Re-zoning Drysdale & Clifton Springs (3)

On Tuesday 20 April at 5.00 p.m. at SpringDale Neighbourhood Centre, DCSCA ran an information session about how Planning Panels work.

The session was for anyone who has submitted their views to the City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) about one or both of its proposed Amendments C103 and C194 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme. CoGG has referred each Amendment to an independent Planning Panel, which held its first public hearing on Wednesday April 14. (See 'Re-zoning Drysdale & Clifton Springs (2)' elsewhere on this blog.)

Anyone who has submitted their views about C103 and/or C194 has a right to present their views to the Planning Panel when it holds its public hearings on May 12-14. However, not everyone is used to presenting their views in public, especially in a formal setting such as a Planning Panel. DCSCA didn't want anyone to forego their right to address the Planning Panel just because they're unfamiliar with the process, so we wrote to each person who'd made a submission, inviting them to attend the information session if they felt that they needed advice or assistance concerning the Planning Panel.

Just five people attended, although one of them had made a submission on behalf of several other people. Each person said that they found the session useful and thanked DCSCA for contacting them and for running the session.

DCSCA hasn't run such a session before and we had no idea of whether anyone would attend - so five was a good number! We will run similar sessions in future to enable and encourage local people to have their say about how they want to live in our towns.

DCSCA meets Cllr. John Doull (2)

On 18 April, DCSCA committee members met Cllr. John Doull at Geelong City Hall. This was the second of a series of quarterly meetings that DCSCA has initiated with the two Councillors with wards in DCSCA's area - the other Councillor is Rod Macdonald, with whom we'll have our second quarterly meeting on 7 May.

'Special charges'
We asked Cllr. Doull whether he supported the principle of levying 'Special Charges' on landowners to pay for infrastructure - for example the landowners in the Central Road area of Clifton Springs, who face bills of thousands of dollars for a drain to service proposed a retirement village (see 'A "Special Charge" for developer's drains' elsewhere on this blog). John Doull sees no alternative, because CoGG is 'catching up' with past developments that included no infrastructure. He said that footpaths increase a property's sale price and will send DCSCA evidence of this. He also said that he and Cllrs. Richards and Farrell have asked CoGG's Engineering Department to examine alternatives to concrete paths (e.g. crushed rock).

Drysdale town centre
Then, we told Cllr. Doull that in January, DCSCA wrote to ask Mr. Paul Jamieson - CoGG Manger, Community Development - for a discussion about CoGG's plans for Drysdale town centre, but had received no reply. Cllr. Doull said that he would ask Paul Jamieson why he hadn't replied.

City of Greater Geelong's consultations policy
Next, we raised DCSCA's proposals for changes in CoGG's consultation policy. We'd raised this with Cllr. Doull before, but received no substantive response. Cllr. Doull said that he was unaware of any complaints about CoGG's consultation policy. In response, we cited local people's dissatisfaction with consultations around, for example, the Drysdale & Clifton Springs Structure Plan, CoGG's plans for Drysdale town centre, Planning Amendments C194 and C103 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme and the proposed 'Special Charge'. Cllr. Doull then said that he has no evidence that CoGG consultations have worked badly in his ward and cited recent successful exercises in Portarlington, St. Leonards and Indented Head.

Retaining open spaces
We then discussed how best to retain existing open spaces - including Beacon point Reserve - as recreation areas. Cllr. Doull said that this was an issue he wants to promote and invited DCSCA to write to him saying that alongside recreational facilities, adults and children need simple open space; that CoGG should be setting aside land for this purpose - preferably linked in 'corridors'; and that CoGG should investigate the feasibility of setting covenants on open space (equivalent to the 'Land For Wildlife' scheme) to identify them and protect them from developers' claims.

Finally, we brought Cllr. Doull up to date on the Drysdale Festival of Glass and told him about DCSCA's information session on Planning Panels (Tuesday 20 April).

Our next quarterly meeting with Cllr. Doull will be on 19 July at 4.00 p.m. at City Hall.

Re-zoning Drysdale & Clifton Springs (5)

On April 14, the Planning Panel appointed to review the City of Greater Geelong's proposal to re-zone parts of Drysdale & Clifton Springs held its first meeting - a 'Directions Hearing' - at Geelong's City Hall.

The Panel consists of Ms. Gaye McKenzie (Chair) and Ms. Sue Porter. Each is an expert on planning issues and has considerable experience of Planning Panels. Anyone associated with, or affected by the re-zoning proposals had been invited to the 'Directions Hearing', which aimed to explain the Panel's purpose, to explain how it will work and to answer any questions.

