Minister Guy has the final say on Spring Creek

The Minister for Planning  - Mathew Guy, should now have amendment C66 on his desk and it is up to him whether it is approved in the form that council has submitted - in particular, returning the town boundary to Duffields Rd and directing future urban growth to the north of Torquay.

The day after the council vote to proceed with the amendment, Mathew Guy made another unwarranted statement to ABC radio  - accusing some of the councilors of political maneuvering and saying " some of them are Labour Party members seeking a political fix." He is obviously not happy with their decision.

With a State election next year his decision may well be an election issue which effects the seat of Sth Barwon - the 3228 postcode has over 14,000 residents.

If you support the council and majority of the community in this important amendment then please let the government know how you feel and why. We also need the support of the opposition so I have included some email addresses for them as well.

Email addresses:

Liberal Party -

Our local member Andrew Katos - Phone 03) 5244 2288 or email:  andrew.katos@parliament.vic.gov.au

cc to matthew.guy@parliament.vic.gov.au; premier@dpc.vic.gov.au; terence.mulder@parliament.vic.gov.au; ted.baillieu@parliament.vic.gov.au; david.koch@parliament.vic.gov.au;

Labour Party - the Opposition leader Daniel Andrews:daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au

cc to - Andy Richards arichards22@y7mail.com -( who has just been preselected to represent Labour in the seat of Sth Barwon)

 brian.tee@parliament.vic.gov.au; justin.madden@parliament.vic.gov.au; gayle.tierney@parliament.vic.gov.au; jacinta.allan@parliament.vic.gov.au;lisa.neville@parliament.vic.gov.au; ian.trezise@parliament.vic.gov.au

You might like to remind the government of what Mr Guy said in 2011 in a quote from the Geelong Advertiser 27/7/2011 after he had threatened to intervene to rezone land in the Spring Creek valley -

"I have today expressed my desire to the surf Coast Shire Mayor that we continue to work together to resolve land supply and affordability issues in torquay, but given the council is willing to consider other locations apart from spring Creek, a ministerial amendment is no longer necessary and will not proceed.

The Victorian Coalition Government has repeatedly said we will listen to the commun ity's views and attitudes, and following the council's decision we have done so."

Other points you might mention :

• 6 of the 9 councilors would have voted for the amendment if they one hadn't been threatened with legal action and one hadn't been out of the country.
•  The G21 Regional Growth Plan which was released by Planning Minister Guy in April, while acknowledging Torquay has a role to play in future growth Spring Creek valley is not part of that growth. Page 32 states - “It is considered that there is no need for additional zoned broadhectare residential land supply stocks within Torquay Jan-Juc in the short to medium term. Based on existing lot production trends there is over 25 years of broadhectare/major infill stocks. However, if the demand projections contained in the State Governments’ Population and Household projections are realised, the level of supply declines to a total of 23 years”. Planning decisions about future growth made by any council are done so within guidelines set by government. It remains council’s responsibility to determine where that growth takes place and where it will best advantage it’s community. The C66 Amendment does that.
• The much often quoted Victorian Coastal Strategy 2008 is under review and the draft Vic Coastal Strategy 2013 is open to submissions. It is interesting to note that Map 1 (p86) of the draft shows Torquay has been downgraded from the 2008 strategy where it is shown as having the same status as Warrnambool, “ High Growth Regional Centre”. It is now designated as “Medium Growth or Support Growth”.
• There is no shortage of land in Torquay/Jan Juc  and Armstrong Creek is only 5 minutes away  with the opportunity to direct regional growth to a more affordable option.
• Directing growth to North Torquay makes strategic sense are the major infrastructure  - schools, playing fields, recycled water, transport link is available there - not in Spring Creek.
• The C66 Amendment is the culmination of a robust consultation and planning process that is forward looking, not looking to the past (as the Panel would have us) to inform the future direction we should take. It has done so within the guidelines prescribed by the act.

