Coast rush

SOUTH Gippsland Shire Council will tomorrow (Wednesday) consider a proposal to transform one of South Gippsland’s last sleepy coastal getaways: Walkerville.

If approved, the $52 million proposal could set a precedent for developments outside of township boundaries along the Victorian coast.

But the unique 88 lot subdivision known as Walkerville Village has created tension in the community.

The proponents, the Rich family, are promoting the development as an example of sustainable living.

However many residents are concerned the area’s serenity will be lost and the environment unable to cope with additional residents.

Council will tomorrow debate whether to rezone land to make way for the development. Council planners have recommended councillors reject it, saying it contravenes council and state planning policies to permit further growth at Walkerville and the Promontory Views Estate the subject land adjoins.

The Rich family is seeking the rezoning of 94ha of their property from farming zone to special use zone.

Should the land be rezoned, Walkerville would be a classified as a “small town” in council’s planning scheme, paving the way for future expansion and commercial tourism development.

A council report stated “…any approval of the proposed amendment would likely be considered a significant state precedent”.

The report also mentions “both state and local planning policy provisions discourage the expansion of established coastal settlement boundaries except where the expansion is supported by an adopted township planning document. There is no planning policy document supporting the expansion of Walkerville.

“Any proposal to expand the township boundary without policy support is contrary to the State Government’s Victorian Coastal Strategy 2015, the State Planning Policy Framework, the coastal township policy provisions of the South Gippsland Planning Scheme and its township plans.”
Council planners are concerned rezoning the land may encourage other ad hoc rezoning and development proposals along the coastline.

Proponent Jeremy Rich last Wednesday told council the subdivision would be built on less productive farming land and given it was low density development, did not contravene planning rules.

“Our proposal is an unique opportunity to give back to the coastal community by creating a legacy for future generations,” he said.

Planning consultant and former shire councillor Jennie Deane said the Rich family had held many consultation sessions with the community. She said many residents of Promontory Views Estate and young farmers welcomed the subdivision, while established farmers did not.

Mrs Deane said the community would benefit from the shop, community hub and new walking tracks.

Promontory Views Estate resident Kevin Jones last Wednesday told council of his concerns about extra people, traffic and boats at Walkerville.

“A huge part of the existing Walkerville lifestyle is still linked to the foreshore. It’s busy there now. Any extra development will only exacerbate the problem,” he said.

Walkerville resident Joan Liley said the proposal did not satisfy existing planning regulations.

“You have made the rules and we would love to see you stick to them,” she told council.

Walkerville Foreshore Reserve Committee treasurer Margaret Robertson and secretary Merran Wilde urged council to reject the development.

They were concerned an influx of people would contribute to erosion problems along the foreshore and traffic congestion.

“We are doing our best to manage the situation as we can and any increased pressure will be uncontrollable,” Ms Robertson said.

Walkerville resident Tony Landy opposed the development, labelling it as a “sugar-coated 80 lot subdivision”.

Speaking out: objectors to the Walkerville Village development, from left, Kevin Jones, Elizabeth Landy, Tony Landy, and Merran Wilde and Margaret Robertson of the Walkerville Foreshore Reserve Committee.

Short URL: /?p=16444

Posted by Tayla Kershaw on Oct 27 2015. Filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry