good evening and welcome to our special
council meeting I'm Mayor Liz Pattison
and it's a pleasure to welcome you here
tonight the purpose of this special
meeting is to consider the following two
items the application for approval of an
amendment for the development plan for
the Briody Estate West Torquay
PG20/13 and vcat appeal planning permit
21/333 amended plans for Retirement
Village in Cypress Lane Torquay this meeting
is also being live streamed so a big
welcome to those tuning in online and of
course welcome to my fellow counselor
counselors who are here in with us
tonight in the chamber and also to my
fellow councelor councelor Wellington
who's joining us online live captioning
will accompany the live streaming of
this meeting and we hope this assists
those who have hearing difficulties the
Surf Coast local government area ban the
traditional lands of the Wadawurrung people and
the Gulidjan and Gadubanud people of the Eastern
Maar nation the main Council
offices in Torquay are on Wadawurrung country the
Wudawurrung people have nurtured and protected
these lands and waterways for thousands
of generations and I'm so grateful that
we can be here today living and working
in such a beautiful part of the world
Surf Coast Shire Council is committed to
walking with traditional owners of these
lands on a journey of genuine
reconciliation I would like to
acknowledge that here in Torquay at the main
Council offices we are gathered on Wadawurrung
country and I pay my respects to Elders
past present and emerging
our agenda for tonight let's get
that underway so the process
Council meetings operate according to
our adopted governance rules which
include the following procedures during
the meeting the Mover of a motion or an
amendment may speak for a maximum of 5
minutes to open the debate and then a
further 2 minutes to make a closing
statement any other counselor including
the seconder may speak to a motion for
no more than 3 minutes I ask that
members of the gallery avoid using
mobile phones during the meeting as this
can be distracting for counselors as
well as other members of the gallery I
also note that any unauthorized
recording of the meeting is prohibited
under our governance rules however you
can access a copy of the meeting when
it's posted online after the meeting
Madam Mayor if I may just say that I
took a photo of the gallery and I forgot
that I was prohibited to do so and I
will delete that photo thanks I
apologize okay thank you I'd now like
to recite the pledge of our sign of
commitment as counselors we carry out
our responsibilities with diligence and
integrity and make fair decisions of
lasting value for the well-being of our
community and
environment apologies I don't think we
have any apologies for tonight's council
meeting declaration of conflicts of
interests if a counselor or an officer
has a conflict of interest they must
declare it now and do so again just
prior to the item being discussed the
council officer will be request to leave
the chambers during that time that
it's being considered are there any
declarations of a conflict of interest
in relation to tonight's agenda
items
no the next item is our public question
time so members of the public who wish
to ask a question to council are able to
submit their written questions in
accordance with our governance rules and
we have three community members
submitting questions so we have a total
of five questions to go through
tonight so Karen Dawson are you here read
your question would you like to come up
and sorry it's quite a long way away so
if you sit at the microphone that would
be appreciated thanks I can make that
distance I'm not old enough for a time
at I mean from us and then everyone
online can do it as well thank you
for the opportunity to speak to you and
to ask these questions of you my
questions relate to the proposed high
density Lifestyle Village at Cypress
Lane my question one
is Council should fully understand the
findings from the royal commission into
Age Care and what the federal
government's definition of Ageing in
Place really means Ageing in Place means
that as people get older they can remain
living in their own home rather than
entering residential facilities Ageing in
Place requires a degree of Independent
Living ability for the older person with
both adequate levels of mental and
physical ability but gives them control
over their living space and how they
live as well as an ongoing connection to
the community they are used to connected
to the precious memories that they have
in their homes Recent
research reveals that between 78
and 1% of all older Australians aged
over 55 depending on an age cohort
want to live in their own homes as they
age an earlier Australia wide survey of
older Australians revealed a host of
reasons why older Australians wanted to
age in place including suitability of
the dwelling proximity to family friends
shopping transport and Health Services
and because of familiarity with the
local community and neighborhood please
explain how an inappropriate high
density development on low density zone
land meets this
need that's my first question great
thank you for that given that we're
making a decision on this matter tonight
I will refer these questions through
our CEO to Mr Pike our general manager
placemaking and environment thanks
mayor and through you and thanks for the
question Karen and something that
might be helpful in response to your
second question too is just to for
for clarity I think what's important
to note tonight is that the decision
being made by Council doesn't
reconsider its position on the the
use of the land from the 22nd of August
council meeting but is considering
its position on the changes to the plans
that have been put forward since that
original decision and as I think it's
important for people to be aware that
vcat is meeting later this month to
to hear this matter and at this point
we'll ultimately make that determination
on the
application and so your back to your
question of of Ageing in Place so I
guess the question of need was
considered in the August Council report
that I just referenced and whilst ageing in
place wasn't specifically referenced
that concept can be applied to this site
excuse me but the mayor referenced it
in her address to the community at the
vote yeah but sorry the council report
the so Ageing in place as I understand
it's defined by the Victorian government
much you so about staying independent
in the familiar places where we live
those connections that you outlined to
