Amendment’C107Mornington’PeninsulaPlanning’Scheme ... ·...

Amendment C107 Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme Mornington Safe Harbour Net Community benefit assessment Planning Report Prepared by Rob Milner Dip T&CP LFPIA, FVPELA On behalf of the Shire of Mornington Peninsula

December 2010

© 10 Consulting Group Pty Ltd

The information contained in this document is intended solely for the use of the client identified on the report cover for the purpose for which it has been prepared and no representation is made or is to be implied as being made to any third party. Other than for the exclusive use of our client, no part of this report may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of 10 Consulting Group Pty Ltd.

Macintosh HD:Users:robertwork:Desktop:Dropbox:10cg:30000 -‐ Projects:30017 -‐ Mornington Peninsula AM 107:09 -‐ Drafts:Evidence v2.docx

Contents

1 EXPERT’S STATEMENT 1

2 OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY 3 2.1 PURPOSE 3 2.2 OVERVIEW 3 2.2.1 LEGISLATION AND POLICY 4 2.2.2 LOCATIONS AND SPACES 4 2.2.3 USERS AND ACTIVITIES. 5 2.3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 5 2.4 SAFETY AND MAINTENANCE 5 2.5 INCREASED CAPACITY 6

3 BACKGROUND 9 3.1 THE MORNINGTON HARBOUR – AN APPRECIATION OF THE SITE AND ITS ENVIRONS AND THE AFFECTED COMMUNITY. 9 3.1.1 MORNINGTON PENINSULA 9 3.1.2 MORNINGTON ACTIVITY CENTRE 9 3.1.3 RESIDENTIAL HEADLAND 10 3.1.4 THE FORESHORE 10 3.1.5 THE HARBOUR 10 3.1.6 COASTAL CROWN LAND 11 3.2 THE PROPOSAL 11 3.3 THE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT 12

4 LEGISLATION AND POLICY ASSESSMENT – THE BALANCE OF CONSIDERATIONS 13 4.1 INTRODUCTION 13 4.2 COASTAL ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND RISKS 13 4.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 13 4.2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS 16 4.3 SUSTAINABLE USE OF NATURAL COASTAL RESOURCES, BOATING AND RECREATION 18 4.3.1 POLICY CONTEXT 18 4.3.2 ASSESSMENT 20 4.4 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT, BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE 23 4.4.1 POLICY CONTEXT 23 4.4.2 ASSESSMENT 25 4.5 SETTLEMENT, ACTIVITY CENTRES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 27 4.5.1 POLICY CONTEXT 27 4.5.2 ASSESSMENT 28

5 THE IMPACT UPON PRECINCTS AND USERS 29 5.1 INTRODUCTION 29 5.2 THE BEACHES 30


5.2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 30 5.2.2 THE PROPOSAL 30 5.2.3 ASSESSMENT 30 5.3 MORNINGTON PARK 32 5.3.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 32 5.3.2 THE PROPOSAL 32 5.3.3 ASSESSMENT 32 5.4 BOAT ACCESS AREAS AND PIER 33 5.4.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 33 5.4.2 THE PROPOSAL 33 5.4.3 ASSESSMENT 34 5.5 RED BLUFF, THE ESPLANADE AND THE CLIFFS 36 5.5.1 ASSESSMENT 36 5.6 THE MORNINGTON ACTIVITY CENTRE 36 5.6.1 ASSESSMENT 36

6 NET COMMUNITY BENEFIT ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSIONS 38 6.1 SAFETY AND MAINTENANCE 38 6.2 INCREASED CAPACITY 39

7 THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE PROPOSED ZONE 41 7.1 INTRODUCTION 41 7.2 THE ZONING OF THE WATERS OF THE WATERS AND HARBOURS OF PORT PHILLIP BAY 41 7.3 THE PUBLIC CONSERVATION AND RESOURCE ZONE. 41 7.4 THE PUBLIC PARK AND RECREATION ZONE 42 7.5 OTHER CHOICES 42

8 ATTACHMENT 1 -‐ CURRICULUM VITAE 43

9 ATTACHMENT 2 – LEGISLATION , POLICY AND THE KEY THEMES OF INQUIRY 44

10 ATTACHMENT 3 – ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS – MT ELIZA TO POINT NEPEAN COASTAL ACTION PLAN 2021 45

11 ATTACHMENT 4 – FACILITIES AND SERVICES AT BOATING FACILITIES – BOATING COASTAL ACTION PLAN (2007) 46

12 ATTACHMENT 5 – USES, USERS AND SPACES – IMPACT ASSESSMENT 47

Amendment C107 Mornington Planning Scheme Net community benefit assessment Planning Evidence


1

1 Expert’s Statement

This statement addresses the requirements of Planning Panel’s Victoria Guideline No. 1 – Expert Evidence, Section 3 Content and form of an expert’s report.

1) Name and Address I, Robert Milner of 190 Gladstone Street, South Melbourne, am a Town Planner and Director at 10 Consulting Group Pty Ltd.

2) Qualifications and Experience I hold an honours diploma in Town and Country Planning from Liverpool Polytechnic, and am a Life Fellow of the Planning Institute of Australia and Fellow of the Victorian Planning and Environmental Law Association. I have a broad range of experience in planning and development matters as outlined in my curriculum vitae (Attachment 1).

3) Expert’s area of expertise to make the report My expertise in making this report is in both strategic and statutory planning.

4) Other significant contributors to the report I have been assisted by Daniel Drum an Urban and Regional Planner in the preparation of this report.

5) Instructions that define the scope of the report I have been instructed in this matter by Maddocks Lawyers who act on behalf of the Shire of Mornington Peninsula. Council is the Planning Authority relation to Planning Scheme Amendment C107 to the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme. Maddocks has provided me with brief written instructions that I review the strategic basis of the proposed amendment and provided an assessment of its net community benefit. I have been provided with a copy of the documentation accompanying the planning scheme amendment and planning permit application as well as copies of relevant State and local government policy documents including the following:

• Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme.



2

• The Victorian Coastal Strategy (2008) • The Boating Coastal Action Plan (2007) • Schnapper Point Framework Plan (2009) • Mt Eliza to Point Nepean Coastal Action Plan (2005) • Siting and design guidelines for structures on the Victorian Coast (1998) • The Environmental Effects Statement prepared for the Mornington Safe

Harbour by SKM and including a series of specialist reports.

6) Identity of the person who carried out any tests or experiments upon which the expert relied in making the report and the qualifications of that person. Not applicable.

Declaration I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate. No matters of significance, which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Panel. Robert Milner December 2010



3

2 Overview and summary

2.1 Purpose There is a two-‐fold purpose to this evidence report. Firstly it takes a strategic and holistic view of the merits of the proposal to enhance the safety and provide a marina and associated infrastructure at the Mornington Harbour. It draws conclusions as to whether the proposal will result in a net community benefit as detailed in Clause 10.04 of the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme (MPPS). It also examines the merits of the application of the Public Park and Recreation Zone to facilitate the use and development.

2.2 Overview Community safety and wellbeing is arguably one, if not the highest, priority of government. Planning in Victoria has multiple objectives of which safety is one.

To secure a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians and visitors to Victoria1

The revisiting of priorities and core values around community safety in land use planning decisions has been brought to the forefront by recent events associated with climate, water and fire. Decision makers are urged to apply the precautionary principle on matters where community safety is at stake. The Victorian bushfires of 2009 and the subsequent Royal Commission challenge government and the community to rethink our approach to the management of fire, protection of life and property. In a strategic context it will influence where communities can establish and growth in high-‐risk areas. In a comparable but less dramatic vein the circumstance in the matter of Rozen v Macedon Ranges Shire Council, which has been the subject of deliberations before VCAT and the Supreme Court, could have similar ramifications for settlement and development in rural areas in order to protect water quality in special proclaimed water catchments. The subject matter of Amendment C107 to the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme challenges the decision maker to weigh up competing and conflicting considerations of which one is the safety of boat users and their craft on Port Phillip Bay and within the confines of the present harbour at Mornington. There is a history of the harbour providing poor protection from storms driven from a

1 Section 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and Clause 10.02 MPPS



4

northerly direction. However the issue is also set in the global context of climate change and its impacts upon coastal areas. In this matter the response to enhanced safety from current and foreseen climatic events is to provide wave screens to the existing pier and new jetties. However these safety measures are advanced in the context of a package of proposals that include a new and substantial marina facility. It is advanced and justified on the basis of need and that it is essential to the commercial delivery of the required infrastructure. The impact of this package of proposals would be both positive and negative, multiple and diverse, social, economic and environmental, local and regional and affect diverse groups within the community differently. How those different and not necessarily mutual reconcilable considerations might be balanced is the role of this evidence. The challenge of this evidence is articulated at Clause 10.04 of the Victorian Planning Provisions in the following terms.

Society has various needs and expectations such as land for settlement, protection of the environment, economic well-‐being, various social needs, proper management of resources and infrastructure. Planning aims to meet these by addressing aspects of economic, environmental and social wellbeing, affected by land use and development. Planning authorities and responsible authorities should endeavour to integrate the range of policies relevant to the issues to be determined and balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development for the benefit of present and future generations.

There is no agreed, singular process, formula or framework for conducting an assessment of net community benefit. I have therefore sought to analyse the proposal comprehensively and holistically taking three different frameworks and viewpoints of reference and analysis.

2.2.1 Legislation and Policy The evidence systematically reviews the relevant legislation and policies at a State and local level examining coastal, settlement, environmental and economic issues and themes such as recreational boating.

2.2.2 Locations and spaces Part of the evidence focuses on that local policy in the planning scheme and local strategy which identifies different local precincts and contexts from which to assess the impact.



5

2.2.3 Users and activities.

The evidence also examines the spectrum of primary users of the Schnapper Point area and evaluates how the proposal will influence and impact upon their use and activities in the locality. An analytical matrix is relied upon to document and summarise each of the relevant matters to be assessed and a comment on the anticipated performance of the proposal in the context of the policy theme is undertaken. A considerable body of data, analysis and commentary has been provided by the proponent as part of the Environmental Effects Statement and planning scheme amendment / planning permit documentation. I have had regard to this material and reference it as appropriate in the following analysis. I have also had regard to the relevant legislation and the policy context as detailed in the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme and referenced strategies. For the sake of brevity I do not review separately the purposes and content of each piece of legislation and policy. The proponent’s documentation fulfils this purpose. I use this evidence to identifying and integrate the key common messages and intentions of policy and align them with the themes and issues presented by the proposal.

2.3 Summary of findings The following conclusions are drawn in this report regarding the net community benefit associated with the project. It is useful to look at those provisions associated with enhancing the safety of the harbour and maintenance of boats separately from those that are associated with increasing its capacity.

