Coombes Road Caravan Park proposal to go to VCAT
As expected, immediately following the Surf Coast Shire's refusal to issue a permit for the proposed "Eco Caravan Park" in Coombes Road, the proponent BCR has instructed Norton Rose Fullbright to proceed with an application for the VCAT to review the application.
The hearing will commence at 10.00am on December 8th in Melbourne. It has been listed to last for 5 days.
If you are interested - these hearings are open to the public. Normally VCAT sits at 55 King St, however, because of building works this hearing may be at another CBD location. Check the VCAT website from 4.30pm on the day prior to the hearing at-www.vcat.vic.gov.au/hearings/daily-hearings .
A group of residents who live in close proximity to the proposed site have launched a campaign to raise funds for representation at VCAT -
NO CABINS ON COOMBES
Ø Torquay residents don’t want the mega cabin village
Ø Council voted unanimously to reject the planning permit application for the development
Ø Now the developer has appealed and taken the proposal to VCAT with 1st hearing on 8 Dec
Ø There’s still a very real chance that the mega village of 717 cabins and caravan sites on the corner of Coombes and Ghazeepore Rds will be approved by VCAT - and then there appears no barrier to stop this site being used to house up to 3000 “permanent” residents
Ø This will have a negative impact on your lifestyle amenity and the value of your property, congest our roads and generate significant pedestrian and cycle traffic through your neighbourhood
WE NEED YOUR HELP TO STOP THIS HAPPENING
A small group of local residents have been closely monitoring the progress of this proposed development as it’s moved through Surf Coast Shire planning process and proceeded to VCAT. A number of residents have also lodged grounds with VCAT and will speak against the development.
We’ve been in close contact with Surf Coast Councillors and Planning Officers and attended the practice day hearing at VCAT on Friday 3 October. The developer is throwing all of its corporate muscle at the VCAT hearing and have engaged law firm Norton Rose Fulbright and Stuart Morris QC, former Supreme Court Judge and President of VCAT, as their barrister. This is a formidable team.
The planning law enabling the developer to apply to build a caravan park on Farm Zone land is very recent and this is the first case of this type at VCAT. The Council Planning Officers and the Residents group feel that there are very strong grounds justifying Council’s decision to refuse the application. We want to defend that decision vigorously.
HOW YOU CAN HELP
There is still lots of work to do to prepare for the VCAT Hearing scheduled for seven days from Monday 8 December - only nine weeks away. This is what we need help with:
§ Identifying and engaging expert witnesses and representation to support our case
§ Working closely with Council to prepare a strong and co-ordinated defence
§ Raising the more than $20,000 it will take for the legal representation required to help stop this mega cabin park from being approved
A trust fund has been set up to receive donations. You can make yours in-person at Westpac Torquay at Shop 9, Torquay Central, 8 Gilbert St, or via internet banking at:
Peter Mann Pty Ltd Trust Account BSB: 033-226, Account Nbr 48 2875 Ref 1471630 plus your name
WHATEVER SUPPORT YOU CAN PROVIDE WILL PREVENT THIS MEGA VILLAGE FROM PROCEEDING
Rebekah Abela 0412 072 572 rebekah.abela@gmail.com Mark Mathews 0417 346 138 mmathews65@gmail.com
Annual Report presented at 3228 RA Inc AGM
Yearly Report – 3228 Residents Association Inc. for 2013/2014
In the last few months of 2013 after our AGM in October, we were busy with the C66 Amendment. Following up on our submission and presentation to the Panel hearing we then organized a community letter which was endorsed by 9 community groups and published in the Echo and Surf Coast Times. We met with Councilors Wellington and Smith and attempted to meet with Councilor Goldsworthy ( who wasn’t interested in meeting with us). Emails were sent to all councilors, Government ministers, our local representative Andrew Katos and members of the opposition who had previously shown support for our community. We attended the council meeting which voted to proceed with Amendment C66 and awaited the Minister’s decision which didn’t come until March. Coverage on ABC radio and TV and in The Age demonstrated our dismay at the Minister’s response in rezoning the land 1kl west of Duffields Rd.
