Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan

Introduction

 

The Armstrong Creek UGP envisages expanding urban Geelong by 54,000 residents, or around 25%, in the next fifty years. Consequently, the Plan is an extensive and complex document. The UGP is characterised by a central strategic tension between further suburbanisation (and sprawl) on the one hand, and imperatives for more environmentally- and socially-sensitive urban design on the other hand. Many of the planning elements focused on sustainable development are to be applauded. Scepticism still exists in the ability of Council through this Plan to implement these provisions and policies. The UGP gives little direction in relation to binding mechanisms and instruments required to give effect to policies express or implied in the document. The Greens propose amendment to some of the fundamental principles of the Plan, with a view to overcoming strategic tensions. Additionally, we propose confirmation of funding or other necessary measures from relevant agencies in relation to key services and infrastructure prior to any final commitment to the Plan. Finally, we make recommendations regarding particular heritage proposals and provisions for biodiversity corridors and employment land.

 

Summary of Recommendations

 

Recommendation 1:

It is recommended that the Plan be accompanied by, or at least foreshadow, policy and statutory mechanisms and/or instruments that will be necessary to give effect to guiding principles.

 

Recommendation 2:

Reduce projected population at Armstrong Creek by at least 25% (or to a maximum of 40,000), primarily in low-density zones, to reduce suburban sprawl and development pressures. In addition, realign the UGP boundaries to remove residential development south of Armstrong’s Creek and to the east of Barwon Heads Rd.

 

Recommendation 3:

Refocus urban design strategy for Geelong generally on urban consolidation within existing city boundaries.

 

Recommendation 4:

Avoid suburban sprawl (“unintentional”) development planning for Armstrong Creek and put in place planning mechanisms to encourage hamlet and/or intentional community development models beyond the current limited vision for these models.

 

Recommendation 5:

Establish appropriate statutory and/or policy instrument to give effect to requirement that all dwellings and buildings in the development zone are meet minimum 6-star environmental efficiency rating. Establish a timetable for moving to a higher rating standard over time.

 

Recommendation 6:

Confirm public transport funding mechanisms, infrastructure and organisation adequate to the vision of the UGP prior to project commencement.

 

Recommendation 7:

Confirm infrastructure spending commitments by relevant agencies (and/or funding mechanisms) for recycled water technology and renewable energy systems prior to commencement of the project.

 

Recommendation 8:

In consultation with the local Aboriginal community, establish a heritage trail along the traditional Wathaurong route including Armstrong Creek as a matter of priority.

 

Recommendation 9:

Undertake further archaeological within the development zone with a view to identifying and protecting Aboriginal and European heritage sites.

 

Recommendation 10:

Accommodate (heavy) industrial employment within the UGP and incorporate industrial land to the west of Ghazapores Rd into the UGP framework.

 

Recommendation 11:

Substantially expand protective buffers on biodiversity corridors, including Armstrong Creek, and reserves, to protect biodiversity and heritage values. 

 

Recommendation 12:

Hydrological research into the effects of the UGP on the Lower Barwon estuarine system, and appropriate policy responses and measures, needs to be undertaken prior to commencement of the project.

 

Recommendation 13:

Downgrade Barwon Heads Rd from a major route to minor local route. Divert Bellarine Peninsula traffic from Barwon Heads Rd to Torquay or Ghazapore Rd’s, via Lower Duneed Rd.

 

Overview of UGP

 

The Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan (UGP) envisages expansion of urban Geelong to the south of the existing city, from the suburbs of Grovedale and Waurn Ponds toward Torquay. This UGP encompasses a period of approximately fifty years, and is intended to be the primary growth corridor for Geelong over that time. The UGP is proposed as the key urban development strategy for Geelong. It is anticipated that the growth area will accommodate around 54,000 people, include industrial/commercial zones, open space, non-developable areas and infrastructure zones. This is around a 25% expansion of Geelong’s population over this timeframe.

 

Origins of the UGP lie in proposals put forward in the mid-1980s by the then Geelong Regional Commission and reiterated in subsequent strategic planning documents, such as the CoGG 1996 Urban Growth Strategy. The strategy originally proposed by the GRC combined expansion in the Armstrong Creek area with expansion in the Barabool Hills area, with a smaller-scale development for Armstrong Creek than currently proposed.