2.4 Safety and maintenance In my opinion there will be considerable community benefit to be derived from the proposal to extend the pier and add the wave screens. Sailors and emergency personnel both locally and regionally will be provided with the proper and necessary protection from the storm conditions that can so quickly and unexpectedly be experienced on Port Phillip Bay. The pier and wave screen provisions would also positively respond to climate change implications provided that it is accepted that the design life of the facilities may be 50 years. Policy has recognised the need for a safe harbour and the proposal would deliver on that outcome, reinforcing the role of Mornington as a Regional Boating Harbour and fulfilling its role in the hierarchy and network of boat facilities.



6

The harbour pier and jetty extensions provide growth and provision for public access and new fishing and walk areas, and the research seems to suggest that scuba divers would also benefit from the additional structures in the harbour environs. I foreshadow the safer conditions would make Mornington Harbour more attractive to trailer sailors in the region consolidating both the role of the harbour but also the function of the activity centre. The additional wash down facilities, travel crane and fuel / sewerage facility are additional positive features of the proposal, which will be of benefit to the boating community and the role and function of the harbour. They appear to be offer environment and sustainability benefits and complement the range of services that should be provided at a regional hub of boating. The principal cost of these proposals upon the community and environment appear to be confined to either short term localised impacts during construction, or associated with the longer term maintenance of the beaches arising from the changes in wave patterns and coastal processes. While the latter appear to entail long term monitoring and an ongoing maintenance cost to restore the effects of erosion and attrition, this could be seen as acceptable cost and consequence given the greater public benefit. There is insufficient detailed evidence to objectively understand what effect the above works would have on the growth and demand for additional car parking arising from grater use of the ramp by trailer sailors. Being prudent it might be anticipated that there would be some growth and a need to provide some measures to address this need. Collectively these works and their consequences would retain the sense of place and cultural identity of the harbour.

2.5 Increased capacity The analysis of this report identifies that while the inclusion of the marina would be of benefit to boat owners and users and would be one way of further complementing the regional role of the harbour, it is this aspect of the proposal that carries potentially the focus and burden of community costs associated with the overall proposal. To summarise those costs would be:

• The change to the character and appearance of the harbour which would incrementally diminishes the sense of the ‘iconic harbour’ adjacent to the ‘village’, varying it to a more intense and structured hybrid harbour / marina. This impact would be experienced by all users of the Schnapper Point and be particularly evident to users of the nearer beaches, whose appreciation of the bay would be diminished.



7

• The greater capacity of the marina would entail an assured increase in the demand for car parking, which the earlier analysis has identified would be difficult to accommodate and poses the challenge at peak times of a greater number of trips, greater congestion and frustration / conflict in using the location. In so far as this would probably coincide with the greater influx of visitors and tourists to the town and harbour it has a potential to have flow on effects that impact on groups that have no particular interest in boating.

• The spatial extent of the marina, the more intense use of the ramps and their proximity to the beaches poses the prospect of greater potential conflict with water uses, despite the demarcation of a passage for vessels.

• The marina embodies elements of both greater access and denial of public access to parts of the harbour area, as portions of the structure would be restricted to the general public.

• The proposal adds to the utilisation of Schnapper Point but does not provide for improved linkages to the activity centre.

It might be put that if private investment in harbour infrastructure is to occur as foreshadowed and encouraged by planning policy then these costs are a necessary consequence and outcome of that approach. I have not been privy to any feasibility and viability analysis to know whether that conclusion is well founded or whether the size scale and structure of the marina proposal needs to be as presented. In the absence of that advice the following observations are relevant from a land use planning perspective. There is no absolute or fixed capacity upon the harbour. As noted earlier the experience of the harbour is dynamic with its occupancy by vessels varying on a seasonal, daily and hourly basis. Increasing and improving the safety of the harbour will also increase its capacity to accommodate more vessels on swing or fore and aft moorings throughout the year. In itself such growth would be consistent with the character and experience of the harbour and would not diminish public access particularly if the moorings were publicly available. While I have not had the benefit of design studies to explore and test other options it is reasonable to postulate that different balances of less marina structure and berths and greater conventional mooring would result in a less imposing outcome for users of the harbour environs and foreshore. Such studies might confine any marina facilities to shorter sections located closer to the existing Yacht club and be orientated to be minimise the impact for beach users. On balance I am of the view that the overall project concept would result in a net community benefit but that the marina component and design should be reviewed and redesigned with the following outcomes in mind.



8

• Greater protection of the established harbour character and utilisation

patterns, • Further minimisation of the potential conflict between water users and

craft using the ramp and harbour, • A reduction in the overall boat capacity to more closely align with the

parking constraints proximate to the harbour and the physical constraints of the space between the beaches and the pier.



9

3 Background

3.1 The Mornington Harbour – an appreciation of the site and its environs and the affected community. The proposal is set to extend, expand and impact upon the Mornington Harbour and its environs. The following are important features of this area that should be acknowledged and addressed in the assessment of net community benefit and assessment.

3.1.1 Mornington Peninsula The Mornington Peninsula has long been recognised and protected in a metropolitan context for the quality and diversity of its coastal and land based landscapes and environmental values. The scope for urban development has been clearly and tightly defined in order to protect those spaces. Its proximity and convenience to the metropolitan population has made the Peninsula the obvious and desirable recreational destination for residents, visitors and tourists. Recreational boating is part of that equation and there is clear evidence of future growth in that sector. A broad range of sailing and boating opportunities are established along the eastern coast of Port Phillip Bay and the Mornington Peninsula, in the form of ramps, marinas and older style harbours, such as Mornington. The most recent addition to that infrastructure is the marina and water based residential development at Safety Beach.

3.1.2 Mornington Activity Centre Mornington Harbour is not a discrete and isolated facility but an extension of a vibrant and developing Major Activity Centre serving the communities of Mornington and the broader region of the Mornington Peninsula. Mornington is regularly referred to as a coastal village. The principal access to the harbour from the regional arterial road network is through the ‘village’ and the opportunity to experience and enjoy the harbour and activity centre as an adjunct and an extension of each other is relevant. The relationship of one to the other raises possibilities and issues of economic advantage and growth, extension of the range of uses and attractions, competition for shared facilities such as parking, possible conflict and congestion of traffic movement and pedestrians. It is relevant to consider how the proposal will impact on users and businesses of the centre and how it further integrates the harbour precinct with the balance of the activity centre.



10

3.1.3 Residential headland Extending either side of the activity centre and occupying the headland area that encompasses Schnapper Point and the foreshore are expansive areas of residential land use and development. The rise and fall of the topography has been used and sought with advantage to capture or command views and outlooks over the bay or of the harbour and its environs. Those who have positioned and orientated their homes accordingly no doubt value the visual amenity of this vantage point.

3.1.4 The foreshore The foreshore is a more complex multi use and user area in a sensitive environmental setting. It encompasses Mornington Park, the headlands of Schnapper Point and Red Bluff, a continuum of three beaches (Mothers, Scout and Shire Hall), a public boat ramp, extensive areas of car parking and, a club house for the Mornington Yacht Club, an associated restaurant, a separate café, and boat storage areas. It is an area of competing and potentially conflicting passive and active recreation, walking sunbathing, swimming, water sports, sailing, boat maintenance, cycling, eating and entertaining. It is a dramatic space and landscape of changes in levels and cliffs giving rise to wide sweeping vantage points and views. It is here that the sweep of Red Bluff, the Esplanade and cliffs provides a natural extension to Schnapper Point and in turn the Mornington Pier and Jetty. This is a space enjoyed and experienced by locals, visitors and tourists of all age groups. Their association with the project will be measured by how it impacts on their enjoyment and use of the space.

3.1.5 The Harbour The harbour area is described in planning documents as iconic. It is defined, in part, by the foreshore and occupies approximately 4.2 hectares. Its distinguishing characteristics include some of the features described above particularly the ramp for launching boats, but also the Mornington Pier and the Fisherman’s Jetty, a shorter projection that is sited between the pier and the foreshore beaches. The harbour encompasses 60 swing moorings and 30 fore and aft berths for recreation boating alongside the jetty. It has an informality of character associated with the traditional imagery of the harbour as distinct to that of the more ordered and regimented character of the marina. Environmentally the harbour and the Bay are areas of acknowledged sensitivity and ecological importance.

This is a space used by promenaders, scuba divers, people fishing, sailors, users of pleasure craft and the like. The sailors are both locals and people from a wider Port Phillip catchment visiting for pleasure or protection for themselves



11

or their vessels. At peak periods this is an area of intense use by pedestrians and drivers.

3.1.6 Coastal Crown land In this particular matter the question of land ownership and public and private rights further complicate the assessment of net community benefit. The land located within the Mornington Harbour comprises public land, which is managed by different Committees of Management including Parks Victoria and the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council. The Yacht Club has a lease over part of the land based foreshore and a jetty. The proponent in this matter is a private entity (Mornington Boat Haven Limited) and not a public land manager thus requiring the rezoning of the land to facilitate the proposal. This raises questions of equity of public access. The marina will in effect create a more extensive private lease over public land (water) principally for the benefit of members of the Mornington Yacht Club. In summary the site and its environs encompasses a complex multi use, ownership and management environment with a diverse range of local and regional users with quite different use and amenity expectations. These need to be factored in to the net community benefit evaluation.

3.2 The proposal The following summarises the principal features of the proposal. These are illustrated in the development plans accompanying the planning permit application that is concurrently sought with the rezoning of the land. As well as introducing measures to protect the space and waters inside the harbour environs for the safety of bay users and moored boats the elements of the proposal also include a range of facilities to increase the utilisation, functionality, capacity and attraction of the harbour by a range of sail and motor propelled craft. Since the works will have an impact upon geo-‐coastal systems, protection and management of beaches is also required.

• Wave screens to the outer section harbour and pier, including a full depth structures made from reinforced concrete and incorporating a public walkway. A permit has already issued for the reconstruction of the central section of the pier including wave protection works

• A new public jetty to the south and parallel to the existing pier, providing access to the marina berths and connecting to the proposed harbour wave screen.

• 169 floating berths in the form of floating pens. • 12 swing moorings. • 5 visitor fore and aft moorings to the south of the marina, • 7 emergency vessel pens, • 8 fore and after moorings,



12

• A travel lift and boat washing facility, • Refuelling and waste disposal facilities • Beach erosion and mitigation measures • No additional car parking however improvements to the design of

existing parking spaces, provision of a bus shuttle service and two hour parking limits on the lower car park during summer.

• 60 existing swing moorings will be removed.

