>> Good evening, everybody.
I'd like to welcome everyone watching this Special
Council Meeting.
My name is Councillor Liz Pattison, and I'm 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 peoples of the Maar nation.
The main council offices in Torquay are on Wadawurrung
country. The Wadawurrung people have nurtured and
protected these lands and waterways for thousands of
years, and have nurtured these places, and I am so
grateful that we can be here today living and working
in such a beautiful part of the world.
The Surf Coast Shire is committed to walk with the
traditional owners of these lands in a genuine journey
for reconciliation.
Tonight, we will be hearing from those who wish to
speak to their written submissions regarding the
following items:
Item 1 - Planning Permit Application 21/0333 - use and
development of a retirement village, removal of native
vegetation, and removal of a reservation from land
under Section 24A of the Subdivision Act - Cypress Lane
Torquay.
And item 2 - proposed discontinuance and sale of
Cypress Lane Torquay and sale of a portion of Reserve
No. 3.
To facilitate public access, this meeting is being
livestreamed 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 livestream.
Councillors are bound by the behaviour and obligations
under our Code of Conduct, so please direct any
questions or comments you have through me as the Chair,
and I will endeavour to ensure that everybody 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 registered to speak will be
admitted into the meeting and given five minutes to
present their submission.
When the timer on the screen reaches five minutes, you
must stop your presentation.
The timer will turn orange when you have one 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, because we have
lots of people speaking.
Councillors will then be invited to ask questions
directly related to your submission if needed.
In the interest of time, we will try to keep the
questions breach so we can move through all of the
submitters in a fair and reasonable 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, 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 that end of the meeting.
This 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.
I will now recite the pledge:
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.
We now move on to apologies.
Are there any apologies for the meeting tonight?
>> I've had an apology froms Councillor Barker.
He isn't able to attend, but he will be viewing those
hearings, because it will be reported, so he'll be able
to keep abreast of the hearings.
Can I have a mover for Councillor Barker's apology,
please?
Councillor Allen, thank you.
And a second?
Councillor Gazzard.
All those in favour?
Thank you.
That motion is carried unanimously.
Do we have any conflicts of interest for tonight's
meeting?
No?
Thank you.
If a councillor or officer has a conflict of interest,
they need to declare it now and do so just before the
motion is discussed.
But we have none, as indicated.
We'll now move on to our first report and, relating to
the Planning Permit Application 21/0333 - use and
development of a retirement village, removal of native
vegetation, and removal of a reservation from land
under Section 24A of the Subdivision Act - Cypress Lane
Torquay.
So there were 113 submissions received for this item.
10 submitters, including the applicant, have requested
to speak on this particular one tonight.
And our first speaker is Sue O'Shannassy on behalf of
the Greater Torquay Alliance.
Could Sue please be admitted into the meeting?
Hi, Sue, if you're comfortable, you can turn your video
on and take yourself off mute.
>> SUE O'SHANNASSY: How's that?
Can you hear me?
>> We can.
You've got the paper in front of the video - that might
be on purpose, it's up to you.
Oh, we can see you now.
>> SUE O'SHANNASSY: Is that better?
>> Thank you.
>> SUE O'SHANNASSY: Can I just be clear here that we
are now talking about the planning application, not the
sale of land?
>> LIZ PATTISON: That's right, that's what we're
talking about >> SUE O'SHANNASSY: I was expecting it
the other way around, that's all.
>> LIZ PATTISON: Apologies.
This one is for the planning application.
I'll pass it over to you.
>> SUE O'SHANNASSY: OK.
I would like to start - which I thought I was starting
on the other one - I wish to acknowledge the
traditional owners on the land of which each person is
attending or viewing this meeting today, and pay
respects to elders past and present.
Now I have to go to a different one...
This is a combined GTA and 3228 Residents Association
verbal submission for the planning application 21/0333.
I'm a committee member of both those association s.
No-one else was able to attend tonight, so it's been
left up to me, and I decided the easiest way was to
combine both our submissions, which you should have on
the application - hopefully it'll cut the time down a
little bit as well.
So I'll just start now, Liz.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to our
submissions to the planning application for retirement
village in Coombes Road Torquay.
As a committee member of both 3228 Residents
Association and GTA, I will combine our verbal
submissions on both of our individual submissions, as
there is considerable overlap.
I will also try not to repeat those points which have
previously been examine ed - I thought would be
previously examined - in the sale-of-land hearing in
relation to the confusing process that council chose to
undertake.
A reminder of this later.
We have chosen tonight to speak to support those
residents who live west of the development and those
all who live south in Deep Creek, who will be impacted
if this proposal proceeds.
Both the committee of the Greater Torquay Alliance -
GTA - and the committee of 3228 Residents Association -
object to the planning application for a 3-Torrie,
196-dwelling retirement village at the above mentioned
address.
We both acknowledge there is a place for retirement
villages in the Surf Coast Shire, but the scale and
density of this development exceeds what is expected in
this location and zone.
Accommodations for seniors could be still achieved
without the sale of any land, and with a more
appropriate density and scale - say, 2-storey - as long
as the current residents in the area agree with this
sort of use.
Of course, the profit to the developer may make it an
unattractive proposition.
We also acknowledge the reduction in building of the
main apartment clubhouse building, the main building
being shifted away from the western boundary and villa
and townhouses being reduced from three storeys to two
storeys.
So, from three storeys and two storeys to 1- and
2-storeys.
We consider the height and density are still far too
great for this low-density residential zone site.
The density is almost 15 times greater than the
surrounding LDRZ - low-density residential zone - area.
No 3-storey developments have been allowed in the
vicinity of the development site, and we consider three
storeys is out of character for the area.
We are concerned about what information has been
presented in relation to this proposal.
The committee and councillors have the right to receive
accurate information.
Unfortunately, there has been information provided that
is inaccurate or ill-informed.
We are concerned that the vote regarding the public
sale of land in February 23 meeting could have been
based upon current and previous information that was at
best confusing or, even worse, false.
Today, I am listening again to that part of the
February 2022 council meeting relating to the
in-principle agreement to sell the publicly owned land
to the developer.
The CEO of the Surf Coast Shire, when questioned by
Councillor Bodsworth about valuation, stated that the
land in question would require rezoning. The counciler
asked for confirmation didn't know - is a rezoning
required?
We haven't been able to find any reference to the
applicants requesting a rezoning.
We are therefore surprised that this application is out
to community consultation if the zoning is not right
for this project.
Or is the information incorrect?
In answer to a councillor's question about access for
pedestrians to Deep Creek, they were told that the
development would not be a gated community.
However, the revised plans from March 23 show vehicle
and pedestrian gates at Coombes Road main entrance into
other pedestrian gates around the site.
In the GTA submission, it was noted that the
applicants' planning report makes several references to
aged care adomcomidation.
We understand the application is for a retirement
village with no aged care facilities. The two uses are
quite different.
This is misleading.
Or are we just confused?
Stormwater has become a contentious issue in Torquay.
The effects of mismanaged stormwater discharge has
shown up in our waterways particularly by -- the craft
wetlands. The GTA submission goes into considerable
detail and highlights concerns about the method of
management of stormwater in a proposed development, and
the likely detrimental effects on Deep Creek.
With further urban development planned within its
catchments such as Biodie Drive, West of state, which
by the way may also include retirement living and an
aged care facility, adding to the concerns for Deep
Creek.
How will stormwater be managed?
The applicants' planning report refers to a site
stormwater management plan, but we have been unable to
find it.
The GTA's submission also raises queries about the CCMA
assessment for this development.
We do endorse their recommendation for a waterway
management plan for Deep Creek and are interested in
what the detail might contain.
Considering the development that is already proposed,
such a plan should ensure the long-term protection of
designated waterways and minimise future maintenance
requirements for any reserve created over the
waterways.
With recent discussion of Deep Creek being used to
drain some of the Torquay North stormwater that is
impacting upon the wetlands, a management plan is
vital.
I urge you to have a close look at the detail in our
submission.
The GTA's submission on the sale of land gives a
detailed example of the cost of entry and exit to a new
retirement village in Armstrong Creek.
Even in Armstrong Creek, retirement village requirement
is in the 600-700-plus range.
Torquay would be expected to cost considerably more,
being a desirable place to live and with higher land
values.
This price is for the building only, not the land.
There is also a $480 monthly charge that doesn't
include council rates, contents insurance, or
electricity.
On exit, residents can lose up to 32.5% of the sale
price as an exit fee, plus other costs.
We're now seeing prices in Kittsbrook retirement
Village in excess of $1 million for a unit.
Owning and managing a retirement village is a lucrative
business, with owners and operators able to sell a
property multiple times.
If this development goes forward, it won't provide
affordable housing for those currently living in the
Surf Coast Shire, as suggested by councils.
We hope all councillors are familiar with the Surf
Coast's distinctive landscape statement planning
policy, which has also been discussed, and expect that
- well, I was expecting it to be discussed earlier -
having endorsed the Surf Coast statement of planning
policy, will act to facilitate the intent of the
statement of planning policy.
Council must be mindful of the marine and coastal
policy 2020, which is now in force, and applies 5km
inland of the high watermark.
It is no longer acceptable to to accept minor ongoing
impacts because, together, they can add up to a
significant impact on natural features, water quality
and native habitats.
Also, the EPA document 1739.1 - Urban Stormwater
Management Guidance - now in force, which requires
stormwater volume, not just stormwater quality, to be
addressed when discharging into sensitive environments.
Recapping the issues discussed re the sale of land
earlier tonight that affect the planning application -
sorry, haven't had that opportunity yet, but will later
- the decision to give in-principle support for the
sale of public land was made without adequate
consideration of community views.
The matter of the Cypress Lane Reserve and part of the
reserve should have been made before the planning
application. The perception of a predetermined outcome
by the planning application by applying possible
conditions to sale land of may be interpreted as bias
in decision-making and...
>> I'll have to get you to finish up there, because
we've given you 10 minutes, because you did both
together.
But thank you very much for your presentation.
>> SUE O'SHANNASSY: Can I just ask a question, Liz?
In the information I received, there was supposed to be
- if it's a planning application, 10 minutes.
But, anyway, I'm speaking - I'm using my five and five,
but I thought it was 10.
You might want to check that anyway.
>> LIZ PATTISON: Yeah, I think the submitter gets -
yeah, sorry, there's five minutes.
So we did give you 10, because I understood and
appreciate that.
>> SUE O'SHANNASSY: That's OK.
>> LIZ PATTISON: Thank you for presenting to us
tonight.
Do councillors have a question for Sue?
No?
Thank you, Sue. I just wanted to point out, on the
Cypress Lane website, there's a number of FAQs, and it
does go in one of them "How is the land currently zoned
and will it need to be rezoned?"
So, if there's some clarification around that for a
retirement village, a permit is required - it doesn't
need to be rezoned.
There's more information for your interest on the FAQs
on the website.
>> SUE O'SHANNASSY: OK.