 

Consistent with the scale of the project, the UGP is substantial in its scope and complexity. Without seeking to detract from the detail and particularity of the UGP, the following can be identified as general, key themes underpinning the Plan and its urban development strategy:

 

a.      The UGP contains important measures aimed at incorporating new, progressive and environmentally-sensitive design principles into development at Armstrong Creek. These measures include requirements for mixed housing densities, greenways and other open spaces, high penetration of public transport and other strategies (eg “walkability”) design to overcome “car dependency,” water-sensitive urban design and energy efficiency (including renewable energies) in infrastructure development, and protection of biodiversity and heritage values.

b.      The growth area will contain various subregional and neighbourhood centres, as longer-term development nodes (“activity centres”), as well as industrial and commercial zones aimed at creating a local economy and local communities, and avoiding an overwhelming “dormitory suburb” character.

c.      Residential development will continue to favour low-density housing overall (approximately 70%), and initial developments will be based on this type of housing, including building out from existing suburban areas (eg Grovedale). This process will be part of a “staging” plan for development and service-delivery, which includes land release in 10-year cycles and gradual “maturing” of areas (eg increasing densities over time).

d.      The UGP will be accompanied by a range of further Plans and other instruments, including statutory instruments, applicable to the scale and subject-matter of development as the development process unfolds over time.

e.      Development of Armstrong Creek will be governed and managed by the CoGG.

 

The language and themes of the UGP remain overly cautious and indeterminate in status. Particular provisions of the Plan, expressed for instance as “principles,” may be described as aspirational rather than effective or binding. The UGP gives little direction in relation to binding mechanisms and instruments required to give effect to policies express or implied in the document.

 

 

With respect to this cursory overview, several issues may be identified in the Plan, from which particular submissions arise.

 

Tensions and contradiction within the urban growth strategy generally

 

The UGP appears as the culmination of two urban planning and design tendencies, which do not necessarily sit easily together. The strategy underpinning the UGP is to extend Geelong along a suburban axis south of the existing urban area, while at the same time seeking to apply stronger sustainability principles as an antidote to adverse effects of suburban sprawl.[1] In addition, the development area is contiguous with existing suburban zones, notably at Grovedale and Marshall. The latter are acknowledged as containing urban design elements characteristic of suburban sprawl, especially in regards to development based on car dependency. As part of the staging process, the UGP will concentrate development at two key sites – Marshall and Torquay Rd – in low-density housing densities. There is a substantial risk in this “staging” plan of reproducing the expectations and models of existing suburban sprawl within the development area (Figure 1).

 

In part, it may be surmised that the manifest tension within the UGP regarding suburban sprawl is attributable to changing approaches to urban design and greater awareness of (and technical proficiency in) sustainability principles in urban planning. Ecologically sustainable development (ESD) principles have been officially adopted within government since at least the early 1990s. While undoubtedly in evidence in the UGP, the prevailing strategic premise of continued suburban expansion appears to affirm relatively outdated philosophies and approaches for Geelong’s urban design. The original proposals for urban expansion at Armstrong Creek pre-date moves toward ESD and complementary urban planning models.[2] The UGP reflects this somewhat anachronistic factor in its urban design projections for Geelong.

 

Notwithstanding prospective moves toward urban consolidation strategies for Geelong, such as in a new Municipal Strategic Statement, overall strategic planning for Geelong should prioritise urban consolidation within existing urban boundaries over the Armstrong Creek urban growth corridor. This would require substantial revision of the UGP, including curtailing of the scope and size of the project and of planned population volumes.

 

In order to ease development pressures which are likely to arise as a result of the suburban sprawl/sustainable development tension, it is submitted that the size of Armstrong Creek be reduced, from approximately 54,000 residents to a maximum of 40,000, with the reduction principally occurring in “conventional density” zones.[3]

 

Recommendation 2: Reduce projected population at Armstrong Creek by at least 25% (or to a maximum of 40,000), primarily in low-density zones, to reduce suburban sprawl and development pressures. In addition, realign the UGP boundaries to remove residential development south of Armstrong’s Creek and to the east of Barwon Heads Rd.

 

Recommendation 3: Refocus urban design strategy for Geelong on urban consolidation within existing city boundaries.

 

 

 

Figure 1: Suburban housing, Grovedale, at margins of the development area.

