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)