Waive that Charge or it's 'wave goodbye'!

There is growing astonishment at City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) councillors' unanimous decision to compel residents of Drysdale's Central Road area to pay thousands of dollars each for a developer's drain.

The councillors' decision was reinforced by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Appeal Tribunal (VCAT), to which residents appealed - and lost. The residents have nowhere else to go. VCAT's decsion can be appealed in the Supreme Court, but this would be an extremely expensive undertaking - specially for this group of people, which includes many retirees on fixed incomes.

Many of the residents now fear that they will only be able to pay their 'contribution' to the cost of the drain by selling their homes and leaving the area.

Why pay for someone else's drain?
The drain will service a retirement village planned by Melbourne-based property developer Pinnacle Holdings, yet the council wants local households to contribute - via the 'Special Charge' scheme - between $2,000 and $250,000 each towards the cost. The residents have argued that since the drain will enable Pinnacle Holdings to build and profit from its retirement village, Pinnacle Holdings should pay for it. The council has responded that while the drain's primary purpose is to service the proposed retirement village, its presence will enable nearby residents to sub-divide and sell their properties at a profit - a 'special benefit' as the council calls it.

(For the background, see, 'VCAT to examine Council's "Special Charge" scheme' [January 13] and 'VCAT tells residents, "pay for developer's drain"!' [February 29] on this blog.)

Growing interest
The Geelong Advertiser ran a story about the issue ('Drysdale residents face million-dollar plumbing bill', by Shane Fowles) on Friday 2 March. The article said that VCAT Vice-President Michael Macnamara had made it clear that while the residents had no case in law, he had considerable sympathy for their position. It quoted Mr. Macnamara as follows:
'The overall tone of much of what was said on behalf of the ratepayers was that the council had in effect sold out to the developer and sold the applicant ratepayers down the river in the process. ... I see the force of what has been said in that respect and express my utmost sympathy for these ratepayers in their unhappy situation.'

The Advertiser article also said that Mr. Macnamara had said that he was 'inclined to think' that that the benefits of the proposed drain wasn't woth what the residents are being charged. In the Advertiser's online forum associated with its story on 2 March, most commentators expressed astonishment that an elected council could treat its citizens this way.

On the evening of March 2, Channel Nine News also ran an item about the VCAT decision and the 'Special Charge'. On Wednesday March 7, Channel 9's A Current Affair ran an item about the issue, interviewing several local people. The City of Greater Geelong was notable for its absence from the story. To see the ACA story, go to the 'Why live in Drysdale' blog: http://drysdale-victoria.blogspot.com.au/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Council's 'Special Charge' not cut and dried

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

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

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

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

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

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

VCAT to examine Council's 'Special Charge' scheme

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Council casual about failure in its governance

More than a month after DCSCA revealed attempts to fabricate the Minutes of a council meeting, the City of Greater Geelong has failed to address why its governance procedures allowed the attempt to happen.

On 28 January and February 7 2011, DCSCA revealed (on drycliftdays) attempts to fabricate the Minutes of the council meeting on 25 January 2011. The draft Minutes of that Meeting (posted on the CoGG website) recorded a council officer stating that the council will issue a report concerning public health issues associated with a proposed drain in the Central Road area of Drysdale. In fact, the officer had stated that the council hadn't examined those public health issues, i.e. no such report existed. DCSCA told the council that the draft Minutes were inaccurate. The council then posted a revised version on its web site that was even less accurate, attributing to the officer a whole new paragraph about public health issues that he didn't say on the night.

The draft Minutes were being used to give credence to the council's assertion that the Central Road drain is a matter of public health, rather than a way to enable Pinnacle Holdings to build a retirement village there. These assertions are being used to justify - after the event - the highly contentious 'Special Charge' of many thousands of dollars that councillors voted unanimously on 25 January to levy on each household in the Central Road area.

The extraordinary events around the draft Minutes are made even more so by the fact that the council has a 'Governance' portfolio (Cllr. Jan Farrell) and a whole 'Governance' department. Unless and until this failure in the council's governance is corrected, citizens (and councillors) can have no confidence that the events and decisions in council meetings will be reported accurately in the Minutes.

DCSCA asked the Manager of the council's Governance department to explain how these extraordinary events could have happened. In response, the Mayor, Cllr. John Mitchell, assured DCSCA by e-mail (7 February) that he would discuss the events with the council's CEO, Mr. Stephen Griffin. We replied that we would be happy to contribute positive suggestions to that discussion if it was thought appropriate; and that we looked forward to learning of the outcome.

After a month, DCSCA had heard from neither Cllr. Mitchell nor Mr. Griffin, so on 11 March we asked Cllr. Mitchell (by e-mail) how he and Mr. Griffin had decided to respond to the failure in the council's governance procedures. The Mayor's Executive Assistant replied on his behalf that day, stating that the council's 'Manager of Governance ... is currently drafting a letter of response (that) will be finalised next week and mailed to you in due course.'

That response is reminiscent of a standard mathematics exam question: 'If it takes one council Manager one week to write one letter, how long would it take two council managers to write two letters?' Your rates at work!

Further fabrications in council Minutes

After complaints that the draft Minutes of the council meeting of 25 January 2011 were inaccurate, a revised draft has been published that is even less accurate.

The draft Minutes recorded an officer saying that a report about public health issues associated with a proposed drain in Central Road 'will be made available', whereas he stated at the meeting that the council hadn't examined the issues, i.e. there was no such report.

DCSCA used the council's website to state that the draft Minutes were inaccurate (See 'Council Minutes invent report' [28 January, drycliftdays]). In response, a revised version was posted on the Council's web site that was even less accurate than the original! The revised version of the Minutes introduced entirely new material:
1. The revised version of the officer's reply ends, ‘... Council did not consider the need to commission a public health plan.’ The officer didn't say this at the meeting.
2. The revised version of the officer's reply includes a whole new paragraph: ‘Permitting development to proceed without proper servicing, which includes main drainage, in the view of the Council, would lead to public health issues. These issues may include, but not be limited to, flooding, damage to housing development, rising damp, pooling and stagnation of water, breeding of mosquitos, deposition of silt and general inconvenience to property owners.’ The officer said none of this at the meeting.

The Minutes are being used to give credence to the council's unsubstantiated allegations that the Central Road drain is really a matter of public health, rather than just a means to enable Pinnacle Holdings to build a retirement village. These unsubstantiated allegations are being used to justify - after the event - the highly contentious 'Special Charge' of many thousands of dollars that councillors voted unanimously on 25 January to levy on each household in the Central Road area.

DCSCA will continue to press the council to produce an accurate account of the officer's responses at the council meeting.

Council Minutes invent a report

The Minutes of the council meeting on 25 January 2011 state falsely that a report will be issued concerning public health issues associated with the proposed drain in the Central Road area.

The Minutes record correctly that Ms Cheryl Hardy asked councillors whether the council has conducted a study into public health issues associated with the proposed drain in the Central Road area (see 'Councils compel residents to subsidise a developer" [26 January] on this blog). However, the Minutes then record that Mr. David McArthur answered that, 'The report in relation to public health issues will be made available.' This isn't a true record of events. Mr McArthur stated that no such study had been done and so there was no report.

