distinctive areas and landscapes 1442 standing advisory ......fundamentally changed, and i fear it...

Organisation:

Affected property:

1442

David Lang

I support option 2 for there to be no further development of Torquay / Jan Juc to the western side of Duffields road. This is to protect the landscape feature of the area. It has been seen with other developments further to the north that it does become very estate like and create a more concrete jungle. There also needs to be consideration to the operation and accessibility of Torquay, Jan Juc and onwards down the Great Ocean Road. Traffic to this amazing coastline already experienced significant pressure and further development through this corridor to Bellbrae will introduce a load on infrastructure that is not sustainable. Please maintain the position that has been fought for and previously agreed would not be further developed by the government. Thank you for considering this position.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

No ‐ but please email mRequest to be heard?:

Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Standing Advisory Committee

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast

Submission Cover Sheet

Organisation:

Affected property:

1443

Glenn Osboldstone

As a concerned Geelong local, I support Option 2 in the draft Surf Coast SPP as it provides a protected area to enable the restoration of critical habitat in Spring Creek Valley suitable for many of Victoria's endangered species, including the Southern Brown Bandicoot, Growling Grass Frog, Swift Parrot, Grey‐headed Flying Fox, Powerful Owl, Little Galaxia, Grey Goshawk, Southern Pygmy Perch, Baillon's Crake, Lewin's Rail, Eastern Great Egret, White‐footed Dunnart, Brown Toadlet and the Bellarine Yellow Gum. We are losing our native species at a rapid rate thanks to logging and overdevelopment, plus the climate emergency. More houses in this area would see introduced species, like the highly destructive cat, further encroach on these habitat areas. The Torquay area is already getting way too overdeveloped ‐allowing this area to be developed in line with Option 1 would exacerbate that lamentable situation. Option 2 would also protect the local indigenous heritage of the Spring Creek Valley. I oppose Option 1 as it is inconsistent with the draft SCSPP Planning Policy which states that the Surf Coast DAF Plan should ‘conserve and enhance the declared area’s significant landscapes’ including the Spring Creek valley, west of Duffields Road (under a state significant landscape overlay). Option 2 is consistent with this aim. Option 1 directly contravenes the Marine and Coastal Policy 2020 and Protecting Victoria’s Environment – Biodiversity 2037, which are intended to protect fragile ecosystems, including Bellarine Yellow Gum woodland, and endangered species within the Valley. Spring Creek Valley has now been declared a state significant landscape and urban development will compromise the fragile environment and this declaration. Option 1 has no detail on the likely scale of development nor if it will be ‘ecologically sustainable’. Thousands of houses have been mooted. Option 1 would create adverse impacts beyond the immediate development sites, over‐crowding of fragile coastal environments, including beaches, surfing areas and open spaces, necessitating additional costs to the state and to the community in managing these impacts. Option 1 exposes the population to increased hazards from bushfires. The Spring Creek Valley is a designated Bushfire Prone Area and its development will result in thousands of extra cars on the roads. The Great Ocean Road is already at capacity during peak periods hence evacuation on during a wild fire event would be even more difficult with Option 1. Option 2 would preserve the Bells Beach visitor experience. The drive from Geelong to Torquay then to the internationally renowned and natural rural setting of Bells Beach is iconic and special. The Spring Creek Valley in its current state is a significant asset to all Victorians and other visitors. Most businesses in Torquay rely upon tourism and only Option 2 will preserve the wonderful coastal visitor experience, thus attracting tourists to those businesses.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

NoRequest to be heard?:


Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1444

Randell Glover

I vote for option 2; a green break area to protect Spring Creek. No residential development in Spring Creek. The residential boundary should be applied at Duffield road. Spring Creek is pivotal to the distinctive character of the area. Retaining this rural land which supports native wildlife and trees has been close to the heart of the community for many years. Our green space is slowing disappearing but this is the reason people choose to move to the area.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1445

Helen Pallot

I recommend for the government to apply Option 2 to protected settlement boundary in Torquay / Jan Juc. Maintaining a Green belt that separates Torquay / jan Juc from Bellbrae. Furthermore I support the option of minimal change to existing residential areas in Torquay / Jan Juc. We have grown so much in the last couple of years. Together with the northern expansion of Torquay we are slowly turning into a mega suburb of Geelong. Or infrastructure are not suited for mass numbers. Up upgrade these also means that Torquay does not operate as a surf side town but a suburban outer suburb. I am all for increasing density but maintaining a set border. Let’s go up not out. Our farm areas are precious given our population is increasing everyday.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1446

Karen Balcombe

I support option 2. We need to leave this beautiful countryside as it is. Torquay is already at capacity now with overcrowded beaches and cafes. The infrastructure can not tolerate this amount of development.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1447

Sarah Seraiocco

I don’t not support option 1 due to the environmental impacts and insufficient infrastructure available to sustain this proposal. I support Option 2 and a strict town border to protect Spring Creek.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1448

Jacqui pollard

We live close to spring creek and are worried about protected tree species. Also, wildlife corridors will be affected. Finally, land movement is an issue. We are already seeing a large number of movement issues with Danawa Drive, Torquay.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1449

Amy Gillett

I submit to the committee that I am in favour of option 2 only and reject option 1 wholeheartedly. It is important to me that the environmental values of Spring Creek are protected and that the biodiversity of the area is maintained.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1450

Caitlin Pendlebury

In regards to the Surf Coast Spring Creek boundary, I reject option 1 & vote for option 2. Option 2 preserves an important part of our community in which many animals live in. It is important to ensure that this area does not end up having housing on it.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1451

Camille Snow

I am a first home buyer and looking to buy in Torquay, without land available I won't be able to do this and will have to buy in high rise. This would have been an amazing opportunity to buy into a sustainable development that protects natural habitat.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1452

Elizabeth McNamara

I am in favour of Option 2. I believe this is the only viable option! The town boundary should stop at Duffield Road and the corridor between Torquay and Armstrong Creek residential development, allows for further residential development. I believe it is totally unlikely the the Developers will protect the Yellow Box and unique environment along the Spring Creek. It’s fanciful! We are already seeing the fauna like kangaroos coming closer to the town as their habitat is taken by development. This area is a vital corridor for these animals to access the Otway National park. The Distinctive Area Landscape (DAL)which the Sate Government supports, is not consistent with the extension of the development west of Duffield Road. Surely local community can expect support from the state government on this issue and not have Developers impose this on the local community For these reasons I believe Option 2 is the only option. Your sincerely Elizabeth McNamara

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1453

Libby Coker

https://engage.vic.gov.au/download_file/41388

See attached submission

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1454

Julie‐Anne Mulheron

I FULLY SUPPORT OPTION 2.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1455

Daniel Grigg

I am against the development of the Spring creek valley. This area is a wonderful green space that should be left that way. More development in this town is not needed. I support option 2 .

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1456

Chris Maddock


please refer to the attachment

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Submission to the DELWP Distinctive Areas and Landscapes – Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy

As the Federal Member for Corangamite, I want to express firm opposition to the development of the Spring Creek valley.

This is my longstanding view and one that was formed during my time as a Surf Coast Councillor and Mayor. It has been strengthened after much community consultation.

The green belt between Duffields Road and the Bellbrae township must be permanently protected. It stands at the gateway to iconic Bells Beach, is a green space that sustains the habitat for many threatened species and is vital to the natural amenity, character and soul of both Torquay and Jan Juc.

If the Spring Creek valley is not protected, the landscape of Torquay-Jan Juc will be fundamentally changed, and I fear it could open the door to more inappropriate development.

