Torquay Jan Juc Neighbour Hood Character Study

Help plan our future
TORQUAY/JAN JUC
neighbourhood character study &

vegetation assessment
Draft - May 2006

Torquay-Jan Juc Neighbourhood Character Study
Table of Contents
Executive Summary......................................................................................................... 3
1. Context…………………………………………………………………………………… 5
2. Methodology.......................................................................................................... 7
3. Assessment of Key Character Elements…………………………………………... 12
Preferred Character………………………………………………………..................... 12
Vegetation Cover and Natural Features………………………………………………. 15
Building Form…………………………………………………………………………….. 20
Building Setbacks……………………………………………………………………….. 25
Fencing…………………………………………………………………………………… 27
4. Vegetation assessment………………………………………………………............ 28
5. Review of Planning Controls………………………………………………….......... 40
Existing Planning Controls………………………………………………..................... 40
Zones and Overlays………………………………………………………………......... 44
Analysis of Existing Controls…………………………………………………………… 68
Review of Planning Controls………………………………………………….............. 70
6. Other Matters………………………………………………………………………....... 72
7. Actions………………………………………………………………………………...... 74
Appendices
1. “A Study of Resident Perceptions of Neighbourhood Character: Torquay/Jan Juc” (Dr

Ray Green, 2003)
2. “Torquay/Jan Juc Neighbourhood Character Study - Vegetation Report” (Mark
Trengove, September 2003)
3. Indigenous Planting Guide (Surf Coast Shire, 2003)
4. Data collected from Physical Survey (Surf Coast Shire, 2003)
5. Precinct Descriptions
6. Case Studies of Existing Developments
Maps
1A & 1B Neighbourhood Character Precincts – Torquay
1C Neighbourhood Character Precincts – Jan Juc
2A & 2B Vegetation Types – Ecological Vegetation Class (EVC)
3A & 3B Surf Coast Planning Scheme – Zones (Torquay)
3C Surf Coast Planning Scheme – Zones (Jan Juc)
4A & 4B Surf Coast Planning Scheme – Design & Development Overlay (Torquay)
4C Surf Coast Planning Scheme – Design & Development Overlay (Jan Juc)
4D & 4E Surf Coast Planning Scheme – Significant Landscape Overlay (Torquay)
4F Surf Coast Planning Scheme – Significant Landscape Overlay (Jan Juc)
4G & 4H Surf Coast Planning Scheme – Environmental Significance Overlay (Torquay)
4I Surf Coast Planning Scheme – Vegetation Protection Overlay (Torquay)
4J Surf Coast Planning Scheme – Vegetation Protection Overlay (Jan Juc)
4K & 4L Surf Coast Planning Scheme – Wildfire Management Overlay (Torquay)
4M Surf Coast Planning Scheme – Wildfire Management Overlay (Jan Juc)
4N & 4O Surf Coast Planning Scheme – Land Subject to Inundation & Floodway Overlay (Torquay)
4P Surf Coast Planning Scheme – Heritage Overlay (Torquay)
4Q Surf Coast Planning Scheme – Development Plan Overlay (Torquay)
4R Surf Coast Planning Scheme – Environmental Audit Overlay (Torquay)
Copyright
A number of the cover photographs are Copyright © by Dr. Ray Green, Faculty of Architecture Building and Planning, The University
of Melbourne, and have been taken from his report "A Study of Resident Perceptions of Neighbourhood Character: Torquay/Jan
Juc" (2003).
Executive Summary Torquay-Jan Juc Neighbourhood Character Study
Executive Summary
This Study examined the elements within the physical and natural environment of Torquay and Jan Juc
that make up neighbourhood character. It has established that the natural environment and the close
proximity and easy access to natural features such as the beaches, coastline, creeks and environs highly
contribute to the liveability and attraction of both living in and visiting Torquay and Jan Juc. The Study
found that although there are some variations in character across different precincts in the town, the
character elements which make up the preferred character are consistent across the towns. These
character elements include discreet, low scale buildings, reflective of the towns’ origins as a popular
seaside destination with mature vegetation scattered between and around buildings. The presence of
native and indigenous vegetation to soften and screen buildings is considered to be very important to
neighbourhood character. Other key factors which are consistent with neighbourhood character are:
• Adequate building setbacks that allow the retention of mature trees and the planting of
vegetation around buildings, screening them from the street and adjoining properties.
• Low profile building height and simple built forms constructed from natural materials, with
houses generally not exceeding two storeys.
• Classic ‘Australian’ older beach style homes or modern lightweight coastal designs.
• Single driveways, preferably constructed of gravel or other natural materials with recessed
garages.
• Minimal or no front fencing.
• Close proximity of most residential land to nature reserves, crown land and open spaces
which may have high environmental and / or aesthetic value.
Buildings and developments considered to detract from the town’s coastal character were found to exhibit
the following attributes:
• Lack of vegetative screening
• ‘Boxy’ and bulky forms with little surface articulation and minimal or no eaves
• Large scale of building form relative to the size of the allotment
• Minimal front and side setbacks making developments look too dense
• Constructed of certain building materials, such as brick veneer, which have a ‘suburban
appearance’
• Painted in strongly contrasting or harsh colours
• High and / or solid front fences or walls
• Visually dominant garages with double concrete or asphalt driveways
• Houses in a row that display a repetition and uniformity of design
The preferred character or vision for the two townships is generally consistent across the study area.
What will be important is to ensure that the elements that contribute to this character are encouraged in
all new development. It will be important that future residential subdivisions, including those within the
designated growth areas, continue to provide access to natural features and create sufficient open space
for recreation, consistent with the coastal, outdoor living lifestyle that characterises the two townships.
The Planning Scheme provisions will be reviewed taking into account the findings of this Study, with the
following key recommendations:
Protect vegetation of environmental significance, including the Moonah & Bellarine Yellow
Gum communities.
Protect mature vegetation that adds to the vegetated character of the townships.
3
Executive Summary Torquay-Jan Juc Neighbourhood Character Study
Develop performance criteria that address front and side setback, building height, maximum
site coverage, maximum hard surface coverage and plot ratio controls across Torquay and
Jan Juc which establish minimum standards to be met.
Develop performance criteria that address front boundary fencing and that seek to encourage
no or low front fencing.
Support the use of ‘Surf Coast Style’ principles to discourage suburban forms of development
and bulky, dominating buildings.
Develop a policy for new residential subdivisions which emphasises the need to balance the
need to maintain and enhance the coastal character of the area and allowing for more
intense development focusing higher density around activity nodes and recreation areas.
Other recommendations outside of the planning system include:

Consider implementing a street planting program particularly in areas of low vegetation cover.
Prioritise the proactive enforcement of planning provisions.
Give priority to the education of both existing and new residents of the environmental values
of the area, environmental weeds, and preferred indigenous planting (ie Planting Guide).
Consider prohibiting the planting of environmental weeds by way of a local law.
The Great Ocean Road Region Strategy, the Victorian Coastal Strategy and the Municipal Strategic
Statement (MSS) of the Planning Scheme all state that future residential development on the coast
should be focussed in growth centres with suitable infrastructure such as Torquay and Jan Juc in order to
preserve the environmental sensitivities of the smaller settlements further along the coast to the west.
The MSS recognises however that Torquay and Jan Juc has a unique coastal character that could be
adversely affected by unconstrained development. The objective of this Study is to implement this
strategic direction by accommodating growth in the two townships while strengthening the capacity of the
planning controls to more appropriately guide development that will enhance the preferred character. The
controls will encourage infill development which is respectful of the preferred character, and new
subdivisions which have a strong focus on the provision of open space with active walking and cycling
linkages and significant street landscaping themes.
The Study report will be placed on public exhibition and feedback sought from the community.
Submissions will be considered by Council prior to adopting the report. This is to be followed by the public
exhibition of a Planning Scheme Amendment to implement the Study’s recommendations.
4
Chapter 1 Torquay-Jan Juc Neighbourhood Character Study
1. Context
What is Neighbourhood Character?
Neighbourhood character is described in the Victorian Planning Provisions (VPP) Practice Note as
follows:
“Neighbourhood character is essentially the combination of the public and private realms. Every
property, public place or piece of infrastructure makes a contribution. It is the cumulative impact of
all these contributions that establishes neighbourhood character. The key to understanding
character is being able to describe how the features of an area come together to give that area its
own particular character.”
The key to understanding character is being able to describe how the features of an area come together
to give that area its own particular identity. In the Surf Coast Shire, neighbourhood character is derived
not only from its built form, but also from its natural, demographic, social and cultural characteristics.
These come together to create “patterns” that distinguish one area from another and together shape the
character of the town generally.
Why a Neighbourhood Character Study in Torquay-Jan Juc?
The Study area covers the adjoining coastal settlements of Torquay and Jan Juc. Both towns abut
spectacular coastline to the south and east, and open grazing land to the north and west.
Due to their coastal location, Torquay and Jan Juc have always been an attractive and popular
destination for surfers, tourists, non permanent residents and the retirement market. More recently
however, particularly in the last ten years, Torquay/Jan Juc has become more and more popular as a
permanent settlement. It is within short commuting distance of Geelong and is already regarded as being
within acceptable commuting distance of Melbourne. Recent infrastructure decisions to improve access
to the region - the new three lane highway to Melbourne, the proposed western bypass of Geelong, the
new fast train to Melbourne and the recently constructed railway station in Marshall - will only reinforce
this perception and increase development pressures within the township and Region.
The Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) of the Surf Coast Planning Scheme (drafted in 1997) identifies
Torquay as the main administrative centre of the Shire and the fastest growing urban area outside
Metropolitan Melbourne. Recent (2004) population forecasts estimate that the present population will
double by the year 2021 and reach in excess of 20,000. In line with State Government policy outlined in
the Great Ocean Road Region Strategy (2004) the MSS recognises Torquay’s capacity for long term
growth by designating Torquay-Jan Juc as a future growth node area for the Shire and a gateway to the
south western region.
This growth trend is further acknowledged in the Victorian Coastal Strategy (2002). It identifies that
coastal areas like Torquay-Jan Juc are under pressure to increase housing densities due to demographic
and lifestyle changes (p13). Land and property prices have escalated, compared with non-coastal areas,
and increasing numbers of applications are being made to Council to subdivide and redevelop the older
established areas that have larger allotments, particularly in the area of ‘old Torquay’ between the Surf
Coast Highway and the foreshore.
There have been negative perceptions and feedback from some parts of the community about the impact
of recent development and change on the coastal character of Torquay and Jan Juc. This concern is two
fold. Firstly, particular concern has been expressed in relation to redevelopment and subdivision of land
in the older, established areas of the towns for medium density development, involving removal of
vegetation from the site and the replacement of small holiday homes with larger, bulkier houses, often of
a ‘suburban’ character. Secondly, new residential subdivision in the town’s designated growth corridors is
more “suburban” in appearance, lacking a tree canopy cover and containing many dwellings that lack a
coastal character. The Victorian Coastal Strategy provides an important context for consideration of
neighbourhood character in Torquay and Jan Juc, containing a vision that:
“Townships will no longer grow like ‘topsy turvy’. They will be recognisably coastal in character and
grow within planning frameworks which respect the environments within which they’re built” (p6).
5
Objectives of the Strategy include:

“To ensure that any future built form is sensitively located, ecologically sound and respects visually
sensitive landscapes so that loss of habitat, loss of amenity and potential erosion is minimised”
(p38); and
“To provide direction for the location and scale of use and development on the coast.”
The Strategy encourages local government to ensure that Municipal Strategic Statements (MSS) take
account of the special nature and character of coastal towns and protect their character through
mechanisms such as local guidelines and planning scheme overlays.
Unlike other coastal settlements in the Shire such as Aireys Inlet, Lorne, Fairhaven and Anglesea,
Torquay is not constrained on all sides by natural barriers to outwards expansion, and is identified in The
Great Ocean Road Strategy (2004) and the MSS as being one of the locations where future residential
growth in the Shire will be directed.
The purpose of this Study is to determine how best to manage this growth and associated change so that
valued aspects of the character of Torquay and Jan Juc are protected and enhanced, and that
undervalued or de-valued areas are modified and improved. It is therefore about balancing the need to
accommodate future growth, and achieving sustainability objectives – economic, environmental and
social, with protecting and enhancing valued characteristics of the township. The Council introduced a
suite of new controls for Torquay and Jan Juc with the new Victorian Planning Provision (VPP) format
Planning Scheme in October 2000. Limited residential development controls were applied across
Torquay and Jan Juc. The Neighbourhood Character Study provides an opportunity to review these
planning controls after almost 4 years of operation with the view to determining whether they are
adequate in maintaining the coastal character that is valued by the community.
Objectives
The objectives of this study are to:

• Identify the attributes that represent the preferred neighbourhood character for Torquay-Jan
Juc.
• Maintain and enhance the distinctive coastal character and features of Torquay and Jan Juc.
This will involve consideration of homogenous characteristics and areas of diversity across
the townships.
• Facilitate the provision of a diversity of housing to meet the needs of a variety of household
types including both permanent and non-permanent residents.
• Provide greater certainty for the community and the development industry in terms of what
development, and development attributes, may be compatible with the preferred character.
• Establish a methodology for the ongoing monitoring of planning decisions and review of
planning controls to achieve the above objectives.
The outcome of the Study will be:

• Identification and assessment of the neighbourhood character within the two townships.
• Preparation of precinct descriptions.
• Mapping of vegetation types and significance.
• Review of development controls in the Surf Coast Planning Scheme as they relate to the
outputs of the Study.
• Recommendation of actions for implementation
The Study relates to the area within the township boundaries, and focuses on Residential zoned
land and to a lesser extent land zoned Low Density Residential, but does not include commercial
or industrial areas or the Torquay Sands development. Refer to Map 1 for an aerial view of the
study area.
6
2. Methodology
Neighbourhood character studies have traditionally been undertaken by professionals through data
collection and analysis. The approach taken in this Study and that undertaken for other coastal towns in
the Surf Coast Shire differs in that as well as conducting a physical analysis of character elements, it taps
into the community’s perception of their neighbourhood. The following is a brief description of the
process followed in the Study.
Community Reference Group
A newsletter explaining the Study was sent to landowners at the outset, inviting them to participate on a
Community Reference Group (CRG) which would have the dual purpose of providing feedback to the
Shire on different tasks being undertaken as part of the Study, as well as feeding information to and
educating the wider community on the project. Following receipt of nominations, Council appointed
twelve community representatives. The Reference Group met four times during the Study and their
feedback has been incorporated into this report.
Community Perceptions Analysis
Dr. Ray Green, Head of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, at the
University of Melbourne, was engaged to undertake a study of community perceptions of neighbourhood
character. This study used a similar methodology to his research into town character in the nearby
coastal towns of Lorne, Apollo Bay, Anglesea and Aireys Inlet to Eastern View, and drew on a
perceptually based town character assessment methodology he has developed through past research.
The methodology and results of this component of the Study are summarised in a report by Dr. Green
titled “A Study of Resident Perceptions of Neighbourhood Character: Torquay/Jan Juc (October 2003)”
which is appended as Appendix 1. The key outcomes are discussed in Chapter 3. This analysis, as well
as contributions from the Reference Group, has informed the Study as to elements of “preferred
character” that new planning controls will seek to achieve.
Vegetation Assessment
Mark Trengove of Geelong Indigenous Nurseries was engaged to:

Identify and classify vegetation communities within the study area;
Identify the conservation significance of the vegetation communities and any significant plant
species; and
Make recommendations on the protection of significant vegetation communities or particular

species.
A report by Mr Trengove titled: “Torquay/Jan Juc Neighbourhood Character Study: Vegetation Report”
(2003) outlines the methodology and the results of his assessment and is appended as Appendix 2. The
results are discussed in Chapters 3 and 4.
Indigenous Planting Guide
Surf Coast Shire officers have produced an ‘Indigenous Planting Guide’ for urban coastal areas within the
Surf Coast Shire. The study area is contained within ‘Precinct 1 – Torquay-Jan Juc’ and provides a list of
plant species that are indigenous to the area for the purpose of assisting land owners to select plants for
their gardens which are adapted to local soil types and conditions and provide habitat and food for local
wildlife. A copy of the Plant List is appended at Appendix 3.
Precinct Description and Analysis
Isis Planning, Land Use Planning Consultants, surveyed the physical features of the town in order to
identify the existing characteristics of the built form and natural features within the town. All areas within
Torquay and Jan Juc were surveyed and the data recorded in a spread sheet. Details of the features
surveyed and the collected data are appended as Appendix 4. The data has been analysed to
7
determine areas where these characteristics are common and/or vary from one another. The results of
this analysis are shown on Map 1, with detailed Precinct Descriptions appended as Appendix 5.
Study Report
The Study Report draws together the work undertaken by the consultants Dr. Ray Green, Mark Trengove
and Isis Planning. The following chapters analyse the key features that have been identified as being
important to the character of Torquay and Jan Juc. Chapter 5 reviews development controls in the
Planning Scheme taking into account the preferred character outcomes identified, assisted by a detailed
examination of case study developments. Developments chosen as case studies were drawn from those
rated as being incompatible with character at the community workshop held as part of the perception
analysis exercise, as well as other developments selected by Shire officers which exhibit similar
characteristics. Case studies have given added capacity to make a link between current planning tools
and the character outcomes which result from them – refer Appendix 6.
8
Map 1A
Neighbourhood Character Precincts – Torquay
(Aerial Photo)
9
Map 1B
Neighbourhood Character Precincts – Torquay
(Aerial Photo)
10
Map 1C
Neighbourhood Character Precincts – Jan Juc
(Aerial Photo)
11
3. Assessment of Key Character Elements
PREFERRED CHARACTER
The community perception analysis conducted by Dr Green (Appendix 1) established six

neighbourhood precincts that the respondents to the survey indicated represented ‘their
neighbourhood’. The physical survey undertaken by ISIS Planning and the Surf Coast Shire
(Appendix 4) further analysed these precincts and identified seven distinctive neighbourhood
precincts across Torquay and Jan Juc that shared similar characteristics. These are shown on
Maps 1 (a to c) in the previous chapter. The following precinct discussion refers to the seven
precincts identified by the physical survey undertaken by ISIS Planning.
Central Torquay (which includes the area locally known as “old Torquay”) and central Jan Juc
(Precincts 2 and 5) contain numerous older more established houses, classic beach houses with
contemporary buildings as well as suburban style houses. These two precincts contain a good
coverage of indigenous and mature vegetation and often feature larger setbacks, giving an
overall appearance of an established sea-side town.
Torquay North, Great Ocean Views and Ocean Boulevard in Jan Juc (Precincts 1, 4 & 6) feature
more prominent development with a mix of contemporary and suburban style housing, smaller
setbacks and minimal vegetation cover, particularly of mature trees, giving these areas a more
‘suburban’ feel. The key attribute of these three precincts is the location of infrastructure
underground, the lack of front fencing in the Great Ocean Views estate and the availability of
ocean views from Ocean Boulevard, Great Ocean Views and some parts of the Wombah Park
Estate (Precinct 1).
The tallest buildings are generally located adjacent to the foreshore in Torquay Central, Torquay
North (along The Esplanade), and along Ocean Boulevard in Jan Juc (Precincts 1, 2 and 6),
where land owners have sought to maximise ocean views.
Larger lots are located on the outskirts of the two townships in the Low Density Residential Zone
to the north-west of Torquay and west of Jan Juc (Precincts 3 and 7). These areas are more
rural and vegetated in appearance with buildings being recessive due to large setbacks, and are
sometimes barely visible from the street. The low density residential areas rated as being the
most compatible with the preferred character whilst the other precincts, all located in the
Residential 1 zone, received a rating which ranged from slightly compatible, to slightly to
moderately incompatible. These latter areas were deemed to exhibit both positive and negative
character attributes.
The outcomes of the community perception analysis carried out by Dr. Green is consistent with
the findings of the physical survey undertaken by ISIS Planning, in that both studies identify an
existing character which is varied across all precincts of the study area. Dr Green found that the
characteristics of development that the community perceived to be consistent with or detracting
from the local character were the same characteristics throughout the study area. The preferred
character therefore, is consistent across Torquay / Jan Juc despite some variations in existing
character. This distinction between preferred character and existing character is important to note
as it is the preferred character identified by the community which future planning controls will
seek to achieve.
The key attributes or elements perceived to be compatible and incompatible with the local (or
preferred character) that emerged from the Perceptual Analysis and collated by Dr Green are
listed in the following table:
12
ATTRIBUTES PERCEIVED TO BE ELEMENTS PERCEIVED TO BE MOST

COMPATIBLE WITH LOCAL CHARACTER INCOMPATIBLE WITH LOCAL CHARACTER.
VEGETATION / NATURAL FEATURES
Retained indigenous vegetation or Inadequate landscaping.

indigenous vegetation used in the landscape Lack of mature trees.
Sufficient landscaping. No indigenous vegetation or vegetation cleared
Mature trees and vegetation. from site for construction.
Rooflines that are broken up by mature “Suburban” looking exotic vegetation.
canopy vegetation. Over manicured gardens and lawns.
Buildings set below the tree canopy line. Roofs visible above tree line.
The natural environment including:
• beaches,
• access to and walking tracks through
vegetated natural open space areas,
• bodies of freshwater including creeks
and ponds.
BUILDING FORM
Building Height
Not too tall – at most two storey. Height – too high, particularly three storey and
more developments.
Too vertical in orientation.
Built to maximise and share views. Obstructs views.
Style / Materials
Built with natural materials such as stone, Brick veneer with “suburban” appearance.
weatherboard and other types of timber that
look natural, lightweight and are reflective of
the area.
Conveying a sense of nostalgia and historic “Queensland style” houses.

value reflective of old Torquay and Jan Juc. Buildings that do not “fit” with street and
adjoining lots.
Not reflective of the area or have no connection
with local area.
Unique and innovative architectural design. Windows that are out of scale.
Interesting mix of houses of different forms Repetition and uniformity of architectural forms.
and colour – moderate complexity – within a “Suburban” and “urban looking” houses.
given neighbourhood area.
Roof forms that reflect old beach houses, Roofs that strongly contrast with their
some having shallow pitched roofs, or other surroundings such as brightly coloured tile
peaked roof types and those with gables. roofs.
Flat roofs, particularly those without eaves.
Balconies that articulate building form.
Lack of verandas.
Driveways constructed of natural looking Concrete and asphalt driveways that look too
dominant.
13
materials. Double driveways

Small driveways. Dominance of garage over house.
Single garages.
Building Bulk / Articulation / Site Coverage
Small footprints. High site coverage.

Boxy and bulky in appearance.
Small in scale. Domination of building – imposing, too big,
fortress-like and “unfriendly looking”.
Unobtrusive and understated in design. Too large in mass.

Poor proportions of building elements.
Too complex in form.
Front walls that are large, flat, imposing and
unarticulated.
Buildings that lack surface articulation.
On large blocks. Lots too small for the size of the house.
Low density development. High density.

Good articulation – moderately complex. Inappropriate siting and unresponsiveness to
site.
Right solar orientation. Not responsive to environment - solar

orientation.
Colour
Colours that are subtle, neutral, muted, Colours – contrasting, not matching,
receding and unobtrusive, thus reducing the overwhelming, too strong, too pastel, black.
visual prominence of buildings from the street Aggressive, harsh looking.
and/or that are reflective of the colours of the
area.
Building Setbacks
Have generous setbacks. Minimal setbacks – on side, front and/or rear

boundaries.
FENCING
No front fences, particularly no tall and/or Front fences that are too high, solid and lacking
solid fence types. integration with house design.
In summary, based on the community perception modelling and physical survey, the preferred
neighbourhood character of the Torquay / Jan Juc Township might be described as follows:
Neighbourhoods of modest dwellings reflective of older style beach

houses and other classic Australian style houses, or of more
contemporary design that are balanced in terms of their articulation, form
and colour. Set in well landscaped streetscapes, with large front
setbacks and spaces between buildings, incorporating mature,
indigenous vegetation which filters the visual presence of dwellings.
Streetscapes are predominantly free of front fencing with recessive
garages accessed by drives of natural surfaces.
The key character elements that have been identified in the table above are discussed in more
detail in the balance of this chapter. These elements are discussed in relation to the whole of the
study area, with reference to the identified seven neighbourhood precincts and differences
between them.
14
Recommended strategies are included at the end of each character element which provides
direction how best to achieve the ‘preferred character’ across all of the precincts, in future
development proposals.
VEGETATION COVER AND NATURAL FEATURES
Vegetated Character
Although there is considerable variation in the extent of vegetation cover across the study area,
the perceptual analysis conducted by Dr Green confirms that property owners in all precincts
consider vegetation, and the use of vegetation to soften and screen buildings, to be an important
element of the preferred character. Vegetation cover is highest in Precincts 2, 3, 5 and 7 with
limited cover in Precincts 1, 4 and 6.
Developments perceived by the community as being highly compatible with the local character
were those that had retained mature trees and planted vegetation within setback areas so that
they were predominantly screened from the street and neighbouring properties. The photos that
rated least compatible with local character showed buildings with little space or vegetation around
them.
The extent of ‘native bush’ cover is one of the

primary character elements that differentiates
the areas zoned Low Density Residential from
the areas zoned Residential 1. Likewise the
existence or otherwise of established
vegetation is one of the primary character
elements that differentiates the more
established areas of Torquay and Jan Juc
from more recently subdivided residential
estates.
Native bush block located in the Low
Density Residential Zone
The low density, large lots on the outskirts of
the townships, at Jan Juc West and Torquay
North West (Precincts 2 & 7) contains the
highest cover of vegetation within the study
area. These areas feature large vegetated
setbacks, and post and wire fencing. The built
form is often either not visible from the street
or recessive in the landscape, and the
vegetation in these areas is predominantly
indigenous giving a ‘native bush’ character.
As a result of the presence of these
characteristics, precincts 2 and 7 rated as the
most compatible with the ‘preferred Established vegetated character
neighbourhood character’.
Central Torquay and Jan Juc (Precincts 2 &

5) contain a cover of both native and exotic
vegetation with many mature trees within the
streetscape. The existence of mostly small
buildings with large open yards creates an
established vegetated character. Buildings
are more visible in central Torquay than in
Jan Juc due to the higher cover of vegetation
in Jan Juc. This vegetation cover, whilst
largely introduced (non-indigenous), is highly
Recently subdivided grazing land with little
contributory to the character. significant vegetation
The above precincts are distinctly different

from Torquay North and Great Ocean Views
(Precincts 1 and 4).
15
These areas have been developed for housing since the 1990s and contain little in the way of
established or indigenous vegetation cover. In both cases the land was formerly used for
cropping and grazing and was historically cleared of all significant vegetation. Dwellings in these
precincts are much more visible in the streetscape as a result and the establishment of large
canopy trees has been further restricted due to large building footprints and small setbacks off
property boundaries.
Several photos in Dr Green’s perceptual

analysis rated as moderately or highly
incompatible with the coastal character.
Most of these had high site coverage,
minimal setbacks off property boundaries
hence limited room for the establishment of
significant landscaping. Multi-dwelling
developments or houses constructed close
together that have little space around them
for landscaping, particularly canopy trees,
prevents them from integrating satisfactorily
with the streetscape. As a result, the
building elements appear more dominant in
Unit development with no landscaping
the streetscape.
All residential areas within Torquay and Jan-Juc have the

capacity to cater for in-fill development, particularly central
Torquay due to the large lot sizes. In-fill development will
continue to happen given Torquay and Jan-Juc’s status as
a growth node for the Surf Coast Shire, and the need to
maximise the efficient use of land in areas which are close
to existing services. It is important therefore, given the
inevitability of future development in the townships, to
ensure that future development is complementary to the
preferred neighbourhood character. Hence residential
developments and subdivisions should be designed to
provide for adequate space between and around buildings
to enable vegetation to be retained and established. Such
areas should be large enough that a mix of shrubs and
canopy trees can be planted and retained into the future,
Unit development with landscaping
without conflicting with the requirements of the occupants
of the dwelling.
An emphasis should be put on the retention of mature trees currently on development sites, and
their integrated design in the development (ensuring that buildings and driveways will not
compromise the capacity of the trees to be retained beyond the short term).
Consideration will need to be given to the mechanisms to best achieve these outcomes. The
important elements in relation to the preferred neighbourhood character are:
retention of existing mature trees;
informal landscaping with an emphasis on indigenous vegetation; and
vegetation that scales and filters the visual presence of buildings, particularly as viewed
from the street and other public places.
Addressing these elements will involve:

having control over the removal of existing mature vegetation, with emphasis on native
trees;
the provision of quality areas (in terms of their size and location) for landscaping, to
ensure the long term health of remnant vegetation and the establishment of mature trees
that can provide the desired scaling and screening; and
the ability to influence landscaping, particularly within site frontages.
A number of planning tools are available which will provide varying degrees of success in
actioning these elements to achieve the preferred neighbourhood character in relation to
vegetation and landscaping. The more direct is the prescription of minimum building setbacks
16
from front and side boundaries, the requirement for minimum landscape areas and the enactment
of vegetation removal controls. Other tools include prescribed minimum lot sizes, maximum
building footprints and associated hard surfaces such as driveways and patios, and the
requirement for landscaping plans.
The use of prescribed minimum lot sizes in order to retain and re-establish vegetation would
appear to conflict with other competing requirements, such as the need to increase residential
densities throughout Torquay to maximise accessibility to community infrastructure and services,
and the need to provide for a diversity of affordable housing stock. Further, the specification of
minimum lot sizes is not considered particularly effective in isolation, other than for lots of a size
found in low density residential zones such as on the outskirts of Torquay and Jan Juc. For the
smaller coastal towns in the Shire a minimum lot size with other siting and site coverage controls
has been important to protect the more extensive vegetation that exists in these towns, which has
high ecological value as well as important amenity or character value. For Torquay / Jan Juc the
vegetation is more generally of an amenity value, with the emphasis placed on its role in the
streetscape and public places. Having regard to the role of Torquay / Jan Juc as a growth centre,
it would be more difficult to argue or justify a minimum lot size, which can limit the opportunity for
the provision of a diversity of dwelling types, when other controls are able to adequately address
the key neighbourhood character issues.
This leaves the specification of landscape areas in enlarged frontages, as well as the control of
building site and hard surface coverage areas as planning tools to promote landscaped areas. A
combination of these tools would appear to be the most effective in addressing the vegetation
character elements whilst still providing reasonable opportunity for medium density
developments. These requirements would promote the retention / provision of adequate space to
retain and re-establish sufficient vegetation to frame and/or screen development from public and
private viewing areas. Landscape plans would then be required as part of development proposals
to ensure that the setback areas are then adequately landscaped. The use of performance
criteria is recommended for all Residential 1 zoned precincts which set minimum standards in
terms of building site and hard surface areas, as well as setback areas to allow for enough space
to establish indigenous landscaping. Planning permits should be required where minimum
standards are not met.
In new subdivisions, emphasis should be placed on retaining existing trees, particularly remnants,
and establishment of new vegetation on both private and common land, with a preference for the
use of indigenous species. Landscape design should be a key feature of any new subdivision
proposal, in order to link the character of newly subdivided areas with the rest of the township.
Education is a further tool important in encouraging the

retention and planting of native vegetation. Education of
both existing and future land owners should be given
priority in order to complement policy objectives in the
Planning Scheme and regulatory mechanisms. This
applies to the removal of indigenous vegetation as well as
revegetation using indigenous species.
The importance of landscaping within the road reserve

should also be emphasised in terms of its contribution to
neigbhourhood character. The road reserve is an important
element within every streetscape and its contribution to
overall neigbhourhood character is significant. As such it is
important that, in conjunction with improvements in the
Sections of nature strips have been extensively private realm, Council undertake extensive street planting
planted with indigenous vegetation in this street
in Torquay’s Wombah Park,
projects in order to increase the overall vegetation cover,
particularly in areas of low vegetation cover.
It is also considered that the current requirement for a planning permit for buildings and works on
lots below 450sqm does not add any value in its own right in terms of contributing to the preferred
landscaped neighbourhood character. As discussed above, a given lot size does not in its own
right result in development which is incompatible with the preferred neighbourhood character. As
such, it is recommended that this planning permit requirement be removed.
17
Vegetation type and cover
As detailed in the Torquay/Jan Juc Neighbourhood Character

Study Vegetation Report 2003 by Mark Trengove (Appendix 2),
the study area has a considerable mix of vegetation types and
cover. This vegetation report, particularly concentrating on
environmental values, is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4.
The variation in canopy cover is evident from the aerial
photography shown on Map 2 located in the previous chapter.
Given the importance of indigenous vegetation to preferred
neighbourhood character, this map highlights the desirability to
extend and enhance vegetation across the study area. Hence, it is
important that future development across all precincts in the first
instance be responsive to retaining existing native vegetation,
particularly indigenous vegetation. Where vegetation is unable to
be retained a mandatory requirement to provide adequate
replacement planting should be pursued. Finally, all development
should be designed and sited to make provision for the planting of
new vegetation that will assist in integrating development into the
landscape. Emphasis in particular should be placed on increasing Environmental weeds such as
agapanthus are seen to detract
the vegetation cover on sites in areas that currently have a low from neighbourhood character
tree canopy cover, such as in the newer developed areas of
Torquay and Jan Juc.
Landowners should be encouraged to use species listed in the Surf Coast Shire’s Indigenous
Planting Guide, 2003, when replanting or landscaping generally, selecting a combinations of
grasses, shrubs and trees.
The vegetation report highlights that there is a greater proportion

of exotic and non-indigenous natives found within the residential
areas, compared with the areas zoned Low Residential. While
most vegetation is considered to be significant in terms of the
landscape character value, the results of Dr. Green’s work
indicates that indigenous and to a lesser extent native species are
of greater value to the community than exotic species. This is
particularly evident in terms of environmental weeds that are
identified as detracting from the neighbourhood character.
The planting of exotic vegetation should not be encouraged over

indigenous or other native vegetation. Furthermore, the planting of
environmental weeds should be actively discouraged due to their
invasive nature, and the evidence sited by Dr Green’s study which
indicates that the community perceives such plants to actually
detract from neighbourhood character. Any such prohibition is
Moonah rated as being highly considered to be best pursued through a local law mechanism.
compatible with neighbourhood
character
Despite the lesser value attributed to non-indigenous plant
species, in areas of relatively low indigenous vegetation cover, most mature trees are considered
to be of significance to the streetscape character, hence their protection through appropriate
planning controls is warranted. This is particularly the case through central Torquay and Jan Juc
where there are only pockets of indigenous vegetation remaining but a good cover of other
mature trees. Consideration will need to be given to the mechanisms to best protect the
remaining isolated stands of mature native vegetation throughout the older parts of the town.
Consideration will also need to be given to the mechanisms to best protect new indigenous
vegetation being planted in the new parts of the town, in order to ensure their survival in the
longer term. The isolated stands of Moonah and Bellarine Yellow Gums scattered throughout
parts of the study area, identified on Map 2 (located in Chapter 4) not only have a high aesthetic
value but high environmental significance which needs to be recognised through appropriate
planning controls. Refer to Chapter 4 for a more detailed discussion of indigenous vegetation.
18
Natural Features
The proximity of many residential areas to public land is important in creating a sense of living
within a natural coastal environment such as Torquay / Jan Juc. Natural features such as the
beaches, creeks and open space areas were found to be central to the neighbourhood character
in the perceptual analysis. The importance of the remaining historical buildings was also
highlighted.
Dr Green states that:

“What the findings of this study suggest is that
natural environments and associated natural
features, and views of such features,
specifically the beach, creeks and ponds, open
space areas such as the golf course and
nature reserves and the few remaining historic
built features are vitally important to the
character of Torquay and Jan Juc. These
features need to be conserved if the framework
of the town’s character is to be retained in the
face of continuing development pressure. Any
development that results in disturbance to
these features should be discouraged through
appropriate planning controls. ” One of the few remaining historic buildings in
Torquay, which is rated as highly contributory to
and neighbourhood character
“…It is important to consider these attributes in formulating planning controls that aim to
encourage development that will be perceived as compatible with local character and
discourage attributes associated with incompatible development. If such planning
mechanisms can be successfully implemented and enforced there may be hope that the areas
outstanding environmental and residential character might not be lost or seriously degraded in
the future even in the face of continuing and rapid development and town growth” (Green,
2003, P19-22).
In this regard it will be important for new residential subdivisions to incorporate adequate
vegetated public areas into their designs and provide vegetated links between new estates, the
central areas of Torquay and Jan Juc, and of public reserves to help build on this positive aspect
of the town.
Recommendation (Vegetation):
Expand the currently limited vegetation removal controls to provide adequate protection to
existing mature native vegetation throughout the study area (excluding environmental
weeds).
or
Expand the vegetation removal controls to provide adequate protection to all existing mature
vegetation throughout the study area (excluding environmental weeds).
Require replacement planting preferably with indigenous species of a similar type if the
removal of vegetation is unavoidable.
Sites in areas of low vegetation cover should be revegetated with indigenous tree and
understorey species as development occurs, even if vegetation is not being removed.
Expanded permit requirements for building and works throughout the study area will be
required in order to achieve this.
Develop performance criteria that encourage a generous building setback from the front
boundary, control building site and hard surface coverage, so that space is retained around
buildings to provide protection for remnant vegetation and room for the establishment of new
vegetation, including canopy trees to assist in the scaling / screening of development. The
use of indigenous species should be emphasised in landscape plans. Planning permits
should be required when minimum standards are not met.
19
Give priority to the education of landowners on environmental weeds and preferred

indigenous planting, as well as increased resourcing for enforcement of permit conditions
relating to vegetation retention and/or planting.
Develop street planting schemes for areas of low vegetation canopy to complement
strategies applied to private land in the Planning Scheme, particularly in newly subdivided
areas.
Remove the planning permit requirement for building and works on lots below 450sqm in the
Residential 1 Zone.
Develop a policy for the design of new residential subdivisions to ensure they incorporate
adequate vegetated public land with vegetated strategic links to other areas of open space
and community facilities.
Consider implementing heritage controls over the remaining significant historical buildings in
the townships.
BUILDING FORM
Style/Materials
There is a considerable variation in the age and style of

housing across the study area. Central Torquay and
Jan Juc have a relatively low occurrence of typical
suburban building forms. Instead, most houses are clad
with timber weatherboards, fibro cement sheet or other
light-weight wall materials with galvanised iron or
Older style beach house which rated as
colourbond roofing. Many of the older buildings have compatible with neighbourhood character
skillion or gentle pitched roofs, typical of the Australian
beach house.
More recently developed residential areas such as