I'm sure other people will be interested as well.
Thanks, Liz.
>> LIZ PATTISON: Great.
OK.
Thanks, Sue.
That takes up the first two, because Sue was speaking
twice, on behalf of Greater Torquay Alliance as well as
3228 Residents Association.
I will now ask Peter Brighton to be admitted, please.
Hi, Peter. If you could turn on your video and unmute
yourself, that would be wonderful.
>> PETER BRIGHTON: Thought I was there...!
How's that?
>> LIZ PATTISON: Great.
Thank you, Peter.
I'll now pass it over to you to present.
>> PETER BRIGHTON: Thank you very much.
Sue's taken a little bit of my thunder, but I guess my
major concern about this area is the effect on Deep
Creek.
Council has had a substantial amount of fairly rapid
education in the area of stormwater over the last year
or so, and a bit of an experience about the sorts of
rainfalls that we get in Torquay in very short periods
of time.
Last year, between October and November, we received
six months' worth of Torquay's annual rainfall in two
months.
These things are not unusual.
I've lived in the area for 40 years and I've seen this
four or five times in the time that I've been here.
I'm concerned that the access to Deep Creek is going to
be restricted.
There's going to be essentially - even though they say
it's not, it's going to be a gated and restricted
community. And so the existing application, or existing
access to Deep Creek, is going to be really severely
restricted. It was gifted to council in good faith, and
I think the people that gifted it would be very
disappointed that it's going to be lost.
But council needs to understand that Deep Creek is a
water course.
It's there as a natural way to get water away from this
area and all the way down to the coast.
But undeveloped land only runs off about 15%.
This land is going to be incredibly overoccupied with
impermeable surfaces, roofs, pathways, decks - all that
sort of stuff - and it's up around the 75% to 80% that
will be run off.
That's a massive amount of water. The thing that
council needs to understand is it's not just one area
that we're talking about.
We've got Deep Creek, which starts up near Frog Hollow,
then the new proposed Biodie Drive development, this
development, the one across the road in Coombes Road
which has sort of come onstream just recently, and now
we're talking about getting water from the Carrath into
these areas.
We can't just look into these areas, these
developments, in isolation.
We have to look at these areas as a whole and see -
what is the impact all the way downstream?
If you go into Deep Creek now, you can see already
areas of erosion to the land, and that's to the
detriment of this particular area.
I'm just looking through the bits that I've done...
Look, I don't think - a lot of councillors and council
officers most probably haven't been in the council long
enough to realise the amount of water that can flow.
I've been here long enough to remember the tragic death
of the diver just up the road trying to help control
the flood in Deep Creek some 25-30 years ago.
These are massive amounts of water that can come down
in these periods of time.
So we need to look at all of the places along there,
and we really have to make sure that we don't make
decisions now that we're going to have to fix up with
hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars in the
future, in the same way that's happened in North
Torquay with the Carrath and the sands and all those
sorts of areas.
There's been some talk that people think this is
potentially likely to solve some of the affordable
housing - I think that's just a complete and utter
furphy.
Anybody who's had to wend their way through one of
these things with an ailing parent realises they're not
for the faint-hearted, and they're certainly not for
the poor.
The other area - if you look at that area, and it's
very steep - if you've been there, it's really steep,
it's going to require either a lot of fill or a lot of
cut to make it suitable for building.
That's going to create the potential for a large amount
of sediment in a relatively small area.
Council is already battling with sediment in some of
the water infrastructure, stormwater infrastructure
areas, that they've got within the shire. And if this
gets itself damaged, then we're in severe - we have
severe problems with the water flow from upstream going
downstream.
The thing has to be managed and my suggestion would be,
if this proposal gets ahead, that the developer be
subjected to a fairly substantial bond and make sure
that they adhere to all of the regulations that need to
be adhered to.
Because a very large bond in the vicinity of millions
of dollars will certainly focus their attention.
I guess that's my time.
Thank you, folks!
>> LIZ PATTISON: Thank you, Peter.
Appreciate you bringing attention to stormwater and the
cumulative effects of stormwater.
Councillor Hodge, do you have a question for Peter?
>> ROSE HODGE: Yes, Peter.
Thank you for your submission.
Looking behind you - is that the type of development
you'd want to have on the land?
>> PETER BRIGHTON: No, this is my wife's computer and
that's her village in Italy.
>> ROSE HODGE: Thank you.
It brought back memories of the death.
Was it in the dam?
>> PETER BRIGHTON: My understanding is they were
building parts of the wall for the dam and parts of the
overflow structure. And the dam was supposed to fill in
a couple of months, but it filled in a week. And it
was, um, running risks that the dam wall may break and
so brought in a diver from Geelong.
I don't know exactly the circumstances, but I suspect
that the water flows were so great that he got caught
under water and, sadly, drowned.
>> ROSE HODGE: Yeah.
Thanks, Peter, and thank you for your submission.
>> PETER BRIGHTON: Cheers.
>> LIZ PATTISON: Alrighty.
Thank you, Peter, for your submission tonight. We now
welcome Karan Dawson to join us.
Thank you, Karan. If you could take yourself off mute
and show your video, that would be great.
Karan, did you hear me?
We're ready for your presentation. If you could take
yourself off mute and turn on your video, please...?
>> KARAN DAWSON: Can you hear me now?
>> LIZ PATTISON: We can, yes.
Once you're comfortable, you can turn your video on.
>> KARAN DAWSON: How's that?
>> LIZ PATTISON: That's great.
We'll pass it over to you now, Karan.
>> KARAN DAWSON: Thank you for the opportunity to speak
with you all.
My property adjoins the proposed development and I'm
very much against it, of course, because of the nature
of the development.
It was land that was zoned low-density.
It previously was rural/residential when we bought our
property here some 25 years ago.
And we all bought and invested in this area because it
was a rural/residential area and we wanted the space.
So, with that in mind, we've invested our life savings
and all of our efforts to build our property, to plant
our gardens, to be here in this space.
We enjoy the amenity of that place.
I was also part of the body corporate that gifted the
land in question to council. And I'll talk about that
later on but, in terms of the development proposal, the
developer has amended some things but, in principle,
it's not really a lot different from 210 apartments or
villas to 196 - it's not a great reduction, and the
centre To 196 is not a great loss in reduction and the
centre clubhouse is still four levels.
You just change the labels.
You end up with four levels.
Changing the labels doesn't change the design of the
building.
The other thing that concerns us is the amount of
traffic that will come out of that development.
Potentially 390 cars a day.
With workers, with rubbish trucks, with residents
coming in and out going to work.
Lifestyle Village may be for some.
I question the design.
It locks very much like the salt at Grossmans Road
which looks like building blocks.
It's not amenable to a retirement village, 2-storey
houses.
I don't know any over 55s who choose to live in a
2-storey house.
The other aspect that concerns me is they have asked
for consideration on the basis they're going to put
disabled housing in there.
That's a bit of a furphy because I don't know any
disabled people who would choose to live in a 2-storey
house if access is a point and if a fire gets into
there, the power goes off and they'll be death traps.
The only reason the developer is proposing six units
for disabled because it can access free funding through
the state and federal governments to add in disability
housing.
It makes it a very financially lucrative idea for him.
The other concern is traffic coming out on to Coombes
Road.
When the owner, Mr Brodie, subdivided that land into
the one-acre lots, the condition of that subdivision
was that VicRoads put a requirement on him to shift the
driveway and have the road, Cypress Lane, come out.
Nothing was allowed to come out onto that road.
Now you're asking us to accept a maximum of 14 cars
that would have been part of the original idea for Mr
Brodie and now we're looking at over 300 cars a day
coming out there.
It will be dangerous.
I don't know if the developer has had CFA input into
what they should have done there, with regards to fire
risk, habitat.
We gifted that land to council on the understanding it
would be green open space.
The body corporate's desire was for always community
access.
We need more green open spaces, not less.
This council has prided itself on being for the
environment.
Your environmental credentials will suffer badly if you
go ahead with this proposal.
Also, it has to be said that there is a great
determination by many of the community if this proposal
does be approved, it will end up in VCAT.
We will take you to VCAT to stop this.
It's fairness we say there's a great risk for everyone
here if this proposal is, goes ahead.
Thank you for your time.
>> LIZ PATTISON: Any questions for Karan?
>> ROSE HODGE: Being on the body corporate, what's your
vision or your knowledge of how did the developer get
all the land?
Was it one person to buy it off or how did the
developer, quoit a few blocks.
I was wondering how that sort of occurred?
>> KARAN DAWSON: When the body corporate dissolved and
we had given the strip of nature reserve to council,
Joe Brodie was still in ownership of his shares of the
body corporate.
Since Joe and Pat died, his beneficiaries, his estate,
was managed by one executor, one member of the Brodie
family, Mel Brodie.
He sold it to these developers against the will of the
rest of the family.
It's very contentious because this land, there was
always a vision by Joe Brodie.
He was an environmentalist.
He wanted to leave his mark as being a beautiful place
for people to live, that they'd look after the
environment and look after the creek, we would have
beautiful lifestyle area around with lots of trees and
lots of development.
So to have a high-density proposition put forward like
this is really abhorrent to the intentions of what the
original land owner had when he subdivided this land
and under all the permits that he had at the time from
council, the restrictions were always very much about
low density.
And so we all brut into this area and took up Joe's
dream and part of his vision, believing that the
low-density would remain, it was a rural residential
and we bought here and the planning scheme would be
respected and have integrity.
To find that might be different now is quite abhorrent
to us.
>> LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Appreciate your response to it.
We appreciate your presenting to us tonight.
We're going to move on to our next presenter.
Thank you for coming on.
Can we ask for Peter Donnelly to be admitted for his
presentation?
>> PETER DONELLY: Can you hear me?
>> LIZ PATTISON: Yes.
Video on, please?
>> PETER DONELLY: Start video.
>> LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
>> PETER DONELLY: Thank you for the opportunity to be
able to talk on this.
I'm just a general Torquay resident and these sort of
developments concern me quite a bit.
I guess we should all go back to the old Torquay saying
that we don't want to destroy what we come to enjoy.
And I think this is one of these cases of high
residential development in a very sensitive area and
also the area being zoned low-density, residential
area, so it goes against the grain I think of the
policy of what we are as a council and as a community
we should be doing everything to look after the
environment and the Surf Coast.
I know people forget that there's notmany councils
named by natural elements like the surf and the coast.
It's incumbent on the council and the community to take
all care of that.
So, yeah, very concerned about having such high-density
urban dwellings in this area.
You probably know that it does slope into the creek.
And some of the earlier speakers talked, the run-off
down in the creek would be quite stalshz.
And I could see it quite destructive -- substantial.
And I could see it quite destructive for the flora and
fauna and biodiversity in the sensitive creek area.
All the way down to Fishermans Beach.
You can go down there and you can see the erosion
already down to the beach.
And if you walk there, like I regularly do, you've got
sort of a creek crossing now right into Whites Beach
which is making it quite difficult for a lot of the
walkers.