The valley is the critical habitat for several listed, critically endangered, threatened and vulnerable species including:

Grey-headed Flying Fox, Southern Brown Bandicoot, Growling Grass Frog, Swift Parrot, Powerful Owl, Little Galaxia, Grey Goshawk, Southern Pygmy Perch, Baillon's Crake, Lewin's Rail, Eastern Great Egret, White-footed Dunnart, Brown Toadlet and the Bellarine Yellow Gum.

Urban subdivision will only put the above species at further risk.

A protected settlement boundary must be applied at Duffields Road and extend to the to the Bellbrae township. It should be retained as rural land, not be cut up for residential development.

This is the only way to retain the distinctive character and heritage of the Torquay and Jan Juc townships that our local communities, and all those who visit, love so much.

Yours sincerely,

Libby Coker MP Federal Member for Corangamite

13 / 01 / 2021

Organisation:

Affected property:

1457

Tamba Rose

I reject the development of Spring Creek valley, i rallied along side my community with the red rally years ago. I was bought up in Torquay and have lived here for 45 years. The town is over developed as it is. There is not enough infrastructure to cope with the population now, let alone with another new development. I live in the Spring Creek area and enjoy the green spaces it has to offer. This area is filled with wildlife both flora and fauna, to see this destroyed by more development would be heart breaking. I fully support option 2. "No developing Spring Creek !!!'

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1458

David Westmoreland

Torquay has already grown beyond a sustainable size and has lost much of its coastal character. Further development will only further erode this. Town boundaries should be fixed at the current extent of development.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1459

Leesa Farrell

I support Option 2. Torquay has grown substantially in the last decade and cannot support any more development. We do not wish to have an ‘Armstrong Creek’ type development in the community and do not believe it can be sustained. Duffields toad should be the designated border and the sacred land of the indigenous ancestors protected. Wildlife and their natural habitat has been cleared enough, I am tired of seeing wildlife injured on the roads because we have destroyed their local habitat. Many of these animals are protected species and their habitat should be protected also to ensure their safety and livelihood going forward. Further development in spring creek is not in the interests of the community and is just Developer’s Greed.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Submission to the Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Standing Advisory Committee

As a person who has lived and grown up in and around Geelong and the Surf Coast all of my life, I feel I can make an informed submission to the Independent Advisory Committee of the Surf Coast SPP. While there is much I could comment on, I would like to limit my reasons to just three on why I would like to see Option 1 selected as the preferred planning policy for the Torquay/ Jan Juc area.

Reason 1

While the majority of the land adjacent to the Spring Creek Area is currently zoned for “rural use”, the piece of land owned by Christian College Geelong (CCG), was zoned “special use” to enabled it to build the College. This means any further development in excess of CCG needs, can only be used for purposes such as child care, which would conflict with CCG's operations and retirement facilities which would be incompatible to CCG's educational use.

It seems inconsistent to me to allow the rezoning of land so a school could be built in the middle of a paddock then not to allow residential development around the school. Families who currently send their children to the College only have the option of driving or busing their children to CCG. While those families who currently send their children to CCG may be willing to do this, it prevents many other families the opportunity for their children to attend the early learning and child care facilities as well as the primary school service currently on offer.

It is a well-known fact that Torquay/ Jan Juc has a fast-growing population where services such as child care, early learning and primary school education are in high demand. By providing families with the opportunity to relocate closer to CCG, it will make available the opportunity for current and future Torquay/Jan Juc families to have both choice and greater access to children services they require.

Reason 2

Currently, the town boundary of Torquay is already set at one kilometre west of Duffield's Road, in plans held by the Surf Coast Shire.

With the pressure on current development within Torquay/ Jan Juc, house prices and house block prices are rapidly increasing, making it much harder for local young people who have grown up in Torquay/ Jan Juc to be able to afford to buy in the area. We have already seen how this has changed the character of Lorne by forcing out many long term young locals who cannot afford to buy a home in the town they grew up in.

Another pressure on housing in Torquay/ Jan Juc is the number of people relocating from Melbourne to the Geelong and Surf Coast, especially since the break-out of COVIS-19. This has added pressure to house and land prices causing a dramatic increase. Opening up the Spring Creek area for future but appropriate residential development, will help provide further choice and availability of house blocks helping to slow house and land increases.

Reason 3

Finally, I’m aware there have already been two other planning panel hearings regarding the Spring Creek area, with both concluding the development of Spring Creek area based on planning grounds is appropriate. At the moment, no one other than the current landowners have access to the Spring Creek area. Appropriate development of the area such as setbacks will open up the area providing access to a wider number of people which would include local as well as tourists.

I wish to thank you for the opportunity to be able to make this submission.

Yours sincerely

Chris Maddock

Organisation:

Affected property:

1460

Alistair Merritt

I submit my support of Option 2. As a former local resident, Torquay has already grown too big and growth should be restricted, similar to Barwon Heads.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1461

Nik Orvis

I support option 1 for a sustainable development in Torquay, as its an area I would love to relocate to and would support sustainable growth in the area.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1462

Michael Spiteri

I want option 2

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1463

Cameron Gray

St Quentin Consulting

125‐135 Strathmore Drive, Jan Juc


See attached submission

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:

YesRequest to be heard?:


Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


PLANNING SUBMISSION

Draft Surf Coast Statement of Planning Policy

On behalf of Fortress Holdings Pty Ltd

St Quentin Consulting 51 Little Fyans Street South Geelong. PO Box 919 South Geelong 320 P. 5201 1811

Surveying I Town Planning I Civil and Geotechnical Engineering I Bushfire Planning

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF FORTRESS HOLDINGS PTY LTD

Introduction

1. This submission is made on behalf of Fortress Holdings Pty Ltd.

2. Fortress Holdings Pty Ltd represents various holdings of land on Strathmore Drive, Jan Juc as shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 - Subject land

The site and its context

3. The broad context of the site can be characterised as;

a. Sitting well within (630m) the existing defined settlement boundary of Jan Juc

to the west.

b. Having an interface to existing General Residential Zone – Schedule 1 conventional development on the east of Strathmore Drive and to the immediate south of the subject land.

Cameron Gray

Twentymans


c. Opposite the P1-P12 Christian College School, located on the north side of the Great Ocean Road.

4. The subject site itself.

a. Slopes from the GOR in the north down to a tributary of the Jan Juc Creek to

the south.

b. Is generally cleared with the exception of vegetation along the Great Ocean Road frontage and garden areas associated with the two existing dwellings.

c. Is approximately 6 hectares and has been used for many years as low-level

agriculture (grazing). The land also supports two existing dwellings.

Policy History

5. For more than 25 years the site has been contained within the defined settlement boundary of Torquay - Jan Juc.

6. A number of planning scheme amendments which relate to the land specifically, or more generally to the area zoned LDRZ, have been considered in that time. In the course of these amendments and associated public hearings, in order to ensure efficient use of land inside the Torquay Jan Juc Settlement boundary;

a. The purpose of the application of the Development Plan Overlay Schedule 6 over the LDRZ land was characterised as ensuring the coordinated development of the subject site for higher densities than the (then applicable) 0.4ha LDRZ minimum.

b. An independent planning Panel for Amendment C37 accepted higher density

development of the subject land and land east of Strathmore Drive would be possible, and Council following the Panel advice has now rezoned to General Residential Zone – Schedule 1, the remaining land east of Strathmore Drive which was not previously General Residential Zone – Schedule 1.

c. Council, following the Panel Hearing where the Panel recommended higher densities to which the Council consented, has now written to and alerted Barwon Water about possible conventional housing development on the subject site.

