CR PATTISON: Good evening, everybody.
I'd like to welcome everyone watching this
Special Council Meeting.
My name is Councillor Liz Pattison and I am the Mayor
of the Surf Coast Shire.
The Surf Coast Shire local government area spans the traditional lands
of the Wadawurrung people and the Gulidjan and Gadubanud people
of the Eastern Maar Nation.
The Council's main offices are in Torquay on Wadawurrung country.
The Wadawurrung people have nurtured and protected these lands and waterways
for thousands of generations and I'm so grateful that we can be here
today living and working in such a beautiful part of the world.
Surf Coast Shire Council is committing to walking with the traditional owners
of these lands on a journey of genuine reconciliation.
Tonight we'll be hearing from those who wish to speak
to their written submissions regarding PG20/0013
- Application for Approval of an Amended Development Plan
for the Briody Estate West, Torquay.
To facilitate public access, this meeting is being live streamed and the recording
will be available on Council's website.
If a submitter does not wish to be video recorded,
it is their responsibility to turn off their video function
and use audio only.
Live captioning will accompany the live stream.
Councillors are bound by the behaviours and obligations under our Code of Conduct.
Please direct any questions or comments you have through me as the Chair and I
will endeavour to ensure everyone has an opportunity to speak,
whilst also making sure we stick to time.
The following procedures will apply during this meeting.
Each submitter who has requested to speak will be admitted into the meeting
and given 5 minutes to present their submission.
When the timer on the screen reaches 5 minutes,
you must stop your presentation.
The timer will turn orange when you have 1 minute
left as a bit of a warning and then red when there
is 10 seconds remaining.
It would be really helpful if you could keep an eye on the timer
and stick to those times.
Councillors will then be invited to ask questions directly related
to your submission if needed.
In the interests of time, we like to try to keep the questions brief so we can move
through all of the submitters in a fair way.
I ask that all participants remain on mute when they are not speaking,
just to allow the meeting to run smoothly.
If a speaker has any technical problems which are not resolved quickly, then they
will be removed from the meeting and contacted by a member
of Council staff.
If the issues are resolved, the speaker will be invited
to deliver their presentation at the end of the meeting.
The Special Council Meeting is not a workshop
and it should not be necessary for officers to be asked to make comment
on the submissions.
However, if there are any questions of officers, they should be directed
through me as the Chair.
Councillors will not be making any decisions
in relation to the matters heard tonight.
Decision making will occur at a future Council meeting once
all relevant information has been received and reviewed.
So I will now recite the pledge, and this is for our Councillors.
As Councillors, we carry out our responsibilities with diligence
and integrity and make fair decisions of lasting value for the wellbeing
of our community and environment.
Now we move on to apologies.
Are there any apologies for this meeting that anyone is aware of?
CR HODGE: Yes, Mayor, Councillor Adrian Schonfelder
is away overseas.
CR PATTISON: Thank you, Councillor Hodge.
Can I have a mover of a motion to accept this apology?
Councillor Hodge.
And a seconder?
Councillor Allen.
All those in favour?
And the motion is carried.
Conflicts of interest
- if a Councillor or officer has a conflict of interest,
they must declare it now and do so again just prior
to the item being discussed.
The Councillor will be removed from the meeting by the host and
will be placed in a virtual waiting room whilst the matter is being considered.
Once the matter is resolved, the Councillor will be returned
to the meeting.
Are there any declarations of conflicts of interest?
No?
Okay, we'll move along.
Well, I think that brings us straight into our submissions.
There were 25 submissions received for this item and 7 submitters,
including the applicant, have registered to speak tonight.
So our first speaker is
- I'll just clarify with Jake.
Jake, our first speaker is Nick Morris, is that right?
JAKE BROWN: That's correct, Mayor.
I'll be allowing Nick to come into the meeting now.
CR PATTISON: Great.
And I also just wanted to remind those that are on the webinar,
can you please ensure that your name is clearly displayed so that Governance
and others can see who's in the webinar, so if you can make sure your name
is clear, that would be really helpful.
Thank you very much.
So welcome, Nick.
NICK MORRIS: Have you got me?
Can you hear me?
CR PATTISON: Yes, we can hear you.
NICK MORRIS: Right.
I'll start video as well.
CR PATTISON: Yes, if you're comfortable, it would be great
if you can put your video on.
Thank you very much.
And now it's over to you to please present your submission
when you're ready.
NICK MORRIS: Thank you very much.
Thank you for taking the time to hear me and I'm very grateful for that.
I guess there's many reasons why I'm opposed to the change of plans
from a catchment reserve to a filtration system
with proposed housing on the corner of Illawong Drive and Briody Drive.
I've recently been working out the front of our property at 27 Illawong Drive
and observed for days the traffic going by.
I'm deeply concerned about the traffic and the speed at which it comes
around the bend from Briody and enters into Illawong Drive.
It's a blind corner that can be hit at speed and putting driveways
in close proximity to this intersection is a disaster waiting to happen.
I believe one of my neighbours will cover this off in more details.
I also lived at 32 Spring Valley Drive for 15 years
next to the stormwater in the laneway and in the last few years an overflow
drain which runs the excess water down the laneway was put in
as the stormwater system was failing under heavy rains.
I've seen paint, oil, Styrofoam and all sorts of rubbish and chemicals flow
into the catchment below.
My sister-in-law also lives at the bottom of Frog Hollow
and we've seen too many times the drainage system fail there as well,
recently leaving the street 60 centimetres underwater.
More works have been done in the area to try to amend this.
There is a history of failed draining systems in the shire
and when this happens, the residents pick up the bill, not the developer.
My concerns with the proposed system is that it's the first of its kind
to my knowledge, which means we as residents and Deep Creek become
the guinea pigs and will be the casualties if this system fails.
There's no catchment under the new proposal
to hold any rubbish or chemicals.
How can you guarantee this system will not fail with a system that bypasses
on the filter on the corner of Illawong and Briody under heavy rain?
What is the result for Deep Creek and God only knows the chemicals
and rubbish that flow into it.
If there is any other failure, does our property end up flooding?
