Good or bad for local democracy?

Like many residents of the Bellarine Peninsula, DCSCA members are concerned that the state government's plan to replace the City of Greater Geelong council with an administrator could be bad for local democracy.

Today (12 April) the Victorian state government intends to table the review of a Commission of Inquiry into the governance of the City of Greater Geelong council; and then introduce legislation sacking the whole council – the mayor and the twelve councillors – and appointing an administrator to run the council until the 2020 elections.

The Government has sufficient support in the Lower House for its bill to pass easily, but the bill may take longer to pass the Upper House, where the government needs the support of either the Coalition, or the Greens and at least two crossbenchers.

If the legislation passes, Geelong council will be the sixth Victorian council to be sacked since the Kennett government amalgamated more than 200 Victorian councils to 79 in the 1990s. The others were Wangaratta (2013), Brimbank (2009), Glen Eira (2005), Nillumbik (1998) and Darebin (1998).

No strategic vision?

One of the reasons the Commission gives for sacking the council is that it has failed to develop a strategic vision for Geelong. However, the council lost control of its strategic planning in August 2015, when Victorian planning minister Richard Wynne took over planning decisions in Geelong for major projects over 5,000 square metres.

At the same time, the state government created the Geelong Authority to advise the Minister on key projects, implement major planning decisions, create jobs and drive growth in Geelong. Key projects for the Authority will include a new convention centre in central Geelong, the redevelopment of the Geelong Performing Arts Centre, the relocation of WorkCover and revitalizing the Geelong railway station precinct and Johnstone Park. The projects will be delivered by Places Victoria, the Victorian Government’s property development agency, which has the power to acquire, sell and swap land.

(Sources: http://architectureau.com/articles/vic-govt-takes-over-geelong-major-projects/ and http://www.places.vic.gov.au/precincts-and-development/geelong)

What future – and when?

Until the Commission of Inquiry’s report is made public and the state government introduces its legislation, we can only speculate about the implications of sacking the present council and appointing an administrator to run its affairs until 2020.

However, the legislation will have to address the Victorian Electoral Commission’s recent recommendation (to the Minister for Local Government) that the City of Greater Geelong should be reorganised in time for the 2016 elections. The present council consists of a directly-elected mayor plus twelve councillors, with each councillor representing a single ward. The VEC recommended reorganising the council into a directly-elected mayor plus eleven councillors representing four wards - three three-councillor wards and one two-councillor ward. (The whole Bellarine Peninsula would be one ward, represented by three councillors.)

Like the proposed council sacking, the VEC recommendation is based in legislation - a 2012 amendment to the City of Greater Geelong Act (1993). That amendment created the post of directly-elected Mayor of Geelong, resulting in a council of 12 councillors plus the Mayor for the 2012 council election. The amendment also required the VEC to recommend to the Minister for Local Government the most appropriate electoral structure for the council from the 2016 election onwards.

The state government’s sacking legislation would effectively overrule that 2012 amendment. It will be interesting to see how the government justifies doing this and denying Geelong's citizens the chance to vote for its council in October 2016.

Cost Appeal media release - 2 November

On Monday 2 November, the Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association issued the following media release about its Cost campaign.

MEDIA RELEASE: 2 NOVEMBER 2016

Community Association makes a desperate bid to survive

Today, the Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association officially launches a Cost Appeal to raise $5,500 in legal costs awarded against it in August by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).

If the association fails to raise the money, it faces further legal action, which would close it down. The Cost Appeal is a last desperate attempt to stop that happening.

The association had asked VCAT to stop Caltex franchisee Milemaker Petroleum building a service station at the junction of Jetty Road and High Street, Drysdale. Hundreds of residents had objected to the service station, but VCAT dismissed the case, ordering the association to pay Milemaker $5,500 in legal costs by 7 December.

One chance left

“The association has just this one chance to raise the money”, said association Secretary Patrick Hughes. “We asked VCAT not to make us pay Milemaker’s legal costs, supported by local federal MPs Richard Marles and Sarah Henderson, local state MP and Environment Minister Lisa Neville and councillor Rod Macdonald; and an online petition of 349 signatures. Still, VCAT awarded costs against us.”

“We wrote to Milemaker”, he said, “asking it to forgo the costs as a gesture of good will to the local community, as did Lisa Neville. Neither of us has received a reply.”