Current Policy

7. A range of policy applies to the land, including the following zones and overlays.

a. Low Density Residential Zone


b. Development Plan Overlay Schedule 6

c. Bushfire Management Overlay

d. Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 22

e. Development Contributions Plan Overlay – Schedule 2

f. Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 6.

8. Clause 21.08 Torquay Jan Juc Strategy is also relevant to the land. Clause 21.08 specifically seeks an investigation into the potential for increasing housing densities on the subject land.

9. The Development Plan Overlay – Schedule 6 now seeks a mix of lot sizes whereas previous minimum lot sizes were in the order of 4000m2.

Planning Scheme Amendment Application

10. An application to amend the planning scheme was lodged in mid-2018. The key objectives of the application were to.

a. Rezone the subject land to General Residential Zone Schedule 1.

b. Obtain approval for a Development Plan pursuant to the Development Plan Overlay Schedule 6.

11. The application was supported by background reports and investigations into the following, amongst others.

a. Landscape

b. Bushfire

c. Ecology

12. These detailed background investigations do not raise any significant limitations on the capability of the site to support increased densities.

13. Since lodgement some years ago there has been ongoing liaison and review with Council officers, largely in relation to the issues of landscape response and stormwater management. This is now considered complete and gives some comfort that the application to rezone the land, and the resultant lot densities, both accord with the direction given by the Panel in Amendment C37 and also the resultant planning policy.

14. The application is effectively ‘on hold’ pending resolution of the Distinctive Areas and Landscape project.


Draft Statement of Planning Policy

15. What the authors of the Draft Planning Policy and associated reports and investigations set about to achieve was a herculean task given the scope of the study area; from Breamlea and Point Addis in the south, and north through the hinterland to the environs of Mount Duneed.

16. In this context a ‘broad-brush’ approach is the only practical and reasonable approach given the task at hand.

17. Fortress Holdings Pty Ltd represents the owners of a very small part of the study area, namely 6 ha to the immediate west of Strathmore Drive, and known as 125 and 135 Strathmore Drive, Jan Juc.

18. The Panel Report for Amendment C37 included recommendations that there was scope for higher density lots in the subject area. It also contained reference to the fact that Barwon Water could make both water supply and sewer available to the subject land but would need advice from Council that conventional housing was possible, prior to Barwon Water designing the system. Council has since provided that advice.

19. The Panel Report, and the DPO6 (and changes to it), referenced further

investigations into a range of issues, be undertaken in relation to future planning for increased densities on the site.

20. One such investigation into landscape and visual assessment has been undertaken by the respected landscape architect, Mr Allan Wyatt. This assessment reviewed the site in the context of a range of landscape policy, noting that the Great Ocean Road environs have been subject to a range of landscape investigations and associated policies. The report focussed on the subject land, rather than the broad brush approach necessarily applied to the DAL project, and found that landscape values and policy could be satisfactorily addressed by certain design and landscaping measures.

21. The definition of minimal change in the Draft SPP is;

An area with neighbourhood, heritage, environmental or landscape characteristics that are sufficiently special to a municipality, metropolitan Melbourne, or Victoria to warrant protection. Planning Practice Note 90: Planning for Housing (PPN90) has further details.

22. Given the direction of the Panel Report in Amendment C37 in relation to the subject land, the specific site-based review of landscape policy and values, and the variety of background reports and investigations reviewing all elements of the site against proposed increased densities, it is not appropriate for the Draft SPP to classify the subject land as a candidate for ‘minimal change’.


We are grateful for the opportunity to make a submission to the Draft SPP and look forward to the opportunity to restate the facts expressed above.

Organisation:

Affected property:

1464

Jordan Moore

I oppose the development at Spring Creek and the overdevelopment along the surf coast due to the negative environmental impact it will have upon the area.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1465

Andrew McCauley

I support option 2 . Torquay infrastructure is not able to support the existing level of development and there are many of the approved estates within the Torquay boundaries that are only partially developed. The current infrastructure under stress is: ‐ Water ‐ Barwon Water recently reported that before the end of the current decade water consumption will exceed its production in the Torquay area. ‐Schools ‐ the new North Torquay Primary School is now bringing portables in to handle the student growth which is years ahead of schedule. All Torquay's primary schools are full. With substantial development housing yet to be completed and most of it being occupied by young families where will they obtain their education? ‐ last week there were power blackouts in Torquay and these have recently become fairly common. The local power infrastructure clearly needs to be upgraded which will probably include the sub stations. Another substantial cost which will probably be borne by the community! ‐ Public transport hardly exists in Torquay and its' surrounding areas. On any beach day all parking which is considerable, is consumed and traffic conditions become hazardous. You are lucky if you can obtain parking within half a kilometre of any beach. Many of the beach goers come from the estates surrounding Torquay or even further afield. Again all these estates are still being developed so the existing problems are going to get a lot worse. A public transport plan for Torquay and all its surrounding areas is urgently required now. ‐ the storm water management of North Torquay is in crisis. The Sands that receives most of its storm water from the developments above it has been polluting the Karaaf wetlands with phosphorus, nitrogen and solids for the past 10 years. The Sands has an extensive wetland to treat storm water but has been unable to deal with the volumes and the pollutant levels that it receives from the developments above it. 10 years of water quality testing by the Sands support the above statements. This problem is going to get a lot worse because both Stretton and the Dunes estates are only partially developed and will soon be covered by impervious surfaces creating far greater storm water run off. Parks Victoria has already expressed its concern that the Karaaf which is meant to be a saline environment is becoming fresh water which is having a substantial impact on the wetland's flora and fauna. Development around Torquay must cease and proper planning must be commenced to support the communities that currently exist and those that will exist when the existing developments are completed. Water, storm water, schooling, energy infrastructure, public transport and traffic management represent some of the areas that are currently not able to meet the demands of the growing population.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1466

Vaughn McCarthy

Leave it alone. There are other areas to build in Torquay. Leave some green space for future generations. If there was no money to be made would the developers go ahead with the project? It is also in a high fire risk area. Black Saturday. Nature not houses is needed. There is plenty of land in Torquay North.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1467

Simon Lofts

I'd like to express my support for OPTION 1 . Having a controlled, environmentally sustainable approach to open up more permanent residences in Torquay, and in doing so, build new and broader amenity to service the new residents and those in close by areas is only a benefit to Torquay / Jan Juc. I have been holidaying, surfing the beaches, involved at the Jan Juc SLSC and enjoyed countless hours on the esplanade and in the pub... my aim is to semi retire within the area and without additional allotments within the Spring Creek precinct, the cost and affordability will be unreachable for all like minded, young family and well heeled entry level professional buyer.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1468

Jeffrey Searle

I vote option 2. Spring Creek valley must not be developed for low density housing. Duffields Road must remain the boundary. Spring Creek Valley must remain a safe haven for plant and wildlife and help stop Torquay losing its identity by being just another oversized residential area

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1469

Sally Gretchen Warmington

I support Option 2 for the following reasons: 1. The Torquay area has undergone extensive and rapid development in recent years which has had some positive benefits but has also increased crowding on beaches, roads and other public facilities. The existing town boundary should be maintained to limit the size of the township and preserve adjacent green space. 2. Residential housing development in the Spring Creek Valley would threaten the existing habitat in the area and consequently, the animals and plants that rely on that habitat to survive and thrive. 3. Alternative options should be pursued to improve employment opportunities in the Surf Coast and specifically Torquay area that will be sustainable in the long term. Residential housing development offers mainly short term jobs in construction. Other option should be considered including community solar projects, cultural activities and innovative, sustainable agriculture projects. 4. I oppose option 1 because it would not protect the Yellow Gum woodland, a species of State significance. Residential housing development in the Spring Creek Valley is not consistent with State conservation planning measures. Once unique habitat is destroyed it cannot be replaced. 5. Of the two options, only Option 2 is consistent with the stated aim of the Surf Coast Declared Area Framework plan, that is to ‘conserve and enhance the declared area’s significant landscapes.’ Thank you for considering my submission.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1470