In December we made a submission to the Review of the Victorian Coastal Strategy 2013. The results of the review haven’t yet been released.
Also in December we asked for clarification from SC Shire as to why the playground at Bob Pettit Reserve was not nominated as a dog free area? The brochure on the SCS website shows it as off leash which is very confusing. Several emails later and the problem has still not been rectified. The playground in Carnarvon avenue Jan Juc had a “Dogs Off Leash” sticker on the rubbish bin – this has been removed after we alerted SC Shire.
Just prior to Christmas we received an intriguing letter from “Santa”. The letter comprised 3 pages with a table that showed the connections between Panel members, VCAT members, the VPELA (The Victorian Planning & Environmental Association) and the UDIA (Urban Development Institute of Australia). Many of the people mentioned including barristers, expert witnesses and panel members were involved with the C66 Panel hearing . The implication of the letter was that because of the connections these people have it is very difficult to believe that the results are unbiased. It is available if anyone wants to read it.
The sale of public land in Torquay Blvde was advertised just before Christmas. The committee spent a lot of time researching legislation and council policy and produced a submission that was highly critical of the past and present actions of council officers which had allowed this issue to drag on for over 10 years. We also made an oral presentation to councilors. Together with some other determined residents we convinced council to radically change the conditions of their offer and also their future approach to selling public land. We are still waiting on a resolution.
In January we were contacted by John Lender – journalist for The Sunday Age, who was interested in our opinion of the bushfire readiness of our town. We managed to turn the story into more about the effect on of our town of the rapid growth that has taken place over the last 10 years and the inability of infrastructure to keep pace.
In January we also became aware the government was intending to sell the majority of Bob Pettit Reserve as it was surplus to the Education Departments requirements. There was understandably a public outcry. We have sent emails to the Premier, government ministers , members of the opposition and councilors. We also spoke with the press to highlight the importance of this park to the community. Recently, council voted not to accept officer recommendations to purchase the land for over $2 million. They are willing to pay $500,000.
We attended the information sessions on Long Vehicle Parking. This was looking for solutions to parking for visitor’s buses and caravans. It gave us an opportunity to suggest that the large buses, currently used public transport, are also a problem and that smaller buses would be more safe and efficient.
Our first public meeting was held in March. Our invited guests – The Mayor and CEO of the SC Shire were involved in lively discussions on topics ranging from dogs and where & when they can walk, planning matters, especially what will happen in spring Creek, traffic and the sale of Bob Pettit reserve.
In March we were invited to attend a meeting with SC Shire planners to discuss the new Residential Zones. We also made a submission (on our website). We thought that it would be a good opportunity to have some control over building heights, especially in the smaller coastal towns including Jan Juc. In May, the officers recommended to keep the status quo (and councilors voted to accept their recommendation) and so currently the whole of the shire has been zoned GRZ which offers no control over building heights.
At our May committee meeting it was resolved to join the Victorian Ratepayers Association. We felt the cost of $40 a year was worthwhile. It shows solidarity with other ratepayers and is a source of information to benefit our group.
Also in May our Treasurer, Helen, had the arduous task of reading through the SC Shire Budget for 2014/2015. Helen wrote a submission and it was presented to council. (on our website). The rates for this financial year will rise 4.75%.
In June we attended the State Government consultation about unconventional gas exploration in the surf Coast Shire. A current exploration licence – PEP 163 – covers areas of 3228. There is real concern, in the community, of the effects of onshore gas exploration and the implications for the tourist industry, food production and amenity. There is currently a moratorium in place until July next 2015 and the results of the consultation will not be available for several months.
In June the community was made aware of a proposal for a large Caravan/Cabin Park on the outskirts of Torquay. The proposal has generated a lot of concern from residents, particularly those living near to the proposal. We attended the first of the 3 information sessions and it was clear that many of the concerns that people had regarding the possible future use of the large amount of cabins could not be legally restricted. Our submission is available on the website.
