VCAT tells residents, 'Pay for developer's drain'!

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) has just told residents of the Central Road area of Drysdale that they must pay the cost of a developer's drain.

DCSCA has been supporting Central Road residents who have been fighting a unanimous decision by City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) councillors to compel them to pay for a drain for a developer's proposed retirement village. The residents must pay a 'Special Charge', because the council asserts that they will gain a 'special benefit' from the drain, i.e. the potential to subdivide their property and sell it for a profit.

On February 6, the residents took their case to VCAT, which reserved its judgment on the issue. (See ‘Council’s “Special Charge” not cut and dried’ on drycliftdays 8 February)

VCAT has now decided in favour of the council, saying that the 'Special Charge' would stand unless residents could prove that they would gain NO ‘special benefit’ from the drain - showing that there would be little ‘special benefit’ was not enough. Further, the VCAT judge accepted that the proposed drain is a public health issue because the 2 words ‘public health’ were in the initial report to council. CoGG described the drain as a matter of public health only after residents pointed out that, according to local government law, a scheme can't proceed if a majority of residents oppose it ... unless it's a matter of public health!

In an article about the Central Road issue in the Independent (3 February), CoGG's Manager of City Services, Gary Van Dreel was reported as saying that CoGG would levy the 'Special Charge' only when properties were sold or developed; and local ward councillor Rod Macdonald was reported as saying that existing owners could defer the ‘Special Charge’ if their properties remained undeveloped. However, neither of them mentioned that owners who defer paying the ‘Special Charge’ will face an even higher bill, because CoGG will charge them compound interest on the outstanding amount - at 5% for the first five years and then at 9 to 10% thereafter. So CoGG’s ‘benevolence’ in allowing residents to defer payment is, in fact, a means of compelling residents to pay even more money, even though when they do so, CoGG will have long acquitted itself of the debt.

Elections to the council will happen later this year. It will be interesting to listen to sitting councillors as they defend their unanimous decision to compel pensioners and retirees in the Central Road area to pay thousand of dollars per household for a developer's drain.

Council's 'Special Charge' not cut and dried

On February 6 2012, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) reserved its judgment on whether the City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) can levy a 'Special Charge' of many thousands of dollars on residents from Central Road, Drysdale.

The residents had asked VCAT to examine a unanimous decision by CoGG councillors on January 26 2011 to compel residents in the Central Road area to pay $1,149,476 (77 per cent) towards the cost of a new drain to service a retirement village in the area. The retirement village is planned by Melbourne-based property developer Pinnacle Holdings, yet the council wants local landowners to contribute - via the 'Special Charge' scheme - between $2,000 and $250,000 towards the cost. Unless VCAT stops the proposal, just under half the households in the area will face a bill for more than $10,000 each.

The residents - many of them retirees on fixed incomes - have argued that since the drain will enable Pinnacle Living to build and profit from its retirement village, Pinnacle Living should pay for it. The council has responded that while the drain's primary purpose is to service the proposed retirement village, its presence will enable nearby residents to sub-divide and sell their properties at a profit - a 'special benefit' as the council calls it. From that perspective, the 'Special Charge' is a way to recoup the cost of the drain from the people who will gain a 'special benefit' (profit) from it. (For the background, see, 'VCAT to examine Council's "Special Charge" scheme' posted on January 13 on this blog.)

'Deferral' ... but at what cost?
In an article about the Central Road issue in the Independent (3 February), CoGG's Manager of City Services, Gary Van Dreel is reported as saying that the council would only levy the Special Charge when properties were sold or developed; and local ward councillor Rod Macdonald is reported as saying that existing owners could defer the Special Charge if their properties remained undeveloped. Neither of them mentioned a crucial point: if owners opt to defer payment of the Special Charge, CoGG will charge them interest on the outstanding amount.

However, Cr. Macdonald - who holds the council's Planning portfolio - is quoted as saying, 'It is the vendors' responsibility when they sell to come to an arrangement on the money that's due.' Such an 'arrangement' could rest on a vendor showing just how much 'special benefit' (if any) they gained from the drain's installation aand making a payment accordingly. This is a step forward from CoGG's current policy, which is to simply asserty that a property-owner will gain a 'special benefit' of thousands of dollars without providing any proof (e.g. assessments by independent real estate agents). Cr. Macdonald would appear to be offering a far more equitable version of CoGG's Special Charge scheme and, if this is the case, CoGG is to be applauded.

DCSCA has been assisting the Central road residents in their opposition to the proposed Special Charge and in light of Cr. Macdonald's satement, we shall read the VCAT decision with interest.