3.3 The planning scheme amendment The harbour and its environs are zoned Public Conservation and Resource Zone. The proposed amendment to the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme would rezone the area shown in the amendment documentation to Public Park and Recreation Zone. The amendment is sought to enable the establishment of an otherwise prohibited Pleasure Boat Facility, operated by a private entity, as opposed to a public land manager. The effect of the amendment would be to emphasise its recreation and open space attributes in preference and priority to environmental and resource protection. The question raised in the choice of zones and the application of overlays is whether the appropriate balance and protection is provided for what is the primary use of the area while providing proper protection for both the on and offshore environmental assets.



13

4 Legislation and policy assessment – the balance of considerations

4.1 Introduction The relevant context of legislation and planning policy applicable to this matter is strategic in its scope and geography and properly characterised by a hierarchy of applicable themes that span from state-‐wide, through regional to local considerations. I have identified four principal themes that are relevant and appropriate to the proposal and an assessment of net community benefit.

• Coastal environment resources and risks, • Sustainable use of natural coastal resources, boating and recreation, • Coastal development, built environment and heritage, • Settlement, activity centres and economic development.

The above themes cover a diverse range of coastal and land based issues and included legislation, and gazetted policy and various strategies that either constitute government policy or are advanced as suitable for such status. The scope and relationship between the legislation and policy and the above themes is conveyed in the matrix at Attachment 2. The following analysis and commentary relies upon the above framework.

4.2 Coastal environment, resources and risks

4.2.1 Environmental Resources

− Policy context The Harbour and its Bay environs is zoned Public Conservation and Resource Zone and covered by the Environment Significance Overlay (Schedule 25) – Port Phillip Coastal Area -‐ recognising the presence of significant coast based environmental assets. The importance and priority to be placed on this resource and the protection and conservation of biodiversity is effectively articulated by the State planning policy objective addressing protection of coastal areas and in two of the four principles set out in the hierarchy of principles of coastal planning.2 Objective

To recognise and enhance the value of the coastal areas to the community and ensure sustainable use of natural coastal resources.

2 Victorian Coastal Strategy 2008 and Clause 12.02-1 MPPS



14

Principles • Provide for the protection of significant environmental and cultural

values. • Ensure the sustainable use of natural coastal resources.

Coastal action plans (CAP) are the primary tool giving effect to the Victorian Coastal Strategy (2008). The relevant plan in this context is the Mt Eliza to Point Nepean Coastal Action 2021 Plan that was prepared in 2005 and has not been reviewed in the context of the subsequent revision to the coastal strategy. The CAP recognises that while the environment in this section of Port Phillip Bay is improving, recreation and commercial pressures are growing (visitor numbers, residential and commercial development, and boating). The growth is anticipated to result in a negative effect on sustainability and biodiversity particularly on the Port Phillip Bay coast, evident in the impact upon water quality, the marine environment, vegetation quality, landscape values and visual amenity. The CAP advocates the application of demand management in order to influence visitor activity levels and modify the way people use the coast. The foreshore and coastal areas strategy of the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme tells a similar story of competing agendas -‐ protection of landscapes, environmental systems, habitats and other natural assets of coastal areas competing with opportunities for public recreation and economic development.3 The environmental objective arising from the above competing considerations is:

To protect and enhance the natural ecosystems and landscapes of the coast for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations.

Its associated strategies require recognition of natural processes and ecosystems and the fragile and dynamic nature of the coast in decision-‐making. − The proposal and its impacts.

The need for and the conduct of the Environmental Effects Statement as part of the proposal and approvals process identifies that the impacts on the environmental resource could be significant and have been the subject of fulsome review. Specialist advice was provided on the following environmental matters.

• Wave climate, • Hydrodynamics,

3 Clause 21.08 MPPS



15

• Water quality, • Marine ecology, • Landscape and visual amenity, • Energy and green house gases , • Stormwater.

The principal conclusions of that work in regard to impacts on environmental resources and in turn sustainable development are that:

• The wave screen will change coastal processes and the wave environment and reduce the force and energy of waves in the harbour and as they impact on the beaches. This is anticipated to change the stable nature of the beaches, with Mothers Beach remaining relatively stable, but erosion anticipated at Shire Hall Beach and accretion in front of Mothers and Scout Beaches. The requirement would be for sand to be removed and deposited annually to off set the change to natural processes, while monitoring may reveal the need to construct an off shore reef to collect sand between annual replenishments.

• Subject to monitoring the proposal upon completion should not impact

upon the quality of water in the harbour. Other water quality issues relate to construction and other harbour operations such as boat cleaning and maintenance. Construction will cause a short-‐term localised impact, which can be minimised through a construction management plan. Operational issues are proposed to be addressed by an EMP.

• The construction phase and the operating conditions of the wave

screens will impact upon the marine ecology evident in increased turbidity, noise of construction (deterring fish), loss of a small area of soft seabed habitat, changes to beach morphology and an unpredictable effect on sea grass regrowth.

• Energy efficiency, greenhouse gas and noise were considered and

found not to present significant environmental effects provided guidelines and recommendations are met.

− Assessment From a strategic perspective most of the impacts upon environmental resources are short term, localised and can be managed to deliver sustainable outcomes without undue or unreasonable cost on the community or the environment. The aspect, which has both longer-‐term physical and sustainable management implications and a lack of certainty about the outcome, is the erosion and attrition of sand along the beach. That it will occur is established but the speed, and the need for further mitigating actions is unclear.



16

There is a long-‐term environmental and or financial cost associated with the change to beach processes. While remediation works can be managed to avoid popular use periods an unfortunate outcome would be if sand build up interferes with boat launching at Scout Beach.

4.2.2 Environmental risks − Policy context The principal environmental risk of relevance to this proposal is the implications of climate change and its consequences as measured in storm activity, coastal inundation and erosion. The reasoning for a safer harbour is both existing and emerging as a way of protecting the community from the more severe storm events that are likely to be associated with climate change as well it must provide for and acknowledge predicted rises in sea level. The State policy objective4 is to plan for and manage the potential coastal impacts of climate change. Among other ways this will be achieved is by planning for a sea level rise of not less than 0.8 metres by 2100 and applying the precautionary principle to planning, management and decision making when considering risk associated with climate change. Ministerial Direction 13 – Managing Coastal Hazards and Coastal Impacts of Climate Change – is relevant to this matter and applies to this land. It details requirements that are to be provided in Explanatory Reports. Climate change is not a matter addressed in the relevant coastal action plan for the reasons of timing noted above, nor is it specifically mentioned in the MPPS local policy framework. While not addressing climate change the Mt Eliza to Pt Nepean Coastal Action Plan nominates a series of other environmental risks for the “Cliffs” section of the coast including the following matters relevant to this analysis:

• Coastal erosion and accretion processes, • Inappropriate land use, • Inappropriate development, • Public attitudes and education, • Marinas.

As the extract at Attachment 3 shows these risks are seen as presenting a considerable number of high to very high threats to a range of environmental assets and amenity considerations.

4 Clause 13.01 MPPS



17

− The impact of the proposal. The proposal has been designed making an allowance of 0.4 metres change in sea level by 21005. That level was set prior to the incorporation of the Victorian Coastal Strategy 2008 (VCS) in to the planning scheme and relied upon earlier Inter-‐government Panel on Climate Change findings. Relying upon the third draft of the VCS that stated “for planning purposes we will assume a sea level rise of approximately 0.4 to 0.8m by the end of the century” the advice to the proponent was to provide for a change of 0.4 metres on the basis that the nominal design life for structures such as piers and breakwaters is 50 years.6 − Assessment The proposal makes a positive community response to the challenge of climate change and the associated risks and threats presented by storm events and sea level rise. The lingering question remains the adoption of a height that has not recognised a sea level rise of 0.8 by 2100, but by inference commits the community to review and potentially reinvest in the infrastructure in a 50-‐year time frame. This might be seen as an inherent long-‐term community cost. While the Victorian Coastal Strategy requires that climate change not be a barrier to investment in minor coastal public infrastructure, provided that the design life is within the timeframe of potential impact, it is to be debated whether these works fall into that categorisation. This question needs to be reviewed in a wider context as the pier and wave screen structure are an extension to and must integrate with an existing harbour infrastructure. The harbour and foreshore area around Schnapper Point is the lowest lying land in the area and if it was to be subject to encroachment by sea rise then provided that the new works did not sit lower than the foreshore areas it would not really matter that the proposed works were not designed to literally meet the 2100 target. Regardless the floating berths will not be constrained in the manner of fixed structures. It is beyond the scope of my expertise to assess this wider and longer-‐term implication but the longer term wellbeing and functioning of the overall harbour is a relevant consideration. I address the impact of some of the other environmental risks identified in Attachment 3 later in this section of the report.

5 Mornington Harbour Water Investigation – Water Technology (October 2008) page 8 and also Hydrodynamic Investigation page 13. 6 As per footnote 4



18

4.3 Sustainable use of natural coastal resources, boating and recreation

4.3.1 Policy context

The growth of population, coast based recreational pursuits and boating in particular are regular and repeated themes of policy analysis and justification. The Mornington Peninsula has long been recognised as one of the principal coastal resorts for the local and metropolitan population. This evidence does not need to document these trends or justify this conclusion. Virtually all the relevant references that I have had regard to on the use of the coast and boating attest to the demand and growth and the increasing pressure to be placed upon sensitive environments and infrastructure. The policy framework is a response to this context. The second and third principles of coastal planning and development are relevant to this theme.7

• Undertake integrated planning and provide clear direction for the future. • Ensure the sustainable use of natural coastal resources.

The Victoria Coastal Strategy addresses these principles with reference to the following themes and relevant policy intentions: Access

• Be strategically planned, sustainable and equitable and respond to identified demand.

• Support community based clubs, such as sailing and yachting, • Ensure public safety, • Manage demand for coastal recreation to protect natural and cultural

values and optimise visitor experiences. Boating

• Boating facilities and infrastructure should be strategically planned via Coastal Action Plans that respond to a demand assessment, safety considerations and sustainable management of coastal processes.

• Ensure the provision of effluent disposal facilities at strategic boating locations.

Tourism • Support development of sustainable nature based tourism that benefits

the local community and State and regional economies and heightens the visitor experience of the coast,

• Improve and enhance the tourist and visitor experience and understanding of the coast, while protecting sensitive and significant areas.




