Update on sale of public land at 85 Torquay Blvd Jan Juc

President of 3228RA, Sid Pope, made an oral submission to council on 11th February. There were three other speakers, all objecting to the sale.

Today 3228RA received a letter from Council which states -

"As a result of the submissions received by council pertaining to this matter, Council is seeking further information and will not consider the matter at the February council meeting. Council will keep you informed when this matter is to be considered at a formal Council meeting."

We are also waiting on responses, from the CEO, to concerns about the process by which the prospective sale has been undertaken.

We will keep you informed.

Hearing of submissions re 85 Torquay Blvd public land sale

The Hearing of Submissions Committee will meet on Tuesday 11 the February at 6.30pm to hear from those people who have written submissions and indicated that they wish to be heard. The meeting is open to the public and will be held at the Council Chambers.

3228RA will be making a presentation to support our submission.

22nd January 2014

 

The Surf Coast Shire

1 Merrijig  Drive

TORQUAY  3228

Re: Reserve No. 1 on LP 55354 – Notice of Intention to sell Council Land

Dear Sir/Madam

In response to the Notice of Intention to sell Council Land in the Surf Coast Times (Page 2), the 3228 Residents Association Inc. would like to formally object to the rezoning and the intended subsequent sale of the land at 85 Torquay Boulevade to the adjoining owner of 81 Torquay Boulevade.

On the 8th January 2014 an email was sent to the Mayor and the CEO(see attached) expressing our concerns about the sale and the process by which this rezoning/sale was being undertaken. There were several questions to which we required answers. To date, we have not received a reply.

We have three main concerns:

  • The sale of the land will not benefit the community and in fact will reward a property owner for illegally encroaching onto public open space. They have knowingly constructed a deck and part a bungalow on land they do not own and in doing so have also obstructed the sewer line.

  • The sale price at which the land is to be offered is grossly inadequate.

  • The process thus far has not conformed to the Local Government Best Practice Guideline For The Sale, Exchange& Transfer of Land. June 2009. The fact that the council resolution of 23rd July 2014 was held “in camera” and not listed on the Agenda for the meeting is also of great concern.

    We also wish to be heard at any future Hearing of Submissions Committee meeting and will further expand our objections and concerns.

    Regards... 3228RA Inc

We(the committee) still have had no response to our concerns about the sale and the process by which it is being conducted.

Review of Special Charge Scheme Policy

The Agenda for the Council meeting on 28th January had an item of interest  - a review of the SC Shire's Special Charge Scheme Policy. See P8 of the Agenda -  http://www.surfcoast.vic.gov.au/My_Council/Agendas_Minutes/Council_Agendas_Minutes/council_minutes_14/Meeting_28_January_2014?agenda

The minutes for the meeting have not yet been posted, not sure why it is taking so long, but the adoption of the recommendations has been deferred.

The committee sent an email to all councilors expressing concerns about the policy -

Dear Councilors

I have read the Agenda for today’s council meeting and noticed that there is an update to the Policy for Special Charge Schemes.

Considering the ongoing failure of the Jan Juc Pathways scheme to provide an equitable and aesthetically appropriate outcome, we believe the council needs to carefully consider the update to its policy. There is no doubt that the scheme has been a distressing and costly exercise to both the community and the shire and a disastrous public relations outcome that is evidenced by the recent mail-out about payments and complaints about the standard of finish.

The main reason the scheme failed so dramatically was the invention and subsequent roll out of the so called “Precinct” approach. Residents are still asking why some people in the “precinct don’t have to pay at all, why they are paying more than their next neighbor, why they have to pay when there is a footpath across the road from their property and why the RACV paid nothing. Have the RACV ever been asked to contribute? -. Council at its meeting on 23 March 2010 resolved

that Council request officers to negotiate with RACV with the intent of including the proposed Torquay Golf Club redevelopment in the scheme. It is recommended that following Council resolution discussions be held with the RACV to seek an ex gratia contribution to the scheme.