Torquay North, Great Ocean Views and Jan Juc –
Ocean Boulevard (Precincts 1, 4 and 6) comprise a
diversity of housing styles. There is a mix in these areas
of contemporary architecture, including curved, flat and
pitched colourbond roofs, rendered blockwork,
weatherboard and other forms of wall cladding. A fairly
consistent feature is large areas of glazing and
expansive decking.
Scattered through all of the precincts are the more Contemporary beach house
typical suburban style brick veneer homes with tiled roofs.
In the community perception analysis both the older beach
houses and many of the contemporary buildings were
rated as being more compatible with local character than
the suburban form of dwelling that is more associated with
Melbourne and Geelong suburbs.
Despite the variation in existing housing style, Dr Green’s

community perception analysis identified consistent
elements of building form which were considered
compatible with the preferred character. Thus in order to Suburban style homes using face brickwork
preserve and enhance this character emphasis should be and tiled roofs rated as being incompatible
with neighbourhood character
placed on the integration of buildings with the landscape,
as well as the external materials and colours, height, setback, size and articulation of buildings.
More than building style,these elements will most often be deciding factors on whether a
development is compatible with the coastal character or not. Suburban looking houses using
face brickwork and tile roofs with sealed surfaces surrounding the building should be
discouraged, and land owners encouraged to use timber and other light-weight and contemporary
building materials.
20
The Surf Coast Design and Colours policy in the PlanningScheme (Clause 22.05) refers to a
range of preferred design principles titled ‘Surf Coast Style’. This policy is consistent with the
preferred character described by Dr Green, and is an
appropriate tool for the assessment of development
proposals. However, this assessment can only thake
place when a planning permit is required.
Under the current controls, only multi-unit dwellings,

dwellings which exceed 7.5m in height, or which are
constructed on lots less than 450sqm, require planning
approval. Hence, where no planning permit is required,
no opportunity exists to influence the building design.
Given the significance of building appearance to the
character of the area, and the large number of dwellings Recent unit development considered
which have been constructed without the need for inconsistent with neighbourhood character
planning approval which are inconsistent with the
preferred character, it is considered important to
introduce some form of control relating to building
design. However, it is considered unnecessary to
introduce permit requirements for all buildings and
works. Instead, controls which specifically target
elements of development which are inconsistent with the
preferred character, should become planning permit
“triggers”, requiring planning approval. Hence, such
proposals can be assessed on their overall merit and
consistency with the Surf Coast Style and Colours policy
as well as other important elements of neighbourhood Units, repetitious in design
character.
The character of central Torquay and parts of Jan Juc

are particularly vulnerable to significant change due to
ageing housing stock and large lot sizes. Lots in these
areas are being re-developed for multi-dwellings or more
substantial homes.
A number of the photos that rated poorly by the

community were multi-unit developments that were
repetitious in design and visually more prominent.
Current planning controls relating to multi unit
developments fail to give enough weight to elements of Dominant garage with wide sealed driveway
neighbourhood character. As a consequence of the lack
of adequate planning controls, there have been a number of unit developments particularly in
central Torquay, which have been considered by the community to be incompatible with the
predominant coastal character. It is desirable that developments incorporating more than one
dwelling utilise a mix of building forms, siting, styles and colours in order to maximise the
individuality of the buildings, and that compatible elements of neighbourhood character, such as
identified by Dr Green, are incorporated. In addition multi-dwelling developments should contain
a range of building heights, incorporating a mix of single and two storey dwellings, to provide for
diversity in housing choice and to make buildings visually different.
Another common feature, identified by Dr Green in the perceptual analysis, which detracts from
the character of the area is visually prominent garages. This seems to be exacerbated where the
garage is set forward of the building line and where the garage is wide in relation to the overall
dwelling width. Wide sections of sealed driveway also contribute to this visual dominance as do
lighter coloured driveways as opposed to those in recessive shades. As such, performance
criteria should be developed which encourage recessive garage and driveway designs, and
planning approval where these criteria are not met.
21
Building Bulk and Articulation
Dr. Green’s analysis of community perceptions identifies that all of the buildings considered by
residents to be incompatible with the character (across all precincts) were bulky and dominating
in form with characteristics such as:
• Boxy and bulky forms
• Tall buildings, particularly three storey
developments
• Fortress like buildings that are big and
imposing
• Minimal setbacks and a lack of vegetative
screening which makes buildings look bigger
• Walls fronting the street that are flat, large
and imposing
• Overwhelming or strong colours
• High site coverage, large scale of building Boxy, sheer blank walls, flat roof with no eaves
relative to the size of the allotment
• No verandas
• Lack of eaves
• Dominant garages
Photos that rated as incompatible with the character in

the perceptual analysis were large houses that
seemed to take up most of the site. In most cases it is
the lack of landscaping, particularly canopy trees
around them which prevents them from integrating
satisfactorily with the streetscape and adjoining
properties. Large, dominating housing looks
particularly out of place in central Jan Juc where most
housing is partially obscured by vegetation and in
central Torquay where the lots are particularly large High site coverage, large scale building
containing older housing stock which have small footprints
with large open areas to the rear. This aspect of the existing character in central Jan Juc and
central Torquay is considered to be the preferred character for the entire study area, despite the
newer estates lacking in most part in these qualities.
Council’s Surf Coast Style policy is particularly relevant to addressing the concerns raised in
relation to building bulk and articulation. Relevant elements of Surf Coast Style in relation to the
design and siting of buildings include:
Architecture that has a ‘coastal’ character complementing local culture or natural features
rather than buildings with a typical ‘suburban’ appearance or period style replicas.
Buildings that have a lightweight image rather than an appearance of mass and weight.
Disaggregated structures with interesting spaces and projections rather than solid bulky
structures with blank walls.
Architectural form and rooflines which convey a combination of simplicity and distinction
without fussy detail and decoration.
Facades that utilise light, shade and texture, rather than smooth, uninterrupted, single
coloured surfaces.
Building bulk can also be influenced through more prescriptive tools such as site coverage and
plot ratio controls. In this regard, plot ratios would be more effective in that it can limit the upper
floor area which has a greater impact on building bulk. As such, performance criteria should be
established to reflect this, and planning permits should be required if minimum standards are not
met. These standards should only be varied where merit is established.
22
External Building Colours
The external colour of buildings varies considerably throughout the study area, with no definable
colour theme across any of the precincts. Nevertheless, the community perception analysis
identified colours as one of the key attributes in determining if a development is compatible or not
with neighbourhood character. However, the interpretation of the role of colours did not appear
consistent, with similar colours being rated as compatible in one development and incompatible in
another. It might be reasonable to conclude from this that as long as colours are not visually
obtrusive or dominant, the other elements that contribute to built form will become more important
in determining whether a building is compatible or not.
This is supported by Dr. Green’s analysis of the role
colour plays in developments perceived to be
compatible with neighbourhood character, which is
described as: “colours that are subtle, neutral, muted,
receding and unobtrusive thus reducing the visual
prominence of buildings from the street and/or that are
reflective colours of the area” (p. 20). Colours that
rated compatible included light sea-side colours, such
as creams, light blues and white as well as darker
muted colours such as dark browns, greys, blues and
black. Bright yellow and brown brick with green tiles
rated incompatible. Units, incorporating different designs, which
is emphasised by the use of different
At present approval for external colours is restricted to colours and heights
areas covered by the Significant Landscape Overlay (The Esplanade and Ocean Boulevard).
Requiring approval for all external colours is considered unnecessary and onerous in a town that
is known for its vibrancy and diversity, especially as the perception analysis was inconclusive as
to what colours were incompatible. Consideration should therefore be given to removing the
existing colour controls from The Esplanade and Ocean Boulevard. At the same time, it is
considered justifiable to consider external colour as an element of a proposal should planning
approval be required for development, and to promote subdued and recessive colour schemes
compared with bold or dominant ones. In particular, in multi-dwelling developments, it is important
to require a diversity of colours schemes to minimise the homogeneity of the buildings within the
streetscape.
Another exception where colour control might be justified is in residential areas that are
prominent from adjacent public reserves where buildings are generally not dominant, such as
Bells Beach. In this instance, the land within the southern part of the Low Density Residential
Zone west of Jan Juc is within a natural landscape setting and is visible from Bells Beach. As
such it is considered that a planning permit should be required for all buildings and works in this
area in order to control the appearance of development
within the landscape.
Building Height
Buildings in the Residential 1 Zone across the study

area are mostly a mix of single and two storey
dwellings with a limited number of three storey
dwellings.
Most single storey housing is located in Central

Older single storey Torquay
(Precinct 2)
featuring the older beach houses, although this area also
contains many infill unit developments of recent years
which are two storey. The height of dwellings in the study
area has generally been restricted to a maximum of 7.5
metres by existing and past planning controls, which has
maintained the low building height throughout the town.
There is a higher incidence of two storey dwellings in Contemporary two storey

Torquay North and Great Ocean Views (Precincts 1 and 4)
due to these being newer estates and because land owners have sought to capture distant ocean
23
views. There are very few occurrences of three storey dwellings across the study area with the
exception of along the sea front in Torquay (Precincts 1 and 2) and Ocean Boulevard in Jan Juc
(Precinct 6), again due to the ocean views that are available.
The analysis of community perceptions by Dr Green

indicates that three storey dwellings are generally
considered to be too high. However it would appear
that the height of the building alone does not determine
whether a building is consistent with the coastal
character or not, especially given that Case study 7
(Appendix 6) was rated as being compatible with
neighbourhood character. Instead the preferred
character seems to incorporate a variety of factors
including the height, scale, landscape setting and
general appearance of the building.
This three storey development rated as being
incompatible with neighbourhood character
Across the study area the availability of ocean views
has potential to create competition amongst land
owners and it is therefore desirable that a consistent
maximum building height be established which is
compatible with the low scale of development that is
prevalent in the town. Retention of the current
preferred maximum building height of 7.5m is
recommended. Performance criteria for allowing
buildings to exceed this height should only be
considered where small sections of roof exceed 7.5m
and therefore does not increase the visual bulk of the
building, or where an increased height has some
demonstrated merit. Where merit is established for an
increase in height, consideration should be given to
introducing a view sharing policy such as currently
This three storey development rated as being
exists in other coastal townships in the Shire, in order to compatible with neighbourhood character
afford neighbouring properties some rights in terms of
maintaining part of their view.
In the Low Density Residential Zones of Torquay North-West and Jan Juc West (Precincts 3 and
7) buildings are constructed to a range of heights, though for the most part limited to a maximum
of two storeys. Precinct 7 contains a higher number of multi-storey dwellings due to the ocean
views available from elevated sites. Building height in the Low Density Residential Zone has not
been an issue in the past due to the larger allotment size and the ability of buildings to be
screened from roads. Hence the introduction of a building height control would not appear to be
warranted in these areas. Nevertheless, there are some properties west of Jan Juc that are
visually prominent from Bells Beach and some height control should be considered in this area to
prevent the built form from dominating this iconic landscape.
Height and plot ratio controls should also be reviewed in greenfield subdivision areas, where it
may be more appropriate to establish new precincts suitable for more intense development,
subject to their compatibility with other valued aspects of neighbourhood character.
A planning permit is currently required for relocatable dwellings. Simply because a dwelling is
relocatable, does not preclude it from being consistent with the preferred neighbourhood
character in terms of its building form. This will be much more a result of other elements
discussed within this chapter. As such, it is recommended that this planning permit requirement
be removed from future planning controls.
Recommendation (Building Form):

Develop performance criteria to establish minimum standards to be met in relation to building
plot ratio, building site and hard surface coverage. Planning permits should be required
where these standards are not met. Plot ratio standards should not be varied unless merit is
established.
24
Develop performance criteria that ensure a garage and driveway are not the prominent visual
element of a dwelling and are visually recessive in the streetscape. Planning permits should
be required where these performance criteria are not met.
Develop performance criteria that encourage a diversity of building styles, heights (single and
two storey) and colours in multi-dwelling developments. Planning permits should continue to
be required for all multi-unit developments.
Apply the principles of Surf Coast Style and Colours policy as an assessment tool for
development applications and widely circulate the Surf Coast Style Guide as an educative
tool.
Encourage developers who wish to undertake greenfield subdivisions to introduce design
controls based on preferred neighbourhood character elements.
Encourage areas within new housing estates in greenfield subdivisions where more intense
development is permitted, and where valued aspects of neighbourhood character are
maintained.
Delete requirements for consideration of external colour schemes for dwellings on The
Esplanade and Ocean Boulevard.
Introduce planning permit requirements for all buildings and works for properties in the
southern part of the Low Density Residential Zone west of Jan Juc which are visible from
Bells Beach.
The current permit “trigger” for buildings that exceed 7.5m building height in the Residential 1
Zone should be retained. Buildings that exceed two storeys in height should be discouraged
unless merit can be established.
The performance criteria for variations to this height should be related to the achievement of
the character objectives identified in the study.
Introduce a view sharing policy to afford neighbouring properties rights where the building
height exceeds 7.5m.
Develop performance criteria for building height exceeding 7.5m in the southern part of the
Low Density Residential Zone west of Jan Juc to minimise visual prominence of buildings
visible from the Bells Beach coastal reserve.
Remove the planning permit requirement for buildings and works for relocatable dwellings in
the Residential 1 Zone.
BUILDING SETBACKS
Street setbacks
Dwellings throughout the study area have a variety of

setbacks from the road. Where the lots are larger, in
Torquay North-West and Jan Juc West (Precincts 3 and
7), buildings are well setback and are predominantly
screened by vegetation. By comparison dwellings in the
newly subdivided areas of Torquay North and Great
Ocean Views (Precincts 1 and 4) and along Ocean
Boulevard in Jan Juc (Precinct 6) have a variety of This dwelling is set further back from the
setbacks, but houses are generally located closer to the road and partially obscured by vegetation
road frontage.
Building setbacks in central Torquay and central Jan Juc

(Precincts 2 and 5) are generally larger than in the newly
subdivided areas, ranging from 5m to 10m (and exceeding
10m in some instances in central Torquay). A lack of front
fencing or the existence of low fencing combined with
vegetation within the front setback contributes to a feeling
of space between buildings and the road. Dr. Green’s
report revealed that developments that were
adequately setback from the street (especially those Buildings with a minimal front setback and no
that were screened by vegetation) were rated as vegetation appear more dominant in the
25
compatible with the character while those that were constructed close to the street frontage,
particularly those with little if any vegetated screening, rated least in compatibility.
From this and much of the earlier discussion, it is reasonable to conclude that achieving the
preferred character across all precincts relies heavily on maintaining front setbacks that are
capable of being vegetated. Applying the standard front setback provisions of ResCode has
proved to be unsuccessful in replicating the preferred character in the newer estates of
Torquay/Jan Juc as identified in the community perception analysis. There is a strong desire,
evident from Dr Green’s work, to differentiate the suburbs of Torquay and Jan Juc from the more
suburban areas of Metropolitan areas. The application of greater front setbacks, with emphasis
placed on encouraging planting within this area to soften the visual appearance of buildings, will
be a critical element in achieving the preferred character. As such performance criteria should be
developed which outline minimum siting standards to be met. If these standards are not met, then
the development proposal should be assessed through the planning approval process.
Side and rear boundary setbacks
As with street setbacks, development on the larger

lots, in Torquay North-West and Jan Juc West
(Precincts 3 and 7), are well setback from side and
rear boundaries and setbacks are generally well
vegetated, obscuring buildings from adjoining
properties and the road.
Dwellings in the newly subdivided areas of Torquay

North and Great Ocean Views (Precincts 1 and 4)
Buildings built from boundary to boundary prevents and along Ocean Boulevard in Jan Juc (Precinct 6)
landscaping from softening the appearance of the have minimal side and rear setbacks with many
building
buildings built on the boundary. Side and rear
boundary setbacks in central Torquay and Jan Juc
(Precincts 2 and 5) are generally larger. In these
areas older houses tend to be smaller with greater
separation between the boundary and the building
due to the relative size of the building footprint to the
lot area.
Dwellings or multi-dwellings that stretch across the

width of the site with no room along the boundary for
landscaping were identified in the perception
analysis conducted by Dr Green as detracting from
the character. The existence of or lack of side
setbacks featured prominently in the analysis as
These dwellings share a party wall, but have varied
being either a key positive or negative attribute.
front setbacks.
Priority should be placed on avoiding the
construction of buildings and multi-dwellings across
the entire width of the site. If two units share a party
wall down the middle of a block, then the front
setback for each unit should vary in order to break
up the building line. Additionally, the building should
then be set off the remaining side boundaries, in
order to allow room for landscaping. Performance
criteria should be developed to reflect this
requirement.
Lack of space between and around buildings adds to

the dominance of the built form in the streetscape.
Large setbacks from side boundaries, containing
vegetation Hence, as with front setbacks, encouragement
should be given to the provision of enough space
between buildings and side boundaries to enable the planting of vegetation. This should also
apply to the construction of single dwellings. Minimum standards should apply, and a planning
permit should be required to assess any variation of these, provided that overall neighbourhood
character objectives are met.
26
Recommendation:
Develop performance criteria that encourage a minimum building setback from the front
boundary that is able to be landscaped to assist in the framing / softening of the building.
Where this is unable to be met, then a planning permit should be required.
Develop performance criteria that discourage construction of buildings to both side
boundaries of a site in favour of space between buildings for effective landscaping. Where
minimum standards are unable to be met, then a planning permit should be required.
Where planning approval is required, develop neighbourhood character objectives which
must be met, in particular relating to the availability of space for landscaping and screening of
buildings.
FENCING
Fencing styles vary considerably within the

different precincts across the study area. Side
and rear boundary fencing are predominantly
timber paling throughout the Residential 1 Zone
area and all fencing is generally restricted to
post and wire throughout the Low Density
Residential Zone.
Front fencing varies across the different

precincts in the residential areas ranging from
either no or low fencing to high front fences.
Great Ocean Views is the only precinct within
the residential area that more commonly has no High, solid front fence
front fences. High solid front fencing was
identified by Dr. Green’s community perception
analysis as being incompatible with the local
character. Low and open front boundary
treatments were considered to be more
consistent with the character as they facilitate
better integration with the street.
It will be important to discourage high, solid front

fencing and instead encourage the use of
vegetation within front setback areas for
Low, permeable front fence
screening and the provision of privacy. Where
higher front fences may be considered appropriate, such as adjacent to busy roads, they should
be at least 25% permeable. It will be necessary to introduce planning controls with clear
performance criteria to assess applications for front fences where they exceed a maximum
height.
Recommendation:
Develop performance criteria for the consideration of planning permit applications for high
front fencing. Low and open style front boundary treatments with complimentary landscaping
should be encouraged rather than high solid fencing. Consideration should be given to
justifiable exemptions in the form of clear criteria, such as for properties abutting noisy main
roads.
Discourage the provision of private open space in the front of a dwelling (in multi-dwelling
developments) as this inevitably leads to the construction of high, solid front fencing.
27
4. Vegetation assessment
The vegetation assessment by Mark Trengove (refer Appendix 2) complements other work
undertaken as part of the Neighbourhood Character Study, enabling both the environmental and
character value of vegetation in the town to be considered together. Mark Trengove identified
eight indigenous vegetation communities across the study area, on both public and private land,
as shown on Map 2 Table 1 describes these communities, indicating the degree of conservation
significance associated with each site identified, based on the rarity of the species combined with
the level of disturbance that has occurred.
Table 1 Vegetation Types

Vegetation Community & Assessment
Ecological Vegetation Class (EVC)
Messmate Stringybark Woodland Locations
• Located towards the southern end of
EVC 48 ‘Heathy Woodland’
Bells Boulevard. Site – Bells
Open woodland dominated by Messmate Boulevard/Bones Rd (ref 16).
Stringybark (Eucalyptus obliqua) with scattered • Located at the eastern end of
occurrences of other gums such as: Messmate Road, between
• Manna Gum (Eucalyptus viminalis) Grossmans Road and Coombes
• Swamp Gum (Eucalyptus ovata) Road. Site - Messmate Rd (ref 9)
• Narrow Leaf Peppermint (Eucalyptus radiata) Level of Significance
• Both examples of this community are
Understorey of small heathland shrubs such as
relatively intact and are rated as
Sweet Wattle (Acacia suaveolens) with Grass
being of High Regional
Trees (Xanthorrhoea australis, X. minor), grasses, Significance.
sedges & herbaceous species.
Issues
• Dominant environmental weed is
Bluebell Creeper (Sollya
heterophylla)
Ironbark Woodland Locations
EVC 21 ‘Shrubby dry Forest’ • This community has a relatively
Open woodland dominated by Ironbark limited distribution in the
(Eucalyptus tricarpa) with scattered occurrences Geelong/Otway region.
of other gums, such as: • Confined to south western parts of
• Messmate Stringybark the study area where it occurs in
gullies and on higher ground near
• Bellarine Yellow Gum (Eucalyptus leucoxylon
Woodbank Rise.
ssp bellarinensis)
• Sites – Bells Boulevard North (ref
Understorey dominated by a range of shrubs with
12), Bells Boulevard/Toadhall (ref 14)
some grasses, sedges and herbaceous species.
and Bells Boulevard/Sunset Strip (ref
17).
Level of Significance
• All sites are relatively intact with
understorey and have a conservation
rating of High Regional
Significance.
Issues
• Dominant environmental weed is
Bluebell Creeper (Sollya
heterophylla)
28
Map 2a
Vegetation Types –
Ecological Vegetation Class (EVC) & site reference numbers
29
Map 2b
Vegetation Types –
Ecological Vegetation Class (EVC) & site reference numbers
30
Table 1 (cont) Vegetation Types

Bellarine Yellow Gum Woodland Locations
EVC 175 “Grassy Woodland” • Sites – Jan Juc Central (ref 18), South of
Open woodland dominated by Bellarine Yellow Strathmore Drive (ref 13), Duffields Road
Gum with scattered occurrences of other gums, (ref 21), Toadhall Lane (ref 15), Spring
such as: Creek Upper (ref 31), Deep Creek Upper
(ref 8) and Torquay Central (ref 3).
• Manna Gum
• Ironbark
• This community has a very limited
• Moonah (Melaleuca lanceolata) distribution in Victoria and is only found on
• Drooping Sheoke (Allocasuarina verticillata) the Bellarine Peninsula and in the
Understorey is mostly open and dominated by a Torquay/Jan Juc area. The Bellarine
range of shrubs with some grasses, sedges and Yellow Gum is listed as a protected species
herbaceous species. on the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee
Act 1988.
• ‘Grassy Woodland’ is considered an
endangered community in the Otway Plain
bioregion, Zone 3 Gherang.
• The populations across Torquay/Jan Juc
are relatively large populations with
relatively intact understorey and
regeneration, and are rated of State
Conservation Significance.
• The population at site Torquay Central (ref
3) consists of more scattered trees with
less intact understorey and is rated of
High Regional Significance
Moonah Coastal Woodland Locations
EVC 1 ‘Coastal dune Scrub Mosaic’ • Distribution confined to near coastal
Open to closed woodland or shrubland dominated Torquay between Darian Road and Bell
by Moonah. Associated trees and shrubs include: Street (ref 2), the Moonah Reserves at ‘The
Sands’ (ref 22) and Spring Creek (ref 32).
• Drooping Sheoke
• Boobialla (Myoporum insulare)
• This community is listed under Schedule 2
• Coast Rice-flower (Pimilea serpyllifolia) of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act
Understorey consists of succulent shrubs and (1988). As such all remnants of this
climbers such as: community are of conservation significance.
• Sea-berry Saltbush • Sites of State Conservation Significance
• Bower Spinach are Spring Creek Middle (ref 32) and
Reserves 1 & 2 at ‘The Sands’ (ref 22).
• moss beds
Both of these populations are relatively
The more inland occurrences of Moonah tend to intact with a predominantly indigenous
merge with the Bellarine Yellow Gum, Ironbark understorey.
and Messmate Stringbark Woodlands.
• Torquay Coastal (ref 2) is rated as being of
Regional Conservation Significance.
This site contains a mosaic of stands of
individual trees with areas of non-
indigenous natives and exotics. Limited
indigenous understorey such as Sea-berry
Saltbush and Bower Spinach remain.
31

Drooping Sheoke Woodland Locations
EVC 175 ‘Grassy Woodland’ • Confined to the banks of the lower reaches
Open to closed woodland dominated by Drooping of Deep Creek, upstream of the Esplanade.
Sheoke. Associated trees include: Level of Significance
• Golden Wattle • Relatively intact population with understorey
• Sweet Bursaria species rated of High Regional
Significance at Deep Creek Lower (ref 20)
Understorey consists of grasses, sedges, ground
covers and shrubs such as:
Hop Goodenia (Goodenia ovata)
Manna Gum Woodland Locations
EVC 55 ‘Plains Grassy Woodland’ • Confined to the banks of the middle reaches
Open to closed woodland dominated by Manna of Deep Creek.
Gum. Associated trees include: Level of Significance
• Drooping Sheoke • Relatively intact population rated of High
• Silver Banksia (Banksia marginata) Regional Significance – Deep Creek
Middle (ref 19)
• Golden Wattle
• Sweet Bursaria
Understorey consists of grasses, ground covers
and shrubs such as:
• Austral Grass-trees
• Hop Goodenia
Black-anther Flax-lily.
Coastal Complex Locations
EVC 1 ‘Coastal dune Scrub Mosaic’ • Confined to the coastal verge of
EVC 48 ‘Heathy Woodland’ Torquay/Jan Juc
Consists of a complex of coastal vegetation Levels of Significance
including: • The site Coastal Heathland (ref 26) is
• Coastal Dune Complex including shrubland relatively intact and has a limited and now
and grassland reduced distribution within Victoria and is
rated of State Conservation Significance.
• Coastal Cliff Shrubland
• The sites Coastal Dune Complex, Coastal
• Coastal Heathland
Cliff and Coastal Heathland Complex (ref 23
and 25) include areas of relatively intact
indigenous vegetation including a
population of Coast Wirilda and some
scattered Moonah, both distributions rate as
High Regional Significance.
• The sites Coastal dune, Coastal cliff
Complex (ref 24) contain some indigenous
vegetation, including scattered Moonah and
areas of modified and exotic vegetation and
is rated as Regional Conservation
Significance.
32

Saltmarsh Complex Locations
EVC 52 ‘Coastal Saltmarsh Complex’ • Confined to the lower tidal reaches of
Saltmarsh and saline herbfield dominated by low Spring Creek.
halophytic shrubs and succulents Level of Significance
• Spring Creek Lower (ref 33) contains areas
of relatively intact indigenous vegetation
and is rated of High Regional
Conservation Significance.
Exotic and Non-indigenous Native Vegetation Locations
Garden vegetation or grazing land consisting of • The majority of Torquay/Jan Juc is covered
exotic pasture grasses by exotic and non-indigenous vegetation.
• Sites are North of Deep Creek (ref 1),
Grossmans Road/Coombes Road (ref 5, 6
& 7), Rocklea Drive (ref 4), Beach Road
West (1), Spring Creek South (ref 10), Jan
Juc (ref 11), Zeally Bay Caravan Park (ref
27), Torquay Caravan Park (ref 28),
Torquay Golf Club and Torquay Sports
Reserve (ref 30).
Levels of significance
• All sites are rated of No Conservation
Significance.
Source: Mark Trengove 2003 – Torquay/Jan Juc Neighbourhood Character Study – Vegetation Report
State Native Vegetation Framework
The primary goal for native vegetation management in Victoria is to achieve, ‘A reversal, across the
entire landscape, of the long-term decline in the extent and quality of native vegetation, leading to a
Net Gain’ (DSE, 2002). ‘Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management – A Framework for Action’
establishes the framework to achieve a Net Gain. The framework adopts a three-step process when
considering on-ground proposals to manage or clear native vegetation which identifies that the
priority in native vegetation management is firstly protecting intact indigenous vegetation. The three-
step approach is to be applied as follows:
1. Avoid adverse impacts, particularly through vegetation clearance.
2. If impacts cannot be avoided, minimise impacts through appropriate consideration in planning
processes and expert input to project design or management.
3. Identify appropriate offset options.
The implication of this framework is that greater emphasis is placed at a State, Catchment and Local
level on the protection and enhancement of existing native vegetation, focusing primarily on private
land where the critical issues of past clearing and fragmentation have taken place. The framework
ensures that where vegetation removal cannot be avoided a process exists for determining
requirements for the protection or management of other stands of remnant native vegetation or the
planting of replacement indigenous vegetation.
The framework recognises that a holistic approach to vegetation management must be applied and
that vegetation management will be based on bioregions, or sub-units within the Catchment
Management Authority region. The framework sets the strategic goals at a State level to ensure a
consistent approach across the state to land, water and vegetation management. The framework is
complemented at a bioregion and regional catchment level by the draft Biodiversity Action Plan and
the Corangamite Native Vegetation Plan (soon to be released) which sets priorities for the bioregion
and the Corangamite Catchment.
33
The Otway Plain Bioregion covers a large area extending from Princetown to the Bellarine
Peninsular. This bioregion is divided into 6 landscape zones within which common features of
landscape and biota are identifiable. The Gherang landscape zone encompasses the area of coast
and hinterland between Eastern View and Connewarre, which includes the Torquay and Jan Juc
area.
Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) – Otway Plains Bioregion
The draft ‘Biodiversity Action Planning - Landscape Plan for Zone 3 Gherang, Otway Plain Bioregion’
(DSE, 2003) states that ‘the Otway Plain is of high conservation value due to its remaining native
vegetation cover (about 30%) and important wetland habitat. It has a high requirement for land
protection and restoration work, particularly along degraded waterways,’ (DSE, 2003).
Major environmental issues raised in the Otway Plain bioregion include:

• Clearing of remnant vegetation.
• Degradation of waterways and wetlands through increased nutrients, sedimentation, bank
destabilisation and salinity.
• Residential subdivisions and tourism development in ecologically sensitive areas.
• Weed invasion.
• Predatation of native wildlife by foxes and cats.
• Lack of regeneration in remnant vegetation due to grazing.
• Drainage of wetlands.
• Alterations of natural flow regimes.
• Inappropriate fire regimes.
• Fragmentation of habitats through incremental clearing.
• Loss of mature and hollow bearing trees.
• Impacts from recreational use of forests, wetlands and coastal areas.
• Cinnamon Fungus.
Particularly relevant to the study area, the BAP states that:
“Subdivision and urban development, particularly along the coast are placing enormous pressure
on the biodiversity. Connective remnants have become fragmented, disturbance of existing
populations has increased and additional threats to species/communities have arisen. Stronger
municipal planning controls are therefore required in areas of significant biodiversity.”
The BAP identifies the following threatened flora within the Torquay / Jan Juc study area::
• Yellow Gum (endangered Vic)
• Yellow Star (inadequately known Vic)
• Hoary Sunray (endangered Vic / Aust EPBC Act 1999)
The BAP identifies the following threatened fauna within the Torquay / Jan Juc study area:
• Pacific Gull (near threatened, Vic)
• Shy Albatross (vulnerable Vic / Aust, EPBC Act 1999)
• Great Egret (vulnerable Vic)
• Nankeen Night Heron (near threatened Vic)
• Lewin’s Rail (vulnerable Vic)
• Royal Spoonbill (vulnerable Vic)
• Australasian Shoveller (vulnerable Vic)
• Musk Duck (vulnerable Vic)
34
• Growling Grass Frog (vulnerable Aust, EPBC Act 1999, endangered Vic)
• Baillon’s Crake (vulnerable Vic)
The BAP provides a structured set of priorities for biodiversity conservation in the Gherang
landscape zone which encompasses the study area. Actions recommended in the BAP for private
land that are relevant to the study area include:
1. Encourage protection of remnants on freehold land and apply voluntary programs, incentives,
management agreements and/or planning controls, as appropriate. Investigate the possibility
of land purchase by Government to be managed by Parks Victoria. Give priority attention to the
private remnants close to public land, forest blocks and threatened EVCs including the Grassy
Woodland remnants.
2. Encourage landowners to adopt a Best Management Practice (BMP) approach and utilise tools
such as the Corangamite Risk Mitigation Protocol, the Corangamite Seed Framework, the
Corangamite EVC Guide and the Surf Coast Shire Indigenous Planting Guide, 2003.
3. Ensure that Shire staff is aware of the locations and importance of freehold remnants that have
high biodiversity values.
4. Update the Environmental Significance Overlays and Vegetation Protection Overlays within the
Surf Coast Shire Planning Scheme, as further information is now available on sites which
provide critical habitat to threatened species.
5. Protect and enhance the status of unreserved stream frontages. Encourage and assist
landholders to provide maximum protection for existing values by fencing off the riparian zone,
excluding or reducing grazing where possible and retaining woody debris in streams. Priority
should be given to the Spring Creek threatened EVC remnants between Bellbrae and Bellbrae
West.
6. Fence remnants on private land to exclude stock from grazing understorey and ringbarking
mature trees, and to allow natural regeneration.
7. Encourage landowners adjacent to high-value roadsides to build boundary fences at least 5m
inside their boundary line. This will allow roadside vegetation to regenerate naturally and thus
extend the width, and lessen edge effects of significant roadside corridors. Also encourage
landowners to create firebreaks inside their properties rather than along roadsides.
8. Increase community education on both noxious and environmental weeds, including their
identification and removal techniques. Provide new residents to the area with a booklet on the
weeds found in the area.
9. Educate the community and developers/contractors on Cinnamon fungus. Emphasise the
importance of good hygiene to prevent the spread of the pathogen.
10. Supplement habitat for native fauna by restoring understorey, conserving fallen tree debris,
enhancing connectivity and retaining mature, hollow-bearing trees.
11. Supplement habitat for Great Egret, Baillon’s Crake and Growling Grass Frog by improving
quality and extent of riparian vegetation.
12. Enhance flow regimes in streams and wetlands to improve habitat for Growling Grass Frog,
Great Egret and Australasian Shoveller.
13. Encourage the exclusion of stock, to reduce physical disturbance, or understorey loss or
damage, affecting Southern Brown Bandicoot.
14. Control and reduce firewood and fallen timber collection from areas where Southern Brown
Bandicoot occur (Coombes Road).
15. Control erosion by stabilising stream banks, controlling stock access or undertaking
engineering works where necessary. This will help to reduce saltation and excessive nutrient
loads from entering waterways and thus improve the habitat for Growling Grass Frog, Great
Egret and Australasian Shoveller.
16. Encourage landscape gardeners to use indigenous species in their designs and ensure
restoration and revegetation of blocks and linkages is based on pre-1750 EVCs.
35
17. Encourage private landholders that adjoin foreshore vegetation to remove Coast Tea-tree and
Coast Wattle from their properties and replace with indigenous species.
18. Develop and maintain adequate buffer zones on freehold land protecting existing remnant
patches from disturbance, weed and pest infestation.
Vegetation of State Conservation Significance
The majority of the residential land within the study area contains only exotic or non-indigenous
native vegetation as much of the original indigenous vegetation has historically been cleared.
However, substantial patches of indigenous vegetation and isolated trees are scattered throughout
the study area, all of which range from Regional to State significance.
The vegetation with the highest conservation value (State Conservation Significance) is located on
both public land and private land and includes the Coastal Moonah Woodland community and the
Bellarine Yellow Gum. The sites on public land are along the foreshore, in reserves and adjacent to
Deep Creek and Spring Creek. On private land the sites are located on rural, residential and larger
residential lots. (Refer to table 1 and map 1 for site location and description details).
o Coastal Moonah Woodland community
Action Statement No. 141 under the Act states that the Coastal Moonah Woodland community:
“has a restricted distribution in the state due to the reliance on soil type and coastal
influences, and is in a demonstrable state of decline which is likely to result in its extinction”.
The Action Statement acknowledges:

• The significant loss of the community
due to residential development, and its
likely continued decline under current
planning arrangements.
• That residential development often
results in the retention of a proportion of
the large shrub and tree components of
the community, but almost total loss of
the smaller shrub and ground layer
components. Regeneration of the taller
components is rare within residential
areas. Remnant Moonah Woodland in Torquay
• The existence of a number of vulnerable and endangered flora and fauna species found
within the vegetation community, and that conservation of the Moonah Woodland has
potential to significantly contribute to the conservation of these taxa.
o Bellarine Yellow Gum
The draft Statement for the Bellarine Yellow Gum under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act
1988 recognises that:
• There are few extant populations and those remaining exhibit many trees with canopy
dieback and have inadequate regeneration.
36
• Most occurrences are of scattered mature

individuals on the outskirts of developing
townships, where clearing for residential
development, infrastructure and agricultural
activities have left remnants on roadsides, small
nature reserves and farms.
• Most remnants are not reserved and are
threatened by residential development.
• Recruitment is insufficient to adequately replace
senescence of mature trees. (In the Surf Coast
Remnant Bellarine Yellow Gums in
Shire 86% of sites are without regeneration - Torquay – ‘Grassy Woodland’
Trengove 2001).
• Existing mature plants are suffering from defoliation and dieback, the causes of which are
unknown (SAC 1998). The abundance of pest plants and animals and the degraded nature
of the tree’s habitats may be contributing factors.
• The frequent planting of specimen trees of Eucalyptus leucoxylon (almost invariably not
subspecies bellarinensis) on roadsides and in private and public gardens has led to
hybridisation between subspecies. Swamping of the relatively small genepool is therefore a
major threat.
The following discussion draws together biodiversity priorities from the draft BAP and the results of
Mark Trengove’s Vegetation Assessment, and makes comment about implications for residential
development and vegetation management in the study area.
Protection of indigenous and native vegetation
Consistent with the principles of the State Native Vegetation Framework (NVF) referred to above,
removal of indigenous vegetation should be avoided, particularly given that the remaining patches of
indigenous vegetation across the study area range between State and Regional Conservation
Significance. In order to protect remnant stands of Moonah and Bellarine Yellow Gums, which are
classified as being of high ecological conservation value, appropriate overlays which trigger the need
for a planning permit for the removal of indigenous vegetation should be applied across the study
area. Local controls are necessary as most lots in the Residential 1 Zone are less than 0.4ha and
are therefore not protected by the State Native Vegetation provisions (Clause 52.12) of the Planning
Scheme.
When sites are developed, buildings should be sited and designed to have minimal impact on
indigenous vegetation. This should include consideration to the impact of anticipated disturbance
from any ancillary works such as underground infrastructure, as well as balancing fire protection
requirements where land is affected by a Wildfire Management Overlay. Where removal is
unavoidable vegetation that has been highly modified should be removed in preference to intact
remnant patches that include the ground, shrub and canopy layers.
Likewise, where subdivision occurs on land which contains significant remnant vegetation, adequate
measures should be taken in order to ensure its protection. Subdivision design should carefully
reflect the location of the significant vegetation, in terms of the placement of lot boundaries, lot sizes,
infrastructure, and the creation of reserves.
Vegetation corridors should be retained and enhanced where possible in order to provide habitat for
fauna and consideration should be given to whether development and activities on private land
would have any adverse impact on the environmental values of adjoining public lands, particularly
adjacent to Deep Creek and Spring Creek. Adequate buffers should be retained next to waterways.
Any vegetation removed should be replaced with indigenous species (trees and understorey) at a
ratio appropriate to the size of the allotment. Replacing vegetation reinforces the concept of ‘Net
Gain’ advocated by the State NVF and at the same time acknowledges the importance of native
37
vegetation in contributing to neighbourhood character. Planting of Bellarine Yellow gum, Messmate

Stringybark, Ironbark, Manna Gum, Drooping Sheoke and Moonah will be encouraged as these are
the predominant tree species that naturally occur in the study area. These should be targeted in the
areas they would naturally occur and be complimented with the relevant associated understorey
where appropriate. Use of a local seed source should also be encouraged.
Vegetation Communities contain a wide range of species,

including overstorey (trees), understorey (shrubs) and ground
layer species (grasses and herbs). Protection and
enhancement of the entire community will improve the quality of
the remnant vegetation and over time will increase privacy
between lots. Mark Trengove noted in his report that the main
degradation of these communities was the highly modified
understorey and lack of natural regeneration.
The removal of environmental weeds listed in the Surf Coast

