DCSCA suggests community communication strategy to Geelong Administrators

Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association (DCSCA) has sent a draft Community Communication policy to the Administrators of the City of Greater Geelong (CoGG).

One of the Administrators' tasks is to design a Community Communication Strategy and the DCSCA Committee has sent the Administrators a draft Community Communication Strategy that was adopted in April 2010 by the Affiliation of Bellarine Community Associations (ABCA).

The draft Strategy was produced because for years, community associations on the Bellarine Peninsula – individually and through the collective forum of the ABCA - had levelled detailed criticisms at the City of Greater Geelong over its handling of public consultation. In 2010, the ABCA decided to go beyond criticism and to propose ways to improve the council's communications with its citizens. It submitted a draft consultation policy to the council, intending that it would be the first step in a joint effort to improve the council's consultations.

The council didn't even show the ABCA the courtesy of acknowledging receipt of the document, let alone respond substantively to it. 

The DCSCA Committee has told the CoGG Administrators that the ABCA draft Strategy reflected community attitudes to community communication at the time and that it will assist them to design a contemporary community communication strategy.
 When ABCA submitted its draft Strategy to the council, it accompanied it with a covering letter summarising the draft Strategy; this appears below.

ABCA draft Community Communication Strategy. Covering Letter.

The Affiliation of Bellarine Community Associations believes that the City of Greater Geelong's public communication and consultation practices could be better than they are now; and that improving them would contribute to building a vigorous local democracy. We are keen to contribute to that process and, in that spirit, we make the following two proposals:

1. The City of Greater Geelong should develop a set of protocols concerning its communication and consultation with communities and other stakeholders; and should list specific communication and consultation targets that should be met before any proposal or report is presented to a Council meeting.

2. Each proposal or report presented to a Council meeting should include a section - ‘Communication & Consultation’ - in which the authors show that they have:

(i) communicated with and consulted relevant communities and other stakeholders in accordance with the Council’s communication and consultation protocols

(ii) met the specific targets associated with those protocols.

Such protocols and targets will enable councillors to see whether and to what extent their officers have communicated and consulted with stakeholders in the manner that the Council has decided they should; and they will enable stakeholders to see whether and to what extent their views have been taken into account in a Council proposal or report.

At present, some reports and proposals to Council list and/or summarise the results of consultations, but this practice isn’t consistent. Implementing our two proposals will give continuity and consistency to the Council’s relationships with its stakeholders.

These proposals require no new spending and this alone should commend them to councillors! Indeed, we believe that making the Council’s public communication and consultation consistent with published protocols and targets will streamline officers’ work, instill new stakeholder confidence in the process and provide tangible evidence that the City of Greater Geelong listens to its constituents and wants to promote local democracy. The outcome will be that the Council's public communication and consultation will be easier and quicker (and potentially less expensive) to perform.

Could "Greening my Geelong" mean destroying threatened species?

The City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) is currently considering an application to destroy a roadside run of native trees that includes members of a threatened species.

The trees are on the eastern side of Grubb Road opposite the Ocean Grove Nature Reserve and the application to destroy them is associated with the construction of the new Kingston estate.

More information about the proposal is available from Ms Bree Lord, Statutory Planning Department, City of Greater Geelong (statplanning@geelongcity.vic.gov.au).

Opposition online
The application has aroused widespread opposition, including an online petition (via change.org) asking Geelong council to retain the trees in Grubb Road. Organisers of the petition hope to gather 1,000 signatures and by 18 August 2016 have gathered 812.

The petition is titled, "Geelong City Council: Stop developers tearing down native trees in Ocean Grove". You can read more and sign the petition here:
https://www.change.org/p/geelong-city-council-stop-developers-tearing-down-native-trees-in-ocean-grove?recruiter=586100525&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=share_email_responsive

Opposition in person
If you wish to comment on the proposal, you might like to use DCSCA's objection (see below) as a starting point for your own. Indeed, you might like to just copy DCSCA's objection and submit it under your own name, although personal touches always strengthen objections. If you submit an objection, could you please send a copy to DCSCA (dryclift@bigpond.com), so that we can keep a count.

DCSCA's position

The Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association Inc. (DCSCA) objects to this application which, if granted, would lead to the destruction of a significant number of native trees on the eastern side of Grubb Road. Our reasons for objecting are presented below.

