepared for all pubic and non-public areas and it must include details of the species, approximate numbers of trees, planting formations, and surface treatments.
• A traffic and car parking plan showing the location of all vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian traffic management and control works considered necessary when the development or any stage is competed. The traffic and car parking plan must also include details of the location and layout of parking areas for all proposed use and development including trailers and the loading and unloading of boats, and access to and from them. The traffic plan must include details for operating and maintaining parking areas. Parking must be provided at a rate that is consistent with the Queenscliff Harbour Implementation Document, Parks Victoria June 2004. The provisions of Clause 52.06 will not apply.
• A Traffic Management Plan providing details of the following:
  • Location of all vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle traffic management and controls works considered necessary when the development or any stage is completed.
  • Location and layout of parking areas for all proposed use and development including trailers and provision for the loading and unloading to service activities including boats and proposed access arrangements.
  • Arrangements for operating and maintaining the parking areas.
  • Provision of parking at a rate that is consistent with the Traffic and Parking Study, Arup October 2004. The provisions of Clause 52.06 will not apply.
  • An Events Management Plan for the conduct of major public events including details of scheduling procedures for events, public notification, security, public safety, servicing, traffic management procedures both within the harbour precinct and in the surrounding road network.
• Utility services associated with the development.
• The stages, if any, in which the land is to be developed. This must include a program for the construction of each stage of the development. Where a stage is proposed a plan must also be submitted showing the relationship of that stage to the balance of the development.

The responsible authority may consider any one or more of the components of the plan.

All buildings and works, open space and landscaping and use of land must be in accordance with the approved development plan.

As the request of, or with the consent of the owner, the development plan may be amended to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Environmental Management Plan

Prior to the commencement of any buildings and works, an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) must be prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The EMP must include all relevant monitoring, auditing, reporting and mitigation measures that are relevant to the development and use of the land.

The EMP must include measures to address the relevant construction and operation phase requirements of the development to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, including (but not limited to):

• Terrestrial and marine ecology
• Coastal processes
• Water quality
• Dredging associated with harbour construction and maintenance activities in accordance with the Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines, Environment Protection Authority, October 2001
• Air quality
• Erosion mitigation and control
• Noise
• Drainage and stormwater management
• Waste management
• Storage and handling of hazardous materials
• Archaeology and heritage
• Landscaping
• Harbour operations and berth management
• Construction activities.

The EMP may be prepared in stages and must be submitted to the responsible authority for approval and endorsement. Before approving the EMP, the responsible authority must consider the comments of the Department of Sustainability and Environment and the Environment Protection Authority.

At the request of, or with the consent of the owner, the EMP may be amended to the satisfaction of the responsible authority in consultation with the relevant authorities

The EMP must be implemented to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Northern Slipway and Jetty Pylon Conservation Management Plan

A Conservation Management Plan for the slipways (D7821-0076), jetty pylon (H7821-0077), HMVS Lonsdale and any archaeological relics identified during construction must be prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The Conservation Management Plan may be prepared in stages. The Conservation Management Plan must be approved by the responsible authority prior to the commencement of any construction works which may impact upon the slipways, jetty pylon, or HMVS Lonsdale.

The Conservation Management Plan is to address management measures for the slipways, the jetty pylon, HMVS Lonsdale and any archaeological relics identified during construction as well as indicate overall heritage interpretive principles for the harbour precinct.

In relation to the slipways, the Conservation Management Plan should detail the proposed management measures for partial retention of the northern slipway as a non-operational facility as a heritage asset for static display and interpretation, as well detailing management measures in the event that neither of the slipways are to be retained.

In relation to the jetty pylon the Conservation Management Plan should detail the management measures for removal of the pylon and provision of an interpretative display.

The Conservation Management Plan should be prepared in accordance with the principles of the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter for the Conservation and Management of Cultural Heritage Places.

3.2 Buildings and works associated with a Section 2 use

A permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works for a use in Section 2 of Clause 1.0.