Shire’s “Environmental Weeds: Invaders of our Surf Coast”
(2002) should be encouraged by continuing to exempt these
species from permit requirements. Environmental weeds such
as Coast Wattle and Coast Tea-tree have potential to
overcrowd and eventually take the place of other plant species.
Photo of Buebell Creeper – problem
To make effective gains in the control of environmental weeds weed in the Torquay / Jan Juc area
on private land, consideration should be given to adoption of a
local law that prohibits the planting of these species. Such a law would require resourcing due to the
substantial education, monitoring and enforcement that would be involved, particularly in the years
following its implementation. The use of weed species in landscaping plans associated with new
development would not be approved.
Relationship of Vegetation to the Built Environment
Retention and replanting of vegetation is greatly dependent on lot size and site coverage. This is
discussed in more detail in Chapter 3 in relation to achieving a preferred neighbourhood character.
For existing subdivisions and estates, consideration needs to be given to the prioritisation of
protection of significant indigenous vegetation, as identified in this chapter, against any other
controls or aims, whether these are related to achieving neighbourhood character or other aims of
the planning scheme. Due to the relative vulnerability of much of the remnant vegetation remaining
in the study area its protection should be given a high priority. Thus, for instance, if compliance with
a minimum recommended frontage setback would still result in the removal of significant indigenous
vegetation on the site, then further measures should be pursued over and above meeting the
minimum setback requirement to ensure the protection of the vegetation.
Disturbance to vegetation should be avoided where possible and where it is unavoidable should be
limited to building envelopes and the provision of services, in order to protect and enhance both the
canopy and understorey vegetation across the balance of a site. Retention of indigenous vegetation
should be given priority, whilst recognising the value of other native vegetation for its contribution to
the neighbourhood character. In areas covered by the Wild Fire Management Overlay appropriate
management of ground fuels around dwellings will be required for fire prevention purposes.
The development of new residential estates within the study area should be designed to enhance the
value of remnant vegetation and habitat, and to make these key features of any development that
has the dual benefit of reversing decline of these species and securing the framework of the
preferred neighbourhood character.
Education
It is important that regulatory controls on residential development be supplemented by enhanced
education of the community to achieve desired outcomes such as:
• Removal of environmental weeds from private land.
38
• Planting of indigenous plant species on private land as opposed to exotic, weed or non-
indigenous native species.
• An appropriate balance between management of indigenous vegetation for fire protection as
well as environmental outcomes.
• Adoption of land management techniques that protect and enhance the environmental values of
adjoining nature reserves and/or crown land.
This information should be communicated through the Shire’s web site in addition to other forums
such as the new resident information kit which should include a copy of the publications
Environmental Weeds: Invaders of our Surf Coast, 2002, and Surf Coast Shire’s Indigenous Planting
Guide, 2003.
Recommendation
Apply appropriate overlays to require planning permits for the removal of indigenous vegetation
of local, regional and state significance, as identified in the Vegetation Assessment report,
including isolated species of Moonah and Bellarine Yellow Gum, throughout the study area.
Develop appropriate performance criteria and policies for the protection and enhancement of
these species.
Develop performance criteria for new residential subdivisions to ensure they incorporate
measures to enhance and feature stands of remnant vegetation, protect vegetated public land
and establish strategic vegetated / open space corridors linking significant pockets of vegetation.
Priority should be given to education of landowners of environmental weeds and preferred
indigenous planting, as well as increased resourcing for enforcement of conditions of permits
that require vegetation to be retained and/or planted
39
5. Review of Planning Controls
EXISTING PLANNING CONTROLS
The Surf Coast Shire introduced a new planning scheme in October 2000 based on the Victoria
Planning Provisions (VPPs). A Residential 1 Zone (R1Z) was applied to the residential areas in
Torquay and Jan Juc and the Low Density Residential Zone to larger residential/small rural
allotments adjacent to the townships. The residential areas were covered by the Design and
Development Overlay – Schedule 1 (DDO1), with the exception of the Geelong Road, Torquay,
which was covered by a Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 2 (DDO2), part of which
has recently been replaced by a Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 7 (DDO7). The
Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 1 (SLO1) was applied to the Low Density Residential
Zoned land along the cliff top of Jan Juc through to Bells Beach. In addition, the Significant
Landscape Overlay - Schedule 2 (SLO2) was applied to residential land along The Esplanade in
Torquay and Ocean Boulevard and Carnoustie Avenue in Jan Juc.
The Vegetation Protection Overlay – Schedule 1 (VPO1) and the Wildfire Management Overlay
(WMO) was applied to pockets of land along Coombes Road and Bells Boulevard, although the
two overlays do not always cover the same land. More recently a VPO3 was applied to a stand
of Bellarine Yellow Gums on the north east side of Coombes Road. The current zone and
overlay controls are shown on Maps 3 and 4.
Policies for future growth and development for Torquay and Jan Juc were summarised and
incorporated in the Scheme as a Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS). The following is a
summary of the controls in the Planning Scheme that have relevance to land use and
development within the study area.
State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)
The SPPF includes state policy to which all local planning provisions must conform. It
encourages consolidation of existing urban areas whilst respecting neighbourhood character and
landscape values and refers the Planning Authority to the ‘Great Ocean Road Region – A Land
Use and Transport Strategy’ (DSE, 2004) for future planning for the Great Ocean Road area.
The strategy identifies Torquay/Jan Juc as a growth node for residential growth within the Surf
Coast Shire due to availability of social and physical infrastructure, access to major roads and
public transport and being unrestricted by park land.
The SPPF also recognizes the importance of Victoria’s natural resources and states that areas of
environmental significance are to be protected. It refers to a range of state and national
environment strategies, including the ‘Victorian Coastal Strategy’ (2002), any relevant coastal
action plan approved under the Coastal Management Act 1995 and any regional catchment
strategy approved under the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994. ‘Action Statements’
under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988, must also be considered and the SPPF states
that decision making by Councils should assist the conservation of the habitats of threatened and
endangered species and communities as identified under the Act, as well as addressing
potentially threatening processes.
Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF)
The LPPF section of the Scheme includes the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and a
number of local policies. Those that are relevant to the study area are described below. The
Torquay Jan Juc Strategy is particularly relevant and this Neighbourhood Character Study will
provide the basis for the review of parts of this strategy.
40
Chapter 5 Torquay – Jan Juc Neighbourhood Character Study
Torquay-Jan Juc Strategy (Clause 21.10)
This Strategy is a summary of a number of studies compiled during the late 1990’s, and identifies
Torquay/Jan Juc as the key residential growth area for the Surf Coast Shire, which is consistent
with the ‘Great Ocean Road Region – A Land Use and Transport Strategy’ (DSE, 2004). The
Torquay/Jan Juc Strategy notes that population in the two towns grew 4.5%pa between 1996 and
2001, and describes the following strategies for future residential growth:
• “Accommodate demand for housing at conventional densities in Torquay West and
Torquay North with limited medium density development dispersed throughout the
areas to maintain the suburban character of these areas.
• Establish South Beach Road and the land immediately east of Horseshoe Bend
Road as the long term boundary for future urban and residential development in the
Torquay North area.
• Acknowledge that the eastern lowlands (east of Horseshoe Bend Road abutting the
Breamlea Wetlands) is an area of good quality agricultural land and is to be
protected by establishing a clear limit to north-eastern residential expansion.
• Establish Duffields Road as the western boundary for residential development until
such time as Torquay West is almost fully developed.
• Retain land west of Duffields Road in rural use and discourage uses incompatible
with future urban development to preserve its potential for long term urban
development.
• Facilitate and complement a process of change occurring in Old Torquay by
promoting urban consolidation and quality medium density development, especially
in the immediate surrounds of the Torquay Town Centre.
• Promote urban consolidation in Jan Juc by exhausting remaining infill opportunities
and allowing medium density development that is dispersed through established
areas.”
The Strategy makes specific references to coastal character as follows:
“Torquay is valued for its distinctive coastal township character and traditional role as a
seaside holiday resort that the community considers should be maintained and
enhanced.
The siting and design of future development is a matter of great concern to the Shire.
Torquay-Jan Juc has developed as a traditional seaside resort and its built environment
is distinctly different from that which might been seen in conventional suburban areas.
Traditional street layouts follow a grid style pattern rather than a maze of anonymous
crescents and culs-de-sac. Houses and lots sizes are varied in size and design. A range
of colours and materials and fencing types have been used which create interesting
variations in different residential areas.
This diversity contributes to the distinct character of Torquay-Jan Juc. The Shire will
promote the concept of Surf Coast Design to reinforce valued aspects of coastal
character whether or not a planning permit is required for a particular development.
Torquay-Jan Juc has a relatively low rise character which, historically, was reinforced by
planning controls. There is potential for this character to be destroyed as new, taller
buildings compete for ocean views. This would be to the detriment of the amenity of
views from existing dwellings and would adversely impact on the established coastal and
streetscape characters of the area.
Questions of architectural style, siting, design and landscaping are even more important
in relation to medium density housing and buildings in highly visible areas of the town
such as the Surf Coast Highway and the foreshore boulevards. Special attention will be
given to massing and articulation of buildings, materials and colour schemes, solar
41
orientation, landscaping and siting generally to maintain and enhance the character of
these areas. This will particularly apply to visually prominent sites along the Highway and
to land on the corner of Surf Coast Highway and Grossmans Road which have the
potential to make a high quality and outstanding entrance statement to the town.
It is therefore proposed to apply appropriate overlays along coastal boulevards and the
Surf Coast Highway in order to invoke the Surf Design policy and, in the case of land on
the western side of the Highway, to maintain the existing building line which has already
created a distinctive streetscape image in the Surf City precinct.”
The following strategies are listed to achieve these objectives:

• “Develop a ‘Surf Coast Design’ manual and conduct a program of community
education to encourage residents to consider and take up Surf Coast Design
elements when planning and designing their houses.
• Apply a building height limit in Torquay-Jan Juc to retain the low rise coastal
character of the landscape.
• Develop landscaping and thematic tree planting programs to improve the character of
streetscapes and encourage property owners to undertake similar programs on
private property.
• Ensure future design and landscaping of development along the Surf Coast Highway
and coastal boulevards evoke a seaside, coastal and surf culture character and a
depth of view where the town’s surfing, commercial and civic functions can be
recognised at a glance. In particular, ensure that land on the corner of Surf Coast
Highway and Grossmans Road is developed with buildings that are architecturally
superior, make a high quality outstanding entrance statement to the town and build
on the emerging Surf Coast Design theme.
• Implement streetscape and landscaping plans in the Stuart Avenue retail centre in
Jan Juc designed to address current symptoms of urban blight such as dominance of
the motor vehicle, poor condition of buildings and lack of vegetation.”
The Strategy further acknowledges the significance of the environment to the character of
Torquay and Jan Juc and that protection and enhancement of the indigenous flora and fauna will
be paramount to the long term uniqueness and significance of the area. Key strategies to
protect the environment are:
• Improve the appearance and amenity of the urban areas of Torquay through theme
landscaping on major roads and entries, landscaping in new residential subdivisions
and enhancement of visual links between urban areas and the foreshore.
• Support the upgrading and improvement of Taylor Park.
• Maintain and enhance the character and vitality of the Bell Street commercial area
and create stronger links between Bell Street and the beach.
• Provide only essential beach and cliff access on Jan Juc foreshore and continue to
support its ongoing revegetation.
• Recognise the strong 19th Century feel landscape design of Point Danger area and
seek to minimise the impact of vehicles.
• Enhance the Yellow Bluff area by implementing erosion control measures and
creating viewsheds between Gilbert Street and the ocean to integrate the Town
Centre and foreshore activities.
• Extend the character of Yellow Bluff at least to Deep Creek and the sand dunes
commencing at Whites Beach through strategic roadside and other minor plantings to
convert an excessively open and windswept area into a green and shady coastal
environment.
• Acknowledge the strong dune system in the Whites Beach area and take advantage
of road closures and limitations on vehicle access by creating extensive planting.
42
• Extend, protect and enhance the Breamlea Wetlands by adopting strong boundaries
and buffers from urban areas.
• Recognise that the visually prominent ridgeline (running from the
Anglesea/Grossmans Road intersection through to Horseshoe Bend Road/South
Beach Road area) effectively shields the Torquay urban area from southerly directed
views and ensure that the rural character of the Mt Duneed corridor is retained
through the use of large minimum lot sizes.
• Ensure that future development makes best use of limited land available for future
rural residential purposes on the fringe of the township.
• Protect the qualities of the Spring Creek Valley through enhancement of the valley
drainage system as a key part of the future open space system and by identifying
suitable areas for long term recreational use.
• Acknowledge the sensitive and unique environmental qualities of the Bells Beach
hinterland and Ironbark Basin by preventing further rural residential or small lot
subdivision and by developing and implementing clear guidelines for future use and
development in the area.
Environment Strategy (MSS)
This Strategy recognises that the decline and fragmentation of indigenous vegetation and loss of
biodiversity is a major environmental and land degradation issue in the Shire, and that this
decline should be reversed. It states that the design of new subdivisions and new developments
should take into account the protection, conservation and management of natural features,
including remnant indigenous vegetation, including old trees, wetlands and streams. It also
highlights the threat to native flora and fauna posed by environmental weeds, and that the
planting of these pest plants should be actively discouraged.
Coastal Development Policy
This policy applies to most residential land within the study area, however many of the provisions
only apply to the land covered by the Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO). The SLO only affects
a small portion of the two townships. The policy covers the following key elements:
• Development densities and subdivision lot size
• Vegetation cover
• Building scale, including siting, height, site coverage, size and view sharing.
• Building design.
• Fences.
This study provides a platform upon which to review how the above elements are applied and
controlled across Torquay and Jan Juc and whether or not further application is required in order
to protect community values.
Surf Coast Style and Colours Policy
This policy applies to all land within the study area and encourages the use of architectural
designs, features and colours in new buildings that complements the character of the coastal
towns, avoiding typical urban forms usually found in built-up areas. The policy includes factors to
be taken into account when assessing the colour schemes of external materials, namely the
coastal and landscape character of the adjoining streets. However in most cases throughout the
study area, a planning permit is not required for a single dwelling and therefore the majority of
new developments are not assessed against this policy.
43
Streetscape and Landscape Policy
This policy applies to all land within the study area and sets out requirements for landscape plans
to be submitted with development applications of various types, as well as discouraging planting
of environmental weeds, and requiring the payment of a bond to ensure the retention of
significant vegetation in some circumstances.
ZONES AND OVERLAYS
Residential 1 Zone (R1Z) and Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 1 (DDO1)
Under the requirements of the R1Z, a permit is required to construct a single dwelling if the lot is
less than 300sqm. The development is then required to be assessed against Clause 54 of the
Planning Scheme (ResCode).
Where the R1Z is combined with the DDO1 (applying to most of the residential areas of Torquay
and Jan Juc), a permit is not required for residential development, except where the following
apply:
• The building height exceeds 7.5 metres
• The lot has an area less than 450sqm
• There is a change in ground level of more than 2m resulting from cut or fill.
• The building is being relocated from another place
• More than one dwelling is proposed
Where a permit is required, proposals must comply with the performance standards of Clauses
54 of the Planning Scheme (ResCode) (if the lot is smaller than 300sqm), Clause 55 (where units
are proposed) and Clause 56 (where a subdivision is proposed). Proposals must also comply with
any local policy as required.
Where the R1Z is combined with the DDO2 (applying to one lot only - 120 Surf Coast Highway,
corner of Beach Road) a permit is required for development, with the exception of a fence or an
outdoor swimming pool.
Where the R1Z is combined with the DDO7 (applying to the remaining residential lots fronting the
Surf Coast Highway) a permit is required for development, with the exception of an outdoor
swimming pool.
any local policy as required and also meet the standards of the Surf Coast Highway Urban
Design Guidelines.
44
Residential 1 Zone (R1Z) and Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 2 (SLO2)
Where the R1Z is combined with the SLO2 (The Esplanade, Ocean Boulevard and Carnoustie
Avenue), a permit is not required for residential development, except where any of the following
apply:
• The building height exceeds 5m.
• The site coverage of buildings exceeds 200m² or 35% of the site area.
• The lot has an area below 450sqm.
• There is a change in ground level greater than 2m resulting from cut or fill.
• The building is being relocated from another place.
• A side or rear fence is proposed that exceeds 1.6 metres in height and is to be constructed
of brick, stone, masonry or sheet metal.
Approval is also required for external colours and materials and the removal of native vegetation
in most cases.
Low Density Residential 1 Zone (LDRZ)
Where the LDRZ is applied with no overlays (parts of Bells Boulevard and the Briody Drive
Estate) a permit is not required for a single dwelling. Where a permit is required, proposals must
comply with any local policy as required. A permit is also required for removal of native vegetation
on lots greater than 0.4ha.
Low Density Residential 1 Zone (LDRZ) and Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 1 (SLO1)
Where the LDRZ is combined with the SLO1 a permit is required for all residential development,
except for a timber post and wire fence up to 1.5 metres in height. A permit is also required for
removal of native vegetation, except where exemptions apply (such as environmental weeds).
Approval is required for external colours and materials. Proposals must comply with any local
policy as required.
Low Density Residential 1 Zone (LDRZ) and Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 2 (SLO2)
Where the LDRZ is combined with the SLO2 (Strathmore Drive and Camrose Court), a permit is
not required for residential development, except where the following apply:
• The building height exceeds 5m.
• The site coverage of buildings exceeds 200m² or 35% of the site area.
• The lot has an area below 450sqm.
• There is a change in ground level greater than 2m resulting from cut or fill.
• The building is being relocated from another place.
• A side or rear fence is proposed that exceeds 1.6 metres in height and is to be constructed
of brick, stone, masonry or sheet metal.
Approval is also required for external colours and materials and the removal of native vegetation
except where exemptions apply (such as environmental weeds).
45
Low Density Residential 1 Zone (LDRZ) and Vegetation Protection Overlay – Schedule 1 (VPO1)
Where the LDRZ is combined with the VPO1 (parts of Bells Boulevard and Coombes Road) a
permit is required to remove native vegetation except where exemptions apply (such as
environmental weeds).
Where a permit is required applications must be referred to the Department of Sustainability and
Environment for consent.
Low Density Residential 1 Zone (LDRZ) and Wildfire Management Overlay (WMO)
Where the LDRZ is combined with the WMO (parts of Bells Boulevard and Coombes Road) a
permit is required for residential development except for minor dwelling additions.
Where a permit is required applications must be referred to the Country Fire Authority for
consent.
46
Map 3A
Surf Coast Planning Scheme – Zones
(Torquay)
47
Map 3B
(Torquay)
48
Chapter 5 Torquay-Jan Juc Neighbourhood Character
Study
Map 3C
(Jan Juc)
49
Study
Map 4A
Surf Coast Planning Scheme – Design and Development Overlay
(Torquay)
50
Map 4B
(Torquay)
51
Study
Map 4C
(Jan Juc)
52
Study
Map 4D
Surf Coast Planning Scheme – Significant Landscape Overlay
(Torquay)
53
Map 4E
(Torquay)
54
Study
Map 4F
(Jan Juc)
55
Study
Map 4G
Surf Coast Planning Scheme – Environmental Significance Overlay
(Torquay)
56
Map 4H
Surf Coast Planning Scheme – Environmental Significance Overlay
(Torquay)
57
Study
Map 4I
Surf Coast Planning Scheme – Vegetation Protection Overlay
(Torquay)
58
Study
Map 4J
Surf Coast Planning Scheme – Vegetation Protection Overlay
(Jan Juc)
59
Study
Map 4K
Surf Coast Planning Scheme – Wildfire Management Overlay
(Torquay)
60
Map 4L
(Torquay)
61
Study
Map 4M
(Jan Juc)
62
Study
Map 4N
Surf Coast Planning Scheme – Land Subject to Inundation and Floodway Overlay
(Torquay)
63
Map 4O
Surf Coast Planning Scheme – Land Subject to Inundation and Floodway Overlay
(Torquay)
64
Map 4P
Surf Coast Planning Scheme – Heritage Overlay
(Torquay)
65
Map 4Q
Surf Coast Planning Scheme – Development Plan Overlay
(Torquay)
66
Map 4R
Surf Coast Planning Scheme – Environmental Audit Overlay
(Torquay)
67
ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONTROLS
The community perception analysis conducted by Dr. Green found that numerous new
developments across the study area exhibited features that were perceived to be incompatible
with the preferred character. It can therefore be assumed that the current controls are not
achieving the community’s vision for development in Torquay / Jan Juc and therefore need to be
reviewed and strengthened, with special focus being given to encouraging all development to
incorporate the characteristics that make development compatible with the preferred character.
To assist in focussing on the elements that appear to be creating the problems and those that
appear to best work in meeting the community’s expectations, a number of case studies were
undertaken and analysed against the existing controls and the identified elements previously
discussed.
It is acknowledged that the selection of case studies is only a ‘snap shot’ of existing development,
however when combined with all other aspects of this study, it provides an analysis of the current
planning provisions not otherwise available.
Twenty case studies were examined. 13 were identified as not meeting neighbourhood character
expectations and 7 houses were chosen because they were considered compatible. Six of the
twenty case studies are covered by the current Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 2
which includes tighter controls for development than the standard ResCode provisions. The
remainder of the case studies are affected by the DDO1. Individual analysis of the case studies
is contained in Appendix 6.
Case Studies – Not in Character
A number of the case studies which required a planning permit (predominantly those affected by
the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 2) and which were considered incompatible with
neighbourhood character, fail to comply with at least one aspect of the current planning
provisions. However, it should be noted that over half of these developments were approved
prior to the new format planning scheme being introduced in October 2000. The most common
areas of non-compliance are:
Five of the case studies (1, 2, 14, 15, & 18) exceed the maximum building height of 7.5m in
the SLO2 and DDO1.
Five of the case studies (1, 2, 11, 12, & 15) exceed the maximum plot ratio of 0.5 in the
SLO2.
Four of the case studies (1, 2, 11, & 12) fail to comply with the maximum building site
coverage of 35% and the maximum total hard surface area of 50% in the SLO2.
Most of these developments have minimal front and side setbacks with negligible
landscaping within the setback areas.
While these case studies would have been improved through compliance with the current
provisions, it is unlikely that compliance would have resulted in vastly improved neighbourhood
character outcomes. The basis for this conclusion is that at present there is a lack of emphasis
provided in the current provisions regarding retention and enhancement of indigenous vegetation.
In some cases there is inadequate area within the front and side setbacks to accommodate
indigenous trees and shrubs that would facilitate screening of the development. It is therefore
concluded that the significance of retaining and enhancing indigenous vegetation cover should be
the starting point for all developments.
Of the remaining cases where planning permits were required and issued, it is important to note
that case studies 13, 16, & 17 generally comply with the current provisions, even though they are
considered to be ‘out of character’ through the community perception modelling undertaken by
Dr. Green. Furthermore, case studies 3, 4, 5 were also considered incompatible but required no
planning permit. These cases were therefore only subject to the requirements under the Building
Act.
68
The ResCode provisions, which provide the primary decision making tool for planners assessing
applications currently affected by the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 1, allow a
building site coverage up to 60% and a minimum of 20% site area as permeable surface. Based
on the case studies assessed against ResCode, even though they are generally not developed to
the maximum intensity that is possible under the current provisions, the developments are
considered to be inappropriate for the character of Torquay and Jan Juc. The key issue with
most developments is the ability, or lack thereof, to retain and enhance the vegetation cover, as
well as the visual dominance of buildings in the streetscape, that is, building bulk.
To facilitate enhanced vegetation cover, it is therefore recommended that the building site
coverage and permeable surfaces (hard surface area) provisions be revisited to ensure there is
adequate area for vegetation. To reduce the visual bulk of buildings the introduction of plot ratio
controls is recommended.
Using the information from the case studies it is possible to determine minimum requirements for
future development. However, precise figures should be established as part of the planning
scheme amendment process. The average area of permeable surfaces for the case studies is
44% of the site, which is deemed inadequate to retain and enhance the preferred character of
Torquay and Jan Juc. Increasing the minimum area of permeable surfaces would provide
additional area for landscaping. However, this needs to be balanced against being reasonable in
terms of allowing future development.
The calculation of permeable surface area should not include common property in unit
developments, or driveways given that the purpose of permeable surfaces (ie the opposite of
hard surface) is to provide for an area to be landscaped. This is opposed to pervious surfaces as
defined within ResCode which deals with the ability of a surface to be able to absorb water.
Driveways can not be landscaped and can therefore not contribute their area towards the
vegetated character of a development. They should therefore be excluded from any calculation
of hard surface.
Similarly, the calculation for hard surface and site coverage for multi-unit developments and
subdivisions should ensure that the relevant development standards are met for each dwelling,
and are not averaged across all dwellings. This is necessary, as is evident from case study 1, to
ensure that developments which comply with provisions at the time of construction which are
subject to subdivision proposals at a later date are still compliant with development standards.
Hard surface area includes building site coverage and hard surfaces such as paving and
driveway. It is important to define a maximum building site coverage to accommodate enough
space for hard surfaces such as driveways and paving. Consistent with the definition of a
building as defined in s. 3 of the Planning and Environment Act (1987), a building includes:
“(a) a structure and part of a building or a structure; and
(b) fences, walls, out-buildings, service installations and other appurtenances of a building…”
Based on the above definition, decking, even at ground level, is considered part of a building, and
should be calculated as part of building site coverage. There should be an adequate allowance
for an area of the site to be developed by driveways and other paved areas. As such, the
maximum building site coverage should be proportionately below the maximum hard surface
area. Although a prescriptive approach is recommended, there should be room for discretion to
be exercised in each case by relating the outcome to the landscape character objectives in the
overlay. Hence, there may be some room to vary the overall building site coverage if this does
not impact on the maximum hard surface area and landscaping outcomes. It is also suggested
that one of these objectives emphasises the siting of buildings to allow enough room around the
development to adequately screen the building using vegetation.
As with site coverage it is recommended to introduce plot ratio controls which reduce the visual
bulk of buildings by controlling the size of upper storeys. Percentages should be arrived at by
studying the case studies to determine the impact of different building sizes on different sized
allotments.
The case studies also highlighted the need for adequate front and side setbacks. The buildings
which were perceived to be out of character had little separation from one another and from
property boundaries, with the result being a dominance of built form in the landscape, and little
69
capacity for integration into the surrounding vegetated environment, or reestablishment of

vegetation. Narrow setbacks do not provide adequate area to establish planting of new
indigenous trees that are characteristic of the preferred character due to their proximity to
buildings. Setback controls should be introduced to ensure there is adequate space around
buildings to plant shrubs and trees. Setback areas should be arrived at by using templates of
different vegetation types to ensure that adequate area is available on a site for the planting of
indigenous canopy trees and shrubs following development of a dwelling.
It is also noted from the case studies the importance of the positioning of the garage and the
width of the driveway on the appearance of the dwelling and its compatibility with the preferred
character. Case 10 highlighted a development where the bulk of the dwelling is extensively
screened from the street, however, a double garage and wide light coloured driveway dominates
the building’s appearance. Garages located well behind the main building line, which are
serviced by narrow recessively designed driveways, are more compatible with the preferred
character. As such, controls should be introduced to address this issue.
REVIEW OF PLANNING CONTROLS
The Study has identified a range of features in Chapters 3 & 4 which combine to create an overall
low rise coastal character across the townships of Torquay and Jan Juc, even though various
developments throughout the township exhibit features that are incompatible with the preferred
character. Central Torquay and Jan Juc vary from the newly subdivided areas due to the
established vegetation and built form however all precincts contain attributes seen to be both
positive and negative by the community. The identified preferred character is consistent with
current references to coastal character referred to in the Torquay-Jan Juc Strategy of the MSS,
however it has become evident that the current planning controls are inadequate if this character
is to be maintained and enhanced into the future, and that modifications need to be made to the
current planning controls.
The current policy is to cater for future residential growth by encouraging in-fill development as
well as directing development to growth corridors to the north and west of Torquay. The lot sizes
across most of the study area are capable of supporting substantial in-fill development, however
the study has identified that it will be important to ensure that the coastal character is not
compromised. Encouraging infill development and facilitating the development of the growth
corridors, whilst respecting the neighbourhood character, is consistent with the ‘Great Ocean
Road Region – A Land Use and Transport Strategy’ and the overall policy for Housing and
Settlement in the State Planning Policy Framework and the Torquay Jan Juc Strategy in the
Local Planning Policy Framework of the Planning Scheme.
The Study has further highlighted in Chapter 4 priorities for vegetation and habitat protection.
In order to achieve the preferred character for the towns and appropriately respond to vegetation
and habitat protection issues, the following need to given consideration:.
• Greater priority to protection and enhancement of indigenous vegetation and trees with
landscape value.
• Increased emphasis on integration of development with the existing low density
environment by way of reduced building bulk, maintaining a 7.5m height limit and increased
emphasis on landscaping to enhance the vegetation cover.
• Discouragement of developments that are constructed across the width of a property and
reduction in site and hard surface coverage.
• Discouragement of high front fencing and encouraging materials and colours that are
compatible with the coastal character.
• More consistent controls across the entire study area to ensure that all new development is
compatible with the preferred neighbourhood character.
Although there are some variances between precincts within the two townships the preferred
character is consistent across the entire study area. The assessment of character elements at
Chapter 3 provides the strategic basis for application of revised controls across the study area,
70
including triggers for requiring a permit where buildings and works exceed certain criteria which
would make them incompatible with the preferred character. Chapter 4 provides the strategic
basis for application of controls across the study area for requiring a permit for native vegetation
removal.
Although such controls exist at present in parts of Torquay and Jan Juc, the extension of more
specific controls across the entire study area will apply a more consistent approach to the
enhancement of the neighbourhood character.
It is not necessary at this stage of the process to detail precisely which planning tools will best
achieve the desired preferred character outcomes. However, as part of the planning scheme
amendment process to follow the adoption of this study, it will be necessary to make a detailed
assessment of the planning tools available within the Victorian Planning Provisions (VPPs) before
devising any specific planning controls. As required by the Planning and Environment Act (1987)
this process will be subject to a period of further public consultation and scrutiny.
71
6. Other Matters
Monitoring and Review
It is recommended that a review of the effectiveness of revised planning controls introduced as

an outcome of the study is conducted after five years of operation. In this way there can be
monitoring of whether preferred character outcomes specified in the Scheme are being met in
new development.
A preferred method of review would be to consult the community about developments approved
and constructed within the review time frame, which are considered to be favourable to or
detracting from the character of the town. The process should be based in principle on the
process used by Dr. Green in the current study, with particular attention given to review of
specific developments mentioned most frequently. This information can be the basis for a review
of the development controls.
Planning Enforcement
Concerns were raised regarding inadequate enforcement of planning scheme provisions, which
has in the past resulted in high levels of non-compliance, particularly in relation to retention and
planting of vegetation required by permit conditions. Council has in the interim increased funding
for a Planning Enforcement Officer and changed internal practices with regards to the
requirement of a bond payment when landscaping is a significant component of development.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that this has resulted in improved levels of compliance. Emphasis
should also be given to pro-active enforcement, and education of the community in relation to
planning controls that are in place, or changes that are proposed in the future.
Other Issues
A range of related issues were raised during the progress of the study that can not be dealt with
under the planning controls, but are important to the long term retention of the Torquay and Jan
Juc character and should be considered by the relevant parties.
• Domestic pets – containing domestic pets is considered to be a problem within the study
area, in addition to the cleaning up of dog droppings from public open spaces. This issue
should be dealt with under the appropriate Council Local Law.
• Foreshore and public open space beautification and revegetation – the community
suggested that beautification should be extended to include all foreshore areas and the creek
network throughout the study area. In addition, improvements to the stormwater
management within these areas have been suggested.
• Pedestrian access – pedestrian access to public areas, including beaches is considered to
be poor and could be improved to facilitate pedestrian movement throughout the study area.
Linked walking tracks should be considered in the future planning of public areas. Additional
planning controls are proposed that would apply to new residential subdivisions that would
require additional linear parks to facilitate pedestrian and cyclist access, as well as to create
vegetation corridors. In addition, Council’s recently adopted Pathways Strategy provides a
mechanism for the systematic ongoing improvement of pathways and linkages throughout the
Surf Coast Shire.
• Nudist beach – due to growth of Torquay further north, residents are concerned about
retention of the nudist beach along White’s Beach.
• Beach safety – concerns were raised regarding the safety issues associated with swimming,
jet skis, boats, sail boards etc. within close proximity to each other.
72
7. Actions
The following are recommended actions for Council to pursue in response to the issues raised by
this study:
Action Agent Timming

1 Prepare new Planning Strategic Planning Unit Immediately following
Scheme controls that adoption of this study
address and implement
the findings of this study.
2 Prepare and implement Parks & Gardens Unit 2007/08

a street planting scheme
in areas of Torquay and
Jan Juc that currently
have a low native
vegetation cover.
3 Review the effectiveness Planning & Within 3 years of

of any modified planning Development Unit approval of new
controls introduced as planning controls
an outcome of the Study
after five years of
operation.
4 Prepare an information Strategic Planning Unit Immediately following

dissemination package & Environment Unit adoption of the Planning
to educate the Scheme Amendment.
community about
neighbourhood character
and indigenous planting.
73
Appendices
Appendix 1
Copy of “A Study of Resident Perceptions of
Neighbourhood Character: Torquay/Jan Juc” (Dr
Ray Green, 2003)
A Study of Resident Perceptions of
Neighbourhood Character:
Torquay and Jan Juc
Dr. Ray Green
Faculty of Architecture Building and Planning,

The University of Melbourne
Parkville, Victoria, Australia
September 2003
A Study of Resident Perceptions of Neighbourhood Character: Torquay and Jan Juc

© Copyright by Dr. Ray Green, September, 2003
Copyright © Dr. Ray Green, 2003
All Rights Reserved.

No part of this report covered by the copyrights hereon may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by
any means – graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or information
storage and retrieval systems – without written permission of Dr. Ray Green, Faculty of Architecture Building
and Planning, The University of Melbourne. The content of this report and methodological procedures
employed in conducting this ”Study of Resident Perceptions of Neighbourhood Character in Torquay and Jan
Juc”, as reported in this document, remains the intellectual property of the author. Copyrights on any
information quoted or reproduced from other persons or organisations remain with them. Special permission
is granted to The Surf Coast Shire Council, Victoria, to reproduce this report as a hardcopy or in electronic
.pdf format for distribution, provided that the copyright notice, identification of the author and the third party
disclaimer remain intact and are clearly displayed at the front of all reproduced copies and that the report is
not altered in any way.
A Study of Resident Perceptions of Neighbourhood Character: Torquay and Jan Juc 2

Executive Summary
This study examined the way residents of the town of Torquay and the associated settlement of
Jan Juc perceive and evaluate the contribution of existing built and natural features to
neighbourhood character. Initially, a range of local environmental features, considered by residents
to contribute to neighbourhood character, (or to detract from local character), were identified
through a projective mapping mail questionnaire (N = 293). Those features most frequently
mentioned in the mail questionnaire were then photographed and presented in a PowerPoint
presentation to members of the community at a community workshop (N = 34). Workshop
participants were asked to rate each of the features, as depicted in the photographs, in reference
to neighbourhood character compatibility. A variety of feature types, including a range of natural
features and built developments, were assessed in this photo rating exercise. Finally, two focus
groups were held; one during the community workshop and one with a community reference group
composed of local residents from the various neighbourhoods. The first focus group was aimed at
identifying various aspects of neighbourhood character that could not necessarily be photographed
and in the second one to help in interpreting the results of the photo rating exercise.
The results indicate that features perceived to contribute to neighbourhood character, and likewise
those features that were rated as detracting from local character, share similar physical attributes.
In this respect developments perceived to be most compatible with neighbourhood character are
those that have adequate landscaping, particularly incorporating mature, indigenous trees and
other forms of indigenous vegetation, are in colours that appear to recede, thus reducing the
prominence of the building from the street, or are in colours that are reflective of the area. Houses
built with natural materials such as stone, weatherboard and other types of timber that look natural,
lightweight and/or are reflective of the area were also frequently associated with developments
rated compatible with neighbourhood character. Smaller developments with larger setbacks and
smaller footprints are also perceived to be more compatible with local character than are larger (in
mass and height) developments with smaller setbacks. A sense of nostalgia, associated with the
history of Torquay and older style beach houses and other classic ‘Australian’ style houses was
also identified as an important attribute associated with developments that were rated as
compatible with neighbourhood character. Many of the older beach style houses have roofs that
are shallow pitched (skillion type design), reflective of old beach shacks, although houses with
gables and other types of peaked roof designs were also associated with some developments
rated compatible with neighbourhood character. Such older houses were typically described as
humble and understated in design. However, some contemporary developments that have unique,
interesting and innovative designs were also perceived to be compatible with local character.
Architectural forms and designs described as balanced and moderately complex in terms of form
and colour, often associated with well articulated walls and the front facades of houses, were
associated with developments rated as compatible with neighbourhood character. Buildings that do
not have fences in either their front yards are also seen as more compatible with neighbourhood
character than those with fences, particularly large fences that are considered to be obtrusive and
of designs that are unsympathetic to the house and surrounding area. In addition, houses with
single, smaller driveways, particularly those paved in gravel or other natural materials, are seen to
be more compatible with local character than those with larger or double driveways paved in
concrete or other visually dominate materials.
In contrast, developments perceived to be the most incompatible with neighbourhood character are
those that lack adequate landscaping, particularly those lacking mature trees and indigenous
vegetation, or developments where indigenous vegetation has been cleared from the site during
construction. However, those houses that present overly manicured gardens and lawns were also
associated with developments that were rated as incompatible with local character. Developments
perceived to be too big, and hence out of scale and dominating their surroundings, were likewise
also rated as incompatible with neighbourhood character. This includes houses that are too tall,
specifically three storey buildings, and/or those on lots perceived to be too small for the size of the

house. Houses that display a repetition and uniformity of architectural forms, or that have forms
and designs perceived to be either too complex or too stark and boring, were also rated as
incompatible with local character. Such development was often negatively described as being
“suburban” or “urban” looking. Certain materials such as brick veneer were sometimes associated
with such “suburban” and “urban” looking development. Developments in this category were also
frequently described as being boxy and too bulking looking. Houses with minimal front, side and/or
back setbacks were also associated with incompatible developments. Many such developments
were also perceived to cover a high proportion of their lots making these developments look too
dense. Houses that have high, solid, unarticulated front fences or walls were also rated as
incompatible with local character. Likewise, those developments that have visually dominate
concrete or asphalt driveways, or visually dominant garages, were rated as such. Strongly
contrasting and harsh colours were also associated with developments rated as being out of
character. Houses that have flat roofs or that lacked eaves and/or that have roofs that are visible
above the tree canopy were, in some instances, rated as incompatible with local character. A
couple of houses that were identified as being out of character were described as “Queensland
style” houses and not reflective of the local area.
The results of this study provide useful information in respect to how members of the local
community conceptualise neighbourhood character. The findings suggest that various planning
mechanisms and controls could be developed and implemented to encourage new development
that will possess attributes associated with high character compatibility and discourage
development with attributes related to low character compatibility. The results of this research can
also be used to help predict how new development may be evaluated by the community in terms of
neighbourhood character compatibility. When combined with results of the inventory of the physical
characteristics of the various neighbourhoods (reported elsewhere) a comprehensive assessment
of how neighbourhood character is manifest in the town can be obtained. From this understanding
appropriate planning controls and environmental management strategies can be developed with
the aim of maintaining and enhancing positive aspects of neighbourhood character, and
establishing and guiding the design of new character, while at the same time discouraging negative
impacts on existing valued neighbourhood character.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................. 5
TABLE OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................... 6
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 7
STUDY AIMS AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS ....................................................................................................... 8
STUDY AREA................................................................................................................................................. 8
METHODS...................................................................................................................................................... 9
PROJECTIVE MAPPING MAIL SURVEY .............................................................................................................. 9
PHOTOGRAPHIC INVENTORY......................................................................................................................... 10
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP ............................................................................................................................. 11
PHOTO RATING EXERCISE ........................................................................................................................... 11
FOCUS GROUPS.......................................................................................................................................... 11
DATA ANALYSIS......................................................................................................................................... 12
PROJECTIVE MAPPING QUESTIONNAIRE ........................................................................................................ 12
PHOTO RATING EXERCISE ........................................................................................................................... 12
FOCUS GROUPS.......................................................................................................................................... 13
RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 13
FEATURES RATED MOST COMPATIBLE WITH NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER .................................................... 13
FEATURES RATED MODERATELY COMPATIBLE WITH NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER ......................................... 16
FEATURES RATED SLIGHTLY COMPATIBLE WITH NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER............................................... 17
FEATURES RATED SLIGHTLY TO MODERATELY INCOMPATIBLE WITH NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER .................. 17
FEATURES RATED MODERATELY TO STRONGLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER................. 18
PERCEIVED DIFFERENCES IN CHARACTER ACROSS NEIGHBOURHOODS ........................................................... 19
CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 19
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................. 23
APPENDIX A - DEMOGRAPHIC AND BACKGROUND DETAILS OF NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER
MAIL QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONDENT SAMPLE ..................................................................................... 25
APPENDIX B - DEMOGRAPHIC AND BACKGROUND DETAILS OF PHOTO RATING COMMUNITY
WORKSHOP RESPONDENT SAMPLE....................................................................................................... 30
APPENDIX C - NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER MAIL QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE TABLES ......... 35
APPENDIX D - FOCUS GROUP ONE RESULTS ........................................................................................ 53
APPENDIX E - FOCUS GROUP TWO RESULTS........................................................................................ 60
APPENDIX F - FOCUS GROUP TWO: AGGREGATE CONTENT ANALYSIS RESULTS.......................... 73
APPENDIX G - PHOTO RATING EXERCISE: NEIGHBOURHOOD FEATURES RATED BY CHARACTER
COMPATIBILITY FROM LEAST TO MOST COMPATIBLE ........................................................................ 76

TABLE OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: STUDY AREA MAPS WITH NEIGHBOURHOOD PRECINCTS ..................................................... 9
FIGURE 2: MAIN BEACH AT TORQUAY IN NEIGHBOURHOOD THREE .................................................... 14
FIGURE 3: HISTORIC HOUSE IN NEIGHBOURHOOD THREE WITH MATURE VEGETATION ........................ 14
FIGURE 4: HOUSE IN HEATHLANDS IN NEIGHBOURHOOD SIX .............................................................. 15
FIGURE 5: CONTRAST BETWEEN AGRICULTURAL LAND AND RECENTLY SUBDIVIDED AGRICULTURAL

LAND USED FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT............................................................................ 15
FIGURE 6: CLASSIC BEACH STYLE HOUSE IN NEIGHBOURHOOD SIX .................................................. 16
FIGURE 7: HOUSE RATED AS MODERATELY COMPATIBLE WITH NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER ......... 17
FIGURE 8: HOUSE IN NEIGHBOURHOOD ONE RATED AS MODERATELY INCOMPATIBLE WITH

NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER .................................................................................................. 18
FIGURE 9: HIGHLY VISIBLE SIGNAGE AND BUILDING COLOURS AS VIEWED FROM THE ESPLANADE ..... 19
FIGURE 10: CONTRASTING DEVELOPMENTS – NEW, LARGE, BOXY, COLOURFUL, VISUALLY

DOMINATING AND LACKING LANDSCAPING VERSUS OLDER, SMALLER, UNDERSTATED AND
NESTLED IN MATURE INDIGENOUS VEGETATION ......................................................................... 20
FIGURE 11: BOXY AND REPETITIVE ARCHITECTURAL FORMS, HIGH SITE COVERAGE, MINIMAL
SETBACKS AND LIMITED LANDSCAPING ...................................................................................... 22
FIGURE 12: THREE STOREY DEVELOPMENTS BOTH ADJACENT TO COASTAL RESERVES .................... 22

Introduction
Australian coastal towns located near major metropolitan areas, such as Torquay/Jan Juc, are
increasingly under pressure from residential and commercial development. In such places it is
common to hear local residents complain that the “character” of their town or neighbourhood is
being degraded or lost due to inappropriate development and other environmental changes
associated with town growth. Often local communities oppose any new development on the
grounds that it may negatively alter or destroy valued town and neighbourhood character. Local
planning authorities are attempting to respond to such public concerns by devising strategies for
controlling development and growth with the aim of maintaining a positive expression of local
character over time.
State planning policy in Victoria has recently mandated, though the introduction of Rescode, that
local governments must now consider neighbourhood character when revising their planning
schemes. In response to this mandate many shire councils are in the process of undertaking
neighbourhood character studies to identify environmental features thought to be important in
conveying local character. Generally town planning, landscape architectural or urban design
professionals are engaged to undertake these studies. These consultants use their expert
judgement to define what they believe constitutes the character of a town or neighbourhood and to
identify the environmental features, and associated attributes, they consider to be most important
to the character of specified areas, such as neighbourhoods. Subsequent to carrying out such
studies various planning mechanisms and controls may be incorporated into local planning
schemes to try and maintain and enhance town and neighbourhood character in the future by
controlling changes that may have a negative impact on local character. The idea is that if key
elements of town and neighbourhood character can be identified it may be possible to propose
ways in which towns can allow, and even welcome, growth while shaping it to maintain positive
expressions of neighbourhood and town character.
Typically, the professionals engaged to conduct town and neighbourhood character studies will
often ignore the perceptual and experiential responses of local residents to the features they
identify as being salient to neighbourhood and town character. Instead these professionals rely on
their expert judgement to determine what are, and what are not, the features of a town or
neighbourhoods that are important in conveying character, and thus worthy of conservation and/or
special management. Yet the assumption that professional, expert judgements are necessarily
congruent with community environmental perceptions and values has been challenged by the
findings of several landscape and architectural perception studies (Devlin and Nasar, 1989;
Hershberger, 1988; Kaplan, 1983; Pennartz and Elinga, 1990; Uzzell and Leward, 1990). These
studies cast doubt on the validity of basing town and neighbourhood character assessment solely
on expert standards and suggest the need for perceptually based procedures that directly involve
local communities in such assessments to complement purely expert based physical inventories of
likely character defining features. The research described in this report assumes that residents,
because they are most familiar with their local environments, will be more likely to possess an in-
depth understanding of the character of their neighbourhoods, and associated features, than are
outside professionals. Sometimes residents may also develop strong emotional attachments to
features that are important to local character and one would not necessarily expect outside
professionals to understand these emotional connections. Thus, it is maintained that understanding
the perceptions and values associated with town and neighbourhood character, as held by
members of local communities, is particularly important in terms of obtaining valid town and
neighbourhood character assessments.
Currently a series of studies are being undertaken by various consultants to help the Surf Coast
Shire Council planners better understand the character of neighbourhoods in Torquay and the
nearby settlement of Jan Juc. These studies include a physical survey of the elements that may
define the character of different neighbourhoods (undertaken by Bev Martin), a botanical study to

document and evaluate various plant communities in the town (Trengove, 2003) and the
neighbourhood character perception study as presented in this report which is aimed at
understanding the perception of neighbourhood character from the perspective of the local
community. Collectively results of these various studies will allow Council planners to assess the
effectiveness of the current planning scheme, and associated development controls and
environmental protection measures, in terms of managing neighbourhood character, and will assist
them in revising the existing planning scheme if this is deemed necessary.
The primary aim of the study reported here was to define neighbourhood character in terms of
what people in the community think and feel about the character of their individual
neighbourhoods. To this end the author, Dr. Ray Green of the Faculty of Architecture Building and
Planning at The University of Melbourne, undertook a study of community perceptions of
neighbourhood character in Torquay and Jan Juc as part of a larger project he is conducting that is
exploring these issues in several towns along the Great Ocean Road. The study, as reported here,
focused on defining town and neighbourhood character through assessment of community
environmental perceptions using a research methodology developed over several years by Dr.
Green for this purpose (for details on past studies see - Green, 1985, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2000a,
2000b, 2002).
Study Aims and Research Questions

The aim of this study was to understand how people living in Torquay and Jan Juc conceptualise
“neighbourhood character” and to identify the biophysical features and attributes associated with
positive responses to neighbourhood character and those features and attributes associated with
negative responses. In this way what people think and feel about existing local character and about
perceived loss of character within this context was documented. Specifically, the research explored
the following questions:
• How do members of the local community define the character of their neighbourhood (s)?
• How do residents conceptualise the geographic extend of their neighbourhood areas?
• What are the environmental features within neighbourhood precincts considered by
residents to be important in conveying neighbourhood character?
• What are the environmental features within neighbourhood precincts considered by
residents to negatively detract from neighbourhood character?
• How do residents evaluate these character features (both those that detract and those that
are important to neighbourhood character) in terms of perceived character compatibility?
In addressing these questions the study looked at components of town and neighbourhood
character with an emphasis on the built form because it is primarily through control of new
development that the local planners have the greatest control. The most important action planners
can take in terms of natural environmental features, which in this study were found to be integral to
defining town and neighbourhood character, is through protecting and conserving these features
and views of these features from potential negative impacts resulting from development.
Study Area
The geographic areas addressed in this study are only those under Council planning justification
within the town boundaries of Torquay and Jan Juc as expressed in the Municipal Planning
Scheme. Through analysis of the projective mapping data, as will be discussed; six neighbourhood
precinct areas were identified within the study area. The size of these neighbourhood precincts
assured that each neighbourhood area would have a sufficient number of respondents to allow
statistical aggregation of the data within neighbourhoods to meet methodological requirements.
However, these precincts may be subsequently reconfigured into smaller (or larger) areas as a
result of the physical characteristics survey being undertaken separately and to meet planning
requirements. The study area, including definition of the six neighbourhood precincts and their
boundaries, are illustrated in Figure 1.