So here we're going to have a lot more run-off,
stormwater run-off.
And obviously down that area, my grandkids and my kids,
we swim down there.
It's a good swimming beach.
I'd hate to see environmental, more environmental
damage and erosion caused down there.
I'll also, I'm concerned that this land was gifted to
the council.
Then the council is turning itsback on the local
communities.
And selling it to a developer.
What really irks us all is it will be a gated community
and we are virtually going to be locked out of these
reserve areas where it's a good little spot.
I take my dog.
And my wife regularly walks down there.
And it's great to get how busy the esplanade gets and
it's very hard, sometimes you can't swing a cat without
walking your dog.
So these sort offiogs are a bit secret to the local
community.
And the loss of that area would be very concerning.
Also, it raises the point about the Karaaf wetlands and
what is going on there?
And the state environment which was released last year
in July by Tanya Plibersek, saying the deteriorating
state of the environment is a concern.
And being a tourist area and a lot of visitors coming
to the area, that we should be doing everything to
protect these areas also.
Marine 2020 coastal marine Victorian, marine coastal
policy, also says basically to try and avoid
development within that 5km zone from the high water
mark.
And this is, and also the building heights are also of
concern.
It's going to be an eye sore.
And just to reiterate that I think if the council
should really - you've got a planning environment,
planning department.
To me I know we should be changing that to environment
and planning.
There should be more, more care for the environment and
the environment should come first before planning.
But that's probably it from my submission, please.
>> LIZ PATTISON: I appreciate you taking the time to
present to us.
Anyone have a question for Peter?
Thank you, Peter.
You've raised some important issues.
Access is so important.
It's such a special place.
I wanted to draw your attention on the Cypress Lane, on
our Surf Coast website and there's facts around Cypress
Lane and one of them is access to Deep Creek.
There will still be access if things progress through
Jetty Line and Piper Lane.
There's information that can answer people's questions.
I understand it's real important we maintain access.
In case you wrnalt aware I wanted to draw your
attention to that one.
You've raised some really important questions.
Thank you.
Can we now have >> JOHN FOSS: Please be admitted? --
please have John Foss please be admitted?
>> JOHN FOSS: Hello.
>> LIZ PATTISON: Hi.
Can you turn on your video?
>> JOHN FOSS: It is on.
I can't see a timer.
There it goes.
Good evening, councillors.
I thank you for the opportunity to speak in relation to
this particular matter.
It's a bit like Grundhog Day for me.
20 years ago I was sitting not quite where you were
sitting, but sitting in the old council chambers when
we had Mr Davie come in with a cohort of planners and
developers and such.
And he pitched to council his idea for a retirement
village of sorts on what was once the old Zealy Bay
Caravan Park.
So I feel like I've been here before.
And we thrashed out that particular proposal and
council-t time had many questions.
Some of those have already been raised by some of the
speakers and some of the community members.
One of the big ones was we could not see how you could
have retirement village with so many double storey
houses.
That made no sense.
It raises a whole lot of questions around mobility,
particularly for old people.
My father is in his 80s.
He's had to downsize from a house which had steps to a
simple flat house where he could easily get around.
So I'm really not sure the motivation behind - I'm
still mystified by the motivation back then 20 years
adwo.
And the motivation now to offer up as retirement double
storey villas.
I don't think they're practical, certainly from a
mobility perspective.
They make so sense.
I think it's interesting to understand that whilst a
developer is talking up this perceived need in the
future, the fact is last time he came to council with a
proposal of this nature and he ended up not selling
many of those villas at all.
As it was he went back to council and ended up, it's my
understanding the land was sold.
All those places were sold.
To come up with a perceived need deserves scoutane.
Certainly from council, because I srnal don't think a
man is there and it raises other questions about is
this the best place to build a high-density retirement
village on the coast?
There is ample opportunity for many of developments of
this nature and of this type.
We can see them in Armstrong Creek and I srnal think if
you were to build a modern facility of this type, it
makes far more sense to build in Armstrong Creek where
you're closer to a lot more infrastructure, a lot more
public transport and much, much closer to some of the
excellent health facilities and in Geelong which would
help meet the needs of anybody staying here.
So in many ways I see this as a complete
overdevelopment of the site.
The community members have spoken quite clearly and
Karan spoke quite cloorly about the history behind this
land and why it should stay low density res.
Perhaps be enhanced with more environmental values,
restored revegetation would be something that would
benefit the community.
We know the buildings are too high and it breaches
Victorian state planning.
We know it is in con flict that skz all proposals that
come before council are designed to reserve, protect
and conserve our unique features.
So I think there's no strategic justification at all
for this particular development.
It's simply too big, in the wrong spot, it imposes on
the amenity of local members.
It will be an eye sore to visitors who have to drive
past it in Torquay.
And I think there are plenty of options and plenty of
alternative sites away from Torquay that can be found.
Torquay is a surf town, a coastal town.
This constant desire by developers to come in here with
big structures, bulky structures, it doesn't make
sense.
It's ridiculous.
Five minutes up the road this development would srnal
fit in to Armstrong Creek.
It is not relevant and nor should it fit in to Torquay.
The question for council is this development offers
opportunity for the environment, this development
opportunities for the community, and this development
offers opportunities for developers.
The question is which horse are you going to back?
Thank you.
>> LIZ PATTISON: Thank you for your presentation, you
raised some important issues.
Do councillors have a question?
Councillor Stapleton?
>> LIBBY STAPLETON: I'm interested in alternative
locations, just so I'm clear on what you're saying.
Is the suggestion that when people reach retirement
age, if they're wanting to downsize, whether it's a
development like this or somewhere else, are you
suggesting they should be looking for Armstrong Creek
for that opportunity rather than Torquay, is that it?
>> JOHN FOSS: Developers need to be offering up these
opportunities in Armstrong creek.
It's not suited to Torquay.
The second part to your question, if we have locals who
are looking to keep elderly members in the community,
council should be exploring options like allowing in
higher larger lots, granny flats, studios and that sort
of thing.
There is that demand.
Why are we trying to meet that depland by building a
huge 3-storey facility up on the highway when council
right now could be making plans and moving ahead with
changes to the planning scheme to allow people to build
a grny flat out theback or a studio and an extension
which would allow elderly members of their family to
stay and live with them?
That is a muchbert outcome for families and families
out there would welcome the opportunity of having, the
flash term is microhousing but within old Torquay or
parts of it.
Something that has not been explored.
Yes, the need is there.
How will we address it?
Couldia dress 10 ort ways than building this big
high-density development on the highway?
>> LIZ PATTISON: We appreciate you coming in and
speaking with us.
We now ask Mark Mathews be admitted in place.
If you could unmute yourself, Mark, that would be
great.
We can't quite hear you, Mark.
If you wanted to try again?
>> MARK MATHEWS: Can you hear me now?
>> LIZ PATTISON: Yes.
>> MARK MATHEWS: I have a powerpoint to share.
Thank you very much.
I'll just get it up now.
And I want to make sure I have the settings right.
One more setting I need to adjust.
One more setting just to get the video there.
Click.
Great.
I think you can see that now.
>> LIZ PATTISON: We can.
>> MARK MATHEWS: Thank you very much.
I'm a local resident and I feel strongly against this
as an and I'm passionate about inappropriate
developments.
So Cypress Lane is definitely not the right place for
this development.
I want to give a bit of neighbourhood context here.
There's a bit of a video that should come through
showing that Cypress Lane here is a site that's 3km
from down town Torquay.
At the moment, it's an undeveloped site and there's not
as part of the remaining element of it and it is very
key that's in low density residential zone.
As a quirk of the planning scheme, the applicant does
have a right to apply to put a residential village here
and as others have said, putting 196 dwellings on this,
where if it weren low dnsty residential with the
current ruling, maybe a maximum of 22 to 25 dwellings
could go on the current site.
So I feel it's over the odds the developer coming in
and taking advantage of that quirk.
Going on to a little bit more on this, we can see -
sorry.
Cypress Lane, we're going to the vision.
I won't spend a lot of time there.
We can see he had 10 lots.
The current lots of acreage, 10 families living there
on that and the road is already there.
The storm water is already there.
What's not there is the sewer but that's why it's one
acre on the old rules.
We can see there that there's the public reserve that
needs to be acquired by the applicant.
There's the road reserve that also needs to be acquired
by the applicant.
And I'll give a bit more context.
This shaded area, that's what's actually known as 3A
Blackwattle Mews.
That was, that is the current Deep Creek Reserve that
many of us use quite reggial recally and that was what
was gifted to the shire.
The little L shape bit is what the developer wants to
get hold of.
Why do I flot want it here?
It's too big -- not want it here?
It's too big, too dense.
I have another video to show.
I've spent a bit of time creating a 3D model using all
the drawings that the developer has supplied and thank
you very much for the detail there.
We can see 160 dwellings.
Many of them semidetached and two large apartment
blocks.
The bulk is large.
It's very close together.
And especially on the southern tip here, where the
slope comes down the hill, look how close together they
are.
I'll put a little car in front of each one to show how
tight it all is.
Swinging around to look at the vantage from the north.
It's almost like another suburb.
That's how dense it is.
So, low-density residential limits would limit it to
around 25 blocks.
What the applicant is proposing to put 196 dwellings
on.
Eight times more dense than what the current low
density residential rules would allow.
That's the same applicant as also being the developer.
A similar number of dwellings but it is 2.5 times more
dense than elsewhere.
As I said before, very little open space around the
dwellings.
And the updated application, which there's been mention
of reduced height.
A lot of this has gone underground.
There's a swimming pool, basement parking and we go
down to look at lot D, there's even in lot D the
parking and some of the dwellings are almost hidden
underground.
I actually can't see the timer here.
I'm going a bit blind.
Just swinging around to show lot, what we have down the
bottom here.
We have two apartment blocks on the right-hand side.
D1 and D2.
These two storeys from the north side.
Three storeys facing from the southern side.
So anyone walking along Deep Creek, walking along there
path on the Surf Coast Highway, three sides they'll see
three storeys.
>> LIZ PATTISON: I really appreciate all there work
you've done.
You've run out of time.
It's been grit to see the three dimension there.
>> MARK MATHEWS: Three storeys more than 10m high.
Sorry.
There was a bit more to go.
Thank you.
>> I'm enjoying the presentation and would like to see
the rest of it.
>> LIZ PATTISON: How much longer have you got?
>> MARK MATHEWS: Is thatback on the screen?
So looking at the southern end, 9.9m, so the applicants
measured from the existing ground level.
There's probably 3,000 cubic metres of excavation to
dig these two D1 and D2.
I have shown 9.9m there.
A little bit more on aged Caro retirement village.
There's little that describes it as an aged care
facility.
It's a lifestyle facility.
There's nothing in there that suggests it would be
suitable for people who need assisted support or people
with disability needs.
There's not oorchb very much space for aged care
providers.
