Drysdale theft from cars on the rise

The print version of today's Geelong Advertiser ( 29 September 2010 p. 18) entitled: "Car theft crime spree", by Jane Harper, reports that:

"Police have received dozens of reports over the past few weeks of overnight thefts from unlocked cars parked in residential areas in Drysdale, St Leonards and Clifton Springs. "The thefts usually happen in the early hours of the morning and we believe the thieves just work their way along, testing the doors for unlocked cars", Leading Senior-Constable Robbie Adams said..."


Police are asking anyone with information to contact them at the Drysdale Police Station on 5253 1763.

In the 2008/09 year there were 43 reported thefts from Motor Vehicles in the 3222 post code area - as reported by the Herald Sun. This was a significant increase from 19 reported in the previous year.

Drysdale CFA Annual Garage Sale

The Drysdale CFA is holding its annual garage sale this Saturday 2 October 2010 at the Drysdale Fire Station from 8.30am - 12.30pm.

Items can be donated by contacting Brendan Connally on 0400 841 643 or Craig Serle on 0466 904 542 to arrange collection.

Aldi now coming to Drysdale - work to start early 2011

Planning Minister Justin Madden has granted conditional planning permits for 5 new Aldi stores in Victoria.

The Aldi store in Drysdale will be built at 20-26 Murradoc Road, Drysdale.

Detailed information about the planning permit for the Drysdale Aldi is available from the Department of Planning and Community Development

The permit allows:

"Development of the land for Shops, creation of access to a Road Zone Category 1, Business identification signs and Internally illuminated signs and a reduction in the number of car parking spaces required, in accordance with the endorsed plans."

With respect to the Drysdale site, the Advisory Committee made the following recommendations:

• the draft Planning Scheme Amendment to rezone the land from Business 4 (B4Z) to Business 1 (B1Z) be adopted; and
• the draft planning permit application is approved subject to conditionsincluded in the attachment to the report.

The Geelong Advertiser also has reported: New Aldi stores to open in Highton, Geelong West, Drysdale.

St James Church Second Hand Book Sale - We need your books to raise funds

The fundraising appeal for the renovation of St James' Hall and development of the Church Complex in Collins Street, Drysdale is now in full swing.

So please help them to continue raising funds at their next Second Hand Book Sale.

The book sale will be held on January 8-9, 2011
Saturday 9am - 5pm and Sunday 10am - 4pm.

They need old and new books, fiction and non-fiction, hard covers, paperbacks and large print books (but please no school or university textbooks and no encyclopedias).

They can also use special interest magazines such as hobbies, collecting, home, fashion, cookery and gardening, comics and even old sheet music in good condition.

If you have books or up to date magazines you would like to donate to our sale, please ring any of the following who will gladly collect in our local area.

Tom and Betty Wilson 5251 2594
Dorothy and Robin Chase 5251 3702
Pat and John Marks 5253 2322
Gwen and Graham Peacock 5253 1230
Kevin and Bev Steen 5253 2470

Thank you for your support and mark your calendars now!

Amendment C103 Princess St, Woodville St, Clarendon Rd, Murradoc Rd - proposed rezoning to Residential 1

The City of Greater Geelong will consider adopting Amendment C103 at Tuesday night's meeting (28 September 2010).

This amendment affects the land borderd by Princess Street, Woodville Street, Clarendon Road and Murradoc Road in Drysdale, and is proposing to rezone the area to Residential 1. the land is currently open farm land with a creek running through the area.

Details of the amendment are documented and extracted from the Council Agenda published today in pdf format. The document is more than 9.5mb in size! More information, maps and diagrams is available within the pdf document - however the bulk of the information is reproduced below:

AMENDMENT C103 PRINCESS STREET, DRYSDALE, INFILL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA – CONSIDERATION OF PANEL REPORT AND ADOPTION

Portfolio: Planning - Cr Katos

Source: Economic Development, Planning and Tourism – Strategic

Implementation

General Manager: Peter Bettess

Index Reference: Project: Amendment C103

Subject: Council Reports 2010

Summary

• The purpose of this report is to consider the Panel Report for Amendment C103 and adopt the Amendment. The Amendment seeks to facilitate the development of land for residential purposes directly south-east of the Drysdale town centre.
• The applicant for this Amendment is St. Quentin Consulting Pty Ltd, acting on behalf of Urban Land Developments (ULD) Pty Ltd, who is the principal landowner.
• The Amendment applies to land generally bounded by Clarendon Road, Princess Street, Woodville Street and to the rear of the Business 4 zoned properties fronting Murradoc Road. The Amendment area consists of eleven titles and has a total area of 28 hectares.
• The Amendment proposes to rezone the land to Residential 1 Zone and incorporate a Development Plan Overlay (DPO). It is also proposed to apply the DPO to adjacent vacant land which is already zoned Residential 1, to ensure an integrated development plan is prepared for the entire site.
• The Amendment is consistent with the Drysdale Clifton Springs Structure Plan, adopted April 2009. The Amendment to implement the Structure Plan (C194) into the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme was considered simultaneously with this Amendment and was referred to a joint Panel Hearing.
• The Amendment is accompanied by a Section 173 Agreement which addresses contributions to community infrastructure, open space, road upgrades and drainage.
• Exhibition of Amendment C103 between 14 November 2009 and 18 January 2010 resulted in the receipt of 15 submissions, of which 11 objected to the Amendment or raised concerns.
• At its meeting of 23 March 2010 Council decided to refer the submissions to an Independent Panel appointed by the Minister for Planning. The Panel was held on 12, 13 and 14 May 2010 at City Hall, Geelong.
• The Panel formed the view that the rezoning of the land and the application of the DPO is strongly supported by State and Local Planning policy, and consistent with the adopted Drysdale Clifton Springs Structure Plan 2009 and Amendment C194.
• It is therefore recommended that Council adopt Amendment C103 generally as recommended by the Panel.

Recommendation:

That Council:

1) Adopt Amendment C103 as contained in Appendix 3-3 to this report;

2) Submit the adopted Amendment together with the prescribed information to the Minister for Planning requesting approval, subject to receipt of signed Section 173 Agreements from a majority of landowners; and

3) Sign and seal the Section 173 Agreements accompanying the Amendment.

Report

Background

Amendment C103 has been prepared following a request by St Quentin Consulting Pty Ltd, acting on behalf of Urban Land Developments (ULD). The Amendment seeks to facilitate the development of land for residential purposes directly south-east of the Drysdale town centre. The Amendment applies to land generally bounded by Clarendon Road and Princess Street to the east and west respectively, Woodville Street on the south and to the rear of the Business 4 zoned properties fronting Murradoc Road (see Appendix 3-1 aerial map).

The Amendment proposes to rezone the land from Farming Zone and Low Density Residential Zone to Residential 1 Zone, and incorporate a Schedule 22 to the Development Plan Overlay (DPO22) into the Planning Scheme. It is noted that the area to be covered by the DPO shall exceed the land to be rezoned, to include existing Residential 1 zoned properties that will require integration with the site.