These are real concerns that the Council needs to take into consideration.
Surely a reserve is also good for Torquay and the wildlife that
will make it their home.
Do we want to just end up as another place where suburban sprawl
is endless like the outer suburbs of Melbourne
- Frankston with waves, as I say to my wife.
On a side note, we bought our block of land and designed our house
as the reserve was to be next door.
We went over the approved Council plans for reserve
and could not have been happier with the outlook we were going to get
from our house.
All of this has been turned upside-down and we feel we've been ripped off
with the new planning submission.
It's pretty ordinary that this can be done to residents where there
is approved plans already in place.
Thank you for your time.
I hope I didn't sound too harsh, and I sincerely hope that Council really
looks at this in depth as your decisions determine
the future of Torquay.
And that is my submission.
CR PATTISON: Thank you very much, Nick.
They're important issues for you, so you didn't sound too negative at all.
I appreciate you making the submission and presenting to us.
Do any Councillors have any questions they'd like to put to Nick?
Councillor Hodge.
CR HODGE: Thank you, Mayor.
Thanks, Nick, for your presentation.
I just wanted to
- when you bought where you are, you said you were abutting or
next to a reserve and that was your outlook
and the new plans are that that actually gets moved, doesn't it,
so you would be right next door to buildings or
- NICK MORRIS: Yes, to another house, so we'd lose the reserve,
which we designed our whole house around, and, yeah, yeah,
that's why we bought the block really.
We went over, we had a look at
- we got on the Council website and looked at the plans and everything and it was
all there, so yeah.
So yes.
So we were pretty disappointed to hear that it was going to be changed
as well.
CR HODGE: Mmm, thank you.
NICK MORRIS: Thank you.
CR PATTISON: Well, thank you, Nick, for your submission.
We really appreciate that and we'll definitely take it
into consideration as we progress with this development application further.
NICK MORRIS: Thank you for your time.
I really appreciate it.
CR PATTISON: Thanks, Nick.
So Nick
- yes, thanks, Nick, if you turn off your video.
Could Kathryn Williamson please be admitted into the meeting?
Can you hear us, Kathryn?
I can see your name on the screen.
If you could unmute and turn on your video, if you're comfortable
with that.
Can you hear us, Kathryn?
KATHRYN WILLIAMSON: Thank you, can you hear me now?
CR PATTISON: Yes, we can.
Thank you.
KATHRYN WILLIAMSON: That's wonderful, thank you.
I just would like to make a quick comment.
I actually will be Nick's neighbour at number 25 Illawong Drive in a couple
of weeks, so I'm speaking tonight on behalf of my husband, John.
Firstly, we'd like to say that we're not opposed
to this development, but we do have concerns
regarding the proposed stormwater management system.
We own the property that is in the planning envelope
and we currently have a temporary stormwater system which will be connected
to the eastern catchment permanent system when it's implemented.
This change to the stormwater system requires,
I think, expert scrutiny to confirm that it
will deliver better water quality and flow management into Deep Creek.
The developer's application plans to replace the eastern encumbered open
space retarding basin with this spill treatment system
which has been explained to me as a big pipe with some filters.
They also want to reduce the amount of open space from 8,847 square metres
to 400 square metres and convert the now freed up 8,447
square metres to 19 residential housing lots adjacent
to the intersection of Illawong Drive and Briody Drive.
The question for me is whether this change will deliver better stormwater management
outcomes and better community amenity.
It will not only impact on water flow and quality into Deep Creek,
but has repercussions on the stormwater outflow specifically
from our property.
We will be directly impacted should the intended system fail to cope
during weather events.
The technical issues of stormwater management are not my area,
but I refer you to the submission from the Greater Torquay Alliance
that I think expertly addresses some of these issues.
I also had a comment from Professor Tim Fletcher,
who is an urban ecohydrologist at University of Melbourne, and when asked
to comment on this application, his comments were, "What I see
in this decision, to be frank, is a decision motivated entirely
by minimising maintenance, effort and cost.
I don't think long-term performance or other benefits
to the community were taken into account
- ie, a wetland or similar system offers a range of benefits.
"We are a very long way here from the best practice approaches that
he believes are now recommended by the EPA.
The developer has commented that this proposal has already received in-principle
support by Council in discussions between the Spire Group
and the Surf Coast Shire in September 2019.
It's my understanding that there have been new regulatory and guidance documents
since then that this proposal now needs to be measured against.
As residents, we rely on you as our Councillors
and our elected representatives to be our voice, so we hope that you ask
the right questions, get the right answers and not immediately accept the position
that has been presented to you.
If the spill system is determined to be the best system possible,
it is my view, though, that that land that is freed up should remain open space
for the benefit of the community and not be converted to additional housing
for the benefit of the developer.
The impact of some recent stormwater system failures
in North Torquay is regrettable, long-lasting and we know expensive
to rectify.
We hope that lessons have been learnt as to how was this gotten so wrong.
What has changed now to ensure that this isn't repeated
and that the community has confidence in the decisions that are made?
It's my hope that the past errors and miscalculations are not repeated
with respect to this development because I actually don't want
to get wet feet.
So thank you for the time and the opportunity to be heard.
CR PATTISON: Thank you, Kathryn.
I really appreciate that submission and you've raised some really
important points.
Do we have any questions from Councillors for Kathryn?
Well, thank you, Kathryn.
Once again, I really
- there's lots of food for thought that's come from that
and some really important topics around how we use open space
and manage our stormwater.
So we'll now move on to our next presenter.
Once again, thanks, Kathryn.
And could Julie Stewart please be admitted to the meeting?
Hello, Julie.
If you could unmute yourself and turn on your camera, if you're comfortable
with it.
Can you hear me, Julie?
You're now in the webinar.
If you could unmute yourself, that would be great.
Can you hear me, Julie?
Are you able to unmute yourself, please?
JULIE STEWART: Thank you.
CR PATTISON: Oh, great.
JULIE STEWART: Can you hear me now?
CR PATTISON: Yes, loud and clear.
Thank you very much.
If you'd like to start your submission, that would be wonderful.