A change in policy for such an unpopular practice (Special Charge Schemes) should have involved community consultation not just a review by council officers/councilors.

Some points that need particular consideration are:

The ongoing practice of the “Precinct approach”

5.2.1 The option to defer should only be permitted on land that is under application for subdivision at time of scheme instigation. Otherwise landowners in locations such as Spring Valley could defer payments indefinitely.

5.2.4. Some property owners may not be in a financial position to pay a $5000 levy in one hit. The option to repay over an extended time should be an option to all. Maybe less than $5000 then less than a 10 year periods.          

5.2.5 Council needs to clearly define "affected properties". Eg, council limited that affected properties for the Darian Rd footpath to localised houses, yet anyone who travels down Darian Rd benefits. This clause allows council to instigate a scheme even if 100% of affected properties are against and council ask for less than 2/3 from owners.

5.3 Re community based panels. Sound good in theory but unfortunately have a tendency to be ignored by council eg Aireys Inlet Pearse Rd., The Bells Beach taskforce. It appears to be councils method of saying they have had consultation. Hopefully this will not be the case in future.

Regards...3228RA Inc

Councilor Heather Wellington responded to the email on Tuesday evening -

"...thanks for your comments, I moved a deferment of the policy at tonight's meeting because I agree that it needs more work.
We will continue to work on this until it is in much better shape.
Kind regards, Heather".

We will push to be included in consultation about changes to the policy and if council accepts our input we will ask member to contribute.

 

 

 

 

0

More on the sale of Public Land at 85 Torquay Blvd.

The committee will be lodging an objection to the sale of public land at 85 Torquay Blvd. We will post it when it has been finalized.

We are yet to receive a reply to our letter of concern about the sale and the process, dated 8th January 2014.

If you wish to lodge an objection/submission it must be received at the Surf Coast Shire offices by 3.00pm on Friday 24th January 2014.

Below are a couple of links with more background information that you may or may not have read. This issue has been on going since 2004. we can only ask why?

http://www.surfcoast.vic.gov.au/My_Council/Agendas_Minutes/Council_Agendas_Minutes/council_minutes_13/Meeting_23_July_2013?minutes

 

 

 

Sale of Bob Pettit Reserve land by the State government

Link to the Geelong Advertiser article on the sale land at Bob Pettit reserve in Jan Juc:

http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/news/negotiations-under-way-to-sell-bob-pettit-reserve-in-jan-juc/story-fnjuhxh0-1226801426398

The Napthine government has completed an audit if public land across the state presumably to fill their coffers prior to this years election. The section of the reserve that contains the sports pavilion the tennis courts playground the scare park basketball ring and sensory garden is up for sale. The shire has been told if we want to keep it we must pay 4 $ million or five over four years. Don't forget this is our place of last resort in a bushfire as well. If you want to help use the links below and let them you know what you think. Rose Hodge is taking the fight up to them but there maybe a councillor or two who need some encouragement too! Our position is that this is a significant public asset and should be ceded to the community free of charge.

Let the government know you are not happy by sending them an email -

http://andrewkatos.com.au/contact-andrew/
http://www.denisnapthine.com.au/contact.php
 

Letter from the Mayor in response to our meeting re Bob Pettit Reserve sale.

15 January 2014

Office of the Mayor

Sid Pope

President

3228 Residents Association

Sent via email

 

Dear Sid

Request for information regarding Bob Pettitt Reserve – State Government offer for

Council to purchase land owned by the Department of Education and Early Child

Development (DEECD)

In response to your request, on behalf of the 3228 residents group, for information on this topic I can confirm the following:

• Council is fully aware of the importance of Bob Pettitt Reserve as public open space to the community and to the groups that use the reserve.

• Council’s objective is to retain the current use of the reserve as public open space at the lowest possible cost to rate payers.

• Council, along with the State Government, has invested significantly in community facilities at the reserve in recent years.

• The reserve is Jan Juc’s only large public open space. It includes facilities for community groups, clubs and families as well as Jan Juc’s only Neighbourhood Safer

Place.