19

The VCS establishes a hierarchy of ‘Regional Boating Facilities’ for 2030 and which “accommodate a significant amount of recreational boating in appropriate conditions. These include multiple boat ramps, jetties, substantial car parking, safety measures where required and significant onshore facilities such as fish cleaning facilities, wash down areas and toilets. A site satisfying this level of hierarchy generates significant level of boating activity from a wide catchment.” Mornington Harbour is classified as a ‘Regional Boating facility’. The relevant Coastal Action Plan has identified recreation planning and development as among the seven highest priority risk issues facing this coastal area with land uses associated with these recreational activities posing risks to the visual and landscape amenity, terrestrial coastal habitat, and the ecological significance of the area. The CAP recommends a demand management strategy focusing activities into key nodes. Having regard to the available infrastructure for and growth in recreational boating the CAP identifies Mornington Jetty and Schnapper Point as a key node for focussed activity. It calls for a strategic view of visitation and the relationship between the harbour area and the town centre. While linkages between the two nodes are a major focus of comment there are also repeated references to the provision of a new passenger ferry with connections to Melbourne and Sorrento. Arising from the original draft of the Victorian Coastal Strategy a thematic Boating Coastal Action Plan was prepared and adopted by government in 2007 for the central coast of Victoria, which includes Mornington. The plan adopts an approach that foresees the delivery of boating infrastructure in terms of an integrated network of facilities providing a level of service appropriate to the role the location in the boating hierarchy. The boating action plan uses similar language to the Mt Eliza to Pt Nepean CAP, identifying Mornington as a regional boating facility. Attachment 4 details the facilities and services to be provided at boating facilities arising from their place in the hierarchy. A safe harbour is expected at a regional facility. Marinas are not separately identified. It is expected that a regional boating facility will provide public casual berths, wet and dry berths and moorings being optional. There are a number of additional themes in the Boating Coastal Action Plan that are relevant to the provision of new and additional boating facilities. The following guiding principles are to be applied:

• The significant ecological and physical features of the coastal environment are to be protected.

• Future investment in boating facilities will deliver a net environmental benefit.



20

• Safe boating access to the water is the key priority for the provision of boating facilities in the region.

• Coastal Crown land is scarce so all uses need to be balanced to ensure equitable access whilst preserving the resources and maintaining amenity for residents and visitors.

• Opportunities for a range of boating activities should be available. • Public access and public benefit will be a key consideration in the

management of existing and planned facilities. • Investment in facilities will be coordinated, strategic and implemented

through partnerships including the private sector. • All boating facilities including private and club facilities, must provide

public benefits in recognition of their access to and enjoyment of, the publicly-‐owned coast.

Mornington is one of 10 boating area-‐planning precincts. It is recognised that;

• The area has high scenic and amenity values. • Mornington is the only area with capacity to expand and provide

protection to the northerly winds in this section of the bay, • Mothers Beach should not be adversely affected by development, • Mornington should be the strategic focus for investment to upgrade

facilities and provide a safe harbour, • Private investment in the redevelopment of Mornington Harbour be

encouraged where it also brings maximum private benefit. The local policy framework, without being as detailed or specific, has a similar objective:

To achieve coordinated development of public and private facilities that increase the sustainable social, economic and recreational value of the coast and foreshore to the community.

This objective will be met by, among other means:

• Consolidating new development in activity nodes and strengthening the physical and functional connections between existing township areas and the foreshore,

• Ensuring that coastal development is designed and constructed in a manner, which respects and enhances the coastal environment and the experience and enjoyment of the coast by the community.

4.3.2 Assessment

The community will gain considerable benefit and advantage by the further upgrading of boating facilities at Mornington particularly when these encompass making the Harbour safer under all conditions. The policy context seeks such an outcome, including private investment to enable it.



21

The wave screens, travel lift, sewerage pump out facility, provision for and enhancement of emergency services, the fuel pontoon and an increase in capacity of the harbour, in a context of growth and identified demand in regional boating, are all beneficial outcomes. The principal issues raised in terms of sustainable use are questions of equity and public access, the scale of facilities and the management of demand. Public Access The proposal entails restricting public access to most of the marina berths and in practice to part of the harbour adding to the leased area for the yacht club. There will be no net reduction in the public access to the existing areas of the foreshore. Further it is evident that with the extension of the pier and the new jetty / wave screen an additional 330 metres of public walkway would be created. Public access and public benefit are important policy objective considerations. In the first instance it would be desirable if the public could access all marina walkways since the viewing of craft is a form of recreation and leisure enjoyed by the public and is provided at some marinas. If security was a concern access could be restricted overnight except by security code entry. The ability for the public to access the berths of the marina is a different question. The costs of providing additional berths by a private entity, should enable an ability for cost recovery or commercial gain. Public access/ benefit would be best served if all berths were available on that basis, however other balances of public / private interests may be equally acceptable. Size and Scale The remaining question is the matter of the appropriateness of the scale and size of the facility. This question is not answered in the abstract but rather from a consideration and balancing of a range of relevant considerations. The policy as articulated in the Coastal Action Plan calls for a demand management strategy. Thus in this matter relevant considerations would include the demand and supply of berths for recreation boating along the east side of Port Phillip Bay; the size and design of the facility and its impact on the character and visual / landscape amenity, the demand for parking for both visitors as well as trailer drawn boats and the supply and availability of space for those needs. If there was to be:

• A surplus of berths, • Inadequate parking, • Unacceptable congestion, • Conflict between pedestrians and traffic, • A detrimental impact upon the visual and landscape amenity as viewed

from key vantage points,



22

• A combination of the above,

then there would be the basis to conclude that the proposal was an unsustainable use and or development of land and should be reduced in scale or redesigned to address the concerns. The subject of parking, congestion and possible conflict with pedestrians is explored below to illustrate the above point. The application material includes a consideration of parking issues and I note from the social and community attitudes surveys conducted with users and stakeholder groups that parking was an often repeated existing and perceived future concern and issue. The parking and traffic challenge may be summarised in the following terms based on my observations and the amendment documentation.

• The area for parking at Schnapper Point and Schnapper Point Drive is physically constrained. Any expansion would be at the further expense of Crown land, the headland and or Mornington Park. None of these outcomes are desirable.

• During peak periods (approximately 20 times a year) the above parking areas are fully utilised and the access ways can be congested with vehicles scouting the area looking for a space.

• Pedestrian and vehicles often share the same space with potential conflict and safety issues.

• The proposal will increase the number of berths for boats but the demand made of the Mornington Ramp in the context of a safer harbour is not clearly understood. It is anticipated that the safer conditions will attract a greater number of users who trailer their vessel to Mornington on an as needs basis.

• An additional 64 spaces have been estimated as required. • The design response is not to provide additional spaces but to

reconfigure the existing parking area to make circulation more efficient, introduce shorter parking restrictions and consider the introduction of a limited “modest” shuttle bus service connecting some of the more remote and less well used Activity Centre car parks for harbour users at the peak periods.

While the proposal might on paper be seen to address the issue, the experience is likely to be that demand will exceed supply at critical periods particularly when visitors and tourists are more likely to be present; they will look for convenient parking close to the harbour and may experience congestion and frustration in trying to find the same and may be deterred or put off from staying. It is not clear how the shuttle service could work to serve this user of the centre or how the growth in trailers, with their special parking requirements, will be met.



23

Seen in the context of the coastal actions plan for demand management of facilities and the integration of a network of boating facilities along this section of the coast there is a case to be put that the scale of the marina is contributing to and exceeding the capacity of the parking areas reasonably available and alternative strategic responses need to be considered for the deployment of marina facilities in the region. Regardless of the actual response the emerging parking and traffic issues present as a cost to the community arising from this proposal. I return to this question in my conclusions as it embraces a number of other issues discussed in other sections of this evidence.

4.4 Coastal development, built environment and heritage

4.4.1 Policy context The earlier discussion has referenced the hierarchy of principles for coastal planning and management. The policy intent is that when the three primary principles have been considered and addressed then Principle 48 must be addressed.

Ensure that development on the coast is located within existing modified and resilient environments where the demand for development is evident and the impact can be managed.

This principle addresses the question of appropriate development on the coast. Section 4.3 of the Victorian Coastal Strategy (2008) addresses Coastal Crown Land buildings and infrastructure and includes piers jetties and facilities to support recreational boating and fishing.

Any new buildings and infrastructure on coastal Crown land should be sensitively sited and designed to minimise visual and ecological impact. (page 62)

The associated policy includes:

Support investment in activity nodes and key recreation nodes with significant community benefits outcomes, and where a genuine need is identified through strategic assessment consistent with this strategy.




24

The strategic justification for the components that make up the proposal has been established in the foregoing discussion and therefore I confine my analysis in this section to matters of design, built form, visual impact and heritage. The siting and design guidelines for structures on the Victorian Coast (1998) provide some direction in this regard, addressing themes of function, aesthetic and cultural value and ecology. The functionality of the proposed works are accepted, in so far as the form of the proposed works serves the intended function of a safer operation of the harbour. I am not qualified to comment on other design detail. Ecological considerations have been previously addressed. Accordingly the following commentary is confined to aesthetic and cultural issues. Impact upon cultural and aesthetic values. Mornington Park, other sections of Schnapper Point and the pier are included in the Heritage Overlay as three separate Heritage Places. The local section of the planning scheme includes a Cultural Heritage Places policy, which applies not only to heritage places but also adjoining land. I note evidence is to be provided by Lovell Chen (architects and heritage consultants). I understand Mr Lovell holds concerns regarding the visual impact of the marina upon the historic pier and the visual competition that will be created. In addition all the waters in and around the harbour and all the lower lying foreshore area are included in the Environment Significance Overlay. The objectives of the relevant overlay include to:

• Protect and enhance the natural features, vegetation, ecological diversity, landscape quality, heritage values and recreation opportunities of the Port Phillip coastal area and associated intertidal marine habitats.

• Promote excellence of design of buildings, facilities and structures in the coastal area.

• Promote coordinated management of the Port Phillip coastal area. The above provisions must also be seen in the context of State Planning Policy at Clause 12.02-‐2 (Appropriate development of coastal areas), Clause 12.04 (Significant environments and landscapes) and Clause 15.01-‐1 (Urban design). Some of the policy objectives in associated with these Clauses warrants restating:

• To protect and conserve environmentally sensitive areas, including the foreshores of Port Phillip Bay from development, which would diminish their environmental conservation and recreation values.

• Protect landscapes and significant open spaces that contribute to character, identity and sustainable environments.



25

• Ensure that sensitive landscape areas such as the bays and coastline are protected and the new development does not detract from their natural quality.

• Create urban environments that are safe, functional and provide good quality environments with a sense of place and cultural identity.

In the case of urban design a series of 11 different principles are advanced to assist in achieving architectural and urban design outcomes that contribute positively to local urban character and enhance the public realm while minimising detrimental impact on neighbourhood character. Relevant principles are addressed in the following assessment.

