Fight to save ‘special place’
Locals resist retirement village plan
A planned Torquay aged care home would be a “disaster” for the environment and the land earmarked for the large project was a “seriously special place” that should not be sold off, residents have told the Surf Coast Shire.
Just over a month after more than 100 protesters gathered to oppose the $50m Cypress Lane development, locals were given the chance to present submissions regarding the contentious proposal.
The meeting earlier this month concerned two proposals: a planning application lodged for the project, and a proposal to sell off a parcel of council-owned Cypress Lane and a portion of Reserve No.3, which would form part of the development.
The move to sell off a popular pocket of open space in Torquay on Cypress Lane to allow the construction of more than 100 retirement village units and a three-storey clubhouse, has been met with fierce
opposition by residents.
Speaking on behalf of the Greater Torquay Alliance and 3228 Residents Association, Sue O’Shannassy acknowledged the developer’s amended plans had made some concessions, but said the “height and density” were still “out of character” for the area.
Ms O’Shannassy said councillors and the community had been provided with information that was “inaccurate or ill-informed”, in particular regarding
potential rezoning and the possibility for the development to be a gated community.
“We are concerned that the vote regarding the public sale of land … could have been based upon current and previous information that was at best confusing or, even worse, false,” she said.
The effect the development would have, both on access to Deep Creek and the environmental impact on the waterway, was a recurring theme in a
number of submissions.
“It’s such a seriously special place, you cannot consider selling it to this developer,” Karan Dawson told the shire council.
John Foss cited environmental impact reports in his submission, and argued the development would result in further losses of local biodiversity and “the danger of loving our coast to death”.
“This particular development will be a disaster for the local environment,” Mr Foss said. “By continuing to add developments of this size and scale, it’s putting pressures on the environment … we can’t keep building like this on the coast.”
Speaking on behalf of the applicant, Leigh Prosser said the low-density zone “does actually permit the retirement village”.
“There are no policies within the Surf Coast planning scheme that discourages this use at this site,” she said.
“A low-density residential zone doesn’t prohibit a threestorey development … there’s nothing in the scheme that seeks to limit the height of buildings.”
Ms Prosser said developers had taken objections into consideration and the amended plans were appropriate.
Ms Prosser argued the development’s position in a lowdensity zone was not “isolated from the remainder of Torquay” and that the surrounding context was important.
“We’ve got general residential zones to the east and to the south, we’ve got industrial development 300m to the north,” she said.
Regarding access to Deep Creek, Ms Prosser said “the intention is to retain public access” and said the developer was open to how it would be provided permanently.
“Certainly it is a gated community … the vehicular gates are closed at dusk, there’s a pedestrian gate next door that’s never closed,” Ms Prosser said.