JULIE STEWART: Great.
So our home is at the intersection of Illawong and Briody Drives.
We share similar concerns to other residents and speakers and
to avoid repetition, I'm going to focus purely on the issue
of the traffic safety risk at this intersection if housing is
to replace the corner open space.
It's important to understand that this Y intersection
that has a combination of road surfaces leading
into it has limited visibility from two directions.
The intersection is controlled also only by a give way sign and two speed signs.
As the area has grown, it's led to more cars and children using the roads.
It is a main thoroughfare for children going to the two schools.
Children riding eScooters, trail bikes, eBikes has increased.
The upgrade to Messmate Road has resulted
in a noticeable increase in traffic using this intersection
to access Torquay.
During and after completion of this development, traffic
will further increase.
At this corner, we currently observe trucks stopping
in the intersection to complete three-point turns,
cars and trucks backing into the intersection,
a school bus stopping close to and sometimes partly
overlapping the intersection, drivers doing U-turns in the intersection,
particularly at school drop-off and pick-up time, excessive speeding
through the intersection, with near misses and hard braking by drivers
to avoid collisions, vehicles entering the intersection
on the wrong side of the road, drivers failing to understand right of way
at the intersection, drivers ignoring the Briody Drive give way
sign, and school children running the gauntlet and using a spotter so
they don't have to stop when crossing the intersection.
We've previously raised these concerns with both Council and the Torquay Police.
We agreed to the original development plan because it clearly
and effectively addressed our concerns over water catchment, traffic safety
and open space.
The corner was left unencumbered of housing, allowing
for improved drainage, increased visibility at the intersection,
and some open space for residents at the eastern end.
This plan completely deprives residents in the eastern section of an open space,
whilst central and western section residents
will enjoy in abundance.
It beggars belief that the Summerset planner has seen fit
to ignore previous planning recommendations and plan housing
at this intersection.
He's deprived easterners of open space.
He's further impaired user visibility with the proposed homes.
He's created a potential disaster for new homeowners exiting their driveways
They'll have little response time to stop when cars
round the Briody Drive corner.
He's increased the number of parked cars, reducing safety.
He's increased the number of associated trade and delivery vehicles,
which will further congest the intersection
during the development stage.
Has he considered the placement of the proposed bus stop?
He has completely ignored the issue of traffic safety with additional housing
at this intersection.
He's effectively removed Council's ability to best future proof traffic safety
at this intersection.
The proposed homes will effectively lock Council
out of considering and implementing the best traffic safety
solution for the intersection.
Instead, Council will be restricted to implementing only a plan that will fit.
We strongly raise our concerns, including notation of this by Council,
that there is an existing safety risk at this intersection.
This risk will further increase during and at completion of the development.
We ask Council to seriously consider our reasons
for the removal of the housing lots at the corner of Illawong Drive
to alleviate an increased traffic safety risk and to allow it
to remain open parkland with the understanding that part may be
used in the future to implement the best traffic safety
option for all users.
Surely best Council planning is preventative rather than responsive
to accidents and I guess one could ask does housing
on this corner pass the pub test?
And the answer is no.
Thank you.
CR PATTISON: Thank you, Julie.
You've raised some really important safety points then for us to think more
about in the context of this.
Do we have any questions from Councillors for Julie?
Oh, sorry, Councillor Allen, I couldn't see your hand,
it's hidden amongst the photos.
Sorry, Councillor Allen, go ahead.
CR ALLEN: Thanks, Mayor.
Thanks, Julie, for coming and joining us and expressing your concerns
and you raised some genuine safety concerns that currently exist, which
is terrific
- not that the concerns are terrific.
JULIE STEWART: No.
CR ALLEN: Do you think that if the plans are approved
and the development goes ahead, would in fact there be improvements to the road,
to the intersection, that would in fact make it safer for the community?
JULIE STEWART: What do I think would make it safer?
CR ALLEN: Well, sorry, do you think the fact that
if the development proceeds and the road is upgraded and the intersection
is improved, those improvements would in fact lead
to greater safety rather than decreased safety?
JULIE STEWART: Well, I think if the
- you know, when you look at in the arborist report
and you've got the houses that are planned for the Illawong/Briody Drive corner
next to Nick's house, that if you build something there, you're going
to block vision anyway from coming around the corner
from both Illawong Drive travelling west into Briody Drive or
if you're travelling east back along Briody Drive.
I'm hopeful that
- I know there's bike lanes, I know there's improved guttering,
there's sealed roads, and that should improve the road surface,
but my concern is unless there's traffic islands,
a roundabout, something
- pedestrian crossing, something that's really considered,
drivers will just drive faster on a made road,
it will become even busier.
Like we're not against development.
We're really happy with the retirement village idea.
Our biggest concern is that once you put houses
on that corner, I think you'll exacerbate the dangers,
traffic safety dangers there.
CR ALLEN: Just a follow-up, Mayor, if I may.
You would be comfortable if there were a roundabout there?
JULIE STEWART: I don't have a problem with a roundabout, no,
but if you've got a roundabout and three homes built right
on that corner, you're going to be pretty squashed
for space.
Like the fact that you can leave it open my husband and I both believe
will give the Council an opportunity to really have a look
at what the traffic safety issue is once the development has finished
because, you know, when you sealed that service road up
near Anco and past the service offices for the Council, the amount
of traffic that now uses that road and then comes past our intersection
and I'm aware of this because I use that road every morning
to go to school
- as soon as you've got a development built on that,
whether it's housing or your retirement village, you are massively
- and residents and visitors, you're massively increasing the amount
of traffic going through there.
So there were no traffic plans for this corner, you know,
counters were done at the corner of Grossmans Road and Illawong Drive and
at Messmate and Briody Drive, but there was no data
for what was happening here and really I think Council,
by leaving that space unencumbered, has a wonderful opportunity to look
at okay, what's the issue once your development
is finished and I know we're talking like maybe
- CR PATTISON: Thanks, Julie.
We really appreciate your responses and the like.
I'm just conscious we've had a good amount of listening to your submission
and I really appreciate it and we take on board
and we'll definitely consider further the traffic concerns around that corner.