4.0 Height Control Building and Design Requirements

Building Height

No building can Buildings must not exceed a height of:

• two storeys; and
• 8.5 metres above natural ground level to the highest part of the roof where the roof is not pitched;
• 9.5 metres above natural ground level to the highest part of the roof on a commercial building where the roof is pitched.

This requirement does not apply to:

• A structure that partly encloses a rooftop deck on a building within the Entry Building Location as nominated on the Queenscliff Harbour Implementation Plan at the eastern end of the East Harbour Building Envelope. The rooftop deck must not exceed an area of 150 square metres and any enclosed portion must not exceed an area of 20 square metres. The height of any enclosing structure must not exceed a height of 10.5 metres above natural ground level.
• Architectural features or structures intended for public safety are exempt from this requirement.

These height requirements cannot be varied with a permit or in a development plan, except where alterations and additions are sought to an existing building that exceeds 2 storeys or 8.5m in height but which do not increase the maximum height of that building.

Despite the maximum building height stated above, a lesser building height may be necessary in order to:

• reflect a “bottom up” rather than “top down” approach to building design;
• satisfy the Queenscliff Harbour Siting and Design Guidelines June 2004
  

Buildings within East Harbour Building Envelope

The following requirements apply to buildings within the East Harbour Building Envelope as shown on the Queenscliff Harbour Implementation Plan:

• The gross floor area of new buildings must not exceed 4400 square metres.
• No more than 45% of all buildings may be two storeys in height.
• Buildings must be setback an average of no less than 12 metres and a minimum of 8 metres from edge of the East Harbour Basin. In this setback a pedestrian boardwalk must be provided adjacent to the harbour basin edge having a minimum width of 4 metres.
• Development within the Envelope must provide visual and pedestrian linkages from the East Basin to the car park in locations generally shown on the Queenscliff Harbour Implementation Plan. These linkages are to be a minimum width of 4 metres and can be provided by physical spacing between buildings or unobstructed viewing or pedestrian movement corridors within and through buildings.

5.0 Decision Guidelines

Before deciding on an application or to approve a development plan, in addition to the decision guidelines in clause 65, the responsible authority must consider as appropriate:

• The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.
• The purpose of the Schedule.
• The comments of Parks Victoria, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Barwon Water, Environment Protection Authority and VicRoads.
• The Queenscliff Harbour Implementation Document, June 2004, Parks Victoria,
• The impacts of the development on local and regional recreational and tourism activities.
• The effect of the use or development on the operation of the harbour.
• The impact on coastal processes.
• The effect on the amenity of adjoining land.
• The visual impact of the development when viewed from surrounding land and water.
• The impact of traffic generated by the proposed use and development and whether any additional traffic management or traffic control works are likely to be required in the area.
• The environmental management measures proposed to ensure minimal impact on the harbour and surrounding marine and terrestrial environment.
• The Queenscliff Harbour Siting and Design Guidelines June 2004.
• The impact of the proposed subdivision or development on the prevailing heritage character of adjoining and nearby buildings, and of the Queenscliff Township.

6.0 Advertising signs

Advertising sign requirements are at Clause 52.05. This zone is in Category 3.

Reference Document

Queenscliff Harbour Siting and Design Guidelines, Borough of Queenscliffe, June 2004

[1] Queenscliff Boating and Related Tourist Facilities Environmental Effects Statement Summary Report (Loder and Bayley Consulting Group et.al., May 1990)

[2] The National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity (Department of Environment, Sport and Territories 1996),

[3] Figure 78 of the Victorian Coastal Strategy

[4] Environmental Effects Statement - Preferred Development Concept Loder & Bayley 1990

[5] derived from M. Lee Evidence statement Page 5

[6] QueenscIiff Harbour Redevelopment Economic Impact Assessment Essential Economics September 2004

[7] assuming 15% of daily trips generated in the peak hr

[8] including the amended schedule to the SU1 Zone; the incorporation of an IMP; the reference in the Decision Guidelines to the Building and Siting Guidelines; and the requirement approval of the Development Plan and the Environmental Management Plan