The City of Greater Geelong's re-zoning proposals take the form of two Amendments - C103 and C194 - to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme. For the background, see earlier articles on this blog: 'Rezoning Drysdale & Clifton Springs', 'Rezoning Drysdale 1', 'Re-zoning Drysdale 2' and Rezoning Drysdale 3'.

It became clear that poor administration by the state government's Department of Planning and Community Development had prevented many people from participating in the Planning Panel process. Several people said that it was only on Tuesday 13 April that they had received a letter from the Department inviting them to attend the 'Directions Hearing' and to submit an application to appear before the Panel when it meets in May. However, the deadline for applications to appear before the Panel was 12 April - the day before they had received their invitations and just four working days after the Department had posted them! This was unreasonable and very unfair, especially on people with no experience of Planning Panel procedures, who may wish to ask advice before deciding what to do.

Fortunately, DCSCA received its letter of invitation on 7 April. We explained the difficulties of the deadline to the Planning Panel Administrator, who told us that applications to appear before the Panel would be accepted until the start of week begining Monday April 19.

The Panel will meet next on May 12-14 at Geelong's City Hall to hear all the proposals for change and the various submissions that they generated. At the 'Directions Hearing', both members of the Panel - especially Ms. McKenzie - worked hard to put people at the ease and to explain technicalities and jargon. This bodes well for how the May hearings will be conducted. At some point during the hearings, the Panel will visit Drysdale & Clifton Springs to inspect the areas that are the subject of the proposed re-zoning. The Panel will invite anyone who has made a submission to accompany them on their visit.

After the Panel hearings in May, the Panel has six weeks to write a report to the city of Greater Geelong, containing its recommendations about each of the two Amendments. Four weeks after the Council receives the report, it will make it available to everyone who made a submission and to the general public.

A 'Special Charge' for developer's drains: DCSCA submission

Today (April 12), DCSCA has made a formal submission to the City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) about its proposal to levy a 'Special Charge' on landowners in the Central Road area of Clifton Springs.

Officially, DCSCA has no 'right' to make such a submission, because it doesn't occupy any land in the area in question and so it wouldn't have to pay a 'Special Charge' if CoGG decides to levy one. However, as we say in our submission, DCSCA is a significant representative voice of the local community and, as such, asks CoGG to acknowledge our views in its discussions about the proposed 'Special Charge'.

DCSCA has had discussions with local landowners likely to be affected by the 'Special Charge', but our submission is not made on their behalf, because they haven't asked us to. However, our submission does include matters of concern which the landowners raised with us, together with other concerns of our own.

In summary, DCSCA is arguing that the 'Special Charge' shouldn't be levied for six reasons:
1. The proposal to levy a 'Special Charge' includes no evidence that the proposed drain will be fit for purpose.
2. The timing of public consultation around the proposed 'Special Charge' has excluded many local voices.
3. The public consultation around the proposed 'Special Charge' has been conducted inappropriately.
4. The proposed 'Special Charge' would threaten the financial security and well-being of local landowners.
5. The Council has provided no evidence that the local infrastructure will accommodate the proposed developments in Central Road.
6. The proposed 'Special Charge' contradicts CoGG's Structure Plan for Drysdale & Clifton Springs.

Please see below for the full text of the submission.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRYSDALE & CLIFTON SPRINGS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION Inc.
(Incorporation No. A0046568H)
Mail: P.O. Box 581, Drysdale, Victoria 3222
E-mail: dryclift@bigpond.com
Blog: http//drycliftdays.blogspot.com/

SUBMISSION to the Engineering Design Unit, City of Greater Geelong, concerning the proposal to levy a 'Special Charge' on the owners of land in the area bounded by Jetty Road, Ada Street, Thomas Street and Central Road in Clifton Springs and Drysdale.

Background and rationale for the submission
The City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) has agreed with Melbourne-based Pinnacle Living to share the estimated $1,492,827 cost of a new main drain for a retirement village in Clifton Springs and expects local landowners to pay most of it. CoGG estimates that the project will cost $1,492,827, but states that the true cost will be unknown until work is completed. At its meeting on 23 February 2010, the Council resolved to declare a 'Special Charge' on local landowners to cover the cost, to invite their comments on this proposal and to decide the matter at its meeting on 8 June 2010 (or at a subsequent meeting).

