Up next ... the status quo!

The authors of a Community Plan for a Springs Street Reserve heard today that the City of Greater Geelong will not meet local people’s wishes and rezone open land at Springs Street, Clifton Springs.

The authors heard the news at Geelong City Hall, at a meeting arranged by Cllr. John Doull and also attended by Mr. Jeff Wall (CoGG Manager, Corporate Services), Mr. Alan Grant (CoGG Property Advisor) and Mr. Paul Jane (CoGG Manager, Sport/Recreation).

The Community Plan proposes that CoGG rezone the open space in Springs Street, Clifton Springs, from Business to Open Space. Cllr. Doull said that the council didn't want to see the land 'locked up' as Open Space for community use because, according to an internal council estimate, it is worth more than a million dollars. While the whole area can't be developed because a creek runs through it, parts of it certainly could be.

More than 180 local people around Springs Street had said that they'd like the area retained as open space, but Mr. Grant said that local people always say that they'd like open space nearby. He said that the council asked local people for their views on the area when they published the proposal to rezone it for housing.

Mr. Wall said that the council had no plans to do anything with the land 'at present', but the Plan's authors pointed out that the council had created uncertainty about the area's future by proposing recently (in Amendment C194) to rezone the area for housing, contradicting its own Structure Plan for Drysdale & Clifton Springs.

Mr. Jane said that council policy is to create Open Space where people have none within 400 metres of their front door; and that from this perspective, the presence of the nearby Dell means that the Springs Street area needs no more open space. The Plan's authors pointed out that The Dell is inaccessible to older people, to people with disabilities, to children and to parents with prams and pushchairs.

The Plan's authors thanked Cllr. Doull for arranging the meeting and thanked him and the officers for their time. The original invitation to the meeting had said that Cllrs. Richards and Mitchell would attend, together with Mr. Stephen Griffin, Chief Executive Officer for CoGG. Each sent his apologies for absence.

Background In April and May, DCSCA members and friends developed a Community Plan for a Springs Street Reserve. (See 'Community Plan authors await councillors’ response’ [July 23] elsewhere on this blog.) On June 24, they submitted the Community Plan to local Councillors John Doull and Rod Macdonald, together with Cllr. Andy Richards (Parks and Gardens) and Cllr. John Mitchell (Mayor) and asked for a meeting to discuss the Plan. They received an acknowledgment of receipt ... and nothing else.

Subsequent attempts over seventeen weeks to 'follow-up' by asking Cllrs. Richards and Doull to indicate when the Plan's authors might receive a reply - let alone an invitation to discuss their Plan - have led to nothing, apart from a courteous e-mail from Cllr. Macdonald saying that he believes that communication on the issue should go via the ward Councillor, John Doull.

Four weeks ago, in response to formal questions from the Plan's authors at a Council meeting (September 28), Cllrs. Doull and Richards each said that a meeting between themselves and the authors of the Plan is imminent; and Cllr. Richards said that the open space in Springs Street should be formally rezoned as Open Space.

It's fourteen weeks now, Councillors!

Fourteen weeks after asking local Councillors for a meeting to discuss a Community Plan for the open space near Springs Street, the Plan's authors still have no reply.

In April and May, DCSCA members and friends developed a Community Plan for a Springs Street Reserve. (See 'Community Plan authors await councillors’ response’ [July 23] elsewhere on this blog.) On June 24, they submitted the Community Plan to local Councillors John Doull and Rod Macdonald, together with Cllr. Andy Richards (Parks and Gardens) and Cllr. John Mitchell (Mayor) and asked for a meeting to discuss the Plan. They received an acknowledgment of receipt ... and nothing else.

Subsequent attempts to 'follow-up' by asking Cllrs. Richards and Doull to indicate when the Plan's authors might receive a reply - let alone an invitation to discuss their Plan - have led to nothing, apart from a courteous e-mail from Cllr. Macdonald saying that he believes that communication on the issue should go via the ward Councillor, John Doull.

At a Council meeting on September 28, Cllrs. Doull and Richards each said that a meeting between themselves and the authors of the Community Plan is imminent; and Cllr. Richards said that the open space in Springs Street should be formally rezoned as Open Space.

Watch this (open) space!

'Community Plan' authors await councillors' response

A month after DCSCA members and friends in the Save Our Springs Street Open Space (SOSOS) group asked local councillors to discuss The Community Plan for the Springs Street Reserve with them, they still have no answer.

On June 24, the SOSOS group submitted The Community Plan for the Springs Street Reserve to local councillors Rod Macdonald and John Doull, to councillor Andy Richards and to the Mayor, councillor John Mitchell. Their submission has been acknowledged, but SOSOS still don't know whether councillors will discuss the Plan with them.

