Can 47 people be wrong about a service station?

-->

The City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) has granted Caltex franchisee Milemaker Petroleum planning permission to build the service station in a Rural Living zone of Drysdale, despite having received 47 objections from local people.

The objections to the proposal are summarised below. They fall into four broad categories: environmental, aesthetic, economic and democratic.

1. Environmental objections

The site of the proposed service station is the junction of Jetty Road and High Street, Drysdale. This junction is the only route into and out of the north of the Bellarine Peninsula and regularly sees traffic jams that frustrate motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. A service station at this site will increase traffic congestion, increasing travel times, wasting fuel, increasing air pollution and heightening the risk to cyclists and pedestrians.

Any service station poses significant risks to its environs, because it stores large volumes of fuels and other chemicals, Spillage or leaks from tankers, leaks from storage tanks and spillage from customers will be washed into the storm water system, threatening the underground water system, the nearby Lake Lorne and the permanent spring just across Jetty Road (and downhill) from the site.

Finally, the proposed service station will be open 24 hours a day, filling the area around it with light and noise at levels normally associated  with the centre of a city, not the entrance to a rural town.

2. Aesthetic objections

The proposed service station would severely compromise the rural ambience of the approach to Drysdale and Clifton Springs. This ambience exists because areas close to the town centre - including the site of the proposed service station - are Rural Living zones. These zones allow homes in a rural environment and are meant to protect and enhance the area’s natural resources, biodiversity and landscape and heritage.

Siting a service station in a Rural Living Zone would threaten local 'green space', already under threat from massive new housing estates approved already by the council, contradicting its own Structure Plan for Drysdale and Clifton Springs, which requires the towns’ rural ambience to be maintained.

Council officers told people who objected to this industrial use of a Rural Living zone that a service station is a 'discretionary' development in a Rural Living Zone. Consequently, objections that the proposal would be inappropriate were simply wrong in legal terms.

However, subsequent to approving the Service Station, the council rejected a planning permit for a Child Care Centre in Jetty Road on the grounds that it was inappropriate in a Rural Living Zone and inconsistent with the Drysdale Clifton Springs Structure Plan! In this case, the council agreed with the 15 submissions objecting to the proposal; yet it approved the service station proposal despite 47 objections to it!

3. Economic objections

Objectors were concerned that Milemaker's proposed service station would be just a few hundred metres from the two existing ones; and that an application is likely for a service station at the Woolworths-led shopping centre in the new Curlewis estate, bringing the local total to four.

Objectors were concerned that an over-supply of service stations in the area could reduce profitability for all of them or even force one out of business. Either result would be bad for the local economy; and closure would bring all the environmental problems associated with ‘decommissioning’ a service station.

In reply, council officers said that economic considerations such as these were irrelevant to decisions on applications for planning permits – which perhaps helps to explain the current state of central Geelong’s economy!

4. Democratic objections

The council’s handling of this application has been inept in three ways. First, it gave people a shorter time (17 days) to comment than it took to process the application (22 days). Secondly, CoGG invited public comment at a time when a lot of local people were away on holiday and, therefore, unable to comment. Finally, the council displayed two A4 notices about the proposal on the property itself, but access to them was virtually impossible for many people, including those with prams/pushchairs and anyone with limited mobility.

Despite all those problems, 47 people made submissions to the council about the proposal. All of them opposed it, saying clearly that the community does not want a Service Station at that location.

For years, community associations (including those on the Bellarine) and individuals have criticised the council’s ‘consultations’ and proposed improvements, but with no effect.

Locals petition against proposed Drysdale service station

The Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association (DCSCA) has launched a petition calling on the City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) to reverse its recent decision to allow a Caltex service station in a Drysdale Rural Living Zone.

CoGG is supporting Caltex franchisee Milemaker Petroleum's proposal to build a service station at the junction of Drysdale High Street and Jetty Road.

In response, DCSCA members and supporters have asked the Victorian Civil and Administrative tribunal (VCAT) to review CoGG's support for the proposal; and they have launched a petition against the proposed service station. The petition reads as follows:

Service station at the Jetty Road roundabout? No thanks!

We the undersigned request the City of Greater Geelong to cancel permit 1565/2013.

We believe: -

• There has been inadequate community consultation in the Planning Process.
• It is inappropriate in a Rural Living Zone and inconsistent with the Drysdale Clifton Springs Structure Plan.
• It will increase traffic congestion in an already congested area, cause major traffic safety issues and greatly increase the danger to cyclists.
• It will cause significant environmental issues: underground fuel storage tanks inevitably cause long-term issues and toxins could enter the underground water system and pollute the nearby bodies of water.
• It will severely compromise the rural amenity of the approach into the Drysdale Clifton Springs Township.
• Should a service station be required, it should be located in a commercial area.