Spring Creek – we are concerned that there is still no indication of consultation with the community over the development of Spring Creek, as promised by SCS. Prior to the June council meeting there were emails to councilors about the adoption of changes to the 2040 document to reflect the minister’s decision on Spring Creek - http://www.surfcoast.vic.gov.au/My_Council/Agendas_Minutes/Council_Agendas_Minutes/council_minutes_14/Meeting_24_June_2014?minutes see item 23 and the appendix for Item 23 which shows a map with numbers of lots which we feel pre-empts the consultation process and will be used by developers as a reference document. Some councilors queried this but were told by Kate Sullivan(Director of Planning & Environment) that it wasn’t a policy document.
In July the Labour candidate for South Barwon, Andy Richards, held a “meet the community” session which we attended. We asked questions about the law and order issue (no police presence 24/7), the sale of Bob Pettit, political donations from developers, the current powers of the Minister for Planning, the future of renewable energy in Victoria, and a position on the Anglesea power plant and coal mine. Mr Richards gave his own opinion on these matters but said the Labour party’s policies would not be announced for a few months. Hopefully we will be hosting a candidate’s forum closer to the state government elections so that we can hear from all candidates.
Gas shortages in the last few weeks have caused a lot of concern in the community. The problem seems to be widespread and is worst when the weather is particularly cold. We have been in contact with SP Ausnet who have acknowledged to decreasing pressure is due to the number of connections. Residents may be eligible for compensation. We are following up on this issue.
We continue to represent the interests of the community at all levels of government.
Council vote unanimously to refuse caravan park proposal
Council officers made the following recommendation -
"Recommendation
That Council having considered all the matters required under section 60 of the Planning and Environment
Act 1987 issue a Refusal to grant a Planning Permit for the staged Use and Development of a Camping and
Caravan Park, removal of Native Vegetation and associated Buildings and Works at 350 Coombes Road and 1200 Ghazeepore Road, Freshwater Creek, on the following Grounds:
1. The scale and intensity of the proposal is contrary to the rural setting of the Thompson Valley and the transition environment of the Low Density Residential Zoned land to the south east.
2. The scale and intensity of the proposal is not compatible with the non-urban break role of the Thompson Valley.
3. The proposed land use substantially exceeds projected accommodation requirements identified in the Great Ocean Road Destination Management Plan and concentrates the impacts of tourism growth into one area rather than spreading them across the wider region.
4. Insufficient information has been provided regarding the operational structure, accommodation standard, the nature of the community facilities, the permanency of residents, and potential lease arrangements to allow a full understanding and characterisation of the proposed land use.
Council Resolution
MOVED Cr. Brian McKiterick, Seconded Cr. Rod Nockles
That Council having considered all the matters required under section 60 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 issue a Refusal to grant a Planning Permit for the staged Use and Development of a Camping and Caravan Park, removal of Native Vegetation and associated Buildings and Works at 350 Coombes Road and 1200 Ghazeepore Road, Freshwater Creek, on the following Grounds:
1. The scale and intensity of the proposal is contrary to the rural setting of the Thompson Valley and the transition environment of the Low Density Residential Zoned land to the south east.
2. The scale and intensity of the proposal is not compatible with the non-urban break role of the Thompson Valley.
3. The proposed land use substantially exceeds projected accommodation requirements identified in the Great Ocean Road Destination Management Plan and concentrates the impacts of tourism growth into one area rather than spreading them across the wider region.
4. Insufficient information has been provided regarding the operational structure, accommodation standard, the nature of the community facilities, the permanency of residents, and potential lease arrangements to allow a full understanding and characterisation of the proposed land use.
CARRIED 9:0"
Submission to Surf Coast Shire in relation to the proposed caravan Park
3228 Residents Association Inc.
Po Box 368
Torquay 3228
Submission to Surfcoast Shire - Application No: 14/0111
Site Address: 350 Coombes Road and 1200 Ghazeepore Road, Freshwater Creek
The 3228 Residents Association acknowledge that since the Zeally Bay Caravan Park was permitted to be changed into a resort style hotel, there may be a need for a new tourist caravan park in the vicinity of Torquay to cater for peak demand over the summer/Easter holidays, however, we make the following comments on the proposal at the above address.