The Council report proposing this 'Special Charge' makes it clear that it is the result of extensive discussions between the Council and Pinnacle Holdings, which have resulted in a legal agreement between them to divide the cost. Pinnacle Holdings will pay approximately 23% of the cost, the Council will pay the remaining 77% and will then attempt to recover that money from local landowners.

The Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association (DCSCA) does not occupy any land in the target area and would not be required to pay a 'Special Charge' if CoGG decides to levy one. However, DCSCA is a significant representative voice of the Drysdale and Clifton Springs community and, as such, wishes to submit its views on this proposal and asks CoGG to acknowledge them in its deliberations.


The DCSCA submission
The Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association (DCSCA) believes that the City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) should not levy the proposed 'Special Charge' on the owners of land in the area bounded by Jetty Road, Ada Street, Thomas Street and Central Road in Clifton Springs and Drysdale for six reasons, each of which is presented in detail in what follows.

1. The proposal to levy a 'Special Charge' includes no evidence that the proposed drain will be fit for purpose.
DCSCA believes that the proposal to levy the 'Special Charge' is seriously deficient in evidence that the proposed drain would meet the purpose intended for it. We believe that the proposal should not be adopted unless and until the following questions are answered to the satisfaction of all concerned.

• The CoGG report proposing the 'Special Charge' doesn't explain the proposed drain's exact nature and purpose. What will be its size, capacity, depth underground, inlet locations and outfall capacity and locations? How will these factors relate to the number of dwellings that would be created if the retirement village was constructed as currently planned and all the possible subdivision in neighbouring properties occurs?

• If the proposed drain is for stormwater run-off, what arrangements will be put in place to collect, filter and re-use any of this water before it goes to the drain? What percentage of this stormwater runoff will be re-used in this way by the retirement village?

• What will be the nature of the proposed drain's outlet into Griggs Creek? What will be the effect on Griggs Creek - its flow and its banks - of adding this outflow to the new outflows from Stage 1 of the Jetty Road scheme?

• What effects will the drain's construction and the subsequent property development have on traffic in Jetty Road? Already, traffic (including bulky construction vehicles) in Jetty Road will be increased by the development of Stage 1 of the Jetty Road scheme; this increased traffic flow will be increased still further by the proposed retirement village and by the subdivision of neighbouring blocks.

• What risks will the drain's construction and the subsequent property development pose to pedestrians and cyclists - in particular, to students at the nearby Clifton Springs Primary School?


2. The timing of public consultation around the proposed 'Special Charge' has excluded many local voices.
DCSCA believes that the 'Special Charge' should not be levied because the timing of the public consultation around it has excluded many people from expressing their views.
The proposal to levy the 'Special Charge' was advertised - and public comment invited - at a time when most people were either preparing for Easter holidays or taking them. Adverts appeared in the local press on 27 March 2010 and the closing date for submissions is 26 April 2010. This gave local people one month to respond. However, their time to respond is reduced significantly, if they take a week or two annual holiday in that time, as many local people do.

Further, the timing of this public exhibition cannot be seen as just 'unfortunate'. Instead, it is the latest example of a pattern of exhibiting controversial proposals over holiday periods. When CoGG invited public comment on its draft Drysdale & Clifton Springs Structure Plan, it did so at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 - i.e. over the Xmas/New Year holiday period - and was criticised for it in the submissions it received. More recently, when CoGG invited public comment on its proposed Amendments C103 and C194 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, it did so at the end of 2009 and the beginning of 2010 - i.e. over the Xmas/New Year holiday period - and was criticised for it in the submissions it received.


3. The public consultation around the proposed 'Special Charge' has been conducted inappropriately.
DCSCA believes that the 'Special Charge' should not be levied because public consultation around it has been conducted inappropriately.

Landowners targeted by the 'Special Charge' first learnt about it by reading a CoGG notice in the Geelong Advertiser on 27 March 2010. They did not receive an individual, formal letter from CoGG informing them of the proposals and inviting them to comment. This is a major breach of standard procedures.

(Subsequently, the owners of some of the blocks listed in the notice received a letter from CoGG on Tuesday 30 March 2010 telling them that their properties were not, in fact, included in the proposal! What other procedural errors have been made that have not yet emerged?)

In another major breach of standard procedures, the Council has held selective discussions with landowners. The report to Council that accompanied the proposal to levy a 'Special Charge' indicates that consultations have been held prior to the publication of the official notice and that the results were positive:
'Considerable interest has been shown by some of these landowners, to develop (sic).' (p. 107)
'Discussions have been held with some owners.' (p. 109)

The coy language - 'some landowners' - shows that these discussions were selective ('some' landowners were clearly excluded); and that these inappropriate discussions revealed no majority in favour of the proposal - we would surely have read about it if they had!