Association Treasurer Doug Carson said, “Closing the association would end its community-building work. Drysdale is growing rapidly and we’ve lobbied for a bypass for the increased traffic and leisure facilities for the increased population, such as a sports precinct and fishing platform. We also run the popular Festival of Glass.”

Contribute to the Cost Appeal

·      Online. Our account at Bendigo Bank: BSB 633000, Acc 1497-62791, Ref MM.

·      By mail. DCSCA, P.O. Box 581, Drysdale 3222. Please mark envelope “MM”.

·      In person (i). At SpringDale Neighbourhood Centre, Drysdale High Street.

·      In person (ii) Join the association just $5, payable online or by mail (see above).

Please include your email or address with your donation; if Milemaker belatedly waives the legal costs, the association intends to return all contributions

MORE INFORMATION:

Doug Carson, Drysdale and Clifton Springs Community Association: 0418 371 308

Patrick Hughes, Drysdale and Clifton Springs Community Association 5251 3394

For background, see DCSCA’s blog: http//:drycliftdays.blogspot.com

DCSCA lauches a Costs Appeal at its AGM

The Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association held its 2015 Annual General Meeting on Wednesday 21 October at the SpringDale Neighbourhood Centre in High Street, Drysdale.

Around thirty people attended the meeting, which started with an illustrated talk by Ralph Roob

Foreshore, Clifton Springs

about the work being done to stabilise and upgrade the foreshore around Drysdale and Clifton Springs. Ralph is the Senior Environmental Engineer at the City of Greater Geelong, which owns most of the local foreshore. He described how boulders, rocks and sand are being used in different ways to combat erosion of the cliffs and beaches of the area and to stablise The Dell; and how a new causeway will reach out from the boat harbour and act as the long-awaited fishing platform.

Several members of the audience asked questions about the works being done and about the future of the foreshore, based clearly on their own experiences of walking, boating or fishing there.

In his responses, Ralph invited people to join the Clifton Springs & Curlewis Coastcare Group - a volunteer-based 'friends of the foreshore'-type group of people who want to see the area looked after.  The group will form at meeting at 6.00pm on Wednesday 18th November at SpringDale Neighbourhood Centre in High Street, Drysdale.

The AGM's formal business

After thanks to Ralph and a short break, the formal business of the AGM was conducted. The Minutes of the 2014 AGM were approved, DCSCA's audited accounts for 2014-2015 were accepted and DCSCA President Rick Paradise gave his Report on the year's activities. Then, the meeting adopted a new Constitution and agreed to raise membership fees from $5 to $10 from July 2016.

The next item on the Agenda was the election of a Committee to run the Association for the next year. The results were:
President: Rick Paradise; Vice-President: Anne Brackley; Treasurer: Doug Carson; Secretary: Patrick Hughes. Committee members: Sarah Carroll, Neil McGuinness, Bob Penfold and Mike Windsor.

It was agreed that DCSCA would hold its 2016 Annual General Meeting on Wednesday 19th October at 7.00pm at SpringDale Neighbourhood Centre, Drysdale High Street.

Launch of DCSCA's Cost Appeal
The final item on the AGM agenda was the launch of DCSCA's Cost Appeal. The Victorian Civil and Administrative Appeals Tribunal (VCAT) has ordered DCSCA to pay Caltex franchisee Milemaker Petroleum $5,500 in legal costs by 7^th December 2015. If DCSCA doesn’t pay the bill, it faces further legal action, which would close it down.

DCSCA accepts VCAT’s ruling and intends to pay the $5,500, but it doesn’t have the funds.  The Association has launched a Cost Appeal to raise the money and is inviting members, friends and supporters to contribute to it.

Why is a Cost Appeal necessary?

Milemaker Petroleum is building a service station at the junction of Jetty Road and High Street, Drysdale, having received planning permission by the City of Greater Geelong council. DCSCA asked VCAT to overturn Milemaker’s planning permission for two reasons:

1.     The council had ignored widespread local opposition to a service station at that location, which is a ‘Rural Living’ zone. Prior to the VCAT hearing in May 2015, more than 400 people signed a DCSCA petition opposing a service station at that location.

2.     Planning permission for a service station at that location was inconsistent with the council’s refusal of planning permission for a child care centre in the same Rural Living zone, on the grounds that a commercial development there would be inappropriate.