1.         Loss of general amenity. Destroying these trees will completely change the character of this entrance to Ocean Grove. The trees are covered by a Significant Vegetation Overlay, because they form a striking entrance to Ocean Grove, enhancing the town’s character and attractiveness and screening an industrial area; destroying these trees would reduce the area from an attractive, semi-rural vista to just another suburban streetscape. However, if the trees were retained, they would actively contribute to the general amenity of the new housing estate.

2.         Loss of amenity at the Ocean Grove Nature Reserve (OGNR). Destroying these trees will isolate the OGNR as an island of indigenous vegetation; and the large car park, together with the road itself, will form a large asphalted zone near the OGNR. This will seriously reduce the amenity of the eastern section of the OGNR, replacing the current view of paddocks and roadside vegetation with a bleak view of a car park. However, if the trees were retained, they would actively improve the area, breaking up and ‘softening’ the view from the OGNR to the new housing estate.

3.         Reduction in environmental health. Geelong council promotes itself with the slogan “Greening my Geelong”, but is considering an application to destroy examples of a threatened species! Many of the trees are Bellarine Yellow Gums (E. leucoxylon ssp bellarinensis), which is listed as a threatened species; and the other large trees are Swamp Gums (E. ovata). Both contribute to the environmental health of the area by providing habitats for many species of birds, invertebrates and small reptiles. These trees effectively act as ‘spillovers’ from the Ocean Grove Nature Reserve, extending its effects without extending its boundaries.

4.         Inadequate justification. The applicant argues that destroying the trees will make way for extra access points onto Grubb Road, as well as the main intersection between Grubb Road and Coastal Boulevard; but gives no clear reasons for creating these extra access points. The aim of destroying all the trees on the eastern side of Grubb Road appears to be to enable the Kingston Estate shopping centre to be built before Grubb Road is widened. However, there is no urgent need for shops to service the estate, given its proximity to the large shopping centre of Ocean Grove.

5.         Undermining the council’s Revised Ocean Grove Structure Plan. At the very least, a decision on the proposed destruction of the trees in Grubb Road should be deferred until after an appropriate urban design/landscape study, informed by community consultation, is undertaken. We agree with the conclusions of a report published in July 2016 by the City of Greater Geelong’s Planning Panel (Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C346 Ocean Grove Structure Plan and Town Centre Urban Design Framework):

·      An urban design or landscape study, involving consultation with all stakeholders, is required to determine an appropriate treatment for the entry of the town, integration with the new Grubb Road activity centre as well as the rural interfaces.

·      · Community consultation should identify safety and traffic concerns to be addressed in the planning and design phase of the road project.

 

DCSCA drafts a strategy for landfill advisory group

DCSCA is a member of a Community Consultation Group created by the City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) to advise it on the management of the Drysdale Landfill site (aka 'the tip'!).

CoGG launched the group at a public meeting in Drysdale on 7 June 2016 and DCSCA intends to be an active member. To that end, it has drafted a Waste Management Strategy, which it intends to present at the Group's next meeting in August.
DCSCA's draft strategy follows.

1.      Aims

Operations at the Drysdale Landfill site should accord with the Barwon Region Waste Management Plan, which should aim to provide the Barwon Region with a best practice Waste Management Plan meeting community expectations; and to promote sustainable built and natural environments.

The Barwon Region Waste Management Plan should meet its aims through four inter-related strategies: minimise the waste dumped at landfill sites; minimise the cost and maximise the convenience of dumping waste at landfill sites; minimise the social, environmental and health-related dangers of illegal dumping of waste; recycle as much as possible of the waste dumped at landfill sites.

Each of those four strategies should have a measurable target and success in meeting each target should be published each year, to promote continuous improvement. E.g.: 70% of customers ‘Satisfied’ or ‘Very Satisfied’ with waste disposal in the region; 10% of litter, odour and run-off from the site.

DCSCA Questions. 1. Does the Barwon Region Waste Management Plan and the Drysdale Landfill site each have its own Objectives Statement? If so .... 2. Can the Consultative Group propose amendments to either Objectives Statement?

2.      Specific objectives

Operations at the Drysdale Landfill site should meet the following objectives:

2.1 Reduce waste. Set annual targets and publishing the results. E. g. phase out single use plastic bottles and plastic bags; teach people a) to reduce the waste they generate and b) to dispose of it selectively into the yellow, green and purple bins; encourage manufacturers a) to reduce their packaging and b) to make their products more easily disposable.