The Amendment is accompanied by a Section 173 Agreement which addresses contributions to community infrastructure, road upgrades, drainage and public open space. The Amendment is considered to be consistent with the Drysdale Clifton Springs Structure Plan, adopted April 2009. The Amendment to implement the Structure Plan (C194) was considered simultaneously with this Amendment. Amendment C103 was exhibited between 14 November 2009 and 18 January 2010.

Discussion

A total of 15 submissions were received as a result of the exhibition of the Amendment. Three submissions were from Authorities (Barwon Water, the CCMA and VicRoads) that either supported or did not object to the Amendment. ULD lodged a supporting submission and acknowledge that a section 173 agreement is the best way to implement the developer contributions required. The submission included suggested minor modifications to the DPO schedule.

The landowner at 44-50 Clarendon Road raised concerns as to the content of the Section 173 Agreement, in particular that a disproportionate amount of development contributions is allocated to their property and that further clarification on the proposed decision to widen Clarendon Road is required.

Two of the other directly affected landowners (12-20 & 22-40 Clarendon Road) lodged a joint submission prepared by Whyte, Just & Moore Lawyers, stating they wish to preserve the current character and use of their properties and therefore object to the Amendment. It is noted that the landowner of 22-40 Clarendon Road, by way of a letter dated 15 April 2010, has withdrawn his objection

The remaining landowners subject to the DPO, who did not lodge a submission, are considered to be generally supportive of the Amendment.

Other submitters objected to the Amendment on various grounds including: that the proposal would destroy the "rural aspect" of Drysdale; increase in traffic congestion; the loss of amenity during the construction period; and any development should be for low density residential only. The north adjoining landowner to the subject land at 76-98 Murradoc Road sought clarification on interface and acquisition matters.

At its meeting of 23 March 2010 Council decided to refer the submissions to an Independent Panel appointed by the Minister for Planning. The Panel was held on 12, 13 and 14 May 2010 at City Hall in Geelong.

The Panel has now provided its report to Council and recommended on page 40 that:

"…Amendment C103 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme should be adopted..."

A full copy of the Panel's report is available in the Councillor's lounge and on Council's website. The summary and recommendations of the Panel are shown in Appendix 3-2. A summary of the key issues raised in the submissions, the Panel's response and Council officer comments are provided below:

Strategic justification

The Panel was of the view that the rezoning of the land and the application of the DPO22 was strongly supported by State and Local Planning Policy. The Panel further stated: "The proximity of the land to the Drysdale Town Centre, its abuttal to business and industrial uses to its north and the availability of services to the land also provide strategic support to allow development at higher densities at this location" (Panel Report p. 17-18).

Officer Response

Council officers agree with the Panel's conclusions.

Residential 1 Zone

Concerns raised by submitters who opposed the Amendment ranged from whether residential development of the land is necessary and appropriate, to landscape and environmental impacts and infrastructure requirements.

The Panel inspected the site and noted it is degraded and almost devoid of vegetation, and was of the opinion that the rural landscape values do not outweigh the contribution the proposal will make to the future development of Drysdale. The Panel considers that sites like this one should be developed for residential purposes, relieving continual pressure for development outside township boundaries, which in turn enables more intact and higher quality rural landscapes to be protected.

The Panel accepted that rezoning the land will not make a significant contribution, in terms of total numbers, to the overall housing market. However, the Panel considered that the land's proximity to the Drysdale town centre, and the opportunity to include higher densities within walking distance of it, would result in a positive contribution to the housing market. The Panel also suggested that the proponent and Council may wish to consider adopting a higher lot ratio, particularly in the northern part of the site, and recommended revising the 'Key Development and Increased Housing Diversity Areas July 2009' Incorporated Document to reflect the rezoning.

The Panel noted that the development concept plan included in the proponent's submission shows that the area either side of the creek will be set aside as open space and that the creek will be rehabilitated with a series of ponds. The Panel considered that this will be a vast improvement on existing conditions and will create an opportunity to improve the habitat for both flora and fauna.

The Panel recognised that development of the site for residential purposes will increase the number of car movements along Woodville Street, requiring the construction of a road which will change the character of the area. The Panel considered that the change in character is an inevitable consequence of development but that does not negate the benefits to be gained from the rezoning.

The Panel referred to the Structure Plan which recommends that the site should be developed for residential, rather than industrial or commercial purposes, noting that increased residential development in and around the Drysdale Town Centre will provide increased stimulus for economic activity. With respect to owners who do not wish to develop their land, the Panel noted that rezoning the land to Residential 1 does not place an obligation on existing owners to redevelop their land.

Officer Response

Council officers agree with the Panel's conclusions and recommendations. The recommendation to consider increasing the density of development from 10 lots/ha to 15 lots/ha by including larger allotments south of the business zone and closer to Princess Street to facilitate medium density housing is supported. Additional wording to the DPO22 will help provide for such actions.

The recommendation to consider including part of the site within the 'Increased housing diversity area' identified in the 'Key Development and Increased Housing Diversity Areas, City of Greater Geelong, July 2009' Incorporated Document, to reflect the rezoning and provide support for any future medium density housing, is also supported. It is considered that Amendment C103 presents the most appropriate and logical mechanism to achieve this change, and is shown at Appendix 3-3. This change is considered to be 'policy neutral' and will not impact on the relevant landowners.

Overlays affecting the land

3 submissions were received regarding the proposed Schedule 22 to the DPO. The proponent (ULD) suggested a number of minor changes, the most significant being a requirement that planning permits for subdivision include a condition for a Section 173 Agreement with respect to infrastructure contributions. VicRoads submitted that sealed shoulders would be required for the intersection of Murradoc Road and Clarendon Road, notwithstanding the provision of thru access from Mortimer Street and Urbis Planning Consultants on behalf of ALDI Stores, were opposed to a direct pedestrian link into its site from the Amendment land.

In its response to the position of VicRoads, the Panel accepted the expert evidence presented by Mr Walsh of Cardno Grogan Richards (on behalf of ULD) that, based on vehicle access to the land being provided from Mortimer Street and the projected relatively low increase of vehicle movements at the intersection of Murradoc and Clarendon Roads, improvements to this intersection will not be required.

The Panel did not support the Urbis objection, stating: "… allowing for pedestrian access from the subject land to the supermarket/specialty shop site in its layout will provide residents with the option of being able to walk to this facility if built. On this basis, the Panel is of the opinion that reference to a 'pedestrian/cycle link' should be included on the Concept Plan in the DPO, even though whether it can be provided will largely depend on the outcome of Amendment C208" (Panel Report p. 30).

In reviewing the wording contained in both the Council and proponent versions of the DPO22 (which the Panel noted are for the main part similar), the Panel adopted the Council version to which it made some further minor changes, including some matters requested by the proponent. The Panel also recommended the Concept Plan be modified as follows: (1) Remove the words "Intersection upgrade" at the intersection of Murradoc Road and Clarendon Road; and (2) Remove the "arrow" and words "future B4 expansion" from land on the south side of Murradoc Road.