Viability of the project
A major concern exists in the community about the overall size of the proposal (over 500 cabins and over 200 caravan sites) and that the ratio of cabins to caravan and tent sites at over 2 to 1 is extreme.
A drive past the Torquay Foreshore Caravan Park, which has the advantage of being in town, close to shops, restaurants and the beach(the reason people come here), clearly shows the lack of patronage in the months from Easter through to November. Nothing in the proposal and its amenities could be seen as encouraging people to visit in the off season. Torquay simply doesn’t have the weather to attract people to caravan parks all year round. This is shown in the proposal - Table 2.5– P 17 of the Market Assessment and Economic Impact Assessment produced by Essential Economics, the occupancy rate for 2013/2014 in the region is only 20%.
The report also states that there are currently 1280 sites in Torquay/Jan Juc which is 46% of the sites in the whole of Surf Coast Shire. If this is the case perhaps another location within the Surf Coast Shire that is further along the Great Ocean Road would be more beneficial for the region rather than increasing the numbers in Torquay.
The report quotes the Great Ocean Road Destination Management Plan that suggests that an additional 3440 commercial guest rooms will be required across the Great Ocean Road Region over all categories of accommodation (should the high growth scenario be reached by 2030) and this includes up to 5 new caravan and tourist parks. What is doesn’t say is how large these caravan parks should be. If the proposal proceeds as presented and assuming each bedroom in a cabin and each caravan as a guest room, it would make up over 28% of all required guest rooms. I don’t believe this is the intention of the Management Plan to have such a large scale operation in one location as it does not provide a variety of choice.
The plan also says that “Some of the projected requirement for additional capacity should be directed to existing accommodation establishments. Increasing the size of existing establishments would improve economies of scale and viability of businesses.” Current businesses who have already invested in the area should have the opportunity to extend their investment to provide extra accommodation.
A contradiction in the proposal figures is also found on P17 (Access Economics report) where the estimated person per cabin/ caravan is stated as 3, on Page 2 of the statement the average occupancy given by Access Economics per cabin/caravan is 2. At full occupancy that is a difference of 777 people. On what data have they assessed that each bedroom would have an average occupancy of 1 person? How does flow on to their other assumptions?
Promise of Jobs
The proposal makes predictions about the number of jobs that will ensue if the proposal proceeds. What it doesn’t state is whether these job numbers are based on 20%, 30% 50% or 100% occupancy rates and over what period of the year.
Promises of construction jobs are often made by developers but as we have experienced in the past eg RACV, large projects seldom benefit local contractors. With the construction of cabins more easily undertaken entirely off site by pre fabrication in a factory, jobs for local tradespeople may not eventuate. There is also a claim “$12 million a year in additional retail spending directly attributable to visitors staying at the tourist park. Most of this would be directed to businesses located in Torquay” What occupancy rate and time period is this based on?
Permanent Accommodation
Another major concern we have, which seems to be shared by attendees of the recent information sessions, is that the cabins or onsite vans may, either at the outset or over time, become permanent living accommodations. In a similar way to the Sands Hotel supposedly being found to be a financially non-viable proposition and needing to change its status, there is a real concern that this park, being a significant distance from the town centre and from beaches, may also find that it could be financially unsupportable as it is currently proposed. The owners may then be forced to seek a change to any planning conditions in the future and seek to change from temporary tourist accommodation to permanent accommodation.
We understand that there is no way of guaranteeing that cabins won’t be sold off or leased at some future date.
Even if the council were able place such conditions in the permit that would prevent this from happening, it is most likely that the proponent would take the council to VCAT to alter the conditions.
Parking
If the proposal is granted a permit, we believe that all parking requirements should be met within the boundaries of the site for visitors and temporary residents alike.
As Coombes Rd is a moderate speed through road that is growing in use, we believe that any side of road parking would be dangerous. Attempting to enter into the traffic flow travelling at speeds at 80 km/hr or higher would be a manoeuvre inherent with danger, particularly if reversing from angle parking.
The site has an abundance of land and can easily accommodate all the parking required on site. We therefore propose that if a permit is granted that both Coombes Rd and Ghazeepore Rd have no parking signage (as opposed to no standing) outside the boundaries of the site on both sides of both roads and for a distance of (say) 300 metres from the site.