 Name
Address/email
Signed

The petition will be submitted by the Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association Secretary, Mr. Neil McGuinness, e-mail mcgni@bigpond.com

Community concerns ignored
The council's support for the service station ignores widespread concerns in the community and contradicts the council's own Structure Plan for Drysdale & Clifton Springs; and many in the local community are angry at the council's high-handed approach to this issue.*

Indeed, CoGG's consultations around the proposal have been so poor that many local people learnt of the proposal only after CoGG had declared its support for it and granted a planning permit.**

DCSCA Secretary Neil McGuinness said, "Lake Lorne, McLeod's Waterholes and green spaces  all contribute to our townships' distinctive rural ambience; and the thoughtful location of shops and services have maintained its village atmosphere. All of this is well worth preserving - as the council's Structure Plan for the area emphasises.

"Locals would be very distressed, he said, "if the horses that currently occupy the site of the proposed service station were replaced by a hazardous eyesore surrounded by dangerous, congested traffic."


* See "Council dismisses environmental and economic objection to service station" (13 March 2014); and "Council rebuffs service station objectors" (17 April 2014) on this blog.
** See "Council restricts public comment on proposed new service station in Drysdale" (29 January 2014) on this blog.

Meet the Bellarine candidates on November 12

In the lead up to the State Elections, there will be a  “Meet the Bellarine Candidates” public meeting on Wednesday November 12th. 7pm at SpringDale Neighbourhood Centre. 17-21 High Street Drysdale Vic 3222.

Lisa Neville (Labor), Ron Nelson (Liberal) and Brenton Peake (Greens) have each said that they will attend.

Everyone is invited to attend and ask questions.

Meet the Bellarine candidates - an initiative of the Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association (DCSCA).

On the one hand .... and on the other

In recent months, the City of Greater Geelong has handled local planning issues so inconsistently that Drysdale residents are beginning to doubt the council's even-handedness.

The council has followed local opinion concerning proposals to build a Coles supermarket and a child care centre, but defied large-scale local opposition to a proposed service station.

At its meeting on 21 October, the council considered an application to build a Coles supermarket in Murradoc Road, Drysdale and agreed to ask state Planning Minister Matthew Guy to appoint an independent Panning Panel to decide the issue. The officers' report on the application broadly supported it and said that local support for the application showed its merit. (The council had received nine submissions supporting the application and four opposing it.)

On 16 October, the council's Development Hearings Panel had followed local people in rejecting an application to build a 103-place child care centre in Jetty Road, Drysdale. The site of the proposed centre is in a Rural Living zone, which aims to conserve an area's landscape, natural resources and heritage. Local opinion - expressed in fifteen individual submissions and a petition - was that the proposed child care centre was a major commercial development quite inappropriate in a Rural Living zone; and the Panel agreed.

Defying local opinion
In stark contrast to those two decisions, the council's Development Hearings Panel had decided to defy local opinion and accept an application to build a second Caltex service station in High Street, Drysdale. The application is among the most unpopular in recent years, generating 47 objections on environmental, social, economic and amenity grounds.

The Drysdale and Clifton Springs Community Association (DCSCA) was among the objectors and the Panel accepted the application without addressing the many questions of environmental impacts, health and safety that DCSCA - and other objectors had raised. Since the Panel's decision, DCSCA has continued to raise these questions with council officers, but have received no answers of any substance.

DCSCA Secretary Neil McGuinness said, "We can't understand why the service station application was accepted despite generating 47 objections on 26 different issues, including significant traffic safety issues and the presence of hazardous and carcinogenic materials. DCSCA is yet to be assured that the council is taking these issues seriously."

Objectors unite against proposed child care centre

-->

Over a dozen residents objecting to a proposed 103-place child care centre in Jetty Road, Drysdale met the developer today at a meeting convened by the City of Greater Geelong Strategic Planning Department.

The proposed centre would be on land just south of Jetty Road’s junction with Cowies Road.

Objectors argued that the proposed centre would be an inappropriate use of the land, which is zoned Rural Living and features medium-sized blocks, several with some hobby farming activity.

They added that the proposal contravenes the City of Greater Geelong’s own policy that Rural Living zones should be ‘green buffers’ between towns and their rural surrounds.

The objectors also argued that the proposal would introduce still more traffic into Cowies Road, a ‘country lane’ under pressure already from motorists using it to avoid the traffic lights in Jetty Road.