The chair of the VCAT hearing rejected DCSCA’s application and invited Milemaker to apply for costs. DCSCA’s request to VCAT not to award legal costs against it received widespread support from each level of government: local federal MPs Richard Marles and Sarah Henderson, local state MP and Environment Minister Lisa Neville and local councillor Rod Macdonald. Support also came from several local community groups; and an online petition gathered 349 signatures. Nonetheless, VCAT ordered DCSCA to pay Milemaker $5,500 in legal costs.

DCSCA and Lisa Neville (local state MP and Environment Minister) wrote separately to Milemaker, asking the company to waive the $5,500 as a gesture of good will to the local community. Neither has received a reply.

HOW TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE DCSCA COST APPEAL

Online. DCSCA's account at Bendigo Bank. Please go to www.bendigobank.com.au. DCSCA's account is BSB 633000, Acc. 1497 62791. Please put "MM" in the 'Reference' line.

By mail. DCSCA, P.O. Box 581, Drysdale 3222. Plese put "MM" on the envelope.

In person (i). There is a collection box in the SpringDale Neighbourhood Centre, Drysdale High Street.

 In person (ii). Become a member of DCSCA. The annual membership fee is just $5 until July 2016; and this can be paid online or by mail (see above)

Please include your name and e-mail or postal address with your contribution; if Milemaker belatedly agrees to waive the legal costs, DCSCA will return all donations and pledges - with a sigh of relief!

DCSCA and the Caltex service station: a summary

-->

On 6^th August 2015, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Appeals Tribunal (VCAT) issued the following order:

" The Drysdale Clifton Springs Community Association (DCSCA) Inc. is ordered to pay the costs of Milemaker Petroleum Pty Ltd fixed in the sum of $5,500. The costs must be paid by 7 December 2015 or such later date as may be agreed by Milemaker Petroleum Pty Ltd."

DCSCA accepts VCAT’s ruling, acknowledges that its application to VCAT to overturn the planning permit was misconceived and no longer opposes the service station.

DCSCA’s application was submitted under section 89 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, because it was lodged more than 21 days after the City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) gave Milemaker planning permission for its service station.

DCSCA acknowledges that a Section 89 application faces significant hurdles as it argues that a VCAT Tribunal could or, indeed, should cancel a permit that has already been issued. DCSCA also acknowledges that it failed to satisfy these hurdles.

-->

A new development

DCSCA lodged its application after the due date because of an extraordinary new development. Just eight weeks after CoGG gave Milemaker planning permission to build its service station, the council refused to give Planning Permission for a proposed child care centre in the same Rural Living Zone. The council judged that the proposed child care centre would be inconsistent with seven State Planning Policy Planning Framework clauses and inconsistent with the Drysdale Clifton Springs Structure Plan.

The development gave DCSCA a precedent to add to its arguments against a service station at that location. The publicity arising from CoGG’s inconsistent decisions led to community members providing additional information about the potential environmental dangers of locating hazardous materials (e.g. fuel products) close to the nearby watercourse.

The association came to believe that planning permission for the service station could be challenged on two grounds:

• the council’s inconsistent planning decisions
• the new information about potential environmental hazards.

These two new factors added weight to DCSCA’s arguments against a service station at that location, namely:

• it contradicted parts of the council’s own Structure Plan for Drysdale and Clifton Springs
• it increased the risk of  traffic accidents, especially to cyclists
• it increased the chances of traffic congestion at a junction that is already very busy
• it destroyed the rural ambience that marks-out the entrance to Drysdale.

-->

Meanwhile, evidence of community opposition to a service station at that location was growing. The council had received 47 written objections from residents; and subsequently, more that 400 people signed a petition opposing it. There was growing expectation that the association would, on behalf of the community, ask VCAT to overturn the planning permit for the service station.

Note! Neither the community nor DCSCA opposed a service station as such. Instead they opposed siting a service station at that particular location.

The DCSCA committee decided to lodge an application to VCAT as soon as possible. It did so in good faith, considering that such an action was in line with its Statement of Purposes and not vexatious. While its application was late, it didn’t hinder the progress of the service station. The council gave Milemaker planning permission subject to 27 conditions and DCSCA lodged its application to VCAT a full six months before those 27 conditions were met and the plans finally approved.

 DCSCA goes to VCAT

DCSCA prepared a Statement of Grounds to present to VCAT, detailing the community concerns with a service station at this location.

