Interest grows in 'rogue bridge'

The City of Greater Geelong's (CoGG) decision to allow an 'unlimited load' bridge to be built from Bayshore Avenue into the northern end of the Jetty Road Urban Growth Area is attracting growing opposition and media interest.

Residents argue that an 'unlimited load' bridge would take a heavy toll on their way of life, on their safety and on their fragile natural environment and cultural heritage. A decision of this sort of significance would normally be subject to public scrutiny through the formal planning process, but local people heard about this 'rogue bridge' only once the council had decided to allow it. 864 residents have signed a petition to state Planning Minister Matthew Guy, calling on him to intervene in the issue.

Media interest in 'rogue bridge' grows
The likely effects of CoGG's extraordinary decision on local people has caught the interest of the local media:

• August 10. The Geelong Advertiser published an article by local resident John Boland - a 'leading light' in the opposition - outlining the case against the bridge ('Jetty Road a bridge too far').
  
• August 12. The Independent ran a story ('Bridge bypass to Guy's office') based on an interview with John Boland.
• August 23. The Bellarine Times published a letter from Gary Dean - another 'leading light' in the opposition.
• August 25. The Echo published an article about the issue ('Springs bridge fears'), plus another letter from Gary Dean.

Plans are afoot for further coverage. The Independent plans to feature the rogue bridge in its next edition (26 August); and the Bellarine Times plans to feature it in its next edition (30 August).

DCSCA supporting local people
Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association (DCSCA) is supporting local residents' opposition to this 'rogue bridge', pointing out that its construction would contradict CoGG's earlier assurances to local people - given via the formal planning process - that a bridge here will have minimal impact on their lives. (see 'A troubling bridge over local waters' on this blog, August 19 2011). DCSCA has sent individual letters to Richard Marles (federal MP), David Koch and Lisa Neville (state MPs), Matthew Guy (state Planning Minister), Jeanette Powell (state Local Government Minister), John Mitchell (Mayor, Geelong) and Rod Macdonald (local councillor, Cheetham Ward). Each letter explains why DCSCA is supporting the residents and invites the addressee to lend their support, too.

What next?
Clearly, this issue won't go away. The only thing in doubt is just when the council will sit down with local people, hear their concerns about the rogue bridge and say what it will do to allay their fears. Until that time, local opposition and media interest both look set to increase.

(Illustration - local residents gather at the site of the proposed bridge over Griggs Creek.)

A troubling bridge over local waters

The City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) proposes to allow an 'unlimited load' bridge to be built from Bayshore Avenue across Griggs Creek, allowing heavy construction machines to travel along narrow suburban streets into the northern end of the Jetty Road Urban Growth Area.

Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association is supporting local residents' opposition to the bridge, arguing that it would take a heavy toll on their way of life, on their safety and security and on their fragile environment and cultural heritage. DCSCA also believes that the proposal should be abandoned because it contradicts CoGG's earlier assurances to local people - via the formal planning process - that a bridge here will have minimal impact on their lives.

Changing the rules
A proposal for a road bridge from Bayshore Avenue over Griggs Creek featured in CoGG's 2008 Structure Plan for Drysdale & Clifton Springs and was repeated in CoGG's 2010 Masterplan for the Jetty Road Urban Growth Area. The proposal has generated significant, consistent and growing opposition by local residents:
o in early 2008, 244 local residents signed a petition to CoGG opposing it
o in 2009, local residents repeated their opposition in a written submission concerning the then-proposed (subsequently adopted) Amendment C152 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme
o in June 2011, 864 local residents signed a petition to state Minister for Planning Matthew Guy opposing the bridge.

Despite residents' significant and growing opposition, CoGG decided recently (Development Hearing Panel, 7 July 2011) to change the status of the proposed bridge from 'local/minor' to 'unlimited load', so that the bridge can carry heavy construction machines into the northern end of the Jetty Road Urban Growth Area. While the original proposal for a bridge was developed through the formal, legal planning process (public exhibition, call for comment, etc.), CoGG's recent decision to change the status of the proposed bridge was not subject to public scrutiny in the planning process, even though it will increase the bridge’s impact on local people and on their physical and cultural environment.