 

Housing densities, environmental ratings, and community models

 

In the circumstances that the CoGG proceeds with the UGP substantially in its existing form, we submit that revisions ought to be made to provisions in relation to housing and community form. Currently, proposed ratios of low- to higher-density housing are approximately 70% to 30%. It is not unexpected in this context that approximately 80% of residential areas will be low-density housing.[4] It is recognised that these figures are within the thresholds proposed by, for instance, the 1996 Urban Growth Strategy.[5] On the scale proposed by the UGP, these ratios remain consistent with, and will reproduce the expectations of, suburban sprawl in the development zone. It may be anticipated that key elements of the UGP will modify the tendencies to suburban sprawl, in particular the focus in the structure plan of numerous “activity centres” and “neighbourhood centres.” Such structures with the UGP are supported, and it is important and significant that these centres are configured in such a way as to encourage and facilitate walking and cycling within the development area. However, if finer-scale building and planning models for low-density areas replicate current practice (exhibited, for instance, in newer suburban developments on Geelong’s periphery and in the regional towns), the density ratio ought to be shifted in favour of higher density developments in closer proximity to activity centres.[6] This may require reconsideration of the “staging plan.”

 

An alternative model lies in the proposal for ecovillage developments. It is unfortunate that this development model receives only cursory reference on p. 150 of the UGP Vol 1. Ecovillage, or intentional community, developments represent a substantial break with the existing patterns and behaviours of suburban sprawl. They possess potential for greater flexibility and innovation in community organisation and living within the development zone. Notably, they tend to assert strongly sustainability principles, consistent with the UGP, and would likely achieve sustainability targets higher than those proposed or implied in the UGP. Also, they are premised on planned communities and actively engaged citizens, not simply the physical elements of urban planning.[7] Community models have encompassed a broad range of settings, housing densities and philosophical underpinnings.[8]

 

US research suggests that quality of life is higher under this development model than in conventional models and living practices are measurably more sustainable.[9] It is submitted that the eco-village/intentional community model should achieve greater attention, support and priority within the UGP. The current provision for investigation of “one or two” such developments ought to be replaced with appropriate and binding targets for ecovillage-type developments.

 

The ecovillage model may also be extrapolated as a series of “hamlets” across the residential zones, rather than an amorphous mass of suburban housing. This would require, for instance, revegetation zones, biodiversity zones, commons or other green spaces interspersing each site. There are some tendencies to this in the existing greenways. This would amount to a qualitative redesign of the structure plan in relation to residential/housing zones.

 

Notwithstanding expansion of the ecovillage model, it is imperative that housing and other buildings within the development zone be underpinned by stringent environmental efficiency ratings. In light of the climate change/global warming crisis, recently confirmed by the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change,[10] this represents essential CoGG policy in response to national and global action on climate change. The UGP currently implies a 5-6 star rating system for residential and/or commercial buildings: that is, requirement for solar energy systems and rainwater harvesting.[11] It is submitted that mandatory minimum ratings of 6-star resource efficiency need to apply to all buildings in the development zone, and that this should be established as CoGG policy as a matter of priority. CoGG must then establish a timetable for progressive implementation of higher energy ratings for dwellings and buildings over time, consistent with the “staging plan.”

 

Recommendation 4: Avoid suburban sprawl (“unintentional”) development planning for Armstrong Creek and put in place planning mechanisms to encourage hamlet and/or intentional community development models beyond the current limited role for these models.

 

 

Transport

 

The Greens strongly support the stated objectives of the UGP to move away from car dependency and promote a range of alternative transport modes. Car dependency is a primary symptom of suburban sprawl and it has been identified with adverse health and environmental effects.[12] Transport is one of the fastest growing greenhouse gas emission sectors and this is led by road transport.[13] Structural measures to achieve sustainable transport objectives are also strongly supported. These include urban design around activity centres, the principle of a “walkable” development, high penetration of greenways and cycle routes, and plans for high public transport penetration. These measures are to be commended, especially where they coincide with the protection (and improvement) of open space, biodiversity and heritage zones and corridors.

 

On a more cautious note, and consistent with the points above, we are concerned that there exist significant countervailing pressures to these progressive features in transport and urban planning.

 

Plans for high public transport penetration in Armstrong Creek can be contrasted with poor existing public transport services in Geelong and very low rates of patronage. We would largely concur with the analysis and proposals of the Public Transport Users Association in relation to the public transport situation in Geelong.[14] Without substantial and demonstrable shifts in transport policy and practice (at all levels of government), it is difficult to see how the projections of the UGP are to be delivered. Failure to deliver strong public transport outcomes for Armstrong Creek would arguable compromise delivery of other outcomes (eg reduction in car dependency).