4.4.2 Assessment The impact of the proposed works has been the subject of review by both the proponent and various evidence to be lead on behalf of the Planning Authority. The visual assessment evidence is critical of the analysis undertaken and the conclusions drawn by the proponent. Approached from a different perspective I come to a similar conclusion and rely upon the evidence of Mr Wyatt in this regard. Clause 15.01-‐2 of the MPPS correctly notes that a comprehensive site analysis should be the starting point of the design process and form the basis for considering the scale and massing of new development. That analysis must take into account the natural, cultural and strategic context of the site. The principal document relied upon in the various reports accompanying the EES and permit application to substantiate the design, layout, scale and massing of the proposed marina is the visual assessment study by Integral Landscape Architecture and Visual Planning in 2008. It appears to be a retrospective study justifying the composition of a marina as the only option and design outcome. While it provides a visual setting context at a State, regional and local level, it does not examine the cultural issues or community attitudes and values towards the perception and experience of the harbour or provide the analysis that I would have anticipated that distinguishes the features and characteristics that mark the harbour as a special and distinctive space and how those attributes should be incorporated in the design. A marina is but one way of increasing the capacity of harbour and there are different scales and orientations that will have different impacts from various view points. There is no exploration of these scenarios or options in the documentation. A marina is distinguished from a harbour by the introduction of structure, and form into an area of open water and by the capacity to more efficiently and functional store vessels with a consequence that a greater density and mass is experienced and sense of spaciousness is lost.



26

The extensions of the pier and the wave screens would not transform the character of a harbour in the same way but could be held to reinforce the sense of containment of space and shelter ordinarily associated with a harbour wall or pier. Similarly a greater number of boats on swing or fore and aft moorings would not of itself change the character of the harbour, as after all it is to be expected that the number and pattern of boats in the harbour will be an ever changing canvass dependant upon the season, the time of day, the weather and occurrence of special events. There appears to be common ground between the parties that the proposed development will change the appearance and experience of the harbour, extending the space occupied by moored and berthed vessels from a relatively sparsely occupied and informal arrangement, floating and moving with the influence of wind and tide to a more expansive, regimented and dense mass and concentration of craft. The harbour and bay setting surrounded by headlands and development along the coastal edge will not change, but the harbour space, at the centre of this setting and a feature that naturally draws attention, will change. As the visual assessment undertaken on behalf of the proponent notes the Safe Harbour will create a strong contrast with the existing visual environment, particularly when viewed from the more proximate environments such as the beaches, and diminishing with distance from the harbour. What is in debate is the change in form and character that distinguishes a harbour from a marina and how that will impact upon the identity, sense of place and ambiance of Schnapper Point as a highly valued recreation and visual amenity space. There is no one all encompassing community perspective, but it will vary depending upon the use and user of the space. Thus for a boat owner a marina may be seen in a utilitarian manner as an opportunity to safely store a vessel in a manner that is convenient. What it looks like may be secondary to protecting the asset. For persons with little interest in boats the greater value and enjoyment may be placed upon the existing and established familiar space with its informality, traditional values and associations and relatively uninterrupted views of the headlands and bay. With greater degrees of change in the perceived character and appearance of the space so there will emerge a greater sense of something lost to the community -‐ a matter that can be seen as a community cost associated with the proposal and change. The following extract from Clause 21.03 addressing the strategic challenge for landscapes, recreation and tourism, neatly summarises the above observations.



27

The rural and coastal landscapes of the Peninsula reflect diverse landforms, environmental systems and land use histories. They provide the basis for recreational experiences and a “sense of place”, that have a strong cultural significance. Much of the Peninsula’s attraction for recreation is connected to this cultural capital and a key challenge is to ensure that land use and development does not lead to incremental change that devalues the Peninsula as a recreation area.

4.5 Settlement, activity centres and economic development

4.5.1 Policy context

The Mornington Harbour marks the northern periphery of the Mornington Major Activity Centre. Structure planning for the centre rightly includes the harbour in the structure plan study area. State and local planning policy seek to build up activity centres as a focus of high quality development, activity and living for the whole community. They are intended to be a focus for business, shopping, working, leisure and community facilities, providing for different types of housing, It is expected that strategic planning for the use and development around activity centres will occur. The Strategic Framework Plan for the Mornington Peninsula sets among its strategic directions:

• To support and strengthen the hierarchy of towns and villages on the Peninsula having regard to their individual character and functions, their relationship to each other and the adjacent rural, coastal and port development areas.

Mornington is identified as a Major Town at the local level (Clause 21.04) and a Major Activity Centre in a metropolitan development planning and at Clause 21.07. A structure plan was prepared for the Mornington Activity Centre in 2007. Part of the cultural identity referred to above has a context in the perception of Mornington as “retaining its historic and salty village-‐by the sea character”. The Foreshore is identified as a separate and distinct precinct of the activity centre (pages 52 and 53).

• Mornington’s seaside setting is one of the Activity Centre’s most important strengths.

• Key aspects of the setting are Mornington Park, the iconic harbour, the historic pier and the beaches, all against the expansive backdrop of the bay…….



28

The structure plan identifies a poor interface between the foreshore and the activity centre, particularly in terms of pedestrian connection. It recommends among other matters:

• Enhancing the environmental qualities, recreational functions and iconic values of the foreshore and harbour,

• Improving opportunities for views, • Protecting views from the foreshore, harbour and pier back to the retail

core • Establishing a new and improved pedestrian routes to the foreshore, • Retain the foreshore reserve as Mornington’s most extensive open space

resource.

4.5.2 Assessment The enhanced capacity of the harbour as a result of the marina and the greater attraction of Mornington Harbour for trailer sailors, due to its improved safety, provides a basis to substantiate a view that these aspects of the proposal are supportive of building up the activity centre consistent with policy. Not only might this enhance retail and personal services but would make Mornington a more logical base for the development of boating and chandlery services. Despite the potential growth in traffic the proposal does not address the improvement of the pedestrian linkages between the activity centre and the foreshore, which is a priority regardless of the marina. Having regard to the earlier discussion regarding sustainable development and the protection of significant landscapes, the policy commentary on activity centre tends to reinforce a conservative approach to changes that would diminish the sense of the village and the iconic nature of the existing harbour. On the other hand planning authorities are encouraged to develop economic opportunities. Coastal tourism is specifically addressed at Clause 12.02-‐4 and seeks to encourage suitably located and designed coastal and marine tourism opportunities. The effective integration of the foreshore and activity centre would be a positive community benefit.



29

5 The impact upon precincts and users

5.1 Introduction

A finer grain of spatial analysis is warranted to understand the potential impact of the proposal upon different areas and precincts around Schnapper Point, and the diverse uses and users of those spaces. The background appraisal of the site and its environs in Section 3 has already disaggregated the port and its environs in to series of precincts to recognise the diversity of uses and spaces that make up this complex area. For this section I rely in part upon the Schnapper Point Framework Plan (June 2009) to provide both a systematic framework of sub area spaces and relevant assessment criteria. This plan was prepared for Council to provide a framework of analysis and direction for the further development of Schnapper Point. It has not been the subject of a planning scheme amendment process or Panel hearing and therefore should be valued in that light. None the less from my review it is a balanced and well considered document and in so far as it advances a series of assessment criteria to evaluate any proposal I consider it a useful tool for this report and amendment assessment.

The framework divides Schnapper Point into four principal areas:

• The beaches, • Mornington Park, • Boat access areas and the pier, • Red Bluff, The Esplanade and Cliffs.

To that group I have added:

• The Mornington Activity Centre • The residential headlands.

In the accompanying matrix at Attachment 5 I have sought to summarise the relationship between those precincts and the users and activities conducted in each. The matrix presents a summary of where the proposal, complements, or conflicts with various uses and users. I have been mindful of and reviewed the social impact assessment undertaken by the proponent and the similar review undertaken by Symplan on behalf of the Shire of Mornington Peninsula. In the latter report the author has addressed social and community impacts using a different methodology, arriving at similar conclusions as my report while confining the inquiry to a more discrete range of issues.



30

5.2 The Beaches

5.2.1 Existing conditions As previously noted there are three proximate beaches. Mothers Beach is the closest to the harbour and boating activity. It is:

• The safest with the shallowest water, • Most popular, • Sheltered from coastal conditions and with tree shade, • Proximate to toilets, parking and BBQ facilities.

It is an area for the conduct of most the beach activities noted in the matrix Scout Beach’s use is influenced by its narrower depth and off shore rocks, making it suitable for boat hire and fishing and less attractive for swimming. Shire Hall Beach is less sheltered, more exposed and the quietest of the three. It offers good swimming and recreational opportunities.

5.2.2 The proposal The proposed marina berths will be located in the immediate foreground to and outlook from Mothers and Scout’s Beaches. Further north from this point at Shire Hall Beach a more open aspect to the bay will be evident. The Marina berths will be located approximately 180 to 190 metres off shore with the boating passage or fairway to the ramp, travel lift and proposed wash down facilities located between the berths and the beaches, approximately 130 to 140 metres away. From Mothers and Scout Beaches the marina will appear as continuous forms of boats, berths and masts spanning a greater proportion of the open harbour and reducing views of the Bay available with the existing swing moorings. With the greater concentration of berths and improved boating launch and maintenance facilities I would anticipate growth in movements along the fairway between the ramp, marina and bay, across the face and proximate to the beaches.

5.2.3 Assessment − Enhance the synergies between the use of the beaches and other precincts at Schnapper Point.

There is potential conflict in this regard, confined to those beach uses such as swimming, kayaking, boating and other water based activity that might come



31

into conflict through shared use of the same water with the greater concentration and spread of boating associated with the marina. The groups that do not travel in excess of 140 metres from the water’s edge might be relatively small but remain a potential for conflict and concern for safety. It is accepted that the location of the ramp remains constant between the existing and proposed conditions and that there is an existing body of boat traffic across the face of the beaches. The proposal does not create a new problem but accentuates it by the definition of space for the marina and the greater potential frequency of movements. − Contribute to opportunities for recreational pursuits specific to the beaches, water’s edge and the water, up to the interface with the boating access to the public boat ramp.

For the above reasons the use of the beaches for some of those off shore water based activities may not be as attractive as a result of the marina. − Ensure a safe interface between boating and other uses of the water, in particular swimming.

The above comments apply in this context. − Respect the environmental and landscape values of the beaches and their green / cliff background and the marine values of the water’s edge.

The proposal will have no material impact on this consideration. − Not detract from the natural coastal processes or water quality. This consideration has been addressed in Section 4.2 of this evidence. − Minimise and where possible reduce the footprint of buildings and structures.

