Surf Coast amends development plan
It would not make sense to reject the revised plans.
“Councillor Libby Stapleton
Surf Coast councillors have supported amended plans for a controversial development, ahead of a Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal hearing.
At a special meeting on Tuesday, the council voted in favour, five to four, to support the plans for a new retirement village slated for Cypress Lane in Torquay north.
Revised plans were submitted in March for 191 independent living units, reduced from 196 units initially proposed, which includes 104 single-storey units, 13 double-storey units and three apartment buildings with 16 one-bedroom apartments and 58 two-bedroom apartments.
Mayor Liz Pattison said the VCAT appeal was lodged by nine joint applicants and objectors.
The five-day hearing is scheduled to start on April 29.
Councillor Gary Allen put the motion and said a key consideration was ensuring the council was present at the VCAT hearing.
Addressing community concerns regarding high density, he said as a growth area it was difficult to control.
“Retirement villages typically have a denser footprint than other residential developments,” he said. “The proposal is, in my view, consistent with current developments along the western side of the Surf Coast Highway.”
The initial development proposal relied on the council selling Cypress Lane and a portion of nearby public land, and discontinuing the road.
However, the council did not approve the sale and amendments were made.
Councillor Libby Stapleton said the decision on Tuesday was not about arguing the merits of the development to determine a position ahead of the VCAT hearing.
“It would not make sense to reject the revised plans, the council has essentially created the need for the plans to be amended,” she said.
Ms Stapleton said council officers found the plan satisfied requirements including balancing development, social and environmental considerations.
“The retirement village will contribute to housing diversity in Torquay and provide greater housing choice to residents,” she said.
Councillor Heather Wellington said she was surprised by the notion that not supporting the plan would restrict the council’s capacity to contribute at the VCAT hearing.
“I haven’t looked at the specific arguments around that but it seems extraordinary to be put in the position to say we will support this or we get no say at all,” she said.
Ms Wellington said it was simplistic to say the retirement village would impact housing supply because locals would move in.
“I have no idea how many people from our local community would move into these apartments or units and I don’t think any of us have any idea of that,” she said.
Councillor Adrian Schonfelder said he had met with residents and business owners.
“They are not against development, they just feel this area is highly inappropriate as it is deemed low density,” he said.