This is definitely an over-55s lifestyle village.
The proposed Briody West development looks like a much
more comprehensive aged kear provider.
They commissioned themselves I think, the applicant,
and suggests the only source of supply for retirement
beds will come from this particular development.
Briody Drive West has it in their development plan.
I probably won't go too much into Deep Creek.
This is very, very important to that we don't make
another Karaaf Wetlands debacle.
There's very little about how the stormwater will be
managed.
Two parts to that - through the construction period
which will be lengthy.
All we've got to look forward to manage this is very
little or no detail on how it will work.
The only way to truly protect Deep Creek is to not
allow something this large and risky to proceed.
Thank you very much.
>> LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
I appreciate all the effort with the 3D animation.
Do we have any questions for Mark?
>> HEATHER WELLINGTON: That was very helpful.
I wonder if you'd be happy for us to-a copy of thet and
perhaps we could work with the applicants to determine
whether there's any disagrement on the scale or size or
whatever?
I found it very useful.
>> MARK MATHEWS: Definitely.
I can drup a flash drive with the whole powerpoint and
embedded videos into the Shire offices.
>> HEATHER WELLINGTON: Thank you.
I did have one more question.
I think you yoused a word in relation to a quirk of the
planning scheme or something of that nature, I think in
relation to the ability to...
>> MARK MATHEWS: It was more a retirement village is an
allowable use enboth normal residential but also in
low-density residential.
I called it a quirk in that because the application is
allowed, the applicant has come in and gone not
considered the existing low-density residential
characteristics of the surrounding neighbourhood.
It's come in and I'm going to throw in as many as I can
to turn as large a profit as I can.
>> HEATHER WELLINGTON: Is it you view that there
shouldn't be large-scale residential villages?
>> MARK MATHEWS: At an appropriate scale for the site.
>> Thank you.
>> LIZ PATTISON: Thank you, Mark.
We appreciate your presentation.
We will now move on to Ron Lowe.
Can Ron please be admitted into the meeting?
Hi, Ron.
If you could turn yourself off mute and turn on your
video, if you're comfortable with that, that would be
great.
>> RON LOWE: Can you hear me?
>> LIZ PATTISON: We can.
>> RON LOWE: The video...?
>> LIZ PATTISON: That's good, yes.
>> RON LOWE: You got me?
>> LIZ PATTISON: Yes.
Over to you.
>> RON LOWE: Alright.
Away we go.
So, as we know, the submission states about the 196
villas and apartments that are going to be built, as
the application.
I've looked at the calculations and, look, even if this
was a residential area, in Toni Sincock's calculations,
it would be around about 120 dwellings would be
suitable for an area of this size, with 6.5 - which is
in the target range.
But then we've got another 76 apartments which are
going to go in with 1- and 2-bedroom units, with a
3-storey clubhouse.
That pushes it right into the range of the high-density
residential area.
So this is a far cry from a low-density residential in
which it's zoned now.
It's outside the DAL and SPP guidelines.
So I've based all my information on the planning scheme
policies such as the P&E Act, the Planning and
Environment Act, Distinctionive Areas Landscape,
Statement of Planning Policy, and the Surf Coast
Planning Scheme.
When it comes to implementing them, it does not seem to
apply to everybody.
I've discovered a conflict of policies which allows a
developer to override some of the shire policies by the
use of the word "retirement village".
Yet when it comes to implementing them, it does not
seem to apply - sorry, reading the same thing again...
Cypress Lane is part of a green wedge, a land that runs
from Anglesea Road through to the Surf Coast Highway,
with coastal characteristics and values it.
Comprises of half of one-acre blocks providing for bird
life and wildlife.
Points that I'd like to raise over the development of
the land which I think is inappropriate for the block -
it's an appropriate block for the retirement village.
The southern slope is too steep.
This has not been addressed by Toni Sincock in the
response letter. The amount of fill needed to level the
site on the south-west corner will tower over the
properties in Jetty Lane, and I estimate this fill to
be up to 4.5m high which, as you can imagine, would
push the housing up high, and that'll just tower over
the whole of the Deep Creek Reserve.
This will continue across the block to the east,
changing the topography of the land and significantly
to accommodate the development.
The developer has not tried to nestle the enter the
landscape across the southern slope, which will also
tower above the Deep Creek Reserve.
We then have a tennis court and a car park on the
south-west boundary, with no screening.
We've got hardly -- It hardly fits into the ambiance of
the Deep Creek Reserve.
The SPP states that the development is in minimal
change areas, which is defined by already existing LBRZ
zone should be of low-rise on large lots and designed
to fit in with existing coastal characteristics of the
area.
The 3-storey clubhouse and units are hardly low-rise -
they will dominate the ridge line and landscape.
The SPP states, "Development should not dominate the
ridge line in areas designated under the DAL, and this
should be single-storey at best and eliminate the 76
units."
I'm aware that they are exempt from neighbourhood
character and res code policies, but coastal character
and values I feel are totally different, and the area
does not lend itself to intense development. The
changing of the topography of the land running down to
Deep Creek Reserve, the landscape there has been no
attempt to nestle into the surrounding slope - only
2-storey villas along the boundary are cut in, and they
will also tower over the Deep Creek Reserve, destroying
the overall vista and ambiance of the reserve.
As this development is over-55s retirement village, it
doesn't offer any benefit to the overall community, as
it is an exclusive, gated community.
To say that the development is for people who have
lived here and stay close to familiar surroundings
doesn't make sense and lacks diversity.
With the developer -- Will the developer have some sort
of criteria for locals-only?
Realistically, it will only be for those who can afford
to live there, likely sea-changers from outside the
area which won't solve the housing or development
crisis.
Will they guarantee a quota for local residents when
the land is sold?
In response, Toni Sincock also refers to the
development as aged care, which it is not.
It does not offer any care or medical services, and no
social benefit to the overall or immediate community.
I think the councillors need to take into account the
health and wellbeing of the immediate residents, with
construction to take at least 10 years. The noise, dust
and pollution...
>> LIZ PATTISON: I'll just get you too finish up there.
>> OK.
Five seconds.
The noise, dust and pollution affecting our daily lives
such as a long sustained period will be for 6 days a
week, 50 weeks a year for the whole 10-year period that
they'll take to build this thing. The effects on Deep
Creek flora and fauna from pollution and construction
is yet to be seen, but I hope the shire will regularly
inspect the area - maybe they should consider a large
bond if there's a large incident, or poor work
practices could be done at the developer's expense.
Thank you very much. (LAUGHS)
>> LIZ PATTISON: Thank you very much.
Do we have any questions?
No?
>> All good.
Cheers.
>> LIZ PATTISON: Thank you for coming in and presenting
to us.
>> Ta.
Thank you.
>> LIZ PATTISON: I'll now ask for Toni Sincock and
Leigh Prosser, who are presenting on behalf of the
applicant. Can they please be admitted to the meeting?
Toni and Leigh, can you take yourself off mute and put
your video on, please?
Thank you.
Yes, we can see you there.
I don't know that we can hear you.
Oh, yes, great.
We can hear you.
>> LEIGH PROSSER: Can you hear us?
>> LIZ PATTISON: Yes, we can.
>> LEIGH PROSSER: Thank you.
Toni Sincock and Leigh Prosser.
Thanks, firstly, for the opportunity to present to you
tonight.
There's a large range of issues and, with the 10
minutes that we've got, we don't expect to be able to
go through all of those.
We have got a written submission which will also follow
tonight's meeting.
We'll try and step you through, perhaps, some of the
primary issues.
We'll start with design - the height, the density,
building scale and so on.
I think, firstly, we've got to acknowledge that the
low-residential density zone does actually permit a
retirement village.
Interestingly, there's nothing within the planning
scheme - there is no policy within the Surf Coast
Planning Scheme - that in fact discourages this use in
this zone.
That's obviously played out in development of
Kithbrooke in the past.
From a zoning perspective, the use is permitted and the
context of the site is really important. And we've said
that from the very beginning.
The context of this site is not a low-density site
isolated from the remainder of Torquay, remainder of
the township.
We've got general residential zones to the east and to
the south.
We've got commercial and industrial development 300m to
the north.
We've got the main road on our immediate eastern
rebuttal. The context of this site is really important
in terms of what might be developed on the site.
In terms of the building height and so on, the
low-density residential zone doesn't prohibit 3-storey
development.
It doesn't prohibit 3-storey development if each of
these lots was to be developed.
There's nothing within the scheme that specifically
seeks to limit the height of buildings in this
instance.
What we have done is taken from the objections and the
submissions that came in and had another look at how we
can redesign or relocate buildings within the site to
better respond to the surrounding context.
And in that regard, we've got primarily single-storey
buildings.
We've got the community building now centred within the
site.
We've got single-storey buildings right along that
western boundary. And then along the southern boundary
where we had 3-storey, they're down to a 2-storey.
So they're 7.5m above natural ground level.
It was said earlier that there are three storeys in
that location.
There's three level - there is a basement - but at no
point is there a 3-storey building. The main community
building comprises two main wings. The western wing has
been dropped down to a 2-storey building lot.
There's a single-storey joining element on the southern
side.
And then there's a small 3-storey building on the
eastern side along the eastern wing.
What we've got is a total of 176 Singhal or
double-storey townhouses or apartments.
There's only 20 apartments within that 3-storey
building.
We say it's reflective of a really significant change
in the application, and achieves the desired objectives
for a maximum of 2-storey form generally throughout
this site.
From a density and site coverage perspective, again
there's nothing in the scheme that sets a density
provision for a retirement village in this zone.
But what we've got is a 38.5% building site coverage.
And that's really low.
That's not high-density.
60% is standard residential density sort of
development.
70% is getting up into your sort of high-density
development.
So that lower-density development is a direct result of
the consideration of that sort of balance between built
form and landscaping.
It was said earlier that we're levelling the site.
Can I just say - we're not levelling the site.
We're following the topography of the site.
For a vegetation perspective, we're removing
approximately 80 trees.
We had an ecologist walk over the site.
There's nothing of significance on the site.
As the ecologist pointed out, it's a substantially
modified environment now.
In terms of garden area - again, the garden area is an
assessment tool that's usually used in a residential
zone, but we're using it here just to provide
comparison.
We've got 45.2% gardening area.
And that's 29,393 square metres of gardening area
within the site.
There was talk about a gated community and loss of
access to Deep Creek.
Certainly it is a gated community, as with Kithbrooke.
The vehicular gates are closed at dusk.
There's a pedestrian gate next door - that pedestrian
gate's never closed. And that's the intention here.
We've provided access through - and as we've said to
council officers - the intention is to retain public
access through the site and we're open to talking about
how that might be provided permanently.
The statement of planning policy at the marine coastal
policy have both been raised tonight.
If I can talk to both of them really briefly - the DAL
provided a protected settlement bound tree the
township.
The site lands within the boundary significantly, and
doesn't fall within five of the six significant
landscape areas within that statement. The proposal on
the use and development is permitted by the current
zone.