This is another desperate attempt to justify the highly contentious 'Special Charge' of many thousands of dollars that councillors voted unanimously on 25 January to levy on each household in the Central Road area.

Council compels residents to subsidise a developer

City of Greater Geelong councillors voted unanimously last night to compel residents in the Central Road area of Drysdale to subsidise the costs of Melbourne-based property developer Pinnacle Holdings.

This extraordinary decision is the latest stage in an eleven month argument between the council and residents. The council wants the residents to pay $1,149,476 (77%) of the cost of a new drain to service Pinnacle Holdings' planned retirement village in the area. Last night, councillors voted unanimously to levy a 'Special Charge' compelling each household in the area to pay between $2,000 and $250,000 for the Pinnacle Living drain. Just under half the households in the area now face a bill for more than $10,000 each.

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

The Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association (DCSCA) has supported local residents in their argument. DCSCA has argued that the councils' position is flawed on two counts:

• The council has guessed how much 'special benefit' (profit) will accrue to local households from the drain's installation. It has admitted that it has no evidence that the subdivision and/or sale of any block of land in the area will even cover the 'Special Charge' levied on the owner of that land, let alone generate any profit.
• The council's guesstimated 'special benefit' is a phantom value. Households gain a 'special benefit' only when they subdivide and/or sell their land. Until then, they gain nothing. In public and private meetings about the proposal, many households in the Central Road area have said that they don't want to subdivide and/or sell their properties, because, 'This is our home, not an asset'.

'Question Time' at the council meetings on 14 December 2010 and 25 January 2011 revealed further flaws in the council's position:

• The council changed the legal basis of its proposed ‘Special Charge’ for households in the Central Road area after it was exhibited for public comment and after councillors were due to discuss it. In Question Time on 14 December 2010, councillors were asked how the proposed 'Special Charge' on households in the Central Road area could proceed, when Section 163B (6.1) of the Local Government Act prevents it from doing so if a majority of landowners object to it (which they do). Officers replied that under Section 163B (6.2) of the Local Government Act, the council can levy a 'Special Charge' to protect public health. That was the first time that the proposed 'Special Charge' had been related to public health. Public health considerations were absent from the documentation about the proposal that was exhibited for public comment; and they were absent from the officers' report on the proposal that councillors were due to discuss at that council meeting on 14 December 2010. Perhaps this is why councillors Richardson and Macdonald acted swiftly at that meeting to ask the council to postpone discussion of the report until the 25 January 2011.
• The council has no evidence to support its claim that the drain is a public health issue. In Question Time on 25 January 2011, councillors were asked whether the council had investigated whether there were any specific risks to public health if the drain wasn't installed. Officers replied that council had conducted no such investigation, but that 'drains and public health often go together'.
• The council changed the operation of its proposed ‘Special Charge’ for households in the Central Road area after it was exhibited for public comment. The council responded to the public outcry over its proposed 'Special Charge' by allowing households to defer payment until they subdivide and/or sell their property. However, if a household decides to defer paying its 'Special Charge', the council will charge it 5% p.a. compound interest. For example, if a household defers a 'Special Charge' of $10,000 for five years, it owes $12,762; and if it defers for ten years, it owes $16,288. Further, the officers' report of 25 January states that that interest will accrue quarterly, not annually, which will increase the debt still further. The deferral option is a major change in the council's ‘Special Charge’ policy and sets a precedent for the future operation of that scheme; and the council introduced it after it exhibited the original proposal for public scrutiny and comment. Nonetheless, it has refused to exhibit an amended version of the original proposal that includes the deferral option. In Question Time on 14 December 2010 and on 25 January 2011, councillors were asked why the council wasn't seeking public comment on this change of policy; on each occasion, officers replied that it wasn't a change of policy, so council didn't need to seek public comment on it.
• The council has entered a legal agreement to share the drain's cost without budgeting for it. In Question Time on 14 December 2010, councillors were asked whether and how the council has budgeted for its (legally binding) share of the cost of the drain. Officers and councillors replied that there isn't a specific budget item for this cost. Instead, the council intends to pay for it with a loan, then levy the 'Special Charge' to get landowners to pay off that loan and any associated interest.
• The council doesn't know how it will recover any money outstanding from deferred 'Special Charges'. Under the deferral option, when the council is due to pay its share of the drain's cost (in five years), it may not have received all the money that the 'Special Charge' is meant to deliver. In Question Time on 25 January 2011, councillors were asked how the council intended to raise the outstanding amount. Officers replied that the council had no idea how it would do so.
  

Now you see a proposal ...now you don't!

City of Greater Geelong councillors have moved swiftly to avoid discussing a controversial proposal to change the council's Special Charge scheme without public consultation.

At a council meeting on December 14, councillors were due to discuss an officers' report recommending that landowners in the Central Road area of Clifton Springs should be allowed to defer paying a 'special charge' for a new drain ... but at a cost of 5% p.a. interest. (See 'Giving with one hand, but taking away with the other' on this blog [14 December 2010].)

At that meeting, exchanges during 'Question Time' revealed three things about the officers' recommendation:
1. CoGG has entered a legal agreement without having budgeted for the cost
CoGG has entered a legal agreement with Pinnacle Living (the company that wants to build a retirement village in Central Road and needs a new drain to do so) to pay 75% share of the $1.5m cost of the drain. It hasn’t budgeted for this expense, so it intends to pay for it with a loan. It then intends to get landowners to pay off that loan plus 5% p.a. compound interest. (This would mean that a household currently facing a ‘special charge’ of $78,p000 will, after ten years, face a bill for $127,000.)

2. CoGG has changed the legal basis of its proposed ‘special charge’ for Central Road
CoGG is asserting that despite Section 163B (6.1) of the Local Government Act preventing it from proceeding with the ‘special charge’ because a majority of landowners in Central Road have objected to it, it can still proceed because Section 163B (6.2) of the Act enables it do so if a drain is required to safeguard public health. In all the reports, etc. concerning this proposal, public health has never been mentioned as a reason for proposing it; and the recommendations in the officers’ report to last night’s meeting include the following: ‘Construction of the main drain is required for the orderly, proper and safe development of the Central Road properties within the drainage catchment.’ (Recommendation B[d], p25). Where was the concern with public health when those recommendations were written?

'Public health' emerged as the rationale for the scheme soon after local landowners claimed that the scheme couldn't proceed in the face of majority opposition - as set out in Section 163B (6.1) of the Local Government Act.

3. CoGG is considering changing its 'special charges' policy without consulting the public
The proposal to institute the ‘deferred payment’ (at 5% p.a.) around the Central Road ‘special charge’ scheme sets a precedent for the operation of the ‘special charge’ scheme across the whole Council. Nonetheless, the report recommends that the council should introduce this change, despite the fact that it hasn’t been published for public scrutiny and comment. Officers stated that this was permissable because the proposal was a 'variation' to an existing policy, not a new policy.