We envisage that some of the people staying at the park would have boats and we suggest that some parking be set aside to allow for trailers within the site boundaries.
Traffic Flow
If the proposal is granted then there will be an increase in traffic volumes. Certainly on Coombes Rd and along Ghazeepore Rd and through the Ocean Acres Estate, by people seeking a route to Grossmans Rd. We feel that the traffic study may have underestimated the expected traffic volumes on these roads as it appears that consideration was not given to the reasons for traffic movements from an accommodation park which is different from those of permanent residents. The increased flows to the mentioned roads are inevitable for two reasons.
a. People seeking access to Jan Juc beaches or the Great Ocean Road and
b People seeking easier access onto or across the Surf Coast Hwy (at least until its intersection with Coombes Rd is controlled) to get to Torquay beaches or to the retail areas.
We believe that a traffic strategy needs to be developed to minimise the traffic through the Ocean Views estate and that the strategy and its implementation be funded by the developer.
We also feel an upgrading of Ghazeepore Rd should be undertaken to accommodate the increase usage and also to create a bike path to link to the end of Rosedale Drive to allow safe access to the existing bike infrastructure and minor roads via Stringybark Drive without need to travel on Coombes Rd or Grossmans Rd. The cost for any works should be provided by the developer.
Vegetation Buffer
As Coombes Road, with the nearing completion of the roundabout with Anglesea Rd, is likely to become a major route into Torquay, we feel that the visual intrusion of the park could be mitigated by an inclusion of a fully vegetated buffer of 6.0 metres on all boundaries.
Green Energy Commitment
We commend the proposers on their commitment to use 100% 'green energy.
The community has previously seen developers give commitments that were later withdrawn or ignored after a permit is granted. An example is the RACV indicating the use of recycled water from Barwon Water yet changed to draw water from Jan Juc creek without proper compensation to the community.
The developers in this case could simply use 100% green power fro a period and then change to standard power at any time.
We feel that council should create a mechanism that this commitment or green energy use be upheld and if this is not feasible, then this aspect should be ignored as part of the considerations.
Buildings
Although the 3228RA believe that the number of proposed cabins is excessive and the ratio of cabins to caravan sites should be significantly reduced, we offer the following comments on the construction of the cabins.
(Unregistered Movable Dwelling - UMD)
Caravan Parks and the Building Act 1993
Section 517 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 excludes movable dwellings in caravan parks from the Building Act 1993 (except for Part 12A - plumbing works). This means that building permits are not required for the construction and installation of any UMD or rigid annexe in a caravan park. Local council is the authority responsible for enforcement of non-compliance. The enforcement provisions are contained within the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 and the regulations. It is an offence for someone to construct or install a UMD or rigid annexe in a caravan park unless it complies with the regulations.
And:
Building Code of Australia
The Building Code of Australia (the BCA) is a national code containing technical specifications and standards for construction. The regulations refer to the BCA Volume 2 for the technical standards for the construction of UMDs. A UMD is considered to be a Class 1 building for the purposes of compliance with any of the required provisions of the BCA.
As can be seen above, if the cabins are considered as UMD's they are not required to comply with all aspects of the BCA.
We believe that all the recommendations relating to sustainability design within the ESD assessment be adopted.
We believe that the developers should be held to their commitment of cabins of high energy efficiency and that the BCA requirements for housing be set as a minimum standard for these cabins and to eliminate any ambiguity, we believe that all the provisions of Volume Two of the BCA Part 3.12 Energy Efficiency become a condition of the planning permit.
Signage
Given that the park is proposed to be located on a road that will soon become a major entry into Torquay, we believe that the size of signage be kept to a minimum and contained fully within the boundaries of the site.
Lighting
We recommend that council require that only emergency lighting be permitted in the grounds after a stated time of night (times to be set by council as appropriate) and that all external lighting be fitted in such a way to minimise the dispersion of light beyond the boundaries of the site. This second condition would have the intent of trying to prevent the park becoming a 'light beacon" in the sky as one travels towards or away from Torquay, Jan Juc or Bellbrae.
