DCSCA meets Cr. Rod Macdonald (7)

On 5 August, DCSCA Committee members met Councillor Rod Macdonald in Princess Street, Drysdale. This was the sixth 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, whom we met on 4 August at City Hall.

New DCSCA Committee 2011-2012
First, we told Cr. Doull that DCSCA had held its annual General Meeting on July 20, at which a new Committee was elected and told him the members of the 2011-2012 Committee. (To see the membership of the 2011-2012 DCSCA Committee, go to 'DCSCA's 2011 Annual General Meeting' on this blog, 25 July 2011.)

The 'Central Walk' development
Local residents have expressed concern to DCSCA about aspects of this development, for which advertising/promotion materials have recently started to appear in the local papers.* Residents are concerned about Central Walk because:

• it contradicts CoGG's Structure Plan for Drysdale & Clifton Springs and the design guidelines of the state government's Urban Growth Authority (For more on this, see 'Hullo Central Walk, goodbye Structure Plan' on this blog, 14 July 2011.)
• the advertising/promotion materials make it appear that the whole area is being developed as a single estate by a single developer, whereas ownership of the is split between several landowners. One of those landowners (Urban Land Developments) is driving the development, even though it doesn't own significant portions of the land involved
• the development will include the demolition of the properties at 27 Princess Street, which features many long-established trees that provide homes for a variety of native birds and animals. The Bellarine Catchment Network and Landcare are among local groups to have expressed an interest in turning the property into a community facility including, e.g., a nursery and community garden.
  

DCSCA has suggested that 27 Princess Street is declared part of the 'public open space' that is a required element of the Central Walk development; and that an equivalent parcel of the land currently designated as 'public open space' be released for development - in effect, a land swap. Cr. Macdonald said that he would discuss the proposal with CoGG's strategic planners, but cautioned that CoGG has formally approved the development as proposed - including the demolition of 27 Princess Street. Consequently, a formal application will have to be made (by the developer?) for the proposal to be varied to allow the land swap - and this could be an expensive business.

DCSCA is also concerned about the maintenance of the development's open space - especially its proposed 'wetlands'. Cr. Macdonald said that developers are responsible for maintaining open spaces in a development until two years after their creation, after which the council assumes responsibility.

Local economic development
We asked whether the council would extend the ‘Industrial’ zone in Murradoc Road so that it joined the site of the planned Drysdale bypass. Cr. Macdonald replied that the council would examine such a proposal only if it was part of a larger proposal concerning the zoning of that area of Drysdale; and only if someone applied for such a rezoning. (N.B. An area can be considered for rezoning and subsequent development only if at least 70% of the owners of the area request it. However, such support isn’t required for ‘infill’ development, i.e. a proposal that rezones and develops an area in line with the areas surrounding it.)

CoGG's 'bio-retention basins' (aka 'urban dams')
We referred to the recent fiasco at Ryan Court around one of these 'basins', when local residents asked DCSCA to support them in their dealings with the Council. We told Cr. Macdonald that we supported his intervention in the issue, which resulted in a decision to fill-in the dam. (For more information about Ryan Court, see 'Who you gonna call? Dam busters!' on this blog, 1 August 2011.)

However, we suggested that the episode raised council-wide issues. The 'basin' in Ryan Court was created to deal with the increased stormwater run-off from a nearby new housing estate and equivalent 'basins' are going to be associated with other new housing estates, such as those in Jetty Road and the Central Walk estate off Murradoc Road. Events at Ryan Court showed a) that the design of these devices is faulty and b) that council officers cannot specify how effective these devices are in filtering pollutants - their ostensible purpose. While supporting Cr. Macdonald's intervention in the issue, we suggested that its successful outcome cast doubt on whether the use of these dams had been thought-through sufficiently; and suggested that the council should think about the 'urban dam' in Ryan Court before deciding to create another elsewhere.

Ward boundaries Finally, we asked Cr. Macdonald where exactly the northern boundary is between Cheetham Ward (Cr. Macdonald) and Coryule Ward (Cr. Doull); he'd brought a detailed map showing that the boundary is the western side of an imaginary extension northwards of Jetty Road.

DCSCA's next quarterly meeting with Cr. Macdonald will be on Friday 4 November 2011 at 10.30 a.m. Any residents of the Drysdale/Clifton Springs area are welcome to ask DCSCA to raise any issue of concern with Cr. Macdonald.

* 'Central Walk' is the result of the passage last year of Amendment C103 to the City of Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, which rezoned the land bounded by Murradoc Road, Princess Street, Woodville Street and Clarendon Road in Drysdale and gave approval for a housing estate to be built there.

Hullo 'Central Walk', goodbye Structure Plan!

The recently released plans for the new Central Walk housing estate in Drysdale show that the estate will contradict several elements of the Structure Plan for Drysdale & Clifton Springs produced by the City of Greater Geelong (CoGG).

The land on which the estate will be built is bounded by Murradoc Road, Princess Street, Woodville Street and Clarendon Road. In the CoGG Structure Plan, this land is earmarked for high density housing and to that extent, building the estate is consistent with the Structure Plan. However, the Structure Plan states on several occasions that its intention is to retain the towns' traditional, rural character and to ensure a mix of accommodation. The plans for Central Walk show that it will meet neither of these intentions.

Central Walk developers Urban Land Developments claim that, 'Open space and greenery will feature prominently at Central walk and residents will enjoy the spoils (sic) of an extensive linear park, wetlands and central reserve ...' However, the plans show that the 'central reserve' is about the size of the neighbouring Aldi site; and while the 'extensive linear park, wetlands' is a welcome inclusion, it is just another way to describe the water course that flows through the land already and couldn't be built on anyway. Also, the plans suggest strongly that while Central Walk will be home to families, it will include no housing suitable for single people - elderly and young - who once again miss out on the chance to live independently in their community.

Further, CoGG has approved this 200-lot development while doing nothing to ensure that there are jobs available for the people who will live in it. This isn't the fault of Urban Land Developments - it's another instance of the council's lack of vision, which is turning our towns into 'dormitories' for Geelong and Melbourne. DCSCA believes that CoGG should be planning the economic development of our towns just as it is planning their physical and social development.

Finally, the lack of adequate public transport is forcing increasing numbers of people to drive cars to work, increasing the pressure on already crowded roads and, of course, increasing the emission of harmful greenhouse gases.

When the proposals for the estate were published last year, local residents had serious concerns about them. DCSCA's formal submission to the council highlighted the contradictions between the proposals and the Structure Plan. (We also criticised the council's poor public consultation on the issue.) Subsequently, we presented our arguments to a Planning Panel appointed by the state Planning Minister. The Panel recommended that the council approve the proposal, which it did.

CoGG has encouraged local people to participate in creating Structure Plans for their towns and tells them that these Plans will guide their area's development. However, the grand aspirations in these Structure Plans count for nothing as CoGG gives developers permission to cover the Peninsula with homogeneous housing estates, while ignoring the needs of single people and forcing increasing numbers of people to commute.

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)