When council reached the Central Road item on the agenda, Cllr. Andy Richards – who was formally proposing it – immediately proposed that the matter be deferred until the next council meeting (25 January 2011). Cllr. Rod Macdonald seconded the proposal. There was immediate agreement and council moved swiftly to the next item. To an outside observer, it appeared as though councillors and officers had decided – in their ‘pre-meeting meeting’ - that this item needed to be looked at again.

A final note on council procedure. An internal council Submissions Panel met earlier this year to consider objections to the Central Road ‘special charges’. The chair of that Panel, Cllr. Jan Farrell, told everyone there that objectors would receive notice of when the council would consider the Panel’s report. Landowners in Central Road have received no such notice. So if they hadn’t noticed the item on the agenda when it was published on the Friday preceeding the council meeting, they would have had no chance to question the legality of the proposal as they did last night.

Giving with one hand, but taking away with the other

An officers' report to tonight's meeting of the City of Greater Geelong council recommends that landowners in the Central Road area of Clifton Springs can defer paying a 'special charge' for a new drain ... but at a cost of 5% p.a. interest. On a typical 'special charge' of $78,000, 5% p.a. simple interest over ten years increases the bill to $117,000; at compound interest, the bill rises to $127,000.

Three features of the report make it significant:

1. The report reiterates the council's belief that the new drain will increase the value of local properties, thus conferring a 'special benefit' on local landowners that is reflected in the 'special charge' levied on their property. However, it accepts the principle (argued by DCSCA and others) that such an increase in value is only hypothetical - it is realised ONLY when a property is subdivided and/or sold. Consequently, the proposal is that a 'special charge' is payable only when a property is subdivided and/or sold. Good news! But ...
2. The report proposes to charge each landowner 5% p.a. interest (it doesn’t specify whether this is simple or compound) on their special charge until they pay it. What is the 5% interest for? The report doesn’t say. However, the council incurs no continuing expense – it just has to make a one-off payment to the developer. Thus, charging 5% p.a. (simple or compound) creates a straight profit for the council.
3. The report proposes that the council should institute the ‘deferred payment’ (at 5% p.a.) despite the fact that it hasn’t been published for public scrutiny and comment. In other words, officers are suggesting that a major change in policy should be just quietly introduced with no public consultation or discussion.

The proposals around the Central Road ‘special charge’ scheme set a precedent for the operation of the ‘special charge’ scheme across the whole Council. Consequently, DCSCA is alarmed that officers are proposing to introduce these policies without proper public scrutiny and comment.

A continuing argument The report represents the latest phase in an argument between the council and local landowners that began in February 2010.* Then, the council announced its intention to levy a Special Charge on local landowners to recoup money it has committed to a new, $1.5 million drain to serve the area. CoGG has split the cost of the drain with Melbourne-based Pinnacle Holdings, which wishes to build a retirement village in Central Road.

When the council announced the proposed 'Special Charge' in February, thirteen of the eighteen landowners liable to the scheme objected to the proposal, as did the Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association. On March 31, the objectors held a public meeting that featured on Channel 9's A Current Affair.

On 15 July, some of the objectors received a letter (postmarked 13 July) from the council inviting them to appear before an internal Submissions Panel established to review objections to the proposal, which would meet on 20 July, i.e. just three working days away. By Friday July 16, other objectors hadn't even received such a letter. DCSCA and others argued strongly to the Panel that three working days was insufficient notice and the Panel hearing was postponed to 16 August.

Submissions Panel chair Cllr. Jan Farrell told people who attended that the Panel would submit its recommendations to the council 'in October or early November'; and that each person who had made a submission concerning the proposal would be notified in advance of the council meeting at which the recommendations will be discussed, so that they can attend if they wish. DCSCA has received no such notice of tonight's discussion, other than seeing the item on the Agenda when it was published on Friday 10 December.

Some points to clarify DCSCA will ask these questions at the council meeting:

1. When and from whom did council officers receive advice about the legality of proceeding with the option to defer payment - a policy that has not been exhibited for public scrutiny and comment?
2. On what legal basis will the council proceed with this special charge scheme, given that it has generated objections from a majority (13/18) of landowners and that Section 163B(6) of the Local Government Act stipulates that such a scheme cannot proceed if it is opposed by a majority of those likely to be affected by it?
3. Is the proposed 5% p.a. interest on a deferred special charge simple or compound; and how does the council justify charging landowners in Central Road 5% interest p.a., when the council will incur no continuing expense after it pays its share of the cost of the drain in Central Road?

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

Landowners fight a multi-million dollar drain; councillors seek 'fair and equitable outcome'

Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association (DCSCA) officers were among more than twenty speakers at a City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) Submissions Panel hearing yesterday at City Hall.

CoGG established the Panel to review its proposal to levy a Special Charge on landowners in the Central Road area of Clifton Springs. CoGG wants to levy the Special Charge to recoup money it has committed to a new, $1.5 million drain to serve the area. CoGG has split the cost of the drain with Melbourne-based Pinnacle Holdings, which wishes to build a retirement village in Central Road.* The Panel consisted of Cllr. Jan Farrell (Chair) and Cllrs. Rod Macdonald and John Doull, whose two wards include the area in which the proposed Special Charge would be levied. The Panel was supported by three officers from CoGG's Engineering and Planning departments.

Cllr. Farrell welcomed us to the event and thanked us for attending. She assured us that anyone who wished to speak would be heard respectfully; and she encouraged people to feel relaxed and comfortable in what were, for many people, quite intimidating surroundings. Cllr. Farrell emphasized that the Panel had no power to take decisions about the proposed Special Charge. Its function is to recommend a course of action to the full council. Essentially, the Panel will recommend one of three broad options:
1. Levy the Special Charge in its present form
2. Levy an amended form of the Special Charge
3. Abandon the proposal.

If the Panel recommends either option '1' or '2', it will also recommend how the Special Charge should be administered - including when and how people will have to pay it. Cllr. Farrell described the proposed Special Charge as 'the most complex Special Charge scheme that I've seen in my five years of chairing these Submission Panels'; and Cllr. Doull assured us that 'What we (the Panel) want is an equitable and fair outcome from the process'.

Each person who spoke to the Panel faces bills of many thousands of dollars under the proposed Special Charge, which they described as 'criminal' and 'extortionate'. All speakers said that local landowners shouldn't have to pay the proposed Special Charge until they subdivide their land to sell it at a profit. In its original submission, DCSCA suggested that a possible way forward would be to place covenants on title deeds so that the Special Charge is payable only when the value added by the drain is realised. (While it won't be affected if CoGG levies the proposed Special Charge, DCSCA made a submission concerning the proposal and spoke to the Panel because it is a significant voice in the community.)