No change will be experienced in this regard. − Not detract from the views from the beaches to other precincts beyond. The proposal will have a material and detrimental impact in this regard, significantly changing the perception, character and informality of the harbour as experienced from the beaches, notably reducing the outlook to the open bay and beyond. The change will bring a sense of intensity of activity, formality and regimentation to the outlook, which may impact on the attraction and appeal of the beaches. The impact upon these views could be reduced by degree. The additions to the pier and associated wave screen would have the least impact and provide safety to the existing harbour. A marina that was either or both reduced in size and reorientated to provide view lines between the rows of berths would improve upon the proposed arrangement. Any reduction size should seek to reduce the



32

eastern extension of the marina and confine its expanse to the area closest to the existing harbour operations. − Improve pedestrian links between the beaches and the Esplanade / Schnapper Point Drive.

The proposal will not impact upon pedestrian linkages.

5.3 Mornington Park

5.3.1 Existing conditions Mornington Park is an important multi purpose public open space located at the interface between Schnapper Point and the Mornington Major Activity Centre. Locals and visitors use it for a range of passive and active recreational pursuits. It shares a frontage to Schnapper Pont Drive, which is also the primary access to the harbour and boating facilities. It provides extensive angle car parking which is of benefit and use to the park, the harbour and the activity centre.

5.3.2 The proposal Save for confined views from the park towards the harbour and the competing use of Schnapper Point Drive and its associated parking, there is no direct relationship or impact of the proposal on the park. The proposal should draw more people to the area and in turn this may be marked by regular or more intense use of the park.

5.3.3 Assessment In my opinion the harbour based proposal will have minimal impact on most of the assessment criteria for Mornington Park including:

• Enhance the synergies between the use of Mornington Park and other precincts of Schnapper Point.

• Respect the community values of Mornington Park and facilitate the continuation of a range of unstructured outdoor recreational activities and community events.

• Minimise and where possible reduce the footprint of buildings and structures.

• Ensure that commercial land uses, other than small food and drink premises catering for the existing users of the open space, are directed to the retail core of the activity centre.

The principal concern would be for pedestrian safety on and around Shnapper Point Drive. This is already a challenging environment particularly at busy period with pedestrians mingling with movement between the town and harbour and vehicles manoeuvring to park. The proposal does not present a new conflict but may entail a greater intensity of use and movement including a greater presence of boats on trailers. I am not qualified to comment on the merits of the current arrangement of pedestrian crossings, however these



33

should be reviewed in the event that the project was to proceed in its current form to ensure that all major desire lines and linkages give a high level of priority and protection in what is an area of high pedestrian activity involving the informality of recreational walking. These issues are raised by the following criteria:

• Enhance pedestrian links between the park and other localities of the precinct, and to the retail core of the activity centres.

• Improve safety for pedestrians crossing the Esplanade and Shnapper Point Drive.

I have noted above that there are limited views from the park to the marina. I do not consider the Mornington Park is among the primary view-‐points of the harbour. Any improvement of the views of the marina will be driven by the impact upon the views from Red Bluff, the Esplanade, the beaches and Schnapper Point access stairs and the park will be a beneficiary. The assessment criteria in this regard is:

• Not detract from views to the park or views from the park to the bay or the retail core of the activity centre.

5.4 Boat access areas and pier

5.4.1 Existing conditions

The boat access and pier area are a complex mix of activities and shared spaces and includes:

• The bay and the deep-‐water harbour with approximately 41 berths and 60 swing moorings. While sheltered to the south-‐west, the harbour is exposed to northerly winds and most boats are stored on land during winter.

• The heritage listed pier and smaller jetty provide moorings for recreational and commercial boating.

• A boat ramp that is a two-‐lane facility with associated temporary mooring facilities. I understand it is the most popular ramp in the region. The adjacent parking area provides for vehicles with trailers and access to Mothers Beach.

• The Mornington Yacht Club building and yard including a restaurant and kiosk / café.

This is an intensely used area in summer months, holiday periods and pleasant weekends. Activities encompass fishing, promenading, sight seeing and scuba diving, commercial and recreational boating, eating, socialising and other community activity.

5.4.2 The proposal It is in this space that the proposal will have the greatest physical impact and presence.



34

• The pier will be extended with the wave screen. • The new jetty will extend at the point that the existing jetty contacts the

land and branch off in to three parallel stretches of floating berths with a wave screen on the most northerly.

• The floating fuel and sewerage pump will be connected to the new jetty but will be accessed by boat via the space between the pier and the jetty.

• The new travelling lift for boats and wash down area are to be located proximate to the existing ramp, providing a consolidation of function that form a process of boat launching and retrieval.

• Approximately 12 swing moorings will be displaced to the east.

5.4.3 Assessment − Enhance the synergies between the use of the boat access and pier area and other precincts of Schnapper Point.

The core elements of the proposal will make a positive contribution to the safety of the harbour and the perception of the Mornington Harbour as among the regional coastal boating centres of the central coast. The association and synergy of Mornington with the bay should reinforce the role and potential of the activity centre as well as visitation and tourism to the area. − Respect the iconic role of the views to and from the precinct for the sense of place and coastal setting of the activity centre and township.

The proposal will not detract from the fundamental relationship of the bay and harbour as an extension of the town and its activity centre. However the sense of the place and its informal traditional pier and harbour character will change as noted elsewhere. The sense of the place and the iconic role conveyed by the views of the boat access area and pier would be more strongly held by a proposal that retained a far greater presence and number of swing or fore and aft moorings − Respect the community and heritage values of Mornington Pier and facilitate the continuation of its recreational opportunities.

The pier will remain an important promenading space, despite the approved and proposed works. It should become a safer environment for public congregation. It will remain a space for free informal access, a place to linger and watch and while away time with family or friends. These aspects of the proposal should be acknowledged as positive.

The division of space and the more intense use of the waters in and around the pier will have some effect upon users of the pier and jetty. For those who enjoy sightseeing for the hustle and bustle of boat based activity the proposal provides the promise of greater attraction, although in part that may be frustrated by the ability of the general public to access the spine of the floating berths to view the craft and the associated activity.



35

The siting of the floating fuel and sewerage pump-‐out pontoon will generate notably more motor-‐boat based activity as craft enter, wait and exit the space between the pier and the marina. Potentially this could be disruptive to those who use the pier for fishing as they cast their lines into waters more regularly used by boating traffic. − Respect the marine ecology and coastal processes of the precinct. This was addressed in section 4.2 of this report. − Recognise the area’s limited capacity for land-‐based infrastructure for boating.

The issues for space to store boats is not dissimilar to the discussion in section 4.3 on space for parking. In theory the shelter of the harbour and the marina may enable more boats to be left in the water throughout the year. − Contribute to the public accessibility of facilities, including facilities that provide for visiting yachts.

The proposal will not be completely positive to this outcome given that the public will be restricted from accessing the floating berth area. − Contribute to the provision of safe boating facilities. This is an area where the proposal will make considerable positive head way with beneficial outcomes for local and regional boating interests and emergency services. − Enhance the capacity and efficiency of motor boat launch facilities and the access to these facilities both from land and water.

The inclusion of expanded facilities and the reorganisation of space around the ramp will result in positive outcomes in this regard. − Enhance the capacity and efficiency of facilities for the mooring of sailing boats.

The marina would contribute positively to this outcome. − Ensure that the attributes of Mothers Bay are not adversely affected. For the reasons detailed in Section 5.2, addressing the Beaches, it can be concluded that the views and water-‐based activities associated with Mother’s beach would be compromised by the proposal. − Ensure a safe interface between boating and other uses of the water in particular swimming.

The above comments on detrimental consequences would apply tot his consideration. − Contribute to net reduction in on-‐land boat storage.



36

For the reasons noted above this may occur, but the proposal does not provide for a reduction in the on land storage area. − Enhance opportunities for food and drink premises. The proposal will maintain rather than enhance opportunities in this respect. Minimise and where possible reduce the footprint of buildings and structures. − Protect the profile of Schnapper Point Headland when viewed from the beaches.

While the elevate landform that constitutes Schnapper Point Headland would not be obliterated by this proposal, its presence and profile as a background to the harbour when viewed from the beaches will be partially masked by the density and proliferation of masts and other boating superstructure in the foreground created by the presence, scale and orientation of the marina. − Rationalise car and boat trailer circulation and parking. The proposal provides for this to occur. − Improve pedestrian priority over cars and enhance pedestrian links within this precinct and to adjacent precincts.

This is not addressed.

5.5 Red Bluff, The Esplanade and the cliffs

5.5.1 Assessment There are 10 assessment criteria advanced in the Schnapper Point Framework Plan for this precinct. For the sake of brevity there is only one that is relevant to the proposal, and accordingly I confine my commentary to that single criterion. − Enhance the view lines to and viewing opportunities of the harbour, the pier and the Schnapper Point and Red Bluff headlands and beyond.

From these more elevated vantage points, which also include the residential areas and properties further to the east, the proposal will result in a significant change in the character and appearance and sense of place associated with the harbour and its environs. The view lines and panorama will not diminish but as noted above I am concerned that the presence and density of craft within the confines and density of the marina will have the effect of partially obscuring and masking the activities of the harbour and the surrounding land forms.

5.6 The Mornington Activity Centre

5.6.1 Assessment



37

The Schnapper Point Framework Plan did not address this area. I have advanced a series of Assessment Criteria based on the style and scope of criteria used for other precincts and having regard to the relevant policy context. − Enhance the synergies between the use and development of the activity centre and the proposed development of the harbour.

The proposal has the potential to bring a greater number of people to Mornington Harbour and activity centre and therefore reinforce the synergies between the two precincts. The harbour is a short walking distance from the centre and the potential to generate movement and traffic between the two foci should be realised. I could envisage activity generated by the harbour reinforcing, retail and personal services in the activity centre. It would also enhance the appeal of the centre as a residential address offering proximity to the boating in a ‘sea-‐change’ environment. Enhance the attainment of the policy expectations of activity centre policy as it applies to the more intense use and development of land for retail, business, residential and recreational purposes. Enhance pedestrian links within the precinct and to adjacent precincts. Encourage use of the Schnapper Point area and activity centre as part of a single trip.



38

6 Net community benefit assessment and conclusions

Having regard to the foregoing analysis the following conclusions can be drawn about whether the project will result in a net community benefit. I find it useful to look at those provisions associated with enhancing the safety of the harbour and maintenance of boats separately from those that are associated with increasing its capacity.

