Sign In
or Create a new account
Services of the Future
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
The current environment suggests the population growth for Torquay/ Jan Juc will be between 25,00-30,000 people. Some people feel that to retain our quality of life we need to restrict population growth while others feel that local regional and coastal places cannot be sustainable without sufficient population to attract services. These sorts of services could include additional primary schools, a performance arts centre attached to a school and potentially an aquatic centre and higher order recreation facilities. Do we want to attract these services to Torquay/Jan Juc?
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, 9:46 PM
Is this comment serious? The council and state government are the only ones who feel the population of Torquay should reach 30,000 and to try and to dangle the carrot of "higer order" recreation facilities is laughable. From my understanding Torquay is one of the largest towns in Australia without a public swimming pool. Council has not set aside any ground in the new civic complex for a pool. Don't make me laugh.
Comment 1.1 26 Aug 2010, 2:58 AM
Other than governments and some developers / business NOBODY else I know wants population growth in and around Torquay.
Population growth and the associated pressures of increased traffic, pollution, beach users etc etc diminishes the quality of life for ALL OF US.
Thousands of people protested at the Spring Creek rally. What else does the community have to do to get the message across?
Council 'consultation' is a joke. The planning minister, Justin Madden's decision regarding Spring Creek also defies the views of the overwhelming percentage of the population.
We are not 'developing' our local area by growing the population, we are destroying it - replicating what is happening on a world scale. Future generations and my children will be disgusted at what the previous generations have done - at a local level and a global level.
Comment 1.1.1 26 Aug 2010, 6:43 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 1.1.1.1 27 Aug 2010, 5:28 AM
The simple truth is that Justin Madden could have chosen to approve or disapprove the amendment. He chose to approve it.
There are numerous occasions where he has chosen to ignore local council advice.
Ignorance does not prevail. The Minister is responsible for tthe decision he has made just as the Surf Coast Council are responsible for their decisions.
Comment 1.1.1.1.1 28 Aug 2010, 8:19 AM
And the time between the council meeting that very publicly, passionately and unaminously rejected (save for one abstinance) the Spring Creek proposal and the very unpublic passing of the c37 amendment seems to me to be a very short period.
I have a simple question. Why?
Comment 1.1.1.2 27 Aug 2010, 5:35 AM
F. Arqmoi.
Could I also suggest that your user name is reflective of an incredibly smug attitude to this forum and the issues.
Comments such as relating the issue to the fact that the Minister played for Carlton and the suggestion regarding the Iragi Information Minister are also inappropriate, irrelevant and, quite frankly, offensive. Clearly you are amused by your own humour. Perhaps you should save it for private conversation.
Comment 1.1.1.2.1 28 Aug 2010, 8:21 AM
Let's stay focussed on the issues here. One person humour may not be anothers and one person means of communicating their message may not resonate with everyone - but we all seem to be on the same side of this debate.
Comment 1.2 17 Sep 2010, 6:23 PM
You could add a performing and visual arts centre to that comment.
Comment 1.2.1 23 Sep 2010, 11:46 AM
I couldn't agree more. Even if we could stop the escalation of the population that we are theatened with we are still a very large community as we are now and need and deserve a performing/visual arts space. Torquay and surrounds are blessed with a large number of people who are creative, artistic and if not actually involved in producing/performing are keen audience. The Torquay Theatre Troupe struggles on year after year with no adequate peformance space but still manages to entertain 600 odd faithful and enthusiastic supporters every show. The large retiree community have come from cities often where they have been keen supporters of the arts. Let's get some respect for cultural life going here.
Comment 2 26 Aug 2010, 9:31 PM
It concerns me that this document is using the word "sustainable" to describe services that we could already support with our current population, such as a high school, a swimming pool, and recreational ovals.
It has been well noted that developers, planning departments and the famous Spring Creek Urban Development plan, use words that are linked with environmental principles of low impact living to manipulate people into thinking that their goals are altruistic.
And what does this mean when it says "the current environment suggests 25,000 - 30,000 extra people in Torquay.
NO NO NO This is not Sustainable!!!
The current environment will no longer exist. We will no longer be a place for tourists to escape the city. We will no longer be the family friendly, community rich, small seaside town, surrounded by farmland and bush. We will be ruined!!
Yes we need to restrict the population growth and strictly define the boundaries of our town. Stop at Duffields rd!!
Comment 3 29 Aug 2010, 1:35 PM
Is "The current environment suggests the population growth for Torquay/ Jan Juc will be between 25,00-30,000 people" a given as in holy writ?