In discussions between Panel members and CoGG officers, it became apparent that if the proposed Special Charge is implemented, it would have different effects on different landowners in the area. Some landowners would have to pay the Special Charge only if they subdivide their land. Their properties have been rezoned recently (under planning Amendment C146) from 'Rural Living' to 'Residential 1'. This means that they can - if they wish - subdivide their land and sell it under a standard set of planning rules called a Section 173 Agreement. If they subdivide, they pay the Special Charge; if they don't subdivide, they don't pay the Special Charge. In contrast, the remaining properties in the area to be served by the drain are zoned 'Rural Living'. This means that their owners can't subdivide and sell their properties. Consequently, these landowners face a Special Charge of many thousands of dollars and can't subdivide and sell their land to pay the bills. Clearly, this situation is inequitable and the Panel will have to recommend how to resolve it.

Cllr. Farrell said that the Panel will take two to three months to prepare and submit its recommendations to the council; and that the council will then discuss the recommendations. Everyone who made a submission concerning the proposal will be notified in advance of the council meeting at which the recommendations will be discussed, so that they can attend if they wish.

Anyone can ask a question to the council in the 'Question Time' section of each council meeting. To do so, dowload the form from the relevant page of the CoGG website:
www.geelongcity.vic.gov.au/council/meetings/

* For the background to this issue, see three earlier articles on the blog: Landowners to pay for developer's drains? (April 1 2010); A 'Special Charge' for developer's drains: DCSCA submission (April 12 2010); and Chasing a 'phantom value' (May 2 2010). See also DCSCA meets Cllr. Rod Macdonald (3) (12 August 2010), DCSCA meets Cllr. Rod Macdonald (2) (7 May 2010) and DCSCA meets Cllr. John Doull (2) (21 April 2010).

DCSCA meets Cllr. John Doull (3)

On 12 August, DCSCA Committee members met Councillor John Doull at Geelong's City Hall. This was the third of a series of quarterly meetings that DCSCA has initiated with the two Councillors whose wards coincide with DCSCA's area - the other Councillor is Rod Macdonald, with whom we had our third quarterly meeting on 6 August.

Cllr. Doull had invited Mr. Paul Jamieson (CoGG's Manager of Community Development) to the meeting, because DCSCA had said at our last quarterly meeting with Cllr. Doull that we had received no reply to our letter to Mr. Jamieson in January about council's proposals for Drysdale Town Centre. Mr. Jamieson said that our letter had been replied to, that he didn't have a copy with him, but would send it to us.

On the broader topic of community consultation, we put to Mr. Jamieson the broader argument about council consultations that we have suggested already to Cllrs. Doull and Macdonald and to CoGG CEO Mr. Stephen Griffin. Our argument is that the council's consultation policy lacks any benchmarks of quality and any mechanisms through which to evaluate a particular consultation exercise; we want to improve this situation, rather than just criticise it, so we had drafted an alternative consultation policy for the council; and we see the draft alternative as a basis for discussions with councillors and officers, not as a definitive statement. We emphasised that our experiences of poor consultations were shared by other members of the Affiliation of Bellarine Community Associations (ABCA). Mr. Jamieson said that he had read our draft alternative policy with interest and that Mr. Griffin had invited him to attend his next meeting with the ABCA, at which council consultations would be discussed. Mr. Jamieson said also that he believed that Mr. Griffin had invited Mr. Lindsay Allen (CoGG's Manager of Corporate Strategy & Property Management) to that meeting.

We suggested to Cllr. Doull and to Mr. Jamieson that the council could improve its consultation processes without changing its policy, by explaining the goals, methods and timelines of a particular exercise to stakeholders. They agreed that it would be worth exploring the idea of some 'template' letters to stakeholders through which to do this. Everyone accepted that the council often has to meet statutory requirements in its consultations, but that within those requirements there can still be room for the council to explain the process, and enable and encourage people to participate in it.

We asked Cllr. Doull whether the selection panel for the post of Social Planner that the council is advertising currently will include a community representative. While this isn't normal practice, we suggested that since the focus of the job is as much on local communities as on the council, a perspective other than the council's would be helpful. Cllr. Doull disagreed, saying that it was managers' responsibility to judge people's suitability for a job; Mr. Jamieson agreed.

Next, we discussed the Submission Panel that the council has established to review its proposal to levy a 'Special Charge' on landowners in the Central Road area of Clifton Springs.* The council gave just three working days notice of the date when the Panel would meet, but pressure from DCSCA and others led to it being postponed for a month. We asked Cllr. Doull whether there was a policy concerning the amount of notice to be given of Panel hearings and he said that there was, but he didn't know the details.

We asked Cllr. Doull why DCSCA members and friends in the Springs Street area of Clifton Springs have received no response to their request to him and to Councillors Mitchell and Richards to discuss the Community Plan for Springs Street Reserve that they submitted on June 24.* Cllr. Doull said that councillors needed to be briefed by officers, so that they had a 'position' to put when meeting residents. He said that he had visited the site recently with Mr. Van Driel (CoGG's Manager, City Services) and that the two of them would discuss the site's future with CoGG CEO Mr. Stephen Griffin.We said that it might be more productive if a council 'position' was developed in partnership with local people, rather than presented to them as a finished product. Cllr. Doull disagreed. He also said of the Springs Street open space that, 'There's a commercial value that the council will want to realise.'; and he said that he would give us a definite date for that meeting to discuss the Community Plan that was submitted on June 24.

Finally, we brought Cllr. Doull up to date with recent DCSCA actions. First, DCSCA's suggestion that the council includes Clifton Springs in a trial of an electric car service in Geelong that it is negotiating currently with the USA-based Better Place Electric Vehicles. Cllr. Doull will visit a Better Place trial in Japan later this year. He applauded our initiative but said that it was too early to say whether a trial would happen in Geelong. He referred us to a report - Future-Proofing Geelong - that council had adopted at its meeting on 27 July 2010, because it contained several policies responding to global warming. Second, preparations for the Festival of Glass (February 2011). Third, DCSCA's next Public Meeting (22 September at 7.00 p.m. at SpringDale), which will consider how to generate local jobs and wealth in our community and will also be DCSCA's Annual General Meeting for 2010.

DCSCA's next quarterly meeting with Cllr. Doull will be on Thursday Novmber 11 at 10.00 a.m. at City Hall. This will be the first such meeting with DCSCA's new Committee as elected at the AGM.

Would you like us to discuss any issues with Cllr. Doull at that meeting? If so, please leave a comment below, e-mail DCSCA (dryclift@bigpond.com) or write to DCSCA at P.O. Box 581, Drysdale 3222.

* For the background to this issue, see three earlier articles on the blog: Landowners to pay for developer's drains? (April 1 2010); A 'Special Charge' for developer's drains: DCSCA submission (April 12 2010); and Chasing a 'phantom value' (May 2 2010).
* For the background to this issue, see the earlier article on the blog: 'Community Plan' authors await councillors' response (July 23 2010).

DCSCA meets Cllr. Rod Macdonald (3)

On 6 August, DCSCA Committee members met Councillor Rod Macdonald in Drysdale. This was the third of a series of quarterly meetings that DCSCA has initiated with the two Councillors whose wards coincide with DCSCA's area - the other is Councillor John Doull, with whom we will have our third quarterly meeting on 12 August.