Cllr. Andy Richards has told DCSCA that the councillors are waiting to be 'briefed' by Council officers on the issues associated with the Springs Street area. DCSCA has responded that it assumes that those Council officers will have been given a copy of The Community Plan for a Springs Street Reserve and, therefore, that they brief councillors in full knowledge of local people’s wishes; and that it hopes that their briefings contain more opportunities than challenges!

The Community Plan for the Springs Street Reserve is a significant step forward in local democracy. It has very broad local support as the result of several months hard work by the SOSOS group to discover local residents' views about how best to use the open space in Springs Street, Clifton Springs.

The creation of the Plan follows a successful campaign by SOSOS to convince the CoGG to abandon its plans to allow a housing estate on the public open space in Springs Street - one of the few stretches of open space left in the area. DCSCA officers helped local residents to challenge the proposal and over 150 local people signed a petition opposing it. A Council meeting on 23 March voted to abandon the proposal. SOSOS memberNeil McGuinness said at the time, 'Councillors Macdonald and Richards came to see us and gave us a fair hearing. They appreciated our concerns and they've taken the right decision. The land has a beautiful bay vista and would be ideal for public passive recreation and a children's playground.'

The Community Plan will benefit visitors as well as locals. It proposes to beautify the area and highlight its historical significance, enhancing the aesthetic, cultural and historical value of the nearby lookout and The Dell.

DCSCA is delighted and proud to support The Community Plan for the Springs Street Reserve. We hope that other residents will follow the example of the SOSOS group and decide among themselves what they would like to happen to their immediate enviroment.

Planning Panel Day 3

The Planning Panel's third and final day of public hearings concerned Amendment C103 almost exclusively. This Amendment re-zones land between Murradoc Road and Woodville Street, Drysdale from its current mix of 'Farming' and 'Rural Living' to 'Residential 1'. Melbourne-based Urban Land Developments owns around 60% of the land and has requested the re-zoning so that it can build a 300-house estate there.

The City of Greater Geelong's Mr. Peter Schembri had introduced Amendment C103 at the end of Day 2. However, Day 3 started with a presentation about Amendment C194 by Mr. Gary Laver, which had been postponed from Day 2. Mr. Laver appeared on behalf of several landowners who live south of Andersons Road, who want CoGG to re-zone their land from 'Farming' to 'Rural Living' and who oppose CoGG's proposal to set aside the whole area for 'Future Urban Consolidation'. (CoGG has recently withdrawn this proposal.) CoGG has said repeatedly that such re-zoning is against policy; Mr. Laver cited several instances of such re-zoning elsewhere, within CoGG's Bellarine Peninsula Strategic Plan.

At this point, CoGG's Mr. Peter Smith stated that the Bellarine Peninsula Strategic Plan is 'a community plan, not a statement of council policy'. This is in clear contrast with the Plan's alleged intent:
'The Bellarine Peninsula Strategic Plan 2006 - 2016 (The Plan) reflects a commitment by the City of Greater Geelong to understand and plan for current and future change on the Bellarine Peninsula.' ('Executive Summary', p. 8)
'The Bellarine Peninsula Strategic Plan will inform future City of Greater Geelong planning policy on the Bellarine Peninsula ...' ('Policy Framework', p. 11)

The second presentation was by Mr. Nick Tweedy, a barrister acting for Urban Land Developments. He argued that C103 was self-evidently appropriate and justified, because it implemented a recommendation of CoGG's Structure Plan for Drysdale & Clifton Springs; and he called 'expert witnesses' to argue that Amendment C103 won't create an excessive supply of land for housing; that the proposed developers' contributions to the estate's associated roads, drains, etc. are appropriate; that the estate won't interfere with the movement of stormwater through and away from the land; and that the estate won't increase local traffic significantly.

The third presentation was by Mr. Patrick Hughes on behalf of the Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association (DCSCA). The Association neither supports nor opposes the proposals in C103 as such, but it is critical of the process by which CoGG invited public comment on C103 and on C194. (See DCSCA's submission on this blog in the article titled, 'Re-zoning Drysdale [3]'.) In addition, the Association is concerned that Amendment C103 will create a 300-lot housing estate, but no jobs for the people who will live there. This isn't the developers' fault; it shows CoGG's lack of vision or concern about our towns' economic development. CoGG's failure is turning our towns into dormitories for Geelong and Melbourne; and the lack of adequate public transport means that increasing numbers of people are driving cars to work, increasing the pressure on our already crowded roads and, of course, increasing the emision of harmful 'greenhouse' gases.

The final presentation was by Urbis Consultants on behalf of Aldi. Currently, Amendment C103 includes provisions for access by pedestrians and cyclists from the housing estate into the service area of the proposed Aldi supermarket at the west end of Murradoc Road; and Aldi wants this provision removed.

Towards the end of the day, there were concluding remarks by Mr. Tweedie (for ULD), Mr. Smith and Mr. Schembri (for CoGG), but these added little to the presentations.