 

State Government commitment to substantial and sustained improvements in Geelong’s public transport system is a pre-requisite for the viability of the transport projections for Armstrong Creek, if not the project generally.

 

Internal focus on “walkable” developments and cycling is to be applauded. Lack of comparable infrastructure, such as cycleways, in contiguous suburbs will be problematic and tend to restrict use of more sustainable transport modes to “internal” trips. In effect, the existing southern suburbs (and suburbs beyond the Barwon River to the north-east) create a relatively “unsustainable” buffer between Armstrong Creek and the rest of urban Geelong.

 

Greenways and other sustainable transport infrastructure[15] need to be extended into adjoining suburbs, to shopping centres and central Geelong. Promotion of non-car motorised transport, such as scooters and smaller motorbikes, should be part of the sustainable transport mix and road development needs to be sympathetic to these modes.

 

Finally, a proposed route for an East-West Link Road is included in the UGP. This route is placed through a biodiversity corridor, with likely adverse impact on that corridor (see Figure 2). Moreover, this proposal highlights the need for a more wide-ranging review of Geelong’s road transport arrangements. One of the prevailing rationales for Vicroad’s realignment of Breakwater Road, against local resident opposition, is to ease East-West traffic flows through central Geelong. The proposed East-West Link in the UGP appears to be (or at least is meant to be) a more effective response to this problem. In that case, the Breakwater project would appear to be an ad hoc and potentially redundant response to this traffic issue.

 

 

 

 

Figure 2: Proposed East-West Link Rd corridor

 

Water and Energy

 

The Greens strongly support the water-sensitive urban design elements and the commitments to sustainable energy policies proposed in the UGP.[16] We note in particular the commitments to “third pipe” recycling technology, mandatory rainwater harvesting and low water gardens, and mandatory solar energy capture. We reiterate that greater use of, and targets for, ecovillage/intentional community development models would significantly assist these efforts. As far as practicable, the Armstrong Creek communities should move toward self-sufficiency in resource requirements, such as water, energy and waste disposal. This principle should be factored into pricing models for development and land release.

 

Moves toward self-sufficiency in relation to water are a longer-term imperative. This is reinforced by climate change scenarios including low-rainfall projections informing the State Government’s Sustainable Water Strategy: Central Region.[17] Self-sufficiency initiatives will be essential to preclude other, adverse developments such as large-scale water extraction from the Newlingrook Aquifer (proposed in the Central Region Water Strategy), which would have long-term detrimental impact on the Gellibrand River.

 

Recommendation 7: Confirm infrastructure spending commitments by relevant agencies (and/or funding mechanisms) for recycled water technology and renewable energy systems prior to commencement of the project.

 

Heritage protection

 

The Greens strongly support the Koori and European heritage protection measures proposed in the UGP.[18] In particular, we support stronger interpretive measures, and further archaeological work, under the leadership and supervision of the appropriate Aboriginal authority. The opportunity presented by the UGP should be taken to establish a trail along the traditional Wathaurong route between Mt. Moriac, Armstrong Creek, Reedy Lake and the coast, recognised as an ancient “right of way” of the local Koori community. The CoGG should seek protection of this route under relevant heritage legislation or alternatively under its own statutory instruments. This trail should be established and built as a matter of priority in development “staging,” and should primarily exist as an unpaved bush trail within substantial biodiversity corridors. We support the requirement for archaeological assessment of development sites prior to the issuing of relevant permits.

 

Recommendation 8: In consultation with the local Aboriginal community, establish a heritage trail along the traditional Wathaurong route including Armstrong Creek as a matter of priority.

 

Recommendation 9: Undertake further archaeological within the development zone with a view to identifying and protecting Aboriginal and European heritage sites.

 

Industrial zones/economic strategy

 

The Greens support the principle of developing local economies within the development area, and therefore moving away from the dormitory suburb trends that have affected Geelong. One of the most significant indicators of this trend is the net “export” of employment out of the Geelong region.

 

The UGP suggests that the appropriate industrial/employment strategy for this region is a dual economy consisting of high-tech manufacturing on the one hand and services provision on the other hand. While these aspirations appear consistent with prevailing economic-development rhetoric, they also appear to discount important realities in Geelong’s existing and historic labour markets: trade, labouring and related jobs (ie industrial, blue collar employment) are over-represented in Geelong compared to the State average. These sectors will need to be accounted for in employment land use zoning. It is suggested that land to the west of Ghazepore’s Rd, currently outside of the development area, be set aside for industrial employment use (a quarry is already proposed for this site) (see Figure 3).