First, we discussed the Submission Panel that the council has established to review its proposal to levy a 'Special Charge' on landowners in the Central Road area of Clifton Springs.* The council gave just three working days notice of the date when the Panel would meet, but pressure from DCSCA and others led to it being postponed for a month. We asked Cllr. Macdonald whether there was a policy concerning the amount of notice to be given of Panel hearings and he said that there was (10 - 14 days), but that it hadn't been adhered to in this case.

Next, we said that we had still not received a reply from CoGG's Manager of Community Development Mr. Paul Jamieson, to DCSCA's letter to him in January about CoGG proposals for Drysdale Town Centre. Cllr. Macdonald said that he had raised this with Paul Jamieson (as he said he would at our last quarterly meeting), but hasn't had a reply; so he'll contact Paul Jamieson again. On the broader topic of community consultation, we asked Cllr. Macdonald whether the selection panel for the post of Social Planner that the council is advertising currently will include a community representative. While this isn't normal practice, we suggested that since the focus of the job is as much on local communities as on the council, a perspective other than the council's would be helpful. Cllr. Macdonald disagreed, saying that it was mangers' job to judge people's suitability for a job.

We then spoke at length about the proposal to upgrade facilities at Lake Lorne in Drysdale, including building a walking track around it.* We said that the project - which DCSCA initiated in 2007 - has stalled. No money is allocated to it in the council's 2010/2011 budget and it looks like no work will be possible until July 2011 at the earliest; and we had suggestions for ways forward. Our discussion with Cllr. Macdonald on this issue was inconclusive, so DCSCA's new Committee (post-AGM) may return to it with detailed proposals at the next quarterly meeting with him.

Finally, we brought Cllr. Macdonald up to date with recent DCSCA actions. First, DCSCA's suggestion that the council includes Clifton Springs in a trial of an electric car service in Geelong that it is negotiating currently. Cllr. Macdonald isn't involved in the negotiations, but he applauded our initiative and hoped it was successsful. Second, preparations for the Festival of Glass (February 2011). Cllr. Macdonald remains very enthusiastic and supportive and, as he has done before, made some useful duggestions. Third, DCSCA's next Public Meeting (22 September at 7.00 p.m. at SpringDale), which will consider how to generate local jobs and wealth in our community and will also be DCSCA's Annual General Meeting for 2010. Cllr. Macdonald was interested in our focus on the local economy and wants to discuss it further.

DCSCA's next quarterly meeting with Cllr. Macdonald will be on Friday Novmber 5 at 10.00 a.m. (venue TBA). This will be the first such meeting with DCSCA's new Committee as elected at the AGM.

Would you like us to discuss any issues with Cllr. Macdonald at that meeting? If so, please leave a comment below, e-mail DCSCA (dryclift@bigpond.com) or write to DCSCA at P.O. Box 581, Drysdale 3222.

* For the background to this issue, see three earlier articles on the blog: Landowners to pay for developer's drains? (April 1 2010); A 'Special Charge' for developer's drains: DCSCA submission (April 12 2010); and Chasing a 'phantom value' (May 2 2010). We had discussed the 'Special Charge' itself in our last meeting with Cllr. Macdonald, who had agreed with DCSCA's suggestion that a possible way forward would be to place covenants on title deeds so that the Charge is payable only when the added value is realised.

* For the background to this issue, see three earlier articles on the blog, each entitled Lake Lorne Pathway: December 14 2009; January 8 2010; February 7 2010.

Local voices down the drain? Update

Pressure from local people has led the City of Greater Geelong to postpone a planned internal review of its proposal to levy landowners in Central Road, Clifton Springs, a 'Special Charge' of between $3,000 and $256,888 each.

The 'Special Charge' is meant to raise part of the estimated $1,492,827 cost of a new main drain for a retirement village in Central Road. When the council announced the proposed 'Special Charge' in February, more than thirty local landowners objected, as did the Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association. On March 31, the objectors held a public meeting that featured on Channel 9's A Current Affair.

On Thursday 15 July, some of the objectors received a letter (postmarked 13 July) from the council inviting them to appear before an internal Submissions Panel established to review objections to the proposal. The letter said that the Panel would be chaired by Councillor Jan Farrell, who holds the council's 'Democracy and Governance' portfolio; and that it would meet on Tuesday 20 July, i.e. just three working days away. By Friday July 16, other objectors hadn't even received such a letter.

The Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association (and others) argued strongly to Cllr. Farrell that three working days was insufficient notice. On Monday 19 July, Cllr. Farrell told the association that she had postponed the Submissions Panel until 16 August.

Community Association Secretary Patrick Hughes said, 'This is a small but significant victory for local democracy. We applaud Councillor Farrell's decision to postpone the Panel until August 16 and we have thanked her for her sensitivity on this issue. People have work and family commitments and can't just set them aside at three working days notice. Councillor Farrell's decision gives local landowners a reasonable time in which to prepare their arguments and the association is helping them to do so. The outcome will be a more thorough and rigorous examination of the issues than would have been possible in the council's original timetable.'

DCSCA meets Cllr. Rod Macdonald (2)

On 7 May, DCSCA committee members met Councillor Rod Macdonald at Geelong City Hall. This was the second of a series of quarterly meetings that DCSCA has initiated with the two Councillors whose wards coincide with DCSCA's area - the other is Councillor John Doull, with whom we had our second quarterly meeting on 19 April. (See DCSCA meets Cllr. John Doull (2), Tuesday, April 20, 2010 on this blog.)

This meeting, like its predecessor, was positive and productive. First, we discussed the 'Special Charges' that CoGG is using to fund new infrastructure, such as the proposed drain in the Central Road area of Clifton Springs. Cllr. Macdonald said that he agrees with Special Charges on equity grounds, i.e. when publicly funded infrastructure (e.g. footpaths, drains) adds value to a property, that property's owner should pay part of the cost. When people buy properties where such infrastructure is already in place, a developer will have already paid some or all of the cost, so there is no need to levy a Special Charge to recover it.

Regarding the Central Road scheme, Cllr. Macdonald said that some property owners have agreed to pay the whole of their share of the cost outside of the Special Charge scheme and through a Section 173 Agreement. They will be reimbursed a share of the cost by the developer. He also said that CoGG will take the final decision on how people will pay their Special Charge only after CoGG's internal Submissions Panel has heard from people who submitted their views. Cllr. Macdonald agreed that DCSCA's suggestion that caveats be placed on title deeds (so that the Charge is payable only when the added value is realised) is a possible way forward.

Next, we said that CoGG's Manager of Community Development Mr. Paul Jamieson, had failed to reply to DCSCA's letter to him in January about CoGG proposals for Drysdale Town Centre. Cllr. Macdonald said that he will ask Paul Jamieson why he hasn't replied.

The third item on the agenda was CoGG's consultation policy/practices - specifically, DCSCA's draft Consultation Policy for CoGG. Cllr. Macdonald said that he believes that present CoGG policies and practices around consultation are working well, but accepts that CoGG has no evidence to substantiate this. He will read DCSCA's draft Consultation Policy and respond to it. He asked DCSCA to alert him when officers' reports deal with consultation submissions in summary only and said he would ask why there wasn't more detail.