If so I may as well stop writing! On the off-chance that it isn't here goes.
I wish we all could use the book "Pattern Language" by Christopher Alexander as a tool to allow us to understand the process we are in and the sort of results we want to achieve.
One of the key patterns in this book is "Community of 7000". This is predicated on "Individuals have no effective voice in any community of more that 5000 - more…
Comment 4 2 Sep 2010, 4:55 AM
I know you will think me defeatist but the thing about Torquay as a coastal village is over. The problem is you can't have two paced development. There are those who seem to be saying surf industry good other industry bad; witness the Bunnings debate. To me the surf industry buildings are garish and offensive and given that manufacturing is basically offshore they only offer minimum wages to workers and fat profits to owners.
There is also the attitude of I'm living here now so let the development cease: it's not going to happen. Developers are going to go to VCAT more…
Comment 4.1 18 Sep 2010, 9:17 AM
Mate,to compare the surf industry to Bunnings just doesn't stack up!Its objective whether the surf buildings are good or bad~but its an industry that has help feed the town for over 40 years.
The vibe I get is that the community is not so much against Bunnings~its more to do with its location~its not desirable to have it as our town entrance and out of character with what the Surfcoast is about.
We wouldnt have the Bunnings problem if it was not for councils previous bad planning stategy to locate an industrial park at the towns main entrance!!!
Comment 4.1.1 18 Sep 2010, 5:00 PM
The surf industry's contribution to the development of the town is not questioned. My point is that it was a vibrant integral part of Torquay when there was manufacturing taking place locally. Now to me it is just one vast surfing shopping mall that, in my opinion is not particularly attractive.
I do however, agree with you that the council has put into place so many 'bad planning' strategies that have really detracted from the liveability of this town. I would just like once for the council to think about all aspects of any development. Think of any change that has occurred recently in this town and then think of its suitability, its visual impact, effect on mobility (some new roads/streets are downright dangerous) and whether the development is in the best interest of the local population.
This gets back to my first post: the council is probably held hostage by developers who know that if they don't get their way initially they will get what they want through appeal. It's a fact of life that has not helped this area especially if you have been concerned about maintaining Torquay /Jan Juc as a seaside haven.
Comment 4.1.1.1 19 Sep 2010, 8:27 AM
I agree with you on your points~its a sad indictment ~the developers know they only need to turn up toVCAT to get their approval~with VCAT having the final say in what is needed in our community!??
I wish to reiterate my point that it was a very bad planning decision to put a large UGLY industrial park as the entrance to the Surfcoast~with several of those initiators still on the SC payroll~they were definitely off there game at the time!!
Least the waves are still pumping(just a little more crowded)~and thats what most of us originally came here for!!
Comment 5 2 Sep 2010, 2:19 PM
I see Jobs! Having first moved here in 1966 as an 18 yo when it was just a small coastal village with a permanent population of 1200 or so, we worked in Geelong to fund our hippie trippie surfing lives. Then one by one we were picked off by the young women of the day, had kids and had to get serious about funding our surfing lifesyle and a young family. Where? Geelong of course as there were not enough jobs on the coast. Some decided to start Surfing companies and then the place started to gradually change and the more…
Comment 6 6 Sep 2010, 10:13 AM
The state government and Geelong council have identified Armstrongs creek as a growth area. I see no reason why Jan Juc/Torquay should also become a sleeper for Melbourne. The train line ends at Geelong and the increasaed housing should do the same. Jan Juc/Torquay were established as beach towns and that is why people flock here for their holidays. To make the area yet another sleeper suburb will destroy the character that has developed. One only has to look at the current couyncils heavy handed approach to making Jan Juc like Torquay [ footpaths, stealing our creek water for a residential developer, requiring foot paths in all new developments, slot machines in the residential area, etc] to identify that if the planners of our future dont allow areas to retain their individual character, in the long term all areas will have the same boring character. We must keep Jan Juc and Torquay each with their own character
Comment 7 7 Sep 2010, 4:55 PM
The area needs an additional primary school now, and a proper high school. Many smaller towns have an aquatic centre - which Torquay/Jan Juc desperately need. These are not arguments to support doubling the size of Torquay/Jan Juc. Sustainability is not about building dormitory suburbs for Geelong and Melbourne commuters. It is not about providing cheap land. It is not about urban sprawl taking up farmland. Sustainability is about providing services and encouraging communities to be connected and supportive, its about genuine car alternatives, its about reducing power consumption and waste. Its not about more ribbon development along major tourist routes.