Further, objectors pointed out that while the proposed centre’s opening hours would be 6.30am to 6.30pm, it would in fact be operating for more than fourteen hours a day including time for setting-up and receiving deliveries in the morning and cleaning in the evenings. Therefore, they asked that independent reports be commissioned on the likely noise and light ‘pollution’ from the facility.

Many of the objectors had objected to the 2005 application to build a child care centre on the property, which had been rejected by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. They said that nothing about the application had changed and couldn’t see why they should have to go through the whole process once again.

Other objectors were unable to attend the meeting, which was held at 4.00pm in the council’s Brougham Street offices, and as they couldn’t take time off from their jobs.

The council has received no letters supporting the proposed centre.

The next step in the process is that Elena Politidis - the council officer in charge of the application - will recommend that the council should either accept or reject it. Her recommendation will then be judged by a Development Hearings Panel of senior council officers.

Letters of support or objection can be submitted to the council until a final decision is taken.

Conjuring up permission

-->

 

-->Proponents of a 103-place child care centre in Jetty Road, Drysdale have resorted to some heavy-handed conjuring tricks to show that the centre would be appropriate in a Rural Living zone.*

The proposed childcare centre would be on the eastern side of Jetty Road, just south of its junction with Cowies Road. The proponents attempt to conjure up a 'locality' that includes both the west and the east of Jetty Road; and then assert that the development of new housing estates on the western side of Jetty Road makes a centre on the eastern sside compatible with the current character of the locality:

“The locality has changed significantly since the VCAT decision of 2005 and the general area is now earmarked for, and in the process of residential development and subdivision.” (05.3)

“ ... the locality is one in which residential development and subdivision is now occurring.” (05.14)

“ ... the locality is being developed as a suburban residential locality.” (05.25)

“ ... a location which is a significant developing and growing residential precinct.” (07.1)

That attempted conjuring trick doesn’t alter the fact that ‘The general area’ has two quite distinct parts: to the west is the Residential 1 zone of the Jetty Road Growth Area; to the east is a Rural Living zone, in which the site of the proposed centre is located. CoGG’s decision as to whether to permit the proposed centre to be built must be based on the planning zone it is in, not on the zone it abuts (across Jetty Road).

In a second conjuring trick, the proponents argue that while CoGG’s Structure Plan for Drysdale and Clifton Springs aims to retain the “rural character” of the site of the proposed centre, together with land to its south, “it does not specifically suggest the retention of the Rural Living zone” (05.9). That’s true, but the proponents fail to show that the proposed 878m² building (which they describe as, “a sensitive response ... that is respectful of the surrounding area” [07.2]) would be at all “Rural” in character and would, therefore, retain the site’s rural character.

As if to recognize the weakness of those two tricks, the proponents pull this rabbit from their hat:  Rural Living zones may be rezoned as residential anyway – with the heavy implication that decisions on their current use should be made on the basis of some unknown future status:

“ ... it is not inconceivable that, upon a further review of the structure plan, land zoned rural living and contained within the settlement boundary would ultimately convert to a residential zone.” (05.10)

Well yes ... but it is also "not inconceivable" that land zoned Rural Living (such as that in which the site of the proposed centre is located) ‘would ultimately convert’ to ‘Light Industrial’ or ‘Rural’!

-->

What happened to rural living?

The proponents' conjuring tricks to show that the proposed child care centre is compatible with the area’s zoning as Rural Living raise the question: what sorts of development are a) appropriate and b) inappropriate in a Rural Living zone?

Rural Living zones permit low-density housing, with the aim of protecting and enhancing the area’s natural resources and biodiversity, together with its landscape and heritage values. The zones are ‘green spaces’, often forming a buffer between a town and its rural surroundings.

On the face of it, such a major commercial venture as a 103-place child care centre is obviously incompatible with the character and aims of a Rural Living zone. However, the regulations defining these zones contain a crucial loophole. While certain types of development within them are prohibited (e.g. nightclub, office, cinema, amusement parlour), others can occur at the discretion of the local council.

The proponents argue that their proposal falls within the council’s discretion, as follows:

“03.1 The land is within a Rural Living zone as designated by the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.

03.4 A child care centre is a section 2, permit required use in the zone (clause 35.03-1)

03.5 It is noted that as a child care centre is NOT a prohibited use in the zone the planning scheme must, by inference, anticipate that the use would be able to be located in the zone in certain circumstances.

