One matter which should be of considerable concern to the community of Geelong is the current volume of applications by developers for high and medium density residential development. The motive of the developer is always profit, and the community should be ever vigilant to ensure that community interests are protected.

In North Geelong alone recently there are the proposed developments of land formerly occupied by the North Geelong State Primary School, Osborne House and the stables, and quite recently the Rippleside Shipyard.

Probably most people do not oppose the school grounds development, although if the residential growth of North Geelong continues, property may have to be acquired to build another school, which seems to be curious public planning.

But Osborne House and the Rippleside Shipyard are different propositions. Like the school site, both of the areas were public assets, for the last century or so. The opposition to Osborne House being sold off is well documented in the media. The temptation of a cash strapped council to sell off assets to keep going, or to retire debt, may be irresistible. But this is a short term expediency, and the anxiety of the community, which the council is supposed to serve, is disregarded, or overridden. This anxiety appears almost daily in the Geelong Advertiser.

Traditionally, developers developed broad acres on the outskirts of the city areas, or inner areas which required development. This type of development, if properly planned, is positive and allows proper growth of a city, but development of public lands for short term gain should be scrutinised with meticulous care.

The Rippleside development is proposed on coastal land, which prior to 1996 was subject to the Coastal Management Act. Broadly speaking, this Act protects all Crown land on the foreshore for two hundred metres, and the principles of the Act imposes on Committees of Management the duty to preserve and develop such lands for public use. Privatisation of the Port of Geelong placed the Rippleside land outside the purview of the Act. Nevertheless, the community should, in the writer’s view, be vigilant that the principles of coastal management, in accordance with the requirements specified by the Parliament of Victoria, be maintained. Surely, when the Port of Geelong was privatised, no one envisaged that unused parts of coastal lands would be sold off to a private developer for residential development, let alone high density residential development. This is the profit motive for short-term gain, rather than thoughtful and carefully considered benefits for the community generally.