Solving a problem that shouldn't have arisen
Enabling heavy construction machines to use the bridge to get access to the northern end of the Jetty Road Urban Growth Area is a solution to a problem that should never have arisen. The Jetty Road Urban Growth Area Masterplan includes no route along which heavy construction machinery can access the northern part of the development. A 'major collector road' is planned to run north from the Geelong-Portarlington road, then to turn east to meet Jetty Road at the junction with Wyndham Street. That east turn is approximately halfway along the development's north-south axis, yet no further major road to the northern part of the development is planned. Rather than accept that its bad planning has created this extraordinary situation and extend the major collector road northwards, CoGG is trying to make local residents pay for its mistake.

Creating needless risks
Allowing the northern part of the Growth Area to be developed on the basis of just one access road poses major safety risks. In the event of an accident, fire or crime, emergency and police vehicles will have only one point of access - the bridge - to the whole northern area, increasing their response times significantly. If the bridge is unusable for some reason, those response times and associated risks will increase further.

The proposed 'unlimited load' bridge will pose significant risks to local people's safety and security. Bayshore Avenue - like the roads surrounding it - is a narrow residential street with no footpaths and is barely wide enough to accommodate two cars passing each other. The roads were never intended to carry anything other than local residential traffic, yet CoGG has stated that it expects the proposed bridge to carry up to 3,000 vehicles a day. CoGG has stated that it will minimise and discourage use of the bridge, but it hasn’t said how. Bizarrely, the council is proposing a bridge and saying that it will discourage its use!

The proposed 'unlimited load' bridge will pose needless risks to the cultural heritage of the immediate area. In the last year, residents have watched as various aboriginal artefacts - including several clay 'heat balls' - were discovered in the area of the proposed bridge. It is unclear whether other artefacts remain in the area - if the bridge is built, we'll never know.

Finally, the 'unlimited load' bridge will threaten a particularly vulnerable environment. Local people have seen land slips at the nearby coastal cliff and in the banks of Griggs Creek and they report that the passage of heavy vehicles creates vibrations that can be felt underfoot. Nonetheless, CoGG is happy for enormous excavators, rollers and bulldozers to rumble across this already unstable land.

Busting 'urban dams'

DCSCA members and friends in Ryan Court, Drysdale, have been assured by the City of Greater Geelong that it will fill-in a two feet deep unfenced hole that it excavated at the bottom of their road.

CoGG created this 'Bio-retention Basin' to filter impurities from storm water running down the sloping street from a nearby housing estate. As rainwater filled what is effectively an urban dam and oil slicks and detergent foam covered its surface, Ryan Court residents sought DCSCA's help to convince the council to fill-in this folly and restore the area.

Council officers told the residents that the council had sent them a letter in 2010, telling them that the dam would be created. No-one received such a letter. Had they been asked, residents could have pointed out that young children live near the dam, which is in the middle of a well-used local shortcut across a creek.

Council officers have now told residents that the council will fill-in the hole and restore the area, but won't say when. They have told DCSCA that they have asked 'engineering consultants' to prepare a 'plan' for the work, on which residents will be invited to comment. The work will start at some subsequent indeterminate date. (The work presumably entails blocking the pipe feeding the dam, filling-in the hole and replanting the surface.)

The continuing flooding of this ‘urban dam’ poses a continuing hazard to local people. DCSCA has asked council officers what steps they will take to combat this hazard until the work is completed. We await their response.

DCSCA meets Cr. Rod Macdonald (7)

On 5 August, DCSCA Committee members met Councillor Rod Macdonald in Princess Street, Drysdale. This was the sixth of the quarterly meetings that DCSCA has initiated with the two City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) Councillors whose wards coincide with DCSCA's area - the other is Councillor John Doull, whom we met on 4 August at City Hall.