N-4
N-1
N-5
N-4 N-2
N-6
N-3
N-5
Jan Juc Torquay
Base Map Source: Surf Coast Shire Council Base Map Source: Surf Coast Shire Council
Note: N1 to N6 designate neighbourhood precincts and dashed lines indicate precinct boundaries
Figure 1: Study Area Maps with Neighbourhood Precincts
Methods
As mentioned, the methodology used in conducting this study has been developed, tested and
refined by the author over several years and has proven both reliable and extremely sensitive in
describing and assessing community perceptions of town and neighbourhood character. The
results obtained from this methodological approach have proven capable of providing useful
information for planning purposes. Specifically, methods used to delineate neighbourhood precinct
boundaries, to identify stimuli elements (neighbourhood and town features identified by the
community to be salient to local character), assess these features in respect to “neighbourhood
and town character compatibility”, and for involving the community in interpreting the results, were
employed in this study. This multi-stage research design initially incorporates a mail projective
mapping survey, followed by a photo rating exercise and finally focus group discussions to help
interpret the results. These methods were applied sequentially to identify a range of local
environmental features and places residents’ associate with the character of their neighbourhoods,
measure the perceived degree of “character compatibility” of these features and interpret the
results from the perspective of local residents.
Projective Mapping Mail Survey

Initially, a “Neighbourhood Character Questionnaire” was formulated and mailed to all 5756
ratepayers of Torquay and Jan Juc. The primary aim of this projective mapping questionnaire was
to help identify those features of the town considered to be most important in conveying
neighbourhood character, and likewise those features seen to be detracting of local character, so
that these features could then be photographed in the field and used in a subsequent phase of the
study (photo rating exercise). The questionnaire was aimed at understanding:
• What geographic areas people think constitute their local neighbourhood and the reasons
for this understanding.

• The features people believe to be most compatible with the character of their
neighbourhood.
• The features people believe to be most incompatible with the character of their
neighbourhood.
The questionnaire consisted of two sets of two A3 format maps (one set for Torquay and one set
for Jan Juc) with instructions requesting respondents to indicate, on one of the maps, (the one
representing the area where they live), where they would take a set of photographs to illustrate the
features and places they considered to be most important in positively contributing to the character
of their neighbourhood, and on the other map, where they would take a set of photographs to
illustrate those features/places they considered to be most incompatible with neighbourhood
character. Respondents were also asked to describe what features they would include in their
photographs and the vantage points from which they would take them.
In addition, respondents were instructed to draw a line on the map to indicate the boundary of the
area they consider to represent their neighbourhood, state why they felt this area to be their
neighbourhood and to indicate with an X where their house was located. Analysis of this data
consisted of overlaying all the individual neighbourhood boundaries on a composite map and
identifying a limited number of shared neighbourhood precincts from the patterns that emerged.
From this analysis six neighbourhood precincts where identified. The reason for reducing the
number of individual neighbourhoods to six was, as previously mentioned, to allow the data
collected from subsequent methods to be aggregated by precinct.
Out of the 5756 questionnaires that were delivered, 293 useable questionnaires were returned
resulting in a 5% overall response rate. Although this is a fairly typically response rate for such mail
questionnaires, it cannot be assumed to be a representative sample of the community due to the
possibility of non-response bias. This means that those who responded, and those who did not
response, to the questionnaire, may be systematically different from one another in some respect.
However, the demographic composition of those who responded does reflect reasonably well the
actual demographics of the community (in regard to those demographic questions that were asked
in the questionnaire - see Appendix A for details). One of the notable exceptions to this
demographic fit was the fact that the respondent group included very few young people. Typically
older people and people with higher levels of education are more likely to respond to such mail
surveys than do younger people and those with lower levels of education. Level of education was
not asked in the questionnaire so this variable could not be assessed. For the purposes of this
study, to identify a range of environmental features associated with neighbourhood character for
use in a subsequent data collection procedure (photo rating exercise), and due to the reasonably
high degree of consensus observed in the features identified within neighbourhoods, data
generated from the questionnaire was considered suitably reliable for the purposes of this study.
Photographic Inventory
Based on results of the projective mapping questionnaire, a set of photographs of the most
frequently mentioned features in each neighbourhood precinct were taken. Over 400 hundred
photographs were taken, from which 84 depicting a robust range of features, places and
environmental characteristics, with an emphasis on built features, were selected for use as stimuli
in the photo rating exercise. These were the neighbourhood features most frequently cited in the
projective maps (see Appendix C). These photographic images, depicting a range of town and
neighbourhood features, were scanned and incorporated into a PowerPoint presentation for use as
stimuli in a community photo rating exercise. The aim of the photo rating procedure was to collect
quantitative data on the perceived “character compatibility” of the depicted features/places in
respect to the different neighbourhood precincts. Past research has found that photographs used
in this way generally elicit very similar responses to those obtained in situ, particularly if the
respondents have a degree of cognitive familiarity with the depicted environments (Craik, 1972a;
Daniel and Boster, 1976; Hershberger and Cass, 1974; Nasar, 1988, Shafer and Richards, 1974;
Shuttleworth, 1980; Stamps, 1990; Stewart et al., 1984). Past research by the author has

confirmed the utility and reliability of using photographs as surrogates for actual on site
environmental assessments in town character assessment research (Green, 1985, 1999, 2000a).
Colour photographic slides have proven to be the most valid in this respect (Daniel and Boster,
1976), however, in this study colour photographic prints were originally taken and then digitally
scanned and incorporated into a Powerpoint presentation for use in the photo rating exercise,
which was assumed to approximate the use of colours slides.
Community Workshop
A community workshop was held in Torquay/Jan Juc in March 2003. The workshop was divided
into two parts beginning with a photo rating exercise, in which the participants rated the 84
neighbourhood character features as depicted in the photos as displayed in a PowerPoint
presentation. This was followed by focus group discussions concentrating on various aspects of
neighbourhood character in which participants were grouped according to the neighbourhood
precinct in which they lived.
In the mail questionnaire respondents were asked to indicate if they would be willing to participate
in future exercises associated with the neighbourhood character study. Of the 293 questionnaires
returned 156 (53%) indicated they would be willing to participate in future activities associated with
the study. These people were sent invitations to the community workshop. Of the 34 people who
participated in the community workshop, 17 were females and 15 males (two did not answer this
question). Twenty-four participants lived full time in Torquay/Jan Juc while eight lived full-time
elsewhere and two people did not answer this question. Respondents were of various ages with
the most (11) in the 41-50 year old category, followed by the 31-40 category (7) and the 51-60
category (6), with the remainder spread across the other age groups. Twenty-four of the
respondents grew up in a large or regional city while nine had a rural or small town background
with one person not responding to this question. The entire six neighbourhood precincts were
represented, however, this distribution was unequal with Neighbourhoods One, Two, Three and
Five having the most respondents while Neighbourhoods Four and Six had less representation
(see Appendix B for details of the sample group).
Photo Rating Exercise

At the community workshop participants were shown the stimuli photographs, in random order, via
the PowerPoint presentation, and asked to rate each feature/place (as depicted in the photos) in
terms of perceived neighbourhood character compatibility. Participants were first shown the 84
photos of the depicted neighbourhood features and asked to record their judgement responses for
each photo on a preformatted response-recording booklet. The participants were asked to rate
each depicted feature/environment on a seven point, bi-polar rating scale intended to measure
degree of perceived “neighbourhood character compatibility” Three additional rating scales were
included to assess qualities found in past research to be strongly associated with perceived
character in similar small coastal towns; perceived beauty, distinctiveness and naturalness (Green,
1999, 2000b). The slides were initially briefly shown to allow respondents to view the entire photo
set then they were shown each photo again for 30 seconds, resulting in approximately 45 minutes
of photo rating during the workshop.
Focus Groups
There were two focus groups held during the course of the study, one during the community
workshop and one in August (2003) involving a community reference group that had been
established to provide feedback during the study. The community reference group was comprised
of 12 people who lived in the various neighbourhoods of the town.
As mentioned, Focus Group One formed part of the community workshop and involved dividing the
34 participants into six groups according to the neighbourhood in which their houses were located.
Each group was assigned a facilitator and was asked to respond to three questions:
• What features of the precinct in which you live positively contribute to its character?

• What features of the precinct in which you live detract from its character?
• How would you like to see the precinct develop into the future? What is the preferred
character?
Results of this exercise are presented in Appendix D.
Focus Group Two involved the community reference group members looking at the stimuli photos,
arranged by neighbourhood precinct in order of how they were rated in terms of character
compatibility at the workshop – from most to least compatible with local character. In order to help
interpret the results participants were asked to give reasons why they thought developments
depicted in the photos had been rated the way they were in the photo rating exercise. Specifically,
participants were asked to identify attributes of the stimuli features they thought might have
contributed to the ratings. Data from this focus group were content analysed and is presented in
table form in Appendix E.
Data Analysis
Projective Mapping Questionnaire
The projective mapping questionnaires where analysed to identify the features most frequently
mentioned in relation to contributing to, or detracting from, neighbourhood character, and to identify
locations where these features could be photographed. Analysis of the questionnaires consisted of
tallying the frequency of mention of both specific and more general types of features and then
plotting where these features occur geographically in each of the six neighbourhoods. The features
most frequently mentioned were categorised into positive and negative elements and grouped by:
• Views
• Development
• Natural Features / Open Space
• Vegetation
• Access
• Activities
• Other types of features that did not fit into the above categories.
The frequency which features were mentioned was recorded on tables by neighbourhood precinct
and according to if they were considered to contribute positively or negatively to neighbourhood
character (see Appendix C). Features and associated photographic vantage points were then
plotted on composite neighbourhood maps for use in conducting field photography.
Analysis of data from the survey question that asked people to draw a line around their
neighbourhood was analysed by overlapping all the maps on transparent overlays and determining
patterns that suggested consensus in defining neighbourhood boundaries. While few people
indicated the exact same neighbourhood configurations there were obvious broad patterns that
suggested six general neighbourhood precincts as illustrated in Figure 1.
Photo Rating Exercise

Analysis of the photo rating data (from the photo rating exercise) consisted of generating simple
mean and standard deviation values aggregated across all respondents for each photograph
(depicted feature/place) (see Appendix G for all photos along with their associated character
compatibility rating values). The photo rating data, and associated photographs, were separated
into each of the six neighbourhood precincts and combined with open-ended response data from
Focus Group Two. These photo/rating tables (Appendix E) reflect how the community reference
group interpreted the photo rating results from the workshop. Due to the fact that the character
compatibility ratings generally were highly correlated with ratings of beauty, distinctiveness and
naturalness, only the character compatibility ratings are presented here.

Focus Groups
Finally, open-ended data collected from the community workshop focus groups (Focus Group One)
and the community reference group focus group (Focus Group Two) were content analysed.
Analysis of Focus Group One data identified a series of issues and concerns in reference to each
of the six neighbourhood precincts (see Appendix D). Focus Group Two data were categorised by
perceived positive or negative contribution to neighbourhood character by photo and organised by
neighbourhood precinct (Appendix F). Open-ended data derived from Focus Group Two was
content analysed by tallying individual comments to derive frequency of mention sums by photos.
The results were then combined with each photograph’s rating values (means and standard
deviations) by neighbourhood precinct as illustrated in Appendix E. For example, the development
depicted in the highest rated photo in Neighbourhood One was suggested by reference group
members to have been rated as such due to its warm earthy colours, indigenous landscaping,
large front setback, the fact it was partially screened from the road by vegetation, its curved roof
lines and its light and airy appearance.
Results
Analysis of open-ended data from the mail questionnaire, data obtained from the photographic
rating exercise and the two focus groups yielded a wealth of useful information about how local
residents conceptualise, and evaluate, the general character of their town and neighbourhoods.
These results are summarised below.
Features Rated Most Compatible with Neighbourhood Character

Because the photo rating data was collected using a seven point “neighbourhood character
compatibility” scale any rating from 1 to 4 indicates perceived compatibility with neighbourhood
character to some degree, from strongly (1) to slightly (3.9), while any rating in the range of 4 to 7
represents some degree of perceived incompatibility with neighbourhood character, from
slightly(4.1) to strongly (7) incompatible.
The features that were rating as being strongly compatible with neighbourhood character (Means
from 1.00 to 1.97) were all associated with natural environments including beaches (Photos 7, 14,
17, 50, 67), access to, and walking tracks through, vegetated natural open space areas (Photos 2,
19, 23, 26, 43 and 48), bodies of freshwater including creeks and ponds (Photos 2, 19, 23, 26, 43,
48) and historic buildings (Photos 25, 28, 41). This finding suggests that these features are
perceived to be the most compatible with the character of Torquay and Jan Juc. For example, the
scene rated the most compatible with neighbourhood character (Mean = 1.00, S.D. = 0.00) was the
main beach in Torquay (Photo 7 – Figure 2). The historic house depicted in Photo 25 (Figure 3)
was the highest rated built feature (Mean = 1.32, S.D. = 0.59) suggesting it, like the other historic
features that received similarly high ratings, is also strongly associated with neighbourhood
character. Other houses rated as particularly compatible with neighbourhood character include
those depicted in Photos 1, 11 and 28. In addition to the fact that most of these houses are small,
older structures they were all associated with significant vegetation. For example, the house
depicted in Photo 25 has magnificent mature Moonah Trees (Melaleuca lanceolata) lining its front
path while the houses depicted in Photos 1 and 28 both have large mature trees in their gardens.
The house depicted in Photo 11 (Figure 4) is located in Jan Juc in neighbourhood Six and is a
single storey structure set in Coastal Heath vegetation. This house is constructed of natural,
weathered looking timber, is just barely visible above the top of the Heath vegetation and no other
development is nearby. No doubt these attributes assist in making this house perceived to be
highly compatible with neighbourhood character.

Figure 2: Main Beach at Torquay in Neighbourhood Three
Figure 3: Historic House in Neighbourhood Three with Mature Vegetation

A pastoral landscape depicted in Photo 30 was also a highly rated scene (Mean = 1.71, S.D =
1.10). It is interesting that this land is very representative of the type of land that is currently being
subdivided to build many of the newer housing estates in Torquay. The transforation in perceived
town character is dramatically illustrated when this photo is contrasted with Photo 27 that depicts
the Great Ocean View Estate, which was rated as highly incompatible with local character (Mean =
5.74, S.D. = 1.62). The Great Ocean View Estate is sited on land that was until recently
agricultural land similar to that shown in Photo 30 (Figure 5).
Figure 4: House in Heathlands in Neighbourhood Six
Photo 30 (Mean = 1.71, S.D = 1.10) Photo 27 (Mean = 5.74, S.D = 1.62)
Figure 5: Contrast Between Agricultural Land and Recently Subdivided Agricultural Land
Used for Residential Development.

Figure 6: Classic Beach Style House in Neighbourhood Six
Features Rated Moderately Compatible with Neighbourhood Character

Many of the houses that were rated as moderately compatible with neighbourhood character
(Means 2.29 to 3.00) are small, older, “beach style” houses constructed of timber or “fibro”. For
example, the house depicted in Photo 8 was described in both the mail questionnaire and in focus
group discussions as a classic Jan Juc beach style house (Figure 6). Positive attributes associated
with this house, and others like it that were similarly rated as being moderately compatible with
neighbourhood character (Photos 3, 8, 29, 47, 49, 61, 63, 72 and 78), is the fact it is nestled in
mature trees, is lightweight in appearance and its colour is in keeping with the style and
architecture of the place at the time it was built. Many of these beach style houses also have a
characteristic shallow pitched “skillion” type roof design.
These, and other houses that were rated as moderately compatible with neighbourhood character,
all share the similar attributes of being smaller rather than larger (generally single storey), painted
in subdued colours (suggested to be reflective of the area), built of timber or “fibro” materials and in
many instances nestled into mature vegetation and/or have mature vegetation in their gardens.
Focus group participants also described these houses as providing a nostalgic connection with the
past and in some instances as being “endearingly rundown”.
There was only one newer house in this group that was rated as moderately compatible with
neighbourhood character (Photo 78, Mean = 2.71, S.D. = 1.40). Despite the fact that this house is
three storey it is constructed of timber that has a rustic, weathered appearance, is nestled into
mature indigenous vegetation and has an unsealed, gravel driveway (Figure 7).

Figure 7: Newer House Rated as Moderately Compatible With Neighbourhood Character
Features Rated Slightly Compatible with Neighbourhood Character

Four contemporary houses (Photos 46, 56, 57 and 70) received ratings suggesting they are
perceived to be only slightly compatible with town character (Means from 3.29 to 3.79). However, it
must be appreciated that very few contemporary houses were rated as being in character to any
degree so it is important to understand what it is about these houses that cause them to elicit such
responses. In the focus group discussions both positive and negative attributes were associated
with these houses. Attributes thought to contribute to their character compatibility include their
relatively small scale and footprints, roof designs, which includes peaked, curved and slanted
plane forms, colours, their sometimes interesting architectural designs including in some instances
well articulated surface treatments. Attributes suggested to contribute to their incompatibility with
neighbourhood character include their minimal setbacks, which contributes to a sense of crowding,
lack of sufficient landscaping, fencing and concrete driveways and lawns giving some of them a
“suburban” appearance.
Features Rated Slightly to Moderately Incompatible with Neighbourhood Character

Developments rated as only slightly detracting from neighbourhood character include nineteen
contemporary houses that received mean ratings from 4.06 to 4.94. There were also a couple of
commercial areas and buildings, such as the car wash and the back of the shops in Torquay’s
town centre, and a couple of older houses that were also rated as slight to moderately incompatible
with local character. The focus group participants suggested that the more contemporary
developments in this group share several common attributes that might explain why they were
rated as incompatible with local character which include their boxy appearance, bulk and large
scale (in terms of both mass and height), giving some of them an “unfriendly” appearance, lack of
surface articulation and repetitive forms, solid fences and walls, minimal front and side setbacks,
insufficient landscaping, inappropriate colours and large and dominating garages. The
development depicted in Figure 8 (Photo 13) embodies many of the attributes associated with
houses that were rated incompatible with local character including having visually dominating
driveways, fencing, repetitive forms, lack of landscaping and painted in bright obtrusive colours.
Some of the developments in this group were suggested to have attributes that made them

somewhat compatible with local character including, in some instances, their colours, interesting
and innovative architectural and roof designs and use of indigenous plants in the landscape.
Figure 8: House in Neighbourhood One Rated as Moderately Incompatible with

Neighbourhood Character
Features Rated Moderately to Strongly Incompatible with Neighbourhood Character

Developments that were rated as moderately to strongly incompatible with neighbourhood
character include several contemporary houses and units that received mean ratings ranging from
5.03 to 6.00. Suggestions given in focus group discussions as to why these developments received
such poor ratings include their boxy, repetitive and uniform architectural designs, lack of surface
articulation, bulk and size (too large in terms of both height, e.g. three-storey, and mass), minimal
front and side setbacks, small size of lots compared to size of buildings (high site coverage), lack
of landscaping or landscapes dominated by highly manicured exotic plants, flat roofs with no eaves
and colours that are too bright, garish or highly contrasting. Many of these developments were
described as being too “urban” or “suburban” in appearance, or representative of styles transported
from elsewhere and thus not sympathetic with the area’s character. The feature that was rated the
most incompatible with neighbourhood character (Mean = 6.00, S.D. = 1.30) is a highly visible
bright yellow sign painted on the side of a building in Neighbourhood Three (Figure 9). The fact
that many of the features in this category, such as the signage depicted in Figure 9 and a view of
the Great Ocean View Estate as depicted in Figure 5, are highly visible from popular open space
areas and transportation routes and was frequently mentioned in the mail questionnaire as one
important factor contributing to their low character compatibility.

Figure 9: Highly Visible Signage and Building Colours as Viewed from the Esplanade
Perceived Differences in Character Across Neighbourhoods

While there were strong similarities across neighbourhoods in terms of the types of features
identified as contributing to neighbourhood character, as well as those detracting from local
character, (and in terms of their associated physical attributes), there were also some differences
noted. These differences can be discerned by examining the photos and associated focus group
comments as presented in Appendix E. For example, Neighbourhoods One and Four contain
large, and relatively dense housing estate developments located on subdivided land that was until
recently agricultural land. Neighbourhood Three and along the Great Ocean Road in
Neighbourhood Four contain most of the commercial development in the town, hence
differentiating certain parts of these neighbourhoods from other areas which are more residential in
character. Neighbourhood Three also contains most of the remaining historic buildings while
Neighbourhood Two and Jan Juc contain many of the older beach style houses associated with the
area’s past. Jan Juc also has considerable areas of Heathland vegetation. Despite these
differences the same attributes that make some developments perceived to be detracting from
neighbourhood character, and other developments supportive of neighbourhood character, are
generally common across all neighbourhoods. However, it must be recognised that the study
reported here examined only a limited number of specific features and their perceived character
compatibility at specific locations within the different neighbourhood precincts. As such the findings
of this study of community perceptions of neighbourhood character should be read in conjunction
with both the findings of the physical survey of biophysical characteristics of the various
neighbourhoods (reported elsewhere) and the ecological and vegetation assessment report
prepared by Mark Trengove (2003) to fully understand the homogeneity of types of features, and
their associated attributes, in defining discrete neighbourhoods across the study area.
Conclusions
What the findings of this study suggest is that natural environments and associated natural
features, and views of such features, specifically the beach, creeks and ponds, open space areas
such as the golf course and nature reserves, and the few remaining historic built features, are
vitally important to the character of Torquay and Jan Juc. These features need to be conserved if
the framework of the town’s character is to be retained in the face of continuing development

pressure. Any development that results in disturbance to these features should be discouraged
through appropriate planning controls.
A range of contemporary houses was tested in this study; some off which were rated as compatible
with local character (Figure 7) while others were perceived to be highly incompatible with local
character (Figures 11 and 12). Developments that were found to be highly compatible with existing
neighbourhood character can serve as models to guide the creative design of future development.
Likewise those developments that were rated as incompatible with local character can serve as
reminders of what to avoid and discourage in new development (Figure 10). In this way desirable
and preferred future character can be shaped for the various neighbourhoods.
Photo 18, N-1 (M = 5.94, SD = 1.50) Photo 58, N-3 (M = 2.32, SD = 1.37)
Figure 10: Contrasting Developments – New, Large, Boxy, Colourful, Visually Dominating and
Lacking Landscaping Versus Older, Smaller, Understated and Nestled in Mature Indigenous
Vegetation
A number of physical attributes were shared by those residential developments that were rated as
compatible with neighbourhood character and likewise those perceived to be incompatible with
local character. Many of the developments perceived to be compatible with neighbourhood
character shared the following attributes:
• Colours that are subtle, neutral, muted, receding and unobtrusive, thus reducing the visual
prominence of buildings from the street and/or that are reflective of colours of the area
• Retained indigenous vegetation or indigenous vegetation used in the landscape
• Sufficient landscaping
• Mature trees and vegetation
• Conveying a sense of nostalgia and historic value reflective of old Torquay and Jan Juc
• Built with natural materials such as stone, weatherboard and other types of timber that look
natural, lightweight and are reflective of the area
• Have generous setbacks
• On large blocks
• Small footprints
• Unobtrusive and understated in design
• Small in scale
• Roof forms that reflect old beach houses, some having shallow pitched roofs, or other
peaked roof types and those with gables
• Rooflines that are broken up by mature canopy trees
• Buildings set below the tree canopy line
• Unique and innovative architectural design
• Balanced design
• Good articulation – moderately complex
• Right solar orientation
• Built to maximize and share views
• No front fences, particularly no tall and/or solid fence types

• Driveways constructed of natural looking materials
• Small driveways
• Low density development
• Not too tall – at most two storeys
• Interesting mix of houses of different forms and colour – moderate complexity – within a
given neighbourhood area
• Balconies that articulate building form
• Single garages
Developments perceived to be most incompatible with neighbourhood character had:

• Inadequate landscaping
• Lack of mature trees
• No indigenous vegetation or vegetation cleared from site for construction
• Domination of building - imposing, too big, fortress-like and “unfriendly looking”
• Concrete and asphalt driveways that look too dominant
• High site coverage
• Boxy and bulking in appearance
• Minimal setbacks – on side, front and/or back boundaries
• Front fences that are too high, solid and lacking integration with house design
• Front walls that are large, flat, imposing and unarticulated
• Colours – contrasting, not matching, overwhelming, too strong, too pastel, black,
aggressive, harsh looking
• “Suburban” and “Urban” looking houses
• Buildings that do not “fit” with street and adjoining lots
• Height – too high, particularly three storey and more developments
• Too vertical in orientation
• Too large in mass
• Not responsive to environment – solar orientation
• Buildings that lack surface articulation
• Roofs that strongly contrast with their surroundings such as brightly coloured tile roofs
• Not reflective of the area or have no connection with local area
• “Suburban” looking exotic vegetation
• Overly manicured gardens and lawns
• Lots too small for the size of house
• High density
• Windows that are out of scale
• Repetition and uniformity of architectural forms
• Poor proportions of building elements
• Inappropriate siting and unresponsiveness to site
• Lack of verandas
• Flat roofs, particularly those without eaves
• Dominance of garage over house
• Brick veneer with “suburban” appearance
• Too complex in form
• Obstructs views
• “Queensland style” houses
• Inappropriate and ugly signage
• Roofs visible above tree line
It is important to consider these attributes in formulating planning controls that aim to encourage
development that will be perceived as compatible with local character and discourage attributes
associated with incompatible development. If such planning mechanisms can be successfully
implemented and enforced there may be hope that the area’s outstanding environmental and

residential character might not be lost or seriously degraded in the future, even in the face of
continuing and rapid development and town growth.
Photo 4, N-3 (M = 5.62, SD = 1.62). Photo 77, N-5 (M = 5.59, SD = 1.74)

Figure 11: Boxy and Repetitive Architectural Forms, High Site Coverage, Minimal setbacks and
Limited Landscaping
Photo 5, N-6 (M = 5.24, SD = 1.81) Photo 38, N-3 (M = 5.24, SD = 1.96)

Figure 12: Three Storey Developments Adjacent to Coastal Reserves

References
Craik, K. H. (1972a). Appraising landscape dimensions. In J. V. Krutilla (ed), Natural Environments:
Studies in Theoretical and Applied Analysis. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 292-346.
Daniel, T. C., & Boster, R. S. (1976). Measuring landscape esthetics: The scenic beauty estimation
method. USDA Forest Service, Research Paper RM-167. Fort Collins, Colo.
Devlin, K., & Nasar, J. L. (1989). The beauty and the beast: Some preliminary comparisons of
'high' versus 'popular' residential architecture and public versus architect judgement of the same.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, 333-344.
Green R, Barclay R & McCarthy M M (1985). Sense of place in design. In R Green, J Schapper, I
Bishop & M M.McCarthy eds Design for Change: Community Renewal After the 1983 Bushfires,
School of Environmental Planning, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, pp 55-74.
Green, R. (1995). Community perception of town character: A case study in Byron Bay, New South
Wales. People and Physical Environment Research, 47, 20-33.
Green, R. (1998). Community perception of town character: A case study. Unpublished Ph.D.
Thesis, Queensland University of Technology, School of Planning, Landscape Architecture and
Surveying.
Green, R. (1999) Form and meaning in community perception of town character, Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 19, 311-331.
Green, R. (2000a). Scenic and town character assessment: A methodology for community
involvement. Australian Planner, Vol. 37, No.1, 20-34.
Green, R., J. (2000b) Notions of Town Character: A coastal community responses to change.
Australian Planner Vol. 37, No.2, pp. Pp. 76-86.
Green, R. (2002). Involving Local Communities in Defining Victorian Coastal Town Character: Two
Case Studies on the Great Ocean Road. A paper delivered at the “A Sustainable Coast”
conference organised by the Victorian Coastal Council, Melbourne, Victorian, Australia.
Hershberger, R. G. (1988). A study of meaning and architecture. In J. Nasar (ed), Environmental

Aesthetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 175-193.
Hershberger, R. G., & Cass, R. C. (1974). Predicting user responses to buildings. In D. H. Carson
(ed), Man-Environment Interactions: Evaluations and Applications - Part 2. Strousburg, PA.:
Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc, 117-134.
Kaplan, R. (1983). The role of nature in the urban context. In J. F. Wohlwill (ed), Behavior and the
Natural Environment. New York: Plenum.
Nasar, J. L. (1988). Perception and evaluation of residential street scenes. In J. L. Nasar (ed),
Environmental Aesthetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 275-289.
Pennartz, P. J. J., & Elsinga, M. G. (1990). Adults, adolescents, and architects: differences in
perception of the urban environment. Environment and Behavior, 22, 675-714.

Shafer, E. L., & Richards, T. A. (1974). A Comparison of Viewer Reactions to Outdoor Scenes and
Photographs of those Scenes. Research Paper 302. USDA Forest Service Northeast Forest
Experiment Station. Upper Darby, PA.
Shuttleworth, S. (1980). The use of photographs as an environment presentation medium in

landscape studies. Journal of Environmental Management, 11, 61-76.
Stamps, A. E. (1990). Use of photographs to simulate environments: A meta-analysis. Perceptual

and Motor Skills, 71, 907-913.
Stewart, T. R., Middleton, P., Downton, M., & Ely, D. (1984). Judgements of photographs vs. field
observations in studies of perception and judgement of the visual environment. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 4, 283-302.
Trengove, (2003). Torquay and Jan Juc Neighbourhood Character Study, Vegetation Report. An
unpublished report prepared for the Surf Coast Shire Council Planning Department.
Uzzell, D. L., & Leward, K. (1990). The psychology of landscape. Landscape Design, 189, 3-10.

Appendix A
Demographic and Background Details of Neighbourhood

Character Mail Questionnaire Respondent Sample
In total 293 people responded out of the 5756 questionnaires sent out resulting in a little over 5%
overall response rate.

GENDER
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Female 114 38.9 46.2
Male 115 39.2 46.6
Both 18 6.1 7.3
(Couple)
Sub-Total 247 84.3 100.0
Missing 46 15.7
293 100.0
GENDER
140
120
100
80
60
40
Frequency
20
0
Female Male Both (Couple)

AGE
Below 21 1 .3 .4
21-30 5 1.7 2.0
31-40 37 12.6 15.0
41-50 63 21.5 25.6
51-60 69 23.5 28.0
61-70 50 17.1 20.3
Over 70 21 7.2 8.5
Sub-Total 246 84.0 100.0
Missing 47 16.0
Total 293 100.0
AGE
80
60
40
20
Frequency
0
Below 21 31-40 51-60 Over 70
21-30 41-50 61-70

RESIDENT
Yes 167 57.0 67.3
No 81 27.6 32.7
Sub-Total 248 84.6 100.0
Missing 45 15.4
Total 293 100.0
RESIDENT
200
100
Frequency
0
Yes No
LENGTH OF RESIDENCY
Valid 123
Missing 170
Mean 15.1667
Median 12.0000
Std. Deviation 12.9458
Minimum 1.00
Maximum 57.00

HISTORY
City 163 55.6 67.4
Rural and Small Town 65 22.2 26.9
Both 14 4.8 5.8
Sub-Total 242 82.6 100.0
Missing 51 17.4
Total 293 100.0
HISTORY
200
100
Frequency
0
City Rural and Small Town Both
PARTICIPATION IN FUTURE STUDY ACTIVITIES

Yes 156 53.2 53.2
No 137 46.8 46.8
Total 293 100.0 100.0

Appendix B
Demographic and Background Details of Photo Rating

Community Workshop Respondent Sample

Gender
Female 17 50.0 53.1
Male 15 44.1 46.9
Total 32 94.1 100.0
Missing Values 2 5.9
Total 34 100.0
Age
Frequency Percent
21-30 Years 1 2.9
31-40 Years 7 20.6
41-50 Years 11 32.4
51-60 Years 6 17.6
61-70 Years 3 8.8
Over 70 Years 5 14.7
Total Responses 33 97.1
Total Sample 34 100.0
Age
12
10
4
Frequency
0
21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 Over 70
Age

Neighbourhood
Neighbourhood Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Precinct Percent
N1 8 23.5 24.2 24.2
N2 5 14.7 15.2 39.4
N3 7 20.6 21.2 60.6
N4 3 8.8 9.1 69.7
N5 9 26.5 27.3 97.0
N6 1 2.9 3.0 100.0
Total Responses 33 97.1 100.0
Neighbourhood
10
4
Frequency
0
N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6
Neighbourhood
Resident
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Resident 24 70.6 75.0 75.0
Nonresident 8 23.5 25.0 100.0
Total 32 94.1 100.0
Responses

Residency
Years Frequency Percent Valid Percent
1.00 3 8.8 10.3
2.00 3 8.8 10.3
3.00 1 2.9 3.4
4.00 1 2.9 3.4
5.00 2 5.9 6.9
7.00 1 2.9 3.4
9.00 1 2.9 3.4
10.00 2 5.9 6.9
11.00 1 2.9 3.4
12.00 1 2.9 3.4
13.00 1 2.9 3.4
14.00 2 5.9 6.9
15.00 3 8.8 10.3
17.00 1 2.9 3.4
20.00 1 2.9 3.4
30.00 1 2.9 3.4
34.00 2 5.9 6.9
40.00 1 2.9 3.4
48.00 1 2.9 3.4
Missing 5 14.7
Responses
Residency
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
Frequency
.5
0.0
1.00 3.00 5.00 9.00 11.00 13.00 15.00 20.00 34.00 48.00
2.00 4.00 7.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 17.00 30.00 40.00
Residency

Environmental History – Where Respondents Grew Up
Environment Type Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Large/regional city 24 70.6 72.7 72.7
Rural area/small town 9 26.5 27.3 100.0
Missing Responses 1 2.9

Appendix C
Neighbourhood Character Mail Questionnaire Response Tables
The tables in this appendix record the types and frequency items were mentioned in the mail
questionnaire that were used to guide field photography.