• The reserve has been used as public open space since it was purchased by the State

Government (Ministry of Education) in 1977. It was held as a potential school site. This school was never built.

• Some of the original facilities, notably the tennis courts and pavilion, were built around the time of the State Government’s purchase of the site and straddle the title boundary.

• Archives suggest that there have been sporadic discussions between the State Government and both Barabool and Surf Coast Shire Councils regarding the possible sale of the land. These date back to the 1980s.

• However, historical records also appear to indicate that for the vast majority of the past four decades the community has been free to access and enjoy the land without a formal use agreement or the resolution of ownership.

• Most recently a licence agreement was struck between Council and DEECD in 2005 to formalise community use of the land until 2010. DEECD was not prepared to extend this agreement and discussions on long-term ownership took place in 2011and 2012.

• The Department of Treasury (DTF) and Finance wrote to Council in late October 2013, acting on behalf of DEECD, formally offering to sell the land to the Shire at market value.

• The land has been valued by DTF as per its residential zoning. It has been zoned as residential land since the early 1980s although this does not reflect the Shire’s consistent view that it is valuable open space for use by the community.

• Council has initiated discussions with Andrew Katos, Member for South Barwon and

representatives of DTF and DEECD. Negotiations are at an early stage. It is important that Council is able to continue to represent the community as those negotiations continue in the coming weeks.

Council will consider its position on this matter at its first briefing for the year on 21 January

2014 and, pending the progression of negotiations, may resolve on the matter at its meeting

on 28 January 2014.

If you have any enquiries concerning this matter please contact Stephen Wall, CEO on 5261

0601 or myself on 5261 0517.

Yours faithfully

Cr Rose Hodge

Mayor

Sale of Public Land at 85 Torquay Blvd., Jan Juc

This is a copy of the letter the committee sent to the Surf Coast Shire about the sale of public land in Torquay Blvd, Jan Juc: -

"The committee of the 3228 Residents Association Inc. has a number of concerns about the sale of public land at 85 Torquay Blvd., Jan Juc. The council appears to have two alternatives to rectify the illegal constructions at 81 Torquay Blvd –give notice for the illegal constructions to be removed or sell a portion of public land to the owner of 81 Torquay Blvd. While the second option may alleviate the illegal encroachment onto public land, it doesn’t address the illegal nature of the second dwelling. Nor does it take into account the fact that this parkland is actively managed by a public,” friends of” group and has been an ongoing dispute between the adjacent landowner and the public for approximately ten years. We find it difficult to understand how this has been allowed to occur.

We have read the attached Local Government best Practice Guideline for the Sale of Land and feel that there are some aspects of the guidelines that have not been adhered to. On Page 6 under the heading General Principles, Point 3 states –

“3. Sales, exchanges and transfers of land should be in the best interests of the community and provide the best result, both financial and non-financial, for the council and the community.”

We don’t believe the sale of this land upholds this principle as the only beneficiary is the owner of 81 Torquay Boulevade. This proposed sale will set a precedent which will allow all landowners adjacent to any parkland in the shire to purchase at a discounted price. It also sends a message to other landowners that they can construct illegal building with impunity. Byron Shire council has a huge problem with illegally constructed dwellings and extensions. Strong action is required to avoid a similar situation occurring here over time. The defense of “not knowing” about illegal encroachment (as recently used as a defense in Anglesea) is also not acceptable. The onus is on purchasers to check that the property they believe they are buying is identical to that on the property title.

Below is a list of questions/concerns that we believe must be addressed if the process is to be seen as being transparent and not disadvantaging the ratepayers.

  • We would like a copy of the instruction letter to the valuer and a copy of the current valuation.

  • What was the valuation of the land when the sale was proposed several years ago? We would like to see any previous valuation.

  • Has a conditional sale been entered into?