The Planning Panel will now write a report to CoGG that will recommend how to proceeed with each Amendment - C103 and C194. The report is due in eight weeks (i.e. in the week beginning 12 July) and four weeks later (i.e. in the week beginning 9 August), CoGG must publish the Panel's report and decide whether to accept some or all of its recommendations (it is under no compulsion to accept any of them). Following CoGG's decision, the matters in C103 and C194 will go to state Planning and Community Development Minister Justin Madden for a final decision.

(Image: Linda Gallus.)

Planning Panel Day 2

Today, May 13, is the second of three days of Public Hearings by a Planning Panel appointed by State Planning Minister Justin Madden to review proposals by the City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) to rezone parts of Drysdale & Clifton Springs.

(For a report on Day 1, see 'Planning Panel Day 1' on this blog; for the background to the Planning Panel, see other articles on this blog under the titles 'Rezoning Drysdale & Clifton Springs'.)

Today's Hearing started at 10.00 a.m. and, for much of the day, the Panel considered Amendment C194. The first presentation was by Mr. Patrick Hughes on behalf of the Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association (DCSCA). The Association neither supports nor opposes the proposals in C194 as such, but it has detailed criticisms of the process by which CoGG invited public comment on them. (See DCSCA's submission on this blog in the article titled, 'Re-zoning Drysdale (3)'.)

The second presentation was by Mr. Ian Cook, who asked the Panel to make two recommendations to CoGG: retain the public open space in the Springs Street area of Clifton Springs, with some low-level recreational facilities; and require property developers to make their developments 'water neutral' by including infrastructure to recycle storm water. Next came Mr. Ian McGuiness, who described the Community Plan being developed by local people for the Springs Street open space, emphasizing that the Plan will be based on local people's views, unlike CoGG's proposals for the area.

In different ways, three presentations by residents of the Drakes Road area of Drysdale - Mr. David Burke, Mr. Ron Vernieux and Mr. Ric Gower & Mrs. Sue Gower - argued that CoGG's proposal to re-zone their properties from Rural Living to Future Urban Consolidation disregards the significant environmental values embedded in their properties and contradicts several recommendations in the Drysdale & Clifton Springs Structure Plan. Ms. Renate Kint emphasized the environmental richness of the Drakes Road area as she asked the Panel to recommend that CoGG re-zones her nearby olive farm from Farming to Low Density Residential. CoGG's Mr. Peter Smith responded to these presentations by saying that that it's possible that CoGG should re-examine the properties in the Drakes Road area before deciding to re-zone them.

Other presentations addressed different proposals in C194. Mr. Gerhart Herzer asked the Panel to recommend that CoGG allow him to subdivide his land in south Drysdale; Mr. Ray Gamble (via Ms. Sarah Wright) supported the proposal to zone his land as Future Urban Consolidation; Mr. Eddie Hoyer asked the Panel to recommend that CoGG withdraws its proposal to extend the Business 4 zone in Murradoc Road further to the east; and Ms. Joanne Preece, of TGM (representing Lascorp Development Group p/l), asked the panel to recommend that CoGG remove the phrase 'small to medium' from its description (in the Structure Plan) of the type of supermarket that could be built on the site of the Drysdale Bowling Club. CoGG has agreed to this proposal.

At 3.30 p.m., the Panel switched its focus to Amendment C103, when it heard Mr. Peter Schembri, of CoGG's Strategic Implementation Unit, present the council's case for the Amendment. If adopted, Amendment C103 would agree to a request by Melbourne-based property company ULD that its land south of Murradoc Road should be re-zoned from Farming to Residential 1, allowing ULD to build a 300-lot housing estate there. CoGG supports ULD's proposal, because it believes that it is consistent with the Structure Plan's recommendation that the land should become a housing estate. Council officers have worked with ULD to prepare the Amendment - specifically, the 'Section 137 Agreement' that sets out how much ULD should contribute to the development's infrastructure and to community facilities.

Tomorrow - the final day of Public Hearings - will start with a short return to C194 as Mr. Gary Laver presents his views about the Amendment. For the rest of the day, the Panel will hear presentations concerning C103 by ULD (which will call several 'expert witnesses'), by Aldi and by the Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association.

(Image by L. Gallus.)

Planning Panel Day 1

Today, May 12, is the first of three days of Public Hearings by a Planning Panel appointed by State Planning Minister Justin Madden to review proposals by the City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) to rezone parts of Drysdale & Clifton Springs.

(For the background, see other articles on this blog under the titles 'Rezoning Drysdale & Clifton Springs'.)

The proposals take the form of two Amendments to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme - Amendment C194 and Amendment C103. CoGG is proposing Amendment C194; ULD, a Melbourne-based property developer, is proposing Amendment C103.