Our final topic for discussion was CoGG's forthcoming budget and plan for 2010/11 and whether money is allocated to specific projects or to project areas. Cllr. Macdonald said that most funding goes to program areas, which will have proposed specific projects, so new projects won't be funded in 2010/11. However, there can be some room within a program to re-order priorities and new projects may fit within this. We asked whether it would be possible to apply for funds for signage at the entrance to Drysdale. Cllr. Macdonald said that a 'Welcome' sign and a 'community notice board' could be funded by Councillors' Community Grants. He also said that in Leopold, the community bank sponsors a community notice board, places items in it and removes them when they're out of date. DCSCA might explore a similar arrangement for Drysdale & Clifton Springs.

Still on the subject of projects, DCSCA has started to consider how we keep our green spaces free from 'over-structured' play and recreation, i.e. leave them much as they are. Cllr. Macdonald believes that open spaces should be attractive and should contribute to a sense of community as people use them. Thus, they might be improved minimally by, e.g., new planting and/or landscaping, new seats. There should be a balance between sites with facilities for 'active' recreation/leisure and sites that are purely for 'passive' recreation/leisure.

Finally, we brought Cllr. Macdonald up to date with recent DCSCA actions. First, preparations for the Festival of Glass (February 2011). He remains very supportive and suggested various people to contact re different aspects of organising the Festival. Second, DCSCA's recent public information session on Planning Panels; and third, DCSCA's next quarterly Public Meeting (scheduled for 2 June at 7.00 p.m. at SpringDale), which will consider recreation and leisure in our community.


Our next quarterly meeting with Cllr. Macdonald will be on 6 August at 10.00 a.m. at City Hall.

Would you like us to discuss any issues with Cllr. Macdonald at that meeting? If so, please leave a comment below, e-mail DCSCA: dryclift@bigpond.com or write to DCSCA at P.O. Box 581, Drysdale 3222.

Chasing a 'phantom value'

The City of Greater Geelong is increasing rates and levying Special Charges on the basis of a 'phantom value' whose existence it believes in but can't prove.

The 'phantom value' haunts CoGG's current proposals to re-zone parts of Drysdale & Clifton Springs. These proposals - in Amendments C103 and C194 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme - will re-zone areas as high-density housing ('R1'), triggering rates rises for many local people. (See earlier posts on drycliftdays under the title 'Re-zoning Drysdale & Clifton Springs'.)

CoGG argues that increased rates will merely reflect increased property values, but gives no evidence that this 'phantom value' exists. CoGG's belief in 'phantom value' leads them to charge rates on a re-zoned rural block (e.g. 2-5 acres) as if the owner has subdivided their block according to its new status as high-density housing - even if they haven't!

Of course, any 'phantom value' can be realised only when a re-zoned property is sold (generally following a sub-division). Until then, the property is no more valuable than it was before it was rezoned, yet its owner now faces higher rates bills.

'Phantom value' also haunts CoGG's current proposals to levy a Special Charge of thousands of dollars on landowners in the Central Road of Clifton Springs to pay for a drain for a proposed retirement village. (See 'A "Special Charge" for developer's drains' on drycliftdays.) As if that wasn't enough, CoGG also wants to re-zone the Central Road area as high-density housing and raise landowners' rates accordingly. CoGG argues that both the Special Charge and the re-zoning will increase property values - but gives no proof that this 'phantom value' exists. Indeed, CoGG cannot prove that either the Special Charge or the re-zoning would raise property values sufficiently even to cover the costs to each landowner, let alone generate a profit. Further, many landowners in the Central Road area say that they don't want to realise the 'phantom value', because they don't want to subdivide their homes and sell them.

The 'phantom value' is haunting CoGG's proposal to levy property owners in parts of Drysdale a Special Charge to pay for new footpaths outside their properties; and it also haunts CoGG's proposal to levy a similar Special Charge on property owners in parts of Ocean Grove.


'Rates increase only after a sale', says CoGG
In correspondence with CoGG officers about Amendments C103 and C194, DCSCA has been told that the 'phantom value' is invoked only when a landowner wishes to sell re-zoned land; until then, the rates on the property remain as they were before it was re-zoned. However, this is only half the story.

CoGG's policy is to increase rates after re-zoned land is sold OR after a rates review:

'Council valuations and rates will change in line with changes to sales values, not necessarily immediately in line with zoning. Although there is a rezoning, where the actual land use does not change and there is no other reason to do a supplementary valuation (e.g. building works) it has been Council practice not to change the valuation of a property until there is a sale or subdivision of the property or until the next municipal revaluation is completed. The last municipal revaluation was done as at 1 January 2008 and revaluations are conducted every second year.'

(This came from the CoGG website about Armstrong Creek, but it's general policy, not restricted to Armstrong Creek.)

In other words, if CoGG re-zones your property, you have a maximum of two years before your rates are likely to increase. People whose properties are targeted in Amendments C103 and C194, together with people in the Central Road area, should start saving up!

What can be done?
DCSCA accepts that when an area is rezoned as 'R1', landowners in the area may, if they wish, subdivide and sell parts or all of their property; and that if they do so, they may make a greater profit than if the land hadn't been re-zoned. However, DCSCA believes that current owners of re-zoned land should not have to pay increased rates until they benefit from owning that re-zoned land - i.e., until they sell it for an increased profit.

Similarly, we accept that installing new infrastructure (e.g. drains or footpaths) in an area may increase the value of properties in that area, which may be reflected in increased property prices. However, DCSCA believes that current owners of property in that area should not have to pay (via a Special Charge) for the new infrastructure until they benefit from owning property with an increased value - i.e., until they sell it for an increased profit.

How can this happen? DCSCA proposes that when a property is re-zoned and/or incurs a Special Charge, a caveat should be added to the deeds of that property. The caveat should state that:
1. When the property is sold, its rateable value will be reviewed and may be increased. Until the property is sold, its current owner (or her/his agent) will continue to pay rates as if the property had not been re-zoned.
2. When the property is sold, the current owner (or her/his agent) shall pay the proportion (without interest!) of any Special Charge allocated to the property, provided that this is covered by the increase in the property's price due to the new infrastructure associated with the Special Charge.

In this way, whoever benefits from a re-zoning or from new infrastructure contributes appropriately when the 'phantom value' associated with it becomes real value - in the form of increased profits from the sale of the property - and not before.

DCSCA meets Cllr. John Doull (2)

On 18 April, DCSCA committee members met Cllr. John Doull at Geelong City Hall. This was the second of a series of quarterly meetings that DCSCA has initiated with the two Councillors with wards in DCSCA's area - the other Councillor is Rod Macdonald, with whom we'll have our second quarterly meeting on 7 May.