Dorothy Sims

My submission is in support of Option 2 regarding the developement of Spring Creek Torquay.I am concerned about the rapid growth of my town where I have been a very long time resident, I see a big change in the last 5 years or so. There is a shortage of parking spaces for residents & the big number of visitors who come for a day on the beach when it is hot & also those who are holidays. the infrastucture is really unable to cope now & with more housing to come it will only get worse. We are totally destroying the very thing that people have loved about Torquay

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1471

Martina Currie

I am writing to "Save Spring Creek" !!!!! I agree that it is time to hold Premier Andrews to his commitment to establish a permanent town boundary at Duffields Road !! Option 2 is the only way to go ‐ Torquay township is already being ruined by urban sprawl and huge estates at a very fast rate.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1472

Kaitlyn du Preez

I SUPPORT OPTION NO ‐ 2 Leave the sacred families and their land alone, it is not ours to steal and tarnish, it does not belong to you. So do not develop on their land, their people’s land.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1473

Ant Williams

Torquay

My family and I strongly support the protection of Spring Creek. We ask that Option 2 be adopted, to maintain a permanent town boundary at Duffields Road as promised by the Andrews' labour government. Living very close to this unique green corridor, it was one of the reasons we chose to settle in the area for its natural and unspoilt beauty. We believe that any development permitted under Option 1 will created a severely detrimental change to the current habitat of the flaura and fauna in the area. The beautiful pastures will be replaced by roading, housing, and infrastructure that benefits the developers but less so the community. As a member of that community, I recognise the need for sustainable community housing but have seen enormous stretches of land already made available for these purposes in nearby Armstrong Creek. Existing council plans already include substantial land releases for future development so I don't believe we need to sacrifice such a unique piece of Torquay for more residential housing. I'm concerned about having thousands more cars in our township, pushing native animals out of their habitat, crowding the fragile coastal environment, and the addition of thousands more houses in Torquay which seems to directly contradict the aims of the Distinctive Area Landscape process.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1474

Carla Crofts

Option 2

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1475

Danny McCarthy

I oppose further development of Spring Creek, Torquay/Jan Juc. I therefore SUPPORT Option 2 which designates the Spring Creek area outside the Torquay – Jan Juc protected settlement boundary and has it forming part of the green break between Torquay – Jan Juc and Bellbrae. A protected settlement boundary would be applied at Duffields Road and the area between Duffields Road and Bellbrae would be rural land. The reasons for supporting Option 2 include: 1. There has been a lot of development in Torauay/Jan Juc over the past decade. I consider other Victorian regional areas might benefit from population growth, housing development and economic growth. 2. In 2019, the Victorian Government declared parts of the Surf Coast Shire Council and the City of Greater Geelong — Torquay – Jan Juc and surrounds — a ‘distinctive area and landscape’ under the Planning and Environment Act 1987. I consider the Victorian Premier, Dan Andrews, and local MP Darren Cheeseman, should stand by their election promises to ban development west of Duffields Road. Very simple. 3. Infrastructure to support Torquay's increased development over past years has not kept up. The magnitude of funding by the Surf Coast Shire for newly developed areas is mind blowing when compared to the older areas of Torquay. For example, why too can't Old Torquay have concreted footpaths and overhead power lines placed under ground like the new areas? 4. Developers, understandably, are in business to maximise profits. Say no more. 5. Torquay/Jan Juc are great communities. Visitors enjoy their beaches and other amenities. This could be put at risk if unconstrained development continues ("unconstrained" if Option 1 gets up and the developers demand more land in a few years time and the Victorian Government caves in). 6. Spring Creek is a lovely part of Torquay/Jan Juc. It is environmentally healthy and needs to be kept that way.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1476

cathleen sheridan

I believe that development of this area should be stopped. The distinctive landscape of the area is being destroyed by over development.Our little town and the amenities and green space we have are already overburdened by population growth and visitor numbers. I think the green wedge that Spring creek provides is essential to maintain for the environmental health of our area.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1477

Lorenzo Lorefice

In my family’s opinion the area must be protected, not developed any further. Enough land exploitation and bulk development. What is proposed will Not be good for Torquay, residents or nature. We support option 2. Protect Spring Creek

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1478

Helen J Forrest

OPTION 2 is the only way to go moving forward. Reason as follows:‐ 1. The current state government went to the Surfcoast people claiming that if they won the election there would be no further development beyond Duffields Rd. Mr Cheeseman the Labour candidate for this area guaranteed that it was supported by Dan Andrews, therefore as clearly stated in the last sentence of Option 2 "A protected settlement boundary would be applied at Duffields Rd and the area between Duffields Rd and Bellbrae would be rural land." 2. The infrastructure in this area does not support the growth in its present state far less any further development. Therefore OPTION 2

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1479

Michael McLean

no

I am in support of option 2, no development of the Spring Creek zone. Having read through both options carefully I believe the proponents of option 1 are a disgrace. The misinformation and twisting of the truth through out their proposal is gobsmacking in it's audacity and fools no one. The Labour Party campaigned heavily on a policy of no development in Spring Creek and a reigning in of rampant development along our coast. This garnered them great support from the Surf Coast electorate and the Labour candidate was successfully elected largely due to this issue. The people have already spoken. We now have the opportunity to follow this through. Absolute NO to opening up any more land for development in Torquay.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1480

Scott Edmonds‐Wilson

My name is Scott Edmonds‐Wilson and on behalf of my family I would like to pledge our support for Option 2 creating a permanent boundary at Duffields Road. My wife and I moved to Jan Juc in 2006 and some of the main reasons we were attracted to the area were the relaxed vibe of the locals, the rolling hills of Jan Juc and the rural landscape and trees scattered throughout Jan Juc/Bellbrae. We fell in love with the area so much so that after previously moving 4 times in 5 years (involving three different states) we decided that this was the place we wanted to settle and bring up a family. 15 years later we now have two children who have recently graduated after 7 years at Bellbrae Primary School. For much of their time at Bellbrae PS they rode their bikes from Jan Juc to Bellbrae Primary alongside the very area that is propsosed to be opened up for development. The natural beauty of the Spring Creek land between Torquay and Bellbrae has always been good for our souls as we ride past it. It takes me back to a simpler time from my own childhood growing up in rural Australia. It stands in stark contrast to the urban sprawl that is occurring in other areas of the local community. In my opinion to lose this little patch of paradise to development would be a total injustice. It has been mooted time and again and time and again the local community has stood up against it and vehemently voiced our displeasure against it. Hopefully this time, once and for all, the majority of our community will be heard. I trust that common sense will prevail and that Option 2 will be preferred, creating a permanent boundary at Duffields Road so that the natural beauty of Spring Creek can be enjoyed for generations to come. Who knows, with any luck in the future, my children may be able to ride alongside their children and gaze across at the unspoilt view across Spring Valley as they too cycle to school at Bellbrae. Yours sincerely Scott, Nicole, Clare and Charles Edmonds‐Wilson

