Central Road Drain in Drysdale - Press Articles

Drysdale residents face million-dollar plumbing bill, by Shane Fowles. Geelong Advertiser, March 2nd, 2012. "DRYSDALE residents have lost their bid to avoid paying tens of thousands of dollars for drainage works tied to a proposed new retirement village.

An appeal by two Central Rd landowners has been lost on legal grounds, although Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal vice-president Michael Macnamara had some compassion for their situation. "In a general sense it is difficult not to be very sympathetic to the ratepayers in this case," he said in his finding. "By buying and settling on relatively large allotments in a rural living zone they have opted to turn their backs on the more intensive residential development...

The applicants had to show that the special charge would not provide a special benefit to them, both now and in the future.

Mr Mcnamara said he was "inclined to think" that the benefits of the works, being the installation of connected plumbing, were not worth what the applicants were being charged..."

Waive that Charge or it's 'wave goodbye'! DryClift Days, Thursday, March 8, 2012. "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..."

Council down the drain in Drysdale, by Joanna Carson. Bellarine Times, March 6, 2012. "The Drysdale and Clifton Springs Community Association (DCSCA) urges ratepayers to vent their anger at the City of Greater Geelong in the upcoming elections. Ratepayers in the region are angry at the unfairness of massive bills being faced by the Central Road neighbours of a proposed retirement village. They are being told to fund new drainage works needed for the village, and have been hit with charges of between $3,400 and $257,000, depending on the size of their property. The developer will only pay $349,000 of the $1.1 million cost. Two residents of Central Road, both who are pensioners in a Rural Living zone and are facing a $70,000 plus bill, took the council to VCAT but lost their case last week. The retirement village land is zoned residential, unlike land along the drain's path..."

VCAT tells residents, 'Pay for developer's drain'! DryClift Days, Wednesday, February 29, 2012. "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...."

Council's 'Special Charge' not cut and dried, DryClift Days, Wednesday, February 8, 2012. "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..."

Central Road Drysdale Residents not supported by VCAT

VCAT has handed down their decision on the Central Road retirement village drainage case.

The residents lost. Geelong Council's Special charge has been confirmed. The residents must pay the special charge for drainage.

We put up a valiant fight

The case took a whole day and it was very tiring. The amount of preparation that goes into fighting a case like this is huge.

We had a fair hearing. Our case was heard by Judge MF Macnamara, Vice President. He dismissed both our applications under Section 185 and 185AA of the Local Government Act 1989.

The Judge was sympathetic to our grounds for a hearing. However he said

"... success by an applicant for review requires demonstration that no benefit at all will accrue from the relevant work.  It is not sufficient to demonstrate for instance that the special benefit to accrue does not really justify the size of the rate or charge levied on the ratepayer...

I am inclined to think that viewed from the point of view of either of these ratepayers, the benefit held out by these works is simply not worth what they are being charged.  Nevertheless, that fact in itself, if it be accepted as a fact, is not sufficient to make out the relevant ground.  To the extent that these applications are based on this ground for review the applications must fail."

$77,935 and $73,352 is a lot of money for pensioners to pay.

What makes it worse is that even though Geelong Council has enabled the deferment of this payment, it comes at a cost. Specifically 5% compounding interest for the first five years and then subsequently according to present interest rates at a rate of between 9 - 10% thereafter.

That translates to a huge sum of money if payment is deferred for a reasonable amount of time.

This is payment for a drain these residents will not use in their life time.

The issue however, is that special benefit accrues to the land not to the people resident on the land. The land at some stage will be subdivided but probably not for a long period of time. In the mean time any residential development work that involves, drainage and other infrastructure development that, perceivably the land may benefit from, in the future, even before it has been subdivided, to which Geelong Council is a party to, will result in additional charges to the relevant landholders.

So if you live on a road which is unmade, has little drainage and no footpaths - beware! At some stage in the future, Geelong Council will come knocking on your door with their hands out saying you will pay and you will pay in the thousands for this infrastructure whether you personally want it, whether you will use it, or not. It is not about you, it is about the land, and it is ultimately what this Council wants to do with the land. The fact that you own it and have your own wants and needs and no capacity to pay is immaterial.