'Special charges'
We asked Cllr. Doull whether he supported the principle of levying 'Special Charges' on landowners to pay for infrastructure - for example the landowners in the Central Road area of Clifton Springs, who face bills of thousands of dollars for a drain to service proposed a retirement village (see 'A "Special Charge" for developer's drains' elsewhere on this blog). John Doull sees no alternative, because CoGG is 'catching up' with past developments that included no infrastructure. He said that footpaths increase a property's sale price and will send DCSCA evidence of this. He also said that he and Cllrs. Richards and Farrell have asked CoGG's Engineering Department to examine alternatives to concrete paths (e.g. crushed rock).

Drysdale town centre
Then, we told Cllr. Doull that in January, DCSCA wrote to ask Mr. Paul Jamieson - CoGG Manger, Community Development - for a discussion about CoGG's plans for Drysdale town centre, but had received no reply. Cllr. Doull said that he would ask Paul Jamieson why he hadn't replied.

City of Greater Geelong's consultations policy
Next, we raised DCSCA's proposals for changes in CoGG's consultation policy. We'd raised this with Cllr. Doull before, but received no substantive response. Cllr. Doull said that he was unaware of any complaints about CoGG's consultation policy. In response, we cited local people's dissatisfaction with consultations around, for example, the Drysdale & Clifton Springs Structure Plan, CoGG's plans for Drysdale town centre, Planning Amendments C194 and C103 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme and the proposed 'Special Charge'. Cllr. Doull then said that he has no evidence that CoGG consultations have worked badly in his ward and cited recent successful exercises in Portarlington, St. Leonards and Indented Head.

Retaining open spaces
We then discussed how best to retain existing open spaces - including Beacon point Reserve - as recreation areas. Cllr. Doull said that this was an issue he wants to promote and invited DCSCA to write to him saying that alongside recreational facilities, adults and children need simple open space; that CoGG should be setting aside land for this purpose - preferably linked in 'corridors'; and that CoGG should investigate the feasibility of setting covenants on open space (equivalent to the 'Land For Wildlife' scheme) to identify them and protect them from developers' claims.

Finally, we brought Cllr. Doull up to date on the Drysdale Festival of Glass and told him about DCSCA's information session on Planning Panels (Tuesday 20 April).

Our next quarterly meeting with Cllr. Doull will be on 19 July at 4.00 p.m. at City Hall.

A 'Special Charge' for developer's drains: DCSCA submission

Today (April 12), DCSCA has made a formal submission to the City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) about its proposal to levy a 'Special Charge' on landowners in the Central Road area of Clifton Springs.

Officially, DCSCA has no 'right' to make such a submission, because it doesn't occupy any land in the area in question and so it wouldn't have to pay a 'Special Charge' if CoGG decides to levy one. However, as we say in our submission, DCSCA is a significant representative voice of the local community and, as such, asks CoGG to acknowledge our views in its discussions about the proposed 'Special Charge'.

DCSCA has had discussions with local landowners likely to be affected by the 'Special Charge', but our submission is not made on their behalf, because they haven't asked us to. However, our submission does include matters of concern which the landowners raised with us, together with other concerns of our own.

In summary, DCSCA is arguing that the 'Special Charge' shouldn't be levied for six reasons:
1. The proposal to levy a 'Special Charge' includes no evidence that the proposed drain will be fit for purpose.
2. The timing of public consultation around the proposed 'Special Charge' has excluded many local voices.
3. The public consultation around the proposed 'Special Charge' has been conducted inappropriately.
4. The proposed 'Special Charge' would threaten the financial security and well-being of local landowners.
5. The Council has provided no evidence that the local infrastructure will accommodate the proposed developments in Central Road.
6. The proposed 'Special Charge' contradicts CoGG's Structure Plan for Drysdale & Clifton Springs.

Please see below for the full text of the submission.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRYSDALE & CLIFTON SPRINGS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION Inc.
(Incorporation No. A0046568H)
Mail: P.O. Box 581, Drysdale, Victoria 3222
E-mail: dryclift@bigpond.com
Blog: http//drycliftdays.blogspot.com/

SUBMISSION to the Engineering Design Unit, City of Greater Geelong, concerning the proposal to levy a 'Special Charge' on the owners of land in the area bounded by Jetty Road, Ada Street, Thomas Street and Central Road in Clifton Springs and Drysdale.

Background and rationale for the submission
The City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) has agreed with Melbourne-based Pinnacle Living to share the estimated $1,492,827 cost of a new main drain for a retirement village in Clifton Springs and expects local landowners to pay most of it. CoGG estimates that the project will cost $1,492,827, but states that the true cost will be unknown until work is completed. At its meeting on 23 February 2010, the Council resolved to declare a 'Special Charge' on local landowners to cover the cost, to invite their comments on this proposal and to decide the matter at its meeting on 8 June 2010 (or at a subsequent meeting).

The Council report proposing this 'Special Charge' makes it clear that it is the result of extensive discussions between the Council and Pinnacle Holdings, which have resulted in a legal agreement between them to divide the cost. Pinnacle Holdings will pay approximately 23% of the cost, the Council will pay the remaining 77% and will then attempt to recover that money from local landowners.

The Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association (DCSCA) does not occupy any land in the target area and would not be required to pay a 'Special Charge' if CoGG decides to levy one. However, DCSCA is a significant representative voice of the Drysdale and Clifton Springs community and, as such, wishes to submit its views on this proposal and asks CoGG to acknowledge them in its deliberations.


The DCSCA submission
The Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association (DCSCA) believes that the City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) should not levy the proposed 'Special Charge' on the owners of land in the area bounded by Jetty Road, Ada Street, Thomas Street and Central Road in Clifton Springs and Drysdale for six reasons, each of which is presented in detail in what follows.

1. The proposal to levy a 'Special Charge' includes no evidence that the proposed drain will be fit for purpose.
DCSCA believes that the proposal to levy the 'Special Charge' is seriously deficient in evidence that the proposed drain would meet the purpose intended for it. We believe that the proposal should not be adopted unless and until the following questions are answered to the satisfaction of all concerned.

• The CoGG report proposing the 'Special Charge' doesn't explain the proposed drain's exact nature and purpose. What will be its size, capacity, depth underground, inlet locations and outfall capacity and locations? How will these factors relate to the number of dwellings that would be created if the retirement village was constructed as currently planned and all the possible subdivision in neighbouring properties occurs?

• If the proposed drain is for stormwater run-off, what arrangements will be put in place to collect, filter and re-use any of this water before it goes to the drain? What percentage of this stormwater runoff will be re-used in this way by the retirement village?

• What will be the nature of the proposed drain's outlet into Griggs Creek? What will be the effect on Griggs Creek - its flow and its banks - of adding this outflow to the new outflows from Stage 1 of the Jetty Road scheme?

• What effects will the drain's construction and the subsequent property development have on traffic in Jetty Road? Already, traffic (including bulky construction vehicles) in Jetty Road will be increased by the development of Stage 1 of the Jetty Road scheme; this increased traffic flow will be increased still further by the proposed retirement village and by the subdivision of neighbouring blocks.

• What risks will the drain's construction and the subsequent property development pose to pedestrians and cyclists - in particular, to students at the nearby Clifton Springs Primary School?