03.6 It would be wrong to treat the proposal as though it were a prohibited use.”

The crucial phrase there is “in certain circumstances”. The circumstances of this application are that people in Drysdale value the area’s Rural Living zones, want to retain their rural character and regard large scale commercial developments within them as inappropriate. This is evident in the numerous objections to Milemaker Petroleum’s current application for planning permission to build a Caltex service station in a Rural Living zone, near the Jetty Road / Portarlington Road roundabout. Most objectors to Milemaker’s application said that a service station would be inappropriate in a Rural Living zone and would be inconsistent with CoGG’s Structure Plan for Drysdale, which aims to retain the town's "rural character". Further, at a public meeting in Drysdale on 30 April, around seventy local people rejected the proposed service station unanimously as inappropriate in a Rural Living zone.

An objective judgement?

Citizens have a right to expect CoGG to be even-handed in exercising its discretion over what is and is not permitted in a Rural Living zone. CoGG’s the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme (2011) has this to say about the site of the proposed child care centre: "Maintain rural residential character" (Greater Geelong Planning Scheme 21 14-10 ‘Drysdale Clifton Springs Structure Plan map’). A 103-place child care centre is neither "rural" nor "residential'. On the face of it, then, the proposal conflicts with the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.

However, the draft Drysdale Clifton Springs Structure Plan (2009) contained this telling remark, revealing that the council was biassed against Rural Living zones:

"Rural Living land is an inefficient use of land and is most often a constraint to future residential growth opportunities." (p. 10).

People in Drysdale can’t know whether that bias against Rural Living zones persists in CoGG today. Given its documented existence in the past, however, if a decision on this application is to seen as even-handed, objective and professional, it must do two things explicitly:

a) reject that bias against Rural Living zones explicitly

b) acknowledge - explicitly - that local people value the area’s Rural Living zones and want to retain them.

* For more details on the application, see "Proposed child care centre in Drysdale challenges council's planning policies" on this blog ( 20 May 2014.

Proposed child care centre in Drysdale challenges council’s planning policies

Poligot p/l has applied to the City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) for planning permission to build a 103-place child care centre at 219-223 Jetty Road, just south of its junction with Cowies Road.

The centre would have places for up to 103 children at any one time. It would operate 6.30am – 6.30pm Monday to Friday and would close on statutory public holidays. The centre building would occupy 878 square metres and there would also be parking space for 34 vehicles, accessible only from Cowies Road.

The proposal is open for public comment until 27 May, but it's likely that CoGG will accept submissions until the day that it decides on the application. For more information, contact Elena Politidis in CoGG's Planning department: 03 5272 4474  statplanning@gelongcity.vic.gov.au. The proposal can be viewed either at the CoGG website or at these CoGG customer service centres: 

100 Brougham Street - Ground floor - 100 Brougham Street, Geelong 3220 (8.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday) 

18-20 Hancock Street, Drysdale, 3222 (9.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday)

If at first you don’t succeed ...

This is the second time that Poligot has sought planning permission for this project. Its 2004 application was rejected in 2005 by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) because it was concerned about the area’s future.

The current application asserts that the development of new housing estates on the western side of Jetty Road makes the proposed childcare centre compatible with the current character of the area, even though the site of the proposed centre is in a Rural Living zone.

Poligot’s application refers to VCAT’s 2005 decision as follows:

‘The Tribunal, at that time, determined that the application was premature and was concerned about the general future of the locality. In the meantime, land in the surrounding area, to the west of Jetty Road, has been rezoned and is in the process of development for residential purposes ... (and so) ... it cannot be argued that the proposal is not compatible with nearby uses also permitted in the Rural Living zone.’

What happened to rural living?

Poligot’s proposal for a child care centre in a Rural Living zone is almost concurrent with Milemaker Petroleum’s proposal to build a Caltex service station in the same Rural Living zone, near the Jetty Road / Portarlington Road roundabout*. Both proposals raise the same question: what sorts of development are a) appropriate and b) inappropriate in a Rural Living zone?

Rural Living zones permit low density housing, with the aim of protecting and enhancing the area’s natural resources and biodiversity, together with its landscape and heritage values. The zones are ‘green spaces’, often forming a buffer between a town and its rural surroundings.

Most local people who lodged formal objections to the proposed Caltex service station on the grounds that it would be inappropriate in a Rural Living zone and would be inconsistent with CoGG’s Structure Plan for Drysdale, which aims to retain the town's 'rural character'. Further, at a public meeting in Drysdale on 30 April, around seventy local people rejected the proposed service station unanimously as inappropriate in a Rural Living zone.