local neighbourhoods and community
and the state government's aging well
action plan does include a range of
initiatives to support older Victorians
and that does include appropriate
housing in the right locations at the
right time and so my
consideration of your question would be
that the Retirement Village does allow
people to remain independent in housing
that suits their needs that are stages in
their life and in addition retirement
villages do add to the diversity of
housing options and and housing choice
that's available to people locally
that would be your opinion would you
like to read a second question Karen yes
I would has Council made an effort to
understand the last and most current
census figures for to and why this
development is inappropriate for to all
the retirement villages in the Surf
Coast are in to and there is a younger
demographic in Torquay National Data
indicates that the average age entry to
retirement villages is 75 and this will
be the fifth Retirement Village for Torquay
this is not needed or supported by the
data Council must know the reasons for
building this development in Cypress
Lane in a low density zone is a fury the
zoning was put in place for a reason and
this proposed high density lifestyle
village doesn't pass the pub test so
have you really taken account of the
data in the
census once again I'll pass this to our
general manager so the assessment
that was put forward to the council in
the council report in August 23 did use
the latest Census Data of ? so may I
ask who put that report forward so
that's an officer report right thank you
with respect to the and so it
did consider the latest census data and
that would be 2021 Census Data with
respect to the needs of the Torquay population
as well as the market assessment
submitted by the applicant
if you just allow Chris Park to finish
responding to your question please to
summarize the findings of that data the
assessment concluded that the Ageing
population creates an increased demand
for housing including retirement
villages and an assessment of the use
against the provisions of that low
density zone was also carried out in
that report I think it's probably
important to note though that there's
a prejudice or a bias when the
proponent of a potential
development provide you with the market
data that says this is going to be a
good thing and this is needed you know
my reading of the census doesn't
stack up to what you're reporting and he
has commercial reason presenting your
question and as we said tonight we the
decision is around the plans not whether
the the development is happening or not
that will be contested at vcat so we
have another question
from Mark Matthew so hear
Mark thank you Madame Mayor and
counselors my questions also relate
to the proposed Cypress Lane
Retirement Village and the report tabled
as part of the agenda for tonight's
meeting recommending with the officer
officer report continues to recommend
approval of the amended plans my
question one is the site on Cypress Lane
for the opposed retirement villages
within a low density residential Zone
and is also
designated minimal change within the
statement of planning policy for the Dal
the developer is proposing a development
that is a massive seven times more dense
than the smallest 2,000 met lot size
normally allowed in that zone the
proposed Retirement Village at Cypress
Lane is almost three times more dense
than the Kithbrooke Park retirement
village my question how can Surf Coast
suggest that a residential density 700%
higher than the normal LDRZ lot size can
be supported and considered a minimal
change thanks Mark I'll put that
question through to our general manager
Chris Pare thanks for you mayor and
thanks for the question mark and
apologies if I there's a little bit of
repetition from my previous response
I understand why why you would asked
the question in in very short term
the this isn't a matter that's being
Revisited or that particular point that
you raised and so I do refer back to the
the assessment that was undertaken in
the August report that hasn't been
Revisited at this point and but but
just to touch on on the points made at
that time a range of matters were
considered when assessing the impacts of
density of development including the
site coverage of buildings comparisons
with other retirement villages in the
same Zone and how the distinctive areas
and Landscapes policy envisages
development should occur in minimal
change areas and you might might recall
the assessment determined that on
balance the application was appropriate
having regard to these and other matters
and so really ultimately tonight's
review of the amended plans we'll
consider the difference in density
compared to the original version rather
than revisiting those those original
points I'm guessing then my second
question is redundant if we're only
talking about the amended plans I did
spend the time reading through the
entire report which I presed was
what was so I actually don't think
I'll bother with the second question
thank you thanks Mark thanks for your
first question we also Ron low I
would you like to raise your question no
I'll read Ron's question it's with
regards to Cypress Lan I see that
Council officers used housing
affordability in their assessment of the
amended plans for the proposed
Retirement Village my question is do
they take into account people who buy in
and never own the land beneath their
homes and pay a premi exit fee on sale
of the property up to 30% this would be
a substantial s of money if average
price is $1 million plus dollar how is
this affordable if you decided that
you're not happy living in this style of
accommodation and want to move on or
need to move to aged care so please
expain affordability of this proposal
once again Ron I'll pass your question
to our general manager Chris Pike
yeah thanks for your question for you
mayor Ron yeah look again Sor
there's going to be a level of
repetition here in that the the
questions of affordability were really
something considered and informing the
council decision made in August last
year but just for the sake of
brevity the the rationale considered
at that time was that the proposal was
thought to contribute to the quantity
and the diversity of housing stock in
toi and this improves housing choices
for people in this area and that
obviously has implications for those who
may choose to live in this particular
development but also considers the
fact that those people may vacate
properties that they might be in now
making those available for others who