6.1 Safety and maintenance This report started with a discussion about the priority to be placed upon public safety. In my opinion there will be considerable community benefit to be derived from the proposal to extend the pier and add the wave screens. Sailors and emergency personnel both locally and regionally will be provided with the proper and necessary protection from the storm conditions that can so quickly and unexpectedly be experienced on Port Phillip Bay. The pier and wave screen provisions would also positively respond to climate change implications provided that it is accepted that the design life of the facilities may be 50 years. Policy has recognised the need for a safe harbour and the proposal would deliver on that outcome, reinforcing the role of Mornington as a Regional Boating Harbour and fulfilling its role in the hierarchy and network of boat facilities. The harbour pier and jetty extensions provide growth and provision for public access and new fishing and walk areas, and the research seems to suggest that scuba divers would also benefit from the additional structures in the harbour environs. I foreshadow the safer conditions would make Mornington Harbour more attractive to trailer sailors in the region consolidating both the role of the harbour but also the function of the activity centre. The additional wash down facilities, travel crane and fuel / sewerage facility are additional positive features of the proposal, which will be of benefit to the boating community and the role and function of the harbour. They appear to be offer environment and sustainability benefits and complement the range of services that should be provided at a regional hub of boating. The principal cost of these proposals upon the community and environment appear to be confined to either short term localised impacts during construction, or associated with the longer term maintenance of the beaches arising from the changes in wave patterns and coastal processes. While the latter appear to entail long term monitoring and an ongoing maintenance cost to restore the effects of erosion and attrition, this could be seen as acceptable cost and consequence given the greater public benefit.



39

There is insufficient detailed evidence to objectively understand what effect the above works would have on the growth and demand for additional car parking arising from grater use of the ramp by trailer sailors. Being prudent it might be anticipated that there would be some growth and a need to provide some measures to address this need. Collectively these works and their consequences would retain the sense of place and cultural identity of the harbour.

6.2 Increased capacity The foregoing analysis has identified that while the inclusion of the marina would be of benefit to boat owners and users and would be one way of further complementing the regional role of the harbour, it is this aspect of the proposal that carries potentially the focus and burden of community costs associated with the overall proposal. To summarise those costs would be:

• The change to the character and appearance of the harbour which would incrementally diminishes the sense of the ‘iconic harbour’ adjacent to the ‘village’, varying it to a more intense and structured hybrid harbour / marina. This impact would be experienced by all users of the Schnapper Point and be particularly evident to users of the nearer beaches, whose appreciation of the bay would be diminished.

• The greater capacity of the marina would entail an assured increase in the demand for car parking, which the earlier analysis has identified would be difficult to accommodate and poses the challenge at peak times of a greater number of trips, greater congestion and frustration / conflict in using the location. In so far as this would probably coincide with the greater influx of visitors and tourists to the town and harbour it has a potential to have flow on effects that impact on groups that have no particular interest in boating.

• The spatial extent of the marina, the more intense use of the ramps and their proximity to the beaches poses the prospect of greater potential conflict with water uses, despite the demarcation of a passage for vessels.

• The marina embodies elements of both greater access and denial of public access to parts of the harbour area, as portions of the structure would be restricted to the general public.

• The proposal adds to the utilisation of Schnapper Point but does not provide for improved linkages to the activity centre.

It might be put that if private investment in harbour infrastructure is to occur as foreshadowed and encouraged by planning policy then these costs are a necessary consequence and outcome of that approach. I have not been privy to any feasibility and viability analysis to know whether that conclusion is well founded or whether the size scale and structure of the marina proposal needs to be as presented.



40

In the absence of that advice the following observations are relevant from a land use planning perspective. There is no absolute or fixed capacity upon the harbour. As noted earlier the experience of the harbour is dynamic with its occupancy by vessels varying on a seasonal, daily and hourly basis. Increasing and improving the safety of the harbour will also increase its capacity to accommodate more vessels on swing or fore and aft moorings throughout the year. In itself such growth would be consistent with the character and experience of the harbour and would not diminish public access particularly if the moorings were publicly available. While I have not had the benefit of design studies to explore and test other options it is reasonable to postulate that different balances of less marina structure and berths and greater conventional mooring would result in a less imposing outcome for users of the harbour environs and foreshore. Such studies might confine any marina facilities to shorter sections located closer to the existing Yacht club and be orientated to be minimise the impact for beach users. On balance I am of the view that the overall project concept would result in a net community benefit but that the marina component should be reviewed and redesigned with the following outcomes in mind.

• Greater protection of the established harbour character and utilisation patterns,

• Further minimisation of the potential conflict between water users and craft using the ramp and harbour,

• A reduction in the overall boat capacity to more closely align with the parking constraints proximate to the harbour and the physical constraints of the space between the beaches and the pier.



41

7 The appropriateness of the proposed zone

7.1 Introduction I have been asked to comment on the merit of rezoning the harbour and its environs from Public Conservation and Resource Zone (PCRZ) to the Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ). A rezoning of the land is required as a Pleasure Boat Facility is a prohibited use in the PCRZ unless conducted by a Public Land Manager. In forming an opinion I have had regard to the presence of the Environment Significance Overlay (Schedule 25) over essentially the same area as the PCRZ.

7.2 The zoning of the waters of the waters and harbours of Port Phillip Bay The zoning of land beyond the low water mark of Port Phillip Bay and the zoning of harbours in that area is inconsistently managed. In the Cities of Bayside and Kingston the off shore area is zoned PPRZ, in Frankston and Mornington Peninsula Planning Schemes the same zone is included in the PCRZ. The St Kilda Marina and the Sandringham Harbour are zoned PPRZ, Frankston Safe Harbour is zoned Special Use Zone 4 and the Safety Beach marina based development is also zoned Special Use Zone.

7.3 The Public Conservation and Resource Zone. The purposes of this zone do not clearly recognise the activities associated with a harbour or a pleasure boat facility because they are primarily focussed on the environmental and natural conditions up which the facility may be established and the language of ‘appropriate resource based uses’ is imprecise and ambiguous.

• To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework including the Municipal Strategic Statement and Local planning policies.

• To protect and conserve the natural environment and natural processes for their historic, scientific, landscape, habitat or cultural values.

• To provide facilities which assist in public education and interpretation of the natural environment with minimal degradation of the natural environment or natural processes.

• To provide for appropriate resource based uses. Regardless of the above technical reason requiring the rezoning of this land there is a reasonable case to put that this zone does not properly address the



42

land use planning challenge presented by harbours with their mixture of public and private assets. Nonetheless it is appropriate that there is appropriate control that specifically addresses the natural resource asset. The ESO fulfils that role.

7.4 The Public Park and Recreation Zone The purposes of this zone are far clearer in describing activities and uses associated with a harbour. In addition to the standard introductory purpose the zone provide for:

• To recognise areas for public recreation and open space. • To protect and conserve areas of significance where appropriate. • To provide commercial uses where appropriate.

Used in conjunction with ESO 25 a more effective balance is struck that recognises the land use and environmental context of the site and the expected outcomes.

7.5 Other choices The only other choices that I consider might have been applied are either the Special Use zone or the exemption provisions of Clause 52.03. I see no reason to apply the SUZ when there is a more precise and effective zone available for use in the PPRZ. Given my earlier criticism of the PCRZ, providing an exemption to overcome the limitations of the Public Land Manager role would not address the other fundamental short coming of the zone as noted above. Accordingly I endorse the approach to zoning as advanced by the proponent and the Planning Authority.



43

8 Attachment 1 -‐ Curriculum vitae

Robert Milner Dip T&CP, LFPIA, FVPELA

Qualifications and Positions • Director 10 Consulting Group Pty Ltd and The Milner Group Pty Ltd • Diploma in Town and Country Planning (First Class Honours) Liverpool

Polytechnic • Life Fellow Planning Institute of Australia • Fellow of the Victoria Planning and Environmental Law Association • Former State and National President of the Planning Institute of Australia • Member, Planning and Local Government Advisory Council (1994 – 1999) • Deputy Chairman, Future Farming Expert Advisory Group (2009)

Employment History 2010 – Current Director 10 Consulting Group Pty Ltd

1999 – Current General Manager, Senior Principal and Adjunct Senior Planning Counsel – Planning, CPG Australia Pty Ltd (Formerly the Coomes Consulting Group)

1994 – 1999 Director, Rob Milner Planning Pty Ltd and Savage Milner

1991 - 1994 Project Director, Collie Planning and Development Services

1988 – 1991 General Manager, Town Planning, Jones Lang Wootton

1980 - 1988 City Planner, City of Box Hill

1977 – 1980 Planner, Perrott Lyon Mathieson, Architects and Planners

1976 – 1977 Planner, Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council

Career Overview Rob Milner is a respected strategic and statutory planner. He is equally competent in urban and regional practice.

He is recognised as a leader of the planning profession in Victoria. He has had a high profile career spanning over 30 years with extended periods of experience working for local government and private practice.

Over the last decade he has worked with CPG Australia building that planning team to be one of the larger and most respected strategic and statutory practices in Victoria. The team was twice awarded planning consultant of the year in Victoria. Rob continues to work with CPG to deliver larger multi disciplinary strategic projects.

He has provided the strategic direction to many innovative multi-disciplinary policy and strategy-based projects for public sector clients.

He is an acknowledged advocate and negotiator and is regularly engaged in development approval and rezoning projects where process and relationships need to be carefully nurtured to insure a viable and timely outcome.

He is also regularly retained to provide expert evidence to courts, panels and tribunals on the broadest range of planning and compensation issues.

His ability to communicate effectively among a broad range of stakeholders means that he is regularly engaged to facilitate workshops, conferences, consultation and other situations where leadership and engagement of groups is required.

His clients have included many State government agencies (including planning, community development, justice, growth areas and regional development), municipalities throughout metropolitan Melbourne and regional Victoria, as well as a broad range of corporate and other private sector interests.

Robert Milner brings a high level of integrity to his work, choosing to participate on those projects that accord with his professional opinion.

Areas of expertise and experience

Strategic studies, policy development and statutory implementation Rob is widely acknowledged for his capacity to take a strategic perspective to urban and regional and planning challenges and provide direction and leadership that is responsive, creative and thoughtful in its strategic intent and detail. When combined with his depth of experience with strategic policy based planning schemes he is powerfully equipped to deliver sound advice on the spectrum of land use and development planning issues.

His strategic planning skills are ground in work experience at the State, regional, local and site specific levels dealing with the issues that affect a town or sub region or examining themes or subjects that span geographical areas. While working for CPG Australia he lead multi disciplinary planning teams that worked for clients that included DPCD, Department of Justice, Department of Innovation, Industry and Regional Development, and many municipal councils in metropolitan Melbourne and regional Victoria.

In 1994 he lead the planning consultancy that recommended the model for the Victorian Planning Provisions, the strategic policy driven planning scheme that is now consistently used throughout Victoria.