• The panel seemed to place great weight on “30 years of planning” but seemed to ignore qualifications such as The Henshall Hansen report recommending that further community consultation should take place before a decision on development in the valley proceeds – Henshall Hansen Associates (May 1996), Comprehensive Strategy Plan for Torquay /Jan Juc -……

  “West of Duffields Road will constitute a major new growth initiative into an area which has a very attractive landscape and significant environmental features such as the upper reaches of Spring Creek. No development should be contemplated in this area until land east of Duffields Road is almost fully developed. At that time development should not be automatic, but should only occur after a review of the overall strategy for Torquay/JanJuc, an assessment of the success of urban consolidation policies, an assessment of the availability of remaining vacant land in Torquay North, and a review of community attitudes (at that time)about the desirability of development extending to the west of Duffields Road”.( My highlights).

• Development of the Spring Creek valley would necessitate years of large construction trucks on the world famous Great Ocean Rd. Traffic lights would be required at Bells Boulevard which is not in keeping with the entrance to Bells Beach and a main attraction for tourists to our town. The often repeated phrase –“Don’t destroy what we came to enjoy” comes to mind.

I know it is a busy time of year but please take the time to let your voice be heard - it could make all the difference.

Jan Juc Pathway Special Charge Scheme

I have put together a bit of a timeline about the pathways as a lot of Jan Juc residents seem a bit unsure about what has happened. I hope you find this useful.

• On December 1st 2009 the council sent letters to 1866 property owners in Jan Juc advising them “of the proposed pathway construction within Jan Juc and the associated Special Charge Scheme to assist in funding the project.

• The council expected property owners to 81% of the scheme cost.

• Property owners were invited to make submissions re the Scheme with a deadline of January 5th 2010 – over the holiday period!!

• With the help of a group of determined residents an unprecedented number of submissions were received –

  “It was revealed that council received 892 objections lodged on time but a further 50 late objections were ruled invalid.

  "If we had counted the 50 objections ruled ineligible because of lateness then this scheme would have been defeated," Cr Northeast said.

  Under the Local Government Act a special charge scheme for footpaths cannot go ahead if more than 50 per cent of affected residents object in writing.

• Some objectors were against the pathways, some were against being charged and some were against both.

The council’s reasoning - Proposed Precinct approach to pathway construction

The Precinct approach to pathways bundles together Jan Juc pathways listed in Council’s 2005 Pathway Strategy that are within a common area. A Special Charge Scheme has been prepared, but instead of benefits being apportioned to the abutting properties only, the benefits will be apportioned to properties n receive a benefit from the proposed pathway network by way of access.

As is the case with the traditional approach, the abutting property owners will receive the greatest benefit in terms of access because they will have a new pathway running directly past their properties. It is intended that the benefits to the non abutting properties will be determined on a graded scale i.e. the further the property is away from a newly constructed pathway, the less the benefit becomes and the less the property owner pays.  

• March 24th 2010 council declares the Special Charge Scheme but reduces the number of paths to be constructed.

• A group of 67 property owners lodged an appeal to VCAT – one of the property owners is a solicitor and worked pro bono.

• 15th February 2011 – the VCAT hearing was held and found that the scheme was unfair and it was overturned.

• Council decided to proceed with a Supreme Court Appeal against the VCAT finding on 25th May 2011

• ACA (A Current Affair) filmed a story about the unhappy property owners in Jan Juc on 31st May. The story was seen by a Barrister in Melbourne who offered the residents his services pro bono to attend the Supreme Court.

• 21st November 2011 - The Supreme court ruling sets aside the VCAT order and directs the matter to be reheard by VCAT.

• May 23rd 2012 – council votes to change their policy on Special Charge Schemes in response to community backlash but Jan Juc Scheme is subject to the old policy.

• 15th June 2012 – Second VCAT hearing reinstates the scheme and grants exemption for 22 of the 67 properties (whose owners had lodged the appeal)on the basis that the properties are more than 400metres from any pathway.

• 25th July – council resolved to proceed with the scheme but to exclude an additional 200 properties that were also more than 400 metres from new works. Increased council’s contribution to 50% of the total cost.

• Notices for payment sent in December 2013 after many delays and complaints of shoddy work.

Report from Surf Coast Council Meeting 26th November

Amendment C87, that was attempting to alter the uses of the zoning of The Sands,  to allow an aged care facility has been abandoned.

Councilor Brian McKiterick declared that after further legal advice he would be voting on the C66 amendment at the next council meeting on 10th December. There are now 2 Torquay ward councilors who will be eligible to vote as Eve Fisher will be away and David Bell has been disallowed from voting because of perceived bias.