may choose to move into the
area so thanks for your question Ron
thank you that we now move into the
reports that ends our public Question
Time excuse me Madam M can I move a
procedural motion please to change
the agenda so that actually Cyprus line
comes first for thank you do we have a
second for that procedural motion
councelor Sean Felder we'll now put the
motion to the vote so it's all those in
favor to move Cypress Lane to the first
item on the agenda all those in favor
and the motion is carried unanimously so
we'll hear the Cyprus Lane item first we
can see that a nber of people are here
for that so we'll we'll move that one
first so we now now move on
to which will be our first item vcat
appeal planning permit
2103 amended plans Retirement Village
Cypress Lane T the purpose of this
report is for Council to take a position
on the amended plans for the planning
permit application
2103 put forward by the developer as
part of the Victorian civil and
administrative Tri Victorian civil and
administrative tribunal appeal otherwise
known as vat much less of a tongue tie
at the AUST council meeting in 2023 a
permit was gr was approved for the
retirement village and it is now the
subject of an appeal to vat for a bit of
context the changes to the plans were
required because of council's decision
at a subsequent council meeting to
retain public ownership of Cypress Lane
and Reserve nber three tonight council
is taking a position on the amended
plans for its participation in the vcat
hearing do we have a move of a motion
councelor Allan is that as as per the
recommendation and do I have a seconder
councelor
bodsworth councelor Allan would you like
to speak to the motion thank you
mayor a key consideration in supporting
this motion is to ensure that the
council is present at Future vcat
hearings if vcat allows the amended
plans to be considered approving this
motion enables us to discuss their
suitability and also that of the
recommended
conditions it provides the council a
point of reference
to address the amended plans to
incorporate Cypress Lane as a road and
part of Reserve
3 Council as in moving this
recommendation I am in support of the
proposed changes to application
21333 that was granted at the council
meeting held on the 22nd of August
2023 the amended proposal seeks to make
some changes to the nber of living
units to the height of some buildings
setbacks Landscaping parking and
drainage
Arrangements these modifications result
from the subsequent decision of the
council not to approve the
discontinuance of Cypress Lane and the
sale of part of Reserve
3 the amended plans propose the
retention of Cypress Lane as a public
road and Reserve 3 as a
reserve the use of the land for a
retirement village remains unchanged
from the original proposed
at the August meeting last year I spoke
in support of The Proposal My Views have
not changed and also in respect to the
amended plan and I repeat them
now the state of government sorry the
state government has intervened in the T
residential land market through the dull
process by setting a Township boundary
it then becomes very difficult given
that we live in a population growth area
to also control density
I make the observation that retirement
villages typically have a denser
footprint than other residential
developments the land detailed in the
report came onto the market for private
sale and was purchased by the developer
the land has no registered
restrictions the developer first
submitted a plan per a planning permit
application for a retirement village to
the council in 2021
the site is ideally located in close
proximity that is walking distance to
services and Facilities including bus
services a supermar market Medical
Center and recreational reserves The
Proposal is in my view consistent with
current development along the western
side of the surf Coast
Highway at the time of the debate all
councilors in favor of the development
stressed that the proposal increased the
options for shy residents to downsize
and car and age in place it increased
the supply and mix of housing
options as a result of community
concerns expressed at the time the
planning department worked with the
developer to achieve many excellent
changes and to set
conditions I also said at that meeting
councilors we must be very careful not
to place these conditions in jeopardy
subsequent events have done just
that the amended plan sees changes to
the nber of living units and their
configuration into two separate
buildings three and two stories linked a
ground level via walkway comprising
independent living apartments
Administration basement car parking and
storage and communal
facilities the three story building will
have a maxim height of 11.6 m above
the natural ground l level which is an
increase from the 11 meters originally
proposed the amendment proposed has been
assessed against the surf Coast planning
scheme and in accordance with the
planning and environment act
1987 and after consultation with the
council's internal referrals appropriate
conditions have been
recommended I continue to support the
proposal in its amended form thank you
thank you councelor bodsworth would
you like to speak I'll reserve my right
to speak thanks May okay would any other
councilors like to speak councelor
ston thanks mayor hopefully it's
clear by now that tonight's decision is
not about repr Prosecuting the merits of
whether or not the Cypress Lane
Retirement Village should proceed
that decision was made by Council last
August and is now obviously the subject
of an appeal at vcap this motion is
asking Council to determine a position
on the amended plans for the Cypress
Lane
development so essentially we have a
situation where the developer has had
plans approved that included the Cypress
Lane Road and the reserve subsequent to
approving those plans Council then
rejected the sale of the Cypress lane
roadway and Reserve which meant that the
developer needed to amend the plans so
that the Roden Reserve could be retained
as part of the Retirement
Village with the vcat hearing starting
at the end of this month Council must
now decide whether or not to support the
amended plans this is not a decision to
reject or approve the plans it is simply
determining whether or not we recommend
that the amended plans replace the
existing plans at the vcat hearing where
the ultimate decision will be made in
considering this item we can only look
at the proposed changes to the plans
which now include the road based on
council's decision not to sell Cypress