We don't seek to rezone.
We have considered bushfire risk.
We have considered building height.
These are all matters that fall ought of the DAL.
We've got generous boundary setbacks and we've got
landscaping within those setbacks.
DAL doesn't override the planning scheme.
As I said earlier, these facilities do exist in these
zones throughout the state.
Really briefly in terms of the marine and coastal
policy - it doesn't discourage development within the
settlement boundary.
And we are within that settlement boundary. It doesn't
discourage development within Torquay.
I might hand to Leigh, 'cause I've taken most of the
time. If there's any time left, I'll go back to some of
the smaller issues.
>> LEIGH PROSSER: Thank you very much, everyone, for
your time tonight.
I'm here to talk about stormwater.
First of all, all stormwater from the site is to be
treated to best practice and to the primary scheme and
to council's requirements.
We have altered the discharges from the earlier
submission so that now all stormwater discharge from
the site goes into existing pipe constructions.
There's no new pipe and no works into Deep Creek and
there's no external works needed to be done from there.
What that actually does is it does eliminate some
sheet-flow that currently flows oitute the east and
crosses onto Surf Coast Highway and the pedestrian path
down there, which is causing some erosion - so it
actually helps eliminate some existing issues around
that. The flows in Deep Creek, the peak flows are
actually marginally reduced from the current flows
coming off-site, and there's no impact on those overall
flows.
Deep Creek itself is quite different to Karaaf Wetlands
in that there's no downstream storages or wetlands that
have that saline environment where that increase in
freshwater has the issues.
It's a very different scenario to what's happening in
Karaaf.
Probably can turn back to you, Toni.
>> TONI SINCOCK: OK.
To a couple of the other issues that were raised in
relation to the height of buildings and the placement
of disabled people into the facility.
We're not specifically putting disabled people into
this retirement village.
What we're doing is providing a lift in any of those
2-storey buildings so that, if a person was of lower
mobility, then that person could live in that
townhouse.
So there's only 11 two-storey townhouses, but they all
have lifts.
I guess the idea is that, as you move out of one of the
2-storey townhouses or as mobility might reduce, then
that option would be to move to one of the other
single-storey buildings.
In terms of affordable housing, that's sort of been
thrown out a bit tonight as well.
We're not providing public housing.
What we've got is apartments as an alternative entry
point.
So, the apartments would generally be at a lower value,
I guess, than the stand-alone buildings, but there's no
public housing, as such.
But there was discussion with some of the housing
agencies as to whether or not they could purchase units
and accommodate people in that genuine sort of
affordable housing, but that doesn't work in terms of
them owning the land within the retirement --
Retirement Villages Act.
Just in terms of the need for this - people in the Surf
Coast don't necessarily want to move to Geelong.
There is a clear need for additional accommodation for
aged people.
We provided a report prepared by Macroplan that there's
an undersupply of 340 dwellings by 2036.
This is based on 2016 census data.
As we know, the population has grown. The desire to
move to the Surf Coast has grown since 2016.
So 340 dwellings extra required by 2036 for aged.
By 2026 - three years' time - 100 retirement dwellings
are required.
I think I'm already out of time. So, thank you.
>> LIZ PATTISON: Thank you so much, Toni and Leigh, for
your presentation and discussing some of the items
raised through the other presentations.
We've got a couple of questions.
Councillor Hodge?
>> ROSE HODGE: Thank you very much, Toni.
I think I had about 30 questions and I think you
answered about 13 of them in your presentation. The
only other ones I've got is - your aged care facility,
which you're doing.
Have you actually got, like when we look at Kithbrooke
and when we look at Star of the Sea, they actually have
not hospice but something like that. Is there anything
like that in your design?
>> TONI SINCOCK: No, there's not.
>> ROSE HODGE: The other thing I wanted to ask was - a
10-year build - is that on the books?
Or did you hope to sort of do that earlier than that?
>> TONI SINCOCK: I think the hope would be to build
earlier than that.
I mean, it is also demand-led.
And it can't be - it's a big facility, it can't be
provided all at once - but certainly I think I can say
from my client's perspective, he's not wanting to drag
it out for 10 or 15 years.
>> ROSE HODGE: Would you - I know with Kithbrooke, a
lot of the infrastructure went in later than some of
the housing - would you ensure that the infrastructure,
like the clubhouse and that community, was done before
townhouses were built?
>> TONI SINCOCK: I think Stage 1 is the northern end of
the property, the single-storey apartments. The
clubhouse, I think, falls within - I'll just clarify -
Stage 2, yeah.
>> ROSE HODGE: How many years is it between Stage 1 and
Stage 2, just roughly?
>> TONI SINCOCK: They much pretty much at the same time
- there'll be a slight delay into Stage 2, but we're
not talking years.
>> ROSE HODGE: OK.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Ta.
>> TONI SINCOCK: Thank you.
>> LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Councillor Allen?
>> GARY ALLEN: Thank you for your presentation.
Sorry, I missed the percentage of units that are
double-storey.
>> TONI SINCOCK: There's 11 townhouses that are
2-storey.
>> GARY ALLEN: 11.
OK, thank you.
>> LIZ PATTISON: Council er Bodsworth?
>> MIKE BODSWORTH: Thank you.
Two questions.
One is around trees.
We mentioned the removal of some trees.
I'm wondering if you're able to describe where trees
would be retained, where you've got in mind to retain
trees for existing trees for screening and for amenity.
The second question is whether you can outline what
kind of contribution you're thinking of making to help
residents access surrounding services without having to
use cars?
Like pathways for bikes and mobility scooters and
walking?
Thanks.
>> TONI SINCOCK: Just in terms of the trees - the
vegetation along the west side of the property, the
mature cypress - we're looking to retain those.
In the long-term management plan, there'll be a need to
gradually replace those as they die.
I think we remove 80 trees in total, and there's
planting of 127 medium and large trees, and then
smaller trees and shrubs and so on along with that.
There was, I think, a desire within some of the
submissions, to certainly look at keeping more of the
cypress trees around the entry of the site and across
the front of the site.
We deliberately didn't do that, only because the Surf
Coast Planning Scheme generally encourages us to
replace exotic and weed species with natives.
That's the path we've gone down - we're open to having
discussion around those if there is a desire to retain
more.
Sorry, what was the second part of that question?
>> MIKE BODSWORTH: What kind of contribution are you
thinking of making to pathways to allow residents to
access nearby facilities and services without having to
rely on cars?
>> TONI SINCOCK: There hasn't been a discussion around
a financial contribution to pathways.
That hasn't actually been raised with us at all.
There is a plan to have a bus that will move people
from the site to shops and other services and so on.
>> MIKE BODSWORTH: And what kind of pathways on-site,
then, Toni?
>> TONI SINCOCK: Pathways on-site?
>> MIKE BODSWORTH: Would you just be using the road
network for the dual purpose?
>> LEIGH PROSSER: There's a combination of the road
network, which obviously is very localised streets, and
there's also the independent path network that
traverses through the site as well.
>> MIKE BODSWORTH: Thank you.
>> LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
Correct me if I was wrong - Councillor Stapleton next?
>> LIBBY STAPLETON: Thank you.
Thanks, Leigh and Toni. A really quick question, Toni,
around the number of storeys.
I'm pretty sure that the clubhouse is a 3-storey
building. I think early in your presentation - I'm sure
it was just an error - I think you said at no point
there is no 3-storey buildings in the development.
I just wanted to clarify.
>> TONI SINCOCK: No, no, sorry.
The eastern wing of the community building is
absolutely 3-storey.
All the other townhouses and so on and the apartments
down in the south-east corner are at no point more than
2-storey.
>> LIBBY STAPLETON: Great.
Thank you for clarifying that.
>> LIZ PATTISON: Councillor?
>> Thank you very much.
I was wondering about your comment about site coverage.
I think you said there was less site coverage than in a
normal residential development?
I mean, the visual sort of model that was put up in a
previous presentation looked to be very high-density.
So I just wondered - I mean, is that something that we
can get clarified?
>> TONI SINCOCK: Within the plan, we have got some maps
that have building site coverage, landscape areas,
garden area, et cetera.
And those calculations have come directly from the
architect.
So they're incredibly accurate.
We're really comfortable that they're correct.
There is a lot of landscaping within the site. And
there are some fairly substantial boundary setbacks.
So, comparing it to a residential context, it's
certainly at a much lower density than a normal
residential development.
>> HEATHER WELLINGTON: In a non-residential burden or
residential zoning development?
>> TONI SINCOCK: From a standard residential
development.
It's been compared to typical residential subdivision.
>> HEATHER WELLINGTON: OK.
Thank you.
>> LIZ PATTISON: Thank you for your presentation, Toni
and Leigh.
We appreciate you going through in detail the concerns
that were raised and talking about the stormwater for
the site.
That finishes the presentations for this section.
We have no more submissions tonight on the planning
aspect.
We have a recommendation before us that was put forward
in the agenda.
Can I have a mover of the motion, please?
Councillor Allen.
Is that as per the recommendation?
>> GARY ALLEN: As per the recommendation.
>> LIZ PATTISON: Great.
And Councillor Gazzard, you're the seconder for that?
Yes?
So, I'm just wondering - I might read out that
recommendation.
The recommendation is that council receives the notes
of submission relating to the planning -- to the
Planning Permit Application 21/0333 for the use and
development of a retirement village, removal of native
vegetation, and removing of a reservation from the land
under Section 24A of the Subdivision Act, and considers
the submissions in report regarding Planning Permit
Application 21/0333 at a future council meeting.
So I'll now put that motion to the vote.
All those in favour?
Thank you. The motion is carried.
We now move on to the proposed continuance and sale of
Cypress Lane Torquay and the proportion of Reserve No.
3.
73 submissions were received for this item.
Eight submitters, including the applicant, have
registered to speak tonight.
We will ask Karan Dawson to present on this report.
Can we have Karan Dawson, please?
Hi, Karan. If you could turn your mute watch and your
video on, that -- mute off and your video on, that
would be wonderful.
>> KARAN DAWSON: There we go.
Are we right?
>> LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
I'll pass it over to you now.
>> KARAN DAWSON: Thank you.
This will be a little bit convoluted, because I'm sure
I got carried away and mentioned some of this before.
But context of the land as it was gifted to council by
body corporate, as we've already discussed - the
particular land is very important to the local
community.
It is also very important for the wildlife that live
there, and there are some endangered species down
there.
The council has promoted itself as green-credentialled
and caring for the environment, which we applaud, and
so our concerns are, for me, the remnant native
vegetation is home to a family of kookaburras and the
echidnas that live along the land into the creek, plus
many other species, are nocturnal and come out at
night.
Before deciding to sell off the land, it would be
important to involve Deakin University's environmental
researchers do to do an environmental impact study,
including day and night observations, to quantify the
inhabitants of that ecosystem.
We don't really have any hard data about the nocturnal
species, but there's certainly a lot in council
information and in the local wildlife people about
daytime stuff.
