Residents, developers slam Surf Coast Shire’s new plans for Spring Creek

Residents have slammed latest plans for homes at Spring Creek, fearing Great Ocean Road traffic chaos and population pressures from overdevelopment of the farmland site.
But developers have also criticised Surf Coast Shire’s proposed Spring Creek Precinct, urging higher building densities and expansion further west.
The complaints were included in submissions on the precinct plan ahead of a public hearings session at the shire offices from 4pm Tuesday.
The proposed precinct would have acreage properties as a buffer around parts of the site but most residential allotments would range in size from 500 to 600 square metres. The development would also include school and commercial zones along with direct access from the Great Ocean Road.
The shire’s proposal for two new sets of traffic lights at Jan Juc drew widespread criticism from residents and community groups concerned about a traffic bottleneck on the Great Ocean Road.
The “truly laughable” additions would leave Jan Juc with five sets of lights within two kilometres on the iconic road, said Jan Juc’s Peter Campbell.
The flurry of traffic lights would “certainly stand out” to visitors, he warned.
Frank O’Shanassy, of Jan Juc, objected to the development’s Great Ocean Road intersections and wanted its density levels scaled down.
“This is a poor example of planning for the future community and existing residents of the Surf Coast and surrounding area,” he wrote.
Grossman’s Road resident Dale Tepper said the precinct looked similar to Geelong’s Armstrong Creek growth area, threatening “massive infrastructure deficits, chronic traffic problems and overcrowding”.
The State Government also raised concerns, with its transport department warning of an “adverse impact” on traffic from the spacing and number of intersections on the Great Ocean Road.
Many objectors supported an alternative community plan for Spring Creek, which called for lower densities and main access from Duffields Road.
Some objectors also complained that the development’s initially suggested western boundary had grown from one kilometre west of Duffield’s Road to 1.47km.
The plan failed to “fulfil any of the criteria that the community of Torquay-Jan Juc were expecting”, said the 3228 Residents Association.
“If the development goes ahead in the format that the draft suggests then we have lost an opportunity to provide a remarkable development that would be a bonus for the area, both financially and environmentally.”
Developers and Spring Creek land-owners wanted more opportunities for development on the site.
Amex Corporation raised concerns including the plan’s “low prescribed average density and mandated minimum lot size”.
Reeds Consulting, on behalf of Monnoty Pty Ltd, wanted the size of the precinct’s “conventional allotments” reduced to as small as 350 square metres, which was “in keeping with recent trends and market demands”.
Rural Estates, which owns farmland abutting the proposed western boundary of the precinct, wanted the development expanded.
The precinct plan “ignored the potential for residential and other development of the remainder of the Spring Creek Valley,” Rural Estates wrote.
The shire has abandoned two previous plans to develop Spring Creek amid public opposition. The council tore up plans for a 6000-allotment development in 2009 before abandoning a 1500-lot alternative in 2011.