New DCSCA Committee 2011-2012
First, we told Cr. Doull that DCSCA had held its annual General Meeting on July 20, at which a new Committee was elected and told him the members of the 2011-2012 Committee. (To see the membership of the 2011-2012 DCSCA Committee, go to 'DCSCA's 2011 Annual General Meeting' on this blog, 25 July 2011.)

The 'Central Walk' development
Local residents have expressed concern to DCSCA about aspects of this development, for which advertising/promotion materials have recently started to appear in the local papers.* Residents are concerned about Central Walk because:

• it contradicts CoGG's Structure Plan for Drysdale & Clifton Springs and the design guidelines of the state government's Urban Growth Authority (For more on this, see 'Hullo Central Walk, goodbye Structure Plan' on this blog, 14 July 2011.)
• the advertising/promotion materials make it appear that the whole area is being developed as a single estate by a single developer, whereas ownership of the is split between several landowners. One of those landowners (Urban Land Developments) is driving the development, even though it doesn't own significant portions of the land involved
• the development will include the demolition of the properties at 27 Princess Street, which features many long-established trees that provide homes for a variety of native birds and animals. The Bellarine Catchment Network and Landcare are among local groups to have expressed an interest in turning the property into a community facility including, e.g., a nursery and community garden.
  

DCSCA has suggested that 27 Princess Street is declared part of the 'public open space' that is a required element of the Central Walk development; and that an equivalent parcel of the land currently designated as 'public open space' be released for development - in effect, a land swap. Cr. Macdonald said that he would discuss the proposal with CoGG's strategic planners, but cautioned that CoGG has formally approved the development as proposed - including the demolition of 27 Princess Street. Consequently, a formal application will have to be made (by the developer?) for the proposal to be varied to allow the land swap - and this could be an expensive business.

DCSCA is also concerned about the maintenance of the development's open space - especially its proposed 'wetlands'. Cr. Macdonald said that developers are responsible for maintaining open spaces in a development until two years after their creation, after which the council assumes responsibility.

Local economic development
We asked whether the council would extend the ‘Industrial’ zone in Murradoc Road so that it joined the site of the planned Drysdale bypass. Cr. Macdonald replied that the council would examine such a proposal only if it was part of a larger proposal concerning the zoning of that area of Drysdale; and only if someone applied for such a rezoning. (N.B. An area can be considered for rezoning and subsequent development only if at least 70% of the owners of the area request it. However, such support isn’t required for ‘infill’ development, i.e. a proposal that rezones and develops an area in line with the areas surrounding it.)

CoGG's 'bio-retention basins' (aka 'urban dams')
We referred to the recent fiasco at Ryan Court around one of these 'basins', when local residents asked DCSCA to support them in their dealings with the Council. We told Cr. Macdonald that we supported his intervention in the issue, which resulted in a decision to fill-in the dam. (For more information about Ryan Court, see 'Who you gonna call? Dam busters!' on this blog, 1 August 2011.)

However, we suggested that the episode raised council-wide issues. The 'basin' in Ryan Court was created to deal with the increased stormwater run-off from a nearby new housing estate and equivalent 'basins' are going to be associated with other new housing estates, such as those in Jetty Road and the Central Walk estate off Murradoc Road. Events at Ryan Court showed a) that the design of these devices is faulty and b) that council officers cannot specify how effective these devices are in filtering pollutants - their ostensible purpose. While supporting Cr. Macdonald's intervention in the issue, we suggested that its successful outcome cast doubt on whether the use of these dams had been thought-through sufficiently; and suggested that the council should think about the 'urban dam' in Ryan Court before deciding to create another elsewhere.

Ward boundaries Finally, we asked Cr. Macdonald where exactly the northern boundary is between Cheetham Ward (Cr. Macdonald) and Coryule Ward (Cr. Doull); he'd brought a detailed map showing that the boundary is the western side of an imaginary extension northwards of Jetty Road.

DCSCA's next quarterly meeting with Cr. Macdonald will be on Friday 4 November 2011 at 10.30 a.m. Any residents of the Drysdale/Clifton Springs area are welcome to ask DCSCA to raise any issue of concern with Cr. Macdonald.