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1481

Leanne Montague

I support Option 1 of the proposed Spring Creek development. The development will provide a community space for all to use, and introduce much needed schools and childcare for the area. The development will be in keeping with the other low density housing in the area and create job opportunities for locals in the building and construction industry. Torquay is reaching capacity with many people from metropolitan Melbourne relocating to the area permanently. Additional housing and infrastructure will be crucial to support the growing and expanding area. In addition to the much needed housing and infrastructure, the preservation of the creek and surrounding yellow gums (as well as the proposed additional plantings) will enhance the current environment and create a more sustainable future for the area.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1482

Anne Nairn

We choose OPTION 1. We are not looking to suburbanise our property ‐ 485 Grossmans Road, Lot 1, TP 919415 ‐ but require the opportunity to subdivide into larger blocks as in ‘Lifestyle Living’ or to sell on to a third party. The family has paid rates and owned the property for over 60 years and are at a stage where it is not reasonable to continue the ownership. The entire family has resided in Torquay/Jan Judy for over half a century and consider we should have the right to decide the property’s outcome. Environmental issues will be taken into account but the choice should be that of the landowners not that of those who have not contributed in any way. Torquay is a growing area and we deem it would be for the greater good to have some control over that growth. We do not want the land locked up and consider ‘Lifestyle Living ‘ would be an appropriate plan to follow. We also want the prospect of a future activity zone to be considered and for the area to stay under investigation.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1483

Lesley Anne Jolley

I wish to nominate Option 2 as my strongly preferred position regarding the proposed development of Spring Creek. The unique charm of Torquay /JanJuc is already under threat from ongoing development. Current infrastructure and amenities are under pressure and threatening the quality of life for our local residents as well as for the many visitors who want to visit our beautiful town and its magnificent beaches. Its welcoming environment and readily accessible commercial, medical and sporting facilities must be protected at all costs. Any further development would imperil the unique character of our town.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1484

Jillian Turner

I have lived in Torquay for 30 years and have seen many changes during that time. My concern re the proposed new development at spring creek area is that we don’t have any buffer areas left with natural habitats and greened areas that have been such a vital part of life here. Also I have major concerns about how the developers have approached their desire for the land. To me it appears their advertising is way over the top, false, misleading and in fact quite deceitful. So why should we trust this company with as they say looking out for our best interest. They appear to stop at nothing to get what they want and that type of tactic is both dangerous and upsetting. Please consider this proposal and what is best for our community carefully.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1485

Helen Williams

protect Spring Creek

Dear Surf Coast Councillors, I live in Torquay and feel there is plenty of areas that have places for people to live, especially Quay 2 which is now under development. There is no need to despoil such a lovely area of Spring Creek. There are already way too many people in a rural area such as Torquay, Jan Juc now as evidenced by the huge amount of traffic in the area. If you add 2000 more home sites in Spring Creek, the area becomes a city and not a rural area. The atmosphere will be lost, and for why? If is is only for money, that is not a reasonable reason to spoil a beautiful area, and it is bad for the environment. We are all now trying to protect our planet Earth. As it is, now I am getting solar power and cannot link to the grid as powercor have no ability to link any more people, so it would be inadvisable to have more population in the area as there would be no chance of solar power. Yours sincerely Helen Williams

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1486

Georgia Mcdowall

I choose option 2

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1487

Elizabeth Charles

I support option 2.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1488

Christine Ann Simmon

I would like DELWP to support OPTION 2 proposal. My family and I have lived in Torquay for over 20 years. The current pressure on the environment from the pace and size of the increase in population has caused enormous loss of native vegetation, wild life, fauna and destruction of coastline. There needs to be a definite and permanent boundary to our town. All future development must stop at Duffields Road. Spring Creek should remain as a rural area and not be rezoned for residential development. I can not understand why we (the public) are still fighting for this to happen. For years and years Spring Creek Valley has been fought over with only Developers wanting it rezoned. We only need to look to other countries to see how they cherish and guard their green zones. It is imperative we do not allow any further development to occur to this beautiful valley.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1489

Cathy O'Loughlin

I do not support development beyond Duffields road in Torquay. As a resident of 20 years in the area I am aware of huge development in the Torquay over recent years and feel that the existing growth corridor to the north is the best way to deal with demand for housing in the area. There is no need for the use of the valuable spring creek valley which is a haven for native flora and fauna, which we have a responsibility to protect. Greed and the generation of development can not be the drivers here at the expense of the natural environment and the world that we leave behind for future generations. Please do not authorise this development for the sake of the trees, the land, the flowers, the birds, the insects, the animals and the children. Dan Andrews stated in march 2019 that he could not be any clearer in stating that the boundary is at Grossmans Road, we trust Mr Andrews to keep our state safe and have taken him at his word, following all sorts of rules and requirements during covid. He now needs to keep his word and protect this Wadduwurrang land.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1490

Dennis Pearson

Option 1 directly contravenes our own state conservation planning measures intended to protect Yellow gum woodland, and other species of state significance contained in the Spring Creek valley.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1491

Gary Manton

Option 2 – Spring Creek Valley

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1492

Kevin McNamara

Option 2 is the only option to consider. My connection to Torquay is from the early 1960s, my parents lived here for 30 years and I have lived here permanently for the last 10 years. The town boundary should remain at Duffields Rd. Future development has ample options in the corridor between Torquay and Geelong. Infrastructure will be more efficient to build and maintain to service Torquay when in the Geelong Torquay corridor. There is no benefit to our Torquay community by creating urban sprawl that is proposed by the developers. Spring Creek is a refuge for fauna and flora which flows as a huge benefit to Torquay. Too much development has already squeezed native habitat. The Surfcoast has been proclaimed by the state government as having Distinctive Areas and Landscapes affording protection and any development west of Duffields Rd is certainly not consistent with the DAL. Both previous State and Federal elections considered this issue with specific commitments and the community was decisive in supporting the town boundary remain permanently at Duffields Rd. The State Government needs to acknowledge that the community has a clear mandate to make such decisions and not have development imposed on us by outsiders.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1493

David chivers

Protect spring creek and not let development

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1494

Melissa Nicholas

I want option 2

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1495

Damian Chappell

I would like to support Option 2 of the DWELP Draft Planning Policy that specifies a protected settlement boundary be applied at Duffields Road and the area between Duffields Road and Bellbrae would be rural land. This would ensure that the greater Torquay area does not lose the character and soul that makes it so special. Torquay is a tourist destination known for its beaches, serene countryside and heritage ‐ it does not need to become another Geelong and have its character changed to become a bustling people centre. If Torquay was to lose its natural character it effectively loses the value that it currently holds which would have a negative effect on the community, business and property values. I think that the State and Local government has supported developers and business in the past, allowing value creation and development in a responsible manner ‐ however it is fast approaching the stage where limitations and future developments need to be assessed in light of sustaining the character of Torquay for fear that the bubble will burst and it will lose its inherent value. The additional infrastructure required across Torquay to support additional housing in the proposed area would also greatly impact the entire local area. Additional traffic signals, roundabouts, concrete, drainage and roadworks in itself would completely alter the natural landscape and impact flora and fauna in the area including all of the listed, threatened and endangered species that thrive in the area. Spring Valley is a natural habitat that cannot be replaced, whereas additional housing can easily be placed in the area between Torquay and Geelong that is already being developed for this purpose. Tourists flock to Torquay for what it is and the impact to the local and state economy if this is compromised cannot be calculated.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1496