I think they're significant and worth us considering.
So once again, thank you so much for coming on and submitting
to us tonight.
JULIE STEWART: Thank you.
CR PATTISON: No worries.
Now, could Matt Benson please be admitted into the meeting?
Hi, Matt.
We can see you now.
You're unmuted and your video, all good.
So I'll pass it over to you for your presentation, thank you.
MATT BENSON: Awesome, and thank you for the opportunity to present tonight.
It was really interesting to hear those other guys as well.
Look, I want to start by just saying it's really sad and really
- CR PATTISON: Did you want to share your screen, sorry, Matt?
I do note that you have some photos and things.
MATT BENSON: Have you got those photos already tabled?
CR PATTISON: Jake, should Matt share his screen or do
you have them to put up?
JAKE BROWN: Matt, I can put them up on the screen if you like.
MATT BENSON: I can share them.
Sorry, that was a bit of confusion.
Alright, can you see a big sink hole?
CR PATTISON: Yes, now we can.
MATT BENSON: Alright, cool.
I'll start again, if that's okay with you.
CR PATTISON: Sorry about that, Matt.
Yes, go ahead.
MATT BENSON: No, that's okay, that's fine.
Look, I just want to start by saying that it is
- oh, hang on
- it's very disheartening, I guess, to see that yet again, through the decades
of planning that we have at Surf Coast Shire,
again it's another development that goes against that,
despite the planning and community consultation,
and I'm particularly surprised to see that the drainage basin is proposed
to be removed because I know that the Surf Coast,
that was a really important point for the Surf Coast Shire in the initial
development of this area.
Anyway, again, my objection
- our objection is not to the planning itself, it's
to the environmental assessment and the removal of the drainage basin.
You can read my submission for the details, but I just wanted
to show you examples, real examples now, of where run-off
is already having an impact on Deep Creek and the first thing you're looking at
is a big sink hole.
So it's about 2 metres deep and it's sitting in the reserve just
off the track above the creek as you run down Yellow Gum Place.
It appeared in the last big lot of rain quite a few weeks ago,
but it's not the first sink hole to appear after rain over the years in the area.
Further down the creek, we've got a lot of cracking
of the land where the water just runs straight over the land
and next time it rains the water will run into these holes and create sink holes.
And another one there which you can see is water that's still sitting there
from the last rainfall event, which I can't even remember when it was,
maybe six weeks ago, and basically already the creek
and the surrounding area can't handle the volume of overland flow
and that's just after one fairly significant rainfall
event.
So I don't know how it's going to handle more water flows following
a development that's taking out the basin.
So that's the presentation.
So look, what I'm really hoping is that the Council have learnt their
lesson from Karaaf Wetlands and I don't know about you guys,
but this feels like ominously similar.
We've got an environmental assessment that clearly underestimates volume
and nature of the runoff by relying on outdated models and assumptions
and has completely inadequate environmental controls.
The environmental assessment is clearly relying on out-of-date
information and, most importantly, it's not considering the wider development
of other proposed developments around the north Deep Creek area.
It's even not even acknowledging that the area has been identified as an area
of biodiversity significance in the Surf Coast's own statement of planning policy.
It's also really concerning that in the strategy
and documentations there's references to discussions
between developer agents and Council, which isn't really a good look
when there's potential environmental damage and flood risk.
I'm sure people will want to know more if that definitely happens.
So my requests are pretty simple: a more comprehensive flood impact
assessment should occur before this assessment can be assessed
for approval that considers the wider overland flow
and more realistic assumptions about the volume and type of flow;
it complies with the correct policies and guidelines as referenced
in this submission; and that it also incorporates the wetlands
, the learnings from the Karaaf Wetlands that we all know and love
over the last few years; consult with the community, talk
about the increase of flood risk, and provide an assurance
to the community that that's not going to be the case;
and more importantly, insist that the catchment goes back
in so water is managed within the development area
and then the problem down the road.
That's it.
Thanks, guys.
CR PATTISON: Thanks, Matt.
I really appreciate your submission.
Once again, really bringing forward some really
important ideas around how we look at the environmental assessments
and site assessments and the like, so appreciate the points that you've
raised and those photos as well.
Do other Councillors
- do Councillors have any questions they'd like to raise?
No?
Oh, Councillor Wellington.
CR WELLINGTON: It's not really a question.
It's just a request that we can do something about that sink hole.
It was quite dangerous
- or both of them really, but particularly that one
next to that pathway.
Thanks for drawing that to our attention, Matt.
MATT BENSON: No worries.
There has been some remediation work along that path,
but there's still obviously more to do and that wasn't my point.
CR WELLINGTON: No, I understand that, yes.
MATT BENSON: But thank you, that would be good.
CR WELLINGTON: It's worrying to see that sort of thing.
Thanks for showing us that.
MATT BENSON: Young kids do actually play right next to it, yes.
Alright, thanks, guys, appreciate it.
CR PATTISON: Thanks, Matt, appreciate your submission.
Thank you.
Bye.
Could Fleur Batties please be admitted into the meeting?
Fleur, if you could unmute yourself and if you want, turn your camera on,
that would be great.
Thanks, Fleur.
And I'll now pass it over to you to do your submission.
FLEUR BATTIES: Okay, thank you.
Thanks, everyone, for your time and allowing me to come and speak,
first time for me speaking at anything like this.
I'm Fleur Batties.
I'm the owner of number 235 Messmate Road and I represent the Owners Corporation
of number 247 Messmate Road, which the Owners Corporation comprises
of myself, number 243 Messmate Road and 127 Coombs Road,
so the three properties are Owners Corporation of number 247 Messmate
which actually abuts the development at I think it's number 150
and 170 Briody Drive.
So we're actually quite concerned with the impact of the development
on number 247 Messmate Road.
The proposed development will substantially change the quiet
and private nature of number 247 Messmate Road.