Lan and the reserve to the developer
they obviously needed to amend the plans
to incorporate these things in the
revised development therefore for me it
would not make sense to reject the
revised plans Council has essentially
created the need for the plans to be
amended and from my perspective the
amended plans do not significantly alter
the plan that has already been approved
by Council I would expect that vcat will
want to consider the most relevant plans
rather than the original plans that did
not include the road furthermore if
Council fails to endorse the amended
plans before us and vcat decides to
allow these amended plans to be
considered at the upcoming hearing
council's participation in the hearing
will be limited if that occurs Council
may be unable to contribute to the
discussion on the suitability of the
amended plans including the proposed
conditions that our planners have put
forward officers have assessed the
Amendments against the surf Coast
planning scheme and on balance advised
that the ated proposal continues to
satisfy all requirements and objectives
of the scheme which includes balancing
development social and environmental
considerations for me social
considerations remain a key driver of
the need for this development the
national housing crisis continues and
people in our community are suffering
because of it the Retirement Village
will contribute to housing diversity in
T and provide greater housing choice to
Residents and while the Retirement
Village itself may not be considered a
for aable for some the creation of more
housing diversity does contribute to
more affordable housing options across
the municipality but again tonight is
not about arguing the merits of the
overall development it's about whether
or not we want the old plans or the
revised plans to be considered at vcat
and for this reason this motion has my
support thank you thank you any other
councilors wish to speak to the motion
councelor Parker thanks I can see the
concern within the community we've
been following this issue for many years
now some of the issues raised along the
lines of inappropriateness or the gr
entity they they're a tradeoff so
what we're doing here is working out
which plans go
forward but the original concerns with
the load en the residential Zone that
we're looking at
here has loopholes that the state
government have in place
so where there's some anger directed to
this
body I would hope that you utilize the
processes that are available for the
state government so that you can address
those issues directly
there some of the conditions that we've
got on including the increasing of
the the width of Cypress Lane U at the
cost of the permit holder things that I
don't particularly like
but the reality is is that we need to
make a decision tonight as to what goes
forward my decision doesn't come with
any disrespect to the original land
owners who bought under the assption
that there was going to be similar
houses next
door because the reality is is that
things change and only property
ownership can determine ultimately what
happens on that property similar issue
in stron where people bought on the
understanding that they'd have
residential houses as their neighbors
and then the state government came in
and dped a hospital on top of
them I'm going to support the motion for
the fact
that it's a plan that results in the
continuing access to the public for
Cyprus Lane which I think is a key
element to the community
but I would ask that if you have any
other issues that can be directed to a
more appropriate body you both attack
this body as you see fit and attack that
body where you see fit so I'll be a
supporting
Mo thank you any other counselors wish
to speak councelor Gad I'd just like
to foreshadow an alternate motion if
this motion
fails
I won't vote for this
recommendation I know it probably
won't achieve what the community is
hoping to achieve tonight that has
been set in place and the the
decision at the August
meeting I was on personal leave at
that meeting so apologies to those
community members who are disappointed
so that that permit has been granted
with then in the October special meeting
we voted not to sell Cypress Lane and
now the amended plans are largely
around refitting it so Cyprus Lane
remains in place and I I do think the
developer has been fairly reasonable in
that but I I
won't vote with this for this motion
I'm not sure it It's Tricky it's going
to vcat anyway and the if we don't
have a
position if we just just if we vote
against it that won't achieve much at
vcat so I think I'll my alternate
motion will be around reverting back to
increasing the Green Space and impr
increasing the setbacks as per the
previous plan yeah I think that's all
thanks thank you any other councelors
councelor BSW thanks mayor so I too
will be voting in favor of the motion
I'm not going to revisit the
argents that I used on 22nd of August
as the other councilors have said
I've noted the changes that are in the
plans the amended plans and I
particularly like to note why in my in
my belief that the revised plans are
consistent with the intent of the
previous plans and they show an obvious
desire to respect previous
undertakings with regard to environment
landscape walkability and cyclability
social cohesion livability and
relative affordability noting that as
has been point out affordability is a
relative term and and it's obviously
these properties won't be affordable to
a portion of the community and they will
be affordable to some others but I
support these these amended plans going
off to vcat I also note the retention of
trees that wasn't in the previous
version of the the plans thank
you councilor Wellington would you like
to
speak for the environment I mean people
will say I'm in a car but it is the
private space where I can focus but
apologies if you he the external
movement causes destruction I think
that I'm a bit surprised to hear that we
must support these plans if we're going
to have any role in the debate at
bcat I haven't looked at the the
specific argents around that but it
seems to be extraordinary to be put in
the position of saying we'll support
this or you get no say at all I don't
accept that I think vcat is a it's
hearing the it's hearing this matter
from scretch which is its role and it's
would be most unlikely I think that V
would deny Council any role in
expressing it views about whether or not
it supports these these plans so
that's not my experience of vcat at all
vcat usually as a responsible Authority
we could acire to be a part of the if