Nandalie Cormack

Jan Juc vic 3228

Option 2 ‐ Green break area to protect spring creek I believe that spring creek should be protected to keep the natural rural setting of the area, also to protect all wildlife , so that native animals that have already been pushed out from developed areas will have some where to live. The native trees and plants on the land will be protected and for peace of mind of the local aboriginal community to enjoy and know that the area has been kept as it is, I would so love for the hard border that was promised to us that we have fought so hard to keep over the years, only to be so disappointed when your driving down Duffield's road admiring that green hills and trees to suddenly see a sold sign and later find out that Matthew Guy re‐zoned the area under everyone in our communities noses and allowed the sale of the land, this has given me great anxiety over the years. To stop more houses being built to put more pressure on the land, once 1000s of extra people are living here sure it will bring in jobs for a short term for local tradesmen but once all the houses are built where are these 1000s of people going to get jobs from when there are no jobs here now that the surfing industry has dried up. To stop even more pressure on car parking at the beach, we already have limited car parks and there is no space to create any more, with all the developments in Torquay North, Armstrong Creek and Warralily only being a 10 minute drive, we already have no cars parks this will create more stress on our beaches. To stop these developers who don't live in the areas and don't seem to care about local community's, that dislike trees, nature, space, and develop areas that only suit housing to create to most profit and ruin the environment. To stop to the decrement of the local communities mental health by causing extra stress of having power outages, limited space, hardly any trees, and not being able to get to the beach because you can't find a park and you have to drive half an hour to an hour for work as there is no longer any jobs.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1497

Emily Collett

I support Option 2: Green Break area to protect Spring Creek. I do not want residential housing in the Spring Creek valley. It is up to us to protect and preserve the land upon which we live, and this land in particular is home to natural habitat we cannot afford to lose. The continual clearing of land such as this precious area for housing is contributing to local and global issues, and relates directly to community and climate change in equal measure.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1498

Jessica Preston

I support Option 2. I’m lucky to count my family among those that benefit from the exisiting beauty of the Spring Creek valley and believe in it’s true potential to further benefit our community. From the native birds that we see settle among the trees of the valley each evening, to the frogs that make their way up through the grasses to our backyard at night, Spring Creek valley has a voice that deserves to be heard. Having watched Torquay have it’s green links eroded by short‐term planning, which only seems to line the pockets of developers, has been devastating. Tangible connections to native flora and fauna are critical to this township’s identity, an identity that drives our visitor economy. Therefore, protecting the delicate environment of Spring Creek valley should be viewed as important as the coastal reserve that brings tourism to the Surf Coast and as another a long term investment in our economic growth. I do not believe that cutting further into the valley for the few short‐term benefits of building and development jobs will do anything other than hack away at the core of Surf Coast’s uniqueness. Despite having been largely disregarded in the past, we now have an opportunity to provide a permanent protected area which would allow the restoration of habitat for native flora and fauna. Please support Option 2.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1499

Samuel Perovich

Danawa drive

I have family that live on Duffields road who will be directly effected by this and the proposed development

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1500

Julie Mangan

I object to this proposed development. We need to maintain what community considers to be the current western edge of our township at Duffields Road, locking in a permanent green break where nature and community can thrive. I support option 2 because we need to create and maintain a protected habitat in Spring Creek Valley for flora and fauna threatened by residential housing development, Stop the over crowding on our beaches, surf spots and car parking already at breaking point during the peak holiday periods, Reduce the impact of unsustainable growth that will undermine the distinctive landscape character of our towns, Protect and restore the remanent Bellarine yellow gum woodland habitat by maintaining an exclusion zone from residential development between Torquay and Bellbrae.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1501

Fiona Allpress

I choose Option 2 For environmental reasons we must curtail further development of Torquay. We must protect our already dwindling green areas in order to promote and sustain our healthy coastal lifestyle.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1502

Danielle Johnson

I support Option 2 to protect the Spring Creek distinctive landscape area from any form of residential housing zoning, and to set a Torquay’s town boundary at Duffield’s Road. I believe this option provides the best opportunity to ensure a protected habitat in Spring Creek for flora and fauna‐ including the remnant Bellarine Yellow Gums and kangaroo mobs, preserves the distinctive small town feeling and character of Torquay, JanJuc and Bellbrae by maintain clear green boundaries and reducing urban sprawl to the west. Maintaining the distinctive character of the Surf Coast is also critical for the long term tourism economy of our region.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1503

Andrew robertson

I vote option 2

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1504

Andrea Mangan

I strongly object to this proposal.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1505

Melissa O'Neill

I vote for option 2. This is for the reasons stated below; ‐ As a resident of Strathmore Dr I am highly concerned about the amount of through traffic this will bring to my street. ‐ Jan Juc has a lovely community feel to it, this increased traffic will make it unsafe for my daughter to play in our front yard. ‐ We have a beautiful landscape in spring creek. It is my favourite part of the day when I drive home and see the rolling hills. A development of this would dramatically change the look and feel of the place I call home. ‐ The local wildlife is already being decimated. With an increase of tourists our local wildlife rescuer and mechanic, Jason shared with us that an unprecedented amount of wildlife are losing their lives and homes. Developing this land would be further contributing to this. ‐ I want my daughter to be able to attend Bellbrae Primary School. This school has already grown significantly in the past 10 years. In 2019 it has 477 enrollments compared with 398 in 2014. Any potential developments just adds to the already struggling school site. ‐ The other night we lost power to the whole of Jan Juc. This affected 1641 residents. The initial proposal for this site was to add 1200 homes. That would almost double the amount of people in Jan Juc. This is simply not sustainable for our health system, roads, beaches, parks or anything that makes this part of the world special. ‐ This summer has seen our town and facilities unusable for us locals. It is great for local business, but any further development would mean we are unable to even get a park at the local shop. Finally Wording contained within the Draft Statement of Planning Policy clearly states that the Surf Coast Declared Area Framework Plan should ‘conserve and enhance the declared area’s significant landscapes’ including the Spring Creek valley, west of Duffields Road (under a state significant landscape overlay). Option 2 supports this aim, whereas Option 1 clearly contradicts it.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1506

Maryann Jones

Why are we even having this debate?....Premier Andrews stated on March 20, 2019 “ we made commitments and those commitments will be honoured in full. Duffields road is the boundary not one foot further. I can’t be any clearer than that‐that will be the town boundary there will be no development beyond that” Why Spring Creek would even be Targeted for development is beyond any reasonable thought...an area of such natural beauty, on the world's stage as a magical destination, not only as an international surf location, but the start of our unique surf coast drive. NO DEVELOPMENT HANDS OFF SPRING CREEK. Really enough HANDS OFF SPRING CREEK.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1507

christine hurley

We have enough development in Torquay. This newly proposed development will not only ruin our beaches and wildlife, but will also our sense of community. I have lived in jan Juc for over 40 years, and have seen the congestion in all areas over the town and have had enough. Leave spring creek alone!