   -->

At the VCAT Directions Hearing, Milemaker Petroleum was represented by senior counsel Mr. Tweedie. The following is an extract from VCAT’s ruling:

The essence of the submission on behalf of the permit holder was that an incorporated association could almost never demonstrate substantial disadvantage in a planning proceeding such as this, for example, it didn’t own any land could be impacted and the association (as distinct from its members) would not be personally affected. Mr Tweedie depicted the interest of this association as akin to an ‘intellectual’ one.

A subsequent article in The Age implies that DCSCA had prior knowledge of this argument: “The group had also been warned in an earlier ruling on the project that its case was extremely weak.” In fact, there was no earlier ruling. The first that the association’s representatives knew of this legal argument was when they were given documents detailing it inside the hearing room. Prior to the hearing, Milemaker’s lawyers had submitted a 127-page document that contained only evidence that DCSCA did not dispute – it did not contain Mr. Tweedie’s argument.

Had DCSCA been presented with this legal argument prior to the hearing, the committee would have had the opportunity to withdraw and would almost certainly have done so. The association’s representatives had come to the hearing prepared to express the community’s concerns about a service station at that location, whereas the Directions Hearing was concerned mainly with DCSCA’s legal position – a situation for which the Association’s representatives were totally unprepared and the committee as a whole was not aware of until after the hearing.

When VCAT invited Milemaker to apply for its legal costs, several prominent people wrote to VCAT asking it not to award costs against DCSCA: local federal MPs Richard Marles and Sarah Henderson, local state MP Lisa Neville and local councilor Rod Macdonald. They were joined by several individuals and groups in the community, including Bike Safe and the Bellarine Catchment Network.

After the VCAT hearing

Martin Pakula (Victorian Attorney-General) has suggested that while Milemaker Petroleum now had the right to recover costs from the Drysdale and Clifton Springs Community Association, "it could decide not to. I would encourage the respondent to consider its relationship with the local community in making that decision."

--> 

Lisa Neville (Victorian Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water; Member for Bellarine) expressed a similar view in a statement in the State Parliament and has sent a letter to Milemaker Petroleum asking them to waive the legal costs of $5,500 as a show of goodwill to the community of Drysdale and Clifton Springs.

Finally ...

DCSCA welcomes the news that the State Government is changing the planning legislation to require VCAT to take account not just of the views of people who would be ‘immediately affected’ by a planning decision, but also of the views of the local community. This will not change DCSCA’s case as the proposal will become law at some time in the future. However, it will enable community groups to object to a planning decision without having to demonstrate how they will be ‘materially affected’.

The DCSCA Committee         6/9/2015

VCAT orders DCSCA to pay $5,500 legal bill

-->

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) has ordered the Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association (DCSCA) to pay $5,500 in legal costs to Caltex franchisee Milemaker Petroleum by 7 December 2015.

The service station being built

Milemaker Petroleum had asked VCAT for $26,000 in legal costs. It is building a service station at the junction of Jetty Road and High Street, Drysdale, having received planning permission by the City of Greater Geelong council.

DCSCA's case

DCSCA had asked VCAT to overturn Milemaker’s planning permission for two reasons.

First, the association argued that the council had ignored local opposition to the proposal. When the council invited public comment on Milemaker’s proposal in January 2014, every submission opposed it, arguing that a service station was inappropriate at that location, which is zoned Rural Living. Prior to the VCAT hearing in May 2015, more than 400 people signed a DCSCA petition opposing the service station, most saying that they hadn’t heard of it.

Second, the association argued that planning permission for the service station was inconsistent with the council’s refusal of planning permission for a child care centre in the same Rural Living zone, deeming a commercial development inappropriate.

The site as it was

At the VCAT hearing, the association wasn’t allowed to put its case. Milemaker’s lawyers argued that the association’s application should be dismissed, as it had been submitted after the due date for such applications. The chair of the hearing agreed, dismissed the application and invited Milemaker to apply for its legal costs.

DCSCA's costs alternative gains wide support

DCSCA asked VCAT not to award legal costs against it and, instead, to make each side pay its own costs. The request received widespread support, including representatives from each level of government: local federal MPs Richard Marles and Sarah Henderson, local state MP and Environment Minister Lisa Neville and local councillor Rod Macdonald. Support also came from local community groups, including the Bellarine Catchment Network, Bike Safe and the Clifton Springs Tennis Club.

Further, an online petition (organised independently of DCSCA) asking VCAT not to make DCSCA pay Milemaker’s legal costs has gathered 349 signatures.