The community information meeting that hosted by the
developers at Kithbrooke - I was present, Mr Abbot was
asked did he approach council officers to buy the land
in question or did a council officer approach him to
say they would sell it to him?
His response to the question was, "No, it went to
public tender."
My major concern about that is that someone is fibbing.
There's definitely not a truth in that statement.
If council had put it to public tender, surely we would
have known. And you'd have already made a decision
about this.
So I query the integrity of this applicant.
If he can prove that it went to public tender, then
I'll take it back.
This is a vital part of the biolink, this land. And the
pollution that would end up down the creek and into the
ocean is just horrendous to think that we would have -
imagine down at the beach at Fishermans Beach and
Whites Beach the potential for algae blooms the
potential for run-off from this site.
It is just such a special place - you cannot seriously
consider selling it to this developer. And he also
stated at that meeting that he doesn't require this
land to proceed with his development - he would just
change his plans If he can say that then obviously he
doesn't need to have the land and council doesn't need
to sell it and we don't need to lose the amanty of
accessing Deep Creek through Cypress Lane.
Thank you for listening.
>> LIZ PATTISON: Amazing perspective.
Questions for Karan?
No.
Thank you.
We will now move onto, we will talk with John Foss.
Can he please be admitted?
>> JOHN FOSS: Bang, bang.
Good evening, councillors.
Thank you.
Once again, thank you for being there.
I know what it's like to sit there and hear lots and
lots of submissions.
So you have my sympathies.
You doa wonderful job.
This particular development will be a disaster for the
local environment.
There's no doubt the removal of trees is entirely
inappropriate.
As I said in my previous discussion, the way I see it,
rather than building a rather large overscale
development on site, it would be great if council could
retain the open space areas.
There deed, replant it out.
We're seeing sig neph knt loss of biodiversity and
there's been multiple reports come outorve the years.
I have referenced those reports in my submission.
The Australian State of the Environment Report, from
2016 stated that populate with population dnsty comes
environmental pressures and the danger of loving our
coast to death.
By continuing to add developments of this size and
scale, it is putting enormous pressures on the
environment, taking away habitat, reducing
biodiversity.
It will-a significant impact on Deep Creek.
We have already seen the problems with the Karaaf
Wetlands.
If you were to look at the mouth of Deep Creek, even
what we're seeing is significant scouring of the
entrance to Deep Creek.
It is underscouring the cliff face there heading
towards the esplanade.
If you were to multiply and increase the amount of
run-off, and we all know with climate change, it's not
just a case of it rains more, but it rains more
heavily.
We'll see significant rain events down the track.
Notmany storm water systems can cope.
We will see sig -- significant impacts and scouring and
impacts at the mouth of Deep Creek and along towards
Whites Beach.
Building such a large facility and I take onboard what
they say, but this is going to really increase the
amount of run-off.
And the velocity of the run-off.
It is very steep down towards theback of the site and
the treatments that have been discussed are not
appropriate.
So it will impact Deep Creek.
Like I said, the opportunity I see is I think the
developers should show some goodwill to the people of
Torquay, withdraw their submission and look for
opportunity further afield.
And allow this area to be maintained as open space.
And indeed allow for the people of Torquay to have the
opportunity to go down there, revegetate it out and
really create a significant positive natural
environment which the Surf Coast can be proud of.
We can't keep building like this on the coast.
We can't.
If the Surf Coast shire is to maintain itsivalues and
green principles, it has to knock back this
development.
It will have significant impacts on the environment.
The construction of this development will develop
significant carbon emissions.
It will be car relint, which will create more pollution
from vehicles.
I think if urgetting to be fair dinkum about what the
Surf Coast stands for, you have to knock back both the
sale of the land and also knock back this development.
That will do.
>> LIZ PATTISON: Appreciate you presenting again to us.
Do any councillors have a question for John?
No, thank you for your time.
>> JOHN FOSS: Thank you.
We will now talk with Mae Forse, I.
Can you please come into the session?
Hi, if you could take yourself off mute and geon video.
That would be great if you're comfortable.
>> MAE FORSEY: OK.
Good evening, councillors.
I would like to object to the sale and the sale of a
portion of reserve number 3 for the proposed
development to continue.
I'm a 10-year-old resident and care deeply about the
surrounding wildlife which is often disregarded because
it is seen every day.
But if there are, even if there are many trees and
animals on earth, every tree cut down or potential
habitat removed contributes to deforestation, global
warming and animal distinction.
Part of this land was gifted from mygroundparents to
enjoy access to the creek.
Cypress Lane, selling it, means you must cut down many
of the cypress trees.
It contributes to deforestation and other concerning
environmental matters.
Damaging the environment, even the smallest of things,
affects native animals.
Not just the ones in the cypress trees, it affectsmany
other habitats around the area buzz of noise pollution,
cutting down trees and altering the natural ground
level.
The surrounding environment is the perfect home formany
marsupials such as sugar gliders and possums.
They need all the safe habitats they can get because of
the bushfires in 2019 and 2020 that's really affected
the species.
Many birds live in surrounding trees, including cypress
trees that must be cut down for the proposed
development to continue.
Growing up beside Cypress Lane I would often see many
birds such as parrots, cockatoos and kookaburras flying
and nesting.many other animals will be affected if this
development is to continue, as well as plants due to
the putential pollution of Deep Creek.
The weather event knen as El Nino is coming soon and it
affects animals and ecosystems as well.
This imaginer event is worse than ever because of
global warming and climate change.
I understand the plans for this development were made
with good intent but as I previously mentioned the
environment is taken for granted and it needs to be
handled with care.
Consider the large picture of how this affect what
could be the ownply planet to ever exist to have trees
I dont see why public land should be a part of this
development and why the bufl cypress trees and
surrounding environment should be damaged for this
project's continuation.
Thank you.
That's it.
>> LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
I really appreciate your presentation and talking to us
around your krns around the environmental impacts of
the development and the cypress trees.
Do knecouncillors have a question for Mae?
Councillor Bodsworth?
>> MIKE BODSWORTH: Not really a question but I want to
thank you and grit to hear from a 10-year-old on these
issues and you raised really important issues.
Clear points.
I don't have any questions about them.
Thank you.
>> LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
We really appreciate you coming along and obviously put
a lot of work into your submission.
It was varclear and some really good points.
Thank you.
Can we please have Sue O'Shannessy?
Sue, diddia want to do combined again?
>> SUE O'SHANNASSY: I have two separate ones.
We will see how we go.
I'd like to start with how good is Mae?
A future councillor perhaps.
OK.
I'll start with the GTA. We object to the sale of this
land for the reason outlined in our submission.
And I don't intend to repeat it.
We're still of the opinion that there is an poorns of a
predetermined outcome despite the many assurances from
council that there's been no commitment made to the
developer.
The in principle support was voted on at the February
22 meeting.
The justification was given to give the developer
confidence to move forward with their planning
application.
But there is no such consideration given to community.
The vote at that meeting was 5-4 which is an indication
not all councillors were convinced that this was the
correct way forward.
To avoid the perception of a predetermined outcome,
community consultation should have proceeded any in
principle support.
Council could have asked for community input on the
potential sale prior to declaring their intention to
sell.
This could have been done in a very short time frame of
four weeks.
And informed councillors of the concern from residents.
The opportunity for providing affordable housing if
this development proceeds has been a constant call from
the start of the process.
Provided not appearing in any motion or in principle
support, or the current motion to sell.
If councillors expect the sale of land that will
facilitate the development of the retirement village
will provide affordable housing, then they should
provide evidence and show how this will be achieved.
The high cost of entry into existing villages in
Torquay and surrounds, together with the increasing
building costs is unlikely that the developer will be
willing to provide many, if any, affordable homes.
The Surf Coast Shire Housing Strategy includes social
housing, policy, affordability and accommodation,
affordable accommodation action plan.
What analysis in these documents shows the decrease in
rental accommodation is partly due to the rising
properties listed on Airbnb.
Is this an area council can have influence over?
If the land is sold the vision of Joe and Pat Briody
will be destroyed.
Council is considering selling land gifted to them by
the residents for the benefit of a private company.
Council hasn't adequately explained the implications of
173 agrement to control conditions of sale.
What happens once the land is transferred to the
developer and they seek changes to the development at
VCAT?
We would really like to know how that's going to be
handled.
Council's planning scheme and council plan makes much
of the need to facilitate community and recreation
facilities, including public open space in a timely
matter.
To enable healthy lifestyles.
The land sale will facilitate the loss of open space
and greatly increase the number of residents that will
reside in the area, creating a larger deficit of public
open space.
The community and nature need more open space, not
less.
What will be the end result if councillors vote to sell
the land to the developer?
The developer will be able to proceed with their plans.
The full extent which will not be known by the
community until council decides on the planning
application.
The community will lose access to Cypress Lane and the
piece of public open space which will most likely be
required which was most likely required by council as
part of the original subdivision.
That will no longer exist.
The expectations of those who decide the subdivision
and those who currently live there will be destroyed by
a high dnsty development which under normal
circumstances will not be subject, would be subject to
an application for rezoning.
The residents of the south of Deep Creek will be
subjected to exitancive light pollution and unwelcome
views.
The wildlife corridor that exists will be affected.
The health of Deep Creek will be uncern.
The perceptions and the planning application will
persist.
There may be no affordable housing provided as
suggested by council officers and councillors.
Nor will it address the housing crisis in the shire.
>> LIZ PATTISON: Do you want me to put the nx five
minutes on or how will you want to structure it?
>> SUE O'SHANNASSY: I'll keep rolling on.
>> LIZ PATTISON: We'll reset the timer?
>> SUE O'SHANNASSY: I can't see the timer.
>> LIZ PATTISON: It's in the top corner of your screen.
>> SUE O'SHANNASSY: I'm using my iPad.
I can't see it.
A bit of a warning perhaps.
>> LIZ PATTISON: I'll give you a one-minute warning.
I'll lettia know when you have a minute left.
>> SUE O'SHANNASSY: I'll continue on.
What will be the end result of council's vote not to
sell the land to the developer?
The dwper will have to rethink his plans to include
continued access to Cypress Lane and the reserve.
The health of Deep Creek will be maintained.
The nearby residents' lives wont be impacted.
The wildlife will not have they're habitat impacted,
access to affordable housing will not be impacted, the
perception of a predetermined outcome for the sale of
the land and the planning application will be negated.
So I'll just continue on.
With the GTA submission.
Who also object to the sale of this land for the
reasons outlined in the submission.
We're still of the opinion that there is an poorns of
predetermined outcome which I'll move on a little bit
with because I've already discussed some of it.
To avoid a perception of a predetermined outcome,
community consultation should have proceeded any in
principle support.
Council could have asked for community input on a
potential sale.
The opportunity for providing affordable housing in
this development proceed if this housing development
proceeds has been a constant call from the start of the
process.