Mail Questionnaire Results – Features Identified as Contributing to Neighbourhood
Character
Feature Freq. Comments
Neighbourhood Precinct 1
Views:
• View of ocean/ sea 11
• View of coastline 9
• View to Bellbrae 4
• View of Torquay from the beach 4
• View from Sundial 3
• View of Point Danger 3
• View to Barwon Heads 2
• View to beach 2
• View to cliffs 1
• View from foreshore picnic area 1
• View from the top of the dune on White’s Beach 1
Development:
• Houses on the Esplanade 7
• Playground 7
• Tennis Courts 7
• Nice/ beautiful houses 5
• Sundial 5
• No power lines 4
• Courts/ Culs de sac development 3
• Similar types of houses 3
• Low density housing 2
• Well maintained Development 2
• Fences 2
• Single storey houses 2
• Timber houses 1
• Suburban housing 1
• Low rise Development 1
• Houses with views 1
• Caravan Park 1
Natural Features/ Open space:

• Deep Creek Reserve 38
• Whites Beach 17
• Sand dunes 9
• Openspace 8
• Beaches 8
• Foreshore reserve 7
• Parkland 6
• New Golf Course 4
• Wetland area 3 Redeveloped
• Yellow Bluff 3
• Pastoral land 1
Vegetation:
• Bush 6 Deep Creek

• Neat Gardens 5
• Gum trees 5
• Grass Trees 3 Deep Creek
• Landscaping around houses 3
• Native grasses 3
• Native gardens 2
• Native vegetation 2
• No weeds 1
• Grassy areas 1 Foreshore
Access:
• Deep Creek trail/ track 13
• New foreshore walking track 10 Steps and bridge
• Walking tracks/ paths 7
• Beach walks 6
• The Esplanade 5
• Quiet streets 3
• Wide streets 3
• Entry to South Beach Estate 2 Landscape and fencing
• Beach access 1
Activities:
• Walking 5
• Windsurfing 2
• Swimming 1
• Boating 1
Miscellaneous:
• Clean 3
• Quiet 3
• Diverse community 2
• Neat 2
• Safe 1
Views:
• View of sea/ ocean 10
• View of Fisherman’s Beach 5
• View to Barwon Heads 4
• View of White’s Beach 2
Development:
• “Old Torquay” houses 12 Holiday and permanent
• Sundial 8
• Low rise development 6
• Boat Ramp 5
• Large block size 5
• Caravan park 3
• Playground 3
• Beach style architecture 3
• Zeally Bay shop 2
• Sufficient setbacks 2

• Deep Creek bridge 2
• Fibro beach houses 2
• Verandahs 1
• Bungalow style beach houses 1
• Yacht club 1
• Tennis courts 1
Natural Features/ Openspace:

• Taylor Park 23 Including new water feature
• Deep Creek Reserve 22
• Fisherman’s Beach 13
• Natural foreshore 7
• Beach walks 5
• Sand dunes 4
• Nature strips 4
• Yellow Bluff 3
• Deep Creek 3
• Elephant Walk 2
• Pastoral surroundings 1
Vegetation:
• Indigenous vegetation 7
• Gum trees 7
• Trees on old blocks 6
• Trees 5
• Grasses 5
• Bush 2
• Vegetation along Deep Creek 2
• Native street trees 1
• Gardens 1
Access:
• Deep Creek track/trail 10
• Beach access 7
• Trails/ walks 5
• No footpaths 2
• Fischer Street 2
• Felix Crescent 1
• Wide streets 1
Activities:
• Walking 4
• Boating 4
• Non motorized water sports 2
• Fishing 2
• Swimming 1
Views:
• View of Sea/ Ocean 11
• View of Back Beach 10
• View down the street to the ocean 9 Gilbert Street, Beach Road
• View over Spring Creek Reserve 7

• View up/ down Front Beach 5
• View of Taylor Park 5 At the end of streets
• View of golf course 3
• View towards Jan Juc 3
• View of Rocky Point 2
• View up Spring Creek 2
• Uninterrupted views 1
Development:
• Gilbert Street shops/ restaurants 16
• Old houses/ buildings 14
• Surf Life Club 12
• Shops/ restaurants 12
• Large blocks 11
• Single storey development 10
• Large set backs 9
• Low scale development 8
• Bell Street shops/ restaurants 8
• Old school grounds 8 Cricket pitch, oval
• Low density development 7
• Playground 7
• “Old Torquay” 7
• Village commercial center 6
• Caravan Park 6
• Esplanade Restaurants 5
• Old Town Hall 5
• Historic house 4 Built by Colonel Price
• Unobtrusive housing design 4
• Sympathetic renovation of old house 3 Fischer Street
• Barwon Health/ Dentist 3
• Subdued house colours 3
• Church 3
• Old house on the corner Anderson and Pearl Streets 3
• Craft Shop 3
• Point Danger car park 3
• Variation in periods of housing stock 2
• The Cottage 2
• Russell’s house 2
• Scammel House 2
• Continuity of building style 2
• Appropriate architecture 1
• Sculptures 1

• Taylor Park 32 Bush, ponds, bowling green
• Front Beach 22
• Back Beach 17
• Point Danger 17
• Spring Creek Reserve/ wetlands 16 Boardwalks
• Beaches 16
• Foreshore reserves 14 No development
• Fisherman’s Beach 8 Boat ramp
• Cosy Corner 7

• Taylor Park water feature 7
• Nature strips 6
• Beach walks 5
• Openspace/ Reserves 5
• Open aspect 5
• Bird life 3
• Yellow Bluff 2
• Cliffs 2
• Sand dunes 1
• Cockatoos 1
Vegetation:
• Norfolk Island Pines on Front Beach 12
• Tree lined streets 11
• Indigenous vegetation 9 Trees, grasses
• Large mature gardens 8
• Large mature trees 8
• Landscaping around houses 7
• Trees/ tree canopy 5
• Moonah trees 4
• Mature landscaping 4
• Foreshore vegetation 4
• Landscaping along streets 4 Gilbert and Bell Streets
• Sugar Gums 3 Taylor Park
• Large Gum trees 2
• Remnant indigenous coastal vegetation 1 North side of Yellow Bluff
• Cypress trees 1 Point Danger
Access:
• Spring Creek boardwalks/ paths 10
• Paths/ trails 9 Including bikes
• The Esplanade 9 Not commercial
• Wide streets 9
• Gilbert Street 8 Landscaping
• Bell Street 7
• Spring Street 5
• Munday Street 2
• Pride Street 2
• Anderson Street 2
• Continuity of streetscapes 1
• Price Street 1
• Beales Street 1
Activities:
• Walking 5
• Surfing 2
• Surf Kites 2
• Windsurfing 1
• Water sports 1
• Boating 1
• Sports 1
Miscellaneous:
• Privacy 5

• Old sea side/ nautical village atmosphere 4
• Rural small town atmosphere 3
• Clean beach 2
• Safe 2
• Space 2
• Holiday atmosphere 2
• Café scene 2
Views:
• View over golf course to ocean/ sea 17
• View over Spring Creek valley and reserve 11 Also to ocean
• View of ocean/ sea 9
• View of pastoral land 8
• View along Spring Creek to ocean 6 Also inlet
• View over golf course 5
• View of Barwon Heads 3
• View of Deep Creek Valley 3
• View of Surf Club 2
• View of sports field 2
• View of Mornington Peninsula 1
• View of bush 1
Development:
• Surf Coast Plaza 12
• New houses 4
• Interesting architecture 3
• Shops 2
• Quality homes 2
• Library 2
• Football oval 2
• No units 1
• Lovely homes 1

• Spring Creek and reserve 33 Also track
• Parkland 9 Park at Ocean View Estate
• Deep Creek and reserve 4
• Pastoral land 3
• Openspace 2
Vegetation:
• Bush 4
• Moonah trees 3
• Indigenous vegetation 3
• Remnant Messmate forest 2
• Gum trees 2
• Grass Trees 2
• Trees 2
• Landscaping at Surf Coast Plaza 2
• Wide streets 1
• Palm trees 1
• Pine trees 1
• Gardens 1

Access:
• Walking tracks 4
• Road signage 3
• Access to shops 3
Activities:
• Walking 4
Miscellaneous:
• Quiet 3
View:
• View of Ocean/ sea/ surf 18
• View of Jan Juc with ocean beyond 13
• View of Bell’s Beach 10
• View from lookout 9 Off of car park
• View of Jan Juc Beach 6
• View of openspace/ reserves 5
• View of Torquay 2
• View down the street to the ocean 1
Development:
• Jan Juc shops 19
• Recreation reserve 10 Oval, tennis courts
• Variety of house styles 10
• Surf Life Club 9
• Large land lots/ acreages 8
• No units 7
• Low scale development 5
• Coastal beach style architecture 4
• Old beach houses 4 Including fibro
• Interesting architecture 4
• Preschool 3
• Large setbacks 3
• Bird Rock Cafe 3
• Low key commercial area 3
• Painted toilet blocks 3
• Rustic timber houses 2
• Attractive houses 2
• Two storey houses 2
• Small streets 2
• Playground 2
• School 2
• No Estates 2 Suburban
• Houses backing onto creek reserve 1
• No fences 1
• Variety of housing materials 1
• Lack of paving 1

• Cliff walk 30
• Jan Juc Creek reserve and track 30
• Jan Juc Beach 22
• Foreshore reserve 16 Also Bell’s Beach reserve
• Parkland 13
• Bird Rock 13
• Golf course 12
• Cliffs 12
• Openspace 7
• Bell’s Beach 5
• Pastoral land 5
• Hills 4
• Surf beaches 3
• Ironbark Basin 1
• Sunrise 1
• Sunset 1
• Sand dunes 1
Vegetation:
• Indigenous coastal vegetation 17
• Trees/ Landscaping around houses 11
• Bush 9 Remnant bushland
• Trees 8
• Gardens 5
• Indigenous gardens 4
• Nature strips 2
• Mature Gum Trees 2
• Mixture of vegetation 1
• Tea Tree 1
• Plantations 1
Access:
• Tracks/ walks 34
• Boardwalks and steps 10
• Lookouts 8
• Beach access 3
• Access to shops 1
• Muirfield Avenue 1
• Hoylake Avenue 1
Activities:
• Walking 3
• Bikes 2
• Surfing 1
• Swimming 1
Miscellaneous:
• Low key/ casual 5
• Quiet 2
• Green 2
• Rustic charm 1

View:
• View of Ocean/ sea/ surf 8
• View of Jan Juc with ocean beyond 6
• View of Bell’s Beach 3
• View of Torquay 3
• View from lookout 2 Off of carpark
• View of Jan Juc Beach 1
Development:
• Recreation reserve 9 Oval, tennis courts
• Jan Juc shops 7 Pub, cafes
• Large land lots/ acreages 6
• Old beach houses 6 Including fibro
• Playground
• Low scale development
• Renovated houses
• Interesting architecture
• “Old Jan Juc”
• Bird Rock Cafe
• Painted toilet blocks
• Attractive houses
• No units
• Low density
• Surf Life Club
• Variety of house styles

• Cliff walk 20
• Jan Juc Creek reserve and track 8
• Parkland 8
• Jan Juc Beach 8
• Openspace 8
• Foreshore reserve 8 Also Bell’s Beach reserve
• Cliffs 7
• Pastoral land 3
• Beaches 3
• Birdlife 3
• Golf course 2
• Bell’s Beach 2
• Ironbark Basin 1
• Echidna 1
• Wildlife 1
Vegetation:
• Indigenous coastal vegetation 16
• Bush 5 Remnant bushland
• Nature strips 3
• Trees/ Landscaping around houses 4
• Mature Gum Trees 2

• Trees 2
• Indigenous gardens 1
• Moonah trees 1
• Heathland 1
Access:
• Tracks/ walks 25
• Great Ocean Road 4
• Beach access 2
• Gravel roads 1
Miscellaneous:
• Quiet 1
• Clean beach 1

Mail Questionnaire Results – Features Identified as Incompatible with
Neighbourhood Character
Views:
• Views blocked by vegetation 2
• Houses blocking views 1
Development:
• High density development 10 Crowded onto block
• Units/ townhouses on Esplanade 7
• Over developed 6
• High rise development 5
• Multi unit development 5
• Two storey units 5
• Inappropriate/ unsympathetic architecture 4
• South Beach Estate 3
• Small setbacks 3
• Narrow streets 3
• Townhouses 3
• Homogenous/ urban style housing 3
• Fences 2
• Poorly maintained properties 2
• Small blocks 2
• Small courts 1
• Boxy architecture 1
• Power poles 1

• Poorly maintained foreshore/ reserve 8
• Seaweed 4
• Deep Creek inlet 2
• Lack of parkland 1
Vegetation:
• Dead trees/ plants 6 Deep Creek reserve
• Lack of landscaping along streets 5
• Poorly maintained nature strips 3
• Lack of trees/ landscaping around houses 3
• Exotic species 2
• Weeds 2
• Coastal Tea Tree 1
Access:
• The Esplanade 7
• No footpaths 1
Miscellaneous:
• Rubbish 11 Deep Creek reserve
• Traffic 11
• Parking 9
• Lack of amenities 5
• Poor maintenance of amenities 3
• Crowding 3
• Noise 3

Views:
• Views blocked by trees 2
Development:
• High density development 12 Crowding onto blocks
• Unsympathetic/ Inappropriate architecture 8
• Power poles 3
• High rise units 2
• Two storey development 2
• Loss of old houses 2
• Caravan Park 1
• Subdivisions 1

• Rubbish in Deep Creek 1
• Open drain through beach area 1
• Degraded Foreshore 1
Vegetation:
• Lack of trees 3
• Poorly maintained gardens 2
• Overgrown nature strips 2
• Lack of vegetation around houses 1
• Dead grass 1
• Exotic vegetation 1
• Cypress trees 1
Access:
• No foot paths 1
• Gravel roads 1
Activities:
• Jet skis 4
Miscellaneous:
• Traffic 6
• Noise pollution 3
• Rubbish 2
• Poor lighting 1
Views:
• View of Ocean View Estate 6
• Views blocked by development 1
Development:
• High density development 34 Crowded onto block, urban
• Two storey units/ houses 19
• Inappropriate/ unsympathetic architecture 14
• Proposed supermarket development 13
• Insufficient setbacks 10

• New development in “Old Torquay” 7
• Parking areas behind Gilbert Street shops 7
• Units on Anderson Street 7
• Buildings intruding into streetscapes 6
• Townhouses 6
• Multi storey development 6
• Loss of old buildings/ houses 5
• Two Bays development 5
• Ugly units 5
• Townhouses/ units on Pearl Street 4
• Three/ four two storey units built on one block 4
• Two storey units destroying privacy 4
• Homogenous/ urban style housing 4
• Poor quality materials 4
• Shabby run down properties 4
• Boxy houses 4
• Car wash 4
• Industrial buildings 3
• Fences 3 Paling, brick
• Dominating/ obtrusive architecture 3
• Inappropriate colours 2
• Balconies 2
• Driveways 2
• Small blocks 2
• Over improvement of park 1 Taylor Park
• Old school site 1

• Pollution in Spring Creek 2
• Erosion on cliffs 2
Vegetation:
• Loss of trees/ vegetation for development 18 Sites denuded, old trees lost
• Lack of trees/ landscaping around development 8
• Lack of landscaping along streets 6
• Lack of vegetation in Taylor Park 3
• Exotic plants 3
• Weeds 2 On cliffs
• Buckthorn 1
• Queensland Grass Trees 1
• Queensland Palm trees 1
• Inappropriate street trees 1
• Cypress trees 1
• Low profile new landscaping 1
Access:
• No foot paths 4
• Unmade footpaths 3
• Signage 3
Activities:
• Jet skis 4
• Tiger Moth flights 1

Views:
• View of Ocean Views Estate 4
• Views blocked by new development 4
• View of car wash 2
• View of industrial area 1
Development:
• Ocean Views Estate 15
• High density development 3
• Development too high 3
• Suburban Sprawl 3
• MacDonalds 3
• Industrial area 3
• Court style development 2
• Two storey development 2
• Brick construction 2
• 1970s houses 2
• Georgian style development 1
• Fences 1
• Zinc sheds 1
• Large scale houses 1
• Power poles 1
• Units 1

Rabbits 1
Vegetation:
• Lack of landscaping/ trees around development 22 e.g. Great Ocean View Estate
• Lack of openspace 4
• Poor maintenance of trees/ landscaping 2
• Dead trees
Access:
• No footpaths 2
• Ocean View Crescent 2
• Gravel roads 1
• The Mews 1
• Elizabeth Court 1
Miscellaneous:
• Traffic 8
• Pollution in Creek/ reserve 5
• Rubbish 2
• Parking 2
• Signage 1
Views:
• Views of Great Ocean Views Estate 10
• Views blocked by development 8

Development:
• Jan Juc shops 23 Also behind shops
• Unsympathetic/ inappropriate architecture 20 Obtrusive, large
• Suburban sprawl 17 Rural land
• Run down houses/ buildings 10
• Three storey development 8 Houses, units
• Suburban style architecture 7 Great Ocean View Estate
• Unfinished houses 7
• Pab’s Tavern 6 Behind commercial, wall
• Large house on a small block 6
• Inappropriate materials 6 Cheap/ poor quality
• Three, two storey units on one block 5
• Power poles 5
• Loss of privacy resulting from development 5
• High density development 5
• Two storey townhouses/ units 5
• Lack of energy efficiency in development 3 Solar exposure
• Development on Ozan Crescent 3
• Relocated houses 2
• Vacant properties 2
• Brick construction 1
• Queensland style strip development 1
• Sterile homogenous development 1
• Too much paving 1
• Small blocks 1

• Parkland needs improvement 10 Landscaping
• Poorly maintained reserve 9
• Creek running through drain 3
Vegetation:
• Lack of street trees/ landscaping 14
• Lack of landscaping in reserves 10 Creek, foreshore
• Removal of trees/ vegetation for development 7
• Weeds 6
• Damage to indigenous vegetation 5
• Lack of nature strips 5
• Lack of indigenous/ native vegetation 3
• Overgrown vegetation 3
Access:
• Unsealed roads 7
• No footpaths 6
• Access to Bird Rock 5
• Car parks 3
• Maintenance of beach access 2

Miscellaneous:
• Rubbish/ garbage 7
• Traffic 7 Congestion, hazards
• Signage 3
• Messy/ untidy 3
• Drainage ditch 2
• Graffiti 1
• Noise 1
• Vandalism 1
Views:
• View of white house from the cliff walk/ reserve 2
• View of houses from the beach 1
Development:
• Jan Juc shops 10
• Suburban sprawl 8 Rural land
• Views of Great Ocean Views Estate 6
• Pabs Tavern 4 Behind commercial, wall
• Unsympathetic/ inappropriate architecture 4 Obtrusive, large
• Run down houses/ buildings 4
• Urbanization 3
• Two storey townhouses/ units 3
• Three storey development 3
• Three, two storey units on one block 3
• Units behind Jan Juc shops 3
• Power poles 2
• Bird Rock Cafe 2
• Vacant properties 2
• Loss of privacy resulting from development 2
• Cheap/ poor quality materials 1
• Large house on a small block 1
• Houses too close to the reserve 1

• Parkland needs improvement 12 Landscaping
• Poorly maintained reserve 3
Vegetation:
• Lack of landscaping in reserves 5 Creek, foreshore
• Lack of street trees/ landscaping 3
• Inappropriate gardens 3
• Weeds 3
• Lack of nature strips 2
• Dying trees 2
• Overgrown vegetation 1
• Lack of indigenous/ native vegetation 1
• Bone seed 1
• Pine trees 1
• Bull Rushes 1

• Replacement of exotic species with indigenous 1
Access:
• Carparks 5 “Boobs” carpark
• No footpaths 2
• Ocean Boulevard 2
• Unsealed roads 1
• No access to heathland 1
Miscellaneous:
• Rubbish/ garbage 6
• Traffic 5 Congestion, hazards
• Signage 2
• Messy/ untidy 2
• Vandalism 1
• Vermin 1

Appendix D
Focus Group One Results
Focus Group One discussions were conducted as part of the community workshop. Respondents
were assigned to one of Six focus groups according to the neighbourhood precinct in which they
live. Three questions concerning existing and future character of their neighbourhood were
addressed and each group was assigned a facilitator. Responses were recorded at the time and
later transcribed and are presented in this appendix.

PRECINCT ONE
1. What features of the precinct positively contribute to its character?

- Diversity of housing styles
- White’s Beach
- Sand dunes
- Deep creek
- Sun dial
- Dog beach
- Foreshore nature reserve and new track
- Parking opportunities within the coastal vegetation (at track Horseshoe Bend)
- Block size – bigger and generous setbacks
- Footprint to block size ratio
- Houses don’t take up all the block, they have gardens around house
- Lower density housing
2. What features of the precinct detract from its character?

- Subdivision of land creating higher densities
- Parts of foreshore need maintenance and upgrading using indigenous vegetation
- Dog restrictions on beach
- Lack of enforcement of rules ie. dog droppings
- Kerb and channel road design is not sympathetic to coastal character eg. roll over
kerbs
- Lack of open space/open space network within residential areas, including walking and
bike paths, green corridors and links between residential areas/foreshore/Deep
Creek/public areas
- Erosion of the dunes
- Mass manufactured housing styles without distinctiveness is degrading residential
character
3. How would you like to see the precinct develop into the future? What is the preferred
character?
- Pooper scoops along Whites Beach
- Extend foreshore beautification from Deep Creek to Whites Cutting
- Retain mix of housing styles but not ‘in your face’ type designs or large areas of boxes
or typical suburban styles
- Good examples of sympathetic design is in Pomora Avenue, however couple of
houses that stand out too much
- Bad examples of design are in Hani Court and Colina Court
- Orungal Court has some interesting and distinctive designs that compliment
streetscape
- More open space and green corridors linking public and residential areas

- Roads to enable developments/housing to blend together ie. Ceduna Close compared
to the separation created by wide streets with old style kerb and channel (ie. Lochard
Drive, Gleneuse Ave)
PRECINCT TWO

- Taylor Park
- Sun dial
- Fisherman’s Beach
- Deep Creek
- Boat ramp
- Established gardens
- Mature trees
- Close to beach and with ocean views
- Birds
- Natural vegetation along sand dunes
- Green grass on nature strips
- Houses set back on block
- Country style environment
- Wide nature strips with trees and bushes
- Historical traditional Torquay – like a village within Torquay as the modern estates
grow up around it

- Nude beach
- Unleashed dogs in streets
- Jet skis too close to shore and noisy
- Noisy aeroplanes
- Indistinct divisions between family swimmers, sailing, motor boats and jet skis
- Very modern housing – box styles
- New developments encroaching on privacy
- Overcrowding some areas to the detriment of other residences in some areas (not
unanimous)
- Triple storey houses blocking views
- Rats coming from over grown lots
3. How would you like to see the precinct develop into the future, ie. what is the
preferred character?
- Colour code – should be environmentally pleasing, not big coloured boxes (not unanimous)
- More gardens visible from the road
-

- More street trees, bottlebrush, colourful and indigenous plants
- Underground power
- Maintained nature strips – no long grass
- Retain the ‘old Torquay character’ – leave modern housing to the new estates
- An area that is environmentally friendly
- No big mansions or high rise units
- More noise regulation especially during weekends
- Allow dogs to run on Fisherman’s Beach before 10am and after 5pm over summer (not
unanimous)
PRECINCT THREE

- Space
- Vegetation
- Trees – Moonah’s
- Open streetscape
- Single storey houses
- Wide streets
- Unsealed nature strips – no footpaths
- Setbacks – houses setback from street with larger front yards
- Building design lacks flamboyance
- More subdued, unpretentious
- Variety of materials – timber, brick etc
- Vegetation front gardens – lower and no fences
- Garages don’t dominant building
- Pitched roofing
- Large back yards/open space
- Buildings do not abut next door
- Close to facilities/amenities
- Character not lost yet
- Subdued colours
- Off-street parking

- Double storey
- More than dual occupancy
- High density/multi storey developments
- Creeping invasion via setback to front/back/side
- Louder colour schemes
- Square/block designs

- Balance between permanent homes/holiday homes/holiday rentals
- Destruction of all vegetation when large blocks are cleared for development
- Overflow of visitor parking to street
- Over crowding of larger blocks
- Council services not reflecting peak times – eg rubbish/street cleaning/traffic
management
3. How would you like to see the precinct develop into the future, ie. what is the preferred
character?
- Wide streets
- Single storey developments with open space around
- Park and school site retained as open space
- Simple materials/subtle colours
- No box/contemporary designs
- Dual occupancy only
- Preservation of vegetation on blocks to be developed – mature trees
- Possible transfer of power lines underground
- Speed humps to detract some traffic
- Restrictions on demolition of older style homes
- Building setbacks retained
- Improved maintenance of public spaces
- Retain streetscape (vista)
- Private open spaces
PRECINCT FOUR

- Deep Creek – flora and fauna
- Spring Creek – flora and fauna
- Rural outlook – farms
- Views – valley and ocean
- Natural/original aspects eg remnant messmate, established trees
- School development
- Surf shops
- Bird life
- New residential designs
- Large allotments – north of Grossmans Road

- Proposal to subdivide large blocks
- Proposed new industrial estate – off Coomes Road/Highway
- Pollution in Spring Creek – litter
- Colour and materials of some of the new development
- Lack of trees – footprint of house (ratio)
- No pedestrian crossing over Great Ocean Road
- Height of new houses
- No/ lack of footpaths
- No playground equipment on playground (Ocean views estate)
3. How would you like to see the precinct develop into the future, ie. what is the preferred
character?
- Keep residential and industrial zones separate
- Retain rural character of area
- Retention of views of valley (rural land) and ocean (creek)
- Develop sporting area – corner of highway and start of Great Ocean Road (improving,
upgrading)
- Footpaths on at least one side of the street
- Develop playgrounds – neighbourhood playgrounds, upgrade existing ones
- In commercial areas – develop everyday shops (milk bar)
- Pedestrian crossings – near roundabout, bridge, across from Ocean Views estate
- Low density
PRECINCT FIVE & SIX (groups combined)
- Beach
- Cliff top walk
- Treed areas – reserves and parks
- High level of vegetation in residential properties
- Golf course
- Creek reserves
- Reasonable sized blocks
- Reasonable ratio of building to block size
- More variation in building styles (traditional and contemporary)
- Low rise, beach style (traditional Jan Juc)
- Changing to higher (2 storeys) – changes not as incompatible with traditional Jan Juc
character as in Torquay
- More ‘infill’ development than large subdivisions
- Variation in setback
- Grass land and football oval
- Lower fences

- Traffic lights
- Substantial vegetation in residential blocks

- Shopping centre – lack of vegetation, asphalt expanse and poor quality architecture
- Backside of shopping centre
- Views of ocean views estate
- Traffic lights
- Town house development – moonscaping and building to boundaries
- Inappropriate subdivision
- Collection of debris in reserves – lack of maintenance
- Lack of street tree planting
3. How would you like to see the precinct develop into the future, ie. What is the
preferred character?
- Regulation of new subdivision and development of higher land with views in light of the
impact of Ocean Views Estate
- Subdivision sizes shouldn’t be too small
- Restriction of number of town house developments per area
- In redevelopment phase should take account retention of positive characteristics and
avoidance of negatives
- Better regulation and enforcement of setbacks, building footprint /block ratios and
appropriate/adequate vegetation
- Height restrictions, especially in new subdivision areas with potential views
- Appropriate designs, including colours
- Require use of indigenous vegetation
- Upgrade of vegetation and stormwater management along creek reserves
- Protection of coastal environment through appropriate stormwater treatment/management
- Protect existing vegetation on public and private land
- Street trees – provide strong framework of significant streetscape planting
- Retain the low key commercial centre, but improve landscape and built elements
- Create a low key social centre for Jan Juc
- Retain and encourage open, social street character – avoid high fences and fortress-like
building fronts
- Industrial development not appropriate for Jan Juc

Appendix E
Focus Group Two Results
Focus Group Two discussions involved the community reference group being shown results from
the photo rating exercise held at the community workshop. Respondents (N=10) viewed all stimuli
photographs along with their associated rating scores (mean and standard deviation character
compatibility values). Results were presented to respondents via a PowerPoint presentation from
most to least compatible for each neighbourhood precinct and their comments relative to each
photo were recorded at the time and later transcribed.

Focus Group Two Comments, Photos and Rating Values
Neighbourhood One
Photographs /
Positive Attribute Negative Attribute
Rating Values
♥ Roof form – gable, ♠ Minimal setback

peaks, colour ♠ Proportions of building
♥ Beachy – bathing box form
♥ Low maintenance ♠ Suburban in terms of
♥ Small footprint and concrete and lawn
scale ♠ Small lot
Number 56 (M = 3.62, SD = 1.71)
♠ Commercial/ resort
style
♠ Not reflective of area
♠ Siting inappropriate
♠ Dated
Number 59 (M = 3.91, SD = 1.96)

♠ Contrasting colours
♠ Not enough
articulation
♠ Bulky
♠ Looks to have been
♥ Dark colours reduce added
prominence of those ♠ Window scale too
sections small
♥ Use of stone reflective ♠ Proportions incorrect
of area ♠ Landscaping
inadequate
♠ Car domination Number 51 (M = 4.15, SD = 1.79)
♠ Too suburban –
concrete/lawn
♠ High site coverage
♠ No local connection
♠ Suburban
♠ Setbacks from side
boundaries
♥ No front fence ♠ Footprint
♥ Addresses the street ♠ Not site responsive
♠ No indigenous
vegetation
♠ Suburban exotic Number 62 (M = 4.38, SD = 1.83)
vegetation
* Positive and negative attributes identified from comments expressed in Focus Group Two.
** Mean and standard deviation values are based on a 7 point, bi-polar character compatibility rating scale
used during the photo rating exercise (N=34) where 1 = highest degree of perceived compatibility with
neighbourhood character and 7 = lowest compatibility with neighbourhood character and 4 = neutral.

♠ Inconsistent roof form
♥ Articulation ♠ Overworked design –
♥ Door of garage middle house
♥ Pebble driveway ♠ Large area of paving
♠ High solid front fence
Number 65 (M = 4.70, SD = 1.70)

♠ Height
♠ Exposed
♠ Minimal vegetation
and siting
♥ Outdoor living
♠ Corner lot
♥ Built to maximise
♠ No landscape
views
treatment at front or
♥ Balconies articulate
sides
form
♠ Minimal setback
♥ Colours ok
♠ Building bulk
♠ High footprint Number 45 (M = 4.74, SD = 1.76)
♠ Dominance of
concrete
♠ Scale
♠ Dominance of
driveway and garage
♥ Interesting colours
♠ Bulk and site
♥ Use of materials in
coverage
fencing and balconies
♠ Boundary to boundary
♥ Underground power
construction
♠ No landscaping and
no potential for Number 13 (M = 4.85, SD = 1.99)
♠ High front fence –

♥ Neutral colours lacks integration
♥ Interesting/creative ♠ Unfriendly
design ♠ Not responsive to
♥ Setbacks environment
♠ Windows out of scale
Number 66 (M = 4.94, SD = 1.62)
♠ Repetition and
♥ Some indigenous uniformity
plants ♠ Minimal setbacks
♥ Small balconies break ♠ Lack of landscaping
up facade ♠ Domination of paving
♥ Window scale ♠ Does not respond to
♥ No front fence environment or
♥ Roof form reflects old orientation
beach shack ♠ Lot size too small for
♥ Colours not offensive bulk and scale of Number 20 (M = 5.12, SD = 1.72)
building
♥ Some of the
♠ Too imposing from
elevations more
this elevation
integrated
♠ No landscaping and
♥ Attempt at picking up
limited potential for
on beach style – not
♠ Site coverage high
all positive
Number 35 (M = 5.41, SD = 1.73)

♠ Landscaping not
planted appropriately
♠ Suburban style
♠ Colours don’t match
style
♥ No driveway or ♠ Fence out of scale
garages facing street ♠ Columns too heavy
♥ Area for landscaping ♠ High site coverage
♠ Minimal setbacks
♠ Repetitive form
♠ Inadequate Number 18 (M = 5.94, SD = 1.50)
articulation
♠ Front wall placement
Neighbourhood Two
Positive Attribute Negative Attribute Photographs /
Rating Values
♥ Landscape – canopy
trees, vegetation
surrounding building
and native species
♥ Balanced
development
♥ Simplistic, humble,
understated
♥ Single storey, small
footprint
♥ Generous front and Number 1 (M = 1.97, SD = 0.72)
side setbacks
♥ Fence in balance
♥ View to ocean
♥ Tree lined
♥ Building set below
♠ Small street trees
view line
♠ Overhead powerlines
♥ Wide road, on street
parking
♥ No footpaths
Number 9 (M = 1.97, SD = 1.14)
♥ Nestled into
landscape
♥ Beach style shack ♠ Colours are strong but
♥ Subtle extension still ok due to modest
♥ Low, open front fence style
♥ Windows are feature
of style and era
Number 72 (M = 2.53, SD = 1.42)
♥ Roofline broken up by
mature canopy trees
♥ Smaller scale
♥ Endearingly rundown
♥ Humble and
understated
Number 3 (M = 2.97, SD = 1.40)

♥ Low key, humble
quality
♥ Generous side
setbacks
♥ Mature vegetation and
mostly landscaped
♥ No fence
♥ Colour reflective of
area
♥ No footpath
Number 47(M = 3.00, S.D = 1.58)
♥ Single storey scale
♥ Shallow pitched roof
♥ Driveway not sealed
♥ Attempt at different
design
♥ Indigenous mature ♠ Density too high
trees retained ♠ Lack of eaves and
♥ Well designed for articulation
orientation and ♠ Lack of carparking
environment ♠ Obstruction of views
♥ Presents as one
house to street Number 42 (M = 4.09, SD = 1.76)
♠ Lack of established
trees – many removed
♠ Driveway dominates
♠ High pavement
♥ Houses slightly coverage
different in form and
♠ Repetition
colour to add more
♠ Overdevelopment of
interest
site
♥ Roofing not offensive
♠ Boxy
but not distinctive
♠ Decks look ‘tacked’ on
♠ High density makes Number10 (M = 4.94, SD = 1.92)
servicing difficult
♠ Impact on privacy
Neighbourhood Three
Rating Values
♥ Sentiment, nostalgic
♥ Historic value
♥ Association with old
Torquay
♥ Classic low
maintenance garden
♥ Large setbacks
♥ Native vegetation
♥ Tree lined path
♥ Bell tower attractive
♥ Classic ‘Australian’
style
♥ Material and structure Number 25 (M = 1.32, SD = 0.59)
♥ Unobtrusive colours
and materials
♥ Windows provide
interest
♥ Unique values

♥ Historic value (old
butcher shop)
♥ Remnant from 1913
bushfires
♥ Balanced – doesn’t
dominate street
♥ Large nature strips
♥ Small scale Number 41 (M = 1.82, SD = 1.03)
♥ Classic ‘Australian’
form
♥ Historic value
♥ Large gum trees
♥ Open and large yard
♥ Building is in
proportion to lot size
♥ Informality of yard
♥ Flexible and utilitarian
spaces around house Number 28 (M = 2.03, SD = 1.24)
♥ Not imposing
♥ Interesting and
curious forms – eg
windows
♥ View to ocean
provides connection
♥ Community image
♥ Tree lined street
♥ Single storey/low
scale building
♥ Generous road width
Number 16 (M = 2.29, SD = 1.43)
♥ Wide verandahs
♥ Single storey
♥ Large windows and
French doors present
well to street
♥ Layering of vegetation
softens development
Number 29 (M = 2.29, SD = 1.24)
♥ Wide nature strips
with indigenous
vegetation
♥ House nestled into
♠ Fence ok but not a
site
feature
♥ Materials reflective of
older era
♥ Subtle driveway
treatment Number 58 (M = 2.32, SD = 1.36)
♥ Historical value
♥ Nostalgic
♥ Reflective of original
Torquay in size, form
and materials
♥ Australian cottage
style
♥ Very original Number49 (M = 3.00, SD = 1.83)

♥ Lightweight materials
– muted and good mix
♥ Not two storey at front ♠ High front fence on
♥ Well articulated concrete footpath
♥ Good interpretation of ♠ Established trees
beach shack needed
♥ Good window
proportions Number 70 (M = 3.79, SD = 1.76)
♠ Colours too pastel

♠ Proportionally
presents as three
storey
♥ Façade is well ♠ Repetitive form
balanced and not ♠ Bulky garages
offensive ♠ Black walls
♠ Small scale landscape
not adequate for size
of building
♠ Overdevelopment Number 53 (M = 4.26, SD = 1.83)
♠ Imposing wall and
fence
♠ Density –
overdevelopment
♠ Sheer, flat, two storey
walls
♠ No verandahs
♠ Lack of landscaping
and established trees Number 55 (M = 4.26, SD = 1.85)
♠ Building dominates
site
♥ Suits neighbourhood
♠ Very limited
character
landscaping
♥ Good articulation
♠ ‘Fortress’ and
♥ Shallow roof pitch
unfriendly façade –
doesn’t address street
Number 33 (M = 4.45, SD = 1.99)
♥ Mural on wall helps to

blend in
Number 24 (M = 4.47, SD = 1.90)
♠ Opportunity for
landscaping that
hasn’t been obliged
♠ Unfinished
Number 68 (M = 4.62, SD = 1.74)

♠ Suburban
♠ Minimal landscaping
♥ Unobtrusive ♠ Brick veneer and
♥ Low maintenance inappropriate colour
♠ Concrete cover too
high
Number 44 (M = 4.76, SD = 1.92)
♠ Comparison to
Cumberland
♠ Impact on the
Esplanade
♥ Greenery and ♠ Suburban manicured
terracing softens exotic garden
♠ No regard to adjoining
properties
♠ Three storey element
at back Number 21 (M = 5.03, SD = 1.82)
♥ Proportions more
considered and ♠ Height
balanced ♠ Queensland style
♥ Fence in scale and ♠ Aesthetics not suited
provides privacy in to Torquay
part ♠ Could be more
♥ Open space provides articulated
balance – suitable in ♠ Staggered from front
its context Number 38 (M = 5.24, SD = 1.96)
♠ Boxy
♠ Not site responsive
♠ No articulation
♠ Flat roof
♠ Blank walls
♠ Suburban in all
respects, including
fence
♠ Mimic
♠ Inappropriate exotic
landscaping Number 4 (M = 5.62, SD = 1.62)
♠ No canopy trees
♠ Repetition
♠ Colour too
overwhelming
♠ Signage –
inappropriate
advertising
♠ High exposure
Number 40 (M = 6.00, SD = 1.30)

Neighbourhood Four
Rating Values
♥ Vegetation along
boundaries and in
front yard
♥ Appropriate, classic
beach shack – roof,
materials, landscaping
♥ Small single driveway
♥ Colours not offensive Number 61 (M = 2.52, SD = 1.23)
♠ Tiles inappropriate
♠ Out of character due
to height, emphasised
♥ Weatherboard features and forms
♠ Sits above tree line
♠ Overly manicured
landscape
Number 64 (M = 4.06, SD = 1.92)
♥ Colour makes it
recede
♥ Reasonable setback ♠ Minimal vegetation
♥ Forms ok
♥ Roofline positive
Number 69 (M = 4.06, SD = 1.90)
♠ Lack of address to
♥ Simple forms
street
♥ Subtle colours
♠ Not residential in form
♥ One generous side
♠ Neglected street and
setback
landscape
Number 60 (M = 4.12, SD = 1.43)
♠ Colours
♥ Less offensive due to ♠ Strong visual
location structures
♥ Lack of development ♠ Lack of landscaping
around ♠ Poor orientation
♠ Mismatch of materials
Number 36 (M = 4.79, SD = 1.53)
♠ Flat roof
♠ No eaves or
verandahs
♠ Bare, blank facade
♠ Urban style – bulk,
scale
♠ Landscaping not in
character Number 73 (M = 5.06, SD = 1.65)

♠ Form makes large
impact on street
♥ More innovative ♠ Large scale – building
to lot size
♠ Aggressive colours
and forms
Number 37 (M = 5.21, SD = 1.74)
♠ Dallas/wedding cake
quality
♠ Vegetation not to
♥ Good setbacks
scale
♥ Wall materials
♠ Roof materials
♥ Garage at rear
♠ Too busy – rooflines
competing
♠ Not site responsive Number 71 (M = 5.24, SD = 1.83)
♠ Houses competing
♥ Buildings on poles
with one another
♥ Reflective of Jan Juc
♠ Scale and exposure
♠ No landscaping
Number 15 (M = 5.32, SD = 1.74)

♠ Appears as ‘Lego
Land’
♠ Fully constructed
♠ Scar on landscape
♠ Subdivision should
have allowed for
green belts and
breaks Number 27 (M = 5.74, SD = 1.62)
Neighbourhood Five
Rating Values
♥ Materials – rustic and

natural
♥ Blends in to
vegetation
♥ Eccentric architecture
♥ Does not impose
♥ Natural driveway
Number 78 (M = 2.71, SD = 1.40)
♠ Not suited to Victorian

coast
♥ Materials and colours
♠ Queenslander
not offensive
♠ Lack of vegetation in
scale
Number 81 (M = 3.58, SD = 1.97)

♥ Native vegetation at
front
♥ Planted nature strip, ♠ Large scale
extensive planting in ♠ Will appear
context with area overdeveloped when
♥ Use of colours adjoining blocks
♥ Interesting roof form developed
♥ Outdoor entertaining
areas Number 46 (M = 3.74, SD = 1.83)
♠ Lack of articulation of
facade
♠ Harsh, dominating
fence
♥ Subtle colours ♠ Too close to street
♥ Form ok ♠ Minimal setbacks
♠ Height on side
boundaries
♠ No frontage
vegetation Number 75 (M = 4.06, SD = 1.64)
♠ Barren
♠ Harsh horizontals and
verticals
♥ Good fence material ♠ High front fence
♥ Skillion roof on garage ♠ Dominance of garage
♠ Lack of vegetation
♠ Curve roof doesn’t
work with garage roof Number 74 (M = 4.15, SD = 1.52)
♥ Large block ♠ Bulk, scale

♥ Large setbacks ♠ Windows not balanced
♥ Large green areas or consistent
Number 80 (M = 4.41, SD = 1.83)

♠ Inappropriate fencing
♠ Doesn’t address both
streets adequately
♥ Muted colours ♠ Touch of suburban
♠ Too formal for area
♠ Deck protruding
♠ Boxy Number 82 (M = 4.41, SD = 1.96)
♠ Colour could be
♥ Lightweight material
improved
♥ Simple forms
♥ Interesting
♠ Dominance of garage
development
and vehicle focus
Number 76 (M = 4.56, SD = 1.52)

♠ Wall to wall
development
♠ Over constructed
♠ Windows too small
♥ Colours and materials ♠ Front fence too high
♥ Single garage – not ♠ Lack of landscaping
double ♠ Minimal setbacks
♠ Boxy
♠ Aggressive – little Number 79 (M = 4.91, SD = 1.62)
integration with the
street
♠ Fortress like
♠ Big and imposing
♥ Dark roof minimises
♠ Too much brick
impact
♠ Too vertical
♠ Lack of balance
♠ Doesn’t fit landscape
Number 83 (M = 5.03, SD = 1.70)
♠ Urban
♠ Boxy
♠ Minimal landscaping
♠ Tile roof too heavy
♠ Shear blank walls
♠ Repetitive
♠ Over exaggerated
columns
♠ Minimal setbacks Number 77 (M = 5.59, SD = 1.74)
♠ Imposing
Neighbourhood Six
Rating Values
♥ Classic Jan Juc
♥ Low scale – not
imposing
♥ Nestled in trees
♥ Not overpowering
♥ Weathered with
landscape
♥ See
through/transparency Number 11 (M = 1.97, SD = 1.22)
♥ Not imposing
♥ Classic beach shack –

timber, skillion roof
♥ Nestled in mature
vegetation
♥ Subtle colours and
materials
Number 63 (M = 2.32, SD = 1.39)

♥ Classic Jan Juc
♥ Nestled in trees
♥ Lightweight
♥ Colours keep in style
Number 8 (M = 2.56, SD = 1.48)

♥ Surf style
♥ Large lot with space
♠ Could have more
around building
landscaping – more
♥ Retained native
regeneration
vegetation
♠ Harsh roof lines and
♥ Interesting
colours
architecture
♥ Site responsive Number 57 (M = 3.29, SD = 1.61)
♥ Excellent landscaping
♥ Windows sited to
respond to interior and
exterior
♥ Subtle colours and
materials
♥ Windows split bulk of
upper level
♥ Ground floor recedes
♥ Individuality Number 54 (M = 4.65, SD = 1.82)
♠ Not aesthetically
♥ Social character due pleasing
to location ♠ Concrete abutting
♥ Colours ok road
Number 31 (M = 5.15, SD = 1.60)
♠ Intrusive building
♠ Scale/mass
♠ Inadequate
landscaping
♠ Urban form
♠ Height
Number 22 (M = 5.24, SD = 1.71)
♠ Boxy
♠ Flat roof
♠ Concrete coverage
♠ Minimal setbacks
Number 5 (M = 5.24, SD = 1.81)

Appendix F
Focus Group Two: Aggregate Content Analysis Results

In this appendix comments about development and the attributes that contribute to the character
compatibility (and incompatibility) of developments, as presented in the tables in Appendix E, were
content analysed and ordered from most to least in terms of frequency of mention.

