Today's Geelong Advertiser has published an article entiteld "Jetty road a bridge too far: City rides roughshod over concerns of residents" by John Boland - a Clifton Springs resident and former journalist and TV news producer - (page 22 August 11, 2011 issue).
The article discusses the implementation of the Jetty Road Master Plan for Clifton Springs and the Bay Shore Ave / Griggs creek bridge proposal - some highlights below:
"A linchpin of this plan was a north-sout road through the estates from Portarlington Road. this was to link all the estates currently under construction. At the last meeting of council planners and ratepayers, we were advised there was now to be no north-south road for 15 years, if at all....
Unfortunately, this decision completely land locks an estate being developed with sea frontage blocks.
These estates are worth billions of dollars. City hall planners decided to overcome the land-lock by having a bridge built from Bay Shore Ave, which is a dead end street, across Griggs Creek. About 30 meters before Bay Shore Ave ends at Griggs Creek, there is a T-intersection from Kewarra Drive. It would share the traffic increase brought about by a bridge.
Both Kewarra Drive and Bay Shore Ave are two-lane private streets. Should vehicles be partked on each side of these streets for example, it is extremely difficult for another vehicle to pass. Niether private street has footpaths, like most other streets in Clifton Springs....
The latest decision announced by City Hall planners is to build a bridge of unlimited tonnage. This would enable double bogies, trucks, cement mixers, crane vehicles and all other types of construction vehicles to access the land-locked estate for years to come.
Unfortunately the story doesn't stop there. The planners also announced Bay Shore Ave was to take 3000 vehicles a day. This was never in the master plan. Bay Shore Ave currently would take at most 30 vehicles a day and never more than 50. Never could it take 3000 vehicles a day...
Ratepayer-residens were advised last week that State Planning Minister Buy has received a report on his investigation ino the Clifton Springs fiasco. We are advised he will make a decision soon."
Related to this article is the report regarding the C230 Jetty Road Growth Area Stage 1 Development contributions plan which was tabled at the Geelong council meeting in April.
Geelong council Meeting 27 April 2011 Minutes
At the Geelong Council meeting 27 April 2011 - Agenda item 1 looked at the C230 Jetty Road Growth Area Stage 1 Development Contributions Plan.
This amendment proposed a Development Contributions Plan (DCP) for the Jetty Road Growth Area at Drysdale and Clifton Springs.
This was a Council initiated amendment and seeked to include the DCP as an incorporated document in the Planning Scheme and apply a Development Contributions Plan Overlay to Stage 1 of the growth area.
The amendment also proposed a Public Acquisition Overlay (PAO) over private land between Portarlington Road and the Bellarine Rail Trail for a new north-south collector road into the growth area.
A total of eight submissions were received with 2 submissions supporting the
amendment in full and a further 5 submissions objecting to certain aspects.
The 2 supporting submissions were from the Corangamite Catchment
Management Authority and Barwon Water. The objecting submissions were from
the four Stage 1 developers, Vic Roads and the owner affected by the PAO.
Key issues in the objecting submissions include: timing for construction of the east
west and north south collector roads; the pedestrian bridge over the north south
road at the Bellarine Rail Trail; request for Stage 2 to contribute to the east-west
road; Vic Roads request for the north-south road to be provided early; objection to
the compulsory acquisition of land for the north-south road; query on the need for
golf course netting; claims that the costs and contingencies are too high in the
DCP; and a request to reduce the community infrastructure contributions.
Submission from Vic Roads
Vic Roads request for the north-south road to be provided early - The growth area requires a new north south road with an intersection at Portarlington
Rd. The timing is for the road to be provided at 900 lots. The road is shown as Parts A & B on the map in Appendix 1-4.
Vic Road's submission (number 6) is that the North/South Rd should be operational
from the early stages of development (400 lots) to share the traffic load between the
North South Rd and Jetty Rd. Vic Roads is responsible for upgrades to the
Portarlington/Grubb Rd/Jetty Rd intersection but cannot indicate when this will occur.
Officer Response -
Council officers do not support this submission. The initial staging of the growth area
concentrates development close to Jetty Rd and Wyndham Street. It will be some time
before development occurs along the route of the North South Rd. The North South
Road will be constructed during development of Stage 1 but Council officers believe
400 lots is too early and 900 lots as exhibited is the appropriate trigger point.
Compulsory acquisition of land for the north-south road
Submission number 5 from the family of the elderly owner/resident of land (Mrs Stabb) affected by the proposed PAO raises a number of objections. These include questions as to why the land isn't acquired from the Golf Course instead, and concerns regarding negative impacts on farming activities on the land, quality of life, privacy, access and fencing.
Officer Response - Acquiring land from the Golf Course would require major works to reconfigure the course to suit and, as the Stabb property is within Stage 2 of the Growth Area, it is seen as a more appropriate option.
While there will be a loss of a strip of land the remainder of the property should not be
affected. Compensation at the time of acquisition will be provided. Access to the property will be provided from the north south road when it is eventually constructed.
There may be a small impact on the privacy of the Stabb household but this can be
minimized with planting and fencing along the road. To lessen the immediate concerns of the Stabb family it is recommended that purchase of the land is delayed by 2 years so that the land is acquired at 450 lots as opposed to the DCP current timing at 150 lots (i.e. after one year of development).
Refer minutes from the Geelong Council April 27, 2011. The minutes also recorded the following decision on this Agenda item:
Cr Macdonald moved, Cr Doull seconded - Carried-
That Council having considered all submissions to Amendment C230 to the
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme resolves to:1) Request the Minister for Planning to appoint an Independent Panel under Part 8 of the Planning & Environment Act;
2) Refer all submissions to the Panel;
3) Submit to the Panel its response to the submissions generally as outlined in this report.
Hopefully common sense will prevail and the bridge over Griggs Creek will not proceed. Councillors really should start to listen to residents or come next election they might be replaced.
Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association (DCSCA) has discussed the proposed Bayshore Avenue bridge with local residents and is supporting their case. While a bridge from Bayshore Avenue over Griggs Creek has been in public documents for some time (e.g. CoGG's 2008 Structure Plan for Drysdale & Clifton Springs), it was always described as a minor local road and was NOT intended to be carry construction vehicles.
ReplyDeleteCoGG's 'Infrastructure Plan' for the Jetty Road growth area was published just last year. It said of the bridge, 'This connection is to provide a minor link only and not encourage increased traffic loads to the eastern side of Griggs Creek' (p. 6); and 'access (to the growth area) can be provided from Bayshore Avenue, but not for construction vehicles.' (p10)
Yet again, the council is riding roughshod over local people's wishes and contradicting its own published policies. It will be interesting to see how councillors handle this issue. We elect them to RUN the council, not run after it.