The Panel provided a brief discussion on other applicable overlays to Amendment C103; that being the Schedule 14 to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO14) and Heritage Overlay 1620: Drysdale Commercial Heritage Area (HO1620). It was the Panel's opinion that it would be appropriate and reasonable to delete the DDO14 and that Council may wish to review the location of the eastern boundary of the HO1620, as it relates to the land affected by Amendment C103.

Officer Response

Council officers generally agree with the Panel's conclusions and recommendations. There was agreement at the Panel Hearing between Council and ULD to include wording in the DPO22 to the effect that a permit for subdivision must require a Section 173 Agreement be entered into. The DPO22 Concept Plan showing "future B4 expansion" will also be changed to reflect the Amendment C194 (Drysdale – Clifton Springs Structure Plan) Panel recommendation to identify this area for "medium – long term urban consolidation", pending the completion of an Urban Design Framework and examination of any future expansion of the Business 4 Zone.

Officers support the finding of the Panel that improvements to the intersection of Murradoc and Clarendon Roads are not warranted. Following Council's decision to abandon the termination of Mortimer Street and provide thru access to Murradoc Road, it was accepted that the Murradoc Road / Mortimer Street intersection would need to be upgraded and the traffic volumes utilising Clarendon Road would be significantly reduced. The position of VicRoads is appreciated and it is noted that the DPO22 will require the completion of a Road Safety Audit. Should the audit determine that, as a consequence of the development, the intersection of Murradoc and Clarendon Roads requires upgrading, there is an expectation that this work would be translated as conditions on any applicable subdivision permit.

Though not specifically raised by the Panel, Officers consider it necessary to modify the wording of the DPO22 regarding staging of the development. Works are to commence on the western portion of the site to better integrate the residential estate with adjoining developed urban land. Due to an oversight, the exhibited Amendment did not provide for the deletion of the DDO14. Council officers requested that this matter be addressed as part of C103. The Panel was of the view that this matter is 'policy neutral' and, given the separation of the land from the low density residential area to the south, it considered its removal would not have a material affect on that area.

It is intended that the Structure Plan will be modified to include reference to review the extent of the HO1620 as it applies to the Amendment C103 land.

Section 173 Agreement

A supporting submission was received from the proponent stating that a Section 173 Agreement was the most appropriate mechanism to deal with developer contributions. A submission from the owners of one property affected by the Amendment raised concerns about the detail of any Agreement associated with the subdivision of their land, rather than whether the use of an Agreement was appropriate.

The Panel supported the use of an Agreement stating: "Having considered the submissions and the expert evidence provided by Mr Matt Ainsaar, the Panel agrees that a Section 173 Agreement is the most appropriate mechanism in this case, in providing a legally binding agreement to ensure that required works are undertaken, whilst still being responsive to individual owners' timing to develop their properties" (Panel Report p. 36).

Officer Response

Council officers agree with the Panel's conclusions.

76 to 98 Murradoc Road, Drysdale

A submission was received from David Curtain Consulting P/L on behalf of landowners G & G van Beek, who believe that any interface treatment that may be required along their property boundary should be located on the Amendment land. The submitter also sought details regarding compensation for any loss of land and who would be responsible for the cost of any footpaths and road works associated with the future widening of Clarendon Road, where adjoining their property.

The Panel formed the opinion that in the event that all or part of the van Beek land is included in the Business 4 Zone in the future, the onus will be on its owner/developer to ensure that any development and use comply with the zone provisions, including to protect nearby residential amenity. The Panel considers the DPO22 Concept Plan could be modified, removing reference to "Interface treatment" where adjoining 76–98 Murradoc Road. In relation to the widening of Clarendon Road, the Panel believe this is a matter to be dealt with at such time as this site is developed.

Officer Response

Council officers do not entirely support the Panel conclusions, particularly the removal of the "Interface treatment" reference in the Concept Plan. The Panel's view would appear to be at odds with the Burton Acoustic Report 2008, prepared by the proponent, which identified Greater City Fencing at 71-74 Murradoc Road as a significant generator of noise requiring reduction by barrier and/or buffer, including to part of the van Beek boundary. It is considered the reference to an "Interface treatment" should remain and there is sufficient flexibility in the wording of the DPO to ensure a reasonable and appropriate outcome.

Community Consultation

The Drysdale Clifton Springs Community Association criticised the extent of the informal notification and consultation by Council prior to the preparation of the Amendment. The request of the representative of the Association was that the Panel recommend the Amendment not be adopted, based on the poor initial consultation with the community.

Officer Response

The Panel provided the following brief response which Council officers support: "The Panel is satisfied that the Council met its statutory obligations in relation to giving notification of the Amendment. It is not in a position to be able to comment on the method used and extent of any informal consultation the Council may have undertaken prior to its exhibition" (Panel Report p. 39).

In summary, the Panel recommended some minor drafting changes to the proposed Schedule 22 to the DPO, which is considered to improve the intent and clarity of the development control, and generally supported. The Panel supported a rezoning of the land to the Residential 1 Zone and deletion of the DDO14. Appendix 3-3 contains map changes and revisions to the DPO22 to be adopted, to be forwarded to the Minister for implementation into the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.

Environmental Implications

The Amendment is considered to be consistent with the City's Environmental Considerations – A Guide for Decision Makers.

The location and context of the site, in close proximity to the town centre, will result in an efficient use of energy and greenhouse gas emissions from reduced car dependence and availability of services and infrastructure. It is expected that the future residents will be more likely to walk to the town centre, encouraged by the short distance and pedestrian links shown in the DPO.

The provision of potable water will be to the requirements of Barwon Water and all future residential development must be compliant with the current building regulations of Victoria. The proposal is inclusive of a vegetation report which concludes that no significant vegetation is to be found on the site other than one isolated Manna Gum and native riparian species within the natural waterway. This vegetation will be protected and enhanced under the provisions of the DPO.

The requirements of the DPO and Clause 56.07 of the Planning Scheme will ensure the quality of storm water runoff entering the waterway meets best practice guidelines. The subject land eventually discharges into two lakes within the McLeods Waterholes Reserve which exhibit significant habitat values.

Air quality and aesthetic impacts from the operations on the Business 4 Zone to the north can be addressed as part of the Development Plan Overlay.

Financial Implications

The Amendment is not expected to result in any significant financial implications for Council, other than those usually associated with the processing of planning applications. The Section 173 Agreement exhibited with the Amendment requires that developers pay a contribution of $900 per residential lot toward community facilities. These community facilities are expected to include a 'regional and community learning hub'.

Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The proposal is consistent with current policy, including the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework. The proposal is consistent with the Drysdale Clifton Springs Structure Plan, adopted April 2009.