It will also substantially increase the risk that's currently borne
by the Owners Corporation, who we are currently responsible for
all public liability insurances and for any incidents that may actually happen
on that block of land and we are also responsible for all upkeep
of that block of land as an Owners Corp, so the fact that the northern boundary
of 170 and 150 Briody Drive abuts that means that we believe that there
will be a lot more people in the area with the ability
to access 247 Messmate Road and there will be a lot more people actually looking
at 247 Messmate Road.
There's two key parts of the plan that we're concerned with.
So the first one is there is a proposed internal road
and footpath that's adjacent to the boundary of 247 Messmate Road
and we believe that that road and footpath will increase the foot traffic of people
and obviously vehicle traffic going along that path and being able
to visually look at number 247 Messmate.
And we're also concerned about the low-density
residential blocks that will effectively overlook 247 Messmate
Road and the possibility of that people overlooking
will then create the ideation that they might want to go
and enjoy Deep Creek, which actually runs through 247 Messmate Road, which
is privately owned.
So we're quite concerned about those two things.
247 Messmate is currently very quiet and very private.
It's got minimal access to the public.
It only has two blocks adjoining it, one of which is in the Body Corp,
the other block is not, which I think is number 150 Briody Drive.
They can overlook the creek, but they're the only ones that can see it.
Looking at 247 Messmate Road from Messmate Road you really can't
see anything in, so you're not tempted to access that block of land
and it's extremely private.
Also, in terms of the upkeep, we do keep up and make sure that it's mowed
and that it's tidy, but if people are overlooking that block,
and especially those in the high-density
- sorry, the higher density residential blocks
that will
- I assume the housing will overlook that block, they're going
to expect it to be maintained to a very different standard than
what it currently is, they will expect it to be visually pleasing.
So that's really our concerns is the increased risk of people being able
to access the block, especially given that the footpath
is walking directly along the boundary, and we're concerned about the expectation
of upkeep of the block as well.
It's currently very private and very quiet and we'd
like appropriate boundary treatments to make sure that that private
and quiet nature is maintained and they should be both physical
and visual treatments that limit both physical and visual access
to 247 Messmate Road.
That's it.
Thank you.
CR PATTISON: Thank you, Fleur, for raising those concerns on behalf
of the Body Corporate.
We appreciate you coming in and speaking with us.
Do we have any Councillors with questions for Fleur?
Councillor Bodsworth?
CR BODSWORTH: Thanks, Mayor.
Thanks for your submission, Fleur, you did a great job.
What's the zoning at 247 Messmate, do you know?
FLEUR BATTIES: I believe is it low density residential that has
to be the one and a half
- at least an acre?
Sorry, I should know, but no.
CR BODSWORTH: It's okay.
I'll be able to find out internally, but no, I was just wondering if you knew
off the top of your head.
FLEUR BATTIES: No, I don't.
CR BODSWORTH: Thanks, Fleur.
CR PATTISON: Councillor Wellington, did you have a question?
CR WELLINGTON: I'm just trying to get my head around the kind
of geography of the area.
Thanks for your submission, Fleur.
Is 247 on the north-east corner of Briody and Messmate?
FLEUR BATTIES: No, it's not.
So the development goes from Briody
- if we go Briody and Messmate, you've got from Briody to Coombs.
There's a development from Briody down to just before the creek runs through.
CR WELLINGTON: Right.
FLEUR BATTIES: Right?
Deep Creek actually runs through 247 Messmate Road.
It's pretty much across from the entry of Frog Hollow
- if you look through Frog Hollow, it's across from there.
CR WELLINGTON: Okay.
Yeah, no, I see where you are.
I've got that.
And when you say you want treatment on the boundary, what do you mean by that?
FLEUR BATTIES: Some sort of fencing.
CR WELLINGTON: Right.
FLEUR BATTIES: To limit both physical access and visual access to that block.
CR WELLINGTON: Right.
Okay.
Yes.
I understand.
Alright, thank you for that very much.
You're expecting the developer would do that, Fleur, is that right?
FLEUR BATTIES: Yes.
CR WELLINGTON: Yes, thanks, okay.
And sorry, how large is that block?
FLEUR BATTIES: It's an acre, I think it's a bit over an acre.
CR WELLINGTON: Okay, thank you.
CR PATTISON: Councillor Hodge, have you got a question for Fleur?
CR HODGE: It's sort of following on from what Councillor Wellington was saying
So this is a vacant block of land, but it's managed by the cooperative?
FLEUR BATTIES: Correct.
CR HODGE: Right, okay.
So is that up for sale or is it for sale?
FLEUR BATTIES: We would be happy to talk about selling it.
CR HODGE: Okay.
FLEUR BATTIES: It's not up for sale at the moment.
My understanding is that it's there to be maintained for drainage.
I haven't been the owner of 235 Messmate for that long, I don't know the history
of it, but I know that I'm part of the owners corporation
and that that block is there for drainage.
CR HODGE: Thanks, Fleur.
CR WELLINGTON: There's a creek running through.
FLEUR BATTIES: The creek runs through it, yes.
CR WELLINGTON: Yes, okay.
CR PATTISON: Alright.
Thank you, Fleur.
We appreciate your submission and we'll now get Simon Loader to join us
for his presentation.
Welcome.
As the applicant, you have 10 minutes to make your submission.
I understand that you have a PowerPoint submission to share.
SIMON LOADER: That's correct.
CR PATTISON: So please share your screen and present the submission when you're
ready.
SIMON LOADER: Thank you, Mayor.
I'll just share this on the screen.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to present to the hearing of submissions.
My name is Simon Loader.
I'm a Senior Principal with Tract Consultants.
We're a town planning, urban design and landscape architecture firm and we act
on behalf of Summerset, who are the applicant
for the amendment to the development plan.
Just a little bit of background on Summerset, they've got 50 locations
across New Zealand and Australia.
They started in the late 1990s and they've grown to be one
of the Asia Pacific's largest aged care and retirement village owner and operators
and they provide a range of different living options,
from care homes on site through to just retirement living.
They have more than 7,000 residents and 2,300 staff across New Zealand.
They have recently entered the Australian market and are constructing their first
of seven villages in Victoria.
One is down at Cranbourne North and of course this one here in Torquay.
