CoGG refers Jetty Road plans to Panel
The land in question has been designated as Stage 1 of the Jetty Road Urban Growth Area; and Councillors discussed a proposed amendment (Amendment C152) to the Greater Geelong Planing Scheme that would rezone the land and apply conditions (a 'Development Plan Overlay') to its development.
The Council officers' report on Amendment C152 opened subsequent decision-making to public scrutiny by giving a detailed summary of each submission, naming its author/s and responding to each one. This was in stark contrast to the officers' report to Council (April 14) on the 2008 Drysdale/Clifton Springs Structure Plan, which omitted detailed summaries of submissions and their authors and gave only broad responses to general issues in the submissions. Further, examination and analysis of the submissions to the Structure Plan reveals a snapshot of local concerns that is significantly different from that presented in the report.
First, the report misrepresents the number of submissions. It claims that the Council received 38 (p. 6) or 39 (p. 4) submissions, but in fact it received 42. Of that 42, one merely acknowledged receipt of the Plan and the other was an incomplete, blank document, so can be excluded. Including a detailed summary of each submission and naming its author/s would have precluded such an error.
Second, the report hides the extent of local people's concerns about the Plan. It groups submissions under four issues - Town Centre Concept; Traffic, Parking and Transport; Urban Consolidation; Other - and addresses each issue separately. This apparently reasonable approach hides the extent of people's concerns about the Plan. 62.5% (23/40) of the submissions were concerned about the Plan, including its effects on traffic and parking and on Drysdale's traditional character; its apparent preference for economic interests over local people's; and the insufficient or inappropriate consultation period associated with it. Indeed, many submissions concerned the Plan as a whole, rather than just one aspect. 62.5% translates into substantial disquiet with the Plan, yet the report fails to acknowledge it.
Third, the report fails to note that 15% (6/40) of submissions came from property owners asking for their property to be included in the proposed rezoning to 'Residential', while 25% (8/40) of submissions came from property owners objecting to their property being rezoned to 'Residential'. Is there room for a trade-off here?
The quality of the report on Amendment C152 demonstrates the Council's capacity to deal with submissions thoroughly. Let's hope that this capacity is used to good effect in the next period of public consultation around the 2008 Drysdale/Clifton Springs Structure Plan, which should start in June.
(Published as a Letter to the Editor in the Bellarine Times 19 May 2009)
On Tuesday 12 April, the City of Greater Geelong Council referred an application by seven property developers to have 153 ha of land (west of Jetty Road and north of Coryule Road) rezoned from 'Farming' to 'Residential 1' to an Independent Panel for review.
The land in question has been designated as Stage 1 of the Jetty Road Urban Growth Area; and Councillors discussed a proposed amendment (Amendment C152) to the Greater Geelong Planing Scheme that would rezone the land and apply conditions (a 'Development Plan Overlay') to its development.
The Council officers' report on Amendment C152 opened subsequent decision-making to public scrutiny by giving a detailed summary of each submission, naming its author/s and responding to each one. This was in stark contrast to the officers' report to Council (April 14) on the 2008 Drysdale/Clifton Springs Structure Plan, which omitted detailed summaries of submissions and their authors and gave only broad responses to general issues in the submissions. Further, examination and analysis of the submissions to the Structure Plan reveals a snapshot of local concerns that is significantly different from that presented in the report.
First, the report misrepresents the number of submissions. It claims that the Council received 38 (p. 6) or 39 (p. 4) submissions, but in fact it received 42. Of that 42, one merely acknowledged receipt of the Plan and the other was an incomplete, blank document, so can be excluded. Including a detailed summary of each submission and naming its author/s would have precluded such an error.
Second, the report hides the extent of local people's concerns about the Plan. It groups submissions under four issues - Town Centre Concept; Traffic, Parking and Transport; Urban Consolidation; Other - and addresses each issue separately. This apparently reasonable approach hides the extent of people's concerns about the Plan. 62.5% (23/40) of the submissions were concerned about the Plan, including its effects on traffic and parking and on Drysdale's traditional character; its apparent preference for economic interests over local people's; and the insufficient or inappropriate consultation period associated with it. Indeed, many submissions concerned the Plan as a whole, rather than just one aspect. 62.5% translates into substantial disquiet with the Plan, yet the report fails to acknowledge it.
Third, the report fails to note that 15% (6/40) of submissions came from property owners asking for their property to be included in the proposed rezoning to 'Residential', while 25% (8/40) of submissions came from property owners objecting to their property being rezoned to 'Residential'. Is there room for a trade-off here?
The quality of the report on Amendment C152 demonstrates the Council's capacity to deal with submissions thoroughly. Let's hope that this capacity is used to good effect in the next period of public consultation around the 2008 Drysdale/Clifton Springs Structure Plan, which should start in June.
(Published as a Letter to the Editor in the Bellarine Times 19 May 2009)
No comments:
Post a Comment