Locals “devastated” by Drysdale’s rezoning

DRYSDALE residents have been left disappointed after the state government approved the rezoning of semi-rural land.

Victorian Planning Minister Richard Wynne last week approved amendment C363, allowing the rezoning of 28 semi-rural living properties along Central Road to make way for 550 residential dwellings.

The City of Greater Geelong’s planning scheme was approved with minimal changes to the wording.

Mercedes Drummond, president of the Drysdale, Clifton Springs, Curlewis Community Association questioned the decision in the wake of the draft Bellarine Peninsula Statement of Planning Policy (SPP).

“The community is devastated, especially since we are currently being invited to respond to the Draft SPP,” she said.

“The main thrust of why this policy was deemed necessary and I quote, ‘its unique values and distinctive attributes … need protection against overuse, overdevelopment and climate change impact’.

“These semi-rural urban breaks such as the one that will be destroyed with this rezoning is an attribute we value and wish to protect for generations to come.

“The community has not been listened to.”

The DCSCA maintains they are not opposed to development in the area as long as it is in keeping with the town’s distinctive characteristics.

“We need to ask ourselves why are people moving away from suburbia,” she said.

“Yes, affordability but we consistently hear about the open spaces.

“We need to have blocks of land where families can build their homes and have a backyard that allows for trees to be planted and spaces for kids to play in.”

The DCSCA has long criticised the inconsistencies in local planning permits, with the proposed Oakden Road development in Drysdale being rejected by the city based on its failure to integrate native vegetation and urban landscape, as well not addressing issues of accessibility and sustainability.

“We don’t understand the inconsistency of decision making by the COGG,” Ms Drummond said.

“The Oakden Road proposed development has been to VCAT and the reasons used for the rejected by the COGG are the very same which we believe should not allow the proposed amendment C363 to go ahead.”