2.2 Re-use waste. Set annual targets and publish the results. E. g. increase the efficiency of material separation and recycling at recycling and waste disposal centres; create a clean site for waste disposal within a 20 mt. drive of each resident of the Barwon Region.

2.3 Recycle waste. Set annual targets and publish the results. E. g. encourage shops to have bins for returning packaging (e.g. bottles, boxes) to manufacturers. Institute an annual award for best performing shop; encourage manufacturers to use the trucks that collect and deliver their goods to shops to carry returned packaging (especially packaging that combines plastic, cardboard and foam) on their return journeys. Institute an annual award for best performing manufacturer. (The manufacturers create the waste, councils and private recycling companies shouldn’t have to clear it up.)

2.4 Generate income from waste to offset costs. Set annual targets and publish the results. E. g. recover precious metals from computers and mobile phones and sell as ‘raw materials’ to local industry to promote the local economy; separate metal, plastic, rubber, paper/cardboard (others?) and sell as 'raw materials' to local industry to promote the local economy; generate power with gases 'harvested' from waste and through high temperature incineration of toxic material; generate wood chips and mulch from 'green waste' and sell to the public.
2.5 Treat waste more efficiently and effectively. Set annual targets and publish the results.

2.6 Dispose of waste more efficiently and effectively. Set annual targets and publish the results. E.g. make disposal easier through providing bins dedicated to product types (e.g., batteries, scrap metal, computers/phones, furniture, beds & bedding); dispose of asbestos separately from general waste; seal it in non-permeable material and burry it in marked sites, to minimise health risks. (At present, asbestos waste is mixed-in with general waste at the tip face.); dispose of paint, chemicals, etc. separately from general waste, to minimise a) health risks and b) illegal dumping.

2.7 Work towards ‘Zero Waste’. Publish progress each year.

DCSCA Questions. 1. What can be done to reduce the cost of a trip to the tip? Illegal dumping is increasing in the Barwon Region, largely due to the high cost and difficulty of a trip to the tip. This could entail a 2 hour round trip, an outlay of over $60, a difficult reversing manoeuver with a trailer and unloading potentially hazardous objects from a trailer. It could also result in a muddy car and trailer.

2. Why is there a charge to dump green waste? Other councils make no charge for green waste. Why does CoGG charge to dump green waste AND mulch and sell it? (A ‘double dip’ at the tip!)

Geelong administrators encourage community engagement

-->

DCSCA members heard the three administrators of the Greater Geelong City Council outline their ambitions at a community engagement meeting the administrators ran at Parks Hall, Portarlington on 20 July at 5.30pm.

Geelong City Hall

The administrators are acting as the Greater Geelong City Council, which the Victorian government dismissed on 16 April 2016, appointing Yehudi Blacher as interim administrator. The three administrators are Dr. Kathy Alexander (chairperson), Peter Dorling and Laurinda Gardner. They were appointed on 25 May 2016 and will run the council until elections are held in 2017 for a new council. At this meeting, they were accompanied by six senior council officers.

Administrators’ responsibilities

Dr. Alexander outlined the administrators’ responsibilities as follows:

1. To create a ‘citizens jury’ through which the community can have its say on how the City of Greater Geelong should be governed; to report quarterly to the Minister for Local Government on progress and on issues of concern; and to recommend actions to the Minister.

2. To create a thirty year Vision and Strategy for the municipality.

3. To recommend how the City of Greater Geelong should be governed from 2017. The administrators want to involve all parties and interests in these decisions, so they will seek comment from the community, e.g. through more community engagement forums.

4. To design a Community Communication Strategy.

No more piecemeal development

There followed a question and answer session. Most questions concerned issues at Portarlington, but there was also a call for development in/of Drysdale to be more coordinated and inclusive, rather than the piecemeal approach adopted to date. In response, CoGG’s William Tieppo said that Vic Roads would aim to coordinate the various developments; and subsequently, VicRoads and CoGG have created a Project Control Group to co-ordinate the planning and transport matters that link the Drysdale bypass, the improvements to the High Street and the proposals concerning the future of the ‘town square’.

Let's talk rubbish!

