High stakes: Developers slam council’s position on Spring Creek

DEVELOPERS with an interest in land in the Spring Creek valley have slammed the Surf Coast Shire council’s explicit endorsement of Torquay’s town boundary being set at Duffields Road, saying the change will force higher densities in Torquay’s town centre.

Councillors amended their proposed submission to the draft Statement of Planning Policy (SPP) in the Surf Coast Shire Distinctive Area and Landscape process at their meeting last week.

The original submission did not explicitly take a stance on the SPP’s Option 1 (which would make the land 1km west of Duffields Road a “low density ecologically sustainable development area”) or Option 2 (which would rule out any sort of development in the valley), with the report to councillors noting it was the SPP’s “most controversial and political element”.

The report recommended the council remain neutral on the issue – “With the power resting with the state government, it is considered that full accountability and responsibility for the decision should be attributed solely to the state government”.

However, Cr Kate Gazzard successfully moved an amendment to the motion that stated the council accepted in 2014 that the Planning Minister rezoning of the land 1km west of Duffields Road to Urban Growth Zone was final, but “Option 2 reflects the council’s long-held aspirations for the future of the Spring Creek valley and the views of the majority of people in this community, and endorses this option”.

In response to the amendment, a representative for developers Parklea and Okeland Communities said “good planning outcomes don’t happen when local councils and local MPs make decisions based on politics and fear of their own electoral future”.

“In proposing the amendment, councillors ignored the advice of their own experts,” the representative said.

“Planning experts understand that Torquay Jan-Juc needs a clear plan for the future, not just opposition to every development.

“Politics and planning doesn’t mix.

“Option 2 doesn’t change the popularity of Torquay. It just changes where the people will be housed. If the politics result in no development in Spring Creek, then this will result in higher densities in the town centre. Is this what the majority want?”.

The amendment proved divisive among councillors, with six in favour (Kate Gazzard, Mike Bodsworth, Rose Hodge, Liz Pattison, Adrian Schonfelder and Libby Stapleton), two opposed (Paul Barker and Heather Wellington) and one abstaining (Gary Allen).

Cr Gazzard said the Spring Creek valley was one of the only wildlife corridors left in Torquay.

“It’s been shown the community support protecting Spring Creek over and over again,” she said.

“We’ve got a chance to protect our natural environment for future generations to enjoy, and I think we really do have a duty to our community to make the right decision, knowing we’re in a climate emergency with biodiversity endangerment and mass extinction, so we need to do what we can to protect these wildlife corridors.”

Cr Wellington said the planning process should be respected.

“I strongly believe we should listen to community views and take them on board very seriously, but I don’t believe we’re in the process of assessing what the community thinks and voting on the basis of popular vote.”