On the face of it, such major commercial ventures as a service station and a 103-place child care centre are obviously incompatible with the character and aims of a Rural; Living zone. However, the regulations defining these zones contain a crucial loophole. While certain types of development within them are prohibited (e.g. nightclub, office, cinema, amusement parlour), others can occur at the discretion of the local council. Poligot and Milemaker Petroleum each argue in their application that their proposal falls within the council’s discretion.

Poligit argues as follows:

‘03.1 The land is within a Rural Living zone as designated by the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.

03.4 A child care centre is a section 2, permit required use in the zone (clause 35.03-1)

03.5 It is noted that as a child care centre is NOT a prohibited use in the zone the planning scheme must, by inference, anticipate that the use would be able to be located in the zone in certain circumstances.

03.6 It would be wrong to treat the proposal as though it were a prohibited use.’

Will the council be even-handed in exercising its discretion? It’s worth remembering two things:

1. The council’s Drysdale Clifton Springs Structure Plan (2011) designates the site of the proposed child care centre as ‘Maintain rural residential character’ (Greater Geelong Planning Scheme 21 14-10 ‘Drysdale Clifton Springs Structure Plan map’)

BUT ...

2. The draft Drysdale Clifton Springs Structure Plan (2009) contained this telling remark: ‘Rural Living land is an inefficient use of land and is most often a constraint to future residential growth opportunities.' (p. 10).

In summary: CoGG has the discretion to accept or reject Poligot’s application to build a 103-place child care centre in a Rural Living zone, just as it has the discretion to accept or reject Milemaker Petroleum’s application to build a Caltex service station centre in the same Rural Living zone. In each case, acceptance would be contrary to the council’s long-stated policies for the area’s future, raising serious doubt about the value of long-term planning and, indeed, of the council’s Planning Department.

(Poligot p/l operates in Geelong West and describes its activities as ‘architecture, planning and advocacy’.)

* For more information, see previous articles on this blog:

‘Council rebuffs service station objectors’ (17 April 2014)

‘In whose interest: Caltex or community?’ (16 April 2014)

‘Exercising “discretion” - who benefits?’ (17 March 2014)

‘Council dismisses environmental and economic objections to service station’ (13 March 2014)

‘Service station proposal challenges planning laws and practices’ (30 January 2014)

There's been movement on the bypass!

There's been movement on the bypass, for the word has got around .... at last!

In its annual budget, released today, the Victorian State Government has allocated $500,000 to a 'Drysdale bypass - road network planning study'.

The Treasurer announced that, '$3.6m has been allocated in 2014/15 for planning, project development and the preparation of business cases for (road projects including) the Drysdale bypass'; and Budget Paper 3 allocates $500,000 to 'Drysdale bypass - road network planning study' and says "A planning study for the Drysdale Road Network will be undertaken including a business case to investigate and recommend suitable options to deal with the problems of traffic delays and the impact on the urban environment within the township of Drysdale."

Note that the government is talking about 'the Drysdale Road Network', not necessarily a bypass. Last year's budget announced studies into a new rail network for the Bellarine ... but we've heard nothing more and attempts to gain in formation from the Transport Minister have resulted in silence.Watch that space.

Who'll take the lead on local traffic?

-->

On 30 April, seventy people attended a public meeting at the SpringDale Neighbourhood Centre in Drysdale about 'local traffic management'.

Local traffic management is a continuing cause of local concern and it generated lively discussion at the meeting, much of it concerning Jetty Road (including the proposed service station at the roundabout) and the Drysdale bypass. The meeting also discussed the long-awaited Regional Sports Precinct and the contentious issue of local ward boundaries and representation.

The meeting was the latest in a regular three-monthly series of Public Meetings on community issues organised by the Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association (DCSCA).

Taking the lead on traffic

People at the meeting felt strongly that the City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) should address community concerns about traffic in Drysdale. At the very least, it should conduct a scoping study into traffic congestion in Drysdale, but it shows no sign of doing one. Consequently, in January 2014, DCSCA submitted a proposal for such a scoping study as part of the CoGG’s Community Concepts scheme. CoGG is due to respond in mid-May.

People also felt that Drysdale’s traffic problems are part of traffic management on the Bellarine Peninsula as a whole, so VicRoads should consult all the local communities about its plans.

Jetty Road

Jetty Road is the sole exit for traffic from western Drysdale and Clifton Springs; and now it has to also carry traffic from the new housing estates in the Jetty Road Growth Area. The consequent increase in traffic is starting to overload the road already; and this overloading will be made worse by the decision to block off Coryule Road part-way through the estate. CoGG planners are out of touch with the area’s traffic management needs, as shown by the Coryule Road decision and their failure to give a starting date for a new road from Portarlington Road into and out of the estates. DCSCA will lobby local councillors, VicRoads and relevant CoGG officers to keep Coryule Road open to through traffic.