A further breach of procedures appears to have happened around a prior commitment to local landowners by the Council. Local landowners have said that CoGG wrote to them in 2006 stating that if and when a drain is required, the Council would pay for the works and then levy the developers. It would appear that this decision has not been rescinded formally and so the proposal to levy a 'Special Charge' should not be adopted unless and until this procedural issue is clarified satisfactorily to all concerned.

Finally, DCSCA has received no information from CoGG regarding the proposed 'Special Charge'. While CoGG has no duty to inform a community association of such a proposal, a community association can be a further channel of information for CoGG and association members can 'spread the message' by word of mouth. Inviting DCSCA to act in this way would be a positive response by the CoGG to the continuing criticisms of its public communication and consultation from, e.g., community associations on the Bellarine Peninsula.


4. The proposed 'Special Charge' would threaten the financial security and well-being of local landowners.
DCSCA believes that the 'Special Charge' should not be levied unless and until all the landowners likely to be affected have agreed freely and without any external pressure whatever to accept it.

Many of the landowners likely to be affected by the 'Special Charge' have been settled in their homes for many years - sometimes decades. Many of them live on a pension or other form of fixed income and their major asset is their home. If CoGG adopts the proposed 'Special Charge', many of these landowners will face bills of tens of thousand of dollars which they will simply be unable to pay - even over the 'five years with interest at overdraft rates' that CoGG is offering as a concession! Further, the Council has provided no evidence that the sale of any of the blocks of land will even cover the proposed 'Special Charge', let alone create a profit.

CoGG's rationale for the proposed 'Special Charge' is that building the drain will confer a 'special benefit' to each property, which is that, 'they can be developed by means of further subdivision. This has the potential to provide a financial gain for property owners. As indicated, without the drain, subdivision cannot proceed even if the current zoning is in place.' (Minutes of CoGG meeting 23 February 2010. p. 107)

However, many landowners have stated that as they have no wish to 'develop' their land by subdividing it, the proposed drain will not confer a 'special benefit' on them and they should not have to contribute to the cost of building it. Instead, they believe that as the proposed drain's construction will confer a 'special benefit' on Pinnacle Holdings - the developer of the proposed retirement village - the Pinnacle Holdings should pay for it.

DCSCA accepts that if the proposed drain is built and if the area is rezoned to 'Residential 1', landowners will be able to subdivide and sell parts of their property if they wish; and that they may make a profit by doing so. However, DCSCA believes that it is unjust to force current landowners to contribute to the cost of the drain irrespective of whether they will benefit from it. Instead, we propose that a caveat be added to the deeds of each affected property that states that the proportion of the 'Special Charge' allocated to that property becomes payable (without interest!) by the owner at the time the block is sub-divided. By this means, whoever gains a (currently hypothetical) financial benefit from the drain contributes an appropriate portion of that benefit.


5. The Council has provided no evidence that the local infrastructure will accommodate the proposed developments in Central Road.
DCSCA believes that the 'Special Charge' should not be levied unless and until CoGG can demonstrate convincingly that the local infrastructure will be able to accommodate the developments associated with the proposed 'Special Charge'. DCSCA also believes that Pinnacle Holdings should not receive permission to build its proposed retirement village in Central Road unless and until the Council provides such convincing evidence.

The City of Greater Geelong has produced no evidence that the local infrastructure will be able to accommodate the developments associated with the proposed 'Special Charge'. There is local concern that Jetty Road - under pressure already from Stage 1 of the Jetty Road development - will be unable to accommodate the extra traffic associated with the proposed retirement village and with the subdivision of the neighbouring blocks. Similarly, there is local concern that the water and sewerage infrastructure - laid to service a population density significantly smaller than is envisaged in these proposals - will be unable to cope with the proposed retirement village and with the subdivision of the neighbouring blocks.


6. The proposed 'Special Charge' contradicts CoGG's Structure Plan for Drysdale & Clifton Springs.
DCSCA believes that the 'Special Charge' should not be levied because it contradicts CoGG's Structure Plan for Drysdale & Clifton Springs and so its adoption would render the Structure Plan meaningless.