* 'Central Walk' is the result of the passage last year of Amendment C103 to the City of Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, which rezoned the land bounded by Murradoc Road, Princess Street, Woodville Street and Clarendon Road in Drysdale and gave approval for a housing estate to be built there.

DCSCA meets Cllr. John Doull (6)

On 4 August, DCSCA Committee members met Councillor John Doull at City Hall. This was the sixth of the quarterly meetings that DCSCA has initiated with the two City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) Councillors whose wards coincide with DCSCA's area - the other is Councillor Rod Macdonald, whom we met on 5 August.

New DCSCA Committee 2011-2012
First, we told Cr. Doull that DCSCA had held its annual General Meeting on July 20, at which a new Committee was elected and told him the members of the 2011-2012 Committee. (To see the membership of the 2011-2012 DCSCA Committee, go to 'DCSCA's 2011 Annual General Meeting' on this blog, 25 July 2011.)

Beacon Point Reserve Masterplan
Continuing our discusion about the proposed Beacon Point Reserve at our last meeting (see 'DCSCA meets Cr. John Doull [5]' on this blog, 12 May 2011), Cr. Doull said that the Masterplan for the development of this reserve will be completed by December 2011, so that a bid can be made for funds in CoGG’s 2011-2012 budget to implement it. Cr. Doull said that he regards the Reserve as a new community facility for Clifton Springs, to balance the development of such facilities in Drysdale. He reiterated his view that the Reserve should be essentially an open space with minimal ‘infrastructure’ (e.g., a toilet block, a barbeque area) and perhaps a discrete ‘artistic/sculptural’ presence.

The DCSCA representatives welcomed the news that the Masterplan will be completed by December 2011 and that there will be a bid for funds to implement it in the 2012-2013 budget year. We reiterated our support for Cr. Doull’s ideas for the Reserve, because they coincide with two DCSCA programs: the Open Spaces Network and Streetscape to Artscape.*

We raised the proposed Bellarine Lookout and Cr.Doull said that $20,000 is available to fund the next stage of this development, which will build on the consultation meeting held in July. These funds must be spent in this budget year, or they’ll be lost, so the next stage is likely to be completed by the end of 2011.

CoGG's 'bio-retention basins' (aka 'urban dams')
We suggested that while the recent fiasco at Ryan Court around these so-called 'basins' isn't Cr. Doull's responsibility directly (Ryan Court is in Cr. Macdonald's ward), events at Ryan Court raised council-wide issues around environmental protection, which is Cr. Doull's council portfolio. (For more information about Ryan Court, see 'Who you gonna call? Dam busters!' on this blog, 1 August 2011.)

The 'basin' in Ryan Court was created to deal with the increased stormwater run-off from a nearby new housing estate and equivalent 'basins' are going to be associated with other new housing estates, such as those in Jetty Road and the Central Walk estate off Murradoc Road. Events at Ryan Court showed a) that the design of these devices is faulty and b) that council officers cannot specify how effective these devices are in filtering pollutants - their ostensible purpose.

Cr. Doull said that he would investigate the issue with Gary van Driel (CoGG’s Manager, City Services) and Rod Thomas (CoGG’s Manager, Environment and Natural Resources and head of the council’s environmental unit).

Staying with environmental issues, we said that while the council has invited expressions of interest for the Community Reference Group associated with Future Proofing Geelong - its plan for a low-carbon local economy - it hasn't published any selection criteria for membership of this group. Cr. Doull confirmed that there are no published selection criteria for members of the Community Reference Group, but is confident that the selection process will be fair and open.

DCSCA's next quarterly meeting with Cr. Doull will be on Thursday 3 November 2011 at 10.30 a.m. at City Hall. Any residents of the Drysdale/Clifton Springs area are welcome to ask DCSCA to raise any issue of concern with Cr. Doull.