Officer Direct or Indirect

No Council officers involved in the preparation of this report are known to have a direct or indirect interest in a matter to which the report relates as per Section 80C(1),(2) of the Local Government Act.

Risk Assessment

There are not expected to be any significant risks associated with implementing or not implementing the recommendations in this report.

Social

The proposed Amendment is expected to have a positive social impact on the community. The proposed Section 173 Agreement exhibited with the Amendment requires that developers pay a contribution of $900 per residential lot toward community facilities. These community facilities are expected to include a 'regional and community learning hub'. The proposed DPO schedule includes the requirements for a local playground of a minimum of 0.5 hectares, located generally central to the development and incorporating children's play facilities and park furniture. The playground will be readily accessible to the natural east-west waterway, which is to be enhanced with a shared walking/cycle track and landscape elements, and designated as a public reserve.

Communication

The Amendment was exhibited for a two month period in accordance with the Planning and Environment Act, 1987.

Council Officers have held face-to-face meetings with all landowners directly affected by the Amendment and corresponding section 173 agreement. The purpose of the meetings primarily was to explain how the proposed section 173 agreement would operate to provide for developer contributions and an equitable apportionment of costs.

Submitters were invited to make presentations to an Independent Panel.

It is noted that following the 23 March 2010 Council resolution to refer the submissions to a Panel, Council officers decided to abandon the termination of Mortimer Street (as stated in the exhibited DPO22) and provide thru access to the future residential estate from Murradoc Road. All property owners and occupiers facing Mortimer Street were subsequently notified of this change by letter dated 22 April 2010. No submissions were received regarding this matter.

Summary

Amendment C103 was prepared at the request of Urban Land Developments (ULD). The Amendment seeks to facilitate the development of land directly to the south-east of the Drysdale town centre for residential purposes.

The Amendment applies to land generally bounded by Clarendon Road and Princess Street to the east and west respectively, Woodville Street to the south and the rear of the Business 4 zoned properties fronting Murradoc Road, to the north.

The Amendment will rezone the land from Farming and Low Density Residential to Residential 1 and apply a new Schedule 22 to the Development Plan Overlay (DPO). It is noted that the area to be covered by the DPO22 includes some existing Residential 1 zoned properties, fronting Princess Street. The purpose of including these properties in the DPO is to ensure any development on them is integrated with the land to be rezoned by the Amendment.

The Amendment was accompanied by a draft of the Section 173 Agreement which will be required in association with subdivision of land. These Agreements will require contributions to community infrastructure, road upgrades, drainage and public open space. As exhibited, the draft Schedule 22 to the Development Plan Overlay (DPO22) does not include a trigger to require such an Agreement. This is a matter that has now been addressed by the Council and proponent and revised wording of the DPO22 was submitted to the Panel by these parties.

Amendment C103 was exhibited between 14 November 2009 and 18 January 2010 and of the 15 submissions received, eight objected to the Amendment. The remainder of submissions either supported the amendment or raised specific issues relating to the DPO22 and the need for a Section 173 Agreement.

Having considered the submissions made to it and also in writing to the Council (the Planning Authority) the Panel has formed the view that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Drysdale - Clifton Springs Structure Plan, adopted by Council in April 2009 and Amendment C194, which have also been considered by this Panel. The Panel recommends that the land be included in the Residential 1 Zone and that DPO22 be adopted in the revised form included in Appendix A of this Report.

Recommendations

Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Panel recommends that Amendment C103 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme should be adopted subject to the modified form of Schedule 22 of the Development Plan Overlay included in Appendix A and with the following additional changes to the Concept Plan contained in that Schedule:

• Remove the words "Intersection upgrade" at the intersection of Murradoc Road and Clarendon Road.
• Remove the "arrow" and words "future B4 expansion" from land on the south side of Murradoc Road.
• Remove the "Interface treatment" symbol from that part of the land abutting 76 to 98 Murradoc Road.

The Panel is also of the opinion that Schedule 14 to the Design and Development Overlay that applies over that part of the land currently in the Low Density Residential Zone could be deleted as part of this Amendment. If this is not accepted the Council will need to prepare a further Amendment to this effect.

In addition to the above recommendations the Panel makes the following comments for the consideration of Council:

• that the proponent and Council consider increasing the density of development from 10 lots/ha up to 15 lots/ha, which may be by providing larger allotments close to Princess Street and the adjoining business zone to facilitate medium density development closer to the Town Centre;
• That Council consider including all or part of this site within the 'Increased housing diversity area' identified in the "Key Development and Increased Housing Diversity Areas", City of Greater Geelong, July 2009 to reflect the rezoning and provide support any future medium density development; and
• That Council consider reviewing the extent of the Heritage Overlay HO1620 as it relates to the land affected by Amendment C103.

Amendment C194 Drysdale Clifton Springs Structure Plan - Panel Report and adoption before Geelong Council this Tuesday 28 September

The City of Greater Geelong will consider adopting Amendment C194 at Tuesday night's meeting (28 September 2010). Details of the amendment are documented and extracted from the Council Agenda published today in pdf format. The document is more than 9.5mb in size! More information, maps and diagrams is available within the pdf document - however the bulk of the information is reproduced below:

AMENDMENT C194 DRYSDALE CLIFTON SPRINGS STRUCTURE PLAN – CONSIDERATION OF PANEL REPORT AND ADOPTION

Portfolio: Planning – Cr Katos

Source: Economic Development, Planning & Tourism

Strategic Implementation

General Manager: Peter Bettess

Index Reference: Project: C194 - Reports Council & Other

Subject: Council Reports 2010

Summary

• Amendment C194 is a Council-initiated amendment to give effect to the Drysdale Clifton Springs Structure Plan adopted by Council in April 2009.
• The Amendment introduces a new clause into the Municipal Strategic Statement to reflect the new Structure Plan and proposes zoning and overlay changes.
• Exhibition of Amendment C194 between 19 November 2009 and 18 January 2010 resulted in receipt of 29 submissions including: 2 submissions in support of the amendment, 24 objections and 3 submissions from government agencies.
• Key issues raised in objecting submissions included: concerns with the proposed rezoning of Council owned land at Springs Street; zoning changes and concept plans for the Drysdale town centre; and concern at proposed urban consolidation and urban growth of rural residential and farming areas on the fringes of Drysdale.
• The Council considered the submissions at its meeting on 23 March 2010. It resolved to not proceed with the Residential 1 zoning of the Council land at Springs St and to remove the "protect rural land for future urban growth" designation from a large area of land around the Potato Shed. This decision was due to the ample lot supply in the Jetty Rd growth area and the pressure for rezoning that this designation would create.
• At its meeting on 23 March 2010 Council resolved to refer the submissions to an Independent Panel appointed by the Minister for Planning. The Panel Hearing was held on 12, 13 and 14 May 2010 at City Hall, Geelong.
• The Panel has formed the view that the Structure Plan will set a sound strategic framework for the future development of Drysdale and Clifton Springs. The Panel has therefore recommended that Amendment C194 be adopted, subject to the recommendations set out at the conclusion of its Report.
• Changes recommended by the Panel include: retention of rural living land around Drakes Road; support for Council's previous decision to remove the long term growth designation from around the Potato Shed; changing the proposed extension of the Business 4 zone along Murradoc Road to urban consolidation; and changes to a proposed urban consolidation area around Huntingdon Road.
• Council officers generally concur with the Panel's recommendation except for some modifications as outlined in this report.
• It is therefore recommended that Council adopt Amendment C194 generally as recommended by the Panel and submit the amendment to the Minister for Planning for approval.

