A Sustainable Future

OK, something tells me this is not the first time I am going to have to make this point as ignorance so often prevails, but I am a persistent type and love nothing more than the sound of my own figure tap-tap-tapping.

So here goes.

For the Minister to approve Amendment C37, the good Councillors of the Surf Coast Shire, had to approve it first. So, in the spirit of truth, justice and the Surf Coast way, lets get some cold, hard facts on the table before we all run off blaming the Minister.

In the pursuit of this hoary little more…

I was wondering why I was uncomfortable when I read the project name. Then it slowly came to me. If the project title were The future of Torquay - Jan Juc 2040 I would have been comfortable as then I would experience the project title as an open consultation with the community. By prefacing it with "Sustainable Future" I see it as what I call CON(in)sultation, it's something "we (shire, ministry of planning)" have to go through but don't really believe in; we (senior Council officers) know what's best in any case.

I don't object to sustainability however I'm afraid it more…

Why Torquay/jan Juc?

To me the first question to be asked is:

- Has the State Government explicitly stated what level of growth Surf Coast Shire needs to cater for? if yes how much growth & by when?

which is broader than the questions we are being asked to discuss on this forum?

Council's are required to nominate growth areas to the state government.

Torquay/Jan Juc is the focus of this discussion. However I believe the entire Shire's role in accomodating growth needs to be made explicit (by providing info on this site on the role of each township). Some questions I would like more…

I believe a sustainable enviroment , in short , is an area held in balance with more positive attributes than negative . There is surely no doubt that our current rate of growth , left to continue , even until 2020 would tip the scales down to the negative . We all , visitors and residents , thrive in a positive enviroment and don''t wish upon this beautiful place a negative spiral !

Sustainability is a word which is thrown around so often these days that I believe it has lost some of it's meaning. However, it's true definition comes down to using and managing our resources to meet our current needs while conserving them for future generations. In saying this, we can't just look to 2040, we must look past it and consider options for making our town sustainable indefinately.

Giving in to the trends of urban sprawls and widening town boundries does not equate to sustainability. This outdated method of town planning requires more infrastructure and more dependence on fossil fuels - a commodity we are quickly running out of. Torquay should be considering innovative and alternative ways of leading our town into the future. This is an opportunity for Torquay to be leaders in creating a sustainable town.

I have recently heard Libby Coker state that they will not be a "radical council" and completely reject the development of Spring Creek Valley. It's all about the dollars, oh sorry, SUSTAINABLE dollars. We all know there is much more to this whole mess than is being publicized. Byron Bay and Noosa Councils both stood up for the communities they represent and rejected overdevelopment. Are they "radical"? Or have they actually achieved something that is truly admirable and will have positive lasting effects for many generations of residents and tourists alike.

Yes this forum is great, yes it's positive, but more…

Are Torquay/Jan Juc sustainable now? Probably not. Are we doing much about it? Probably not.

Keeping things the same as now does not equal a sustainable future.

The growth of the last 10 years is very unsustainable. Poorly designed subdivisions, transport, houses, public facilities, environmental protection etc etc.

And yep, if there are more people - whether Spring Creek, or Torquay North, or infill, or the conversion of holiday houses to permanents - or all of the above......we will be struggling to be more sustainable.

I agree with other comments that it is a larger issue for all of Australia. I think each area needs to be assessed independently to consider it's uniqueness and it's natural limitations, and how these are best preserved. Some areas are simply not viable for significant growth and development, and I think the GOR coastal area is an example of this. If the goal is to retain what is special about the surf coast, then you simply can't develop it to a point where it becomes a concrete jungle full of sprawling boxes. It is no longer unique as a wild natural coast line, and becomes more like a Gold Coast in the making. The challenge is two fold - residential population growth and transiant tourist growth. They both have a very significant impact on the environment. Let's at least try to slow down population growth, as it's almost impossible to impact the latter.

I read that the Torquay Kindergarten will not offer three year old services next year due a lack of space.

Is this 'sustainable'? Torquay is building houses and expanding its population so fast that community facilities and services can't keep up.

In my my mind the only way to be truly sustainable, that is to meet our own needs without compromising the needs of future generations, is to slow down the population growth.

But I'm not convinced that council wants real sustainability. It seems like a smoke screen to me too. I see the growing sea of 'surf-burbia' and I can only think that the dollars from developers and rate-payers must be the most important thing.

I hope I'm wrong...

Sustainable, sustainable, I’m sure we’re all tired of that word. We all know the major issue is urban sprawl expanding along the Great Ocean Road and through Spring Creek Valley.

The current councillors have had nearly 3000 residents voice their opinion and ignored them all. It’s interesting to note that there were more objections lodged against the development of Spring Creek than the votes received by any one councillor. And still Council policy is to continue with the plan to destroy the first kilometre west of Duffields Rd.

The next council elections are in 2012, and I for one would like to hear of anyone that will run for office that will actually commit to acting on behalf of the community.

Sustainability, to us, means a community being able to sustain itself, without relying upon services provided by other councils while allowing major urban sprawl without any infrastructure or services itself. Yet this is exactly what is happening now in Torquay/ Jan Juc. In the past 20 years, we have grown from a small coastal town of 3-4000 residents to the urban sprawl and basically satellite suburb of Geelong/Melb we are now, with over 10000 permanent residents. Yet for most major facilities we still rely upon city of Geelong, with the daily necessity for a lot of people, of driving the more…

One point that concerns me about this process is that it seems to be about community consultation only. Community consultation on the future of our towns is important but I feel that we also need some reporting and modeling using data to tell us what kind of population our landscape can support in the future. I would have thought that there are ways to assess what kind of load our local environment and resources can support before being seriously compromised??

The question asked is "How would you describe a sustainable Torquay/Jan Juc in the year 2040?"

The question not asked is how large should Torquay grow.

I sent a request to council to include this question but was refused. The council obviously do not want that can of worms opened.

However in answer to how I would describe a sustainable Torquay/Juc for 2040, I have a few suggestions;

1. Have town boundaries set so that unristricted growth is not permitted. This would add to the effect of limiting large commercial developments as they are only sustainable with large populations.

2. Adopt environmental policies (and enforce more…

What is the attraction to Torquay? A semi rural, coastal, village setting with the bonus of a surfing, environmentally aware lifestyle added.

What has this council done to enhance these aspects?

That's the question that I'm struggling to find an answere to?

Thanks a lot councillors.

2040 cant be planned for without facing up to the full ramifications of the Armstrong Creek development. That inpact cannot be ignored or be isolated from Torquay/Jan Juc. Residents are not paid to plan and solve problems; it is for the shire to do the work, we are their emlpoyers. There has been endless discussion, it is pretty clear the residents want an envoronment not ruled by visitors cars and rubbish they leave behind.