* The Open Spaces Network consists of a series of open spaces in Drysdale & Clifton Springs, protected from development, linked by cycling/walking trails and each with its own ‘Friends’ group. (For recent developments, see 'Bike wheels or hamster wheel?' on this blog, 5 August 2011.) Streetscape to Artscape is a joint project (with SpringDale Neighbourhood Centre) to create artworks in public places in Drysdale & Clifton Springs, each one reflecting local people’s memories of our area and hopes for its future.

Bike wheels or hamster wheel?

On Tuesday 2 August 2011, DCSCA officers discussed a proposed Northern Cycling Trail in Drysdale with Jake McMinn, co-ordinator of the City of Greater Geelong's Cycle Strategy (2008).

DCSCA's Neil McGuinness explained that the Northern Cycling Trail is part of DCSCAs Open Spaces Network program, which aims to create a network of open spaces in Drysdale and Clifton Springs, each with its own 'Friends' group and all connected by connected by a network of cycling/walking trails. (See 'Don't fence me in!' on this blog November 26 2010)

Neil also explained that DCSCA is taking its proposals to the Affiliation of Bellarine Community Associations (ABCA), which represents all nine communities on the Bellarine, with the ultimate aim of creating a Bellarine-wide integrated network of cycling/walking trails, with each town having its own 'loops', such as Drysdale's Northern Cycling Trail.

CoGG's Cycle Strategy Jake McMinn explained that CoGG's Cycle Strategy is the responsibility of the council's Sports and Recreation department and that it aims to create a mixture of bike lanes on roads (owned by CoGG or VicRoads) and off-road trails, mostly on council or government land. CoGG's Cycle Strategy is part of a broader regional approach to cycling, although this concentrates on off-road trails.

CoGG's Sports and Recreation department has allocated limited funds to cycling issues, so officers try to 'leverage' their limited funds. For example:
o Sports and Recreation sometimes pays all the costs of creating a bike lane and sometimes shares the costs with CoGG's Engineering Services department (which physically creates the bike lanes)
o Sports and Recreation is paying for the 'green treatments' (currently marking-out bike lanes in especially hazardous places in Central Geelong) as 'demonstration projects' and asking Engineering Services to create more at equivalent locations across Geelong
o Some projects - while part of CoGG's Cycle Strategy - are on roads owned by VicRoads, so CoGG looks to VicRoads to implement them.

CoGG's Cycle Strategy lists projects according to where they sit in five priority bands. DCSCA officers noted that of the twenty projects in the top priority band, fourteen are in Central Geelong, while the remaining six are spread across all of Geelong's outer areas (such as Drysdale & Clifton Springs!). Jake McMinn explained that this is because many Central Geelong projects create longer bike lanes/trails by linking two or more separate ones.

Thus, cycling - like economic development and tourism - is another instance of disparity between the resources allocated to Central Geelong and those allocated to 'outlying' areas, enriching the centre at the expense of the periphery. Having said that, one of the six top priority cycling projects in 'outlying' areas is to create bike lanes in Drysdale's Jetty Road, so that's comforting.

'All aboard the hamster wheel!'
It was a good meeting and DCSCA officers felt that the Northern Cycle trail at least has a foot on the hamster wheel of CoGG's policy-making! Jake McMinn will investigate whether plans for the proposed Drysdale bypass include bike lanes and let us know. Meanwhile DCSCA will re-work its current proposal for a Northern Cycling Trail as a series of elements, rank each one according to its priority and submit the result to CoGG.

Who you gonna call? Dam busters!

One morning in early March 2011, residents of Ryan Court, Drysdale found contractors digging a large hole at the bottom of their sloping road, immediately outside the last house in the street. They were told that it was to be a 'Bio-retention Basin', which was intended to filter impurities from the storm water running down their street.

This was the first that the residents had heard of this decision. As the residents watched this two-foot deep 'Basin' (effectively, a storm water dam) fill with rainwater that failed to drain away as promised, they tried to discover more about it from the City of Greater Geelong. Council officers gave them the runaround and said that the council had sent a letter to all the residents in 2010 informing them of the decision to create the dam. No-one received such a letter.