Recommendation

That Council:

1) Adopt Amendment C194 as contained in Appendix 2-4 to this report;

2) Submit the adopted Amendment together with the prescribed information to the Minister for Planning requesting approval;

3) Re-adopt the Drysdale Clifton Springs Structure Plan (September 2010), amended as described in this report.

4) Sign and Seal the Section 173 Agreement relating to 13A Princess Street, Drysdale. Report

Background

Amendment C194 is a Council-initiated amendment to give effect to the recommendations of the Drysdale – Clifton Springs Structure Plan April 2009. The new Structure Plan was developed for the townships of Drysdale Clifton Springs as part of a review of the 1992 Drysdale Clifton Springs Structure Plan. The Structure Plan was developed in house with some additional specialist inputs relating to urban design (Hansen Partnership), traffic (Hyder) and economic analysis (Tim Nott). The Structure Plan was adopted by Council at its meeting on 14 April 2009 when it also resolved to prepare and exhibit a planning scheme amendment C194.

The exhibited Amendment proposed to:

• Replace the existing Municipal Strategic Statement with an updated clause that will include the land use directions and policies identified in the adopted Drysdale – Clifton Springs Structure Plan April 2010.
• Rezone the triangular parcel of land bound by High, Eversley and Princess Streets, Drysdale, to Business 1 Zone.
• Delete the existing Design and Development Overlay (DDO14) from the triangular parcel of land to be rezoned to Business 1 Zone.
• Rezone the Regional Community and Cultural Hub site to Special Use Zone, exempting educational and community uses from permit requirements.
• Introduce a new Schedule to the Special Use Zone to reflect the rezoning of the Regional Community and Cultural Hub site.
• Amend the Schedule to the Mixed Use Zone by deleting reference to the Bellarine Sub-Regional site.
• Delete the existing Design and Development Overlay (DDO14) from the regional community and cultural hub.
• Rezone 13A Princess Street, Drysdale, to Residential 1 Zone.
• Rezone Council owned land at 9-15 and 17-29 Springs Street, Clifton Springs, to Residential 1 Zone.

The exhibited Drysdale – Clifton Springs Structure Plan map is in Appendix 2-1. The amended Structure Plan map now recommended for adoption and including changes recommended in this Council report and the Council report of 23 March 2010 is in Appendix 2-2.

Amendment C194 was exhibited in accordance with the provisions of the Planning & Environment Act between 19 November 2009 and 18 January 2010.

A notice of the preparation of the Amendment appeared in the Victorian Government Gazette on 19 November 2009. Notices appeared in relevant newspapers and letters and notices were sent to relevant Government Departments, statutory authorities, community groups and to all landowners directly affected by any zoning or overlay changes, areas identified for long term urban consolidation and to properties surrounding areas proposed for rezoning on 12 November 2009.

A total of 29 submissions were received as a result of the exhibition of Amendment C194.

A more detailed breakdown of the submissions indicates:

• 2 submissions support the Structure Plan;
• 24 submissions objecting to the Amendment;
• 3 submissions offering comment but neither supporting nor objecting to the Amendment.

Key issues raised in objecting submissions include: community concerns with the proposed rezoning of Council owned land at Springs Street, Clifton Springs; objections to zoning changes and concept plans for the town centre; concern at future urban consolidation and growth areas on the fringes of the town; and criticism of Council's public consultation. Due to the strong community opposition to the proposed rezoning of Council land at Springs Street and comments from Council's Engineering and Recreation and Open Space Units, it was decided to no longer proceed with the Residential 1 zoning of this land. Instead Council resolved at its 23 March 2010 meeting to retain the land as Business 1 Zone and undertake further investigation as to the development potential of the site.

The Council considered the submissions at its meeting on 23 March 2010 and resolved to refer them to an Independent Panel appointed by the Minister for Planning. A three day hearing was held at City Hall between 12 and 14 May 2010.

Discussion

The Panel has now presented its report to the Council and indicates it "supports Amendment C194 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme and is satisfied that the Amendment should be adopted with relatively minor modifications".

An electronic copy of the full Panel report has been provided to all Councillors and on Council's website. Letters were sent to submitters on 4 August 2010 advising of the release of the Panel Report. The key conclusions and recommendations are shown in Appendix 2-3.

The next section of the report outlines the Panel's response to the major issues raised in the submissions and provides an officer response.

Inclusion of the Drysdale - Clifton Springs Structure Plan 2009 in the MSS

The amendment proposes to amend the MSS (Clause 21.14) to include reference to the Drysdale - Clifton Springs Structure Plan April 2009. The Panel considers that the review of the existing Structure Plan is not only consistent with the State and Local Planning Policy framework, but also is responsible planning given the existing Structure Plan is 18 years old and out of date with the advances in policy development that have occurred since 1992.

Officer Response

Council officers support the Panel's findings and a full copy of the updated MSS Clause 21-14 for adoption by Council is in Appendix 2-4.

Residential land supply

The Structure Plan identifies areas within the township boundary where future growth should be accommodated. These are identified as infill sites which are to be rezoned to Residential 1, areas identified for medium to long term urban consolidation and the Jetty Road Urban Growth Area. These areas are expected to provide around a 20 year lot supply. A number of submissions questioned the population forecasts and proposed lot supply referred to in the Structure Plan. The Panel considers that the Structure Plan adequately provides for the future growth of the township, and accepts that whilst a 20 year supply of land is in excess of the recommended 10 year planning period, it is likely that this supply will be less when detailed investigations are undertaken for each site.

Officer Response

Council officers support the Panel's findings.

Farming zoned land south town boundary

The exhibited C194 Structure Plan identified a large area of land to the south of the town boundary (surrounding the Potato Shed community hub) as "Protect Rural Land for future urban consolidation." In response to submissions, the Council resolved to remove this reference from the Structure Plan.

The owner of 1402-1500 Portarlington Road, Drysdale submitted to the Panel that the designation should remain and the land should be available for future residential development.

The Panel also heard from several submitters from the Farming Zone land bordered by Basin Rd, Belchers Rd, Princess Street and Grubb Rd who were of the view that the size of their lots supported their rezoning to Rural Living.