DCSCA has been invited to join a Community Consultation Group for the Drysdale Landfill site.

The Group was launched officially at a public meeting on 7 June 2016 at the SpringDale Neighbourhood Centre. The City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) manages the Drysdale Landfill site (aka the Drysdale tip!) and called this public meeting.

People at the meeting agreed that local people should be able to have their say about the landfill site through formal and informal channels – regular meetings of a formal Consultation Group and informal occasions when people can talk to Council staff about waste related issues. Occasionally, guests could be invited to discuss how the Drysdale site fits into broader waste management issues, such as:

·      the Barwon South West Regional Resource Recovery group, which produces a rolling Plan that informs operations at local landfill sites between Portland and Geelong

·      the Regional Waste Forum and its Reference Group.

CoGG manages the site and, as such, will take decisions about it. The role of the Community Consultation Group will be to inform the council’s decisions. It remains to be seen just what influence the Community Consultation Group can have.

Good or bad for local democracy?

Like many residents of the Bellarine Peninsula, DCSCA members are concerned that the state government's plan to replace the City of Greater Geelong council with an administrator could be bad for local democracy.

Today (12 April) the Victorian state government intends to table the review of a Commission of Inquiry into the governance of the City of Greater Geelong council; and then introduce legislation sacking the whole council – the mayor and the twelve councillors – and appointing an administrator to run the council until the 2020 elections.

The Government has sufficient support in the Lower House for its bill to pass easily, but the bill may take longer to pass the Upper House, where the government needs the support of either the Coalition, or the Greens and at least two crossbenchers.

If the legislation passes, Geelong council will be the sixth Victorian council to be sacked since the Kennett government amalgamated more than 200 Victorian councils to 79 in the 1990s. The others were Wangaratta (2013), Brimbank (2009), Glen Eira (2005), Nillumbik (1998) and Darebin (1998).

No strategic vision?

One of the reasons the Commission gives for sacking the council is that it has failed to develop a strategic vision for Geelong. However, the council lost control of its strategic planning in August 2015, when Victorian planning minister Richard Wynne took over planning decisions in Geelong for major projects over 5,000 square metres.

At the same time, the state government created the Geelong Authority to advise the Minister on key projects, implement major planning decisions, create jobs and drive growth in Geelong. Key projects for the Authority will include a new convention centre in central Geelong, the redevelopment of the Geelong Performing Arts Centre, the relocation of WorkCover and revitalizing the Geelong railway station precinct and Johnstone Park. The projects will be delivered by Places Victoria, the Victorian Government’s property development agency, which has the power to acquire, sell and swap land.

(Sources: http://architectureau.com/articles/vic-govt-takes-over-geelong-major-projects/ and http://www.places.vic.gov.au/precincts-and-development/geelong)

What future – and when?

Until the Commission of Inquiry’s report is made public and the state government introduces its legislation, we can only speculate about the implications of sacking the present council and appointing an administrator to run its affairs until 2020.

However, the legislation will have to address the Victorian Electoral Commission’s recent recommendation (to the Minister for Local Government) that the City of Greater Geelong should be reorganised in time for the 2016 elections. The present council consists of a directly-elected mayor plus twelve councillors, with each councillor representing a single ward. The VEC recommended reorganising the council into a directly-elected mayor plus eleven councillors representing four wards - three three-councillor wards and one two-councillor ward. (The whole Bellarine Peninsula would be one ward, represented by three councillors.)

Like the proposed council sacking, the VEC recommendation is based in legislation - a 2012 amendment to the City of Greater Geelong Act (1993). That amendment created the post of directly-elected Mayor of Geelong, resulting in a council of 12 councillors plus the Mayor for the 2012 council election. The amendment also required the VEC to recommend to the Minister for Local Government the most appropriate electoral structure for the council from the 2016 election onwards.

The state government’s sacking legislation would effectively overrule that 2012 amendment. It will be interesting to see how the government justifies doing this and denying Geelong's citizens the chance to vote for its council in October 2016.

VicRoads update on the Drysdale Bypass

On 17 December 2015, DCSCA received the following update on the Drysdale Bypass from Tim Price, Project Director (Drysdale Bypass) at VicRoads.

As 2015 draws to a close, I would like to thank the local community for providing feedback at our Drysdale Bypass information sessions this year and provide an update on the status of the project.