People at the meeting disapproved strongly of the proposal to install traffic lights where the Rail Trail crosses Jetty Road. There was agreement that while the crossing should be made safe, traffic lights are unwarranted. The community has not requested these lights and it was felt that the money would be much better spent on issues that it has requested. For example, as many people on the Rail Trail cross Princess Street as cross Jetty Road and the train crossing in Princess Street needs lights and a boom gate. Nearby residents have seen some very close calls and fear that the increasing frequency of the local train service makes a fatal accident more likely. It was agreed unanimously that DCSCA should try to stop the proposed traffic lights, including lobbying local councillors, VicRoads and relevant CoGG officers.

Jetty Road – the proposed Caltex service station

There was unanimous opposition to this proposal and DCSCA was applauded for trying to stop the council approving it. People argued that the service station would increase traffic congestion at the roundabout still further. They also complained that the council’s consultation process was so inadequate that most people were unaware of the proposal. For example, the signs on the property were barely legible from the road; only adjacent residents were informed, although the proposal affects everyone; the consultation period was too short; and consultation was in a holiday period when many people couldn’t comment because they couldn’t know anything about it.

The council’s Development Hearings Panel has received 17 written responses so far to the proposal – all of them opposing it. The Panel dismissed objectors’ many concerns and questions as either ‘irrelevant’ or ‘wrong’. The Panel has deferred its decision on the application until the applicant has conducted appropriate studies of the service station’s likely lighting and noise impacts on local residents - items that it should have included in its original application.

DCSCA will send a copy of a standard letter objecting to the proposed service station to its e-mail contacts, encouraging them to send a version of the letter to the council while there’s still time to stop the approval. In the meantime, DCSCA members are listing risks that the Panel appears not to have considered, such as the service station’s Jetty Road entry/exit, the danger to cyclists, the proximity to the Jetty Road roundabout and the danger of run-off into the Jetty Road spring and into Lake Lorne.

Drysdale bypass

People at the meeting felt that if VicRoads had attended, they could have heard for themselves the community’s concerns and its ideas about the best design and location for the bypass. Further, VicRoads could explain how they take their decision as to what sort of bypass should be built and when.

Lisa Neville (state MP for Bellarine) attended the meeting and said that the bypass could cost around $60m, but VicRoads would have to do a lot of traffic modelling before it decides on a starting date. For example, it would need to ensure that the proposed bypass – now forty years old - is still the best solution to traffic congestion in Drysdale. She added that VicRoads had promised in December 2013 to produce a Victorian Integrated Traffic Model that would include the Drysdale bypass, but the report hasn’t been released. She has asked the Roads Minister several times to release the report, with no response. Ron Nelson (Liberal candidate for Bellarine and CoGG councillor for Deakin ward), who also attended, offered to become involved. DCSCA will distribute all its available information to local councillors, VicRoads and relevant CoGG officers; and will ask each of them to lobby the state government to release the Victorian Integrated Traffic Model immediately.

 

Village Walk

DCSCA will ask CoGG to ask the owners of Village Walk to remove the new roadside barriers (½ metre out from each kerb), as they effectively reduce vehicles’ room to turn by 1 metre.

 

Regional Sports Precinct

The 2011 Masterplan for the Regional Sports Precinct in Grubb Road was updated recently. In the process, the cost of the Precinct increased by several million dollars. Paul Rawson (Bellarine Soccer Club), Ross Deeath (Drysdale Football Club), Rob Malcolm (Drysdale Cricket Club) and Matt Green (DCSCA) have formed a steering group to lobby all levels of government for work on the Sports Precinct to begin immediately; and for the Precinct Masterplan to be amended to include a swimming pool. The steering group has said that the Precinct should be in this year’s state budget and, if it isn’t, that it will inevitably become a local issue in the state elections in November.

Electoral boundaries

Parts of Clifton Springs and Drysdale are in different council wards from each other. The community can ask the Victorian Electoral Commission to consider Drysdale/Clifton Springs as a “Community of Interest” that should be declared a ward in its own right, with its own councillor.

This led to further discussion about CoGG’s failure to fund and support the Bellarine Peninsula adequately. One response to this failure would be to recreate the Bellarine Shire Council, which was made part of the then-new City of Greater Geelong in the 1993 council amalgamations. The idea was applauded warmly, but it was agreed that more work must be done to make it a practicable proposal.

