Tee suss on wait for Guy

By Cherie Donnellan
RESIDENTS should be “suspicious” of delays in locking up Spring Creek from development, the state opposition has warned.
The warning came as State Government raised “implications for a number of stakeholders” in its explanation for the delay in an amendment to set Duffields Rd as Torquay’s western boundary.
Shadow planning minister Brian Tee said the Government’s “extraordinary delay” showed a “lack of commitment”.
Planning Minister Matthew Guy “never wanted this outcome”, Mr Tee said.
“It was the local community that dragged him to this position after he proposed to develop Spring Creek.”
Earlier this month Surf Coast Shire mayor Brian McKiterick “expressed disappointment” at the delay on council’s website. The delay was “holding up” other planning processes for “sustainable land release”, he wrote.
Council tore up its second attempt to open Spring Creek for development in July 2011, prompting Mr Guy to also abandon the plan.
Council later sought Mr Guy’s approval for an amendment setting Duffields Rd as the western boundary, effectively locking up Spring Creek as farmland.
Mr Tee said the C66 amendment process was “nothing complex” because the shire had completed the planning work already.
The minister could have approved the town boundary “straight away” and added additional planning strategies later, he said.
“By delaying this he’s effectively undermining the outcome that he promised to deliver.”
A spokeswoman for Mr Guy said the process was “very detailed”.
“Council is requesting the authorisation of a very detailed amendment, which will have implications for a number of stakeholders,” she said.
“As such the residents of Surf Coast deserve an appropriate review of what is proposed.”
The spokeswoman said the shire was responsible for much of the delay.
“Questions around timelines are curious given the length of time council has taken to resolve issues associated with this amendment.”
The Independent reported in April that Spring Creek landowners had hired a communications agent to reopen discussions about developing the land.
The agent, Tony White, said the developers wanted to build “community facilities” like “a school, a community centre or a public pool”.
Some residential development – “nothing less than 500 square metres” – would also be needed, he said.
State Government did not answer the Independent’s questions about whether it had been in discussions with the landowners during the amendment review process.