Nonetheless, VCAT ordered the community association to pay Milemaker $5,500 in legal costs.

The association plans to ask Milemaker to write off the $5,500 as a gesture of good will to the local community.

Council halts work on service station

The City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) has ordered Milemaker Petroleum to stop work on the site of its proposed service station at the Jetty Road roundabout.

Just a few weeks ago .....

The council has given overall planning permission for the proposed service station, but it has yet to approve several details of its construction, including drainage, waste management and road works. The council has received plans from Milemaker concerning these issues, but has yet to approve them. Until it does, Milemaker can undertake "site preparation", but nothing more.

The council has judged that Milemaker's work to date on the site constitutes more than "site preparation" - instead, it has "changed the topography of the land". This is considered to be a 'development' of the site and, as such, is not allowed. Consequently, the council has ordered Milemaker Petroleum to stop work on the site and is liaising with them on those issues of detail.

DCSCA and VCAT - latest news.
VCAT has ruled that DCSCA's application to overturn the council's planning permission for the service station was “misconceived”. Consequently, DCSCA representatives didn't have a chance to present their arguments and describe the level of local unrest about the service station. Milemaker Petroleum has indicated that it intends to make a claim for costs. VCAT will provide a timetable for Milemaker to make a formal submission for costs and for DCSCA to reply, but as of 23 April, nothing has been received.

DCSCA is trying to obtain some free legal assistance around the issue of costs; we will also seek letters of support from appropriate individuals and organisations.

DCSCA's continuing role.
DCSCA continues to try to be the voice of the community. It is trying to obtain the best outcome on the following issues: -
a) Protect the nearby dam by requesting groundwater pollution monitoring
b) Ensure that the council's Engineering Dept. knows of the community's concern about the safety – especially for cyclists and pedestrians – of the entry and exit points of the site.
c) Ensure that the construction process minimises disruption and inconvenience to nearby residents and disruption to traffic at this busy intersection.
d) Ensure that Milemaker keeps it commitment (in its application for planning permission) to re-plant and landscape the site

VCAT supports 3rd service station in Drysdale

The Victorian Civil and Adminstrative Tribunal (VCAT) has supported an application by Caltex franchisee Milermaker Petroleum to build a service station at the junction of Jetty Road and High Street, Drysdale.

The site of the proposed service station, looking north from the Jetty Rd. roundabout

Following VCAT's announcement, the Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association Inc. (DCSCA) issued the following Media Release.

MEDIA  RELEASE re VCAT ruling April 2015 - Jetty Rd. Service Station

Issued by the Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association. 9 April 2015

Local non-profit organisation, Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association, accepts VCAT's ruling, but wishes to express its profound disappointment with the Council procedure which has permitted the service station at 331-334 Jetty Rd., Drysdale to go ahead.

After unsuccessfully attempting to stop the permit being granted at Council hearings in 2014, DCSCA submitted an appeal to VCAT to have the permit for the service station, granted by the City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) last August, cancelled or amended. Its grounds for the appeal were that the location was destructive to the rural amenity of the entrance to our townships, and more importantly, that it put motorists, cyclists and the environment at risk.

DCSCA was supported by Environment Minister Lisa Neville, Bellarine Catchment Network chief Matt Crawley, and hundreds of local residents.

The Association did not receive the chance to put its case to a full hearing, as, owing to the unavoidable lateness of its appeal, and lack of financial resources, it faced insurmountable legal hurdles.

DCSCA wishes to state that its motives were, from the outset, the safety and well-being of the community it represents. It responded to significant public opposition to the service station and sought to act honestly and correctly at all times. It now faces the possibility of unspecified legal costs being awarded against it.

As a result, DCSCA is not able to take further legal action.

DCSCA wishes to thank all the members of the Drysdale and Clifton Springs community who have supported it throughout this saga, now in its third year, and also to express its solidarity with residents living near the site, whose amenity, property value and quality of life have been compromised so severely.

For more details and information on this and other matters of interest to the community, please email DCSCA Secretary Neil McGuinness at mcgnj@bigpond.com

For more information on why DCSCA appealed to VCAT, visit http://drycliftdays.blogspot.com.au/

A service station at Jetty Road roundabout: the case against

-->

Next week, the Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association (DCSCA) will ask VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal) to overturn the City of Greater Geelong's decision to approve a service station at the junction of Jetty Road and High Street, Drysdale.

What follows is DCSCA's formal 'Statement of Grounds Summary' to VCAT.