  • Has a planning/building permit ever been issued for the rear building? A resident has informed us that - Council has previously advised that it is a shed and does not require a permit.  However there is currently a bed, kitchen and lounge chairs in the rear shed and people who appear to be living in it.  The person who is currently leasing the property advised me that she wanted to put tenants in the rear building over Christmas and this appears to have occurred.

  • Will a retrospective permit be required for any illegal structures constructed on the land?

  • If the sale proceeds, what penalty will the purchaser pay for the illegal activities?

  • Will a Section 173 agreement (preventing subdivision and development of the additional property) be required?

  • What have been the total cost to council, over time, of the illegal activity including - legal fees and staff time over the past years, surveyors, fencing, repair of fencing, removal of fencing

  • Will the purchaser be required to pay all those costs if a sale proceeds?

  • If the sale proceeds – what will the money be spent on?

  • Council resolved to sell the land in July 2013 –why did it wait until Christmas holidays to inform the public?

  • Why was the person who inquiries were directed to, by reception, not available until 2nd of January?

We note from Page 2 of Best Practice Guidelines – that the following should be included in the notice -  •

“- how the property/ies is/are to be sold or disposed of (i.e. by public auction, tender, private treaty);

              -  the time frame for the proposed sale/exchange of land;

            •- the prospective purchaser/s if this is known;”

  • Why has the purchaser not been identified in the Notice?

  • Why has the method of sale not been identified in the Notice ?

  • Why has the time frame for the sale not been identified in the Notice?

  • What amount of money has council set aside to cover the cost of appearing at VCAT to attempt to defend the proposed discounted sale of public park land if a community member(s) chooses to do so?

Also -Page 11 of the Best practice Guide states –“ Given the nature of land generally offered for sale/exchange, the differences in value of the land for the vendor and the prospective purchaser, and the likely public perceptions of the proposed transaction, the highest standards of probity and transparency must be applied and be seen to be applied. When proposing to sell/exchange land by private treaty and having considered the nature and value of this land, and how the proposed sale/exchange was initiated, it is advisable that a probity auditor be appointed to oversee the probity of the transaction.”

We look forward to your response and would be happy to meet with the relevant officers to discuss our concerns."

This is a link to the best Practice Guide -  http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/53081/Local-Government-Best-Practice-Guideline-for-the-Sale-and-Exchange-of-Land.pdf

We have not received a formal reply from the surf Coast Shire.

Submissions close on 24th January at 3.00pm.

 

Sunday Age article 5th January 2014

For Torquay, growth is a delicate balancing act

Victoria

Date

January 5, 2014

John Elder

Is it just growing pains or has Torquay gone about as far as it can go? To many locals, the answer is all too clear.

After a series of detonations threw her Sydney life off its well-planned track, Kim Fraser moved to seaside Torquay a year ago with her two young sons.

She had holidayed in the town for 25 years. Some cousins had said to come on down, the water's fine.

Within weeks of opening a ballet school focusing on young children, dozens of students were on her books. By year's end the business had grown five-fold, mirroring the growth of Torquay itself.

''It's hard for me to say if Torquay has hit a wall, as far as development goes, because it's still very new to me and everything seems wonderful,'' she says.

''Most of the people I've met have only been here for six or seven years. And we all love it.'' This is not surprising. Torquay had a static population of 6695 in 2006. By 2011, it was 10,142.

Permanent residents now stand at about 15,000, according to the state government.

Throw in a large Deakin University student population and swarms of holidaymakers during school breaks and summer, and you can see why nervous locals claim the once tiny town regularly has 20,000 lining up for milk and bread at the cramped shopping centre.

Torquay, known for its great swell, is certainly swollen - but is it bursting at its boardshort seams?

Fraser was not aware of these impressive numbers. ''No wonder the old-timers hate us,'' she says. ''I'm not moving out, but I understand how they might be feeling.'' Lesley McQuinn is one of those old-timers. As the treasurer of the once influential Torquay Improvement Association, McQuinn - herself a blow-in 52 years ago from wheat country - campaigned for gas and sewerage to be connected to the town. ''I wrote a lot of letters,'' she says.