What differentiates Summerset is their continuum of care model,
which is new in the Australian context, and it provides a wide range of services
to meet I guess the modern needs of residents of these communities.
It provides a holistic service provision that extends from retirement living
through to aged care.
And as you can see from this slide, a significant portion of Summerset's model
is dedicated to providing care to senior Australians and this
is a distinguishing factor compared to retirement villages
in Torquay or indeed, for that matter, Australia.
A little bit about the villages.
They're really built around five core things: creating vibrant
communities with care on site; warm and inviting environments;
diverse range of facilities and recreational opportunities
within the site or within the village; quality range of accommodation
to suit people's needs as they age in place; and
of course tailored care service packages to suit residents' needs,
and being such a large provider of services, they do have a diverse suite
of needs from their residents.
I just wanted to touch on, I guess, something that we saw as relevant
to Councillors in considering the amendment
to the development plan.
Obviously it's well established that this has been in place
as an approved development plan since 2017 and we've been conducting this amendment
process with Council's planning department since early 2020
and this has obviously been a recognised area for growth for many years.
Summerset's land holdings are shown here in this image in orange
and we just thought that was an important point to make.
There's circa eight or nine other landowners within this precinct and
in recent years land has changed hands to more known development entities,
so there's certainly an increase in interest in this area.
I just wanted to take Councillors to the core changes
to the development plan and they're listed here
in no particular order, but one of the major things is a construction
of a roundabout at the junction of Briody Drive and Messmate Road
and that really sits alongside wider infrastructure upgrades along Briody Drive
and indeed at the intersection of Illawong and Briody.
We know that I believe it was Miss Stewart who made the decisions about the state
of that intersection and the need for additional safety treatments.
That's certainly something we've been working with Council
around ensuring there's some sort of treatment that occurs
to that intersection.
Additionally, we've relocated the 0.87 hectare park
to the Briody Drive edge
- of course that was
previously more centrally located
- and as a result of including the retirement village,
that's been relocated to the north.
And of course there's many submissions we understand that have been made
about the eastern drainage basin which has been replaced
with an underground water treatment device commonly known as a SPEL Unit,
and I'll come to that in a little more detail as we run
through some of these key submission themes.
I didn't want to get down into the nitty-gritty
of every single comment, but we definitely wanted to touch
on the key themes from submitters that we reviewed and we saw
through the process.
So just in terms of the retirement village and aged care offering,
there was some submissions that made the point around is there a need
for another retirement village in Torquay and I guess the point we would make
is that Summerset is addressing a long-term community need
to house senior Australians.
There's indisputable data that suggests we have an ageing population
and these facilities are really critical to making sure that we can help residents
age in place.
As I mentioned before, the continuum of care model
is unique in the Australian context and sets it apart from other operations,
particularly in Torquay, and this village will provide internal recreation
and open space facilities for the needs of its residents and this often takes a
different form to typical council-run parks.
Summerset is recognised as a leading operator in the retirement
and aged care sector and is renowned for high-quality, well-managed
and well-maintained facilities.
In terms of residential densities, we just make a couple of quick points.
Aged care and retirement villages naturally have a
different form to them than traditional residential
communities and the density of buildings compared
to those really are actually what create the community and the connectedness
for residents who live there.
We note that the density of residential development
outside the aged care village area remains unchanged.
However, the overall number of residential lots has dropped on account
of the retirement village being included.
Coming now to stormwater, which we appreciate has been I guess one
of the major items raised by submitters, and we understand the sensitivity to this.
Obviously there's been much discussion locally around the Karaaf Wetlands,
and it's undoubtedly a very critical item that both Council
and the proponent really need to give consideration to.
We'll take you through how we believe we've done that.
I think the really key point we wanted to make to Councillors tonight was
we believe there's a bit of misunderstanding
about what was approved originally and the key piece being that that eastern
drainage facility or reserve never had provision for detention in it.
It's simply a treatment facility before it discharges to Deep Creek.
The change that we're seeking through this development plan is
to change it from a drainage basin to an underground proprietary treatment
facility, which is an accepted and well established treatment system used
widely in Victoria and was supported by Council's infrastructure team.
The stormwater management strategy prepared by Spire was prepared in tandem
with the flood impact assessment by Water Technology
and that assessment found that only minor increases of flood levels would occur
in Deep Creek as a result of the proposed development plan.
Now, notwithstanding the submissions that have been put to Council,
all we can say is that the collective view of our engaged experts
in Spire Water Technology and Council's own infrastructure team
is that the proposed development would result in a negligible impact
on Deep Creek.
Coming to traffic matters, noting that I've only got three minutes
left, so I'll try to move through these quite quickly,
current traffic assessments were prepared by Ratio which assessed the resultant
traffic volumes from the proposed changes, predominantly inclusion of the village.
Consequently, additional upgraded infrastructure
has been included, including an embellished finish
to Briody Drive as well as safe crossing points on Grossman
and Briody Drive.
Upgraded intersections have also been included in the DP.
Again, I mentioned earlier in response to Ms Stewart's point, the intersection
at Briody and Illawong Drive has been flagged
to be upgraded as well to make sure that that intersection
is safe in the long term.
The development plan also benefits from a shared path trail that circulates
the southern and western edges of the development which
will connect a shared path on Briody and Illawong Drive connecting
to the wider path network for Torquay.
Any increased traffic from the amended development plan has
certainly been factored into the embellished road
and path infrastructure.
There's been some commentary through submissions, both written
and verbal tonight, around the amount of open space.
We make the point the amount of open space or parkland,
shall we say, in the DP, or the development plan,
remains consistent with the approved development plan.
Summerset takes the provision of open space
and environment really seriously and they're committing to the delivery
and almost one hectare park adjacent to Briody Drive, which will be accessible
to the entire community.
This is in addition to the open space that will be provided internally
to the village.
Whilst the change to the eastern drainage basin
to an underground facility is viewed as loss of open space
by those in the community, this area is provided as encumbered land
for the purpose of drainage, not for recreational or passive open space
We wish to reiterate that this basin was not usable open space,
but a facility dedicated for drainage purposes.