2. The timing of public consultation around the proposed 'Special Charge' has excluded many local voices.
DCSCA believes that the 'Special Charge' should not be levied because the timing of the public consultation around it has excluded many people from expressing their views.
The proposal to levy the 'Special Charge' was advertised - and public comment invited - at a time when most people were either preparing for Easter holidays or taking them. Adverts appeared in the local press on 27 March 2010 and the closing date for submissions is 26 April 2010. This gave local people one month to respond. However, their time to respond is reduced significantly, if they take a week or two annual holiday in that time, as many local people do.

Further, the timing of this public exhibition cannot be seen as just 'unfortunate'. Instead, it is the latest example of a pattern of exhibiting controversial proposals over holiday periods. When CoGG invited public comment on its draft Drysdale & Clifton Springs Structure Plan, it did so at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 - i.e. over the Xmas/New Year holiday period - and was criticised for it in the submissions it received. More recently, when CoGG invited public comment on its proposed Amendments C103 and C194 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, it did so at the end of 2009 and the beginning of 2010 - i.e. over the Xmas/New Year holiday period - and was criticised for it in the submissions it received.


3. The public consultation around the proposed 'Special Charge' has been conducted inappropriately.
DCSCA believes that the 'Special Charge' should not be levied because public consultation around it has been conducted inappropriately.

Landowners targeted by the 'Special Charge' first learnt about it by reading a CoGG notice in the Geelong Advertiser on 27 March 2010. They did not receive an individual, formal letter from CoGG informing them of the proposals and inviting them to comment. This is a major breach of standard procedures.

(Subsequently, the owners of some of the blocks listed in the notice received a letter from CoGG on Tuesday 30 March 2010 telling them that their properties were not, in fact, included in the proposal! What other procedural errors have been made that have not yet emerged?)

In another major breach of standard procedures, the Council has held selective discussions with landowners. The report to Council that accompanied the proposal to levy a 'Special Charge' indicates that consultations have been held prior to the publication of the official notice and that the results were positive:
'Considerable interest has been shown by some of these landowners, to develop (sic).' (p. 107)
'Discussions have been held with some owners.' (p. 109)

The coy language - 'some landowners' - shows that these discussions were selective ('some' landowners were clearly excluded); and that these inappropriate discussions revealed no majority in favour of the proposal - we would surely have read about it if they had!

A further breach of procedures appears to have happened around a prior commitment to local landowners by the Council. Local landowners have said that CoGG wrote to them in 2006 stating that if and when a drain is required, the Council would pay for the works and then levy the developers. It would appear that this decision has not been rescinded formally and so the proposal to levy a 'Special Charge' should not be adopted unless and until this procedural issue is clarified satisfactorily to all concerned.

Finally, DCSCA has received no information from CoGG regarding the proposed 'Special Charge'. While CoGG has no duty to inform a community association of such a proposal, a community association can be a further channel of information for CoGG and association members can 'spread the message' by word of mouth. Inviting DCSCA to act in this way would be a positive response by the CoGG to the continuing criticisms of its public communication and consultation from, e.g., community associations on the Bellarine Peninsula.


4. The proposed 'Special Charge' would threaten the financial security and well-being of local landowners.
DCSCA believes that the 'Special Charge' should not be levied unless and until all the landowners likely to be affected have agreed freely and without any external pressure whatever to accept it.

Many of the landowners likely to be affected by the 'Special Charge' have been settled in their homes for many years - sometimes decades. Many of them live on a pension or other form of fixed income and their major asset is their home. If CoGG adopts the proposed 'Special Charge', many of these landowners will face bills of tens of thousand of dollars which they will simply be unable to pay - even over the 'five years with interest at overdraft rates' that CoGG is offering as a concession! Further, the Council has provided no evidence that the sale of any of the blocks of land will even cover the proposed 'Special Charge', let alone create a profit.

CoGG's rationale for the proposed 'Special Charge' is that building the drain will confer a 'special benefit' to each property, which is that, 'they can be developed by means of further subdivision. This has the potential to provide a financial gain for property owners. As indicated, without the drain, subdivision cannot proceed even if the current zoning is in place.' (Minutes of CoGG meeting 23 February 2010. p. 107)

However, many landowners have stated that as they have no wish to 'develop' their land by subdividing it, the proposed drain will not confer a 'special benefit' on them and they should not have to contribute to the cost of building it. Instead, they believe that as the proposed drain's construction will confer a 'special benefit' on Pinnacle Holdings - the developer of the proposed retirement village - the Pinnacle Holdings should pay for it.

DCSCA accepts that if the proposed drain is built and if the area is rezoned to 'Residential 1', landowners will be able to subdivide and sell parts of their property if they wish; and that they may make a profit by doing so. However, DCSCA believes that it is unjust to force current landowners to contribute to the cost of the drain irrespective of whether they will benefit from it. Instead, we propose that a caveat be added to the deeds of each affected property that states that the proportion of the 'Special Charge' allocated to that property becomes payable (without interest!) by the owner at the time the block is sub-divided. By this means, whoever gains a (currently hypothetical) financial benefit from the drain contributes an appropriate portion of that benefit.


5. The Council has provided no evidence that the local infrastructure will accommodate the proposed developments in Central Road.
DCSCA believes that the 'Special Charge' should not be levied unless and until CoGG can demonstrate convincingly that the local infrastructure will be able to accommodate the developments associated with the proposed 'Special Charge'. DCSCA also believes that Pinnacle Holdings should not receive permission to build its proposed retirement village in Central Road unless and until the Council provides such convincing evidence.

The City of Greater Geelong has produced no evidence that the local infrastructure will be able to accommodate the developments associated with the proposed 'Special Charge'. There is local concern that Jetty Road - under pressure already from Stage 1 of the Jetty Road development - will be unable to accommodate the extra traffic associated with the proposed retirement village and with the subdivision of the neighbouring blocks. Similarly, there is local concern that the water and sewerage infrastructure - laid to service a population density significantly smaller than is envisaged in these proposals - will be unable to cope with the proposed retirement village and with the subdivision of the neighbouring blocks.


6. The proposed 'Special Charge' contradicts CoGG's Structure Plan for Drysdale & Clifton Springs.
DCSCA believes that the 'Special Charge' should not be levied because it contradicts CoGG's Structure Plan for Drysdale & Clifton Springs and so its adoption would render the Structure Plan meaningless.

CoGG's Structure Plan for Drysdale & Clifton Springs states in its 'Introduction' that the Plan will, 'guide Council's consideration of proposed rezonings and applications for planning permits.' (p. 1). In the consultations around the draft Structure Plan, local people were led to believe that their views could influence the development of the area. The Structure Plan contains no mention of a new drain in this area, let alone any mention of a 'Special Charge' being levied on landowners to pay for it. Thus, if CoGG decides to levy the proposed 'Special Charge', it will go against its own Structure Plan, making the consultations look like just a Public Relations exercise.

This is not the first time that CoGG has proposed action in contradiction of its own Structure Plan. Its proposed Amendment C194 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme included a proposal to rezone land in the Springs Street area of Clifton Springs that contradicted a specific recommendation in the Structure Plan.