A GROWING wave of opposition is building in Wonthaggi’s north, as residents push back against a development plan for Regency Drive and surrounding streets, citing concerns about poor communication, increased traffic, environmental destruction and a potential drop in property values.
The proposed Development Plan, currently under review by Bass Coast Shire Council, would enable further subdivision in the recently rezoned area, which transitioned from Low Density Residential to General Residential in January under the Planning Scheme Amendment C152, led by the Victorian Planning Authority.
But residents say they were never properly consulted on the change nor given a clear picture of what it would mean for their community.
Everett O’Keeffe, a long-time resident of Regency Drive, is one of many locals who feel blindsided.
“We were not consulted in the slightest by anyone,” Mr O’Keeffe said. “No one came to us and asked us if we think it would work. And all of a sudden, I’m looking at a document that’s got a road through the back of my place, and some people have roads right where their house is.”
Planning Scheme Amendment C152 also introduced the Wonthaggi North East Precinct Structure Plan (PSP), which aims to increase residential growth and outlines a target density of approximately 11 dwellings per hectare.
Mr O’Keeffe, like others in the area, is concerned that he may eventually be forced to subdivide or sell due to increasing rates – a consequence of the rezoning – despite having no interest in selling.
“The only thing they can do is start raising my rates until I can’t afford to pay them anymore,” he said.
“Up until then, they can’t put a road through my property unless I sell it to them and let them do that.”
He described the proposal as “a complete lie” and “a piece of garbage no one can read,” accusing those responsible of hiding behind vague and intimidating language.
“If I was to submit something like that in Latin, it would be thrown out straight away. It doesn’t even say how the blocks are meant to be built. I can’t imagine how Council has said this has got some substance to it that we need to vote on.”
Residents from neighbouring Sussex Court, like Terry and Dianne Haines, weren’t even informed of the proposal until just days before the deadline for public submissions.
“If we hadn’t gotten a letter from Everett, we never would have known about this,” Mrs Haines said. “And that’s a real problem.”
Terry Haines said he was told 40 submissions were received before the March 31 deadline, of which 33 opposed the plan, six supported it and one was neutral.
The couple raised concerns about traffic, construction noise, environmental damage and falling property values.
“We wanted to meet with some of the councillors so they could come and have a look,” said Mrs Haines. “But they said they don’t do that sort of work. What are councillors for, if not to see firsthand the impacts these plans have?”
She noted that their street is home to native wildlife, including wallabies and diverse birdlife – habitats she fears will be lost if the development proceeds.
In a written statement, a Council spokesperson confirmed that no final decision has been made and that feedback from the community is being considered.
“Council acknowledges that many residents have raised concerns regarding the potential subdivision of properties, removal of local flora and fauna, impacts on property values, and increased traffic and noise,” the statement read.
“Some residents have also expressed that aspects of the proposed Development Plan appear vague or unclear.”
Mr O’Keeffe believes this vagueness has not been without consequence.
“This proposal has scared the hell out of a lot of people here,” he said. “We’ve got some people who think that roads are going to be put through their house and there’s going to be compulsory acquisition. It’s been terrible.”
He believes the process is eroding trust and community spirit.
“It may be legal what they’re doing, but it does feel very un-Australian.”
He also raised safety concerns about the plan’s reliance on extending Regency Drive – a dead-end road – as a key access point for a growing residential area.
“You can’t have that many people on a road that has a dead end,” he said. “If something drastic happened here, you could create a traffic jam where the fire trucks can’t get up here.”
When asked what an acceptable path forward might look like, Mr O’Keeffe said it starts with transparency and respect.
“Australia is not land-poor. We don’t need to pack everyone into high-density areas. Lifestyle blocks are part of what makes this place great.”
For now, locals like the O’Keeffes and Haineses are urging Council to reconsider the plan entirely or at the very least, restart the consultation process with genuine community input.
“This is not how democracy is meant to work,” Mr Haines said.
“We all deserve a voice.”