And finally, just in relation to the impacts upon vegetation,
we just make the point that this amendment to the development plan results
in no increase to the demand for the removal of vegetation.
We have an indicative design for the parkland which seeks
to retain established trees that are safe for retention, and additionally
- and really importantly
- the highly significant native trees along the interface of Grossmans Road
and Messmate Road are being retained and this is providing a biodiversity link
to Deep Creek as suggested by one of the submissions.
I'm going to leave it there and that's rather well timed.
I'm in the yellow zone there.
So we thank Councillors for the opportunity and
of course I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
CR PATTISON: Thank you, Simon.
Thanks for working through a lot of the key concerns raised
by the community from your perspective and now we have some questions
from Councillors for you.
Councillor Stapleton?
CR STAPLETON: Thank you, Mayor, and thanks, Simon, for your presentation.
As you will have read, I guess, and heard in the submissions, a lot
of community concerns are around that removal
of the eastern drainage basin.
Are you able to kind of elaborate on some of the thinking or the decision I guess
by the applicant to remove that and convert it to an underground system?
SIMON LOADER: Yes, certainly.
Thank you, Councillor Stapleton.
Look, I think it really was something that evolved through the advice from Spire
and in conjunction with Council's infrastructure team
to determine what the most appropriate treatment method was for that location.
As many of you probably will be aware, that's very much the low point
in this development, certainly for the eastern catchment as it leads
to Deep Creek, so that location specifically there
as a drainage facility because of the topographical settings
and we've set about devising the best response
to provide for water quality treatment outcomes,
again emphasising the point that the original basin wasn't a detention
facility, it wasn't detaining flows, it was simply capturing them
and treating them before they get discharged to Deep Creek.
Now, the underground proprietary system achieves the exact same outcome.
It captures those flows, it treats them to ensure water quality outcomes are
achieved.
Look, the perspective of our client is that sometimes these drainage
facilities adjoining residences can cause negative outcomes in terms
of mosquito breeding grounds and of course these underground facilities can
also be much safer in terms of no risk for fall and these sorts of things.
So really we've been guided by the engineering experts in Spire
to determine what the most appropriate response was.
CR STAPLETON: Thanks, Simon.
CR PATTISON: Thanks, Simon.
We'll now move on to Councillor Hodge.
CR HODGE: Thank you.
And thanks again, Simon, for your presentation.
My question sort of evolves around I think our first speaker,
I think it was Mr Morris, about them coming into the area and
next to an open space and all of a sudden there's a building
and things there, and I haven't seen the detailed plans
of where the apartments or residential will go.
Is there any consideration for like a big setback, an intense landscaping
around those areas and to have a buffer zone perhaps
around any homes that are already there?
SIMON LOADER: It's not something we've given immediate consideration to,
Councillor Hodge, but off the cuff, they are absolutely things that Council's
planning team could look to enshrine as the development plan moves
into planning application phase for sure.
There's a myriad of reasons why Council might impose
increased building setbacks or landscaping zones on properties,
so certainly that's an opportunity that could be explored.
CR HODGE: Okay.
And also, I don't know if this is a bit of a tricky question,
but we wouldn't be putting a roundabout down near Frog Hollow if it wasn't
for this development and it will probably cost Council quite a lot
of money.
Would the developers look at helping out with anything like that?
SIMON LOADER: I'd have to take that question on notice,
Councillor Hodge, sorry.
Certainly happy to come back to you on that.
What I would say is there's obviously a shared infrastructure funding plan
in place for this precinct which is going to deliver wider infrastructure
improvements and Summerset have already committed
to delivering the embellished Briody Drive upgrade as well.
But happy to take that question on notice, Councillor.
CR HODGE: Appreciate that.
Thank you, Simon.
CR PATTISON: Councillor Bodsworth, have you got a question?
CR BODSWORTH: Yes, thanks, Mayor.
Thanks, Simon, for your presentation.
I enjoyed the slide that you showed of the people on their eBikes
and it prompts me to ask what opportunities you see
at this site for residents to get around without using cars
on bikes or mobility scooters or other mobility devices,
so with pathway linkages to other nearby facilities and services.
Have you got any observations to make or any sort of contributions that
you think could be made in that direction?
SIMON LOADER: Yeah, look, all I can say in that regard, Councillor Bodsworth,
is that the shared path trail that sort of goes around the edge of the development
and along Briody Drive and Illawong and along the southern
and western edges adjacent to Grossmans and Messmate
is really an important circuit for residents to enjoy
at a more recreational level and certainly, you know,
whatever chosen mode you choose to take.
But certainly there's excellent connections into the wider path network,
you know, particularly to the local schools.
You know, there's path networks that can get people
to some of the other commercial offerings nearby, albeit those trips can be coming a
little further from the site, so it's hard to say how many people are
going to be making that trip, but e-scooters could certainly bridge
that gap.
CR BODSWORTH: Thanks.
CR PATTISON: Thanks, Councillor Bodsworth.
Councillor Gazzard.
CR GAZZARD: Thank you.
Thanks, Simon.
I was just wondering, you said the stormwater runoff
would be negligible.
What modelling is that based on and does that include kind
of higher storm events and large amounts of water and possible flooding that
we're tending to see in more recent years?
SIMON LOADER: Yes, certainly.
I won't profess to be an engineering expert here,
Councillor Gazzard, but certainly the modelling undertaken
by Water Technology is based on best practice modelling techniques
and the assessment was also set to the Corangamite Catchment Management
Authority, who are also sort of floodplain experts,
and what we've assessed this proposal against is the major what's known
as the Q100 or the 1 in 100-year rainfall event which
is considered best practice.
So all I can say is that yes, it's considered that upper end
for higher rainfall events and potential for flood events.
CR PATTISON: Thanks, Councillor Gazzard.
Now we've got Councillor Wellington.
CR WELLINGTON: Thanks very much.
Can I just clarify, are you saying that there
will be minimal runoff from the site generally, that it
will retain its own water across the site
- is that what you're saying?
