Developers respond to Spring Creek planning scheme

PARKLEA and Oakland developers have said a protected settlement boundary at Duffields could create a “gated community”, decrease home ownership and make local jobs harder to come by.

Parklea company director Don Welsh comments relate to the Department of Environment Land Water and Planning’s draft Statement of Planning Policy (SPP), released last month, which will create a framework for the future use and development of land in the area.

“The best outcomes for Victorians do not occur when planning becomes a popularity contest,” Mr Welsh said.
He said community groups and politicians opposing further development in the town did not have Torquay’s best interest at heart, citing inaccessible home ownership, unaffordable rent and fewer local job opportunities due to lack of development.

“The future of Torquay should not be decided by a tiny minority that want Torquay to become a gated community – a gated Torquay is unaffordable and inaccessible.

“The local groups and marginal seat MP purporting to represent all of Torquay want to make Torquay a gated community.

“There will be no local construction industry, because there will be no new land to build new homes.”
Parklea and Oakland are two of the landowners of the area west of Duffields Road with their Spring Creek Precinct Structure Plan approved by the Surf Coast Shire Council in 2017.

That process was interrupted when the Andrews Government initiated the Surf Coast Distinctive Areas and Landscapes process.

The area has been declared a distinctive area, but whether or not it will become a residentially development is still being contested.

The state government is calling on the community to have their say on the SPP’s two distinct options which are:

Option 1: Designates the Spring Creek area for low density, ecologically sustainable development and includes it within the Torquay-Jan Juc settlement boundary.

Option 2: Designates the Spring Creek area outside the Torquay-Jan Juc protected settlement boundary and has it forming part of the green break between Torquay and Bellbrae. A protected settlement boundary would be applied at Duffields Road and the area between Duffields Road and Bellbrae would be rural land.

The SPP does not provide a definition on terms such as ‘low density’ and ‘ecologically sustainable’ which is causing apprehension for stakeholders on each side of the debate.

Mr Welsh said option one would benefit the township.

“Parklea and Oakland will be providing a submission to the public consultation supporting option one. Only under option one can the Yellow Gum woodland and surrounding environment be protected and accessed by the community. If rezoned to rural land as proposed by option two, the environmental protection decreases significantly and community access becomes impossible. There will be an ongoing loss of trees,” he said.

Both developers and those opposing the development list the similar motivations for their respective campaigns.

“Limited development opportunity will only see intensification of existing areas, overloading local facilities, congesting streets and pitting neighbour against neighbour,” Mr Welsh said.

In an interview last week with Darren Noyes-Brown, Secretary for Greater Torquay Alliance and member of Protect Spring Creek, a community group opposing the development, said further development would result in more traffic lights, roads, thousands more in the community, increased congestion on roads and less nature.