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.