On behalf of the members of the Drysdale Clifton Springs Community Association (DCSCA) and residents of Drysdale Clifton Springs, DCSCA has compiled the following Statement of Grounds Summary:

1. Notification Process

DCSCA believes that residents along the nearby designated watercourse (Scarborough Creek), and most of the population of the Bellarine, would consider that they would be materially affected by this development.  The City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) did not take “reasonable measures” to comply with Section 52, thus denying these residents the opportunity to comment.

2. Hearing Panel Process

This did not address the concerns raised by the community.

3. The officer’s report (on which the approval of the application was granted)

This contained errors, omissions, outdated, conflicting and misleading information, unsubstantiated opinion and failed to direct the hearing panel to the correct Decision Guidelines as required by State Planning Policy Framework. A crucial summary item presented to the Hearing Panel was inconsistent with statements under Assessment Local Policy Framework within the report.

4. The assessment process

This was flawed – priority was not given to the criteria specified under Clause 65 (Decision Guidelines): -

• The application fails to respond to Clause 11.05-3 (Rural Productivity), Clause 21.07-5 (Rural Areas) Clause 21.14 (The Bellarine Peninsula), Clause 22.04 (Discretionary uses in Rural Living and Low Density Residential Areas) and Clause 35.03 (Rural Living Zone).

• The proposal is not consistent with the Drysdale Clifton Springs Structure Plan 2010, which identifies the site and surrounds should be maintained as a rural residential character.

• The proposal fails to meet the criteria Clause 17.01.1 (Economic Development – Business) in that it presents no evidence that it needs to be at this location and not at another location on the highway that is consistent with the DCS Structure Plan.

• The proposal is not consistent with Clause 18.01 (Transport System) in that it does not provide an amenity that is lacking on the transport route and will increase traffic congestion and will significantly compromise the safety of cyclists.

• The proposal is not consistent with the purpose of Clause 35.03 (Rural Living Zone) or its decision guidelines. The proposal seeks to introduce a commercial development, which is at odds with the rural residential character of the area. Furthermore, the proposed use is not associated with a residential or agricultural use.

• The application does not satisfactorily respond to Clause 65 (Decision Guidelines). An assessment against the required relevant decision guidelines would not support the application.

5. Traffic issues 

Serious safety concerns, congestion, danger to cyclists using the Principal Bicycle Network (PBN).

6. Environmental Issues – degradation to area, pollution, litter

• The application will have a negative impact on the nearby dam and associated watercourse contravening the State Environment Protection Policy (Groundwaters of Victoria).

• The application requires the installation of underground petroleum systems in an identified “sensitive site”.

• There is a long-term risk of a toxic site in a sensitive location close to a designated watercourse.

7. Reduced ambience and amenity

8. The City of Greater Geelong did not consider community opinion.

Can 47 people be wrong about a service station?

-->

The City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) has granted Caltex franchisee Milemaker Petroleum planning permission to build the service station in a Rural Living zone of Drysdale, despite having received 47 objections from local people.

The objections to the proposal are summarised below. They fall into four broad categories: environmental, aesthetic, economic and democratic.

1. Environmental objections

The site of the proposed service station is the junction of Jetty Road and High Street, Drysdale. This junction is the only route into and out of the north of the Bellarine Peninsula and regularly sees traffic jams that frustrate motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. A service station at this site will increase traffic congestion, increasing travel times, wasting fuel, increasing air pollution and heightening the risk to cyclists and pedestrians.

Any service station poses significant risks to its environs, because it stores large volumes of fuels and other chemicals, Spillage or leaks from tankers, leaks from storage tanks and spillage from customers will be washed into the storm water system, threatening the underground water system, the nearby Lake Lorne and the permanent spring just across Jetty Road (and downhill) from the site.

Finally, the proposed service station will be open 24 hours a day, filling the area around it with light and noise at levels normally associated  with the centre of a city, not the entrance to a rural town.

2. Aesthetic objections

The proposed service station would severely compromise the rural ambience of the approach to Drysdale and Clifton Springs. This ambience exists because areas close to the town centre - including the site of the proposed service station - are Rural Living zones. These zones allow homes in a rural environment and are meant to protect and enhance the area’s natural resources, biodiversity and landscape and heritage.

Siting a service station in a Rural Living Zone would threaten local 'green space', already under threat from massive new housing estates approved already by the council, contradicting its own Structure Plan for Drysdale and Clifton Springs, which requires the towns’ rural ambience to be maintained.