Where next?

DCSCA officers said that they will continue to negotiate with state politicians, local councillors, VicRoads and relevant CoGG officers over the issues raised at the Public Meeting; and will arrange a further Public Meeting with them about these issues. It will aim to hold such a meeting as soon as possible and to publicise it around our towns.

It was felt that meetings such as this are often the only times that residents get to talk to their local councillor/s. The meeting felt that DCSCA should hold Public Meetings every 3 months with the local councilors in attendance so that councilors can inform local people of latest developments affecting them and listen to their views.

As well as Lisa Neville and Ron Nelson, DCSCA had also invited local councillors Lindsay Ellis (who couldn’t attend) and Rod MacDonald (who didn’t reply), VicRoads and McHarry’s bus company. William Tieppo (VicRoads) couldn’t attend but has agreed to meet the DCSCA Committee; and David Doig (McHarry’s) couldn’t attend, but had met three members of the DCSCA committee earlier that day.

Council rebuffs service station objectors

Last night, objectors to a planning application heard that they were lucky to get a hearing.

A City of Greater Geelong Development Hearings Panel deferred its decision on an application by Caltex franchisee Milemaker Petroleum to build a third service station in Drysdsale.

The original Caltex application had skipped over basic issues such as safety, pollution and congestion. A council planning officer had effectively rewritten the application, spending considerable time and expertise adding 6 pages of amendments and conditions to make it more likely to be accepted. Nonetheless, the Panel judged the application incomplete, as it said nothing about the effects on neighbouring households of the increased noise and light that a service station open 24 hours a day would generate.
 

Objectors at the Panel argued that the officer’s rewritten application still left many risks of congestion and pollution unresolved and asked whether and how they would be addressed in the interim. Panel chairperson Melissa Garrett replied, ‘We don’t have to hold these Panels at all, you know. They’re not in the legislation. It’s something that Geelong council has decided to do.’

Depend on the developers

Panel member John Bryce, from the council’s Infrastructure Management department, told the objectors that they needn’t worry about increased traffic congestion in Jetty Road, because a new North-South road in the adjacent Development area would take some traffic off Jetty Road. When asked when the new road would be built, Mr. Bryce said, ‘I don’t know. You can’t know. It depends on the developers.’

That phrase ‘It depends on the developers’ puts the council’s philosophy about the urbanisation of the Bellarine Peninsula in a nutshell. If all the council can do is depend on the developers, Mr. Bryce’s Infrastructure Management department seems unnecessary. Indeed, if all the council can do is depend on the developers, it might as well close its whole Planning Department.

Tests for light and noise
The next stage in this saga is that Milemaker will arrange to have tests done to establish the likely noise and light effects of a 24-hour service station at this location; and the results of those tests will be examined by council experts. The Development Hearings Panel will then reconsider the Caltex application, but hasn't decided when, leaving objectors unable to plan for the event.

In whose interest – Caltex or community?

A City of Greater Geelong planning officer has effectively re-written a firm's application for planning permission to make it more acceptable.

The application came from Caltex franchisee Milemaker Petroleum, which wishes to build and run a service station near the junction of Jetty Road and Portarlington Road, Drysdsale.

The council officer dealing with the application effectively rewrote it, spending considerable time and expertise to add 6 pages of amendments and conditions to make the application more acceptable. Objectors to the application were not offered such time and expertise.

Whose comments count?

As part of rewriting the application, the officer asked four council departments to comment on the application. The Officer’s Report adopts all their comments. Then the public was asked to comment. At least sixteen local people objected to the application; no-one supported it. The objections were diverse and many were raised by several objectors.

There were many detailed technical objections, showing that the application was an inadequate, superficial document. Basic issues such as safety, pollution and congestion were just skipped over, even though the application came from a firm that operates many service stations already. The officer addressed some technical objections in rewriting the application, while dismissing other objectors’ concerns as wrong or irrelevant.

Re-zoning by stealth

Many objectors had argued that a service station would be inappropriate in a Rural Living Zone, inconsistent with a variety of planning laws and regulations and an eyesore at the town’s entrance. In response, the Officer’s Report (p36) argues that Rural Living Zone qualities at the site in question are largely compromised by its proximity to a busy intersection - and that this is also true of neighbouring properties.

This is rezoning by stealth. Either the site is in a Rural Living Zone or it isn’t. No such dissembling marked the council’s response to a recent application by a local resident to rezone nearby land from Rural Residential to Residential. The council told him firmly that it didn’t want to lose the rural environment. The recent history of development in the area shows that had this applicant been a property speculator or an oil company, he would have received a more favourable response.