In 2009 Robert served as the Deputy Chairman on the Future Farming Expert Advisory Group reporting to the Minister for Planning. That work addressed a broad range of issues facing the next three decades of land use and development in regional Victoria.

Projects that he has lead or made a major contribution to have included the following:

Settlement strategies for regions and municipalities -‐ Moyne and Warrnambool (2009 – 2010) -‐ Colac Otway (2009 – 2010) -‐ Macedon Ranges (2010)

Structure Plans -‐ Broadmeadows Central Activities District 2010 -‐ Wonthaggi and Dalyston 2006 and 2009 -‐ Wonthaggi Development Plan 2009 -‐ Cobram 2006 -‐ Cowes Ventnor and Silverleaves 2008

Strategies -‐ Greater Shepparton 2030 -‐ City of Bairnsdale – Building a Better Bairnsdale

Expert evidence and advocacy Rob is regularly called upon to provide expert evidence and reports to clients, courts, Independent Panels and VCAT. He has acted in this capacity or as an advocate in over 800 cases during his career.

He is often retained to provide the strategic perspective to planning disputes. He is equally capable in commenting on matters of urban design, design detail and compliance with planning policy and provisions.

The scope of matters that he has addressed in this capacity is extremely diverse and includes the following.

-‐ Medium density and high rise residential development -‐ Greenfield, master planned communities in growth areas -‐ Waste management, quarries and landfill proposals -‐ Major shopping centres and mixed use developments -‐ Industrial and residential subdivisions -‐ Hotels, motels, restaurants and other leisure facilities -‐ Retirement villages -‐ Coastal developments -‐ Office and CBD projects -‐ Heritage projects -‐ Compensation and land acquisition matters -‐ Liquor licence and gaming proposal -‐ Freeway service centres and petrol stations -‐ Agribusiness centres

Legislative and planning scheme reviews and amendments Aside from Rob’s leadership of the consultant planning team that conceived the model for the Victorian Planning Provisions, he has been associated with many reviews of municipal planning schemes and amendments.

Planning scheme review usually takes the form of comprehensive research examining both the merits of the strategic policies as well as the statutory provisions. Wide ranging consultation is involved in the task.

Work associated with planning scheme amendments usually includes strategic justification of the proposal as well as statutory documentation and management of the process. The provision of expert evidence to independent panels is often involved.

In more recent times Rob has been involved in projects that entail a review of allied legislation as well as amendments to planning schemes. Recent relevant projects have included the following.

Reviews of Victorian planning provisions and allied legislation -‐ Activity Centre Zone construction and application in Footscray, Doncaster,

Knox and Sunshine -‐ Tramway infrastructure and the VPP’s -‐ Higher density living adjacent to tramway corridors -‐ Liquor Licensing legislation and planning provisions -‐ Gaming (EGM) policy and provisions for Councils -‐ Review of the Farming and Green Wedge zones for their economic

implications

Planning scheme reviews -‐ Shire of Surf Coast 2007 -‐ Shire of Wellington 2009 -10 -‐ Rural City of Horsham 2010

Organisation audits and process reviews Rob has a long and established career providing reviews of planning documents, teams and processes, particularly in a local government environment. Trained as a LARP facilitator in 1990 as part of a Commonwealth Government initiative his experience in this area commenced with the development of planning and building specifications for tenders as part of Compulsory Competitive tendering process and the coaching of bid teams. Since then Rob has developed a specialisation in providing reviews and recommendations to State and Local Government, which audit planning schemes, the performance of planning teams and departments and development approvals processes.

In the last 20 years he has worked with the majority of metropolitan councils and many regional municipalities; he prepared the model audit process for the

Department of Sustainability and Environment in 2003 and recently provided a facilitated program for the Department of Planning and Community Development reviewing how it processes planning scheme amendments. He has worked with Councils in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia.

He uses a range of audit techniques, extensive consultation with users of the processes and provides detailed strategies on necessary reforms.



44

9 Attachment 2 – Legislation , policy and the key themes of inquiry

Coas

tal

Envi

ronm

ent,

Reso

urce

s &

Risk

Sust

aina

ble

Deve

lopm

ent,

Boat

ing

and

Recr

eatio

n

Built

Env

ironm

ent

& He

ritag

e

Sett

lem

ent,

Activ

ity C

entr

es &

Ec

onom

ic

Deve

lopm

ent

Coas

tal M

anag

emen

t Ac

t 19

95

Port

Ser

vice

s Ac

t 19

95

Plan

ning

and

Env

ironm

ent

Act

1987

Crow

n La

nd (

Rese

rves

) AC

T 19

78

Envi

ronm

enta

l Pro

tect

ion

Act

1970

Natio

nal P

arks

Act

197

5

Fish

erie

s Ac

t 19

95

Mar

ine

Act

1988

Flor

a an

d Fa

una

Guar

ante

e Ac

t 19

88

Cons

erva

tion

Fore

sts

and

Land

s Ac

t 19

87

Herit

age

Act

1995

Envi

ronm

enta

l Pro

tect

ion

and

Biod

iver

sity

Cons

erva

tion

Act

1999

Arch

aeol

ogic

al a

nd A

borig

inal

Rel

ics

Pres

erva

tion

Act

1972

Mel

bour

ne 2

030

Mel

bour

ne @

5 M

illion

(20

08)

Mor

ning

ton

Peni

nsul

a Pl

anni

ng S

chem

e -

Stat

e Pl

anni

ng P

olic

y Fr

amew

ork

Vict

oria

n Co

asta

l Str

ateg

y (2

008)

Park

s Vi

ctor

ia B

ay's

for L

ife S

trat

egy

Legisla(

on, Policy an

d Th

emes

Key

Them

es

Legislation State Policy

Coas

tal

Envi

ronm

ent,

Reso

urce

s &

Risk

Sust

aina

ble

Deve

lopm

ent,

Boat

ing

and

Recr

eatio

n

Built

Env

ironm

ent

& He

ritag

e

Sett

lem

ent,

Activ

ity C

entr

es &

Ec

onom

ic

Deve

lopm

ent

Boat

ing

Coas

tal A

ctio

n Pl

an (

2007

)

Mt

Eliz

a to

Poi

nt N

epea

n Co

asta

l Act

ion

Plan

202

1 (2

005)

Port

Phi

lip a

nd W

este

rn P

ort

Regi

onal

Cat

chm

ent

Stra

tegy

200

4 - 2

009

Safe

ty a

nd E

nviro

nmen

tal M

anag

emen

t Pl

ans

Mar

ine

Prot

ecte

d Ar

eas

Man

agem

ent

Plan

s

Mor

ning

Pen

insu

la P

lann

ing

Sche

me

- Loc

al P

lann

ing

Polic

y Fr

amew

ork

and

Mun

icip

al S

trat

egic

Sta

tem

ent

Mor

ning

ton

Activ

ity C

entr

e St

rictu

re P

lan

(200

2)

Mor

ning

ton

Coas

tal M

anag

emen

t Pl

an (

to b

e co

mpl

eted

)

Prop

osed

Saf

e Ha

rbou

r Dev

elop

men

t M

orni

ngto

n Ha

rbou

r Mor

ning

ton

Yach

t Cl

ub (

May

200

6) E

ES A

sses

smen

t Gu

idel

ines

Si(ng and

Design Guide

lines fo

r Structures on the Victorian

Coa

st (1

998)

Land

scap

e SeCng Types fo

r the Victorian

Coa

st 199

8

Schn

appe

r Po

int F

ramew

ork Ac(on

Plan (2009)

Legisla(

on, Policy an

d Th

emes Con

t.

OtherRegional Policy Local Policy

Key

Them

es



45

10 Attachment 3 – Environmental Risks – Mt Eliza to Point Nepean Coastal Action Plan 2021



46

11 Attachment 4 – Facilities and Services at Boating Facilities – Boating Coastal Action Plan (2007)



47

12 Attachment 5 – Uses, Users and spaces – impact assessment

Beac

hes

Mor

ning

ton

Park

Boat

ing

Acce

ss A

rea

and

Pier

Red

Bluf

f, Es

plan

ade

and

Cliff

s

Resid

entia

l He

adla

nd

Mor

ning

ton

Activ

ity

Cent

re

Wat

er B

ased

- Sw

imm

ers

!"#$%&'()"

*+,

!"#$%&'()"

*+,

*+,

*+,

- Ky

aker

s!"#$%&'()"

*+,

!"#$%&'()"

*+,

*+,

*+,

- Sc

uba

dive

rs*+,

*+,

!"#$%$-#

*+,

*+,

*+,

- Fi

shin

g*+,

*+,

!"#$%&'()"

*+,

*+,

*+,

- Ot

her w

ater

ac

tiviti

es!"#$%&'()"

*+,

!"#$%&'()"

*+,

*+,

*+,

Fore

shor

e Ba

sed

- Tr

aini

ng./-0&1

2&%3/"45+5#%&6

'*+,

./-0&1

*+,

*+,

Wal

kers

/

Prom

enad

ers

./-0&1

2&%3/"45+5#%&6

'./-0&15+57&%3/"45&"8

59%&6

'./-0&1

*+,

*+,

Cycli

sts

*+,

9%&6

'9%&6

'./-0&1

*+,

*+,

Park

Use

rs*+,

2&%3/"45+5#%&6

'*+,

*+,

*+,

*+,

Emer

genc

y Se

rvic

es*+,

*+,

:&;$#<+;&'/1/($

-*+,

*+,

*+,

Boat

ing

- Re

crea

tiona

l!"#$%&'()"

*+,

:&;$#<+;&'/1/($

-*+,

*+,

*+,

- Co

mm

erci

al!"#$%&'()"

*+,

:&;$#<+;&'/1/($

-*+,

*+,

*+,

- Ya

cht C

lub

Mem

bers

!"#$%&'()"

*+,

:&;$#<+;&'/1/($

-*+,

*+,

*+,

Resid

ents

*+,

*+,

*+,

./-0&1

./-0&1

=)>7$

()"5;)%57&%3/"4

Busin

esse

s -

Mor

ning

ton

MAC

*+,

*+,

?0-/"$

--*+,

*+,

?0-/"$

--5-07

7)%#

- Th

e Qu

ay

*+,

*+,

?0-/"$

--*+,

*+,

!"#"$%

=)>7&#&@1$50-$%-5

&"85-7&'$-

=)"A

/'("

450-$%-5

&"85-7&'$-

Prec

inct

s Users

&'"(')*$%

)'+*

,"')-),.$

/0,1')*$

%),.2+01*304015

Date post:	16-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	trinhxuyen
View:	218 times
Download:	3 times

Amendment’C107Mornington’PeninsulaPlanning’Scheme ... ·...

Documents