Council officers told people who objected to this industrial use of a Rural Living zone that a service station is a 'discretionary' development in a Rural Living Zone. Consequently, objections that the proposal would be inappropriate were simply wrong in legal terms.

However, subsequent to approving the Service Station, the council rejected a planning permit for a Child Care Centre in Jetty Road on the grounds that it was inappropriate in a Rural Living Zone and inconsistent with the Drysdale Clifton Springs Structure Plan! In this case, the council agreed with the 15 submissions objecting to the proposal; yet it approved the service station proposal despite 47 objections to it!

3. Economic objections

Objectors were concerned that Milemaker's proposed service station would be just a few hundred metres from the two existing ones; and that an application is likely for a service station at the Woolworths-led shopping centre in the new Curlewis estate, bringing the local total to four.

Objectors were concerned that an over-supply of service stations in the area could reduce profitability for all of them or even force one out of business. Either result would be bad for the local economy; and closure would bring all the environmental problems associated with ‘decommissioning’ a service station.

In reply, council officers said that economic considerations such as these were irrelevant to decisions on applications for planning permits – which perhaps helps to explain the current state of central Geelong’s economy!

4. Democratic objections

The council’s handling of this application has been inept in three ways. First, it gave people a shorter time (17 days) to comment than it took to process the application (22 days). Secondly, CoGG invited public comment at a time when a lot of local people were away on holiday and, therefore, unable to comment. Finally, the council displayed two A4 notices about the proposal on the property itself, but access to them was virtually impossible for many people, including those with prams/pushchairs and anyone with limited mobility.

Despite all those problems, 47 people made submissions to the council about the proposal. All of them opposed it, saying clearly that the community does not want a Service Station at that location.

For years, community associations (including those on the Bellarine) and individuals have criticised the council’s ‘consultations’ and proposed improvements, but with no effect.

Locals petition against proposed Drysdale service station

The Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association (DCSCA) has launched a petition calling on the City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) to reverse its recent decision to allow a Caltex service station in a Drysdale Rural Living Zone.

CoGG is supporting Caltex franchisee Milemaker Petroleum's proposal to build a service station at the junction of Drysdale High Street and Jetty Road.

In response, DCSCA members and supporters have asked the Victorian Civil and Administrative tribunal (VCAT) to review CoGG's support for the proposal; and they have launched a petition against the proposed service station. The petition reads as follows:

Service station at the Jetty Road roundabout? No thanks!

We the undersigned request the City of Greater Geelong to cancel permit 1565/2013.

We believe: -

• There has been inadequate community consultation in the Planning Process.
• It is inappropriate in a Rural Living Zone and inconsistent with the Drysdale Clifton Springs Structure Plan.
• It will increase traffic congestion in an already congested area, cause major traffic safety issues and greatly increase the danger to cyclists.
• It will cause significant environmental issues: underground fuel storage tanks inevitably cause long-term issues and toxins could enter the underground water system and pollute the nearby bodies of water.
• It will severely compromise the rural amenity of the approach into the Drysdale Clifton Springs Township.
• Should a service station be required, it should be located in a commercial area.

 Name
Address/email
Signed

The petition will be submitted by the Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association Secretary, Mr. Neil McGuinness, e-mail mcgni@bigpond.com

Community concerns ignored
The council's support for the service station ignores widespread concerns in the community and contradicts the council's own Structure Plan for Drysdale & Clifton Springs; and many in the local community are angry at the council's high-handed approach to this issue.*

Indeed, CoGG's consultations around the proposal have been so poor that many local people learnt of the proposal only after CoGG had declared its support for it and granted a planning permit.**

DCSCA Secretary Neil McGuinness said, "Lake Lorne, McLeod's Waterholes and green spaces  all contribute to our townships' distinctive rural ambience; and the thoughtful location of shops and services have maintained its village atmosphere. All of this is well worth preserving - as the council's Structure Plan for the area emphasises.

"Locals would be very distressed, he said, "if the horses that currently occupy the site of the proposed service station were replaced by a hazardous eyesore surrounded by dangerous, congested traffic."


* See "Council dismisses environmental and economic objection to service station" (13 March 2014); and "Council rebuffs service station objectors" (17 April 2014) on this blog.
** See "Council restricts public comment on proposed new service station in Drysdale" (29 January 2014) on this blog.

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.