Diverse objections dismissed

Other objectors said that the proposed service station would pose risks of fire, traffic accidents and pollution; that these risks, together with the lights and noise from the service station would destroy local amenity (especially if it opens 24 hours/day), inevitably reducing neighbouring property values. Objectors refuted the need for a third service station in Drysdale, especially one just a few hundred metres from the existing ones; and asked why there was no consideration of how the planned Drysdale bypass would affect the junction.

Finally, objectors said that the council had managed public consultation on the application so badly as to prevent many people from commenting on it. This charge was compounded when the council released the 38-page Officer’s Report on 14 April - just two days before a council Development Hearings Panel is due to decide on the application. This gave objectors – including those at work - very little time to respond to this lengthy and complex document.

A clash of interests

This application highlights a clash of interests. On one side is the narrow commercial interest of a multinational oil company – Caltex; on the other side is a local community alarmed by yet another threat to its green space, its character and its values. The decision on whether to locate a service station in a Rural Living Zone is 'discretionary', so the council's Development Hearings Panel can use its discretion to support one side or the other of that clash of interests. Which will it be - Caltex or community?

'Community Concepts' - Festival of Glass submission

The Festival of Glass committee has submitted a proposal to the City of Greater Geelong's 'Community Concepts' programme.

The City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) initiated the programme in December 2013, when it invited individuals, groups and organisations in the Greater Geelong area to submit proposals for capital works, to be considered for inclusion in the council's 2014 - 2015 budget. Submissions opened in December and closed on January 17 2014.

The Festival of Glass committee is a sub-committee of the Drysdale and Clifton Springs Community Association Inc., which initiated the Festival of Glass in 2011. Our submission is below.


-->Name of project: ‘Bridging Our Heritage: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow’
Brief description of the project

This sixteen month mural project will create two glass-based public art exhibits in Drysdale. The project is a partnership between the Festival of Glass, the Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association (which launched the Festival in 2011) and Bellarine Secondary College, advised by Wathaurong Aboriginal Co-op and Bellarine Historical Society; and it reinforces Drysdale’s growing national and international reputation for glass-related art, craft and industry. The first exhibit will be a free-standing, ceramic and glass ‘Welcome to Drysdale’ sign on the ‘Village Green’. This will give the mural team the knowledge and experience to create a major ceramic and glass mural with the theme, ‘Bridging Our Heritage: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow’.

In practical terms, separate glass/ceramic strands (‘Yesterday’) will be braided together (‘Today’) and then unwound again (‘Tomorrow’). This shows that our ever-changing community includes not only its various groups, associations, schools and businesses but also the continuing presence of Wathaurong people and culture and the continuing effects of European arrival (including the significance of Anne Drysdale and of the mineral springs at Clifton Springs). The braid of ‘Today’ unwinds again into the disparate hopes and dreams of the community and especially of its diverse young people - our ‘Tomorrow’.

Objectives of the project

This project’s objectives support the council’s priorities as follows:

‘Community well being’.

·      To connect different sections of the local community (e.g. clubs, schools, community associations, volunteer groups) in a creative project that enhances the well being and quality of life of the whole community.

‘Growing our economy’.

·      To support existing local businesses by making Drysdale a more vibrant, attractive and distinctive destination for residents and visitors.

·      To promote innovation in the local economy by encouraging the establishment of new, glass-related businesses. This will complement the success that the Festival of Glass has had already in promoting such new businesses.

·      To promote Drysdale – and the Bellarine Peninsula more broadly – as a centre of glass-related art, craft and industry, making it more attractive to artists, craftspeople and companies. This complements the Festival’s forthcoming Glass Trail, which aims to encourage and promote new and existing glass-related businesses in the region.

Street address and suburb: ‘Village Green’ and Hancock Street, Drysdale.

Council ward: Cheetham 

Estimate of total project cost: $14,200 (Phase One: $2,100; Phase Two: $12,100)

Details of community group’s contribution (if any)

The Festival’s mural team will:

·      oversee the design and execution of each phase of the project, including co-ordinating practical, ‘hands on’ participation in each phase by local individuals, groups, societies, schools, etc.

·      seek appropriate permissions from landholders

·      obtain local funding to support council funding. (The team has local pledges of $1,200 already for Phase One.)

Previous project funding

This mural project has received no funding. However, the Festival of Glass has received council funding in each of its four years.

Ongoing maintenance requirements (if any).

The sign and the mural will each be built of resilient materials – glass, ceramics and steel – that will require minimal maintenance.