In relation to the removal of the designation "Protect Rural Land for future urban consolidation" the Panel states:

"…. there may be some merit in the long term for this area to develop as residential. However, given the Structure Plan currently identifies a 20 years supply of land, the identification of additional land outside the town boundary for future such development, either directly (in the Structure Plan) or indirectly (through 'other actions') is considered premature and could result in increased pressure for this area to be rezoned before it is required." (p.27 Panel Report)

The Panel found that the rezoning of Farming Zoned land to Rural Living is contrary to the directions contained in both the State and Local Planning Policy frameworks as well as in Council's Rural Land Use Strategy. The Panel concludes that the rezoning of Farming Zone land outside the township boundary to Rural Living is inappropriate and is not supported.

Officer Response

Council officers support the Panel's recommendation and the updated Structure Plan map no longer shows the area to the south as "Protect Rural Land for future urban consolidation". It is recommended that this land remain in the Farming Zone.

Princess Street land

The Panel concludes that the identified rezoning of the land bounded by Princess Street, Woodville Street, Clarendon Road and rear of properties in Murradoc Road to Residential 1 is appropriate and should be retained on the Structure Plan.

Officer Response

This area is proposed for rezoning by Amendment C103 which is recommended for adoption in a separate Council report.

Land on the corner of Huntingdon and Princess Streets

The Structure Plan identifies this land for medium–long term urban consolidation. A submission from Ms Bell (and her representative Mr Fadgyas) stated the proposed designation of this area for medium-long term urban consolidation is inappropriate and that immediate rezoning to Low Density Residential would be more appropriate Council's original stance was that, if this land is considered for rezoning in the medium to long term, the Residential 1 zone is the preferred zone. However, at the Panel Council officers acknowledged that moving from Rural Living Zone to Low Density Residential Zone is a form of urban consolidation.

The Panel considers there are issues associated with this area which need to be considered before determining its most appropriate future use. The Panel states:

"Whilst the submitters believe the railway line provides a logical settlement boundary and the rezoning should only apply to the area north of the railway line, this line services a tourist railway and is used infrequently. In addition, given the topography of the land, the nature of existing development and the limited use of the railway line, the Panel considers that it is not a strong physical boundary. On this basis, the Panel considers that the future use of this area should not be considered in isolation, but rather in the context of the surrounding land uses and its relationship to other existing Rural Living zoned land along the southern edge of the township zone." (p.30 Panel Report).

The Panel concludes that the request to rezone the land to Low Density Residential cannot be supported and it should remain in the Rural Living Zone at this time.

The Panel also does not support the Structure Plan's designation of the site for medium to long term consolidation as it would "create an isolated pocket for conventional residential development, with no clear connections to similar nearby areas or the town centre. It is therefore considered that the future of this area needs to be considered in the context of the future of the adjoining Rural Living land to the south and west" (p.31 Panel Report ).

The Panel therefore makes the following recommendation:

"The Council should amend the Structure Plan Map to identify the Rural Living zoned land within the southern township boundary, including the land south of Huntingdon Street, and east of Jetty Road, as either "Long term urban consolidation" or "Protect Rural Living land for future urban growth" to ensure that developments and subdivisions do not occur which may prejudice future development opportunities as set out in the text of the Structure Plan" (p32-33 Panel Report).

Officer Response

Council's officers do not support the Panel's recommendation to identify to all the Rural Living zoned land within the southern township boundary east of Jetty Road, as either "Long term urban consolidation" or "Protect Rural Living land for future urban growth". This is a substantial change from the exhibited Structure Plan which showed the bulk of this area as "Maintain Rural Residential Character". It is likely that landowners in this area would have made submissions opposing such a change.

In relation to the specific area proposed for urban consolidation south of Huntingdon Street, Council officers recommend that the exhibited designation of "medium to long term consolidation" is retained on the Structure Plan Map. It is further recommended that the text of the Structure Plan report is expanded to include discussion of this land being considered for either Residential 1 zoning or Low Density Zoning depending on the zone that can best achieve a good subdivision layout and integration with surrounding zones and potential future urban expansion to the south.

Area in the vicinity of the south-east corner of Drakes Road and Collins Street

The Structure Plan identifies this area, which is currently zoned Rural Living, for future medium-long term urban consolidation. Submissions were received from several landholders in this area objecting to its identification for 'medium-long term urban consolidation' on the basis that the area has environmental values with high vegetation cover, it creates a soft edge between the town and the proposed by-pass and protects the historical rural landscape of Drysdale.

The Panel inspected the area and found it to be undulating, well vegetated and with high rural landscape value. The Panel is of the opinion that it would be inappropriate to allow residential development that would either directly or indirectly impact on the vegetation. The Panel is also concerned about the plan for future higher density residential development of this land, given its relationship with the Cemetery Road low density residential area. The Panel concludes that:

"The Structure Plan should be amended to show the area east of Portarlington Road to the proposed by-pass and south to the southern boundary of lots fronting Kooroui Court, included in the designation "Maintain rural residential character."

Officer Response

Council officers have reconsidered this area in response to the Panel Report and landowner opposition. It is acknowledged that this area was not investigated in detail during preparation of the Structure Plan. Additional information on the topography, environmental and scenic values of the area emerged through the panel process.

Council officers support the Panel recommendation to remove the urban consolidation designation as far south as the southern boundary of the Kooroui Court allotments. The area further south to Murradoc Rd should remain as an area for future urban consolidation. The Structure Plan map in Appendix 2-2 has been amended to reflect this change in position.

Easterly expansion of the Business 4 Zone along Murradoc Road

The Structure Plan proposes an extension of the Business 4 zone (industrial activity area) on the south side of Murradoc Road towards Clarendon Road. A submission was received from Mr Hoyer who lives opposite the area strongly opposing the extension on the basis that it is neither warranted nor appropriate.

The Panel believes that it would not be desirable to allow additional industrial development which would separate future residential areas to the north and the south. The Panel also questions whether peripheral sales/industrial development is the most appropriate use of land at this key entry point to the town.

The Panel has formed the view that: "it would be premature to designate Murradoc Road for such expansion until all other options, including the possible future use of the Council depot are more fully investigated. If, following such investigation it is found that Murradoc Road is the most appropriate option, it may be that both sides of the road to the by-pass should be set aside for this expansion. The Panel concludes the Structure Plan should be amended to remove reference to the "Future Business 4 expansion" pending completion of an Urban Design Framework and examination of any future expansion of the Business 4 Zone. The Panel recommends that this land be designated 'Medium – long term urban consolidation' in the Structure Plan.

Officer Response

Council officers support the Panel Recommendation and accordingly the designation "Future Business 4 expansion" is recommended to be changed to "Medium – long term urban consolidation' as shown on the Structure Plan map in Appendix 2-2.

It is further recommended that the Structure Plan report include further discussion on the need for an Urban Design Framework to confirm the appropriate urban zoning for the subject land and the Rural Living zoned land on the opposite (northern) side of Murradoc Road. In the interim it is appropriate that this land is designed for urban consolidation.