The Panel consists of two people, each an expert in planning policy: Ms. Gaye Mckenzie (Chair) and Ms. Susan Porter. The Panel had already visited Drysdale & Clifton Springs to see the area that would be affected if the proposed rezonings were adopted; at the end of today's Hearing, they made a second visit, accompanied by some submitters, to see specific features of the area that submitters were concerned about.

The Public Hearings are being held in the Council Chamber at City Hall, Geelong. For today and much of tomorrow, the Panel will consider C194; tomorrow afternoon and friday, the Panel will consider C103.

Today's Hearing started at 10.45 a.m. and the major event was a two-hour presentation by Mr. Peter Smith, CoGG's Co-ordinator of Strategic Implementation.

Mr. Smith presented the proposals in Amendment C194 as part of a continuing process of managing land-use that is consistent, rational, logical and based on precedent - each planning decision is seen to be consistent with previous planning decisions. Thus, Mr. Smith stated that the proposals in C194 are consistent with previous planning decisions - from very localised ones to state-wide, strategic planning decisions. For example, he stated that C194 is consistent with CoGG's Structure Plan for Drysdale & Clifton Springs; and that it is consistent with the designation of Drysdale & Clifton Springs as a growth area by CoGG and by the state Department of Planning and Community Development. Further, Mr. Smith stated that the previous planning decisions on which C194 relies/builds were arrived at appropriately (in terms of planning policy and practice) and so, for example, he stated that CoGG's Structure Plan for Drysdale & Clifton Springs is the result of 'community consultation', as defined in planning policy and practice.

(That policy and practice defines 'community consultation' as a series of steps that a local council must take. These steps include advertising a proposal in local papers and in the Government Gazette. They don't include a council talking with local people, listening to their views and then either acting on them or explaining why it can't. In its presentation tomorrow, Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association will argue that C194 shouldn't be adopted at present and in its current form, because community consultation about it has been inadequate and inappropriate.)

Mr. Smith's emphasis on precedent and process highlights the 'technical-legal' nature of the Planning Panel process. A Planning Panel is appointed to establish whether proposals for change - irrespective of who makes them - are consistent with planning policy and practice. Ms. Mckenzie, the Chair of this Planning Panel, made it clear at the Panel's 'Directions Hearing' in April that this Panel would review C194 and C103 from the particular perspective of professional town planners.

The 'technical-legal' nature of the Planning Panel process means that presentations before a Panel are meant to convince the Panel that the proposals before it are either consistent or inconsistent with established planning policy and practice. People who appear before a Panel may wish to argue for or against a proposal on its intrinsic merits (e.g., 'This is a good proposal', or 'This is a bad proposal'), but a Panel doesn't judge a proposal on its intrinsic merits - only on its consistency or inconsistency with established planning policy and practice.

However, most people who are appearing before this Panel to talk about C194 aren't concerned with its consistency with established practice. They either support or oppose C194 (in whole or in part) because of its potential effects - good or bad - on their lives and their property. This means that the two sides are arguing at cross-purposes. The proposer of a change (in C194, that's CoGG) argues that it's a change consistent with established planning policy and practice; but submitters want to argue that the change is good or bad for them and aren't interested in policy and practice. Given that a Panel's job is to judge a proposal on its consistency with established planning policy and practice, submitters' 'personal' judgments about a proposal become, in effect, irrelevent! More on this tomorrow.

After lunch (1.00 - 2.00 p.m.), Mr. Charles Fegis, a Planning Consultant based in Geelong, gave a one-hour presentation on behalf of Ms. Kerry Bell and others who live on land south of Huntington Street, Drysdale. At present, their land is designated in the Drysdale & Clifton Springs Structure Plan as 'Future Urban Consiolidation'; and they want C194 to rezone it to 'Low-density residential'. They argued that this would be consistent with CoGG land-use policy elsewhere in Drysdale; that it would be consistent with the low-density occupation of land in their area; and that if the land is rezoned to low-density housing, it would still be a form of 'Future Urban Consolidation', because 'consolidation' doesn't equal high-density housing.

Mr. Smith accepted that these arguments had merit and said that CoGG was certainly willing to consider the proposal. However, Ms. Bell and others have tried several times over the last three years to achieve this re-zoning. Each time, CoGG hasn't refused - it has said that it would consider it in the next stage of planning ... and the next ....

Tomorrow, 13 May, is the second day of Public Hearings about C194. Most of it will consist of presentations by local property owners who are likely to be affected (positively or negatively) by the proposals in C194; and by the Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association. At 3.45 p.m., the Panel will switch its attention to Amendment C103, when Mr. Peter Schembri, from CoGG's Strategic Implementation Unit, will present CoGG's case for that Amendment. Further presentations concerning C103 will occur on Friday May 14.

(Image: L. Gallus)