Attributes associated with compatibility of development with local character
Attribute Frequency of Mention
Colours - dark colours that reduces prominence, 21
interesting, neutral, not offensive reflective of
area, unobtrusive, receding, subtle, muted, dark
roof, subtle, lightweight
Indigenous vegetation 14
Sentiment, nostalgic, historic value, old 14
Torquay, Classic ‘Australian’ style, surf style
Materials, stone reflective of area, 13
weatherboard, rustic and natural, lightweight,
timber
Larger setbacks 13
Landscaping adequate 12
Unobtrusive, not imposing, humble and 12
understated, low key
Roof form reflects old beach shack, shallow 9
pitched, Skillion
Mature Trees, Mature vegetation 9
Unique Design, innovative 8
Balanced design 6
Interesting/creative design 5
Building set below tree line 4
Roofline, broken up by mature canopy trees, 4
gables, peaks
Small in scale 4
Large block 4
Good articulation 4
Solar orientation 4
Built to maximize views, Views to ocean 4
Beachy – bathing box, style of house 3
Low maintenance 3
No fences, front 3
Simple design, forms 3
Large setbacks 3
Small footprint 3
Driveway, pebble, natural, small 3
Low density 2
Not too tall – single storey 2
Houses different in form and colour – moderate 2
complexity
Fence in scale, good design 2
Balconies articulate form 2
Single garage 2
Wide road, No footpaths 2
Transparency 2
2

Attributes associated with incompatibility of development with local character
Attribute Frequency of Mention
Landscaping inadequate, lack of, out of scale 33
Domination of building - Too imposing, too big, 20
Fortress- like, unfriendly Looking
Concrete / Asphalt - Dominance of concrete – 18
driveways to much
High site coverage 17
Building bulky and Boxy 17
Minimal setback – side, front or back boundaries 16
Front fence - High solid, too big, lacking 11
integration
Colours – Contrasting, not matching, 11
overwhelming, strong, too pastel, black in walls,
aggressive, harsh
Suburban looking 10
Building does not fit with street and adjoining lots 10
Front wall – large, flat, imposing 10
Lack of mature trees 9
No indigenous vegetation, vegetation cleared 8
from site
Height – Too high, three storey 7
Scale - large 7
Not responsive to environment 7
Lack of articulation 6
Roof materials, tiles, forms 6
Not reflective of area, No local connection 6
Suburban exotic vegetation and poor planting 6
design
Small lot – too small 5
Density too high 5
Windows out of scale 4
Repetition and uniformity of forms 4
Proportions of building form incorrect 3
Siting inappropriate, Not site responsive 3
No verandahs 3
Urban looking 3
Too vertical 3
Flat roofs 3
Dominance of garage 3
Overly manicured garden and lawn 3
Lawn 2
Brick veneer 2
Commercial/ resort style 2
Looks to have been added 2
Too complex in form 2
Lack of eaves 2
Obstruction of views 2
Queensland style houses 2
Inappropriate signage – 2
Roof visible above tree line 2

Appendix G
Photo Rating Exercise: Neighbourhood Features Rated by

Character Compatibility from Most to Least Compatible
The photographs displayed in the following A3 sheets illustrate all features used as stimuli in the
photo rating exercise. Mean and standard deviation values reflecting aggregate perceived
neighbourhood character compatibility ratings derived from the community workshop photo rating
exercise are also given.

Neighbourhood Features Rated by Character Compatibility From Most to Least Compatible (Continued).
Photo 7, Main Beach - N-3 Photo 14, Beaches and Coastline – N2 Photo 2, Deep Creek Track - N-2 Photo 23, Coastal Track - N-6
Photo 50, Jan Juc Beach - N-6
(M = 1.00, SD = .0.00). (M = 1.03, SD = 0.17). (M = 1.06, SD = 0.24). (M = 1.09, SD = 0.29).
(M = 1.09, SD = 0.51).
Photo 26, Spring Creek Reserve - N-4 Photo 19, Taylor Park - N-3 Photo 25, House - N-3 Photo 67, Foreshore Pines - N-3 Photo 43, Inlet and Boardwalk - N-5
(M = 1.24, SD = 1.05). (M = 1.26, SD = 0.62). (M = 1.32, SD = 0.59). (M = 1.38, SD = 1.07). (M = 1.36, SD = 1.20).
Photo 17, Boat Launch - N-2 Photo 84, Golf Course View - N-5 Photo 48, Creek Reserve - N-6 Photo 30, Pastoral Land - N-5 Photo 41, Craft Shop Building - N-3
(M = 1.53, SD = 1.13). (M = 1.61, SD = 1.48). (M = 1.62, SD = 1.28). (M = 1.71, SD = 1.09). (M =1.82, SD = 1.03).
Photo 1, House - N-2 Photo 9, Road - N-2 Photo 11, House - N-6 Photo 39, Foreshore Playground - N-3 Photo 28, House - N-3
(M =1.97, SD = 0.72). (M =1.97, SD = 1.14). (M =1.97, SD = 1.22). (M =1.97, SD = 1.40). (M =2.03, SD = 1.24).

© Copyright by Dr. Ray Green, September 2003
Photo 34, Sun Dial - N-2 Photo 16, Street - N-3 Photo 58, House - N-3
Photo 29, House - N-3 Photo 63, House - N-6
(M = 2.12, SD = 1.43). (M = 2.29, SD = 1.43). (M = 2.32, SD = 1.37).
(M = 2.29, SD = 1.24). (M = 2.32, SD = 1.39).
Photo 61, House - N-4 Photo 72, House – N-2 Photo 8, House - N-6 Photo 78, House - N-5 Photo 3, House - N-2
Photo 47, House - N-2 Photo 52, Jan Juc Shops - N-6
(M = 3.00, SD = 1.58). (M = 3.32, SD = 1.92). Photo 12, Surf Coast Plaza - N-4
(M = 3.00, SD = 1.83). (M = 3.29, SD = 1.61). (M = 3.53, SD = 2.02).


(M = 3.58, SD = 1.97). (M = 3.74, SD = 1.83).
Photo 56, House - N-1 Photo 70, Units - N-3
(M = 3.62, SD = 1.71). (M = 3.79, SD = 1.76).
Photo 59, Signage - N-1

(M = 3.91, SD = 1.96).
Photo 6, Industrial Area - N-4 Photo 64, House - N-4 Photo 69, House - N-4 Photo 75, House - N-5
Photo 42, Units - N-2
(M = 4.00, SD = 1.60). (M = 4.06, SD = 1.92). (M = 4.06, SD = 1.90). (M = 4.06, SD = 1.64).
(M = 4.09, SD = 1.76).

Photo 60, House - N-4 Photo 74, House - N-5 Photo 51, House - N-1 Photo 53, Units - N-3
(M = 4.38, SD = 1.83).
(M = 4.12, SD = 1.43). (M = 4.15, SD = 1.52). (M = 4.15, SD = 1.79). (M = 4.26, SD = 1.83).


(M = 4.38, SD = 1.83). (M = 4.41, SD = 1.96). Photo 33, House - N-3
Photo 80, House - N-5 (M = 4.45, SD = 1.99). Photo 24, Car Wash - N-3
(M = 4.41, SD = 1.83). (M = 4.47, SD = 1.90).
Photo 65, Houses - N-1

Photo 76, House - N-5 (M = 4.70, SD = 1.70).
(M = 4.56, SD = 1.52). Photo 68, Back of Shops, Parking - N-3 Photo 54, House - N-6 Photo 45, House - N-1
(M = 4.62, SD = 1.74). (M = 4.65, SD = 1.82). (M = 4.74, SD = 1.76).

Photo 44, Units- N-3 Photo 36, Units - N-4 Photo 13, Units - N-1 (M = 4.91, SD = 1.62). Photo 10, Units - N-2
(M = 4.76, SD = 1.92). (M = 4.79, SD = 1.53). (M = 4.85, SD = 1.99). (M = 4.94, SD = 1.92).
Photo 66, House - N-1 Photo 21, Units - N-3 Photo 83, House - N-5 Photo 73, House - N-5 Photo 20, Units - N-1

Photo 22, Units – N-6 Photo 71, House – N-4

Photo 31, Units - N-6 Photo 37, House– N-4 Photo 38, Units – N-3
(M = 5.24, SD = 1.71). (M = 5.24, SD = 1.83).
(M = 5.15, SD = 1.60). (M = 5.21, SD = 1.74). (M = 5.24, SD = 1.96).
Photo 5, House – N-6 Photo 35, House - N-1 Photo 77, Units - N-5
Photo 15, Houses – N-4 Photo 4, Houses - N-3
(M = 5.24, SD = 1.81). (M = 5.41, SD = 1.73). (M = 5.59, SD = 1.74).
(M = 5.24, SD = 1.74). (M = 5.62, SD = 1.62).
Photo 32, MacDonald’s - N-4 Photo 27, Great Ocean View Estate - N-4 Photo 18, Townhouses - N-1 Photo 40, Building Wall and Signage - N-3
(M = 5.62, SD = 1.69). (M = 5.74, SD = 1.62). (M = 5.94, SD = 1.50). (M = 6.00, SD = 1.30).

Appendix 2
Copy of “Torquay/Jan Juc Neighbourhood
Character Study - Vegetation Report” (Mark
Trengove, October 2003)
Torquay - Jan Juc
Neighbourhood Character Study
Vegetation Report
prepared by Mark Trengove*
prepared for the Surf Coast Shire
December 2003
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 2
METHODS 2
RESULTS 2
SIGNIFICANCE 3
VEGETATION COMMUNITIES 3
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES 8
REFERENCES 12
Table 1 LOCATION, QUALITY AND

SIGNIFICANCE OF VEGETATION UNITS 7
Appendix 1 PHOTOGRAPH DESCRIPTIONS 11
Map 1 DISTRIBUTION OF VEGETATION
UNITS End
*PO Box 1502 Geelong 3220

INTRODUCTION
2
The Surfcoast Shire is undertaking a Neighbourhood Character Study for the residential areas
of Torquay and Jan Juc. This Vegetation Report was commissioned as a component of that
study. The report provides the following information-
• Mapping and description of the extant indigenous vegetation communities
• Assessment of the quality and significance of those vegetation communities
• Broad management guidelines for those vegetation communities
• Mapping and description of any culturally, visually or biologically significant areas of
exotic vegetation.
This report was first presented in draft form in February of this year as a component of the
community consultation process. This final version includes additional information and
comments that were gathered during consultation.
In addition to the above, photographs were provided of examples of the vegetation

communities to inform the public participation component of the Study.
METHODS
Vegetation data collection, mapping and photography was undertaken on the 12th and 13th of
February. Data collected included vegetation community data (dominant species) and
vegetation quality (ie degree of intactness). All vegetation mapping data was collected
utilizing Global Positioning System technology. Notes were made recording vegetation
quality, vegetation management methods, and significant species. Records were also made
detailing areas of exotic vegetation which exhibited potential cultural, visual or biological
values.
RESULTS
A total of eight indigenous vegetation communities were recorded within the study area.
These vegetation communities are described below. The quality of the vegetation
communities varied considerably, often in relation to land use and tenure.
These communities were rated for quality utilizing a five point rating, 1 being the least intact
(least significant) to 5 being the most intact (most significant). These variations in vegetation
quality and land tenure are described as vegetation units. The vegetation units and quality
ratings are given below in Table 1. The corresponding Ecological Vegetation Class (EVC) is
given for each vegetation unit.
In addition to the above large areas of predominately non-indigenous (exotic and non-
indigenous native) vegetation were recorded.
Notes are provided below on the description, distribution and significance of each vegetation
unit. The location and distribution of these vegetation units is provided in Map 1.
Torquay- Jan Juc Neighbourhood Character Study - Vegetation Report - Mark Trengove December 2003
3
Significance
Vegetation Communities are assessed in terms of their significance for flora conservation.
Typically Communities are described as being significant on a National, State, Regional or
Local level. This significance is determined by assessing current conservation status. State
or regional significant communities are those which are relatively intact (high quality),rare,
uncommon or of limited distribution, or those which contains plant species which are
taxonomically, biogeographically or ecologically rare or interesting, or those which are not
regenerating in sufficient numbers to maintain healthy population numbers.
VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
Messmate Stringybark Woodland
Community Description
Open woodland dominated by Messmate Stringybark (Eucalyptus obliqua) with scattered
occurrences of other Gums, ie Manna Gum (Eucalyptus viminalis), Swamp Gum (Eucalyptus
ovata) and Narrow -leaf Peppermint (Eucalyptus radiata). The understorey is dominated by
a range of small heathland shrubs, such as Sweet Wattle (Acacia suaveolens) with Grass-trees
(Xanthorrhoea australis, X. minor) and grasses, sedges and herbaceous species.
EVC
This community is described as EVC 48 “Heathy Woodland” (RFA 2000).
Distribution
Located at the Bells Boulevard/Bones Rd area to the south of the study area and at the
Messmate Rd area where it occurs on nutrient poor soils. Two vegetation units were
recorded. Was probably more widespread prior to European arrival
Significance
Both examples of this community, Bells Boulevard/Bones Rd (Vegetation Unit # 16) and
Messmate Rd (#9) are relatively intact, and are of High Regional Significance, rated 4.
Unit Description
Bells Boulevard/Bones Rd (Vegetation Unit # 16)

Mostly intact vegetation dominated by Messmate with occasional Ironbark and Black Sheoke
(Allocasuarina littoralis). Intact understorey dominated by heathy vegetation. Most
dominant environmental weed is Bluebell Creeper (Sollya heterophylla).
Messmate Rd/Coombes Rd/Grossmans Rd (#9)

Mostly intact vegetation dominated by Messmate, areas of relatively intact understorey.
Ironbark Woodland
4
Open woodland dominated by Ironbark (Eucalyptus tricarpa) with scattered occurrences of

other Gums, ie Messmate Stringybark and Bellarine Yellow Gum (Eucalyptus leucoxylon
ssp bellarinensis). This vegetation has relatively limited distribution in the Geelong/Otway
region. The understorey is dominated by a range of shrubs with some grasses, sedges and
herbaceous species.
EVC
This community is described as EVC 21 “Shrubby Dry Forest”(RFA 2000).
Distribution
Confined to the south west parts of the study area where it occurs in gullies (above the
Bellarine Yellow Gum Woodland) and on higher ground near Woodbank Rise. Three
vegetation units were recorded. Was probably more widespread prior to European arrival.
Significance
All three occurrences of this community at Bells Boulevard North (#12), Bells
Boulevard/Toad Hall (#14) and Bells Boulevard/Sunset Strip (#17) are relatively intact and
are of High Regional Significance and are rated 4.
Unit Descriptions
Bells Boulevard North (#12)

Mostly intact vegetation dominated by Messmate Ironbark with occasional Messmate and
Bellarine Yellow Gum. Intact understorey dominated by heathy vegetation. Most dominant
environmental weed is Bluebell Creeper.
Bells Boulevard/Toad Hall (#14)

Bellarine Yellow Gum. Intact understorey dominated by heathy vegetation. Most dominant
Bells Boulevard/Sunset Strip (#17)

Black Sheoke. Intact understorey dominated by heathy vegetation. Most dominant
Bellarine Yellow Gum Woodland
Open woodland dominated by Bellarine Yellow Gum with scattered occurrences of other
5
Gums, such as Manna Gum (Eucalyptus viminalis) and Ironbark, Moonah and Drooping
Sheoke (Allocasuarina verticillata). The understorey is mostly open and dominated by a
range of shrubs with some grasses, sedges and herbaceous species. Was probably more
widespread prior to European arrival.
EVC
This community is described as EVC 175 Grassy Woodland (RFA 2000).
Distribution
The most intact examples of this community are the Jan Juc populations to the west of
Domain Road, south of Strathmore Drive and east of Bells Boulevard. Relatively intact
examples occur at Spring Creek, Deep Creek and a relative large population occurs at
Duffields Road. The less intact Torquay populations are located in central Torquay.
It is worth noting that other occurrences of Bellarine Yellow Gum occur outside the study
area, west of Duffields Road and at Bells Beach.
Significance
This vegetation has very limited distribution in Victoria where it is found on the Bellarine
Peninsula and in the Torquay/Jan Juc area. The Bellarine Yellow Gum is listed as protected
species on the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act (1988). A previous study (Trengove
2001) estimated that there were approximately 4800 trees extant within the Surf Coast Shire
populations.
The Jan Juc populations are Jan Juc Central (#18), South of Strathmore Drive (#13),
Duffields Road (#21) and Toadhall Lane (#15). Sites 13 and 15 include some areas of
relatively intact understorey while sites 13 and 21 consist of relatively large populations. All
these site are of State Conservation Significance and are rated 5.
The Torquay populations are Spring Creek Upper (#31), Torquay Central (#3) and Deep
Creek Upper (#8). Spring Creek Upper includes a relatively large population with some areas
of relatively intact understorey. This population is of State Conservation Significance and is
rated 5. Deep Creek Upper includes a relatively large population with some areas of
relatively intact understorey and is of State Conservation Significance, rated 5. Torquay
Central consists of more scattered trees with less intact understoreys and is of High Regional
Significance, rated 4.
Unit Descriptions
Jan Juc Central (#18)

Mosaic of stands and individual trees of Bellarine Yellow Gum and Manna Gum with areas
of non-indigenous natives and exotics. Understorey mostly modified, with some remnant
6
understorey in Sunset Strip and Ocean Boulevard. Includes mature and juvenile Bellarine
Yellow Gums.
South of Strathmore Drive (#13)

Mosaic of stands and individual trees of Bellarine Yellow Gum and Ironbark with areas of
non-indigenous natives and exotics. Some remnant understorey. Includes mature and
juvenile Bellarine Yellow Gums.
Toadhall Lane (#15)

Mosaic of stands and individual trees of Bellarine Yellow Gum and Ironbark with areas of
non-indigenous natives and exotics. Some remnant understorey including Wallaby-grass
(Austrodanthonia sp),Spear-grass (Austrostipa sp), Black-anther Flax-lily (Dianella admixta)
and Slender Tussock-grass (Poa sieberiana). Includes mature and juvenile Bellarine Yellow
Gums.
Duffields Rd (#21)
A mixture of approximately 200 mature and juvenile Bellarine Yellow Gums. Some remnant
understorey including Kangaroo Grass (Themeda triandra), Slender Tussock-grass, Wallaby-
grass, Sweet Bursaria, Golden Wattle and Hedge Wattle.
Spring Creek Upper (#31)

Mosaic of stands and individual trees of approximately 300 Bellarine Yellow Gum and
Moonah. Some remnant understorey including Varnish Wattle (Acacia verniciflua), Coast
Tussock-grass (Poa poiformis), Bower Spinach (Tetragonia implexicoma) and Sea-berry
Saltbush (Rhagodia candolleana).
Torquay Central (#3)

Scattered trees with mostly exotic understoreys and plantings of exotic and non-indigenous
trees and shrubs.
Deep Creek Upper (#8)

Mosaic of stands and isolated individuals of mature and juvenile trees Manna Gums,
including some regeneration. Associated trees include Manna Gum, Drooping Sheoke, Silver
Banksia (Banksia marginata) and Golden Wattle. Understorey species include Kangaroo
Grass, Wallaby-grass, Spear-grass, Black-anther Flax-lily and Slender Tussock-grass.
Moonah Coastal Woodland
Open to closed woodland or shrubland dominated by Moonah. Associated trees are
Drooping Sheoke. Associated shrubs include Boobialla (Myoporum insulare) and Coast
Rice-flower (Pimelea serpyllifolia). The understorey consists of succulent shrubs and
7
climbers such as Sea-berry Saltbush and Bower Spinach and moss beds. The more inland
occurrances of Moonah tend to merge with the Bellarine Yellow Gum, Ironbark and
Messmate Stringybark Woodlands. Was probably more widespread prior to European arrival.
EVC
This community is described as EVC 1 Coastal Dune Scrub Mosaic (RFA 2000).
Distribution
Confined to near coastal Torquay between Darian Road and Bell Street, the Moonah
Reserves at ‘The Sands’ and Spring Creek.
Significance
Coastal Moonah Woodlands are a listed vegetation community under Schedule 2 of the State
Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act (1988). As such all remnants of this community are of
conservation significance.
The Spring Creek Middle (#32) population is relatively intact with a predominately
indigenous understorey, it is of State Conservation Significance and is rated 5.
Reserves 1 & 2 at “The Sands” (# 22) are relatively intact with a predominately indigenous
understorey, and are of State Conservation Significance, rated 5.
The Torquay Coastal (#2) population is scattered with a mostly exotic understorey, it is of
Regional Conservation Significance and is rated 3.
Unit Descriptions
Spring Creek Middle (#32)

Relatively intact population that occurs within the upper tidal zone of Spring Creek.
Understorey vegetation includes Sea-berry Saltbush, Bower Spinach, Creeping Brookweed
(Samolus repens) and Beaded Glasswort (Sarcocornia quinqueflora ssp quinqueflora). At
the upper stream reaches the Moonah merges with Bellarine Yellow Gum.
Reserves 1 & 2 at “The Sands” (# 22)

Relatively intact Moonah woodland vegetation located on rear dune formations. Understorey
included populations of the State significant Coast Wirilda (Acacia retinodes var uncifolia),
Coast Rice-flower, Boobialla and Coast Beard-heath (Leucopogon parviflorus).
Torquay Coastal (#2)

Mosaic of stands and individual trees of Moonah, Drooping Sheoke and Boobialla with
areas of non-indigenous natives and exotics. Some indigenous understorey remains including
Sea-berry Saltbush and Bower Spinach.
Drooping Sheoke Woodland
Description
Open to closed woodland dominated by Drooping Sheoke. Associated trees species include
Golden Wattle and Sweet Bursaria. Understorey species include Wallaby-grass, Spear-
grass, Weeping Grass (Microlaena stipoides), Hop Goodenia (Goodenia ovata), Clustered
8
Sword-sedge (Lepidosperma congestum) and Flax-lily (Dianella spp).
EVC
This community is described as EVC 175 Grassy Woodland (RFA 2000).
Distribution
Confined to the banks of the lower reaches of Deep Creek, upstream of the Esplanade.
Significance
The Deep Creek Lower (#20) population is a relatively intact example of a vegetation
community that is now much reduced from the pre-european distribution and is of High
Regional Significance, rated 4.
Unit Description
Deep Creek Lower (#20)

Open to closed woodland dominated by Drooping Sheoke. Associated trees species include
Golden Wattle and Sweet Bursaria. Understorey species include Wallaby-grass, Spear-
grass, Weeping Grass, Hop Goodenia and Flax-lily.
Manna Gum Woodland
Description
Open to closed woodland dominated by Manna Gum. Associated trees species include
Drooping Sheoke, Silver Banksia Golden Wattle and Sweet Bursaria. Understorey species
include Austral Grass-trees, Guinea Flower (Hibbertia sp), Wallaby-grass, Spear-grass,
Weeping Grass, Hop Goodenia and Black-anther Flax-lily. The more inland occurrences of
Manna Gum tend to merge with the Bellarine Yellow Gum, while the more coastal
occurrences tend to merge with Drooping Sheoke.
EVC
This community is described as EVC 55 Plains Grassy Woodland (RFA 2000).
Distribution
Confined to the banks of the middle reaches of Deep Creek.
Significance
The Deep Creek Middle (#19) population is a relatively intact example of a vegetation
community that is now much reduced from the pre-european distribution and is of High
Regional Significance, rated 4.
Unit Description
Deep Creek Middle (#19)

Open to closed woodland dominated by Manna Gum. Associated trees species include
9
Drooping Sheoke, Silver Banksia, Golden Wattle and Sweet Bursaria. Understorey species
include Austral Grass-tree, Guinea Flower, Wallaby-grass, Spear-grass, Weeping Grass, Hop
Goodenia and Black-anther Flax-lily.
Coastal Complex
Description
Consists of a complex of coastal vegetation including -
• Coastal Dune Complex including shrubland and grassland
• Coastal Cliff Shrubland
• Coastal Heathland
EVC
The Coastal Dune Complex and Coastal Cliff Shrubland communities (#23,24,25) are
described as EVC 1 Coastal Dune Scrub Mosaic (RFA 2000).
The Coastal Heathland community (#26 and parts of #25) are described as EVC 48 Heathy
Woodland (RFA 2000)
.
Distribution
Confined to the coastal verge of the study area.
Significance
The Coastal Dune Complex (#23) includes areas of relatively intact vegetation, including a
population of the State significant Coast Wirilda and is of High Regional Significance, rated
4.
The Coastal Dune/ Coastal Cliff Complex (#24) includes areas of some indigenous
vegetation, including some scattered Moonah, and areas of modified and exotic vegetation
and is of Regional Conservation Significance, rated 3.
The Coastal Dune/ Coastal Cliff/Coastal Heathland Complex (#25) includes areas of
relatively intact indigenous vegetation, including some scattered Moonah, and is of High
Regional Conservation Significance, rated 4.
The Coastal Heathland (#26) is an relatively intact example of a vegetation community that
has a limited and now reduced distribution within Victoria, and is of State Conservation
Significance, rated 5.
Unit Descriptions
Coastal Dune Complex (#23)

Includes areas of relatively intact vegetation, including a population of the State Significant
Coast Wirilda. Grassland dominated by Hairy Spinifex (Spinifex sericeus) and the exotic
Marram Grass (*Ammophila arenaria) on fore dunes. Open to closed shrubland and
10
woodland dominated by Coast Tea-tree (Leptospermum leavigatum), Coast Beard-heath and

Coast Wirilda on rear dunes.
Coastal Dune/ Coastal Cliff Complex (#24)

Includes some areas of indigenous vegetation, including some scattered Moonah, Coast Tea-
tree, Coast Beard-heath and Sea Box (Alyxia buxifolia) and areas of modified and exotic
vegetation. Includes formal plantings of mature Norfolk Island Pines (Araucaria
heterophylla) on Torquay front beach.
Coastal Dune/ Coastal Cliff/Coastal Heathland Complex (#25)

Includes areas of relatively intact indigenous Coastal Dune, Coastal Cliff and Coastal
Heathland vegetation. Indigenous species include scattered Moonah, Coast Pomaderris
(Pomaderris paniculosa ssp paralia), Coast Daisy-bush (Olearia axillaris) and Cushion Bush
(Leucophyta brownii).
Coastal Heathland (#26)

Consists of substantially intact and diverse indigenous heathland vegetation. Indigenous
species include Dwarf Sheoke (Allocasuarina misera), Silver Banksia, White Correa (Correa
alba), Prickly Tea-tree (Leptospermum continentale).
Saltmarsh Complex
Description
Saltmarsh and saline herbfield dominated by low halophytic shrubs and succulents including
Beaded Glasswort, Creeping Brookweed, Sea Rush (Juncus kraussii), Shiny Bog-rush
(Schoenus nitens) and Arrow Grass (Triglochin striatum).
EVC
This community is described as EVC 52 Coastal Saltmarsh Complex (RFA 2000).
Distribution
Confined to the lower tidal reaches of Spring Creek.
Significance
Spring Creek Lower (#33) consists of areas of relatively intact indigenous vegetation and is
of High Regional Conservation Significance, rated 4.
Unit Description
Spring Creek Lower (#33)

Saltmarsh and saline herbfield vegetation dominated by low halophytic shrubs and succulents
including Beaded Glasswort, Creeping Brookweed, Sea Rush (Juncus kraussii), Shiny Bog-
rush (Schoenus nitens) and Arrow Grass (Triglochin striatum). Occurs on mud flats within
11
the Spring Creek lower tidal estuary.
Exotic and Non-indigenous Native Vegetation
Description
Residential areas, caravan parks and sporting reserves comprised predominately of exotic
and/or non-indigenous native vegetation, ie no remnant vegetation. Grazing land consisting
of exotic pasture grasses.
Distribution
The majority of the study area is comprised of exotic vegetation and non-indigenous native
vegetation. The new Torquay north of Deep Creek, the areas west of the Surf Coast
Highway/Great Ocean Road and substantial areas of Jan Juc all contain predominately garden
vegetation.
The area south of Spring Creek, west of the Great Ocean Road contains areas of exotic
pasture grass.
Significance
Examples of exotic vegetation are sites North of Deep Creek (#1), Grossman Road/Coombes
Road (#5,6 &7), Rocklea Drive (#4), Beach Road West (#1), Spring Creek South (#10), Jan
Juc (#11), Zeally Bay Caravan Park (#27), Torquay Caravan Park (#28), Torquay Golf Club
and Torquay Sports Reserve (#30) [Note that the Bellarine Yellow Gums located along the
south-west of this Unit are included in Spring Creek]. These sites are of no conservation
significance.
Table 1
LOCATION, QUALITY AND SIGNIFICANCE OF VEGETATION UNITS
NAME QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE VEGETATION

UNIT/MAP
REFERENCE #
12

Bells Boulevard/Bones Rd 4 High Regional 16
Messmate Rd/Coombes Rd 4 High Regional 9
Ironbark Woodland
Bells Boulevard North 4 High Regional 12
Bells Boulevard/Toadhall 4 High Regional 14
Bells Boulevard/Sunset Strip 4 High Regional 17

Jan Juc Central 5 State 18
South of Strathmore Drive 5 State 13
Toadhall Lane 5 State 15
Duffields Road 5 State 21
Spring Creek Upper 5 State 31
Torquay Central 4 High Regional 3
Deep Creek Upper 5 State 8

Torquay Coastal 3 Regional 2
Reserves 1 & 2 -The Sands 5 State 22
Spring Creek Middle 5 State 32
Drooping Sheoke Woodland

Deep Creek Lower 4 High Regional 20
Manna Gum Woodland

Deep Creek Middle 4 High Regional 19
Coastal Complex
Dune Complex (Whites Beach) 4 High Regional 23
Cliff/Dune Complex (Torquay 3 Regional 24
Dune/Cliff/Heathland Complex (Jan Juc) 4 High Regional 25
Heathland Complex (Bells) 5 State 26
Saltmarsh Complex
Spring Creek Lower 4 High Regional 33
Exotic and Non-indigenous Native Vegetation

Grossman Road South 0 Nil 5
Grossman Road North 0 Nil 6
Coombes Rd 0 Nil 7
Rocklea Drive 0 Nil 4
Beach Road West 0 Nil 1
Spring Creek South 0 Nil 10
13
Jan Juc 0 Nil 11

Zeally Bay Caravan Park 0 Nil 27
Torquay Caravan Park 0 Nil 28
Torquay Golf Club 0 Nil 29
Torquay Sports Reserve 0 Nil 30
QUALITY
0- Substantially exotic or non-indigenous native
1- Isolated indigenous trees, substantially exotic understorey
2- Scattered indigenous trees, substantially exotic understorey
3- Scattered indigenous trees, relatively intact understorey/Relatively intact
indigenous tree canopy, substantially exotic understorey
4- Scattered areas of relatively intact vegetation/substantial areas of relatively
intact vegetation with localized disturbance
5- Substantial areas of relatively intact vegetation/substantial population of
significant species (ie Bellarine Yellow Gum).
MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Discussion
In ‘natural’ or pre-european conditions, vegetation communities such as those present in the

study area were subjected to disturbance regimes. These disturbance regimes typically
included fire and grazing. Over time the vegetation has adapted to, and become dependent
14
upon, disturbance regimes. Given the current altered conditions it is not always possible or
desirable to replicate the pre-european conditions, however it is often the case that some type
of vegetation management is required to maintain biodiversity values. In general terms the
most important vegetation management requirements are to
• Provide an appropriate disturbance regime (ie biomass reduction) to maintain
biodiversity values
• Limit inappropriate activities or disturbances that lead to either an immediate or
ongoing threat to biodiversity values.
Within the study area the most intact vegetation is located within the south western area of
Jan Juc, while the majority of remnant vegetation in Torquay tends to be scattered remnants
of trees with out intact understorey. Consequently the aim of maintaining intact natural
ecosystems is more achievable in Jan Juc, while the achievable aims at Torquay are more
realistically retention and revegetation.
Biomass Reduction
The type and frequency of biomass reduction (usually fire) requirements varies between
vegetation communities. In some communities (ie Heathlands) research has been undertaken
to determine appropriate regimes, while in others (ie Moonah Woodlands) less is known. In
addition the requirements for biomass reduction may vary depending upon the specific
management aims (such as ground flora diversity or habitat protection) or constraints (such
as proximity of housing or sensitivity to erosion). While it is not known exactly what the
pre-european fire frequency was in Moonah Woodlands, it now appears that current
biodiversity values are being maintained without fire, consequently it may be appropriate to
limit fire in that community.
Broad management guidelines and recommendations are provided below for areas of remnant
indigenous vegetation. These are presented in four groupings, ie 1- General Guidelines, 2-
Vegetation Community Specific Guidelines, 3- Land Tenure Specific Guidelines and 4-
Vegetation clearance issues (potential sub-divisions, additional dwelling etc) on Private
Property.
General Guidelines
• Retain existing remnant vegetation wherever possible

• Manage remnant vegetation to maintain and enhance biodiversity values where ever
possible
• Limit activities that are likely to cause direct loss or degradation to biodiversity
values
• In conjunction withe the community, develop appropriate guidelines for managing
15
remnant vegetation
Vegetation Community Specific Guidelines
Data, including the location, quantities, land tenure, canopy health and ages of all Bellarine
Yellow Gums is provided the report “Bellarine Yellow Gums in the Surfcoast Shire”
(Trengove 2001).
• Limit disturbance to the ground layer

• Limit the movement and introduction of foreign soils or other matters
• Remove environmental weeds
• Where appropriate implement and appropriate ground layer biomass reduction regime
• Retain all existing trees

• Monitor existing trees for canopy health
• encourage revegetation
• encourage regeneration

(ie fire at approximately 7-10 year intervals)
• Retain existing trees, in particular any that are hollow bearing
Ironbark Woodland

(ie fire at approximately 7-10 year intervals)
• Retain existing trees, in particular any that are hollow bearing
• Limit disturbance to the ground layer, especially disturbance to moss beds by humans
and domestic animals
• Limit biomass reduction (burning)
16
Land Tenure Specific Guidelines
Private Property
• Encourage land holders to remove known or potential environmental weeds

• Encourage land holders to plant indigenous species
• Limit activities that will have direct impact on biodiversity values to areas that are
already degraded, such activities include building, car parking and intense recreation
• Limit activities that are likely to cause longer term disturbance and degradation, such
activities include - altered hydrological regimes (ie storm water run-off) and increased
nutrient regimes (ie garden fertilizer run-off)
• Encourage land holders to adopt horticultural practices that are not overly reliant
upon fertilizers and pesticides and the introduction of foreign soil
• Encourage land holders to strike an appropriate balance between ‘tidying up’ areas of
remnant vegetation for fire protection purposes and preserving and promoting
indigenous vegetation
• Educate land holders about the benefits of living in a semi natural area.
Appendix 1
Torquay -Jan Juc Photographs
1 Fisher t S Eucalyptus viminalis- Manna Gum

2 Fisher t S Bursaria spinosa- Sweet Bursaria
3 Felix Cres Allocasuarina verticillata- Drooping Sheoke
17
4 Felix Cres Phoenix canariensis- Phoenix Palm

5 Taylor Park Eucalyptus cladocalyx- Sugar Gum
6 Pearl St Melaleuca lanceolata- Moonah
7 Pearl St Melaleuca lanceolata- Moonah
8 Torquay Foreshore Cupressus macrocarpus- Monterey Cypress
9 Torquay Foreshore Araucaria heterophylla- Norfolk Island Pine
10 Torquay Foreshore Melaleuca lanceolata- Moonah
11 Torquay Foreshore Leptospermum laevigatum- Coast Tea-tree
12 Torquay Foreshore Leptospermum laevigatum- Coast Tea-tree
13 Spring Creek Eucalyptus leucoxylon ssp bellarinensis-
Bellarine Yellow Gum
14 Spring Creek Eucalyptus leucoxylon ssp bellarinensis-
15 Spring Creek Melaleuca lanceolata -Moonah
16 Jan Juc Foreshore Coastal Shrubland
17 Sunset Strip Eucalyptus leucoxylon ssp bellarinensis-
20 Ocean Bvde Eucalyptus leucoxylon ssp bellarinensis-
21 Ocean Bvde Eucalyptus leucoxylon ssp bellarinensis -
22 Woodbank Rise Eucalyptus tricarpa -Ironbark
23 Woodbank Rise Eucalyptus obliqua -Messmate Stringybark
24 Bells Bvde Sollya heterophylla -Blue bell Creeper invading
Ironbark Woodland
25 Bells Bvde Sollya heterophylla -Blue bell Creeper invading
Ironbark Woodland
18
26 Ozan Cres “native” style garden, including exotics, natives and

indigenous sp
27 Kenvara Cres Exotic garden
28 Kenvara Cres Indigenous garden
REFERENCES
Regional Forest Agreement Steering Committee. - West Victoria Comprehensive Regional