If council is expected the sale of the land that will
facilitate the development of a retirement village is
going to provide affordable housing, then we should
have had evidence of that.
It's been really misleading I think that this
development might provide affordable housing.
It really is, it's not evident how that would happen.
Not at all.
Our submission shows the high cost of entry into
existing retirement villages in Torquay and surround,
together with the increasing building costs, is
unlikely the developer will be willing to provide many,
if any, affordable homes.
What analysis has there been done by the Surf Coast
Shire?
You do have a social housing policy and an affordable
accommodation action plan.
And the analysis by those documents show the increase
in Airbnbs are what are increasingly causing affordable
housing to decrease.
Or affordable rentals in any case.
If the land is sold, the division of Joe and Pat Briody
will be destroyed.
Those who bought into the vision feel betrayed.
The council can now consider land that was gifted to
them for the benefits of a private company.
For their profits.
Council hasn't adequately explained the implications of
173 agreement which they suggest can control the
conditions.
What happens once the land is transferred to the
developer?
And they seek changes to the development of VCAT?
This is not adequately been explained to the community.
Council planning scheme and the council plan makes much
need to facilitate community and recreation facilities
including public open space to enable healthy
lifestyles.
The land sale will facilitate a loss of public open
space.
>> LIZ PATTISON: You've got one minute.
>> SUE O'SHANNASSY: I'd like to I think Toni said it
doesn't override the planning scheme.
That's not my understanding.
Perhaps councillors need to have a bit of a look at
that.
Yeah.
What will be the end result?
I think we have already covered that.
I just urge councillors to have a really good look at
the statement of planning policy, and listen to people
like young Mae who are krned about the environment.
This development is, if the land is sold, and you can't
talk about one without talking about the other.
For what purpose is this land to be sold?
You really need to take a step back and look at what
will be the final result.
It's not going to provide housing affordable housing as
suggested.
>> LIZ PATTISON: We really appreciate your submission
and I'm letting you know your time sup.
Thank you for that.
And council Gazzard, a question for Sue?
>> KATE GAZZARD: Thank you for both your submissions.
Could you remind us how many people own the 3228
Resident Association and how many people you're
representing tonight?
>> SUE O'SHANNASSY: That's a really hard question and
I'm happy to take it on notice and provide you with
that information.
I don't think that's at all important.
We're here to support the people who live in that area.
We have been to a couple of rallies where residents
from the south of Deep Creek who work, there was a lot
of those people there, because they're going to be
impacted just as much as the neighbours to the west.
We don't just remember our members.
We get lots of requests to help people out who aren't
members.
So it's not really relevant.
We're here to actually support those residents who are
going to be impacted by this.
But I'm happy to provide you with that information,
Kate, if you would like it.
We've had that question before.
Happy to supply it.
Because I'm representing both the Residents Association
and the GTA today.
Would you like me to email you that information?
>> LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
I'm sure that would be good.
Appreciate that.
And the wider audience that you reflect.
Thank you, Sue.
Do we have other questions for Sue?
No.
Thanks, Sue, for your time and I appreciate you coming
on twice and speaking to us tonight.
We'll now move onto Peter Donelly.
Hi, Peter, if you could take yourself off mute and turn
on your video, that would be great.
>> PETER DONELLY: Sorry, not too good with the
technology.
I'll only take a couple of minutes on this one.
I fully support the previous speakers, especially John
Foss.
He is spot on about protecting the environment here and
council and the community.
We're all in one.
It's the Surf Coast, it's a place we really have to
protect.
Not only for the local residents but all the thousands
of visitors, locals, communities.
And I also want to say about I spend a bit of time and
I was actually scanning through some of my files there
and there were 3,000 submissions and it was 93% to 95%
supported the protection of Sfring Creek.
That was based all on environmental feelings and I
think the council just had to say that was only two
years ago.
So you can count on problem 93% to 95% of the
community, saying the environment of the Surf Coast,
the landscapes and creeks and waterways is something we
all must be first in protecting.
And I think the council needs to be representative of
the community and there's not much more to say.
It's just basic logic that you understand the community
sentiment about the environment and the protection of
these lands and the Surf Coast for not just for the
local community, but for all the visitors that we have
nearby.
And that's probably all I need to say on that.
Thank you.
>> LIZ PATTISON: Thank you, Peter.
Have you a question for Peter?
>> ROSE HODGE: Can I thank you for doing things
differently?
Your song.
I know you sang to me as well.
Thank you.
>> PETER DONELLY: If the council is to reject it, I
will rewrite the words for you and do a new song.
That's a bit of an encouragement.
Thank you.
>> LIZ PATTISON: Appreciate that.
Thank you.
We will get Ron Lowe to join ursession now, please.
I'll pass it over to you now.
>> RON LOWE: I look out my front window and that's what
we see every waking moment of the day when we're up
eating our breakfast, when we're having our dinner, the
Blackwattle Mews is what we look at and the wildlife
and the trees, we see all that.
We walk up there every day, maybe not every day, but we
walk up there most days.
To say there's other access to the, we like walking up
there.
Number one, up the street, when you walk up Cypress
Lane, there's the parrots and so much bird life that
lives up that area.
And you walk down along the Blackwattle Mews area and
walk past the tree plantation there and the amount of
bird life in there is amazing.
It is a habit, they are habitat trees.
And they support habitat and bird leaf like you
wouldn't believe.
So when we sit there we always have binoculars looking
for birds and all the wildlife stuff that way.
And the amount of people that we see walking up there,
to the council to say that it's no longer required, I
would dispute that highly.
Because thoors people who drive there to bring their
dogs there for walks and people who walk through there
every day and walk their dogs.
And it's highly used and still, it is certainly not, no
longer required.
That's for sure.
To sell it off for this development would be a
travesty.
I haven't got much I want to say because it's all been
said.
We need to protect our environment and open spaces.
There's not much else I can tell you.
That's about it.
Alright.
Thank you very much.
>> LIZ PATTISON: A question for Ron.
Councillor Hodge?
>> ROSE HODGE: Thank you for that.
Can I thank you for your submission with the drawings
on it and whatever.
I thought that was really good of your view.
But you must realise whether it's this one, there will
be developments on that land somewhere along the line.
>> RON LOWE: We never thought that was going to be a
development there.
We have always thought when we bought it, low dnsty
residential area and there would be 10 houses up there
and maybe a couple of sheds or whatever.
That we expected.
But from what our expectations are, and you think
there'scernty in a planning process, it all gets pulled
out from under your feet.
And it doesn't seem fair that we all bis our life
around -- base our life around what we think the rules
and the laws of the land and just to have it all pulled
away from you like that.
I'm not against development.
Without development I wouldn't be here because as a
tradie, that's what we work on.
But when it's unsustainable development like this, it
is just crazy.
As Mark said, you could have 20 to 25 blocks of land
and be far more suitable what's proposed at the moment.
I do thank you for that question.
Appreciate that.
Thank you.
>> ROSE HODGE: Thank you.
>> LIZ PATTISON: Thank you for your time presenting to
us.
If you could take yourself off mute, Peter Brighton.
>> PETER BRIGHTON: I have changed the background.
That's an orcered from the back paddock.
I have made two submissions.
And I guess the mayor opened up tonight with an
acknowledgment to country and thanking the Indigenous
population for being custodians of this area.
And now we're discussing something which as far as I'm
concerned is going to throw that, throw mud in the face
of that particular acknowledgment.
We're going to sell a piece of land or parts of a piece
of land to enable a developer to build high density,
very high density dwellings.
Despite what I think it was, it was Toni who was saying
this development was really only low density and wasn't
as high density as normal domestic density.
I didn't understand her argument there and I still
don't understand the argument.
When Nick spoke about the water treatment, of which
there appears to be no water treatment facilities at
all on site, they're just utilising existing
stormwater, the very nature of this site with massive
amounts of impermeable area is it will create massive
amounts of additional stormwater which is only going to
end up in Deep Creek.
You've only got to have a look at Deep Creek to see
it's deep because of the amount of water there.
It's been eroded over time.
There's a fairly substantial amount of erosion all the
way down in variousperts as it goes around bends and
corners.
If woe start adding massive amounts of water to it from
the Briody Drive, then this one, the North Torquay one
on Coombes Road and the Karaaf water going in there,
this will be a disaster that not you folks, because you
won't be around, but the councillors in the future will
have one hell of a battle trying to sort out.
In the same way you've got battles now with decisions
and activities that have taken place over the last 10
years in Torquay.
And the other thing that really, I read the minutes of
the February meeting, and I was particularly drawn to
the valuations of this land and whoever valued this
land was not cognizant of the current landivalues and
wasn't the valuer that valued my property in Jan Juc.
It's valued at nearly $600,000.
And you want to say that you've got 1,790 square metres
of land that you will flog off for $4,000.
That's just crazy.
$for 400,000.
That's just crazy.
Tell them they're dreaming.
I would give you $400,000 for it now.
Try and tell that to little young couple up in North
Torquay trying to scrape together some money to buy a
block of land, a small bluc of land, when told by
somebody that the local council is flogging off 1,700
square metres of land to a local developer for
$380,000.
That's just not right.
It can't be right.
There's nothing immoral, nothing illegal, nothing
improper about council and ratepayers sharing in the
windfall profits of these developers.
By you selling this land to this developer for what is
essentially a pittance, you were going to give this
land developer a windfall profit of millions and
millions of dollars.
There is nothing immoral, illegal, improper about
council and ratepayers sharing in the windfall profits.
Besides, I can guarantee the developer will pay a lot
more than those valuations that I saw in February.
Besides, you folks have a pool to pay for.
You're going to need some money.
Given the land prices, I reckon $6 million would be
realistic.
If you were to base the prices on my little 320 square
metre block in Torquay, I reckon north of $10 million
would be even a better price.
So I reckon be fair, be reasonable, knock it back and I
urge you to reconsider this sale.
Cheers.
>> LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
>> PETER BRIGHTON: Any questions?
>> LIZ PATTISON: We appreciate the enthusiasm.
>> PETER BRIGHTON: We need to let it develop the way
the Briody planned to let it develop and into large 10
properties.
>> LIZ PATTISON: A question fr you.
>> What's the name of the orcered in your -- orchid.
>> PETER BRIGHTON: I will tell you an email with the
name.
>> LIZ PATTISON: We have an apology from Joe and
Mary-Anne.
They went be presenting.
And Grant Norris is not online and it appears he went
be available to present.
We now move on to John Cicero.
Can you please come online?
Hi, John, if you could take yourself off mute and put
on your video, that would be great?
>> JOHN CICERO: Thank you.
Thank you for the opportunity to address you this
evening.
My name is John Cicero.
I'm here on behalf of Coombes Road Propriety Limited
which is the registered propriety of the 10 lots that
can beaccessed off Cypress Lane.
The submissions council has received, both in writing
and tonight, opposing the proposed discontinuance and
sale are based we say largely on irrelevant
considerations.