Red Rally Revisited

If you believe the Torquay town boundary should be returned to Duffields Road, be at the council meeting on 10th December to participate. Make you views be known.

Visit this Face Book page to see the details of the "Red Rally Revisited"

https://www.facebook.com/events/220634581450208/?ref_dashboard_filter=upcoming

Images from the last Red Rally organized by the "Save Spring Creek" group on 22nd Februaury 2009. You might recognize someone you know.

Dogs in Playgrounds

Please be aware that dogs are not allowed to be off leash in playgrounds.

The playground in Jan Juc at Bob Petit Reserve is subject to this restriction despite the current brochure on the council website showing the whole of Bob Petit reserve as being off leash. At the playground there are no signs to indicate the restriction. Apparently signs are on the way.

http://www.surfcoast.vic.gov.au/My_Community/Pets_Animals/Dogs_On_Leash_Controls

Need some ideas for your email to council?

One of our members has already sent this email to councilors. It is very detailed and may give you some inspiration -

" To councilors of Surf Coast Shire.

I have read with interest the C66 panel report and offer the following comments re proposed Torquay town boundary in Spring Creek valley.

The panels generally recommends that the boundary for the Spring Creek valley be at the 1 km west of Duffield's Road and points to strategic planning up to 2009 as the reasoning for this recommendation.

This reasoning appears to be a political solution to what is a much contested issue, a solution that is designed to placate the threats of civil actions by developers.

I disagree with that reasoning.

It is true that previous strategic planning nominated the Spring Creek valley as possible for future development, yet in all the strategic planning, the decision to develop the valley was qualified indicating that council and the community would make the final decision at the necessary time. The time is now and a significant portion of the Torquay, Jan Juc and Bellbrae communities are against the valley being developed for residential housing. The previous strategic plans put the decision clearly in the community's hands for a decision and that decision was emphatically stated at the "Red Rally".

If developers and landowners were advised that development into the valley was a forgone conclusion, then they have misinterpreted the previous strategic plans. If previous council officers and councilors intended the valley to be developed, then those strategic plans should have given unambiguous statements to that direction and not used words such as "possible future growth".

It is my opinion that the C66 panel has not fully understood the current situation or history of the local region. This may be due to a lack of funds available to the community to fully present its position or maybe the panel thought it more palatable to say yes to the developers and no to the community.

All the previous strategic plans were based on assumptions that did not include the Armstrong Creek suburb, as at that time the Geelong southern boundary was the Grovedale railway line. We now have significant available housing on the door step of Torquay, yet no mention of this appears to have been considered in the C66 panel's report. All previous population growth reports, that strategic plans are based, do not have this growth suburb fully considered, and are based on previous Torquay / Jan Juc growth trends, which may now alter due to Armstrong Creek and may therefore not be reliable. I suggest that a parametric study be undertaken to determine if any assumptions in previous population reports are valid.

Further previous strategic plans indicated that the development west of Torquay would preclude any development to the north of the town. Development of north Torquay has now been approved and is underway. Shops and schools are under construction or land has been allocated. This new community accepted scenario negates the need for development into the valley.

Based on previous statements in strategic plans council's choosing to grant development permits in north Torquay has effectively already made a decision to hold development at Duffields Road.

However, if development into the valley was to proceed, then significant work in planning must be redone to adjust for the development of the town in two directions. Sports facilities, ovals, shops, fire protection and other services would need to be provided, many creating financial burdens on the community which were never planned. Should council decide to vote in favour of development into Spring Creek valley, then there should be an immediate stop to the development of services and sporting facilities in north Torquay until after a new strategic plan was considered and finalised with full community consultation - a totally impractical outcome.

Councillors who represent wards beyond Torquay should also consider the Shire's financial position if development of Torquay in the two directions was to proceed. To maintain standards and provide the services required for such expansion may require funds be diverted away from other communities within the Shire or alternatively to raise the rates revenue, an outcome for which non Torquay / Jan Juc residents will not be grateful. Also I have anecdotal evidence that Anglesea is now seen as a attractive place for expansion with many small developers considering dual occupancy to densify that town as Torquay is considered as getting 'too big'.

Council continually postulates sustainable values, and this is a case where councilors can hold to those values. The construction of roads and housing in the valley is not a sustainable option when compared with the relatively flat land already deemed for future development. Due to the fall of land in the valley construction costs will be significantly higher. The cost of provision of services will be higher. Duffield's Road will need to be upgraded at significant cost direct to council or to the community by the developer through land prices. The environmental values of Spring Creek will be changed and lost forever.