The community strongly supports the proposed bypass and a review of pedestrian facilities, cycling facilities and intersections along High Street to improve traffic and safety. Feedback from these sessions is being taken into account in planning studies and design development for the proposed Bypass and High Street improvements.

Over the next few months, VicRoads will complete a traffic analysis and a number of studies, including environment management, cultural heritage and social impact.

I want to assure the community that there will be further opportunities to provide feedback about the project next year, including a formal Planning Scheme Amendment process for the Bypass. Under this process, the public will be invited to make written submissions about the proposed Bypass design.

The State Government has committed $3 million to improve traffic and safety through High Street. This is in addition to the $106 million committed to plan and build the Drysdale Bypass. I thank everyone for their input, patience and support for this project and look forward to working further with the community in 2016.

On behalf of VicRoads, I wish everyone a happy and safe holiday on our roads.

DCSCA makes a submission to council's electoral review

The Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association Inc. (DCSCA) has made a Preliminary Submission to a Review of the City of Greater Geelong Council's structure being conducted by the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC).

The VEC's Review originated in a 2012 amendment to the City of Greater Geelong Act (1993). The amendment created the post of directly-elected Mayor of Geelong, resulting in a council of 12 councillors plus the Mayor for the 2012 council election.

The amendment also required the VEC to conduct an Electoral Representation Review before the 2016 council election; and, drawing on that Review, to recommend to the Minister for Local Government the most appropriate electoral structure for the council from the 2016 election onwards. 

The Review should determine the number of councillors (between 4 and 11, plus the Mayor) and how they should be distributed.

Key dates in the Review

11 November 2015     Preliminary public submissions open

9 December 2015        (5.00pm) Closing date for preliminary public submissions

20 January 2016         Preliminary Report published; response submissions open

17 February 2016       (5.00pm) Closing date for response submissions

24 February 2016       Public hearing: 7.00 pm Council Chamber, City Hall

16 March 2016           Final Report published.

Making submission to the Review

Submissions to the VEC Electoral Representation Review can be made via:

·      VEC’s online submission form at vec.vic.gov.au

·      Email at greatergeelong.review@vec.vic.gov.au

·      Post to VEC, Level 11, 530 Collins St., Melbourne 3000

All submissions will be published on the VEC website at vec.vic.gov.au and made available for inspection at the VEC office (Level 11, 530 Collins Street, Melbourne).

The Final Report will be available from the VEC (vec.vic.gov.au or 131 832) and will also be available for inspection at Council offices.

DCSCA'S SUBMISSION TO THE VICTORIAN ELECTORAL COMMISSION'S ELECTORAL REPRESENTATION REVIEW

The Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association Inc. (DCSCA) was created in 1996. Since then, its relationships – good and bad – with the City of Greater Geelong have led it to believe that:

·      the northern part of the Bellarine Peninsula (Drysdale, Clifton Springs and Curlewis) is, broadly speaking, a single, geographically defined ‘community of interest’ within the City of Greater Geelong

·      dividing the task of representing this single community of interest between two councillors in two wards – Cheetham and Coryule - has prevented this single community from speaking with a single voice about its views, interests and aspirations

·      the absence of a single voice for this community of interest has led to it receiving an inequitable share of council resources.

More broadly, DCSCA’s relationships with the City of Greater Geelong have led it to believe that:

·      the council’s current structure makes it is impossible for a ward constituency to hold its councillor to account for her/his actions (or lack of them)

·      relying on 4-yearly elections to make a councillor accountable enables them – if they wish - to misrepresent their constituency during their 4-year term of office, which may lead to outcomes (e.g. rezoning, building approvals) that cannot be undone, even if they fail to be re-elected.

DCSCA meets Cllr. John Doull (5)

On 12 May, DCSCA Committee members met Councillor John Doull at City Hall. This was the fifth 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.
It was a very busy and productive meeting!

Roadside council notice boards
First, we raised the issue of the lack of roadside council 'welcome/what's on' notice boards on which to advertise events in our towns. These can be seen in towns elsewhere on the Bellarine, but not in ours. Cllr. Doull said that money was available for this from last year's budget and that he would talk to Cllr. Macdonald about each of them funding signs in their respective wards.