we're not supporting the plans and I
would be astonished if there wasn't some
mechanism for this Council to be heard
so that's the first thing the second
thing is we're not just being asked to
vote on the changes that have been made
since the previous we're being asked to
vote on that we agreed that they've
been substituted and we support them all
well I don't I don't support plans I
support Regal plans and I'm not need to
to vote for something that I don't
believe in I I don't support these plans
I think one of the key one of the
significant things I'm hearing is oh
this will be good for housing supplying
T because some people will downsize
and mooving into a retirement village
and that will pre up their houses I've
never seen any analysis of how many
people who live at kidb for example were
originally living in t i I think this
will be a very attractive development
there'll be a lot of people from
Melbourne who would love to retire to a
beautiful site to and I'll be catched up
with the Melbourne property market and
I've got no idea how many people from
our local
community into these apartments and
units and I don't think any of us really
do have an idea of that and I think it's
very simplistic to say more people from
T will buy these units and P they free
out on the word because we don't have
any information about the intent of the
people from ja I think the other issue
for me is the question of what I did
say this last time but I'm not ashamed
to repeat it even though the councils
are suggesting we're not supposed to be
repeating the decision making about the
plans that we went through last time but
I'll ask for extension of time you my
time I'm happy to move yes we another
two minutes is fine thanks very much
I think the other issue is that what
do minimal change mean under the Dell
and the stat of plan policy and that's a
really interesting question for me and
it might mean two things it could mean
under the previous under the
existing zoning this has Z has flood
into the residential and of course a
high density Retirement Village is
permitted within low density residential
and it might simply mean well what
applied before can apply now and that's
minimal change but the other
interpretation of minimal change could
be that the intent of this zone is
actually
relize very dispersed development and
minimal change means that the intent of
the Zone and the outcome of of
development in the zone does not deviate
from that low rise disp development now
I'm not an expert on planning LA and I
don't know but I would think that that
question will be debated at vcat and
should be devoted at V and if that is
the interpretation of V which in my view
ought to be what the planning skin
provides for the latter interpretation
that this zone is intended to be low
rise and disperse developments not
stress story apartment buildings it's
extraordinary to me that we could be
thinking that Str story apartment
buildings in a a Zone which is
transitioning from normal General resid
through to
rural would incorporate restory
apartment buildings that doesn't make
sense to me so be really interested to
hear what vcat's interpretation no doubt
there'll be a lot of legal argent
about that at vcat but I'll be very
interested to hear what their
interpretation is my view is this is
overly dense por hisone not just
in terms of sight coverage but in terms
of vertical density as well the it's
extraordinarily open so I don't I didn't
support the first plan I don't support
the changes to the second to the plan
and I don't support the underlying plan
and I'm not going to be pushed into
voting for a plan that I don't support
just because somebody says well we won't
get a say vcap if if we do that I don't
agree with that I am sure that vcap just
on basic Common Sense vcap would say we
need to hear from the responsible
Authority let's get their genuine view
about his plan so I will be voting
against this motion and I will support I
will be care to council gaz's
alternative motion and possibly
support that but I'll see what what form
it Tak if it gets any thanks Council
Wellington that's you've now exceeded
your extra two minutes thank you thank
you mayor I'm sort of a bit
pessimistic in saying on this but I
won't be supporting the
recommendation as is I'm interested
to see councilor gard's
recommendation and if that doesn't get
up I'll be moving a res recommendation
not to approve it part of the local
government act states that Regional
State and National policies are to be
taken into account in strategic planning
and decision making we've just gone
through a process where we have seen the
Dell rigorously defended in court
rigorously that's cost many people
thousands and thousands of dollars the
surco statement of planning States
minimal change how more strategic can
you know can you go against that
docent in the Dell that area is
colored in as minimal change and also it
has a bi biodiversity coloring as well
it should be looked at one thing I'm
keen on and I was pleased that the
legacy of this Council wasn't that we
sold public land I think that we
dodged a bullet on that because we would
sit a very dangerous precedent for it
and I'm really glad that failed so it
all goes back to that August meeting and
which is a bit sad because it wasn't
a full Council decision it was full for
for and a casting vote of the May that's
part of History and I find that a
real shame and I I'm pessimistic because
I don't think vcat would even look that
that wasn't a full Council position but
it is what it is and that's what we've
got to move forward to I think the
density
is just over the top people said it's
comparable to this and it's comparable
to that but not comparable to this area
it just it just not I'm concerned
about
many things in that area and it's been
discussed at other meetings but I think
this council is making a grave mistake
doing this we're looking at
another one at bar Drive there's another
three I don't think the the questions to
the answers about census and data have
been answered so I'll be voting against
this and after if that if this doesn't
get up Council gazzard has the first
alternative but then I'll be moving an
alternative motion to that to refuse
this
this docent thank
you Shan Felder thank you mayor I
concur with what has been said
tonight from councelor gazzard and
councelor Hodge and councel
Wellington and I at this point in time
appeal to my colleagues to to keep an
open mind and reconsider how they might
feel about this item I am a long-term