Sewerage
According to the - P.5 “ Barwon Water also advises that the sewerage system for either option can only accept a maximum discharge of 5L/s. Such a low discharge rate will result in the need for storage, either within the pump well, or in a separate storage tank” and P.6 “The existing T10 SPS does not have capacity to cater for the peak flow expected from the proposed development, therefore onsite storage tanks built alongside the sewer pump station would be required”.
We have concerns that the size of this proposal will require the storage sewerage on site and the consequences of any failure of the storage tanks.
Gas
P. 7 of the Infrastructure Servicing Report - “SPI Networks (Gas) Pty Ltd has advised that gas supply is available to this area but will be subject to an evaluation once a formal application for connection has been received.”
There is currently a major problem with gas supply to Torquay/Jan Juc. In recent times, many residents have been left with no hot water, no heating or no gas at all. There has been no indication by SP Ausnet as to when this situation will be rectified. We believe that until this situation is rectified and full supply can be guaranteed to existing residents that the Surf Coast shire needs to very mindful of the ability of new developments to provide this service.
Promise of a pool
More recently the proponent has suggested in the press that they would be prepared to host a public aquatic centre. The community has heard the same promise before from a developer. We believe that “promises” of this nature ( of supposed community benefit) should not be a determining factor in the appropriateness of the development.
Our position is:
No permanent accommodation now or in the future.
No added cost burden to residents either for upgraded or added infrastructure or for ongoing maintenance such as road maintenance.
No traffic congestion to Coombes Road (prevent roadside parking).
No creation of a 'light beacon' in the rural setting.
Allow for continuous bike access to Torquay by way of bike paths or use of minor roads rather than major roads unless they are provided with appropriately wide bike lanes (at no cost to the existing community).
Enforce, now and into future, the recommendations of the ESD assessment provided by the developer.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the 3228RA has a major concern with the park becoming a de facto 'housing estate' or retirement village and we would like to see strong conditions and penalties established to prevent this scenario developing. The number of cabins/caravan sites proposed and the contradictory figures provided, lead us to question the viability of the proposal as a Tourist Park with a $105 million price tag. We would not like to see the council in a position, in a number of years’ time, needing to consider a new proposal for the site with established cabins, requesting it to be turned into permanent accommodation due to "unforeseen" financial situations. It is not the council's responsibility to ensure the viability of a proposal if the developers financial position changes or if the financial forecasts are shown to be incorrect. We believe it is the council's responsibility to ensure that planning conditions are maintained and not changed due to an entrepreneur's failure to forecast correctly.
Thank you for your consideration.
Committee of the 3228 Residents Association
We asked SP Ausnet why our gas supply isn't coping with demand
The committee has asked SP Ausnet the following questions about the recent gas outages in Torquay and Jan Juc -
"What is the reason that gas supplies are experiencing shortages in Torquay / Jan Juc?
What is the expected reliability in the future and when will that reliability be guaranteed?
What level of demand is catered for - 100% expected peak demand or less? If less what is the figure and how does that compare to cities like Melbourne and Geelong?
Is Ausnet Services asked its opinion by council on gas supply when a residential development is proposed?
If yes, what has been the response by Ausnet Services to those requests for comments on residential development proposals and how do those responses relate to the current shortages?
Has council ignored any recommendations made by Ausnet Services relating to residential developments in the last ten years that would have contributed to the gas supply shortages?
As the community of Torquay is looking for answers to the above questions, your immediate response would be appreciated."
This is the reply below which we feel is less than adequate and doesn't actually answer the questions put.
"Thank you for your email.
Ausnet Services are experiencing exceptionally high demand on the gas distribution network that has the potential to result in customer outages.
We are currently doing everything in our control to maintain supply to our customers and working through the approval process to build a secondary high pressure gas supply from Geelong into the Torquay region in the next 12 months.
This will provide an alternate high pressure supply to strengthen the network and cater for the growing population in the Torquay area.
We apologise for the interruptions and inconvenience this has caused."
Our return email -" Is it possible that you could answer the specific questions in my original email below? If you fail to do so I will be forced to take the matter to the energy ombudsman."
