Council refuses to sell land for retirement village project

THE Surf Coast Shire council has voted to refuse the sale of public land in Torquay so it can be used in a multi-million dollar retirement village, arguing there was no precedent for such a sale.

Debate on the issue was spirited, with some councillors warning that refusal would mean any future applications to develop the site would be out of the council’s control under new state planning rules.

In August, the council approved an amended planning permit for the retirement village – at one point valued at $50 million – which would include 120 detached single storey independent living units and three apartment buildings comprising 16 one-bedroom apartments and 60 two-bedroom apartments, and a central clubhouse varying between two and three storeys.

At the special council meeting held tonight (Tuesday, October 3), officers recommended that Cypress Lane and part of reserve No. 3 be sold so it could be used as part of the retirement village, but this motion was lost.

A second motion to not sell the land was carried six votes to three.

Cr Gary Allen, who moved the original motion, said the hard work of the shire’s officers to minimise the proposal’s impact “will all be placed in jeopardy” if the council did not sell the land.

“This is in a new climate of the state government having gazetted last week the ability to take housing developments of $15 million and over out of the hands of local planners, and they have declared a preference to solve the housing crisis by increasing densification and reducing VCAT red tape.”

Cr Mike Bodsworth also supported the sale of the land.

“Some of the objections we’ve heard are valid, some are not and are based on misrepresentations and misunderstandings that have been corrected but continue to be promoted,” he said.

“The choice is not between this development and no development, it’s between this option and a different one [that is] probably more intensive.”

Cr Rose Hodge opposed the original motion and successfully moved the second motion. She said the shire selling public land “had no precedent” and would put the shire “on the wrong side of history”.

“I’ve asked officers and I thank them for their work that they’ve gone through the records, and we have sold parts of land for connecting footpaths… but we have never sold open space like this, and I certainly don’t want my name as part of that precedent on this.

“This land will be developed no matter what we can do. You know there will be development on it, but I’m not going to vote on what might happen at VCAT, and what might happen with the planning.”

Cr Heather Wellington also opposed the sale of the land.

“Sale of any public land is never acceptable unless there’s a very clear and unique public benefit that can’t be achieved through other means,” she said.

“Public land is precious, no matter where it’s located; it is absolutely precious.

“I simply cannot understand how providing public land to a private developer to ensure the availability for profit of dwellings in Torquay addresses the public interest – it doesn’t, it addresses a private interest.”

Cr Kate Gazzard said it was a difficult decision, but the council was “looking at this through a purely human lens, and there is a need to consider the non-human life” such as the birds that lived in the Cypress Lane area.

“In the words of The Lorax, I speak for the trees. I speak for the trees as the trees have no tongues.”

In his closing remarks on the original motion, Cr Allan said he was sympathetic to the animals “but all the people who bought and currently have properties in that area: that affected the animals, that affected the fruits – we seem to forget about that”.

“It seems to be ‘It’s all right for me but bugger you, Jack’.

“I can only assume the developer – and this may not be the case – will be quite happy if this motion is lost.

“I don’t think I’ll be around to come back and say ‘I told you so’, I’ll probably be dead by the time it’s developed.

“But please think about what you wish for; you may get exactly the opposite.”

In response, Cr Hodge said she appreciated the debate at the meeting.

“Now when it comes to VCAT or when it comes through the Planning Minister, as I said before, then that could be another battlefield. But, you know, bring it on, as Cr Gazzard said, and we’ll do the best that we can.”