CoGG's Structure Plan for Drysdale & Clifton Springs states in its 'Introduction' that the Plan will, 'guide Council's consideration of proposed rezonings and applications for planning permits.' (p. 1). In the consultations around the draft Structure Plan, local people were led to believe that their views could influence the development of the area. The Structure Plan contains no mention of a new drain in this area, let alone any mention of a 'Special Charge' being levied on landowners to pay for it. Thus, if CoGG decides to levy the proposed 'Special Charge', it will go against its own Structure Plan, making the consultations look like just a Public Relations exercise.

This is not the first time that CoGG has proposed action in contradiction of its own Structure Plan. Its proposed Amendment C194 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme included a proposal to rezone land in the Springs Street area of Clifton Springs that contradicted a specific recommendation in the Structure Plan.

Landowners to pay for developer's drains?

The City of Greater Geelong has agreed with Melbourne-based Pinnacle Living to share the estimated $1,492,827 cost of a new main drain for a retirement village in Clifton Springs and expects local landowners to pay most of it.

Around thirty local residents met on Wednesday 31 March and stated unanimously that they believed that Pinnacle Living should pay the cost of the drain, as only they would benefit financially from it. The proposed retirement village is in Central Road, Clifton Springs and the new drain will serve an area bounded by Jetty Road, Ada Street, Thomas Street and Central Road in Clifton Springs and Drysdale. Owners of the 39 blocks to be served by the drain face bills depending on their block size, with most of them facing bills of between $3,000 and $256,888.

CoGG estimates that the project will cost $1,492,827, but states that the true cost will be unknown until work is completed. At its meeting on 23 February 2010, the Council resolved to declare a 'Special Charge' on local landowners to cover the cost, to invite their comments on this proposal and to decide the matter at its meeting on 8 June 2010 (or at a subsequent meeting).

Money down whose drains?
Pinnacle Living have applied to the Council for permission to build a retirement village on their property at 101 Central Road, but have been told that this would require a new main drain to be built. Subsequently, the Council has rezoned some of the properties in the surrounding area to 'R1' (high density residential) and says that the remainder are 'in the process of being rezoned' to R1. This rezoning - together with the new drain - will enable land owners in the area to subdivide their land and sell it if they wish. Without the drain, subdivision can't occur, even if the land has been rezoned.

The Council's justification for levying a 'Special Charge' is that each landowner in the area served by the drain could profit from selling their land. However, the Council has provided no evidence that the sale of any of the blocks of land will even cover the proposed 'Special Charge', let alone create a profit and anyway, many landowners have stated that they have no wish to sell-off part or all of their land. Further, many local residents facing a 'Special Charge' of tens of thousands of dollars will simply be unable to pay it and are nervously awaiting the consequences.

Are ratepayers furthering developers' interests?
The Council report proposing this 'Special Charge' makes it clear that it is the result of extensive discussions between the Council and Pinnacle Holdings which have resulted in a legal agreement between them to divide the cost. Pinnacle Holdings will pay approximately 23% of the cost, the Council will pay the remaining 77% and will then attempt to recover that money from local landowners.

These extensive discussions have involved ratepayer-funded CoGG resources (officers’ time and expertise) being made available to Pinnacle to further its interests. In contrast, local people are left to deal with the outcome - the 'Special Charge' - and with the daunting bureaucracy of the Council by and for themselves, with no ratepayer-funded resources at their disposal.

The Council's relationship with Pinnacle in this matter is very similar to its relationship with another Melbourne-based property developer with interests in Drysdale & Clifton Springs - Urban Land Development (ULD). The Geelong Independent reported recently (26 March 2010) that ULD had had 'a substantial amount of dialogue' with Council officers about the wording of a proposed Planning Amendment that would rezone ULD land near Drysdale's Murradoc Road. ULD Director Ross Closter told the Independent, 'Council worked with us to make sure we addressed any problems. It was important we understood the requirements, so we've been consulting with the council on all the key issues.' The significance here is that Council resources were made available to ULD, but no equivalent resources were made available to local people who either support or object to the proposed Planning Amendment. Further, the fact that Council resources have gone into ULD's application casts doubt on the Council's ability to take an objective and unbiased decision on that Amendment.

What next?
Property owners in the Central Road area who will be subject to the proposed 'Special Charge' have until 5 pm on Monday 26 April 2010 to support or object to it in writing to the City of Greater Geelong, Engineering Design Unit, PO Box 104, Geelong, Vic 3220.

People who will not be affected directly, but who wish to support local landowners who are objecting to the proposal should write to their local Councillor and send a copy to CoGG's Engineering design unit at the above address.