res pres of the surf Coast Shire having
lived locally for over 40 years and my
family's lived continuously for 176
years and the CFA members joke with me
and say we're just settling in I am very
concerned about how First Nations people
feel about Deep Creek I believe T has
environmental assets worthy of
protection and I have campaigned to
save Spring Creek and I do feel that the
biodiversity concerns are very
important and I'm concerned about
runoff and development along the
existing Creeks that that we have in
T and I have me I have met members
who live in the local area and I really
like your placards and it's fantastic
all the work you've done and there are
business people that live locally and
they say that they're not against any
development they just feel that this
area is highly inappropriate as it is
deemed a low density area and many of
you here tonight you bought
properties and Built Homes in a low
density area believing that the area
that we're talking about was also going
to be low density and I I part of me
feels as though you might have been
misled now with this
development so I think that's very
important and I think democracy is about
listening to people and I won't be
supporting this this item
tonight
and once again I just appeal to
my colleagues to
to just have an open mind in relation
to this matter in relation to the CFT
my grandmother was actually a Thompson
and Thompson's Creek runs into the CFT
and in
hindsight there have been decisions made
that perhaps should not have been made
in the past in relation to the to
development in t so I think it's
important to bear that in mind thank you
thank you councelor Ellen do you have
any closing remarks P can I just ask a
question before we close sorry yes well
coun K has
pled
a motion but we don't know what it is
and I just wondered should we know what
that is before Council has vote on this
motion it's not standard process but
I'm happy if councel Gard would like to
read it out she
can oh it's an alternate motion not an
amendment no it's an altern yes we
acknowledge it's it's so but when you
foreshadow it I think in this instance
it's fine if you'd like to read or
governance you have it on the
screen so just
be yes sorry that's that's what I meant
when I said if you can put it on the
screen y so just so there's no confusion
we're still we have a motion before us
which councelor Allen has moved and
councelor bodsworth has seconded
councelor Gard has foreshadowed that if
the motion that's currently being
discussed it lapses it doesn't get
passed then she would move this motion
so this is not something that we're
considering yet it's foreshadowing if
the other one fails
but counselor Wellington would like to
understand what that is so we'll just
give people a moment to have a look at
that and then counselor Alan can have
his closing remarks
I think that is that enough time for you
and other counselors to read that yes
thanks counselor Alan have you got
closing remarks thanks M picking
up on on councilor Wellington's Point
it's my understanding that I mean the
council will be at the vcat
meeting it's it's just that if we
support this motion it provides the
council a point of reference to address
the amended
plans and the recommended conditions
that we have suggested and that's the
importance of supporting the motion
thank you thank you we now put the
motion to the vote all those in
favor all those opposed
and the motion is carried
54 we now move on to the next item on
our agenda application for approval of
an amended development plan for the briy
West Bri estate West T the purpose of
this report is to seek council's
approval of an amended development plan
for the briy estate West pursuant to
schedule 10 of the development plan
overlay do we have a mover of a motion
oh I'm happy to move it councelor Hodge
is that as for the recommendations thank
you man thank you and seconded by
councelor
Barker Council hod would you like to
speak yes I will Ju Just very quickly on
this one this is a development plan so
there's a lot more to come to it before
we actually see what's going in this
site but I I would like to make a
comment to all the submitters that have
put in on this site already which is
good to see and we talk about
the brity drive the the overlooking
the traffic problems the drainage
erosion and Wildlife there so this is
going to be taken into account hopefully
when it goes back to the developer to
actually put some plans in place and
then we'll have the right to look at
those and then decide like we're going
through now but I I I'll move it to
to get to the next stage but then we'll
be looking at it a lot closer thank you
thank you councelor
Baka would any other councilors like to
speak councelor alen thanks m the
initial amended development plan was
advertised and placed on public
exhibition in the latter part of
2022 and submissions were heard at a
special council meeting on the 7th of
March
2023 the key features of the plan are
standard density higher density and
multi-density residential units a
retirement village importantly including
residential aged care as well as
independent and assisted living
apartments Road network centrally
located Park open space
along the southern Eastern and partly
Northern perimeter of the development
plan storm water drainage infrastructure
and treatment facilities and the
retention and protection of native
vegetation the remainder of the land in
the development plan will continue to
provide for conventional residential
subdivision with approximately 313 Lots
in standard density
areas referring back to the provision of
residential Age Care Plus independent
and assistant living apartments
I refer you to page 99 of the report
indicating that the nber of people
aged over 65 in the surf Coast Shire
will increase from
19.6% as of
2022 to
25.2% in
2041 the report indicates that there
will be a shortfall in independent
living units and aged care beds in the
surf Coast in coming years which
highlights a strong market and Community
need for the proposed development the
most upto-date data from the Australian
Bureau of Statistics also illustrates
that more facilities and housing
diversity to cater to the Aged will be
needed in to to meet current
demand Somerset Villages propriety
limited is a company that is an
experienced Retirement Village operator
the revised amended plan or the amended
plan seeks to include an 8.51 hectare
Retirement Village in the center of the
site replacing some of the residential
subdivision approved in
2017 they understand the commercial risk
