Use of ‘should’ and ‘must’ DELWP and Mr McGurn NA Accept Accept Need for a more direct alignment of the north/south connector road with existing roads in the adjoining residential area to the north and south DEDJTR Not supported Not supported - the north/south road is located centrally on the site and alignment with other external streets will create new intersections that would require infrastructure upgrades; none of which are included in the Shared Infrastructure Funding Plan Not supported. Refer to Section 7.3 Need for a primary east/west street ideally in a continuous alignment with either Sandbar or Anchor/Clyde Streets DEDJTR Not supported Not supported - east/west primary road is not required as major routes to the town centre and foreshore will be on Leviens and Bluff Roads, the link with Pearl Bay Passage will allow local access to adjoining estates and the alternatives would require further private land purchase to allow for the connections Not supported. Refer to Section 7.3 Cross sections in the Mr McKinley’s evidence (Appendix A) need to be amended to allow for cycling, dedicated cycle treatment on Bluff Road and primary north/south and east/west roads is required. The 2.5 metre wide shared path should be widened to 3 metres DEDJTR Supports the update to Appendix A Not supported - the 2.5m wide shared path should not be widened to 3m. This is consistent with the Greater Geelong growth area planning standards and VicRoads Cycle Notes – Widths of Shared Use Paths June 2010 DDO39 requires a traffic and pedestrian movements report that is consistent with the November 2014 Cardno report which Mr McKinley authored. The Panel therefore supports the update of Appendix A The Panel agrees with Council that a 2.5 m wide footpath is appropriate
Proponent should only be responsible for Bluff Road drainage, parking and footpath on the north side only, not both Mr McKinley on behalf of SLPH Supported Council submitted this misinterprets the purpose and function of the linear open space. A shared path will be located within the linear open space to replace the need for a footpath in the road reserve, subject to arboriculture assessments. Similarly, the road pavement width should be determined following these assessments noting that on-street parking is unlikely to be necessary given there will be no direct lot access The Panel agrees with Council A footpath along McBeth Street is not required or justified Mr McKinley on behalf of SLPH Supported Not supported. Refer to Section 7.4 for discussion Restriction of the oval shape around the north-west intersections to just the Murradoc Road/Leviens Road intersection Mr McKinley on behalf of SLPH Supported Not supported As the responsibilities for the upgrade of this 3-way intersection are known the Panel agrees with SLPH the oval shape should be reduced to apply to the Leviens Road/Murradoc Road intersection and have an additional notation on the ODP that states such *The proponents refer to either or all of the individual landowners Council submitted that the Stormwater Management Plan be finalised before the adoption of the Amendment by Council. This was not to be a requirement of the DDO39 however Council conveyed this to the Panel during the hearing. Council advised this was based on: A holistic drainage strategy (SSMP) should form a reference document for the entire growth area given the implication of a DDO that all parcels can develop independently Previous advice (pre & post application) asks for a flood report in accordance with best practice, i.e. a full, proper and final flood impact assessment from which detail