Welcome

This blog was established by Patrick Hughes (1948 - 2022). More content that Patrick intended to add to the blog has been added by his partner, Glenda Mac Naughton, since his death. Patrick was an avid and critical reader, a member of several book groups over the years, a great lover of music histories and biographies and a community activist and policy analyist and developer. This blog houses his writing across these diverse areas of his interests. It is a way to still engage with his thinking and thoughts and to pay tribute to it.

Search This Blog

Monday, February 1, 2010

Structure Plan in action: rezoning drysdale


The City of Greater Geelong wants to change land-use in four areas of Drysdale through Amendments C194 and C103 to its Greater Geelong Planning Scheme. Through these two amendments, the Council wants to rezone the area bounded by High, Eversleigh & Princess Streets in Drysdale from 'Residential' to 'Business', with a consequent rates increase; and the area bounded by Princess and Woodville Streets, Clarendon Road & the back of the buildings facing Murradoc Road in Drysdale from 'Farming' and 'Low Density Residential' to 'Residential 1' (i.e. high density housing), with a consequent rates increase. The Council also wants to rezone other properties in Drysdale to 'Residential'. These are the (Council-owned) properties at 9-15 Spring St. and 17-29 Spring St. , plus 13a Princess Street. Finally, the Council wants to rezone land next to the Potato Shed to develop it as a recreational 'hub'.

Each Amendment has been exhibited for public consultation and each is likely to increase residents' rates. The closing date for public comments was 18 January, by which time the Council had received around 20 submissions. One of those submissions was mine; the text follows.

SUBMISSION to the Strategic Planning Unit, City of Greater Geelong, concerning the proposed Amendments C194 and C103 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.

I am a resident of Drysdale whose life will be affected by these Amendments and I am also concerned about the effects of these Amendments on the lives and wellbeing of people in the area that they target for rezoning. Consequently, I believe that the City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) should not adopt proposed Amendments C194 and C103, I have for seven reasons for my opposition.

First, I believe that Amendment C194 should not be even considered, let alone adopted, until there is far more detailed information available about the proposed rezoning of the Regional Community and Cultural Hub site. Does the Council wish to rezone it to 'Mixed Use' so that forms of development are possible other than a Regional Community and Cultural Hub? Have local people said that they wish to lose their planned Regional Community and Cultural Hub even before it has been designed? As a local resident, I certainly have received no such information.

Second, 'public consultation' around these Amendments has happened when most people are either preparing for holidays or taking them. While the Council may respond that it has extended the statutory period of 'public consultation' by a month to take account of this, past experience should show the Council that this is inadequate. As a local resident, I'm aware that the Council arranged the 'public consultation' on its draft Drysdale & Clifton Springs Structure Plan in an equivalent period - the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 - and was criticised for it in the submissions it received. I'm also aware that many people who made submissions concerning that draft feel that their views were ignored.

Third, I believe that Amendment C194 should not be adopted, because it contradicts CoGG's Structure Plan for Drysdale & Clifton Springs. The press adverts inviting public comment on Amendment C194 say that the Amendment will introduce a new clause to the Greater Geelong Planning scheme that will, 'include the land use directions and policies identified in the adopted Drysdale/Clifton Springs Structure Plan April 2009'; and the 'Introduction' to that Structure Plan states that the Plan will, 'guide Council's consideration of proposed rezonings and applications for planning permits.' (p. 1). However, Amendment C194 proposes to rezone 17-29 Springs Street from Business 1 to Residential 1. This contradicts the Structure Plan, which recommends that:
'the Council owned land at 17-29 Springs Street, Clifton Springs, be rezoned from Business 1 to Mixed Use.' (Drysdale Clifton Springs Structure Plan April 2009 p. 17.)

The Structure Plan recommends rezoning this site to Mixed Use because it represents 'a good opportunity to provide an alternative use such as tourist accommodation.' (p.17); and such use would be consistent with the statement elsewhere in the Structure Plan that 'Strong State and Local Planning Policies provide directions for … promotion of tourist activities and accommodation.' (Drysdale Clifton Springs Structure Plan April 2009 p. 4. Emphasis added.) Rezoning the site to Residential 1 contradicts both of those statements about tourist accommodation.

Fourth, Amendment C103 should not be adopted because it would rezone parts of Murradoc Road to Residential 1. Creating still more dense housing in the town is unnecessary in the light of the planned 1,500-home Jetty Road development; and it is especially inappropriate in Murradoc Road, which holds major potential for the development of the sorts of high-tech light industry we need as we move towards a post-carbon economy. As a local resident, I've studied the Council's proposals (in its Structure Plan for Drysdale & Clifton Springs) for local economic and employment development, which amount to a few shops and a couple of tourist motels. These won't provide the sorts of high-skill, high-paying jobs that can offer our local young people alternatives to moving to Geelong and Melbourne. Most of the towns' services are situated in Murradoc Road already and it offers many opportunities for businesses in the area to create new sources of wealth. Despite these opportunities, the Council wants to see some more houses! As a local resident concerned about local unemployment, I can see no permanent, future-proof jobs in that 'vision' for the area. In my view, this Amendment should be radically revised with an eye to developing a vibrant economy in the area, not just another housing estate.

Fifth, Amendment C194 should not be adopted because it could increase the risk of flooding in Springs Street. Local people know that Springs Street has a history of flooding during heavy rain, yet it appears that they weren't consulted when this Amendment was drafted. Given the area's history, it seems only sensible that before any rezoning is contemplated, appropriate structural and hydrological surveys should determine the present risk of flooding in the area and assess the extent to which various forms of development could reduce or increase that risk.

Sixth, Amendment C194 would introduce dense housing at the expense of open space in Springs Street. The Amendment makes no case for introducing this relatively small pocket of dense housing in the open space in Springs Street; and it contains no justification for doing so at a time when the 1,500-home Stage 1 of the Jetty Road development will increase dense housing in the area very significantly.

Clifton Springs and Drysdale have been designated a growth area and will experience very significant expansion of buildings at the expense of open space. As a local resident who will experience that expansion, I approve of the Council's several statements (in its Structure Plan for Drysdale & Clifton Springs) that its intention is to retain the towns' traditional, rural character. These proposed Amendments contradict that intention. (See also my third reason.)

Seventh, I believe that neither Amendment C194 nor Amendment C103 should be even considered - far less adopted - unless and until all the people who live currently in the areas to be rezoned (the triangle bounded by High, Eversley and Princess Streets; and the area bounded by Clarendon Road, Princess Street, Woodville Street and the rear of Murradoc Road) have agreed freely to accept alternative equivalent accommodation.

The Council will undoubtedly use the proposed rezoning as a reason to raise these people's rates without increasing or improving the Council services they receive. The submissions to the Council's draft Structure Plan for Drysdale & Clifton Springs show that residents in these areas fear that they will be forced to move - either by rate rises or by compulsory purchase orders. While the proposed rezoning may increase the value of their property, this will benefit them only if they sell-up and move elsewhere and some, at least, of the residents do not wish to do so. Consequently, neither Amendment should be adopted until all of the current residents have accepted offers of alternative accommodation that is judged independently (e.g. by three independent real estate agents) to be equivalent to or better than their present homes; and there should be stringent, transparent measures to ensure that each resident takes their decision freely and without any external pressure whatever.

Patrick Hughes 15 January 2010

No comments:

Post a Comment