Sign In
or Create a new account
Providing A Local Future For Our Young People
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
Providing for our young people is vital for the future? We need to provide education and services to families and retain young people locally with education, leisure and recreation and employment opportunities. How could we provide a great future for our young people locally?
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
Comment 1 25 Aug 2010, 4:51 PM
We need to be better educated about sustainability so there are enough resources in the future. We need to address water issues, over development of land and taking care of our precious oceans and coastal environment.
Comment 2 25 Aug 2010, 9:38 PM
I agree, but at the moment there are limited kindergaten places and indeed it seems a forlorn hope to get a 3 year old kindergarten place. How can the council and state government support the adoption of the c37 amendment moving the boundary of Torquay to 1 km west of Duffields Rd - against all public sentiment? This unsustainable development will lead to greater pressure on local resources, which are already stretched beyond breaking point. The council and state government needs to put in place processes to provide appropriate public facilities and services in advance of development = not after the public facilities are already stretched beyond all reasonable limits.
Comment 3 25 Aug 2010, 10:30 PM
If we want to retain young people locally, they will need not only access to good quality education, local jobs, community facilities and services but affordable housing. How can we provide a future in Torquay for our young without providing new and affordable homes?
Comment 3.1 26 Aug 2010, 6:51 PM
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…
Comment 3.2 26 Aug 2010, 8:37 PM
The phrase afforadble stands out here - the Spring Creek corridor is not suited to affordable new housing development. It is simply the wrong type of land - steep slopes are not easy or cheap to build on.
Affordable housing options do need to be included in Torquays future plans but in an appropriate sustainable manner in consultation with the community.
There are options other than the Spring Creek corridor.
Comment 3.3 26 Aug 2010, 11:22 PM
The Council has already identified approx 12 to 15 years of land to be released without going to Spring Creek. The C37 panel report states that "This is an attractive, important environment...." Why, then, are we so eager to ruin it just for the sake of a few dollars to be made by greedy developers.
Reminds me of a Joni Mitchell song - 'they paved paradise and put up a parking lot'
Comment 3.4 16 Sep 2010, 10:04 AM
Could skibunny define there definition of "affordable housing" please.
Firstly developers use the term relative to other local property pricing and have convinced councils that by making smaller blocks on an estate they are deemed affordable, however this strategy only serves to maximise developers profits. They can provide (sell) more blocks for the same infracture (roads etc). Unfortunatley Torquay has changed over the last 30 years and due to demand local land is no longer low price compared to other areas in Victoria.
Second, I agree with robert, low cost construction of housing can only be undertaken on either flat sites or on moderatlysloping sites with minimum earthworks eg stilt housing, which most estates do not allow.
Jan Juc was an area developed as low cost housing (many hardiplank clad small houses), and is now a sort after area. Low cost housing requires that the estate not have the restrictions on construction type that all of our current new estates impose. These restrictions are created by developers to keep the selling price of land high and therefoe negate "affordable housing".
Comment 4 13 Oct 2010, 12:48 PM
To paraphrase the Administrator ; to retain young people "we need to provide education and services to families....leisure, recreation and employment oppurtunities". Sadly these are lacking at present. Our kinders are at bursting point, with no spots for 3y/o. We have no stand alone high school, no olympic size pool and unless our youth are interested in working in a shop, the surf industry or becoming a builder, there is little employment oppurtunity for them if they want to work locally. They will then commute to Geelong or Melb in the daily traffic grind, which will become unbearable when Armstrong more…
Comment 5 28 Oct 2010, 4:00 PM
I came to Torquay many years ago as a young person when Torquay had few services and was pretty much a dormitory for Geelong. Employment was never good nor an issue. We moved here with that knowledge and accepted that we would likely work outside the town.
If the current population stays and grows old then the amount of schools etc will cope without much change. I travelled about 1/2 hour to high school when I was living in Melbourne and all my children travelled to Geelong for school. I just don't see the problem. Also its actually good for them to mix with others outside the enclave of Torquay and start to experience the wider world.
If we allow the unrestricted expansion of the town's population then we will be living in a city and we will have the needs of a city.