DCSCA meets Cr. Rod Macdonald (8)

On 3 February, DCSCA Committee members met Councillor Rod Macdonald in Drysdale. This was the latest of the quarterly meetings that DCSCA has initiated with the two City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) Councillors whose wards coincide with DCSCA's area - the other is Councillor John Doull.

Transport issues on the Bellarine
(i) Jetty Road. Cr. Macdonald said that Jake McMinn - CoGG's 'cycling supremo' - will work with DCSCA's Neil McGuinness concerning current and planned bike lanes on Jetty Road, especially in light of the current road works at the junction with Wyndham Street.

(ii) Drysdale High Street. VicRoads recognizes that the rail trail cycle/pedestrian crossing on the bend in Drysdale High Street is 'high risk' and are seeking the best way to make it safer. Next, we asked whether the traffic lights in Drysdale High Street could be fitted with a 'flashing amber' signal (like those in Ryrie Street) as a way to reduce traffic delays. Cr. Macdonald said that according to CoGG's City Services & VicRoads, the High Street lights have motion detection cameras fitted, so including 'flashing amber' wouldn't reduce traffic delays.

(iii) Drysdale bypass. Cr. Macdonald urged DCSCA to continue to press for a Drysdale bypass including, perhaps, forming a special sub-committee for the purpose. He offered to work with Council, state government and other organisations to have the bypass built sooner rather than later.

Open Spaces
(i) The foreshore. We told Cr. Macdonald that the Commonwealth government has given DCSCA funds (through its 'Caring for Country' grants programme) to revegetate the area around the new lookout and signage at The Dell. We said that DCSCA has called a meeting (including a site visit) of interested parties on 9 February to discuss how best to use the money. Cr. Macdonald believes that there are other government grants available for foreshore activities and will give us more information about these grants.

We expressed our concern that the groynes that were constructed at Clifton Springs to prevent continuing erosion of the cliffs appear to be having no effect. That section of the foreshore is in Cr. Doull's ward and we have raised our concerns with him. However, we raised the issue with Cr. Macdonald because the problem of erosion along the foreshore isn't limited to just one ward.

(ii) Lake Lorne. We raised the continuing absence of any work on the walking/cycling track around Lake Lorne, first raised by DCSCA many years ago. Cr. Macdonald said that in 2012, work will begin on Stage One (mostly fencing and general track alignment) and that work on Stage Two will begin in 2013.

(iii) Spring Street. We asked how to ensure that CoGG's 2012/2013 budget includes money for trees at Spring Street. Cr. Macdonald said that officers have put in a 'budget bid' of $15,000 for this project.

2012 Clean Up Australia Day (Sunday 4 March)
We said that we were looking at Lake Lorne and McLeod's Waterholes as target sites and that we will need a CoGG rubbish bin. More information will follow closer to the date.


DCSCA's next quarterly meeting with Cr. Macdonald will be on Friday 4 May 2012 at 9.30 am (to be confirmed). Any residents of the Drysdale/Clifton Springs area are welcome to ask DCSCA to raise any issue of concern with Cr. Macdonald.

Consult the locals? We don't have to!

Residents of Wyndham Street, Drysdale, were given a rude awakening this morning by chain saws and mulchers. Contractors were destroying trees on the corner of Wyndham Street and Jetty Road, as part of the work to enlarge the junction.

Local people have had no chance to comment on the work, because the council hasn’t published the plans. Those secret plans have already led contractors to divert Griggs Creek through a culvert under Wyndham Street, trapping fish, which then died and rotted. Local people could have told the council and its contractors that this would happen, but they were never consulted.

The TGM Group are consultant engineers managing the works, under the supervision of the City of Greater Geelong's engineering department. Nonetheless, neither the council nor TGM knew that the trees were being destroyed until residents contacted them this morning. Further, council engineers had reassured residents earlier that the trees' future had not been decided.

Three trees have been destroyed so far and the contractors have two more mature eucalypts in their sights. After talking with residents this morning, TGM has agreed to residents' suggestion that they call a meeting of local residents, explain what’s happening to their area and ask for their views. TGM has halted the tree clearance until that meeting, which will probably happen on Friday or perhaps next Monday.

Secret plans undermine democracy and citizenship
The failure to consult residents about the destruction of their trees is part of a much bigger failure of consultation across the whole project. The Wyndham Street/Jetty Road junction is being expanded significantly to accommodate the traffic coming out of the new housing estate on Jetty Road and is to have traffic lights in it. Wyndham Street will have three lanes of traffic instead of two, to match the three-lane road leading into and out of the Jetty Road estate.