Proposed Supermarket site in Murradoc Road

The Panel concludes that reference to the proposed ALDI site on Murradoc Road as an "alternative supermarket site" should be retained. The Panel recommends that the Structure Plan should be amended to clearly reflect the inclusion of land at 6 to 26 in the Business 1 Zone rather than its present designation as part of the land for "Peripheral Sales/Industrial Activity."

Officer Response

The Panel's recommendation is supported and the updated Structure Plan map has been amended to remove the "Peripheral Sales/Industrial Activity" designation from south side of Murradoc Road as up to the and including the proposed ALDI supermarket. This land is likely to be rezoned by a Ministerial Amendment C208 which was subject to an Advisory Committee hearing on 19 May 2010 and is awaiting a Ministerial decision.

Senior Citizens Centre and Village Green

Three submissions commented on the Structure Plan's concept plan for the Drysdale Town Centre which show a potential relocation of the Senior Citizens building. The submissions are also concerned at a possible through road from High St to Palmerston St which would involve the reduction in size of the Village Green and relocation of the existing Senior Citizens building.

The Panel supports the Structure Plan's treatment of the Drysdale town centre noting that it will undergo further investigation through the preparation of an Urban Design Framework which will be subject of further community involvement and consultation.

Officer Response

The Panel's comments are noted and no changes are required.

Gillies Road

The Structure Plan identifies that Gillies Road will be sealed to Basin Road and will contain footpaths and bicycle lanes. The Panel has no issue with the Council proposal to delete reference to "Gillies Road – seal to Basin Road and include footpaths and bicycle lanes to improve access to schools and potato Shed" from the Structure Plan.

Officer Response

As per Council's previous resolution on 23 March 2010, the reference to sealing of Gillies Rd will be deleted from the Structure Plan report.

2 to 22 Oakden Road

The land located at 2-22 Oakden Road is currently zoned Public Use (5) – Cemetery Use. The Panel supports the Structure Plan notation for this land that it be rezoned to Residential 1.

Officer Response

Council officers support the Panel's recommendation and no changes are required

Proposed Rezoning of Land bounded by High, Eversley and Princess Streets

The amendment proposes to rezone a triangular parcel of land bounded by High, Eversley and Princess Streets, Drysdale from Residential 1 to Business 1 and to delete the Design and Development Overlay 14 that presently applies to the land. With the exception of two properties, land within this triangle is used for non-residential uses, including a café, neighbourhood centre, police station and kindergarten. Submissions raised concern about the potential impact of the proposed rezoning on the security and well being of local residents within the triangle due to increased property rates.

The Panel considers the rezoning is appropriate for land adjoining the Town Centre.

Officer Response

Council officers note the Panel's support for Council's position and no changes are required.

Proposed Rezoning Regional Community and Cultural Hub

The Panel concludes that the proposed inclusion of the Regional Community and Cultural Hub in the Special Use Zone is a better reflection of the use of the land than is the existing Mixed Use Zone.

Officer Response

Council officers note the Panel's support for Council's position and no changes are required.

Proposed Rezoning 13A Princess Street, Clifton Springs

The Panel concludes that the proposal to rezone the land at 13A Princess Street Drysdale from Business 4 to Residential 1, subject to a Section 173 Agreement to remove the existing buildings is appropriate and supported. Given the existing zoning and possible previous use of the site for industrial purposes, the Panel alerts the Council to the possible need for an environmental audit of the land before it is used for residential purposes.

Officer Response

Council officers will discuss the history of the site with the owner to determine if any environmental testing is required. In the event it is necessary this can be included in the S173 Agreement.

Proposed Rezoning of Council owned land in Springs Street

When C194 was exhibited the proposal to rezone Council owned land at 9-15 and 17-29 Springs Street, Clifton Springs from Business 1 zone to Residential 1 zone received the highest number of submissions (11 in total) accompanied by 2 petitions with a total of approximately 180 signatures from local people residing close to the subject land.

As a result of the strong community opposition to the proposal and comments from Council's Engineering Services and Recreation and Open Space Units Council at its meeting on 23 March 2010 resolved to no longer proceed with the Residential 1 zoning as exhibited with Amendment C194.

Council resolved to retain the land as a Business 1 zone and pursue further investigation into the development potential and drainage catchment issues associated with the site.

The Panel was advised by Council at the hearing that although it does not intend proceeding with the rezoning under this Amendment, reference to it is to be retained in the Structure Plan. The Panel supports the Council position in relation to this matter.

Submissions were made to the Panel that it should recommend that the land not be sold and that it be used for the purpose of open space. The Panel states: "…these are not matters associated with this Amendment and therefore the Panel does not have the power to make such recommendations to the Council" (p46 Panel Report).

Officer Response

As per the resolution of 23 March 2010 it is recommended that the exhibited rezoning to Residential 1 is abandoned and that the discussion regarding this land within the Structure Plan report is updated. It is recommended that the notation on the Structure Plan map "short term accommodation opportunity" is retained.

It is further recommended that the future of this land be investigated by the relevant Council departments and Councillors in consultation with the community.

Environmental Implications

The development of the Structure Plan had regard to environmental issues and constraints. The Panel hearing process brought forward further information on the environmental constraints on land in the proposed urban consolidation area around Drakes Rd. As a result this area is now recommended to remain as rural residential.

The Structure Plan identifies a settlement boundary which will see population increases accommodated within the existing urban area reducing urban sprawl and protecting surrounding coastal and rural land.

The Structure Plan has a number of recommendations relating to the environment. Broader sustainability outcomes have been considered for new urban areas (such as waste water reuse, WSUD principles, energy conservation, improving walking/bicycle opportunities to reduce vehicle reliance) and directions relating to native vegetation protection/revegetation and support for the implementation of the Clifton Springs.

Financial Implications

Adoption of this Amendment as recommended will result in no financial implications for Council. Council is being required to meet the full Panel costs because this is a Council initiated amendment.

Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

This Amendment is consistent with all relevant State and Council planning policies which have been described and discussed in detail in the adopted Drysdale – Clifton Springs Structure Plan.

Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No Council officers have any direct or indirect interest, in accordance with Section 80(C) of the Local Government Act to which this Amendment relates.

Risk Assessment

The development of the Structure Plan, upon which this Amendment is based, involved input from key agencies and groups and review of relevant legislation to ensure appropriate management of constraints and risks.Social Considerations

The development of the Structure Plan had due regard to social and community issues with contributions from Council's social and recreation planners and from a range of other agencies.

The Structure Plan included input from community service providers and groups and examined directions and recommendations of the Bellarine Peninsula Strategic Plan. The Plan makes recommendations around walkability/accessibility, recreation needs; future social and community facilities and services and affordable housing.

Communication

The amendment was subject to a public notification process in accordance with the Planning & Environment Act. Similarly, the Drysdale – Clifton Springs Structure Plan has been subject to an extensive public consultation process. All submitters to the Amendment were invited to appear and those wishing have been heard by the Independent Panel appointed by the Minister for Planning.

