Why Cape Paterson residents are losing the argument

HOW the settlements and towns grow in the burgeoning municipality of Bass Coast over the next 10 to 20 years could be significantly impacted by a round of public hearings currently being conducted by the Distinctive Areas and Landscape Standing Advisory Committee.

However, while many of the shire’s coastal towns already have firm settlement boundaries, that will take a bit of shifting, despite concerted efforts by developers during these hearings, it’s not the case at Cape Paterson.

In fact, not only has an expansion of housing on the northern side of Seaward Drive Cape Paterson been part of the Cape Paterson Strategic Framework Plan and settlement boundary, in the Bass Coast Planning Scheme, since 2011, the likelihood that it will ultimately host as many as 900 new ‘lifestyle’ blocks in the future is increased by the restrictions on coastal settlements elsewhere.

It was an argument delivered with devastating clarity by expert witness for would-be Cape Paterson developers, Wallis Watson Cape Paterson Pty Ltd, Chris McNeill of Ethos Urban, an expert in economics and land supply, at a session in Melbourne on Monday this week.

Mr McNeill said he had undertaken a “first principles” land supply analysis of the whole of Bass Coast, concentrating on Cape Paterson and found the whole shire undersupplied, for both conventional and lifestyle allotments.

“I have counted only 20 allotments in the old section of Cape Paterson (only one of which is for sale, he said later), and of the 116 lots in The Cape estate still to be built on, only 32 were still for sale as of January this year,” Mr McNeill said.

He went on to say there was the potential for 980 blocks to be developed in the area north of Seaward Drive in the future, and given the constraints on other coastal settlements in the shire, this land would become “a key component of lifestyle land supply for Bass Coast, key to the future of land supply in the lifestyle (coastal) townships overall”.

He described the difference between conventional residential and lifestyle land and the fact that the needs of both sub-markets needed to be recognised in planning.

David Hayward, on behalf of the Cape Paterson Residents and Ratepayers Association questioned Mr McNeill at length about his findings, claiming that he had taken the highest possible figure on demand for housing in the shire and understated the potential for infill development to provide more land for housing.

“Council should be trying to convert more of that infill land for development,” Mr Hayward said.

Mr McNeill agreed it was a worthy aim, but in his experience it was very hard to get the people who owned that land to release it to the market, possibly 5% to 10% over a 10 year period.

He said that an inspection of some of the shire’s lifestyle settlements had shown neighbouring homes had incorporated these vacant into their gardens and it was clear they might never be available for additional housing.

Mr Hayward also sought to make the point that Wonthaggi was actually a “coastal” location and was being marketed as such in some of the town’s new estates.

He said Wonthaggi could be expected to also absorb some of the demand for “lifestyle” housing.

“Are you aware of what the Wonthaggi Hotel has displayed at the front of its premises?” he asked Mr McNeill.

“I assume al fresco dining,” responded Mr McNeill.

“Well, no, it’s the whalebones recovered from the beach in 1932. I put it to you that you wouldn’t have that if it wasn’t a coastal town.”

“That maybe so,” McNeill said, but also making the point that he suspected the vast majority of people living in Wonthaggi were doing so for “conventional” purposes rather than lifestyle.

But the panel brought the exchange to a close.

“You are making a number of submissions to Mr McNeill and trying to get him to agree with you,” said one of the panel members.

It was after that challenge that Mr Hayward said he would conclude his question time.

“When you look at Cape Paterson’s land prices, they have gone up significantly since 2017. Do you know why that would be?” a panel member asked Mr McNeill.

“Two reasons, fewer properties being available for sale in the existing area of Cape Paterson and an impression that the blocks in The Cape were more expensive.

“Would you say Cape Paterson was an affordable area?

“No, not compared to more conventional residential areas. I identified 20 residential lots, but I could find only one that was available for sale.”

The Distinctive Areas and Landscape Standing Advisory Committee has been sitting since March 6, in Melbourne and locally, and as well as questions about expanding settlement boundaries, they have also heard submissions from the Victorian Farmers Federation supporting the right to farm in Bass Coast, on such issues as the difference between ‘post and rail’ fences and ‘post and wire’ fences and why farmers needed to be supported when building farm buildings for equipment, protection of farm animals and stockfeed, not hit with additional planning controls.

The committee will continue to hear submissions in Melbourne this week, including from the Wattlebank Community Group and former Bass Coast Councillor Neil Rankine on Wednesday, April 5 before adjourning for Easter and resuming at the Cape Paterson Surf Lifesaving Club on Wednesday, April 12 when it will hear from the Save Western Port Woodlands group, the South Gippsland

Conservation Society and the Victorian National Parks Association.

The Cape Paterson Residents and Ratepayers Association will make their submission to the committee on Thursday, April 13, also at the Cape Paterson Surf Lifesaving Club from 10am.