Agreement- Biodiversity Assessment DNRE Melbourne 2000.
Trengove, M.- Bellarine Yellow Gums in the Surfcoast Shire Surfcoast Shire 2001,
Unpublished.
Appendix 3
Copy of ‘Indigenous Planting Guide’
(Surf Coast Shire, 2003)
8
precinct 1
torquay / jan juc
Prior to European settlement, Jan Juc. The more common or patchy shrub layer of
the main residential area of Heathy Woodland vegetation, Moonah, Wirilda, Silver Banksia,
Torquay was open grassy such as that found in the north Prickly Tea-tree and Dusty Miller
woodland, comprising Coastal west of the precinct, consists of . Groundcover s include native
Manna Gums, Drooping Messmate and Brown grasses, Honey-pots,
Sheoke and Black Wattle, with Stringybark with a shrub layer of Cranberry Heath, Common
Grass Trees, Common Heath, Silver Banksia, Sweet Wattle, Correa, Common Heath and
and Kangaroo, Wallaby and Common Flat-pea, Common Rough Guinea Flower.
Spear Grasses making up the Heath, Honey-pots, Prickly Tea-
ground layer. The occasional tree, Common Beard Heath and Roadsides, creeks and coastal
Golden Wattle and Sweet Myrtle Wattle. The ground layer reserves also support
Bursaria contributed to the comprises a diversity of significant remnant native
sparse shrub layer. sedges, rushes, grasses and vegetation communities. These
wildflowers. remnants are important as they
Today, isolated communities of provide habitat and food for
Yellow Gum Woodland are The narrow coastal strip local fauna such as birds, small
unique to this precinct and are supports segments of remnant mammals and reptiles.
classified as being of State native vegetation known as
significance. Pockets of “coastal headland scrub” and
Ironbark Woodland can be “coastal dune mosaic”, which is
found in gullies west towards relatively treeless with a dense
Drooping Sheoak
torquay / jan juc

precinct 1
torquay / jan juc
10
Tall Trees BOTANICAL NAME Eucalyptus Trees BOTANICAL NAME Acacia retinoides
viminalis COMMON NAME Wirilda
BOTANICAL NAME Eucalyptus COMMON NAME Manna Gum BOTANICAL NAME Acacia implexa
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Adaptable to all soils and
aromaphloia COMMON NAME Lightwood conditions including salt and
COMMON NAME Scentbark Adaptable to a wide range of ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Variety
soil, but will grow better on moderate lime.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS of soils including poor gravels. HEIGHT/SPREAD 3-8m/3-5m
Moist loams, tolerating wet deeper soil. HEIGHT/SPREAD 5-15m/4-7m
COMMENTS Quick growing, can
HEIGHT/SPREAD 10-40m/8-15m
periods but not inundation. COMMENTS Fast growing, upright
become profuse. Green slender
COMMENTS Fast growing tree
HEIGHT/SPREAD 12-20m/7-15m small tree with open crown. Mid
used as a food source by foliage with pale yellow flowers
COMMENTS Large shade tree. to dark green foliage. Flowers
koalas. spring - summer.
Bark aromatic when crushed. perfumed cream balls Dec-
March. BOTANICAL NAME Allocasuarina
BOTANICAL NAME Eucalyptus willisii
BOTANICAL NAME Eucalyptus baxteri
COMMON NAME Shining Peppermint
verticillata
COMMON NAME Brown Stringybark BOTANICAL NAME Acacia mearnsii
COMMON NAME Drooping Sheoke
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONSWell ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Prefers COMMON NAME Black Wattle
drier conditions. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Well
drained damp soil. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Prefers
drained soil.
HEIGHT/SPREAD 2-10m/4m
HEIGHT/SPREAD 15-40m/4-20m well drained soil. Will grow under
COMMENTS Small tree with fibrous
4-10m/3-6m
HEIGHT/SPREAD
COMMENTS Good shade and harsh conditions. COMMENTS Hardy tree with
shelter tree. bark on lower trunk. Masses of HEIGHT/SPREAD 5-15m/6-10m
small cream flowers in Spring. drooping greyish-green
COMMENTS Fast growing, short
branchlets. Good for wind
BOTANICAL NAME Eucalyptus lived (15yrs) wattle with dark break.
obliqua green feathery-like (bipinnate)
COMMON NAME Stringybark foliage and strongly scented BOTANICAL NAME Eucalyptus
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Moist pale yellow flowers Sept-Dec. leucoxylon ssp bellariensis
well drained soil, tolerating short COMMON NAME Bellarine Yellow
dry periods. BOTANICAL NAME Acacia Gum
HEIGHT/SPREAD 5-30m/6-20m melanoxylon ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Well
COMMENTS Excellent shade and COMMON NAME Blackwood drained soil.
shelter tree for larger areas. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
HEIGHT/SPREAD 10-12m
Tolerates a wide range of soils, COMMENTS Small tree unique to
BOTANICAL NAME Eucalyptus ovata but prefers deep, moist soil. Torquay/Jan Juc and the
COMMON NAME Swamp Gum HEIGHT/SPREAD 6-30m/4-15m
Bellarine Peninsula.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Prefers COMMENTS Long lived wattle
moist soil, tolerates inundation suited to screening and wind
during winter and dryness in breaks. Dense green foliage
summer. and pale creamy flowers July-
HEIGHT/SPREAD 6-20m/6-10m Oct.
COMMENTS Fast growing densely
crowned tree. Good for BOTANICAL NAME Acacia pycnantha
providing shade. COMMON NAME Golden Wattle
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Grows
BOTANICAL NAME Eucalyptus well on heavy and light soil,
tricarpa prefers well drained soil.
COMMON NAME Red Ironbark HEIGHT/SPREAD 3-8m/2-5m
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Poor COMMENTS Hardy, quick growing,
shallow soil including clays and large, leathery dark green
gravels. leaves (phyllodes). Good for
HEIGHT/SPREAD 10-30m/10-20m screening, windbreaks and
COMMENTS Attractive upright to erosion control. Large golden
spreading tree with rough dark yellow flowers Jul-Oct
bark.
Hop Goodenia
precinct 1
torquay / jan juc
11
Tall Shrubs BOTANICAL NAME Bursaria spinosa BOTANICAL NAME Myoporum Medium Shrubs
COMMON NAME Sweet Bursaria insulare
2.5 - 6 metres ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Prefers COMMON NAME Common
1 - 3 metres
well drained soil. Boobialla
Acacia paradoxa BOTANICAL NAME Acacia acinacea
BOTANICAL NAME HEIGHT/SPREAD 2-6m/2-3m ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Highly
COMMON NAME Hedge Wattle COMMENTS Prickly shrub with adaptable plant, although COMMON NAME Gold-dust Wattle
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS creamy fragrant flowers Dec- prefers sun and well drained
Adaptable to most soil. March. Important nectar source soil. Adaptable to well drained soil.
HEIGHT/SPREAD 2-4m/2-5m HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.5-2.5m/2-4m
for birds and insects. Bundles HEIGHT/SPREAD 2-6m/3m
COMMENTS Fast growing dense COMMENTS Hardy plant good for
of brown seed pods in autumn. COMMENTS Fire retardant. Large
and spreading shrub covered rounded shrub, dense foliage, low screening, profuse bright
with thorns. Excellent small bird BOTANICAL NAME Leptospermum smooth, thick dark green yellow balls Aug-Nov.
habitat. Golden yellow flowers in continentale leaves, white flowers with purple
Spring. BOTANICAL NAME Acacia myrtifolia
COMMON NAME Prickly Tea-tree spots in spring, Good
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS screening and hedging plant, COMMON NAME Myrtle Wattle
BOTANICAL NAME Acacia verniciflua Adaptable, tolerates moisture. salt tolerant. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Suits
COMMON NAME Varnish Wattle HEIGHT/SPREAD 2-4m/1-2m
most soils.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS COMMENTS Hardy plant which is BOTANICAL NAME Ozothamnus
HEIGHT/SPREAD1-3m/1-2m
Tolerates wet and dry soil. great for screening. Masses of ferrugineus COMMENTS Fast growing
HEIGHT/SPREAD 2-4m/3-5m white flowers Oct-March. COMMON NAME Tree Everlasting ornamental bush with reddish
COMMENTS Quick growing light ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Prefers stems, good for low screening.
screening plant with profuse BOTANICAL NAME Leptospermum moist, well drained soil. Profuse flowering in spring.
golden balls in spring. scoparium HEIGHT/SPREAD 2-6m/1-3m
COMMON NAME Manuka COMMENTS Shrub to small tree.
BOTANICAL NAME Acacia
BOTANICAL NAME Acacia verticillata ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Dry Narrow dark green leaves and suaveolens
COMMON NAME Prickly Moses sites. white flower clusters Nov-Feb. COMMON NAME Sweet Wattle
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS HEIGHT/SPREAD To 5m tall ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Well
Tolerates most conditions and COMMENTS Variable plant with
drained soil.
withstands periods of dense dark green prickly foliage HEIGHT/SPREAD 1-3m/2-5m
waterlogging. and white flowers. COMMENTS Fast growing,
HEIGHT/SPREAD 2-5m/3-5m ornamental low screen or
COMMENTS Low shrub to open BOTANICAL NAME Leucopogon windbreak. Bluish green narrow
tree with prickly leaves. parviflorus leaves. Perfumed cream flowers
Excellent bird habitat. Bright COMMON NAME Coast Beard Heath April-Oct.
yellow flowers June-Dec. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Well
BOTANICAL NAME Alyxia buxifolia
drained sandy soil.
BOTANICAL NAME Banksia HEIGHT/SPREAD 2-4m/2-3m
COMMON NAME Sea Box
marginata COMMENTS Shrub to small tree
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Well
COMMON NAME Silver Banksia with masses of densely drained soil.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS bearded white flowers July-Nov. HEIGHT/SPREAD1-2m/1-3m
Common on a wide variety of Berries bird attracting. Slow COMMENTS Dark green hard
sites and soils, but prefers growing. leaved low shrub. Produces
good drainage. Tolerates soils white flowers and red fruit.
wet in winter and dry in summer. BOTANICAL NAME Melaleuca
HEIGHT/SPREAD 2.5-6m/1-5m BOTANICAL NAME Atriplex cinerea
lanceolata
COMMENTS Low shrub in COMMON NAME Moonah COMMON NAME Coast Saltbush
heathlands to small tree in open ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
forests. Excellent screening Tolerates a wide range of soils, drained soil.
plant. Stiff dark green leaves. wet and dry, but prefers well 1-2m/2-3m
HEIGHT/SPREAD
Honey coloured flowers Oct- drained soil. COMMENTS Fast growing, dense
June. Attractive to birds. HEIGHT/SPREAD 2-5m/3-6m
spreading shrub. Silver/grey
COMMENTS Hardy shrub to small
leaves. Good low screen.
tree which provides excellent
shelter/screening. Cream
flowers in cylindrical spikes Oct-
Dec.
torquay / jan juc

precinct 1
torquay / jan juc
12
BOTANICAL NAME Correa alba BOTANICAL NAME Olearia glutinosa Low Plants BOTANICAL NAME Dillwynia sericea
White Correa Sticky Daisy Bush Showy Parrot Pea
COMMON NAME
COMMON NAME
to 1 metre high COMMON NAME
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Very
drained soil, tolerating moisture drained, sandy soil. adaptable.
BOTANICAL NAME Allocasuarina
or extended dry periods. HEIGHT/SPREAD 2m/1.5m HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.6-1m/0.5-1.5m
misera
HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.5-2m/1-3m COMMENTS Ideal for coastal COMMENTS Cylindrical leafy spikes
COMMON NAME Dwarf Sheoke
COMMENTS A useful plant for soil gardens, resistant to salt spray. of yellow and red, apricot, or
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Moist
binding or as a low screen. orange flowers Aug-Dec. Useful
well drained sandy soil.
Waxy star shaped flowers most BOTANICAL NAME Pomaderris as a low screen plant.
HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.5-1m/1-2m
of the year. ferruginea
COMMENTS Ornamental, slow
COMMON NAME Rusty Pomaderris BOTANICAL NAME Epacris impressa
growing shrub. Male plant has
BOTANICAL NAME Correa reflexa ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS COMMON NAME Common Heath
bronze flowers, female reddish
COMMON NAME Common Correa HEIGHT/SPREAD ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Moist
COMMENTS purple flowers.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Well well drained soil, tolerating
drained soil. limited wet or dry periods once
BOTANICAL NAME Pomaderris BOTANICAL NAME Calytrix tetragona
HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.3-2m/1-2m established.
paniculosa ssp paralia COMMON NAME Fringe Myrtle
COMMENTS Medium sized shrub HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.5-1m/0.2-0.6m
COMMON NAME Coast Pomaderris ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Well
with light green or green/red COMMENTS Floral emblem of
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Well drained soils, tolerating
bells March-Sept. Excellent plant Victoria. Open, wiry shrub with
drained, dry soil. extended dry periods and
for dry shady positions. attractive pink or white flowers
HEIGHT/SPREAD 1-2.5m high occasional inundation.
March-Nov. Good rockery
COMMENTS Hardy coastal plant HEIGHT/SPREAD 1m/1-2m
BOTANICAL NAME Goodenia ovata plant, particularly when planted
with leaves dark green above COMMENTS Fine green aromatic
COMMON NAME Hop Goodenia in groups.
and whitish beneath. Small leaves. Very attractive dense
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Grows
cream flowers in spring heads of white and pink flowers
in any situation. Tolerates BOTANICAL NAME Gonocarpus
Aug-Nov.
waterlogging. tetragynus
BOTANICAL NAME Pultenaea
HEIGHT/SPREAD 1-2.5m/1-3m COMMON NAME Common
daphnoides BOTANICAL NAME Dillwynia
COMMENTS Green leaves, bright Raspwort
COMMON NAME Large leaf Bush- cinerescens
yellow flowers spring to ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Moist to
pea COMMON NAME Grey Parrot Pea
summer. dry well drained soil.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Well ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Prefers
HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.1-0.3m/0.2-0.4m
drained soil. dry soils, although can tolerate
BOTANICAL NAME Hibbertia aspera COMMENTS Low bushy herb with
HEIGHT/SPREAD 1-3m/0.5-2m a wide range of well drained soil
COMMON NAME Rough Guinea- loose spikes of tiny pinkish red
COMMENTS Attractive shrub with types.
flower flowers Dec-Feb.
large yellow and red pea HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.6-1m/0.5-1.5m
flowers. COMMENTS Open, erect or
Scattered occurrence over near BOTANICAL NAME Helichrysum
spreading understorey shrub
coastal range, on rocky hillsides scorpioides
BOTANICAL NAME Spyridium with clusters of yellow and
or sandy soils. COMMON NAME Button Everlasting
parvifolium orange pea flowers July-Nov.
HEIGHT/SPREAD 1-2.5m ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Well
COMMENTS Bushy green shrub
COMMON NAME Dusty Miller drained soil.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Well BOTANICAL NAME Dillwynia
with yellow flowers Sept-Dec. HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.3m/0.2-0.3m
drained soil. glaberrima
COMMENTS Large yellow buttons
HEIGHT/SPREAD1-3m/1-2m COMMON NAME Heath/Smooth
BOTANICAL NAME Olearia axillaris spring-autumn. Attractive
COMMENTS Shrub good for Parrot Pea
COMMON NAME Coast Daisy Bush rockery plant which dies back
providing screen in dry, shady ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Can
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Well after flowering.
areas. Small white flowers are tolerate a wide range of well
drained dry sandy soil. Full sun.
surrounded by dusty-white floral drained soil types.
HEIGHT/SPREAD 1-2m/1-2m BOTANICAL NAME Hibbertia riparia
leaves July-Nov. HEIGHT/SPREAD 1m/1-2m
COMMENTS Attractive flowering COMMON NAME Erect Guinea-
COMMENTS Bright yellow and red
plant with aromatic leaves and flower
flowers Aug-Dec.
yellow daisy flowers Feb-April. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Well
drained moist soil.
HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.3-1m/0.6
COMMENTS Open erect shrub with
yellow flowers spring and
summer.
precinct 1
torquay / jan juc
13
BOTANICAL NAME Leptospermum BOTANICAL NAME Senecio Groundcovers BOTANICAL NAME Carpobrotus
myrsinoides quadridentatus rossii
COMMON NAME Heath (silky) Tea- COMMON NAME Cotton Fireweed
BOTANICAL NAME Acrotriche COMMON NAME Karkalla
tree ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Very
serrulata ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Sandy
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS adaptable to most soils. COMMON NAME Honey pots soil. Full sun required for flowers.
Adaptable, prefers good HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.4-1m/0.5-1m
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Moist
HEIGHT/SPREAD Prostrate/2-3m
drainage, but can tolerate poor COMMENTS Withstands very dry
well drained soil tolerating dry COMMENTS Prostrate succulent
drainage once established. conditions. Greyish in periods. perennial herb with thick fleshy
HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.5-1m/1m appearance. leaves and pale purple to pink
HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.1-0.3m/0.5-1m
COMMENTS Attractive shrub with flowers on short stalks. Good
COMMENTS Slow growing, dense
white or pink flowers in spring BOTANICAL NAME Sphaerolobium ground covering shrub. soil binding plant. Flowers most
and summer. vimineum Translucent tubular flowers May- of the year.
COMMON NAME Leafless Globe- Oct with a honey fragrance.
BOTANICAL NAME Leucophyta pea BOTANICAL NAME Chrysocephalum
brownii ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Moist BOTANICAL NAME Astroloma apiculatum
COMMON NAME Cushion Bush well drained soil. humifusum COMMON NAME Common
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Well HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.3-0.6m/0.3-0.6m
COMMON NAME Cranberry Heath Everlasting
drained dry conditions. Full sun. COMMENTS Attractive in a rockery
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Well ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.2-1m/0.5-2m or planted with other small Widespread and variable in a
drained soil tolerating dry
COMMENTS Attractive rounded shrubs. Small yellow pea variety of habitats.
periods once established.
silvery/grey shrub which flowers Sept- Jan. HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.1-0.5m/1-1.5m
HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.3m/1-2m
withstands coastal spray and COMMENTS Dense spreading mat
COMMENTS Perennial of the daisy
salt. Foliage reflects available BOTANICAL NAME Tetratheca ciliata
like plant with attractive small family. Silvery foliage and
light at night time, making it an COMMON NAME Common Pink bright red tubular flowers most golden flower heads which
ideal plant for defining Bells of the year. Excellent for occur most of the year.
pathways. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONSWell rockeries, embankments, under Excellent rockery plant.
drained soil, responding to extra shrubs or in hanging baskets.
BOTANICAL NAME Leucopogon moisture in summer. BOTANICAL NAME Dichondra repens
virgatus HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.3-0.5m/0.3-0.6m
BOTANICAL NAME Atriplex COMMON NAME Kidney Weed
COMMON NAME Common Beard COMMENTS Profuse fragrant pink
semibaccata ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Moist
Heath or mauve flowers July-Dec. COMMON NAME Creeping/Berry well drained soil. Shade.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Well Saltbush HEIGHT/SPREAD Prostrate.,
drained soils, tolerating some ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Well
creeping.
dryness once established. drained soil, salt tolerant. COMMENTS Matting, prostrate
HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.3-1m/0.2-0.6 herb. Lawn substitute. Kidney
HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.1-0.3m/1-3m
COMMENTS An excellent garden shaped leaves with tiny cream
COMMENTS Spreading prostrate
plant ideal for filling small gaps shrub with grey-green leaves. flowers Sept-Dec.
between shrubs.
BOTANICAL NAME Einadia nutans
BOTANICAL NAME Bossiaea
BOTANICAL NAME Olearia ramulosa prostrata COMMON NAME Nodding Saltbush
COMMON NAME Twiggy Daisy Bush ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
COMMON NAME Creeping Bossiaea
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Well Tolerates dry soil.
drained soil. drained soil. Suitable in sun or HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.3m/1.2m
HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.5-1m/1m COMMENTS Fire retardant. Useful
shade.
COMMENTS Attractive garden plant groundcover for banks and
HEIGHT/SPREAD Prostrate/0.5-1.5m
with white or mauve flowerheads COMMENTS Prostrate, lightly
rockeries.
Sept-May. Fast growing. spreading, showy pea flowers in BOTANICAL NAME Goodenia
Spring. geniculata
BOTANICAL NAME Rhagodia
candolleana COMMON NAME Bent Goodenia
COMMON NAME Seaberry Saltbush Moist
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Well soil.

HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.1-0.5m/0.1-0.5m
drained soil.
COMMENTS Perennial suckering
HEIGHT/SPREAD1m/1m
COMMENTS Semi-succulent
matting herb. Long flowering.
scrambling shrub. Small white Yellow flowers. Excellent rockery
flowers Dec-apr. Small red plant.
berries autumn.
torquay / jan juc

precinct 1
torquay / jan juc
14
BOTANICAL NAME Kennedia Grasses, Sedges, BOTANICAL NAME Austrostipa mollis BOTANICAL NAME Isolepis nodosa
prostrata COMMON NAME Supple Spear Grass COMMON NAME Knobby Club-rush
COMMON NAME Running Postman
Lilies, Irises & ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Moist ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Moist
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Well Grasstrees soils. soil, tolerates dry and wet
drained soil. HEIGHT/SPREAD To 30cm high, conditions when established.
HEIGHT/SPREADProstrate/1-2.5m BOTANICAL NAME Arthropodium stems to 1.5m high. HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.5-1.5m/0.6-2m
COMMENTS Fast growing strictum COMMENTS Robust, erect tufted COMMENTS Hardy plant providing
prostrate with very showy red COMMON NAME Chocolate Lily grass which adds an element of interesting contrast in
pea flowers most of the year. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Well interest to the ground flora of landscapes. Ideal for wet areas.
drained soil. gardens.
BOTANICAL NAME Platylobium HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.2-1m/0.2-0.8m BOTANICAL NAME Lepidosperma
obtusangulum COMMENTS Attractive and Carex appressa
BOTANICAL NAME species
COMMON NAME Common Flat- pea adaptable perennial. Chocolate COMMON NAME Tall sedge COMMON NAME Sword/rapier-
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Prefers scented violet coloured flowers. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS sedges
drier and well drained soil. Requires ample moisture, ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.3-0.5m/1m BOTANICAL NAME Austrodanthonia tolerating periods of inundation. Tolerates moist soil with full sun
COMMENTS Triangular leaves and geniculata HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.5-1.2m/0.5-1m or dry soil in partial sun.
small attractive yellow and red COMMON NAME Kneed Wallaby COMMENTS Suitable for wet areas, HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.5-1.5m high
pea flowers in spring. Grass stabilising soil, or as an aquatic COMMENTS Strappy leaves and
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS or bog garden plant. attractive erect foliage and
BOTANICAL NAME Threlkeldia diffusa Requires full sun or semi decorative flowers.
COMMON NAME Coast Bonefruit shaded positions with well BOTANICAL NAMECarex breviculmis
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Moist drained soil. COMMON NAME Common Grass- BOTANICAL NAME Lomandra
saline soil. HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.1-0.4m high sedge longifolia
HEIGHT/SPREAD Prostrate-0.3m/1m COMMENTS Excellent contrast ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Very COMMON NAME Spiny-headed Mat-
COMMENTS Spreading succulent plant in landscaping. adaptable, from exposed rush
perennial herb. Matting plant for slopes to moist depressions. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Well
coastal conditions. BOTANICAL NAME Austrodanthonia HEIGHT/SPREAD To 15cm high. drained soil tolerating dry
racemosa COMMENTS Small densely tufted shade.
BOTANICAL NAME Viola hederacea COMMON NAME Stiped Wallaby sedge with triangular stems. HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.5-1m/0.5-1.2m
COMMON NAME Ivy-leaf Violet Grass COMMENTS Hardy perennial,
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Moist to ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Dry to BOTANICAL NAME Dianella revoluta smooth bright green strappy
wet soil. moist well drained soils. COMMON NAME Black-anther Flax- leaves, scented yellowish
HEIGHT/SPREAD Prostrate, HEIGHT/SPREAD To 20cm high, lily flowers Sept-Dec.
creeping. stems 0.1-0.6m high. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Well
COMMENTS Fast growing herb COMMENTS Variable perennial drained soil. Tolerates dry soils BOTANICAL NAME Lomandra
which creates a dense mat with grass of slender tufts or dense in shade. multiflora
small white flowers most of the tussocks ideal for a native lawn. HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.3-1m/0.5-2.5m COMMON NAME Many-flowered
year. COMMENTS Perennial with dark Mat-rush
BOTANICAL NAME Austrostipa green leaves and blue flowers ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Well
flavescens on branched stems in spring/ drained soil.
COMMON NAME Spear Grass summer. HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.2-0.5m/0.15-0.2m
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Suits COMMENTS Stiff heathland plant
most soil. BOTANICAL NAME Gahnia sieberiana with strap like leaves. Attractive
HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.3-0.8m/1.2m COMMON NAME Red-fruited Saw - purple/yellow flowers.
COMMENTS Densely tufting grass sedge
which provides a soft graceful ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS BOTANICAL NAME Microlaena
form ideal for landscaping. Tolerates moist soil for most of stipoides
the year. COMMON NAME Weeping grass
HEIGHT/SPREAD 1.5-3m/2-3m ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Moist
COMMENTS Perennial sedge well drained soil.
forming tussocks. Attractive HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.3m/0.6m
strap like leaves and flower COMMENTS Native grass with
head. Important butterfly food delicate arching form. Good for
source and habitat for small a lawn substitute in shady areas.
birds.
Running Postman
precinct 1
torquay / jan juc
15
BOTANICAL NAME Patersonia fragilis BOTANICAL NAME Xanthorrhoea Climbers & BOTANICAL NAME Tetragonia
COMMON NAME Short Purple flag australis implexicoma
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS COMMON NAMEAustral Grass-tree
Scramblers COMMON NAME Bower Spinach
Tolerates inundation for short ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Well ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Well
periods. drained soil, tolerating dry BOTANICAL NAME Billardiera drained sandy soil. Tolerates dry
HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.1-0.2m/0.4m conditions once established. scandens soil with shade.
COMMENTS Attractive plant in HEIGHT/SPREAD 1-3m
COMMON NAME Climbing/Common HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.3/2m
rockery landscape. Purple COMMENTS Attractive slow
Appleberry COMMENTS Succulent plant
flowers on short stems in growing perennial plant with suitable for sandy soils/dunes.
spring/summer. thick woody trunk surrounded drained dry to moist soil.
HEIGHT/SPREAD Climber
by grassy tuft of leaves. Usually BOTANICAL NAME Zygophyllum
COMMENTS Soft climber with
BOTANICAL NAME Patersonia flowers only after fire. billardieri
occidentalis greenish-yellow tubular flowers COMMON NAME Coast Twin-leaf
COMMON NAME Long Purple-flag BOTANICAL NAME Xanthorrhoea throughout the year. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Sandy
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS minor well drained soil tolerating dry
BOTANICAL NAME Clematis aristata
Tolerates inundation in winter COMMON NAME Small Grass-tree periods.
COMMON NAME Mountain Clematis
and drying out in summer. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Well HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.3-0.6/1m
HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.2-0.4m/0.3-0.6m drained soil, tolerating dry Moist
COMMENTS Fire retardant.
COMMENTS Attractive plant conditions once established. soil with shade. Suitable for exposed coastal
suitable for bog gardens or HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.6m/1m conditions. Attractive bright
COMMENTS Vigorous climber,
pond edges but also tolerant of COMMENTS Attractive slow yellow flowers most of the year.
dry positions in late spring/ growing perennial with a masses of creamy white starry
summer. subterranean woody trunk. flowers Aug-March.
Cream flowers in spring.
BOTANICAL NAME Poa labillardierei
BOTANICAL NAME Clematis
COMMON NAME Tussock Grass microphylla
COMMON NAME Small-leaved
drained soil. Clematis
HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.2-0.9/0.7-1m
COMMENTS Densely forming
drained soil.
perennial tussock grasses with HEIGHT/SPREADClimber
soft graceful form suiting many COMMENTS Climber with dull green
landscape styles. leaves and masses of creamy
starry flowers July-Nov.
BOTANICAL NAME Poa poiformis
BOTANICAL NAME Glycine clandestina
COMMON NAME Tussock Grasses
COMMON NAME Twining Glycine
drained sandy soil, tolerating ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Moist
saline soil and salt spray. well drained soil, tolerating dry
HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.2-0.9m/1m
conditions once established.
HEIGHT/SPREAD Twining 0.3-2m tall
COMMENTS Densely tufting grass
COMMENTS Slender open twiner
with bluish leaves.
with delicate bluish-mauve pea
BOTANICAL NAME Themeda triandra
flowers Oct-Jan.
COMMON NAME Kangaroo Grass Small Grass Tree
BOTANICAL NAME Muehlenbeckia
Adaptable to most soils which adpressa
do not remain wet. COMMON NAME Climbing Lignum
HEIGHT/SPREAD 0.4-0.9m/0.7m
COMMENTS Perennial tussock with
drained sandy soil.
attractive green/purple foliage
COMMENTS Perennial with small
and drooping “paw” like flower
heads. greenish-yellow flowers Sept-
Dec. Good for fences and
retaining walls, tolerates salt
exposure and dryness.
torquay / jan juc

torquay / jan juc
summary
16
Botanical Name Common Name Botanical Name Common Name

Acacia acinacea Gold-dust Wattle Eucalyptus baxteri Brown Stringybark
Acacia implexa Lightwood Eucalyptus leucoxylon ssp
Acacia mearnsii Black Wattle bellariensis Bellarine Yellow Gum
Acacia melanoxylon Blackwood Eucalyptus obliqua Stringybark
Acacia myrtifolia Myrtle Wattle Eucalyptus ovata Swamp Gum
Acacia paradoxa Hedge Wattle Eucalyptus tricarpa Red Ironbark
Acacia pycnantha Golden Wattle Eucalyptus viminalis Manna Gum
Acacia retinoides Wirilda Eucalyptus willisii Shining Peppermint
Acacia suaveolens Sweet Wattle Gahnia sieberiana Red-fruited Saw -sedge
Acacia verniciflua Varnish Wattle Glycine clandestina Twining Glycine
Acacia verticillata Prickly Moses Gonocarpus tetragynus Common Raspwort
Acrotriche serrulata Honey pots Goodenia geniculata Bent Goodenia
Allocasuarina misera Dwarf Sheoke Goodenia ovata Hop Goodenia
Allocasuarina verticillata Drooping Sheoke Helichrysum scorpioides Button Everlasting
Alyxia buxifolia Sea Box Hibbertia aspera Rough Guinea-flower
Arthropodium strictum Chocolate Lily Hibbertia riparia Erect Guinea-flower
Astroloma humifusum Cranberry Heath Isolepis nodosa Knobby Club-rush
Atriplex cinerea Coast Saltbush Kennedia prostrata Running Postman
Atriplex semibaccata Creeping/Berry Saltbush Lepidosperma species Sword/rapier sedges
Austrodanthonia geniculata Kneed Wallaby Grass Leptospermum continentale Prickly Tea-tree
Austrodanthonia racemosa Stiped Wallaby Grass Leptospermum myrsinoides Heath (silky) Tea-tree
Austrostipa flavescens Spear Grass Leptospermum scoparium Manuka
Austrostipa mollis Supple Spear Grass Leucophyta brownii Cushion Bush
Banksia marginata Silver Banksia Leucopogon parviflorus Coast Beard Heath
Billardiera scandens Climbing/Common Appleberry Leucopogon virgatus Common Beard Heath
Bossiaea prostrata Creeping Bossiaea Lomandra longifolia Spiny-headed Mat- rush
Bursaria spinosa Sweet Bursaria Lomandra multiflora Many-flowered Mat-rush
Calytrix tetragona Fringe Myrtle Melaleuca lanceolata Moonah
Carex appressa Tall sedge Microlaena stipoides Weeping grass
Carex breviculmis Common Grass-sedge Muehlenbeckia adpressa Climbing Lignum
Carpobrotus rossii Karkalla Myoporum insulare Common Boobialla
Chrysocephalum apiculatum Common Everlasting Olearia axillaris Coast Daisy Bush
Clematis aristata Mountain Clematis Olearia glutinosa Sticky Daisy Bush
Clematis microphylla Small-leaved Clematis Olearia ramulosa Twiggy Daisy Bush
Correa alba White Correa Ozothamnus ferrugineus Tree Everlasting
Correa reflexa Common Correa Patersonia fragilis Short Purple flag
Dianella revoluta Black-anther Flax-lily Patersonia occidentalis Long Purple-flag
Dichondra repens Kidney Weed Platylobium obtusangulum Common Flat- pea
Dillwynia cinerescens Grey Parrot Pea Poa labillardierei Common Tussock Grass
Dillwynia glaberrima Heath/Smooth Parrot Pea Poa poiformis Blue Tussock Grass
Dillwynia sericea Showy Parrot Pea Pomaderris ferruginea Rusty Pomaderris
Einadia nutans Nodding Saltbush Pomaderris paniculosa ssp paralia Coast Pomaderris
Epacris impressa Common Heath Pultenaea daphnoides Large leaf Bush pea
Eucalyptus aromaphloia Scentbark Rhagodia candolleana Seaberry Saltbush
torquay / jan juc
summary
17
Senecio quadridentatus Cotton Fireweed

Sphaerolobium vimineum Leafless Globe-pea
Spyridium parvifolium Dusty Miller
Tetragonia implexicoma Bower Spinach
Tetratheca ciliata Common Pink Bells
Themeda triandra Kangaroo Grass
Threlkeldia diffusa Coast Bonefruit
Viola hederacea Ivy-leaf Violet
Xanthorrhoea australis Austral Grass-tree
Xanthorrhoea minor Small Grass-tree
Zygophyllum billardieri Coast Twin-leaf
torquay / jan juc

Appendix 4
Data Collected from Physical Survey
(Isis Planning & Surf Coast Shire, 2003)
Categories – Physical Assessment

Street Character Building Colours
• A = Vegetation dominates - buildings mostly screened. • A = Subdued
• B = Vegetation, but buildings visible. • B = Bright
• C = Mixture of vegetation and bare naturestrip. • M = Mixture
• D = Open naturestrip and front yards
Views
Predominant Front Setback of Buildings • A = High
• A = More than 9 • B = Medium Low
• B = 6-9 • C = None
• C = 0-5
• M = Varied setbacks Site treatment
• A = little/no site cut/fill
Street construction • B = moderate site cut/fill
• A = Gravel • C = Excessive site cut/fill
• B = Bitumen with unsealed shoulders
• C = All bitumen Extent of Vegetation Cover
plus • A = High
• 1 = kerb & channel • B = Medium
• a = on-street parking • C = Low
• M = Varied
Footpaths
• A = No footpaths Front Fences
• B = one side of street only • A = None
• C = both sides of street • B = Low
plus • C = High
• 1 = unsealed • M = Varied
• 2 = sealed
Side Fences
Services • A = None
• A = underground/disguised • B = Post and wire
• B = clearly visible from the street • C = Paling
• M = Mixture
Building Height
• A = Single storey Building Age
• B = Two storey • A = Prior to 1970
• C = Two & three storey • B = 1970-1990
• M = Mixture of heights • C = 1990-today
• M = Mixture of ages
Wall Materials
• A = Weatherboard/Fibro Building bulk
• B = Modern forms of cladding eg Harditex, shadow • A = light and well integrated
clad, corrugated iron • B = moderately bulky
• C = Blockwork/rendered brick • C = visually bulky
• D = Brick veneer walls • M = varied
• M = Mixture of materials
Carports/garages
Roof Material • A = not visible
• A = Colourbond/zincalume • B = partially visible, well integrated
• B = Tiles • C = highly visible from the street
• M = Mixture of roof materials
plus Topography
• 1 = flat roof • 1 = minimal slope
• 2 = pitched roof • 2 = moderate slope
• 3 = mix of roof forms • 3 = steep slope
Data from Physical Assessment of Torquay Jan Juc Residential Areas
Bulk
Views
Precinct
Vehicles
Services
Wall Mat.
Bldg Age
Roof Mat.
Site treat.
Footpaths
Vegt Cover
Side Fence
Bldg Height
Street Char.
Front Fence
Bldg Colour
Topography
Street Const.
Front Setback
TORQUAY Other comments
The Esplanade (north
1 D C M C B C M B A? C C C1a 1A A A C A 1
Horseshoe Bend Rd)
1 Golden Beach Way D C M C M B-C M M M3 C C C1a 1A A A C B-C 1
1 South Beach Estate D C A C M B M D M2 C C C1a 1A A A C C 1
1 Horseshoe Bend Road D C M C M B M D M2 C C C1a 2A A A C B-C 1
The Esplanade (b/w
1 Horseshoe Bend Road D C M C B C M M M3 C C C1a 1A A A C A 1
and Creek)
1 Glaneuse Avenue C C M C M B M D M3 C C C1a 1A A A C C 1
1 Loch Ard Drive C C A-B C A B M D M3 C C C1a 1A A A C C 1
1 Aquilla Avenue C C A-B C A B M D M3 C C C1a 1A A A C C 1
Fischer Street (north
1 C C M B-C M B M M M3 C C C1a 1A A A-B C B-C 1
Deep Creek)
1 Highlander Street D C M B B B-C M B M3 C C C1a 1A A B C B-C 1-2
Fischer Street (south

2 C B M B-C M B M M M3 B B-C C1a O B A C B-C 1
Deep Creek)
2 Riverside Drive C B A-B B-C A A M A A3 B B-C C1a O B A C C 1
Darian Road (east
2 C B M B-C M B M M M3 B B-C C1a O B A C B-C 1
Geelong Rd)
2 Cowrie Road C B M A-B M A M M M3 B A-C C1a O B A C B-C 1
2 Central Avenue C B M A-B A A M M M3 B A-C C1a O B A C C 1
Beach Road (east
2 C B B A-B A A M M M3 B M C1a O B A C ? 1
Geelong Rd)
2 Puebla Street C B M A A A M M M3 B M C1a O B A C C 1

2 Spring Street B-C B M A A A M M M3 B M C1a O B A C C 1
2 Zeally Bay Road C B M M A A M M M3 B M C1a O B A C C 1
Numerous high, solid
2 Bristol Road C B M M A A M M M3 B M C1a 1A B A C C 1
front fences
2 Boston Road C-D B M A-B A A-B M M M3 B A-B C1a O B A C C 1
2 Anderson Street B
Bulk
Views
Precinct
Vehicles
Services
Wall Mat.
Bldg Age
Roof Mat.
Site treat.
Footpaths
Vegt Cover
Side Fence
Bldg Height
Street Char.
Front Fence
Bldg Colour
Topography
Street Const.
Front Setback
2 Price Street C-D B B B A A M M M3 B A-B C1a O B ? C C 1
2 Park Lane B B M B M A M B-M M3 B A-C C1a O B A C B-C 1
The Esplanade (south
2 D C B B M M M B-M M3 B-C M C1a 1A B A C A 1
Deep Creek)
Sarabande Cres,
2 Rocklea Dve, Alleyne B-C M M B-C M B M M M3 B A-B C1a O B A-B C B-C 2
Ave & Aurora Cres
Beach Road (west
2 D C M B-C A B M M M3 C C C1a 1A A A C C 1
Geelong Road)
Grossmans Rd, Brody Low density residential

3 B M B A A A-B M B-M M3 B B-C B O B A-B B B-C 1-2
Dve, Coombes Rd etc. area
4 Great Ocean Views D C A B-C B C M B-M M3 C C C1a O A A-B C A-B 2
Sunningdale Ave &

5 C B-C B B M A M M M3 B B C1 O B A-B C B-C 1-2
Muirfield Ave
5 Carnarvon Avenue C-D C M B-C M A-B M M M3 B-C B-C C1a O B A-B C A-B 1-2
Troon Ave, Carnoustie
5 C-D B-C M B-C M A-B M M M3 B-C B-C C1a O B A-B C B-C 1-2
Ave & Sandwich Ave
5 Duffields Road D C M B-C B B M M M3 B-C B-C C1a O B A-B C B-C 2
Area north of Creek &
5 C B-C M B-C M A-B M M M3 B-C B-C C1a O B A-B C B-C 1-2
west of Duffields Rd
5 Domain Road D C B B-C M A-B M B-M M3 B-C B-C C1a O B ? C B-C 2
5 Alexandra Ave D C M B-C M A-B M M M3 B-C B-C C1a O B ? C B-C 2
Watersun Rd,
5 Sandhurst Cres, Regal C-D C B B-C M A-B M M M3 B-C B-C C1a O B A-B C B-C 2
Rd & Cantala Dve
5 Riviera Drive C-D C B B-C M A-B M B M3 B-C B-C C1a O B A-B C B-C 2
Sunset Strip (east of Numerous high front
5 B-C B-C M B-C M B M M M3 B B-C C1 1A B B C C 2
Wattle Court) fences
6 Ocean Boulevarde C-D C M B-C B C M B-M M3 B-C B-C C1 O B A-B C A-B 2

Bulk
Views
Precinct
Vehicles
Services
Wall Mat.
Bldg Age
Roof Mat.
Site treat.
Footpaths
Vegt Cover
Side Fence
Bldg Height
Street Char.
Front Fence
Bldg Colour
Topography
Street Const.
Front Setback
Broadbeach Road & Low density residential
7 A A-B B A B B A B-M M3 A B-C C1 O B A-B B A-B 2
Castaway Crescent development
Low density residential
Sunset Strip (west of
7 A A B A M A-B A M M3 A B-C B O B A-B B C 1-2 development - houses
Wattle Court)
barely visible
Low density residential
7 Bells Boulevarde A A B A M A-B A B-M M3 A B-C B O B A-B B B-C 2 development - houses
barely visible
The physical assessment data above was ranked in terms of the preferred neighbourhood characteristics of the Torquay Jan Juc
Community Perception modelling, where ‘A’ generally equates to the most preferred characteristic and ‘C’ / ‘D’ generally equates to
the least preferred characteristic. ‘M’ indicates a predominant mixture of characteristics. Topography was not ranked as a positive
or negative characteristic.
Appendix 5
Precinct Descriptions
Precinct 1 - Torquay North
This precinct is located north of Deep Creek and comprises one of the key growth areas for Torquay and the
Shire. The area is characterised by conventional suburban housing with a scattering of more innovative
contemporary developments. There is limited indigenous vegetation with most gardens comprising a mix of
exotic and non-indigenous native species in formal gardens.
Key Characteristics
Lot sizes range from 300sqm to 800sqm with a small number of lots
less than 300sqm in area
Houses built since the 1980’s – a mix of architectural styles.
Predominantly conventional suburban architecture with some
innovative contemporary beach styles in more recent development.
Low vegetation cover, predominantly exotic formal gardens of no
conservation significance
Limited views available toward the coast from some properties,
however there is inadequate slope to enable views from all
properties.
Land gradually slopes to the east, with steeper slopes to the west
adjacent to the creek
Mix of single and two storey development
Predominantly conventional building materials with some
contemporary finishes used in more recent development
Mix of building colours
Small front and side building setbacks with many boundary walls.
Development on The Esplanade in particular comprises multi-
dwelling developments constructed across the width of the site.
Relatively high building and sealed surfaces site coverage
Car parking, particularly garages, highly visible from the street
Mix of front fence treatments, generally either open or low in height
Side and rear paling fences
Sealed roads with kerb & channel
Limited sealed footpaths
Underground infrastructure
Precinct 1 – Torquay North

Preferred Character
Enhanced vegetation cover, with emphasis on indigenous species.
Provide adequate permeable surfaces to facilitate increased vegetation cover
Architecturally diverse housing that is consistent with the principles of ‘Surf Coast Style’.
Garages setback behind the dwelling frontage
Maintenance of a low scale building height.
Buildings setback from side boundaries.
Development that integrates well with the street frontage (ie. no solid high front fences and walls)
New subdivisions to include well vegetated public land, including linear parks that provide vegetated corridors and
pedestrian/cyclist access to existing public open space.
Enhanced street tree & shrub/grasses planting using indigenous species
Precinct 1 – Torquay North

Torquay/Jan Juc Neighbourhood Character Study
Precinct 2 - Torquay Central
This precinct comprises the residential areas in central Torquay and extends from Point Danger in the south
through to Deep Creek in the north. The precinct also includes the established residential land on the west
side of Geelong Road that extends through to Spring Creek. The area is characterised by a mix of original
modest beach houses set amongst a moderate cover of vegetation. Considerable infill development has
occurred in recent years, however the precinct still retains a low scale coastal character.
Key Characteristics
Lot sizes are in the vicinity of 1000sqm in ‘Old Torquay’, decreasing
to less than 600sqm between Darian Road and Deep Creek. There
is a scattering of lots less than 300sqm throughout the precinct,
including the lots fronting The Esplanade, between Beach and
Darian Roads that are not individually developed.
Tree-lined streets with a moderate cover of vegetation
Scattered remnants of Bellarine Yellow Gum Woodland of high
regional conservation significance with less intact understorey.
Mosaic of stands and individual trees of Moonah, Drooping Sheoke
and Boobialla with areas of non-indigenous natives and exotics.
Some indigenous understorey remains including Sea-berry Saltbush
and Bower Spinach.
Front setbacks range from 5 to 10+ metres, with the setback areas
comprising established trees or open in character.
Buildings are generally setback from side and rear boundaries with
vegetation providing partial screening between buildings, with the
exception of new development
Buildings are predominantly single storey, with a greater occurrence
of two storeys along The Esplanade and within new developments.
Building materials are generally traditional light-weight materials –
weatherboard and fibro-sheeting with a limited contemporary range
of materials used in recent development
Mix of external colours
Mix of front fence treatments, but greater proportion of open style
treatments (ie low or partially permeable high fences).
Paling fences along side and rear boundaries
Land slopes gradually to the east with inadequate slope for
properties to share views
Services above ground and clearly visible along streets
Limited number of sealed footpaths. Paths mainly informal.
Precinct 2 – Torquay Central

Preferred Character
Retention of indigenous vegetation, and enhancement of the overall vegetation cover, with emphasis on planting
of canopy trees in new developments.
Increased density of development, but limits to the extent of building and hard surface site coverage in multi-
dwelling development to facilitate enhanced vegetation cover
Front setbacks that are consistent with the prevailing setbacks in a street and provide for retention and planting of
screening trees.
Side and rear setbacks that provide for planting between buildings
Innovative contemporary housing that is consistent with the principles of ‘Surf Coast Style’. Building forms that
reflect the original beach shacks are encouraged.
Limit building height to maintain the low scale character of current development.
Access and vehicle parking areas that are understated and well integrated with the development
Development that integrates well with the street (ie. no high front fences and walls)
Precinct 2 – Torquay Central

Precinct 3 – Torquay North-West

This precinct comprises the low density residential area to the north-west of Torquay. The precinct is
bounded by Grossmans, Coombes, Messmate and Geelong Road and is dissected by Deep Creek. The
precinct is characterised by low density development set amongst mature vegetation.
Key Characteristics
Low density residential lots
High cover of vegetation along the northern part of the precinct
which has been identified as the Messmate Woodland Community.
The population includes a scattering of trees with less intact
understorey of high regional significance.
The other areas within the precinct comprise exotic and non-
indigenous native vegetation with no conservation significance.
Predominantly single storey dwellings
Part of Briody Drive and Illawong Drive are unsealed with all other
roads sealed
Numerous vacant lots in the eastern half of the precinct
Open style fencing – mainly posy and wire
Significant building setbacks from boundaries
Preferred Character
Retention and enhancement of indigenous vegetation cover
Innovative contemporary housing that is designed to sit comfortably
with the topography
Precinct 3 – Torquay North West

Precinct 4 – Great Ocean Views
This precinct comprises the developing Great Ocean Views estate located to the north of the Great Ocean
Road, between Duffields Road and Spring Creek. The precinct is highly visible from the Great Ocean Road
and from public open space areas along Spring Creek. The area is characterised by a high coverage of
development with limited vegetation cover.
Key Characteristics
Lots sizes range from 300sqm to 800sqm. There are very few
vacant lots within the early stages, however later stages of
subdivision are currently under construction.
Large suburban and contemporary housing constructed from the
1990’s to the present
Minimal vegetation cover, gardens are generally low level with exotic
or indigenous species. Very few canopy trees.
Views from most properties toward the ocean and Spring Creek
Land slopes to the east and south, toward Spring Creek
Predominantly two storey development
Mix of conventional and contemporary building materials, with a high
proportion of masonry
Mix of building colours
Minimum front and side building setbacks with many boundary walls
High site coverage (buildings and sealed surfaces), with minimal
permeable surfaces
Car parking is highly visible from the street
Generally no front fences
Side and rear paling fences
Limited footpaths
Underground infrastructure

Preferred Character
Enhanced vegetation cover with emphasis on indigenous species.
Innovative contemporary housing that is consistent with the principles of ‘Surf Coast Style’.
Garages setback behind the dwelling frontage
Development that integrates well with the street frontage (ie. no solid high front fences and walls)
New subdivisions to include well vegetated public land, including linear parks that provide vegetated corridors and
pedestrian/cyclist access to existing public open space.
Enhanced street tree planting using indigenous species
Maintenance of a low scale building height.