Comment 8 14 Sep 2010, 11:33 AM
We desperately need an entertainment centre, preferably on the Surf Coast Highway, Torquay.
Comment 8.1 18 Sep 2010, 8:30 AM
Can you explain your definition of an entertainment centre as this is a broad category.
Comment 8.1.1 18 Sep 2010, 7:01 PM
Sure, Surfer,
I would take the Wyndham Leisure and Events Centre as a model.
Aquatics, fitness, functions, meeting rooms, auditorium, art and craft rooms and gallery, commercial kitchen.
I have been there.
Comment 8.1.1.1 19 Sep 2010, 8:01 AM
Thanx Ranger,
We are on the same page~we definitely need this facility.
Unfortunately Surfcoast shire have a history of squandering funds,
instead of investing in quality infastructure~I'm sure if put to a vote,
the ratepayers would have chosen to slightly downgrade new shire offices,
(where it appears no expense has been spared) to include such a facility!
Comment 8.2 23 Sep 2010, 11:50 AM
Yes, yes, yes. And a place for the historical Society to store and show its wonderful collection that is our heritage. I have made detailed comments already on the Performing Arts comment above. Nowhere else that I know of do actors have such limited facilities as the Torquay Theatre Troupe. We have wonderful musicians in Torquay also. I can't think of another town this size that has not performing arts space.
Comment 9 14 Sep 2010, 5:08 PM
I think we need more consideration of the effects of the Armstrong Creek development before making firm plans out to 2040. Some of the effects of Armstrong Creek may be:
• A reduction in the rate of population growth in Torquay/Jan Juc. It seems at least possible that the release of land for 65000 people will decrease the demands for new land in Torquay/Jan Juc in the next 30 years. This will be particularly likely if land in Armstrong Creek is cheaper that land in Torquay/Jan Juc.
• A reduction in the need to provide more jobs for local residents. It may more…
Comment 9.1 17 Sep 2010, 6:32 PM
I suspect the development at Armstrong Creek may place a much heavier demand on our beaches during the summer months. There is insufficient parking at the moment.
Comment 10 17 Sep 2010, 9:23 AM
Growth has happened in every country and locality that I have lived, the problem we face is growth that looks good, is sustainable and when people look back in 50 years they say we did the right thing. Slow down the growth for the infrastructure to catch up.
Not sure how we slow it down, but we need time to think, tell everyone to get involved so that we get this right, not winge about it later.
Comment 10.1 20 Sep 2010, 4:26 PM
Yep, lets build the infrastructure now to catch up with the current population in Surf Coast, not plan to build infrstructure after people have settled. How many new train lines have been built in Melbourne to accommodate all the new developing suburbs there?
Comment 11 12 Oct 2010, 6:50 PM
We are no longer the small country town we once were 20 years ago, however, we don't want to become like Frankston in Melbourne or the Gold Coast! Growth is inevitable, as we have seen over the last 20 years and people keep moving here, so this growth must be made sensitive and able to support itself without becoming a huge suburb of Geelong; which is where we are headed at present, full of shops and houses. Our present population of 10000 residents should already have these suggested facilities such as an olympic size pool, an extra primary school, high more…
Comment 12 13 Oct 2010, 12:06 PM
Don't laugh, but we need a decent hot chicken shop in Torquay! Why is it they keep closing down and if there is one open, it usually always runs out of chickens before 6pm!!! Unless you want to support multi nationals like safeway (who budge in and take business off small locals); at present one must drive a 30km round trip to the Grovedale chicken bar( which has now been running for over 30 years, non stop). Even our present population requires decent take away for a decadant night!! Our pizza outlets are great though.
Comment 13 28 Oct 2010, 3:48 PM
I feel Torquay is reasonably well serviced already. Yes we can always hope for more, but be carful what you wish for!! My belief is "Build it and they will come"
I would like a community swimming pool in Torquay/Juc, but with Waurn Ponds 15 Minutes away am I just being greedy.
A hospital in Torquay? Sounds good, but really, if you lived in most areas of Melbourne are you really closer (in travel time) than we are to Geelong (and with the planned hospital in Armstrong creek) Are we being greedy?
If we control the Torquay/Juc population then we control the need for essential services. The non essential services will come with a bit of pressure as we are currently in an unsafe political seat so the pollies will fall over themselves to get our vote - bit cynical but true - just look at the school promises.