 

 

 

 

Figure 3: Industrial land (future quarry site) to west of development area, Ghazapores Rd

 

Buffers on biodiversity corridors and “edge” effect in biodiversity zones

 

The Greens support moves to protect biodiversity zones in the Armstrong Creek area, notably where these are extant along stream and road corridors, in floodplains, and in remnant reserves such as at Stewart’s Reserve and Mt Duneed reserve. It important that these areas will be protected with appropriate overlays. It appears that areas of remnant vegetation on private land will also be protected. The Greens support the development of greenways and/or other trails along relevant biodiversity corridors.

 

There are notable limits or shortcomings in relation to some of these biodiversity zones that need to be remedied:

 

·         Buffers on streams and other corridors do not appear to account for the important “edge” effect that exists at the margins of remnant vegetation patches. This effect refers in particular to the penetration of weed species into patches of native vegetation, subverting the integrity and biodiversity of those patches. In urban areas, this edge effect can be significant, especially in corridor patches. Given the extent of proposed development, all relevant biodiversity zones need to be expanded to incorporate buffers to account for edge effects. Where necessary this will need to be done by revegetation. Widening the buffers along Armstrong Creek itself would also appear necessary in development of a heritage trail (see Figure 4).

·         The proposed East-West Link Road is situated in part on a Barwon Water reserve and intends, on the UGP, to pass through a biodiversity corridor. While there may be merits to this route, the development of a relatively major route such as this would conflict with the biodiversity values of that corridor.

 

 

 

 

Figure 4: Armstrong Ck, from Airport Rd (left), and watercourse adjacent to Barwon Heads Rd (right) proposed as a biodiversity corridor.

 

Hydrologic impact on Lower Barwon River estuarine system

 

The UGP development area borders to the east the Lower Barwon estuarine system. As with estuarine ecosystems generally, the Lower Barwon ecology, including Lake Connewarre, depends on complex relationships, cycles and exchanges of fresh and saline water. These occur through flows originating in the Barwon and Moorabool catchments, on the one hand, and tidal effects on the other hand. The natural estuarine flow regimes have been altered since the middle of the 19th century, beginning with the emplacement of the upper breakwater to stop salt-water flows into the Barwon River through Geelong. The Lower Barwon is likely to be affected by long-term altered/reduced flows into the Lake system as a consequence of global warming and associated low inflow scenarios. Anthropogenic (human-induced) changes have important impacts on ecosystems in the Lower Barwon.[19]

 

Notwithstanding WSUD measures in the UGP, it is foreseeable and likely that urban development in the Armstrong Creek catchment will affect the hydrologic regime in the Lower Barwon still further. Greater areas of impermeable surface characteristic of urban development increase surface flow volumes and velocity. The UGP also envisages various flow interception structures (dams, retarding basins, etc). Hydrology in the catchment is likely to be significantly modified, especially in terms of a complex relationship between growth in impervious surface area, semi-pervious or impervious artificial structures to be emplaced, and 28 retarding basins. Calculation of flow regimes within the UGP development zone, based upon these variables, and with a view to the ecological health of the Lower Barwon system, will be a challenging task.[20]

 

 

The future of Barwon Heads Road

 

A relatively small “enclave” of residential and commercial land is proposed for the east side of Barwon Heads Rd, bounded to the east by rural land and flood plain. As a major road, Barwon Heads Rd represents a major impediment to access from this enclave from the proposed activity centres on Horseshoe Bend Rd.

 

It is submitted that Barwon Heads Road should be downgraded from a major road to a minor local traffic route. Traffic from the Bellarine Peninsula to the south ought, alternatively to be channelled away from this route at Lower Duneed Rd and to the north at Torquay Rd or Ghazapore’s Rd (where it would connect with Angleasea Rd). This would also allow Barwon Heads Rd to be partially rehabilitated as a greenway or multi-modal transport route.

 

Recommendation 13: Downgrade Barwon Heads Rd from a major route to minor local route. Divert Bellarine Peninsula traffic from Barwon Heads Rd to Surfcoast Hwy or Ghazapore Rd’s, via Lower Duneed Rd.