Local residents have never been consulted about the expansion and the plans have been kept secret. When asked about this policy, council officers have said that they didn't publish the plans 'because we didn't need to'. Once again, that may be true in the strict legal sense, but if the council had any regard for democracy and the role of citizens in decisions affecting thir lives, they'd make an effort to involve us.

VCAT to examine Council's 'Special Charge' scheme

On February 6, residents from Central Road, Drysdale, will ask the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) in Melbourne to stop the City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) levying a 'Special Charge' on them of many thousands of dollars.

The appeal to VCAT follows a unanimous decision by councillors on January 26 2011 to compel residents in the Central Road area to pay $1,149,476 (77 per cent) towards the cost of a new drain to service a retirement village in the area. The retirement village is planned by Melbourne-based property developer Pinnacle Holdings, yet the council wants local landowners to contribute - via the 'Special Charge' scheme - between $2,000 and $250,000 towards the cost. Unless VCAT stops the proposal, just under half the households in the area will face a bill for more than $10,000 each.

The residents - many of them retirees on fixed incomes - have argued that since the drain enables Pinnacle Living to build and profit from its retirement village, Pinnacle Living should pay for it. The council has responded that while the drain's primary purpose is to service the proposed retirement village, its presence will enable nearby residents to sub-divide and sell their properties at a profit - a 'special benefit' as the council calls it. From that perspective, the 'Special Charge' is a way to recoup the cost of the drain from the people who will gain a 'special benefit' (profit) from it.

Flawed arguments and lack of evidence
The Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association (DCSCA) has supported Central Road residents since they began their argument with CoGG in February 2010. DCSCA's position was set out on this blog ('Council compels residents subsidise a developer'. 26 January 2011). In essence, DCSCA has argued that:

• CoGG has no evidence to support its claim that residents will gain any 'special benefit' from the drain, let alone how much that 'special benefit' will be worth
• any 'special benefit' only comes from sale of the land - yet most residents don't want to sell their homes, so they won't receive a 'special benefit' (if, indeed, such a benefit exists - CoGG has no evidence that it does)
  
• CoGG changed the legal basis of its proposed ‘Special Charge’ for households in the Central Road area (it suddenly became a public health issue) after it was exhibited for public comment and after councillors were due to discuss it
• CoGG has provided no evidence to support its claim that the drain is a public health issue
• CoGG has entered a legal agreement with Pinnacle Holdings to share the drain's cost without budgeting for it
• CoGG doesn't know how it will recover any money outstanding from any deferred 'Special Charges'.

DCSCA continues to support the residents of the Central Road as they prepare to challenge this iniquitous 'Special Charge' at VCAT. DCSCA has formally opposed the council's whole 'Special Charge' scheme (including the Central Road proposal), as has the Affiliation of Bellarine Community Associations (representing all the community associations on the Bellarine Peninsula).

(There have been several reports about this argument on this blog. To see them, type 'Central Road' into the blog's 'Search' window.)

Let's plan NOW for a Drysdale bypass!

There has been a lot of interest recently in the proposed Drysdale bypass, but without careful planning it could take away trade as it takes away traffic.

Local papers have reported recently that the case for a Drysdale bypass has been strengthened by the closure of the Corio tip and the subsequent increase in the number of garbage trucks travelling through Drysdale. In the Geelong Advertiser (14 December), Tom Bennett wrote, 'From Monday January 2, 90 per cent of Geelong's rubbish will end up at the Drysdale landfill on the Bellarine Peninsula. It means about 30 large semi-trailer sized vehicles will be funnelled through central Drysdale en route to the tip each week.'

Similarly, the front page story in The Echo (15 December) said, 'Calls for a Drysdale bypass road are getting louder as the town braces for an influx of Geelong garbage trucks in the new year.' The story quoted local ward councillor Rod Macdonald: 'the state government must make a commitment to the concept of a bypass'; and Bellarine MP Lisa Neville: 'The addition of garbage trucks ... places added pressure on municipal and state authorities to commit to the bypass.'

The proposed bypass was also a focus of discussions in recent council-run workshops to sketch the future of Drysdale town centre. At those workshops, local people said that a bypass would make Drysdale a safer and more pleasant place to live, work and visit. However, they also said that a bypass could either strengthen or weaken the local economy, depending on how it was implemented.

A good idea?
A Drysdale bypass will offer a quicker alternative route to semi-trailers and trucks travelling through the town, making it a safer and more pleasant place. However, it will offer convenience of this alternative route to all traffic - semi-trailers, trucks, vans, cars, bikes and motor bikes. The makes it less likely that their drivers will stop - and shop - in Drysdale.

