Study outcome keeps making an impact at council

THE Surf Coast Shire and some Torquay residents remain at loggerheads over an impact study for the town, with residents saying the shire has yet to deliver the study promised nine years ago but the shire insisting this is not true.

Growth in the area, how it is affecting Torquay and the council’s response has been raised several times during question time at the past three council meetings, including the May 22 meeting in Torquay.

The issue stems from the shire resolving in April 2009 to start the Sustainable Futures Torquay/Jan Juc 2040 project that would, in part, “analyse the implications for the shire of the Armstrong Creek development and the Geelong Ring Road to identify and assess expected impacts on the social and economic conditions, environment and culture of Torquay, Jan Juc and Bellbrae”.

In response to a request at the March meeting for an expedited impact study, the shire said an impact analysis of Torquay’s growth including Armstrong Creek would take place in the fourth year (2020) of the existing Council Plan for 2017-2021.

This has not satisfied some Torquay residents, and at the May 22 meeting, Graeme Stockton asked: “Where is the impact study that was promised in 2009?”

In response, shire general manager of environment and development Ransce Salan said: “An impact study was never promised in 2009”.

“The analysis mentioned in the 2009 resolution was delivered as part of Sustainable Futures Torquay 2040. A further study is planned in 2020 to consider the impact on services and facilities.”

Maurice Cole suggested Sustainable Futures needed to be reviewed and updated, but Mr Salan disagreed.

“The context report met the brief for the project and was subject to extensive community consultation as part of the strategy and the subsequent planning amendment that followed it,” Mr Salan said.

“It is considered that the community had a number of opportunities to have input and provide feedback during the development of the strategy and its implementation and the amendment process.

“To re-open the project and produce a new strategy is not considered to be appropriate use of council’s resources and is unlikely to be supported at a state government level.”