That is this council cannot lawfully make a decision on
whether or not to discontinue either orboth sides,
having regard to the planning merits of the retirement
village application.
No doubt as the council will have been advised the two
matters are separate and distinct with a separate and
distint considerations applying to each.
Let me test it this way.
Council's decision on whether or not to discontinue and
sell either of both Cypress Lane and the Reserve Bank
does not fetter -- reserve does not fetter or refuse
the application of the retirement village.
The community has had the opportunity to make comment
on the retirement village and in thevent council were
to issue a notice of decision to grant a permit, then
that decision of course can be appealed to VCAT. If
council resolves not to discontinue, either Cypress
Lane or the reserve, then my client would need to amend
its current application to excise the land that
comprises Cypress Lane and the reserve.
This it can do.
It has a contingency plan.
And therefore if the council were to resolve, that
would not be an impediment to my clint proceeding with
its current application.
Albeit amended to exclude the land in Cypress Lane and
reserve and would replain a public road and the reserve
would retain that status.
What we say the key issue for the council in relation
to the issue of discontinuiance, is whether or both of
Cypress Lane and the reserve is required for
pedestrian, vehicle or other public use.
Or is able to serve a purpose to advance a current or
future strategic outcome for this neighbourhood.
What we say is if the clear answer is no.
It provides no vehicle or pedestrian access beyond its
southern abuttal with lots 38A, 41A and 41B on the
relevant pln of subdivision.
It doesn't xnd to Deep Creek for example.
It is only a road and a reserve that serves the lots on
that pln of subdivision.
That's not to say that other people might not use
either the road or the reserve.
After all, it is still a public road.
And the reserve is still freely accessible.
But, if you look at the way that that road and the
reserve was structured, it clearly was structured to
serve the lots on that subdivision.
And in essence this reflects its origin as common
property, a common property road and reserve as part of
a cluster subdivision now for those of us who are old
enough to remember an act called the cluster
subdivision back in the 1970s.
The history would appear to show in the 1990s the then
body corporate agreed unanimously in December of 1993
to transfer the common property to the then city of
Greater Geelong which had given commitments to have the
land vested in the council early in October 1993.
Clearly the council's amalgamation process stalled the
discussions and they were reactivated with the Surf
Coast Shire in the early 2000s.
Culminatingane resubdivision of the land.
The free hold in both Cypress Lane and the reserve and
the free hold of Deep Creek, and reserving or
transferring to the council that Deep Creek Reserve in
particular as an asset for the community.
But to be recognised that the reserve was not vested as
public open space but only as a pedestrian access
arrangement for Cypress Lane residents to Deep Creek.
Not withstanding its status, as a public road and
public reserve, we say it has not served any public
purpose since some 16 years ago.
It's not to say that there hasn't been some use by the
public over that time of either Cypress Lane or the
reserve.
But it's pretty clear when you look at the history of
it and look at the context that it has a very limited
if any role to serve as a public access way.
What is apearnt is the reserve in question connects
Cypress Lane to Deep Creek via a dug leg which was
created to provide access access to the creek.
That's its origin.
That's why the dog led exists to create we say the
ability of residents of Cypress Plane to access Deep
Creek because Cypress Lane does not connect as a road
to Deep Creek.
All other residents were similarly provided access via
other reserves to Deep Creek at the end of their
respective lanes.
Public access beyond the subdivision is retained to
Deep Creek via the pedestrian path on the west side of
Torquay Road and it provides access to the creek from
members of the public who are arriving from northern
Torquay along the Torquay Road.
There is no change to access for these members of the
public.
For residents within the subdivision north of Coombes
Road, they maintain access over Coombes Road and
through to the creek.
Residents arriving from further west of, remain access
via Piper Lane or GT Lane.
In the event of the discontinuiance of the road, all
residents beyond Cypress Lane maintain easy access to
and from the creek.
This is not going to deny those residents the access
they currently enjoy through these other reserves and
roads.
Put simply woe say there is no benefit to the public to
maintain Cypress Lane as a public road and to maintain
the reserve to access to the creek.
It is a public access that is not yielding any benefit
to the public.
On the contrary, the sale of these assets wouldgen rit
a significant income to the council.
I'm instructed in excess of $2 million.
At the end of the day the council has a process it will
follow as part of its proper governance for the sale of
this asset.
My client is the logical potential Baier but not the
only buyer -- buyer but not the only buyer putentially
of the road and the reserve.
And it will be sold enaccordance with council's good
governance and practice at a market rate.
I'm not sure where you got your numbers from, Peter,
but that's not cloorly my instructions and obviously
the council will be required to follow due process and
its own governance model when it comes to disposing of
a public asset such as the Cypress Lane and the
reserve.
So, we say that money that can be, that would be
obtained from the sale of these public assets could be
put towards improvement in the local area.
If the council so wants.
To the public realm that is indeed needed, valued and
used.
That's where the money should go.
The clear net community benefit favours the
discontinuiance and disposition of both Cypress Lane
and the reserve.
Their future use, if privately owned, whether by my
client or someone else, can be tested through another
process and submitted council will take into account
any relevant consideration if it were to consider the
planning merits of the retirement village application
of my client in deciding whether or not it will
continue Cyprus Len or remove the dedication from the
reserve.
Thank you for the opportunity to address you and to
listen to our submission.
>> LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
I appreciate you getting through the important points.
Do we have a question?
>> MIKE BODSWORTH: Thank you.
As we heard earlier on, it's foreseen that a vehicle
gate would be closed in the evening at the site.
If the development goes ahid.
But the pedestrian gateway would be left open to
provide pedestrian access through the site.
Are you aware of any discussion or potential to make
that a more formal arrangement for maintaining ongoing
pedestrian permiaability of the site given from what
we've heard so far, leaving a gate open is not a lot to
geon I'd say for pedestrian access?
>> I haven't been involved in the planning application
process but I can speak in relation to my experience
with these areas where land is retained in private
ownership.
But there's an arrangement for part of the land to be
publicly accessible at all times or at times that are
agred to with the council.
So there are a number of mechanisms that are available,
that can ensure that whatever is agreed, whether it is
24 hours orwhether restricted hours or whether the
arrangement is, can be put into place via an
appropriate condition and/or an agreement.
Not unusual.
>> MIKE BODSWORTH: You vant been involved in any
discussion with that?
>> No.
But I understand my client, and there have been some
discussion with council officers and no doubt those
discussions can be brought toan agreed position on the
way that public access would be managed through the
site.
>> MIKE BODSWORTH: Thank you, John.
>> LIZ PATTISON: Do we have any other questions for
John from councillors?
No.
Thank you, John, for your time presenting on behalf of
the applicant.
I have just had a message, Karan Briody aparntly has
her hand up.
I can't see you.
We didn't have you listed down as speaking.
Did you have a a question or were you perhaps, if you
let Karen enter.
Can you hear me?
>> Hello.
>> LIZ PATTISON: Hi.
>> My name is Karen Briody.
Darren was getting to speak on my behalf.
I'd like to drop three minutes on to you if I could.
>> LIZ PATTISON: That's fine.
>> Have you got, can you see me?
>> LIZ PATTISON: No.
If you could turn on your video that would be great.
>> I don't know where it is.
It's gone.
>> LIZ PATTISON: If you just speak, that's fine.
We can all hear you cloorly.
Now you have got yourself on mute.
>> Hi.
How are you going?
I'm actually in Perth in Western Australia. So I'm a
bit further away than all you guys.
Just a bit of a context.
Admittedly, I left Torquay in the late '70s.
To work, for my career and I've travelled Australia and
been back and forwards a lot and with Mum and Dad being
there for many years up until Dad passed away in 2012
and Mum in 2018.
We were right up there in recent times.
Just a bit of context seeing most of the council I
think, Ms Hodge is the only lady I'm aware of, are
fairly new.
Dad bought the land in the 1950s.
He missed out on three soldier settlement farms closer
to Ballarat but bought there.
Strangely enough, Mum had been a teacher at North
Geelong primary school and boarded prior to them
meeting.
When they did meet they married.
Raised five children.
That was my playgrund and all of us kids.
Deep Creek.
Dad was an environmental warrior and really his
commitment to the environment right through from when I
was a little kid, right through to before, just before
he died.
He would always be bringing home injured birds or
injured everything.
We had a min agry of wildlife thereat would come in.
Back in those days there wasn't WIRES.
Dad would pick them up off the road and recover them.
He was a bush vet and repair and put in plaster and
plaster of Paris broken legs of kangaroos and things
back in there day.
The sdun of the lanes was to determine a lifestyle of
homes with development to a corridor of natural flora
and fauna, allowing easy access to the creek and the
Deep Creek general.
Cypress Lane to retain the fire trail would also be
something that I would be very concerned if it wasn't.
Notmany of you there I would imagine would be well
aware of the fires back in, I think the '70s of some
sort.
Late '60s early and '70s.
It nearly took out Torquay.
And back in the '40s a significant fire that went
through Torquay.
If there was a Black Saturday and you had 300 odd
residents in that property getting out one gate to a
highway, a road and a highway, a major road and a
highway, it would be very, very distressing.
I kneas a kid we had sugar gliders, possums, echidnas.
As I said, as pets and also there was thousands of them
up and down that creek from and right down to Whites
Boch.
It's also worth noting that the grass trees down by
just at the edge of where Reserve 3 is, there was a
significant bundle of cluster of grass trees there
which were painted for and I think there might even be
a painting of that in the council chambers somewhere.
They were Heritage Listed.
Has anybody gone there and understood that?
Which also does krn me that if that was Heritage Listed
or had a Heritage Overlay on it, what is the status of
it now?
I would like to congrrchilate young Mae.
She's a legend and you would hope and pray she will be
a councillor in 20 years.
Thank you.
I just hope and pray for my dad and mum, they both
loved that environment there and the commitment that
they made with all, they used to interview the
prospective owners to make sure they were getting to
behave themselves and lock after the environment.
Dad used to gobsmack me with his environmental warrior
stuff.
I do hope and pray the Cypress Lane and the fire trail
will remain as part of us, the community.
Thank you.
>> LIZ PATTISON: Thank you.
It's great to get that history and learn about that.
Do any councillors have a question?
Thank you so much for coming on and speaking with us.
Appreciate you taking the time all there way from
Western Australia.
Councillors, there are no more speakers for the item
tonight.
We-a recommendation before us and that is that council
receives notes of submissions to the potential
continuation of sale of Cypress Lane Torquay and
reserve number 3 and considers the submissions in the
report regarding the potential discontinuation and sale
of Cypress Lane Torquay and sale of a portion of
reserve number 3 at a future council meeting.
Do I have a mover of a motion for that or another
motion?
Councillor Hodge, as per the motion?
Yep.
Seconded by councillor Bodsworth.
All those in favour?
And the motion is carried.
Well, that is the end of our business for tonight.
So I declare the meeting closed at 8:25pm.
Thank you to all the presenters and for those
listening.
Thank you very much.
Goodbye.