The developers took a business decision to buy the land. A decision that held an element of risk. If they got it wrong and that's unfortunate, but that's business. The developers in north Torquay took a similar risk and were fortunate to get it right. We would all like guaranteed outcomes, but that's not the system we live in, strategic plans change to adjust to changes in outside influences, I do not believe the C66 panel fully considered these changes and are trying to turn back the clock to 2009 - a 'head in the sand' approach. Armstrong Creek is here. North Torquay is here.

Regards"

Time for Action

If your interested in maintaining the Torquay town boundary at Duffields Rd then its time to make your views known. Councillors will be starting to discuss behind the scenes and will soon be voting on the issue, C66, so get calling, emailing and writing the councillors, Andrew Katos and Matthew Guy the state minister for planning - who will have final say.

Emails below:

Kate Sullivan -  Director, Planning & Environment SCS  ksullivan@surfcoast.vic.gov.au 

Andrew Katos               andrew.katos@parliament.vic.gov.au

Brian McKiterick            bmckiterick@surfcoast.vic.gov.au

Clive Goldsworthy         cgoldsworthy@surfcoast.vic.gov.au

David Bell                     dbell@surfcoast.vic.gov.au

Eve Fisher                    efisher@surfcoast.vic.gov.au

Heather Wellington        hwellington@surfcoast.vic.gov.au

Libby Coker                  lcoker@surfcoast.vic.gov.au

Margot Smith                msmith@surfcoast.vic.gov.au

Rod Nockles                 rnockles@surfcoast.vic.gov.au

Rose Hodge                 rhodge@surfcoast.vic.gov.au

Matthew Guy                 matthew.guy@parliament.vic.gov.au

You can also leave a comment on the Surf Coast Shire FB page -

https://www.facebook.com/SurfCoastShireCouncil?fref=ts

We disagree with the panel recommendations - do you?

The 3228RA are extremely disappointed that the panel appears to have ignored the wishes of the community in recommending development of the Spring Creek valley. We do not believe that Torquay/Jan Juc can be considered in isolation and the panel does not seem to have considered, among other things, the development of the  Armstrong Creek suburb and how that development impacts on Torquay/Jan Juc. The panel has placed "great weight" on the 2009 strategic work and by inference has placed little consideration on the current situation.  The committee are formulating a considered response and deciding how we should proceed.

We hope to join with other community groups to present a united front and will be calling on all our members to email/contact the Surf Coast Shire councilors and state and local federal politicians to ask for their support to stop development in the Spring Creek valley.

Results of Panel Hearing for C66

The panel report is now available on Council’s website. Council will consider at a future public meeting, possibly 10th December.  Key findings include:

• The panel supported growth in the area 1km west of Duffields Road and recommended this be rezoned as Urban Growth Zone via a ministerial amendment
• The panel placed great weight on the previous strategic work from 1980 until 2009 that suggested growth in the Spring Creek Valley
• The panel questioned proposals to accommodate residential growth around Messmate Road and to the north-east of Torquay
• The panel suggested that land in the Spring Creek Valley more than 1km west of Duffields Road be investigated to confirm the size and form of a green break to Bellbrae and consideration of further urban development in the valley outside the green break at appropriate densities.
• The panel supported and commended Council’s neighbourhood character study and controls, which seek to preserve and promote the amenity and character of the area
• The panel supported the overall retail strategy, including the rezoning of land for a shopping centre in Torquay North
• The panel supported the Torquay North Outline Development Plan, which caters for growth in Torquay North.

Under the process for amending planning schemes in Victoria, Council can now elect to adopt all, none or some of the panel’s recommendations into C66 before sending it to the Minister for Planning for final approval; or abandon the amendment altogether.

3228RA Annual General Meeting

The 3228 Residents association held its AGM on Wednesday 28th August 2013.

A new committee member was elected - Lulu Glendenning. All existing committee members were re-elected.  See the About page of the website.

A new fee structure for voting members was adopted. See the Join page of our website. 

The committee would like to acknowledge the assistance of Dane O'Shanassy for the generous doanation of his time and financial assistance in setting up the website and his ongoing support.