and will have completed their due
diligence concerning future needs and
demand The Landing question was resed in
2012 from that of a lowdensity
residential Zone to General residential
Zone in line with the Sha's strategic
Direction at the time which given our
current population growth and the
framework of the state government's
housing statement is even more pertinent
today densification is a reality and if
we are to minimize further encroachment
into our farming land essential thank
you thank you councilor alen any other
councilors wish to speak Council
Stapleton thanks mayor so Council has
been asked to approve the amended bridey
estate West development plan which would
supersede the current approved plan from
2017 so given that the 2017 plans have
already been approved it's important to
note the council's consideration of this
item must be limited to the changes that
have been proposed to the existing
approved plans and to determine whether
we agree that the amended development
plan does not result in any additional
impact on the character of the area than
from the current approved plan the key
change is obviously the inclusion of a
retirement village and AED Care Facility
to replace some of the residential
subdivision previously
approved approving these amended plans
will allow the residential subdivision
to proceed providing much needed
opportunities for housing on the surf
coast and we'll see a well integrated
Retirement Village included for toi
where such facilities are supported as
part of the general residential
Zone it's important to provide our aging
Community with residential accommodation
options that support social connections
and allow them or all of us really as
we're all aging to age well in our own
community that means as we get older
there is a better chance that we can
stay connected living amongst friends
and family and close to shops and
services where we have always lived I
know that older people want to be close
to those things that are familiar to
them if this development plan is
approved a planning permit would still
be required to build the retirement
village and the Aged Care Facility when
the development plan was initially
amended and publicly exhibited in
November November 2022 there was
feedback from nearby residents and the
broader Community which has since been
considered by the developer resulting in
the revised amended plans for our
consideration tonight among the changes
that have been made to these revised
plans there is the replacement of the
proposed underground drainage in the
Eastern catchment with a 2,000 s met
Reserve now Incorporated with a rain
garden and bio retention basin
although such drainage reserves cannot
be credited as formal public open space
they do provide passive open space
values with areas for relaxation and
enjoyment in the reserve seating areas
and access for pedestrians which I
believe will be welcomed by the
surrounding Community overall I think
these amended plans demonstrate a
positive use of land that has already
been approved for development and given
it complies with the existing planning
policies and is in accordance with the
surf Coast planning scheme I will be
supporting this item thank
you thank you would any other councilors
like to speak councelor
Wellington thanks very much I will
be supporting this as well and I
certainly take the point with one has
already been made it differs from cus
Ling that that in that there's no firm
there a decision of this Council but
there's not a binding decision to
proceed with s because it's subject to
is in different
I think the the changes generally
are acceptable and I think that they do
compare with they make the
requirements that are Incorporated in
the plan for I I think again this
people from talk here going to be the
occupant of these Villages or the
predominant occupant even of these
Villages I think needs to be challenged
and I believe this Council needs to
actually do some work on a really robust
piece of work on what is the likely
future market for retirement villages in
toy and what is the likely occupancy
of people who want to buy in those
Villages I would suggest that there is
an unlimited almost an unlimited demand
for retirement properties in to I
think who wouldn't want to retire to
to and you know the notion that this
will free up a lot of local properties I
think needs to be challenged the owners
of these Villages are not going to be
discriminating against people on the
bases that they come from outside sh
and a lot of people cat up in the
property Market will be wanting to do
this so we could potentially I'm sure we
will have developers wanting to put
retirement villages in every corner of
the shy which will simply attract more
people from outside the shy into the shy
and create more Demand on our
infrastructure and services and the
community's capacity to withstand that
sort of growth so I don't think the data
have been presented in any meaningful
way to tell what the people demand
what the future demand will be or
what the future need will be if we're
talking about people aging the place
we're talking about need and I I I agree
with that but I mean Council get as a
healthare professional there's a big
difference between demand and need if
you look at people using antibiotics
most people many people demand
antibiotics they want antibiotics I
think they're good for them but the
actual need for anti bities is quite
different I would say the same with
retirement villes people want will want
to go to live because they're going to
be beautiful attractive places to
leave in your retirement but whether or
not they're going to meet a need for one
of the people who live in that it's
entirely different question and it has
not been put so I think we need to be
very cautious about throwing them around
as I said I'll support this because
you know I think it in the context in
which you put forward it's quite
different from the S line one but the
only other point I would like to make is
I have very significant concerns about
our organization's record in planning
for stormw war infrastructure in
compliance issues ensuring that
developers comply with development
requirements and then in taking them
over and ensuring that things op
properly and those concerns remain
remain with me even though we're assured
they're all being addressed we haven't
yet seen evidence at the it and I'm
really concerned about these
developments next to waterways that
potentially
can cause you know really significant
environmental problem but on balance on
how to support this but would like to
