COAST HOMES SQUEEZE
A CONTROVERSIAL development in Torquay’s Spring Creek valley will squeeze in 339 more homes than first planned if Surf Coast Shire councillors back the final precinct structure plan at tomorrow’s meeting.
The higher-density proposal comes after Planning Panels Victoria criticised the shire’s previous proposal, which divided the 245ha of land into 1781 lots.
In a move likely to infuriate detractors, councillors will now vote on a plan to approve 2120 proper-
ties on the Spring Creek valley.
Surf Coast Shire planners have also made a series of other rulings, including:
MANDATORY residential design controls — including compulsory garden and backyard area provisions — despite the State Government’s peak planning body recommending discretionary controls;
INTRODUCING a maximum 7.5m building height, which can be varied by a successful permit application;
SWEETENERS for owners of single-storey dwellings that achieve a seven-star energy rating
and install a solar panel, including a provision to build on up to 50 per cent of the site;
INCREASING housing density within 400m of the neighbourhood centre, within 200m of the school and within 100-200m of local convenience centres; and,
SHOP-TOP dwellings above convenience centres.
The council’s general manager of environment and development, Ransce Salan, said the density of housing was still relatively low compared with other growth areas.
“What we’re putting forward isn’t even at the level they’re (Planning Panels Victoria) recommend- ing,” he said. “The footprint of where the development occurs does not get bigger — but some of the lots will change in size.”
However, Surf Coast Shire refused to adopt the independent planning panel’s recommendation to leave the area west of Spring Creek open to further development, vowing that development would not proceed 1km west of Duffields Rd, in Jan Juc.
Secretary of the 3228 Residents Association Sue O’Shanassy lambasted the latest move to include more houses in the estate, fearing it would put too much demand on Torquay’s infrastructure.
“Considering what the community wanted, more acreage rather than urban development, any increase in density is unwelcome,” she said.
“When we were talking about Spring Creek, we wondered where all these people are going to work.
“Once again as a community, we will be disadvantaged by not having the infrastructure to accommodate all these extra people.”
While Ms O’Shanassy said she would be in attendance at tomorrow’s council meeting, she said others had given up the fight.
“We can’t influence this any way whatsoever it seems,” she said.