Bed and Breakfast accommodation will now be scarce

Thanks to a change of rating by the Geelong Council, bed and breakfast accommodation on the Bellarine Peninsula will now be scarce. The Council has decided to change the rating on properties from residential to mixed use.

As a consequence, many b&b places are shutting their doors.

The Bellarine Times last week and this week has reported that many venues simply can't afford the rate increase and the amount of income earned did not warrant the effort to cover the rate rise.

Views End in Scotchman's Road is one bed & breakfast place affected. They were advised by Council when they opened that they would not have to register as a commercial enterprise. Seems like the times are a changing.

You can read more in this week's Bellarine times article on page 3 entitled: Local B&B's facing closure.

Clifton Springs Garden Club - meeting and show

The Clifton Springs Garden Club's next meeting is on Monday September 20, 2010 at 7pm.

It will be held at the Drysdale Uniting Church Hall in Palmerston Street, Drysdale.

Visitors are most welcome.

Show bench and supper will be available

The 28th Flower Show will be held on Saturday October 23 from 11am to 4pm, Cost is $5 which includes Devonshire Tea.

Schedules are available from the Drysdale Library..

For more information please phone Lorraine on 5251 1660

Drysdale / Clifton Springs Crime Rate Rises Significantly in Some Categories

The Herald Sun today has released crime figures for all areas in the state by post code for the years 2004/5 - 2008/9.

Below are the figures from the Herald Sun database for the Drysdale Clifton Springs area. The database allows you to search by post code and by category.

Of note is that deception, assaults, property damage, residential burglary, thefts from motor vehicles, general theft have increased significantly on previous years.  Total crime overall has more than doubled from 2007/08 to 2008/09

Postcode	Category	2004-05	2005-06	2006-07	2007-08	2008-09	Total	Rate*
3222	Total crime	255	203	196	192	450	1296	118.98
3222	Homicide	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
3222	Rape	5	0	0	2	0	7	0.64
3222	Sex attack	5	3	5	0	5	18	1.65
3222	Robbery	1	0	2	0	0	3	0.28
3222	Assault	19	26	28	12	17	102	9.36
3222	Arson	5	5	3	8	11	32	2.94
3222	Property damage	54	48	39	44	67	252	23.13
3222	Abduction/Kidnap	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
3222	Burglary aggravated	2	1	0	0	3	6	0.55
3222	Burglary residential	27	13	16	18	29	103	9.46
3222	Burglary other	30	15	8	8	19	80	7.34
3222	Deception	11	8	2	3	85	109	10.01
3222	Handle stolen goods	0	0	1	0	0	1	0.09
3222	Theft from motor vehicle	23	19	14	19	43	118	10.83
3222	Theft shopsteal	1	1	8	1	0	11	1.01
3222	Theft of motor vehicle	12	10	6	10	17	55	5.05
3222	Theft of bicycle	0	1	4	6	4	15	1.38
3222	Theft other	50	39	38	36	123	286	26.26
3222	Drugs - Manufacture/Traffic	0	1	1	0	0	2	0.18
3222	Drugs - Possess/Use	0	1	3	1	3	8	0.73
3222	Going equipped to steal	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
3222	Justice procedures	5	5	7	12	3	32	2.94
3222	Regulated public order	0	0	0	2	1	3	0.28
3222	Weapons/Explosives	0	2	3	7	12	24	2.2
3222	Harassment	0	2	2	1	0	5	0.46
3222	Behaviour in public	1	1	1	1	1	5	0.46
3222	Other	4	2	5	1	7	19	1.74

* Rate = per 1000 of population. N/A - population figures not available.


The article says it took the Herald Sun 5 months to get this data released.

Interesting coinciding with this release, the Victoria Police media site has released a news item today which says "Crime in Victoria continued to drop over the past year, with significant decreases in street robberies and assaults involving knives..."

The official Victoria Police map detailing crime for this area does not provide data down to post code level - only the regional level which you can see from this map is absoutely huge compared to a more granular representation at postcode level.

Apparently according to the Victoria Police news site "The My Place statistics shown here are based on the previous regional boundaries. Updated statistics will be available in September, and these will reflect the new regional boundaries."

What is unclear is where the new regional boundaries will be.

Drysdale Duke Street Residents Protest Geelong Council Footpath Charges

The residents of the area bounded by Duke Street, Granville Street, Princess Street and Palmerston Street in Drysdale are up in arms over the Geelong Council's charges for footpath construction. They don't see why they should have to pay for something they did not ask for, do not want and believe is already covered by the rates they pay every year.

The residents were interviewed on A Current Affair on Wednesday 1 September - watch the video.

The Geelong Council Minutes of 27 July 2010 ( in pdf format) show that the Council agreed to the following:

That Council having declared a special charge on 11 March, 2008 for the purposes of defraying the expenses in relation to the construction of Duke Street between Wyndham Street and Newcombe Street, Granville Street, Palmerston Street and High Street, Drysdale (Appendix 13-2 – Plan) in accordance with Section 163 of the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act) resolves that:

1) the special charges as declared be varied in accordance with actual costs incurred on the project as required by Section 166 of the Act as shown in Schedule A – Appendix 13-1;

2) the General Manager of Corporate Services is authorised to levy and recover the special charges by sending notices to the persons who are liable to pay in accordance with Section 166 of the Act and the Regulations; and

3) in accordance with Section 172, the rate of interest which is payable on the special charges which have not been paid by the specified date is set at Council’s overdraft rate, reviewed every three months (provided that it shall not exceed the rate fixed by the Governor in Council by Order for the purposes of Section 172 2A in which case the rate of interest shall be the maximum rate fixed by the Governor in Council by Order for the purposes of the Section). The interest is to be calculated from the date the special charge is due, with a six months interest free period, providing those persons who choose to pay by instalments adhere to their repayment plan.

See my previous article for more information.

Has Barwon Water increased the chlorine levels in our drinking water?

The water supplied by Barwon Water is usually quite nice to drink - until tonight.

I turned on the tap when I got home from the gym and all I could smell and taste was chlorine.

It was like drinking swimming pool water.

One has to wonder why all of a sudden our tap water, which we pay a significant amount of money for, smells and tastes like swimming pool water?

I could not find anything on their website about an increase in chlorine levels.

Looks like I will now have to invest in a  water filter!

Ian Leighton Horsemanship Lessons in Geelong area Sept 7 -12

Ian Leighton is available for private horse training lessons on the Bellarine Peninsula and Geelong area from Tuesday 7 September to Sunday 12 September inclusive.

Ian often runs clinics at Crystal Park Equestrian Centre in Leopold.

Lessons can be had at your home where there is a safe contained arena or yard for training purposes or Wallington Park or Crystal Park.

Cost is $85 for a  one hour lesson.

To make a booking or for more information please contact Carolyn on 0407 533 380.

Ian's website is Ian Leighton Horsemanship or you can follow him on face book at http://www.facebook.com/IanLeightonHorsemanship