Gas supply shortages strikes again!
In the past couple of weeks many residents have been complaining about the lack of adequate gas supply to their property which has resulted in no hot water, no heating or both. I don't recall that this has ever been a problem in the past.
Our community need some answers as to why a service, for which we pay a service fee, is not being provided.
It seems that the inability to provide an adequate gas supply is now another downside of the rapid growth that we have endured over recent years. While the government thinks it is important to provide land for those people who may want to live here in the future, they haven't ensured that the existing community are not disadvantaged by the lack of adequate services.
Who is responsible for ensuring that the necessary infrastructure is in place to support our town as a designated "growth node"?
Should the release of more land be delayed until all existing properties can be guaranteed that all services can supplied at all times?
Meet the Labour candidate for South Barwon
Andy Richards, the Labour Party candidate for South Barwon, who will contest the State government elections in November is having a "meet the candidate" session tonight. 29th July.
WHERE: Surf Coast Sport and Recreation Centre (Surfworld) in Beach Road
TIME: Starting 7.00pm
This is an opportunity to discuss issues affecting the Surf Coast and in particular our community in 3228 in the lead up to the election. tell Andy Richards what we expect from the State government.
A reasonable price for, or a gift of Bob Pettit reserve, a Police station that is manned 24/7, funding for the Aquatic Centre and Children's Hub are issues of concern for our community.
Proposal for over 500 cabins and 200 caravan sites on display
As reported in the Geelong Advertiser - http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/news/geelong/million-tourist-park-proposed-for-torquay/story-fnjuhovy-1226963038899, recently, there is a Planning Application with the SCS to develop a site on the corner of Coombes and Ghazepore Roads into a large tourist accommodation park. http://www.surfcoast.vic.gov.au/My_Property/Building_Planning/Planning/Applications_On_Public_Exhibition/350_Coombes_Road_and_1200_Ghazeepore_Road_Freshwater_Creek
The size of the park and the amount of traffic it will generate in Coombes Road is causing some concern among residents who live in the vicinity.
The SCS is holding an information session about the proposal on 3rd July. Interested persons are invited to drop in any time between 4pm and 7pm on Thursday 3 July, Council Chambers, 1 Merrijig Drive Torquay. - http://www.surfcoast.vic.gov.au/News_Directory/Caravan_Park_Application
Rates to rise by 4.75% after changes to the SCS budget changes.
At its meeting on 26th June, the Surf Coast Shire councilor voted to adopt the budget for 2014/2015 without the controversial Tourist Accommodation Rate category.
We asked the question: -
Is it correct that shire officers are proposing to discontinue the proposed Tourist Accommodation Rate category resulting in an increase in general rates – now being greater than expected with an increase of 4.75% compared to the 3.72% that was previously forecast? If this is correct, what is the reasoning behind this change?
Council’s Chief Executive Officer – Stephen Wall responded:
Council will consider the Adoption of the Annual Budget 2014-2015 and Declaration of Rates for 2014-2015 as item 1.3 on tonight’s Agenda. It is recommended that the proposed tourist accommodation differential rate be removed from the 2014-2015 Budget. Council received a total of 88 submissions on 2014-2015
Budget, 68 of these expressed concern around the proposed introduction of a tourist accommodation differential rate. This identified that more work needs to be completed by Council before such a differential rating category can be introduced. Ms O’Shanassy is correct that the removal of this rating category will result in an increase in general rates. I encourage Ms O’Shanassy to stay tonight and hear the debate and decision on the Annual Budget 2014-2015 and Declaration of Rates for 2014-2015.
Read our well researched submission to council prepared by our Treasurer, Helen Torley:
3228 Residents Association Incorporated
(Org. No. A0058442K)
26 May 2014
Mr Stephen Wall
Chief Executive Officer
Surf Coast Shire Council, PO Box 350,Torquay Vic 3228
Dear Stephen,
SUBMISSION : SURF COAST SHIRE DRAFT BUDGET 2014 - 2015
We seek clarification and further consideration of several important aspects of the Surf Coast Shire Draft Budget 2014 – 2015, which will impact on our members and the community.
