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.<\/p>\n
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\u2019s control under new state planning rules.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
A second motion to not sell the land was carried six votes to three.<\/p>\n
Cr Gary Allen, who moved the original motion, said the hard work of the shire\u2019s officers to minimise the proposal\u2019s impact \u201cwill all be placed in jeopardy\u201d if the council did not sell the land.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
Cr Mike Bodsworth also supported the sale of the land.<\/p>\n
\u201cSome 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,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe choice is not between this development and no development, it’s between this option and a different one [that is] probably more intensive.\u201d<\/p>\n
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 \u201con the wrong side of history\u201d.<\/p>\n
“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.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis land will be developed no matter what we can do. You know there will be development on it, but I\u2019m not going to vote on what might happen at VCAT, and what might happen with the planning.\u201d<\/p>\n
Cr Heather Wellington also opposed the sale of the land.<\/p>\n
\u201cSale 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,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
\u201cPublic land is precious, no matter where it’s located; it is absolutely precious.<\/p>\n
\u201cI 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 \u2013 it doesn\u2019t, it addresses a private interest.\u201d<\/p>\n
Cr Kate Gazzard said it was a difficult decision, but the council was \u201clooking at this through a purely human lens, and there is a need to consider the non-human life\u201d such as the birds that lived in the Cypress Lane area.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn the words of The Lorax, I speak for the trees. I speak for the trees as the trees have no tongues.\u201d<\/p>\n
In his closing remarks on the original motion, Cr Allan said he was sympathetic to the animals \u201cbut all the people who bought and currently have properties in that area: that affected the animals, that affected the fruits \u2013 we seem to forget about that\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt seems to be \u2018It\u2019s all right for me but bugger you, Jack\u2019.<\/p>\n
\u201cI can only assume the developer \u2013 and this may not be the case \u2013 will be quite happy if this motion is lost.<\/p>\n
\u201cI don\u2019t think I\u2019ll be around to come back and say \u2018I told you so\u2019, I\u2019ll probably be dead by the time it\u2019s developed.<\/p>\n
\u201cBut please think about what you wish for; you may get exactly the opposite.\u201d<\/p>\n
In response, Cr Hodge said she appreciated the debate at the meeting.<\/p>\n
\u201cNow 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.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
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 […]<\/p>\n