Developers ‘seek new Creek talks’

By Cherie Donnellan
DEVELOPERS want to build “much-needed community facilities” in Torquay’s Spring Creek, according to their spokesperson.
Redstick Strategic Communi-cations’ Tony White said the “landowners” wanted to begin discussions with residents and community groups about opening up the site for development.
“We’re looking into the possibility of a school, a community centre or a public pool being built on the site.”
Mr White said any development would have to include a residential component.
“Nothing would be less than 500 square metres,” he said.
Planning Minister Matthew Guy last year rejected a bid for residential development in Spring Creek after Surf Coast’s council dumped its second strategy to open up the land.
Council abandoned the plan for Spring Creek, one kilometre west from Duffields Rd, following four years of widespread objections and protests.
Mr White said the landowners wanted a “clean slate” to “seriously discuss” Spring Creek.
“The landowners want to develop the land in a way that the community is supportive of.”
Mr White said the owners “never contemplated” levels of development density recommended for Spring Creek in council’s controversial “2040” growth plan.
“Understandably, some residents are jaded after the highly unreasonable development suggested by the shire and their report.”
Speak Up For Spring Creek’s David Bell used Facebook this week to warn residents “the one kilometre west of Duffields Rd is once again on the planning horizon.”
“There is talk of land for schools, land for a pool…and other things for the community benefit,” he posted.
“I believe that we must communicate with the landholder group as there may be a chance to develop something to benefit the community but we must be aware of the restrictions on this private-as-opposed-to-council-or-government process and be aware how this sort of consultation can be used to split communities into factions.”
Mr Bell said Mr White had contacted him about the new consultations.
The owners were suggesting a consultation process of “feel-good things” that “might not ever happen”, Mr Bell said.
“We have to be careful of what we, as residents, agree to.”
“We might agree to a school now but that could mean higher-density development later.”