Whilst the Budget is extensive in size, in fact 93 pages long, it lacks detail on WHY decisions have been made and WHY the Shire feels its Budget is reasonable and fair. In it current format, the Budget is time consuming and daunting for community members to decipher – the Budget is an important document which should be provided in a format that can be easily read and understood by the community. In future years, we suggest a more succinct summary is provided to explain to ratepayers why the key Budget assumptions have been made, what the main changes are and how the level of rates and Shire performance has been measured to ensure it is in line with “Best Practice”.
In addition, we raise the following more specific aspects regarding the 2014 – 2015 Budget:
Introduction of “Tourist Accommodation” rating class This appears to be a significant change in revenue collection for this sector of our community. What other Shires use this rating class and what % do they charge (Pg 53)? The Shire website currently advises that a Tourism Special Charge is collected from these type of properties to help support Tourism development. What is the current charge vs proposed Tourist Accommodation Rate? What is the revenue differential? Why the need to change? In addition, we feel that the definition of Tourist Accommodation Rate Land (Pg 70) is ambiguous and open to challenge.
The Budget estimates reclassification of a large number commercial and residential properties as Tourist Accommodation (702 properties with an average value of $628K each). How have / will these properties be identified / monitored and will additional resources be required for this purpose?
By collection of this new fee on residential based tourist accommodation, will this sector be more heavily promoted, and thereby encouraged? There are already problems due to the inappropriate mix of tourist accommodation in residential areas (e.g. especially during Schoolies and peak holiday times).
State Government Guidelines (Section161) state that the use of Tourist Accommodation for differentiation of rates is “inappropriate”. They advise to “consider with caution”. Alternatively, they recommend that a special charge may be more appropriate. It appears that the Shire is going against the State Government guidelines - why?
Reduction in Commercial / Industrial rate charge
Why is the Commercial / Industrial rate being reduced from 190% to 170%. Budget states....”to support employment in the Region”. What is the basis for this statement. How will an average $326 reduction in rates per commercial rate payer improve employment prospects?
Increase in budgeted borrowings for FYE 15/16 by $3M to $ 18.3M
The proposed increase in borrowings by $3M, to fund the Torquay North Early Learning Centre, was not foreseen in the Shires previous budgets. In fact, Annual Report 6/13 (finalised approx 6 months earlier than this Budget), on page 52, forecasts borrowings to reduce to $15.3M by the end of 15/16. AR 6/13 also states that “Council...is now in a phase of debt reduction.” and also “Council does not propose to increase borrowings to expand the capital works program”.
Why has the debt strategy changed from a phase of debt reduction to increasing borrowings in such a short time frame? By reducing Commercial rates (as mentioned above), the Shire is foregoing at least $255K in revenue that could be used to reduce the level of borrowings required. The community deserves some explanation!
General
The budget does not provide data on how performance compares to other Shires to ensure level of rates, wages, costs, etc. are appropriate? This is important benchmarking information that should be provided to the public as part of the budget process. Also, with Employee numbers, there has been a significant, unexplained variation in EFT, from last years Budget (2013 – 2014), which forecast 230 EFT at end of 2013 / 14, compared to the Revised Forecast in this years Budget (2014 – 2015) of 248 EFT as at 2013 / 14. Why have employee number jumped by 18 EFT or 7.2% over forecast levels?
Finally, if there is capacity for rate relief now, why is it not extended to all ratepayers, rather than just to Commercial ratepayers? For this reason alone, the current budget is not “equitable and affordable (Pg 30)” to all ratepayers.
Summary
Whilst we apologise for our Submission questioning much of the Shires Budget, this does not mean that we disagree with all assumptions within the Budget. What we are saying is that the Budget DOES NOT provide the necessary detail and justification for the assumptions contained within the document. This is not fair to the community and is not reflective of open and transparent local government.
Of course, I am sure that, as a council, you have much more data, benchmark results, etc. to show why budget decisions have been made and to reflect that performance is in line with other well run, efficient Councils. We welcome hearing about this in response to our submission.
Regards,
Helen Torley
Treasurer 3228RA Inc