So despite the growing support for a Drysdale bypass, it won't necessarily - and by itself - improve the quality of life in the town. As it takes away traffic, it could also take away trade and weaken the local economy. However, with careful planning and preparation, a Drysdale bypass could not just relieve traffic but also boost the local economy.

A bypass is like a coin with two sides. On one side of the coin is a town in decline because travellers are - literally - bypassing it; on the other side is a town that is booming because it has acted to increase its attractiveness to locals and travellers alike. Planning for a Drysdale bypass could be a defence against potential loss of trade, but the bypass could also be an 'excuse' to positively rethink the town to make it even more attractive, vibrant and successful than it is already.

A new future for central Drysdale?

Local people, planning consultants and council officers sketched a new future for central Drysdale at a two-day 'Inquiry By Design' workshop on December 7-8 at SpringDale neighbourhood centre in Drysdale High Street.

Day one of the workshop started with an invitation to participants to identify what they thought were the good and bad features of the current town centre, especially in light of the town's increasing population. In the next session, participants suggested features of the town centre that needed to change - and those that should remain. People raised a variety of issues, including traffic congestion, pedestrian safety, the 'look and feel' of the town centre, poor public transport and the need to offer the expanding population a variety of jobs, rather than rely solely on shops and tourism. On day two, the consultants spent the morning collating all the material from day one's discussions into a presentation to the participants, which ran from 3.30-5.00 p.m.

Some new ideas
The consultants' presentation created great interest. It contained several radical proposals, including creating a permanent shelter for a farmers' market in the space between the side entrance of the Safeways complex and the rank of shops opposite; making the roundabout in front of the Drysdale Hotel pedestrian-controlled and diffusing traffic away from it by creating new linking roads (e.g. between Collins Street and Murradoc Road); ensuring that new buildings faced their streets, rather than back onto them; and making any expansion of Safeways contingent on the development of a 'civic centre' facing the green and rotunda. There were also proposals to make Murradoc Road more attractive, e.g. by creating a service road in front of the current light industrial units, landscaping both sides of the road, installing proper footpaths and encouraging 'al fresco' dining near to the Aldi site.

... and the bypass??
The council had asked the consultants to create a draft 'Masterplan' for the town centre, thereby excluding any considertion of the proposed Drysdale bypass. However, local people at the workshop insisted that any discussion about the town centre should include the issue of the bypass.

A Drysdale bypass would address many of the town's current problems, including traffic congestion and pedestrian safety. The need for a bypass has been increased significantly by the closure of the rubbish tip at Corio, sending still more heavy trucks carrying rubbish from the rest of Geelong through the town to the Drysdale tip. Also, a bypass at Murradoc Road's eastern end would offer very good transport links to Geelong, increasing the likelyhood that new businesses would want to establish themselves in Murradoc Road.

What next?
The consultants will collate their presentation and participants' responses into a detailed report, which they will submit to the City of Greater Geelong by the end of this year. In early 2012, the council will publish the report and its response to it as a draft 'Masterplan' for Drysdale town centre, on which it will invite comments from the community. After that public consultation, the council will publish a final 'Masterplan' for the town centre, which it will then seek to have included in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.

While the workshop was a success in its own terms, it was organised in a way made it almost impossible for certain types of people to attend:
People at work could only attend if they could afford to take take one or two days off work AND get permission to do so. This might not be a problem for middle class professionals, but it certainly would be for anyone else at work. Local business owners faced the same problem, of course.
Parents of young children couldn't easily set aside two days for a workshop and, even if they could, there were no child care arrangements in place to enable them to do so.
Parents of school-aged children couldn't necessarily arrange for someone to take their children to and from their school and, anyway, might not want their children returning to an empty house.
School students could only attend if they were able to take one or two days off school. This might be an attractive option to the students (!), but the absence of any young people at the workshop showed that it wasn't necessarily feasible.

DCSCA officers at the workshop did their best to think about what people in each of those absent groups might want to say about the future of the twon centre and to present those views effectively. However, nothing is as good as people presenting their own views and it's unfortunate that the workshop was arranged in such a way that they were unable to do so.

Lessons learned?
It's never possible to make arrangements that suit everybody, of course. However, DCSCA has criticised the council consistently for its inflexible approach to public consultation and has offered many positive suggestions for improvement, which have been ignored. With a little thought, the organisers of this workshop could have offered local people a variety of ways in which to participate, rather than having to turn up each day. This workshop offered many lessons concerning public participation - it remains to be seen whether the council applies those lessons in the next stage of this particular consultation process - inviting public comment on the draft 'Masterplan'.