shy to do that work that work and do it
robustly and rigorously maybe some
academic Partners about are we simply
attracting more older people into the
community or are we generally providing
for thank you thank you what any other
Council like to speak to the motion
councelor bodsworth thanks mayor I'll
also be supporting the recommendation or
support the motion as it is there's
probably just two issues that I'd like
to pick up thanks to the other
counselors for speaking on this I I
thank the submitters for their
submissions on this issue and and just
want to thank the submitters that we get
generally because they always help us
refine our work and provide really
important Food For Thought for us as we
go through our decision making one
specific issue that I want to raise is
in relation to the proposed future
shed path down the Deep Creek Corridor
which is referred to in the development
in the development plan so I think
one of the things that we need to look
at as we move forward is the size of our
shared paths that one is is our standard
width of 2.5 M whereas I think for that
shared path because it's catchment
effectively includes the kith brook area
Ocean Acres Frog Hollow right through
the brote area it's potentially a really
busy highly used shared path both for
sort of recreational and and pleasure
purposes but also as a commuter path
because it'll provide one of the very
few Pathways that's not interrupted by a
whole lot of traffic lights and
intersections and therefore it'll
provide a really quick and easy and safe
and enjoyable way for people to get
to and from the center of toi which is
only about 3ks away from this area so I
think we need to look at the capacity of
of walking and cycling infrastructure
looking forward you know at least a
generation ahead because those uses
with particularly
ebikes personal mobility scooters and
things like that we're going to need
really roomy shared parts for everyone
to be sharing them safely
and yeah the other part of it that
I'm unsure about at this stage but I'm
happy to go along with is that the
higher density proposed in the northern
Corner up near mesot Road I look
forward to seeing further detail on that
but overall happy to to support this
moving
on thank you any other councilors wish
to speak councelor Sean Felder yeah I'd
like to highlight the fact that just
because there were plans
already approved previously doesn't
mean they have to be carried out and I
know there have been climatic changes
with very heavy downpours and and I know
that people be aware of horseshoe B
Road where there was damage to that
bridge there and we're seeing more
events like that and I've actually
visited people at Ocean Acres and I
believe the blocks there are 1 acre
blocks and part of Roads there have been
flooded and people have had their
driveways flooded and they 1 acre blocks
this area with Deep Creek
is has such a important role when it
comes to drainage in T and I know that
our population's growing but I feel as
though areas like T and areas in the
Mornington Peninsula and and other parts
of the state such as Philip Island don't
need to absorb this this growth because
very fragile environments fragile
ecosystems we had a meeting in lawn
and when I was driving home and I met
some people from the local area that
we're talking about and I I said that
when I left I saw her in the kidna on
the road and I went to a celebration
about Spring Creek on Saturday and suo
shanesy said to me that she had also
seen the an A kidner and and people do
see wildlife and I just think the impact
on the wildlife is significant and on
Facebook you see kangaroo and many
other types of animals getting damaged
and being run over by higher traffic
voles and we heard 300 house blocks
this area is going to change
substantially and I I'm just very
concerned about the environment and I
just feel as though I won't be
supporting this item because this part
this Precinct Deep Creek Precinct is in
a way the lungs of of talki and who
comes first in our society do the
developers come first who possibly don't
live where they're developing they want
to maximize their profits and where
where do you draw the line and
I just noticed that there was an
article in the age about whether T had
lost its soul and that was a recent
article in the Saturday newspaper and
and I I'm I though toi has changed and
and a part of our council plan is to
maintain a small town
field and I I feel that I would
prefer to have acre blocks there to be
honest would be more appropriate for an
environmental Viewpoint thank you
thank you councelor Hodge oh sorry
councelor hod have any closing
remarks thanks M I I will support
this amended plan the there's
already a development plan in place from
2017 so Urban Development will go ahead
in briy
drive the submissions that we
reviewed like to thank all the
community members who submitted
noting their particular concerns around
storm water drainage water attenuation
transport and traffic management and
safety and Flora and FAA and
retention of vegetation I think a lot of
the concerns have at least been
partially addressed and I'm satisfied
with the the storm water management
plan I think it's actually a lot is
improved on the previous plan so I
think if we don't vote for this then we
need to have reasonable grounds to
reject it and if we do reject it
we'll revert back to to the previous
development plan so I I will vote for
this
one thank you councel hods do you have
any closing
remarks just quickly on a personal
level I wish this was the only
Retirement Village in front of us or
on the books because it does fit the the
scenery of a retirement village to me a
lot better what I'd really like to see
is the Aged care I think that's
absolutely essential when you have a
retirement village you have aged care
you talk about bringing Community
together you talk about diversity but if
you don't have aged care where do they
go They're again away from their
Community but what's in front of us
and what the development coming in I'll
be really interested in looking at and
we will look at it robustly storm
water 2 is a a really big Factor but
to me this was the much better spot
than Cypress line and I'll be supporting
this one tonight thank you thank you we
now put the motion to the vote all those
in
favor and oppose and the motion is
carried
81 that now brings our council meeting
to a close I declare the meeting closed
at 7:02 tonight as we have no further
business thank you very much for coming
in to be part of our meeting respectful