A swimming pool in Drysdale & Clifton SpringsWe said that there is clear - and growing - demand for a swimming pool in Drysdale & Clifton Springs, not least because the Ocean Grove pool is over-subscribed. However, there are no plans for a pool in the regional sports/recreation 'hub' at the junction of Andersons Road and Grubb Road in Drysdale. We suggested out that this is an issue facing people not just in Drysdale & Clifton Springs but along the North Bellarine, especially because of the uncertain future of the pool in Portarlington. We emphasised that although the council has no plans for a opool and despite council officers saying that the case for providing one was weak, DCSCA would persist in raising the matter, because of the strong local feeling about it. Cllr. Doull promised to raise the matter with Mr. Dean Frost (CoGG's Manager of Projects, Recreation & Central Gelong) and to invite him to talk about it at our next quarterly meeting.

Local economic development
DCSCA is suggesting that CoGG builds on the success of the 2011 Festival of Glass and uses the build-up to the 2012 Festival to announce a local business support program (e.g. advice and mentoring, assistance to explore new markets, rates relief) for small art and craft business on the Bellarine. That program could link with the 'Made in Geelong' initiative, which offers small businesses short-term leases on empty shops in central Geelong, enabling small art and craft businesses on the Bellarine - individually or in partnerships - to test their economic viability in a town center. We invited Cllr. Doull to support the proposal and he said that he would discuss it with Mr. Terry Demeo (CoGG's Manager of Planning Strategy and Economic Development), Ms. Kaz Paton (CoGG's Manager of Arts and Culture) and Mr. Steve Bentley (CoGG's Manager of Events, Central Geelong & Waterfront) and get back to us.

Then, we outlined DCSCA's argument that CoGG should build on the growing local concern about rising sea levels to develop the Bellarine Peninsula as a demonstration of a post-carbon economy. Cllr. Doull outlined Future Proofing Geelong - a strategy to develop Geelong in enironmentally sustainable ways - that includes a plan for low-carbon growth. (Future Proofing Geelong is launched today, May 12 2011.) Future Proofing Geelong is to have three 'reference groups' - 'Major Enterprises', 'Small & Medium Enterprises' and 'Community'. Major enterprises in Geelong have been involved in developing Future Proofing Geelong and the other two reference groups will be established in June 2011. Cllr. Doull suggested that we contact Ms Samantha Smith (CoGG's Co-ordinator, Future Proofing Geelong) to ask about becoming involved in the 'Community' reference group. Finally, we suggested that Geelong could use its role as host of the forthcoming Sustainable Economic Growth for Regional Australia conference to showcase some initiatives around local business support and a post-carbon economy. Cllr. Doull said that he would outline Future Proofing Geelong to that conference and that as Cllr. Rod Macdonald was leading preparations for the conference, we should approach him about our possible involvement.

Site-specific issues
Next, we discussed a series of issues specific to particular areas in our towns. We discussed the uncertainty around whether there would be an official 'launch' at The Dell of the new signage and the new lookout and we said that we would investigate further. Cllr. Doull suggested that we ask Mr. Mark Gallon (CoGG's Manager of Strategic Projects) about the possibility of releasing potable mineral springs water at The Dell by targeted drilling, associated with building another groin to protect the foreshore.

This led to a discussion of the development of a Masterplan for Beacon Point Reserve in Clifton Springs, for which $20,000 has been allocated in the council's 2011/12 budget. Cllr. Doull said that he wanted to see the area kept as a 'wild' place, identified clearly as a Reserve, with the addition of maybe a toilet block, a community meeting place and, perhaps, some appropriate sculpture. We said that DCSCA welcomed the proposal, which reinforces DCSCA's Open Space Network, which we launched last year to protect our remaining open spaces from development. Beacon Point Reserve is one of the nine open spaces in the Network, which we want to see linked by walking/cycling tracks. As a first step, we are seeking grant funding for a Northern Bike Trail (Drysdale Station, to the town centre, to the Recreation Reserve [Market area], to McLeods Waterholes, to Griggs Creek, to the Bay, to the Boat Ramp, to Drysdale station). Cllr. Doull applauded our initiative, advised us to ensure that major road crossings wouldn't be a problem and said that he would be happy to provide us with a letter of support to use in our fund-raising.