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1508

Vicki Morzinek

HANDS OF SPRING CREEK VALLEY. I VOTE OPTION 2 Please listen to the community, how many times does the community have to give their opinion on protecting Spring Creek Valley before they are taken seriously, we live here its our right to want to protect our community, No development on Spring creek valley. Secure the Boundary at Duffields Road . Protect the environment, land our wild life and our trees. I would love Torquay village to stay a village and support our loving caring community. HANDS OF OUR BEAUTIFUL SPRING CREEK VALLEY.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1509

Chris Collins

Torquay victoria 3228

We need to preserve our rural town and refrain from too much housing and too large developments. Im sure there are many native wildlifes that will suffer from such a development s well

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1510

Nerissa Jaye Hede

I SUPPORT OPTION 2. My family and I are very strongly opposed to the Spring Creek Valley Development proposal. We moved here, choosing to live in a green belt in the area, so we could enjoy the natural beauty of this area and continue to preserve and increase the beauty of this land. We have already planted over 50 native trees on our property, to enhance the natural environment into the future. We purposefully avoided moving into the new developments as we feel Torquay is already VERY overdeveloped and does not have the infrastructure to support the huge population. The Spring Creek development will only make it WORSE. We have already witnessed the number of wildlife that are being killed on the roads due to the increase in population, the increase in rubbish that is left near the beach or floating in the creek, that flows into our ocean and kills sea life. My son is a very active fisherman and regularly fishes in Spring Creek as a strategy to reduce his anxiety. Changing the landscape around this creek, will impact heavily on his experience. Increasing the population will only make this worse. The land of the Wadawarrung country needs protecting. It is sacred. It is beautiful. It is the heart of Torquay. Once developed, we will never get back this sacred land. It is the main waterway that runs through Torquay and out into the ocean. YOU MUST PROTECT SPRING CREEK instead of thinking about money. Money is disposable, mother nature is NOT

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1511

John Topic

My family and I moved to the area from urban Melbourne to be part of the coastal/rural community. My concern with the proposed development is that it has the potential to remove the rural aspect of the township and create a busier suburb, the very reason for moving from the outskirts of Melbourne! I'm am also concerned, having more residents, the lack of opportunities my children will have for placements in extra curricular activities, that are already difficult to obtain!

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1512

Andrew Roche

Residents living in the Spring Creek Valley received a commitment from the current Victorian State Government that no development west of Duffields road would take place. Local residents in good faith have embraced that commitment . We are not in favor of any proposal that would impact adversely on the current amenity or indeed the fragile state of our native wildlife currently hebetating this valley. Our own property currently harbors significant rare native flora and fauna some of which is reliant on the current natural state of the surrounding valley. The valley is already under significant pressure. The immediate surrounding has already seen significant subdivisions and housing development resulting in a large increase in population, road traffic, noise and pollution. We would however be in favor of any proposal that will preserve encourage and indeed provide protection of this fragile eco system. DEVELOPMENT IS NOT ALWAYS THE RIGHT ANSWER. NATURAL OPEN PLAINS AND WOODLANDS NEED TO BE PRESERVED FOR THE BENIFIT OF OUR NATIVE HABITAT

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1513

Colin Symes

I am strongly against the proposal to extend any residential development in Torquay beyond Duffields Road. The reason people want to live in Torquay is largely because of the unique hinterland and "village" feel of the area. The explosive development we are seeing is destroying that character. The beauty of Torquay is that in a few minutes drive or even cycling you are in some of the most picturesque parts of the world. We need to retain that beauty. Once it is built on it is gone forever and there is no going back. Visitors come here to enjoy this beauty but it is not limitless. When there are houses in place of beautiful hills, valleys and woodlands with its associated wildlife there is no unique attraction. The infrastructure to support further population in the town is also not adequate. Enough is enough of the continual want to cram more people into the area. It is a fact that developers refuse to take no for an answer even when several community surveys are clearly against further development. They are only interested in cramming as many residences as possible in to an area and then moving on and have no conscience about the impact they leave behind. I am fearful for what we and our children will have to enjoy in this beautiful part of the world if Option 1 is allowed to proceed. So please do not allow greed and the short term financial gain of a few influential developers to destroy what we have. Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1514

Amy Tsiantas

I support option 2 for the following reasons. Create a protected habitat in Spring Creek Valley for flora and fauna threatened by residential housing development, Stop the over crowding on our beaches, surf spots and car parking already at breaking point during the peak holiday periods, Reduce the impact of unsustainable growth that will undermine the distinctive landscape character of our towns, Protect and restore the remanent Bellarine yellow gum woodland habitat by maintaining an exclusion zone from residential development between Torquay and Bellbrae.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1515

Marcel shields

I do not wish for spring creek to be developed

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1516

Cameron Inness

I have been a resident of the Surfcoast community for nearly 12 years now and during that time I have seen the development of Torquay go beyond the “town” image that it used to hold. It is now more a suburb of Geelong with too much high density living being introduced with the continued loss of TORQUAY’s Surfcoast identity. The further development of the Spring Creek precinct will I feel further erode TORQUAY’s identity as a coastal town and place increased strain on its already under developed and under maintained infrastructure. The Duffields road connection between Torquay and Jan Juc has seen increased traffic movement as more people move into the area and it is becoming an increasingly “unsafe” connection between the 2 suburbs with increased volumes of traffic and speed as a factor. I feel that the proposed Option 1 will further erode the “Surfcoast” identity that Torquay is fighting to maintain and it needs to be preserved. I support Option 2 of no further development in the Spring Creek precinct.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1517

Candice McDonald

I support Option 2: Green break area to protect Spring Creek. I love where I live and the uniqueness of this beautiful part of Victoria. I have seen it change dramatically of the years with development ‐ too much. We need to stop this now and retain the beauty of our surrounds. Spring Creek needs to be outside of the protected settlement boundary and form part of the surrounding green break between Torquay–Jan Juc and Bellbrae. We need a protected settlement boundary should to be applied at Duffields Road and the area between Duffields Road and Bellbrae should be rural land. We need to keep the distinctive character and heritage of Torquay and Jan Juc, for those living here to enjoy now and the future. Candice McDonald

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1518

Sally Hunt

I support option 2 ... No more development please. There is enough residential dwellings considering the infrastructure available... Besides we need to contain Torquay now as much as possible as there is well and truly enough development already in place. Also the wildlife needs to be preserved in this area as its paramount for the future generations.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1519

Rachel Bowen

Dear Minister of Planning and Committee Members, I am writing this submission to voice my objection to Option 1 and support for Option 2, regarding any further urban development of Spring Creek area west of Duffield Road. Our surf‐coast region has a fragile eco system supporting our unique native flora and fauna and this eco system is being compromised and endangered by ongoing urban development. Spring Creek acts as a nature corridor for many species moving in and about us all the time. If more houses are built, as proposed in Option 1, sites of cultural significance and connection for Wadawurrung people will be displaced or destroyed. If more houses are built, as proposed in Option 1, grey water from the drains connected to these developments will run off into creek, turning the water turbid and uninhabitable. If more houses are built, as proposed in Option 1, species such as the Bellarine Yellow River Gumtree (unique to this location and few others) will become threatened and endangered. If more houses are built, as proposed in Option 1, more cars will be on our road and more pressure placed on services and on our beaches and dunes, which are already under pressure from over‐crowding due to the rapid urban growth which has taken place in the last decade. If more houses are built, as proposed in Option 1, connecting Torquay to Bellbrae, the atmospheric feeling of being in a rural town will be lost. This rural feeling must be maintained, by creating a boundary of development, as this atmosphere is what many tourists come to experience and why families moved to this region. The Spring Creek is such a beautiful and peaceful place to walk and be near. It should be treasured and preserved for the future generations to experience. I urge the committee to be courageous and wise in their decision making and ensure no further development is approved along the Spring Creek west of Duffield Road. With regards, Rachel Bowen

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1520

Deborah Hooper

Option 2 definitely. I have watched with sadness as native animals and birds have been pushed out of their homeland or been killed by traffic over recent years as Torquay becomes suburbia with huge houses, tiny blocks , trees cut down. I now need to shop outside Torquay in holiday periods cos I can’t get a car park and can no longer find a car park at local beach. This needs to stop or quality of life for those living here deteriorates. Save spring creek!!!