SIMON LOADER: No, so what we're saying, Councillor Wellington, is that the
- I guess the thing to remember is there are two different catchments here
, there's the western catchment and eastern catchment and
they have slightly different methods.
I'll focus on the eastern catchment because that's been the cause
for concern for residents.
What we're saying is that in the same way that the approved drainage basin does,
this underground facility will take flows through it, treat it
to ensure water quality is appropriate and then discharge that to Deep Creek,
and I think that's where the community concern has come from, is worry
about discharge undetained into Deep Creek.
But really the point of the modelling from Water Technology is
to underpin or understand the volumes that are going to be moving through there
and what is the net effect on that floodplain and what they've said
is that the increases in the flood levels throughout Deep Creek will be negligible.
CR WELLINGTON: Thank you.
SIMON LOADER: Or, sorry, "minimal"
was I think the word, apologies.
CR WELLINGTON: Thank you.
Can I just ask, I think you also said that the amount
of open space would be consistent with the development plan.
Does that mean
- are you saying that the amount of open space is equivalent
to what was proposed under the prior development plan
without the developments of this aged care or residential sort
of village, or what do you mean by consistent with the development plan?
I'm just interested to know whether the amount of permeable land
and the amount of actual viewable open space
will be the same as what was originally approved.
SIMON LOADER: Yes, thank you for the question, Councillor Wellington.
I think this all comes down to how you define open space and, look,
understandably, the community define a drainage reserve or
consider it as open space, but from a planning perspective
and a drainage perspective, open spaces are not equal.
The parkland or the local park that we're delivering is exactly the same size
as what was provided for in the approved development plan.
The drainage basin, of course, is less than what was proposed
under the approved development plan, I guess the key difference here being that
we're not saying that that is open space.
It can be viewed as green space or area that might entail planting,
but it's not recreational space.
This is not somewhere the residents could have gone and run around
and kicked the footy.
This is a facility that was dedicated to capturing and treating stormwater.
It's not a space that Council would ever want residents going into.
CR WELLINGTON: Yes, understand that, but in effect, the amount
of permeable open space or permeable space that's not built on would be reduced
by the amount of the previous drainage reserve
- that's correct, isn't it?
SIMON LOADER: Look, I don't have the numbers,
but what I would say is that there's going to be additional
open space within the aged care and retirement village.
I can't say here and now that that would be exactly
commensurate or exceeded or not, but there will be additional permeable area
within the village.
CR WELLINGTON: Thank you.
CR PATTISON: Councillor Allen, your turn for a question.
CR ALLEN: Thank you, Mayor.
Thank you again, Simon, for the presentation.
My concern centres around it being a development
for an ageing population and, as such, there would be fewer cars,
we would expect, as a result, but my concern is
around the shared pathways and the width of those pathways.
Now, it may be too early for you to tell me about that,
but I would certainly want to have wider pathways than we normally
install to cater for an ageing population.
Would you like to comment on that?
SIMON LOADER: Certainly can, Councillor Allen.
I might start with just confirming what you consider to be a typical footpath.
Is that a standard 1.5 metre wide footpath that you see in a normal
- yes.
Yes, so to that point, Councillor Allen, the shared path
and linear open space trail that works around the southern edge
and the western edge of the site will be a 2.5 metre wide shared path.
Additionally, we're going to be extending or replicating
the 2 metre wide paths on Briody Drive and Illawong Drive.
So they will indeed be wider than your standard
1.5s that you see in most residential subdivisions.
CR ALLEN: Thank you.
CR PATTISON: Councillor Wellington, did you have another question?
CR WELLINGTON: I jut wanted to clarify something.
So you presented to us about Summerset aged care, which
is interesting.
They're not a provider I'm familiar with in aged care,
but I understand they're developing their profile in Australia.
But I'm just wondering, this site has already been sold once
since the development plan was produced.
It would be presumably feasible for it to be sold again
if the aged care village were approved and it might be that Summerset were
not the provider, is that possible, or is it a firm commitment that Summerset
would provide this facility?
SIMON LOADER: Of course it's possible, Councillor Wellington,
but Summerset are extremely committed to this site.
They've invested a lot of time and money and effort to date
to see this development plan through to this point
and I think you would have seen the map in terms of their spatial footprint.
They're not entering the Victorian market in a small or insignificant way.
They've got seven sites across the state already,
all in varying stages of planning or delivery.
So this is an important strategic asset for them.
So they intend to see it through.
CR WELLINGTON: Thank you.
CR PATTISON: Thank you, Councillor Wellington.
Councillor Bodsworth, did you have another question?
CR BODSWORTH: I do, thanks, just a fairly quick one following on
from Councillor Wellington's question and touching on, Simon, your own touching
on the questions around need in some of the submissions
and I'm thinking it could help people, submitters
and others considering this possibility, to understand the need
if Summerset could provide some analysis of need.
Obviously there's commercially confidential information that would have
been gathered probably, but information that's not confidential
that can help our community understand the need and Summerset's kind of analysis
of the need and how that breaks down into your proportions of
like assisted care and aged care units and the different kinds
of options that you've got.
Is there any possibility for that kind of information getting out
to help public understanding of where Summerset is coming from?
SIMON LOADER: I certainly commit to take that on notice,
Councillor Bodsworth.
I'm confident there's some form of information we could provide
that helps underpin Summerset's interest in the site and the reason for investing
in it.
CR BODSWORTH: Thanks.
CR PATTISON: All the Councillors have had an opportunity to ask questions.
So thanks, Simon, for your submission, much appreciated.
As there are no further submissions tonight, we now have a recommendation
before us and the recommendation is that Council receives
and notes the submissions relating to PG20/0013 and that Council considers
the submissions in a report regarding application PG20/0013
at a future Council meeting.
Can I have a mover of the motion, please, Councillors?
Councillor Hodge
- is it as per the recommendation I read out?
Yes.
And a seconder?
Councillor Allen.
And all those in favour.
And the motion is carried unanimously.
So, there being no further items of business,
I now declare the meeting closed at 7.07pm and we thank our community submitters
for coming along and speaking to us tonight.
Thank you very much.
Goodbye.