Precinct 5 – Jan Juc (Central)
This precinct comprises the Jan Juc residential area with the exception of parts of Ocean Boulevarde. The
area is characterised by low scale development nestled amongst established vegetation. Due to the
undulating land, most of the residential area is visible from the Great Ocean Road and from other public
viewing points throughout Jan Juc.
Key Characteristics
Lot sizes range from 300sqm to 800sqm with a very limited number
of lots less than 300sqm. The lots between Duffields Road and
Hoylake Avenue are generally larger than other areas within the
precinct.
There is a mix of original beach houses and contemporary buildings
with a limited number of modern suburban style houses
Tree-lined streets with a medium cover of vegetation across much of
the precinct.
There are small stands and individual trees of Bellarine Yellow Gum
and Manna Gum of state conservation significance with large areas
of non-indigenous natives and exotics. Understorey mostly modified
with some remnant understorey in Sunset Strip
Front setbacks range from 5 to 10 metres and are generally
vegetated.
Side and rear boundaries are generous and incorporate vegetation
for screening between buildings
Buildings are a mix of single and two storey, with many partially
elevated dwellings due to the slope
Building materials are generally traditional light-weight materials –
weatherboard and fibro-sheeting with limited use of contemporary
materials in more recent development
Mix of external colours
Mix of front fence treatments, but greater proportion of open style
treatments combined with vegetation (ie. no fencing or low and open
fencing)
The land is undulating throughout the precinct which has resulted in
low to moderate levels of cut and fill incorporated into developments
Most properties have limited views of the creek environs or coast,
however there is inadequate slope to provide views for all properties
Services are above ground and clearly visible along streets
The roads are sealed with kerb & channel and footpaths are
generally informal
Precinct 5 – Jan Juc Central

Preferred Character
Retention and enhancement of the vegetation cover, with emphasis on indigenous canopy trees.
canopy trees
Innovative contemporary housing that is consistent with the principles of ‘Surf Coast Style’.
Maintain low scale building height that is generally within the canopy of the vegetation.
Precinct 5 – Jan Juc Central

Precinct 6 – Jan Juc (Ocean Boulevarde)
This precinct includes the most prominent residential properties along Ocean Boulevarde, and is
characterised by large multi-storey dwellings designed to maximise ocean views. There is a low level of
vegetation cover and minimum building setbacks from front and side boundaries. The precinct is highly
visible from the Jan Juc cliff top.
Key Characteristics
Multi-storey modern and contemporary beach houses, designed to
maximise views
Low vegetation cover and mostly non-indigenous and exotic species
Minimum front setbacks of approximately 6 metres or less with little
vegetation cover within the setback areas.
Minimal side and rear boundaries with some boundary wall
construction
Building materials are a mix of traditional and contemporary
materials with a mix of external colours
There is a mix of front fence treatments, but greater proportion of
open style treatments (ie. no fencing or low and open fencing)
The sloping land has resulted in low to moderate levels of cut and fill
incorporated into development
Significant views of the coastline and over Jan Juc to the north
Services above ground and clearly visible along streets
The roads are sealed with kerb & channel and footpaths are informal
Buildings are generally two storey in height, and prominent from the
street and distant viewing points due to their location on top of a
ridge.
Precinct 6 – Ocean Boulevarde

Preferred Character
Retention and enhancement of the vegetation, with emphasis on indigenous species and establishment of
vegetation within the front setback areas to improve the interface with the adjoining cliffs
Low building and hard surface site coverage to facilitate enhanced vegetation cover
screening trees
Innovative contemporary housing that is consistent with the principles of ‘Surf Coast Style’
Maintenance of a low scale building height, with the avoidance of three storey dwellings which attempt to capture
ocean views.
Precinct 6 – Ocean Boulevarde

Precinct 7 – Jan Juc West
This precinct comprises the low density residential land to the west of Jan Juc and extends from the Great
Ocean Road in the north to Bones Road in the south. The area has a high coverage of vegetation that
varies in type and significance. Houses are nestled amongst the vegetation and are often not visible from
the road. Some properties are visible from the Great Ocean Road and from the cliff top walk.
Existing Character
Low density residential sized lots
Vegetation dominates the streetscape and buildings are only partially
visible from beyond property boundaries, if at all
The vegetation includes populations of Messmate Woodland &
Ironbark Woodlands (Bells Boulevard region), and Bellarine Yellow
Gum Woodland (Sunset Strip and south of Strathmore Drive)
Buildings are generally single storey and retained below tree canopy
level
Buildings are finished in natural colours that blend with the
surrounding environment
Boundary fencing is limited to post and wire
Buildings have large setbacks from all boundaries and are surrounded
by vegetation
Some properties enjoy coastal views, while others enjoy views over
Jan Juc and the vegetated hinterland
Roads are sealed, but driveways are predominantly unsealed and
informal
The land is undulating
Infrastructure services are above ground and visible along the roads
Preferred Character
Retain and enhance the existing indigenous vegetation cover
Vegetation and open style fencing used to define boundaries and
provide screening and privacy for dwellings
Building heights retained below the established tree canopy or a
vegetated backdrop.
Natural and earthy tones that blend with the site context
Innovative contemporary housing that is consistent with the principles
of ‘Surf Coast Style’ and sits low in the landscape.
Generous boundary setbacks that respect the dominate setbacks in
the area
Minimal hard surface areas

Appendix 6
Case Studies of Existing Developments
Case Study Developments

The following case study developments have been selected from a combination of photos used in the
study of community perceptions by Dr Ray Green and sites selected by Council Officers that exhibit a
similar range of characteristics. Each development has been assessed in detail below against the current
planning provisions, with conclusions drawn in relation to recommended changes to planning scheme
provisions concerning vegetation, building siting, site coverage and hard surface coverage, and plot ratio.
The Neighbourhood Character Compatibility Scale (NCCS) is based on the following scoring:
1 to 4 is perceived to be compatible [form strongly (1) to slightly (3.9)]
4 to 7 is perceived to be incompatible [from slightly (4.1) to strongly (7)].
Single Dwellings
Case 1
Type: Two storey (Third storey
viewing loft)
NCCS: 5.41
Permit No. 99/8643
Land Area: 459m²
Height: 8.9m (height of loft located in
middle), rest of building below
7.5m)
Blg site %: 38% (172m²)
Blg & H/S %: 61% (280m²)
Plot Ratio: 0.61 (279m²)
Setback: Front: 5.0m, Side: 3.4m &
1.7m
Garage: Double garage, located at rear,
setback 7.2m from side
boundary, access off side street
Comment:
Planning Scheme Requirements:
Permit issued pre new format planning scheme. Fails to comply with current height, plot ratio, building site
coverage and hard surface coverage standards in SLO2.
Note: original application complied with building site coverage, hard surface coverage, and plot ratio before
size of lot was reduced from 759m² to 459m² due to subdivision. Complies with Rescode standards. No
landscape plan provided.
Neighbourhood Character Assessment:

Good articulation and use of colour, windows and material. Roof form picks up on beach theme. However, the
building design emphasizes the building’s height, thus making it appear overly bulky and tall. This is made
more obvious because of the lack of screen planting, the minimum front setback, and the large size of the
upper level compared with the ground level.
Appendix 6
Case 2
Type: Three storey
NCCS: 5.24
Permit No. 96/6586
Land Area: 525m²
Height: 8.5m
Blg site %: 40% (210m²)
Blg & H/S %: 49% (255m²)
Setback: Front: 4.5m, Side: 0m & 2m
Garage: Double garage, in line with
main building, deck projects
forward of main building.
Comment:
Permit issued pre new format planning scheme. Fails to comply with current height, plot ratio and building site
coverage standards of SLO2. Minimum front setback.

Building is well articulated, however, its flat roof makes it appear boxy, and the concrete block rendering and
colour emphasizes the concrete theme. There is no screen planting to soften the appearance of the dwelling,
and the building also has a minimum front setback.
Case 3
Type: Single storey
NCCS: 4.38
Bldg Permit No. 99/8618
Land Area: 649m²
Height: 4.7m
Blg site %: 37% (237m²)
Blg & H/S %: 70% (449m²)
Setback: Front: 7.5m, Side: 0m & 1.2m
Garage: Double garage, setback 1.4m
from main building line, setback
0m from side boundary
Comment:
No planning permit required under current DDO1 controls. Complies with Building Regulations.

No front fence. Building addresses the street. However, dwelling is suburban looking with little local connection
in terms of its design. Minimum setbacks from side boundaries, with little native vegetation in the front setback.
Dominant driveway and double garage.
Appendix 6
Case 4
Type: Two storey
NCCS: 5.06
Land Area: 917m²
Height: 6.2m
Blg site %: 22% (200m²)
Blg & H/S %: 41% (375m²)
Setback: Front: 7.8m, Side: 0m & 1.6m
Comment:
No planning permit required. Complies with Building Regulations.

Flat roof is inconsistent with coastal style. Lack of eaves accentuates building’s bulk. Dwelling appears bulky
because of the large size of the upper level compared with the ground level. Lack of screen planting. Front
landscaping not in character of area (ie not native), high solid front fence and dominant wide garage and
driveway.
Case 5
Type: Two storey
NCCS: 5.21
Land Area: 713m²
Height: 7.5m
Blg site %: 36% (257m²)
Blg & H/S %: 53% (375m²)
2.53m
Comment:

Interesting innovative, well articulated design with good use of recessive colours. Use of dark colours for
garage combined with its setback behind main building line reduces garage’s visual dominance. No front
fencing. Square form is imposing on streetscape, and makes building look large on the lot. Lack of front
landscaping to screen and soften building.
Appendix 6
Case 6
Type: Two storey split level
NCCS: 2.52
Bldg Permit No. 513
Land Area: 639m²
Height: 5.18m
Blg site %: 19% (118m²)
Blg & H/S %: 28% (176m²)
Setback: Front: 4.6m, Side: 1.2m & 1.8m
Garage: Single garage, setback 1.2m
1.8m from side boundary
Comment:

Classic beach house design in terms of its shallow pitched roof, and use of materials. Vegetation along
boundaries and in front setback softens and screens building. However, vegetation is predominantly exotic.
Small single driveway. Front setback appears larger because of lack of front fencing, and footpath to delineate
front property boundary.
Case 7
Type: Three storey
NCCS: 2.71
Bldg Permit No. 11739
Land Area: 541m²
Height: 8.5m
Blg site %: 25% (130m²)
Blg & H/S %: 29% (157m²)
4.95m
Garage: Double carport located at
ground level beneath main
dwelling. In line with main
building line.
Comment:
No planning permit required at time of construction. Planning permit would be required under current controls
because of height above 7.5m. Complies with Building Regulations.

Large front setback, use of vegetation to screen the dwelling and use of materials and dark colour, makes
building recede in streetscape and appear unimposing, despite its height. Natural looking driveway. No front
fencing. Unimposing carport set beneath dwelling.
Appendix 6
Case 8
Type: Single storey
Bldg Permit No. 8089 & 98/7244
Land Area: 597m²
Height: 4.6m
Blg site %: 31% (183.9m²)
Blg & H/S %: 40% (239.2m²)
Plot Ratio: 0.18 (103.7m²)
Setback: Front: 13m, Side: 2m & 0m
Garage: Double carport built to side
boundary, setback 2.8m from
main building line.
Comment:

Large front setback with native landscaping to screen development. Low rise and small scale dwelling. Classic
beach house design in terms of its shallow pitched roof, and use of materials. Recessive colours. No front
fencing. Unimposing open carport set behind building. Wide dominant concrete driveway.
Case 9
Type: Split over two levels
Bldg Permit No. 9412 & 02/2078
Land Area: 643m²
Height: 6.0m
Blg site %: 43% (276m²)
Blg & H/S %: 49% (313.6m²)
Plot Ratio: 0.42 (264.5m²)
Setback: Front: 4.5m, Side: 1.2m & 0m
Garage: Double garage located at
ground level beneath dwelling.
Setback 0m from side boundary
and 5.85m from main building
line.
Comment:

Classic beach house design in terms of its shallow pitched roof, and use of materials. Vegetation along
boundaries and in front setback softens and screens building. Small single driveway. Front setback appears
larger because of lack of front fencing, and footpath to delineate front property boundary. Unimposing garage
set well behind main building line with upper level and balcony constructed over.
Appendix 6
Case 10
Type: Two storey, three split levels
Land Area: 537m²
Height: 7.1m
Blg site %: 35% (184m²)
Blg & H/S %: 41% (217m²)
Setback: Front: 5.5m, Side: 2m &
1.738m
Garage: Double garage setback 2.4m
from side boundary, set 1.9m
forward of main building line.
Comment:

Good articulation and use of recessive colour. Building is largely screened from the street through extensive
landscaping with indigenous species. Front setback appears larger because of lack of front fencing, and
footpath to delineate front property boundary. Dominant wide concreted driveway and imposing double garage
because it is set forward from building and is highlighted through use of a lighter colour.
Appendix 6
Multi-Dwelling Developments
Case 11
Type: Two storey, five units
NCCS: 5.94
Permit No. 98/7782
Land Area: 1522m²
Density: 1/304m²
Height: 6.8m
Blg site %: 45.5% (692m² - 138m² p/d)
Blg & H/S %: 68% (1032m² - 206.4m² p/d)
Plot Ratio: 0.77 (1173m² - 234.6m² p/d)
Setback: Front: 4.5m, Side:Unit 1&2
attached, Units 2,3 &5
attached. Unit 1 is set 1m off
side boundary. Unit 2&3 are set
2m apart. Unit 5 is set 2m off
side boundary.
Garage: Double garage for each unit
located at rear of units. Access
for all garages is off a single
driveway on side street.
Comment:
Permit issued pre new format planning scheme. Fails to comply with current building site coverage, hard
surface site coverage and plot ratio standards of SLO2

Garages and driveway are not visible from main street. Low front fence. Good articulation. However repetitive
form and colour, with little setback between dwellings and from side and front boundary. Flat roof. Minimal
landscaping to soften appearance of buildings from streetscape.
Appendix 6
Case 12
Type: Two storey, two units - attached
NCCS: 4.85
Permit No. 00/0195
Land Area: 744m²
Density: 1/372m²
Height: 7.45m
Blg site %: 39% (290m² - 145m² p/d)
Blg & H/S %: 61% (450m² - 225m² p/d)
Plot Ratio: 0.67 (499m² - 249.5m² p/d)
Setback: Front: - 5m / Side: 0m & 0m
Garage: Double garage, 5m setback, in
line with building, upper level
deck projects 1.5m into front
setback
Comment:
Fails to comply with building site coverage, hard surface coverage and plot ratio in SLO2. Complies with
ResCode. Canopy trees shown on endorsed landscape plan in rear of yard. Not planted.

Good articulation and use of colour, windows and material. No front fencing. Second storey width smaller than
ground floor. However, dwellings built side boundary to side boundary, with no screen planting in setback
areas to soften appearance of building. Recessive colour of garage door makes it appear further back,
however, wide concreted driveway emphasizes width and dominates streetscape.
Appendix 6
Case 13
Type: Two storey, two units
NCCS: 5.62
Permit No. 97/7135
Land Area: 674m²
Density: 1/337m²
Height: 6.0m
Blg site %: 32% (215m² - 107.5m² p/d)
Blg & H/S %: 59% (395m² - 197.5m² p/d)
Plot Ratio: 0.54 (362m² - 181m² p/d)
Setback: Front: 7m, Unit 1: Side:
150mm, 5.1m Unit 2: 150mm,
5.1m
Garage: Single garage, Unit 1: level with
building, unit 2, set forward of
main building (Portico projects
forward of building by 1.8m)
Comment:
Permit issued pre new format planning scheme. Generally complies with current ResCode and DDO1
standards.

Single garage. Flat roof and unarticulated façade makes dwelling appear boxy – design does not reflect
coastal character. Units appear bulky because of the large size of the upper level compared with the ground
level. Exotic vegetation and landscape theme. No screen planting from streetscape. Repetitive form for
second unit.
Appendix 6
Case 14
Type: Two storey, three units -
detached
NCCS: 5.12
Permit No. 00/0391
Land Area: 1402m²
Density: 1/467m²
Height: Unit 1: 7.3m, Unit 2: 7.45m,
Unit 3: 7.8m
Blg site %: 37% (519m² - 173m² p/d)
Blg & H/S %: 50% (700m² - 233.3m² p/d)
Plot Ratio: 0.61 (849m² - 283m² p/d)
Setback: Front: Unit 1: 4.5m, Unit 2:
5.6m, Unit 3: 6.4m. Side: 0m &
1.15m (set off one boundary)
Garage: Double garage set behind
building line. Balcony
cantilevered 500mm over
garage. Unit 1: 5.7m, Unit 2: :
6.6m, Unit 3: 7.4m
Comment:
Unit 3 fails to comply with height in DDO1, generally complies with ResCode standards. Landscape plan
endorsed with a number of canopy trees in rear yard. Not planted. Constructed dwellings are not consistent
with approved plans in terms of external materials – approved external materials included light weight
cladding.

Good articulation – balconies break up façade, skillion roof is reflective of old beach house style. No front
fencing. However, dominant wide driveway emphasizes wide double garage and paved surfaces. Repetitive
use of colour and materials. Lack of landscaping to screen development. Minimal setbacks from front and side
boundaries.
Appendix 6
Case 15
Type: Three storey, two units
NCCS: 5.24
Permit No. 91/4759
Land Area: 703m²
Density: 1/351.5m²
Height: 8.2m
Blg site %: 28% (196m² - 98m² p/d)
Blg & H/S %: 45% (317m² - 158.5m² p/d)
Plot Ratio: 0.65 (451m² - 225.5m² p/d)
Setback: Front: 4m, Unit 1: Side:
3.3m Unit 2: 3.3m (Both
units have carports located
between main building and
side boundary to 0m
setback)
Garage: Single carports set back
from main building line. Unit
1: 10.4m front setback, unit
2, 11.6m front setback
Comment:
Permit issued prior to introduction of new format planning scheme. Fails to comply with current height and plot
ratio standards in SLO2

No front fencing. Building design emphasizes height, hence appears tall. Appears dominant and bulky due to
small setbacks from front and side boundaries, the lack of screen planting and the large size of the upper level
compared with the ground level. Dominant colour scheme.
Appendix 6
Case 16
Type: Two storey, six units
NCCS: 4.94
Permit No. 00/0625
Land Area: 1588m²
Density: 1/264m²
Height: 6.5m
Blg site %: 45% (708m² - 118m² p/d)
Blg & H/S %: 71% (1118m² - 186m² p/d)
Plot Ratio: 0.70 (1110m² - 185m² p/d)
Setback: Front: Unit 1: 7m (upper level
balcony encroaches 1.7m into
setback), Unit 6: 5m (upper
level balcony encroaches 1m
into setback). Side: 1.8m, 2.0m
(garages set on boundaries but
15m from front boundary)
Garage: Single garage located to rear of
units 1, 2, 5 & 6, and located on
rear boundary for units 3
Comment:
Generally complies with ResCode & DDO1 standards.

Good use of different colour scheme and design to differentiate between units. Roofing is distinctive and picks
up on coastal theme. Garages located to rear of units. However, dominant wide driveway, and high hard
surface coverage. Units appear bulky because of size of upper level compared with the ground level. Lack of
screen planting. High front fencing. Considered by community to be an overdevelopment of the site.
Appendix 6
Case 17
NCCS: 5.59
Permit No. 99/8032
Land Area: 526m²
Density: 1/263m²
Height: 7.5m
Blg site %: 39% (201m² - 100.5m²
p/d)
Blg & H/S %: 46% (248m² - 124m²
p/d)
Plot Ratio: 0.61 (317m² - 158.5m²
p/d)
Setback: Front: 4.2m, Unit 1:
Side: 2.6m Unit 2: 1.9m
Garage: Single garages set back
from main building line.
Unit 1: 5.1m side
setback, unit 2, 5.1m
front setback
Comment:
Permit issued prior to new format planning scheme. Generally complies with current standards. Landscape
plan provided. Landscaping not carried out.

Single garage. Dark coloured single driveway makes it appear less imposing. No front fencing. Units
appear bulky because of size of upper level compared with the ground level. Building lacks articulation and
eaves. Repetitive design. Use of brick and tiles gives it a suburban appearance. Small front setback. Lack
of screen planting.
Appendix 6
Case 18
Type: Two storey, three units
Permit No. 02/0023
Land Area: 1200m²
Density: 1/400m²
Height: 8.8m (ventilation shaft
projection, bulk of
building below 7.5m)
Blg site %: 37% (435m² - 145m²
p/d)
Blg & H/S %: 69% (824m² - 275m²
p/d)
Plot Ratio: 0.62 (744m² - 248m²
p/d)
Setback: Front: 5.7m, Side: Unit
1 & 2: 0m and 7.8m
Unit 3: 0m & 3.8m
Garage: Double garages set
back from main building
line.
Comment:
Generally complies with standards. Height of shafts exceeds 7.5m. Variation allowed given that bulk of
building is at 7.5m, and only ventilation shaft projects to 8.8m

Innovative design with good use of materials. Double garage doesn’t appear as dominant due to the use
of recessive colours and darker pigment in driveway. However driveway is still wide – high hard surface
coverage, with little screen planting. Flat roof makes building appear boxy. Units also appear bulky
because of size of upper level compared with the ground level, and small setbacks.
Appendix 6
Case 19
Type: Two storey, four units
NCCS: 3.79
Permit No. 01/0377
Land Area: 1456m²
Density: 1/364m²
Height: 7.5m
Blg site %: 40% (592m² - 148m² p/d)
Blg & H/S %: 55% (807m² - 201.75m² p/d)
Plot Ratio: 0.62 (896m² - 224m² p/d)
Setback: Front: 6m (front deck
encroaches 3.0m into setback),
Side: all units: 1.5m, deck built
to boundaries.
Garage: Carports located to rear of each
unit.
Comment:
Generally complies with ResCode standards and DDO1 standards.

Good use of materials and colours. Design reflective of older beach house (skillion roof). Smaller upper level
than lower level reduces visual bulk – good articulation. Upper storey set back from front. Informal driveway
due to material (lilydale toppings). Garages / carports not visible from road. Incorporates indigenous
vegetation. However, high front fence, and taller screen planting required.
Appendix 6
Case 20
Permit No. 02/0593
Land Area: 809m²
Density: 1/404m²
Height: 7.3m
Blg site %: 34% (272m² - 136m² p/d)
Blg & H/S %: 50% (405m² - 202.5m² p/d)
Plot Ratio: 0.61 (492m² - 246m² p/d)
Setback: Front: 9m, Side: 0m,
Garage: Single carport and single
garage located to side of
each unit, setback3.76m &
6.42m back from main
building line
Comment:
Generally complies with SLO2 standards. Exceeds plot ratio. Complies with ResCode standards

Good articulation and use of colour, windows and material. Large front setback and retention of established
Moonah tree softens appearance of building. Indigenous landscaping incorporated in front setback. Low front
fence. Single garage and carport set back behind each unit, therefore unimposing, and this reduces the visual
impact of the construction of the building from side boundary to side boundary. High plot ratio – the large
upper level makes the building look bulkier.
Appendix 6
Analysis
It is acknowledged that the selection of case studies is only a ‘snap shot’ of existing development.
Nevertheless it provides a useful analysis of the effect of current planning provisions on neighbourhood
character outcomes.
14 of the case studies are covered by the Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 1 (DDO1), whilst
the remaining six are covered by the Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 2 (SLO2) which includes
tighter controls for development. Of the case studies covered by the DDO1, none of the single dwellings
required planning permits. However, case study 7 would have required a permit under the current
controls because of its height. All the multi-unit development case studies required planning permits.
The following table is an overview of the 20 case studies and their composition in terms of their overall
compatibility with neighbourhood character, and their type being either single or multi-dwellings. The table
also indicates the source of the photo – it was either used as part of Dr Greens photo rating analysis or
was selected by Council officers.
Source of photo & type of Compatible / partially Incompatible

development compatible
Multi Unit development
Dr Green’s photo analysis 19 11,12,13,14,15,16,17
Council officer 20 18
Dwelling
Dr Green’s photo analysis 6,7 1,2,3,4,5
Council officer 8,9,10
Of the case studies that required a planning permit and which were considered incompatible with
neighbourhood character, seven fail to comply with at least one aspect of the current planning provisions,
(noting that four of these permits were issued prior to the new format planning scheme being introduced
in October 2000). The most common areas of non-compliance are:
Five of the case studies (1, 2, 14, 15, & 18) exceed the maximum building height of 7.5m in the SLO2
and DDO1.
Five of the case studies (1, 2, 11, 12, & 15) exceed the maximum plot ratio of 0.5 in the SLO2.
Four of the case studies (1, 2, 11, & 12) fail to comply with the maximum building site coverage of
35% and the maximum total hard surface area of 50% in the SLO2.
Most of these developments have minimal front and side setbacks with negligible landscaping within
the setback areas.
While these case studies would have been improved through compliance with the current provisions,
such compliance would unlikely have resulted in vastly improved neighbourhood character outcomes.
The basis for this conclusion is that at present there is a lack of emphasis provided in the current
provisions regarding retention and enhancement of indigenous vegetation. In some of the case studies
detailed above, vegetation had been removed to accommodate the development and little if any
replacement planting (using suitable species) has been undertaken. In some cases there is inadequate
area within the front and side setbacks to accommodate indigenous trees and shrubs that would facilitate
screening of the development. It is therefore concluded that the significance of retaining and enhancing
indigenous vegetation cover should be the starting point for all developments.
Of the remaining cases where planning permits were issued, it is important to note that case studies 13,
16, & 17 generally comply with the current provisions, even though they are considered to be ‘out of
character’ through the community perception modeling undertaken by Dr. Green. Furthermore, case
studies 3, 4, and 5 were also considered incompatible but required no planning permit. These cases were
therefore only subject to the requirements under the Building Act.
Case studies 6, 7, 8, 9 &10, all single dwellings, didn’t require a planning permit and were rated as being
compatible. The point of this distinction between the need for planning approval or not, and the
development’s compatibility with preferred neighbourhoood character, is to highlight that not all buildings
which are constructed without the added layer of development approval through the planning system are
incompatible with neighbourhood character. However, a significant number are considered incompatible,
as is illustrated by the small sample selected here. Hence if planning controls were to selectively target
Appendix 6
the elements which are considered incompatible, then most developments which were compatible with
character elements could proceed without the need for planning approval.
Also of note is that some case studies which have been through the planning approval process are still
incompatible with neighbourhood character, as the controls which are currently in place do not emphasise
the importance of the key character elements highlighted within the study. This has resulted in the past in
a mixed outcome in terms of developments compatibility with neighbourhood character, despite going
through a planning approval process. For example, case study 18 required planning approval, complied
generally with current requirements apart from a small section of roof which exceeded the current height
limit, and was considered incompatible. Case study 19 also required planning approval, complied with
current planning requirements and was considered compatible. Finally, case study 20 required planning
approval, and was considered generally compatible apart from the lack of compliance with plot ratio
requirements under the SLO2.
Developments which are not subject to the planning approval process are still required to obtain building
approval under the Building Act. The requirements under the Building Act are similar to ResCode (Clause
54, & 55 of the Surf Coast Planning Scheme). ResCode is the key decision making tool used in assessing
single dwelling and multi-unit dwelling applications in Torquay and Jan Juc within areas affected by the
DDO1. Under the ResCode provisions, building site coverage can be up to 60%, and a minimum of 20%
permeable surfaces must be left over. Based on the case studies assessed against ResCode, and those
assessed under the Building Act, even though they are generally not developed to the maximum intensity
that is possible under the current provisions, the developments are considered to be inappropriate for the
character of Torquay and Jan Juc. The key issue with most developments is the ability, or lack thereof, to
retain and enhance the vegetation cover.
To facilitate enhanced vegetation cover, the building siting, site coverage, permeable surfaces and plot
ratio provisions need to be revisited to ensure that there will be adequate area for vegetation. As
evidenced by the case studies illustrated here, the current provisions are inadequate in this regard.
The following table examines various development characteristics for the case studies which were
considered incompatible with the preferred neighbourhood character.
Average area per Multi-unit development - Single dwelling -

dwelling in m² Incompatible Incompatible
Site area 345m² 653m²
Building site coverage 128m² or 38% 215.2m² or 35%
Hard surface coverage 201m² or 59% 347m² or 55%

(incl. building site
coverage)
Total floor area per 221m² (0.65) 287m² (0.48)
dwelling (plot ratio)
Site Coverage and hard surface coverage
Using the information from the above table and the case studies more generally, it is possible to begin to
determine minimum requirements for future development. Precise figures should be established as part of
the planning scheme amendment process.
The average area of 41% of the site for permeable surfaces in multi unit developments and 45% in single
dwelling developments did not result in compatible developments. This area, as discussed above, is
considered inadequate to retain or enhance the vegetated character of Torquay and Jan Juc. Increasing
the minimum area of permeable surfaces to provide for additional area for landscaping, whilst at the same
time not being unreasonable in terms of allowing future development, will be necessary. This should not
include common property or driveways given that the purpose of permeable surfaces is to provide for an
area to be landscaped. This is opposed to pervious surfaces as defined within ResCode which deals with
the ability of a surface to be able to absorb water. Driveways cannot be landscaped and can therefore not
contribute their area towards the vegetated character of a development. They should therefore be
excluded from any calculation of hard surface.
Similarly, the calculation for areas for multi-unit development and subdivision should ensure that the
relevant development standards are met for each dwelling, and are not averaged across dwellings. This
Appendix 6
is necessary, as is evident from case study 1, to ensure that developments which comply with provisions
at the time of construction and which are later subject to subdivision proposals are still compliant with
development standards.
Hard surface area includes building site coverage and hard surfaces such as paving and driveways. It is
important to define a maximum building site coverage to accommodate enough space for hard surfaces.
Consistent with the definition of a building as defined in s. 3 of the Planning and Environment Act (1987),
a building includes:
“(a) a structure and part of a building or a structure; and
(b) fences, walls, out-buildings, service installations and other appurtenances of a building…”
Based on the above definition, decking, even at ground level, is considered part of a building, and should
be calculated as part of building site coverage. There should be an adequate allowance for an area of the
site to be developed by driveways and other paved areas. As such, the maximum building site coverage
should be proportionately below the maximum hard surface area. Although a prescriptive approach is
recommended, there should be room for discretion to be exercised in each case by relating the outcome
to the landscape character objectives in the overlay. Hence, there may be some room to vary the overall
building site coverage, if this does not impact on the maximum hard surface area, and landscaping
outcomes. It is also suggested that one of these objectives emphasises the siting of buildings to allow
enough room around the development to adequately screen the building using vegetation.
Plot Ratio
Large, bulky, dominating housing is considered incompatible with the preferred character. Restricting the
gross floor area permitted on a site (plot ratio) is an effective means to limit the upper floor area, which
has a greater impact on building bulk. As with site coverage it is recommended to introduce plot ratio
controls to reduce the visual bulk of buildings by controlling the size of upper storeys. Percentages should
be arrived at by studying the case studies to determine the impact of different building sizes on different
sized allotments.
Front and side setbacks
In each of the above case studies, buildings with little separation from one another and from property
boundaries, tend to result in a dominant built form in the landscape, with little capacity for integration into
the surrounding vegetated environment, or re-establishment of vegetation. Narrow setbacks do not
provide adequate area to establish planting of new indigenous trees that are characteristic of the
preferred character due to their proximity to buildings. Setback controls should be introduced to ensure
there is adequate space around buildings to plant shrubs and trees. Setback areas should be arrived at
by using templates of different vegetation types to ensure that adequate area is available on a site for the
planting of indigenous canopy trees and shrubs following development of a dwelling.
Garage
It is also noted from the case studies the importance of the positioning of the garage and the width of
driveways on the appearance of the dwelling and its compatibility with the preferred character. Case 10 is
a case in point. The bulk of the dwelling is extensively screened from the street. However a double
garage and wide light coloured driveway dominates the building’s appearance from the street. Garages
which are located well behind the main building line and which are serviced by narrow driveways,
particularly those with recessive colour schemes and partially permeable surfaces, are more compatible
with the preferred character. As such, controls should be introduced to address this issue.
Appendix 6

Torquay Jan Juc Neighbour Hood Character Study

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Torquay Jan Juc Neighbour Hood Character Study

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Help plan our future

neighbourhood character study &

Draft - May 2006

1. “A Study of Resident Perceptions of Neighbourhood Character: Torquay/Jan Juc” (Dr

Other recommendations outside of the planning system include:

Why a Neighbourhood Character Study in Torquay-Jan Juc?

Objectives of the Strategy include:

The objectives of this study are to:

The outcome of the Study will be:

Community Reference Group

Community Perceptions Analysis

Mark Trengove of Geelong Indigenous Nurseries was engaged to:

 Make recommendations on the protection of significant vegetation communities or particular

Indigenous Planting Guide

Precinct Description and Analysis

3. Assessment of Key Character Elements

The community perception analysis conducted by Dr Green (Appendix 1) established six

ATTRIBUTES PERCEIVED TO BE ELEMENTS PERCEIVED TO BE MOST

VEGETATION / NATURAL FEATURES

Retained indigenous vegetation or Inadequate landscaping.

Conveying a sense of nostalgia and historic “Queensland style” houses.

materials. Double driveways

Small footprints. High site coverage.

Unobtrusive and understated in design. Too large in mass.

Low density development. High density.

Right solar orientation. Not responsive to environment - solar

Have generous setbacks. Minimal setbacks – on side, front and/or rear

Neighbourhoods of modest dwellings reflective of older style beach

VEGETATION COVER AND NATURAL FEATURES

The extent of ‘native bush’ cover is one of the

Central Torquay and Jan Juc (Precincts 2 &

The above precincts are distinctly different

Several photos in Dr Green’s perceptual

All residential areas within Torquay and Jan-Juc have the

Addressing these elements will involve:

Education is a further tool important in encouraging the

The importance of landscaping within the road reserve

Vegetation type and cover

As detailed in the Torquay/Jan Juc Neighbourhood Character

The vegetation report highlights that there is a greater proportion

The planting of exotic vegetation should not be encouraged over

Dr Green states that:

 Give priority to the education of landowners on environmental weeds and preferred

There is a considerable variation in the age and style of

More recently developed residential areas such as

Despite the variation in existing housing style, Dr Green’s

Under the current controls, only multi-unit dwellings,

The character of central Torquay and parts of Jan Juc

A number of the photos that rated poorly by the

Building Bulk and Articulation

Photos that rated as incompatible with the character in

External Building Colours

Buildings in the Residential 1 Zone across the study

Most single storey housing is located in Central

There is a higher incidence of two storey dwellings in Contemporary two storey

The analysis of community perceptions by Dr Green

Recommendation (Building Form):

Dwellings throughout the study area have a variety of

Building setbacks in central Torquay and central Jan Juc

Side and rear boundary setbacks

As with street setbacks, development on the larger

Dwellings in the newly subdivided areas of Torquay

Make recommendations on the protection of significant vegetation communities or particular

Give priority to the education of landowners on environmental weeds and preferred