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1521

Jennifer Gleeson

I wish to strongly support Option 2 which will create a permanent town boundary for Torquay / Jan Juc at Duffields Road, on the basis that I oppose any form of residential development West of Duffields Road. The Victorian Government has stated that it is committed to protecting areas of 'distinctive area and landscape' ‐ it is only just that this commitment should be upheld! I believe that this area is not appropriate for residential development as it will have a long term negative environmental impact and an irreparable effect on our town character. Please keep greedy developer's hands off such an important asset to our town for ourselves and our future generations!

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1522

Sarah Bruyn

I am writing against the development of Spring Creek and in promotion of option 2 for the protection of the area. It is important to maintain the natural environment and support its diversity for the future.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1523

Rebecca Hosking

I support Option 2 ‐ no further development for the following important reasons: Reduce the impact of unsustainable growth that will undermine the distinctive landscape character of our towns. Protect and restore the remanent Bellarine yellow gum woodland habitat by maintaining an exclusion zone from residential development between Torquay and Bellbrae. Create a protected habitat in Spring Creek Valley for flora and fauna threatened by residential housing development. Stop the over crowding on our beaches, surf spots and car parking already at breaking point during the peak holiday periods.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1524

Charlie Cole

Torquay is already full and packed as we have seen over the summer. There have been number of blackouts during colder weather and the environment needs to be protected. All the wildlife will be destroyed/hurt and will have to relocate homes. I do not agree with this.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1525

India wren

I SUPPORT OPTION 2!! I don’t want Torquay to have more homes we are already full I would rather reserve the greenery! The wildlife need to live there! I don’t think we have any room at all for more residents.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1526

Kent Staines

I am in firm support of option 2. I believe this will provide the best outcome for current residents of Torquay and for the environment. I do not support further development adjacent to Spring Creek west of Duffields road.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1527

Stephanie Parsons

I support option 2. Destroy town character

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1528

Kathryn Lucas

Option 2. Don’t develop, protect the landscape.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1529

Kelsey Dunlop

I strongly oppose the intended planned development of the Spring Creek area in Torquay. I also strongly opposed a similar intention in 2009. My beliefs remain the same. The beauty of the Torquay area is diminishing due to the unnecessary developments for land and housing purposes. The area is simply not sustainable for a larger residential addition, which was clearly evident when the power went out across Torquay and Jan Juc on January 11 of this year. It was only around 34c. Businesses could not run, residents and guests were not comfortable. The beauty of Torquay is the fact that it has a wonderful coastline, which meets bush and pastures, with the brilliant wildlife that comes with it. I have seen this diminish as more land developments have taken place. The charm of Torquay will continue to diminish if this continues happening. The Victorian government noted that this land would not be developed, yet here we are 11 years later for the same reason. As a local, the continual planned development of this land breaks my heart. Please do not take this away from us again.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1530

Kornelia Pytlak

I support option 2 ! We need to protect our environment, and Torquay is already out of capacity

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1531

Lee Heron

As a frequent visitor of this area, I feel very luck to be able to have my say in this. I am for Option 2 of this submission. For the integrity of the town, the land and the community, I do not want to see the boundary moved and any development done. Protect Spring Creek, protect the koalas, and keep local and broader tourism strong in this area. Investment into the community through education of the area and connect with the aboriginal people of this land, and the community will profit off this land for generations to come. Seeing off this land will be a one time fix, with increasing problems. Thank you.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1532

Ruth Creati

Option 2 is the only option for our planet . Say yes to Less development, more protection of habitat and eco systems ‐ when will the madness stop? Our children need us to act now and protect what we have left!

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1533

Jessica Pickering

Jan Juc and Duffields road has to be protected to ensure we keep the magic that is Jan Juc. By unnecessary overdevelopment, we would be taking away from existing business’ that require our support, but also taking away the natural habitat of our beautiful species that make Jan Juc what it is today. It would be devastating to see this go ahead.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1534

Gretta Connell

I vote for option 2 ‐ the roads in Torquay are already too congested, and option 1 will only make this worse. ‐ I support option 2 as i dont want to see the beaches and coast line damaged from overcrowding. ‐ We live in Torquay as it's a coastal town with a strong sense of community. By continuing to expand it, we will lose the community feel and the reasons we love where we live. ‐ protect the beautiful rural areas nearby the township

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1535

Mark Gleeson

I 'strongly disagree' with the possible residential development of Spring Creek, west of Duffields Rd. In regard to the options that have been presented, I 'strongly support' Option 2 ‐ To create a permanent town boundary at Duffields Rd. The natural beauty surrounding Torquay has already been severely eroded by residential development / urban sprawl. It is beginning to look like a 'city suburb', not the coastal town that it was so desirable for. We have lived and worked in Torquay since 1984 and whilst some development has been appropriate and understandable, this continual push from developers (who are only interested in financial gain for themselves) to cut up more surrounding land for housing, is completely unacceptable. It must STOP before it is too late. We have already reached the population limit that was projected 10 or so years ago and with the high level of visitation not only on weekends, but now daily, the traffic is out of control with constant traffic jams on the SurfCoast Hwy & The Great Ocean Rd between Torquay & Jan Juc. Visitors and locals cars are constantly being booked / fined for parking illegally, when in reality, they have no option, because the amount of visitors far outweighs the parking spaces available / provided by council. There is an abundance of land available in Armstrong Creek / Warralily, which is within close proximity to the coast for people who desire to live in the area. The 'coastal' and what is left of the 'rural' environment around Torquay is too important to be taken over and destroyed for now & for future generations. It's time to think of the long term implications and the negative consequences of constant development.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1536

Jacqueline Adams

My child loves to play at the mouth of the river ‐ it’s a perfect spot to introduce children to the beach and water play away from the intimidating open water of the surf beach. It would be such a shame to see the river filled with off‐run from the development of the Spring Creek Area and result in many young families being unable to use this beautiful recreational space.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1537

Gillian Patten

I am definitely voting for Option 2 as was originally agreed to and passed by council. We do not wish to extend development beyond Duffield Rd

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1538

Belinda greskie

I support option 2 because I feel this land should be left untouched as its part of our town

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1539

Gary Ronald Caesar

The natural beauty of sea meets bush land is the attraction that greets humans and nature (fauna and flora). The bush land is diminishing and so is the local beauty and the very essence of our surfcoast habitat. As the human population of the region increases we need to maintain the essence of the surfcoast natural character for ours and future generations. Only 10 years ago a trip along Duffield Road rewarded us with bush and wildlife on both sides of the road. The sadness which came with the loss of the Spring Creek land to the east of Duffields was eased with the plan to halt the urban development at Duffields and maintain the natural beauty to the west. I strongly support option 2 and the chance to save our diminishing and natural fauna, flora and beauty.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1540

Hollie Gray

I believe the land around our unique coastal town of Torquay must be protected. Further development of the town should be within the current boundaries and should look to promote sensible growth within the town centre, not continue with a sprawl. Protecting what land we have left for our wildlife is crucial for biodiversity. We need option 2.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1541

Michele Hayes

As a local resident of Torquay, I believe that the objectives to protect and conserve the Surf Coast's unique environment can only be met by Option 2 where a 'protected settlement boundary would be applied at Duffields Road and Bellbrae would be rural land'. How many times do we have to try to retain our environment, against developers? How many times do we have to vote on this? That's enough development. Time to stop and take a breath.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


Organisation:

Affected property:

1542

Steve Stahl

I believe Option 2 is the best option to preserve a green belt and wildlife corridor between Torquay/Jan Juc and Bellbrae.

Attachment 1:

Comments:

Full Name:



Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Surf Coast


distinctive areas and landscapes 1442 standing advisory ......fundamentally changed, and i fear it...

Documents