The residents asked DCSCA for assistance. as a result, a meeting was held on site between Cr. Rod Macdonald, Mr. David Hannah (CoGG's Manager, Engineering Services), Ryan Court residents and DCSCA's Doug Carson and Patrick Hughes. At the meeting, Mr. Hannah said that the pipe feeding the dam would be turned off within the week, allowing council engineers to examine it.

Subsequent to that meeting, DCSCA wrote to David Hannah on 22 July 2011(copies to Cr. Rod Macdonald and Ryan Court residents), summarising what had been discussed. The following is an extract of that letter:

1. Role of the dam
You said that the dam has been built in accordance with CoGG's requirement that the rainwater run-off from the new estate at the top of the road should be no greater after the development than it was before. This requirement is imposed on every proposed development. CoGG officers assess the plans for each proposed development to ensure that it will not increase rainwater run off and, if the plans show that it won't, CoGG approves the development. CoGG doesn't examine each completed development to ensure that the run off is, indeed, no more than it was previously. Instead, it relies on its engineers' professional assessment of the plans.

Our response.
As you explained this policy, it became clear that the construction of the dam in Ryan Court was part of the proposal to build the new housing estate. CoGG gave planning approval for this estate some time ago, so it is hard to understand why the residents of Ryan Court were given no opportunity to comment on the dam until the morning that contractors arrived to construct it.

Further, the residents have noticed an increase in the rainwater run-off in their street since the estate was built and this, together with the fact that CoGG has built the dam to 'process' that run-off indicates that the run off from the estate has increased and is being off-loaded to Ryan Court, rather than being dealt with in the estate itself. The residents of Ryan Court are suffering the effects of the new, CoGG-approved housing estate, while enjoying no material or financial benefit from it. We would like to see the plans for the new estate that CoGG engineers approved, to see whether they include the dam in Ryan Court.

2. Purpose of the dam
You said that the purpose of the dam is to improve the quality of the water running off the new estate at the top of the road by filtering out 'phosphates' and 'nitrogen'; and that the filters in dams like this are cleaned-out every eight years (approximately). However, you were unable to say by how much the dam will improve the quality of the water issuing from it.

Further, residents said that there have been oil slicks and detergent foam on the surface of the water in the dam (they have photographs of this) and you were unable to state whether the dam's filtering system can deal with such pollutants. Nor could you say whether such pollutants affect the ability of the filtering system to deal effectively with the 'phosphates' and 'nitrogen' it is designed to neutralise. Finally, the residents pointed out that the water going through the dam into the creek at the bottom of Ryan Court is just a fraction of the total amount of water that flows through the creek, which is fed by the run-off from Murradoc Hill. Also, as you said, the water going through the dam is just a fraction of the total water flow down Ryan Court, most of which flows through a separate drain pipe.

It is reasonable to ask whether an unknown measure of improvement to the quality of an unknown (small) fraction of the total flow of water justifies the distress and disruption that has been caused to the local residents.


3. Safety and health issues with the dam
You said that there is no requirement to erect fencing around the dam because the angle of its banks conforms to the relevant standard.

Our response.
As you heard, parents are worried that the lack of any fencing around the dam means that children may slip on the banks, injure themselves or even drown. (Children in the local area have been used to playing in the area now occupied by the dam, because it used to be a little park, including trees planted by CoGG.) As you also heard, the dam disrupts an informal short cut across the creek that has traditionally been used by local people - especially local young people. The lack of any fencing means that people using this short cut - especially in poor light - may also slip on the banks, injure themselves or even drown.
Finally, while this wasn't discussed at the meeting, you will be aware that areas of stagnant water - such as this dam - can harbour vectors of various diseases, yet CoGG appears to have taken no measures to prevent this happening.

In a separate development, Ryan Court residents and Doug Carson each received a phone call from Cr. Macdonald saying that the dam would be filled-in and that the council would send a letter to that effect to residents by the end of the week! On Thursday 28 July, Ryan Court residents received a phone call saying that the letter had been posted and that they should receive it either the next day or the following Monday (1 August).

Watch this space!