Finally, we raised two issues concerning the Springs Street area of Clifton Springs - another site in DCSCA's Open Space Network. First, CoGG recently employed a contractor to spray systemic weedkiller along the water course, with the result that the banks now feature matted dead vegetation. While this may be acceptable action in a drain, local residents have argued strongly that they regard the 'drain' as a water course, i.e. a potentially attractive feature of the area and DCSCA actively supports their view. Second, a new wall has been built between the Bowling Club and an adjacent property with the aim - as we understand it - 0f protecting that property if the Club's new dam is breached. Between the new dam and the new wall lies the Springs Street land - flood-prone already and apparently in danger of further floods from the Club's new dam. We argued that both the spraying and the new wall were ewvidence that the land is unsuitable for 'development' and should be rezoned - in accordance with local people's wishes - as 'Open Space'. Cllr. Doull said that he would talk to CoGG engineers about both issues and get back to us.

DCSCA's next quarterly meeting with Cllr. Doull will be on Thursday 4 August 2011. Any residents of the Drysdale/Clifton Springs area are welcome to ask DCSCA to raise any issue of concern with Cllr. Doull.

Council budget - a mixed bag

For people in Drysdale & Clifton Springs, the City of Greater Geelong's proposed 2011-12 budget represents a mixed bag.

The budget includes several good news items. It allocates funds to construct the first phase of the Lake Lorne walking track, to develop a Masterplan for a Beacon Point Reserve and to design a Bellarine Lookout. Each of these three sites is in the Open Spaces Network that DCSCA launched last year to protect our towns' dwindling open spaces, so these budget commitments are very welcome.

In the three years since DCSCA first proposed that a walking track be constructed around the perimeter of the Lake Lorne reserve, the original idea has been developed into a major upgrade of the facilities. The development of the original idea has featured extensive and effective consultation with local groups, individuals and organisations and DCSCA looks forward to a similar approach being taken to the development of a Masterplan for a Beacon Point Reserve and to the design of a Bellarine Lookout.

Good news for young people and for the environment
DCSCA is also pleased to see the budget supporting youth activities across the Bellarine, with $15,000 for the Bellarine Youth Action Team and $25,000 for the youth-run annual 'Spudfest' music event. Further good news is the $20,000 allocated to environment projects supported by the Bellarine Catchment Network. The budget also commits funds to a new netball court and lighting at Drysdale Reserve and to the further development of Drysdale's Potato Shed, including a grant of $12,500 to the Potato Shed's annual Family Fun Day.

No news on local economic development
The negative side of the budget is its silence on local economic development. DCSCA was interested to see whether the budget would address the council's continuing failure to plan for the Bellarine's economic development alongside the expansion of its population. DCSCA would like to see a greater diversity of local jobs - especially for young people - so that the expanding population can choose to work on the Bellarine or commute elsewhere.

The budget commits $25,000 to supporting industrial investment and $35,000 to supporting manufacturing, but doesn't specify where it will be spent. Recent history suggests that it won't be spent on the Bellarine. Further, the budget commits $180,00 to the council's sustainability project, Future Proofing Geelong, which includes a plan for low carbon growth in the Geelong region. (Future Proofing Geelong is launched officially today, 12 May 2011.) However, it isn't clear what this will mean in practice. The council refuses to promote a low carbon economy even on the Bellarine, let alone throughout the region.

DCSCA has argued consistently that the Bellarine could become a demonstration site of a low carbon economy, featuring cutting edge technologies and creating new high tech, high wage jobs. This would give the region's rapidly-expanding population real choices over whether they would like to work locally or elsewhere. It would prevent our towns becoming just dormitories for Geelong and Melbourne which, in the absence of good public transport, would mean continuing increases in commuter traffic on already-inadequate roads. Finally, developing the Bellarine as a demonstration site of a low carbon economy would attract visitors keen to 'see tomorrow's economy today', boosting tourism and its associated employment.

A chance to seize the day?
Geelong will host the 2011 Sustainable Economic Growth for Regional Australia (SEGRA) conference later this year and the budget includes $35,000 to pay the cost of it. The council could use that conference to showcase Future Proofing Geelong and, in that context, to announce its plans for a low carbon demonstration project on the Bellarine. Local councillors Doull and Macdonald could seize the initiative and ensure that the council applies the same sort of innovative thinking to the economic development of the Bellarine that it so proudly proclaims is being applied to the development of Amstrong Creek. They would certainly have major local support if they did.