The success of the association in bringing infrastructure to the town - founded in 1889 - laid the groundwork for Torquay becoming one of Victoria's fastest-growing towns. ''It's become too big, too commercialised and I don't think there's any stopping it,'' says McQuinn.

''If I want to get a park at the supermarket I have to go down early in the morning or at 7 o'clock at night. It's not the little lovely village that it was. I can accept that. It's inevitable we will continue to grow. But it's the rate of growth that's frightening. We don't have enough infrastructure in place to cope with it.''

The Surf Coast Shire's Sustainable Futures blueprint says there is ''a general acknowledgment'' the population will sit between 25,000 and 30,000 by 2040, in line with the state government's ''expectations''. What worries Torquay residents, more than growth, is the uncertainty and the town's loss of control over its own future.

A year ago, Planning Minister Matthew Guy - after an intense campaign by locals, and to the dismay of developers - granted the Surf Coast Shire permission to wind back the Torquay town boundary of a previous expansion into the pretty and open Spring Creek area by Labor's Justin Madden.

The sigh of relief was short-lived: Guy appointed an independent panel to investigate where development should occur. The panel found that land west of Torquay, extending into the Spring Creek area, was the ''logical next step''.

Last month, the Surf Coast Council voted four to three against the panel's recommendations - and asked Guy to veto any such development, on the basis that Spring Creek is an important fire break in a high-risk area, and the area lacks schools and transport.

Instead of supporting the council, as he had done a year ago, Guy accused some of the councillors, as Labor Party members, of playing politics.

The apparent shifting position of the Planning Minister means the residents are not sure what the future holds for the town. This insecurity was heightened by the scale of an RACV resort to be built against the backdrop of the Torquay and Jan Juc beaches. It was originally approved by the council as a three-storey development. The developers then went to VCAT and secured five storeys.

''It's left Torquay feeling vulnerable,'' says Andrew Cherubin, vice-president of the 3228 Ratepayer's Association and a long-term surfer.

There is a strong nostalgic element to the arguments of keeping the growth of Torquay contained. As one resident noted, ''There's still a lot of hippies living in this town, and people who still see it as the tiny place it once was, and I do wonder at the fairness of my family who were allowed to build not far from Spring Creek, and then not allowing other people in.'' (The resident was the only one who did not want her name used.)

The 3228 Residents Association's secretary, Sue O'Shanassy, says there is not a blanket opposition to growth, just that it should occur on the northern end of town, towards Geelong.

There are large estates already in development just a few minutes north, along the highway. ''The rate of growth that we've seen in the last 12 years isn't sustainable,'' she says. ''You get to the point where the sense of community that we have will be lost.''

She also wonders if the defence against fire of an expanded Torquay will be manageable. Ms O'Shanassy was living in Jan Juc when the Ash Wednesday bushfires occurred and she was evacuated from her home. ''It was decided that Jan Juc would not be defended and the fire would be fought at Spring Creek. Fortunately, there was a wind change when the fire was on the outskirts of town.''

She worries that the five-fold growth in population, the higher tourist numbers and the limited exit points would make evacuating the area difficult in the event of another catastrophic fire. This has been a key argument against development in Spring Creek. ''Every time the temperature goes up I get nervous,'' she says.

An emailed statement from the Country Fire Authority notes: ''The development of Torquay and other places happens with the input of all agencies, local government and state and federal governments. CFA has a program to manage this growth and works closely with local and state governments on these issues.''

But if the town is not sure where that growth is happening and what scale it will take, how can fire-control planning take place with any certainty?


 

Are we fire ready?

A journalist from the Sunday Age has contacted our website about a story he is researching -see below.

"I am spending the next few days on the surf coast. One story I am planning to write is how fire-ready are places like Torquay when the traffic gets so congested and there are limited exit points. Is this a matter of concern for Torquay residents? Especially given the troubles with the CFA emergency warning app and the possible expansion of town borders?"

What do you think, especially in relation to our town borders?