PUT simply, the plan to almost double the size of Cape Paterson, by a further 1000 houses, is a mistake.

In fact, if you accept what the members of the Cape Paterson Residents and Ratepayers Association (CPRRA) say, it’s a mistake compounded by mistake after mistake.

There’s even a name for such a tragically mistaken process – ‘Path Dependence’.

Path dependence is a concept in economics and the social sciences, referring to processes where past events or decisions constrain later events or decisions.

In other words, having committed the original sin, authorities are reluctant to acknowledge their wrongdoing for fear of fallout and either kick the can down the road or continue to follow the erroneous “path”.

It was a concept introduced by a member of the CPRRA and a resident of Cape Paterson, Dr David Hayward, last Thursday, April 13, on Day 20 of the public hearings before the Distinctive Areas and Landscapes Standing Advisory Committee.

As an Emeritus Professor of Public Policy and the Social Economy at RMIT, Dr Hayward knows what he is talking about.

In the case of Cape Paterson, the original mistake by the Bass Coast Shire Council, of identifying Cape Paterson for future urban expansion north, through the Bass Coast Strategic Coastal Planning Framework of 2005, was compounded in May 2011 when the State Planning Minister Matthew Guy gave the green light to the Cape Paterson Ecovillage project, against the recommendations of an independent planning panel in 2010.

It was at the same time as he announced that 24 hectares of land near Ventnor on Phillip Island, the ill-fated “Cadogan Land”, would be rezoned for residential development, which subsequently did not go ahead.

The Ecovillage did go ahead, however. with the addition of 230 new blocks, adjacent to the foreshore in Cape Paterson, west of the existing township.

As well as being opposed by council and the local community at the time, the location of the Ecovillage was also against a key recommendation of the Coastal Spaces Landscape Assessment Study (2006) to “avoid linear urban sprawl along the coastal edge and ribbon development within rural landscapes” as a way of protecting the coast and areas between settlements for non-urban use.

However, despite the fact that the Eco Village went ahead, and has since gained wide public acclaim for the ground-breaking nature of its sustainable design, the Bass Coast Shire Council decided in March 2018, on a vote of 7:2, to seek Ministerial approval for Amendment C136, which would have seen 53 hectares of the 97 hectares included in the Cape Paterson settlement boundary to the north, rezoned for residential development.

Planning Minister Richard Wynne subsequently stepped in and paused the process early in 2019, announcing that the decision would be deferred “until the Bass Coast Distinctive Area and Landscape (DAL) project is significantly advanced”.

That’s where are now.

But as Professor Hayward told the panel on Thursday, the DAL process should be seen as an opportunity to apply a circuit breaker to the litany of planning mistakes made at Cape Paterson and finally put the fragile marine and coastal environment, and significant landscapes of the area adjoining Bunurong Marine and Coastal Park, ahead of new residential development that would create far more problems than it solved.

“It won’t provide affordable housing. It’s not a solution for social housing, with no services or transport available, it doesn’t offer long-term rentals, and it’s not going to add to the diversity of housing stock given that it’s all about detached housing.

“It won’t lead to a more efficient use of infrastructure or lead to more active transport, in fact the added traffic will make it less safe to walk and ride around,” Professor Hayward said.

And following on from separate submissions about the significance of local flora and fauna, including the presence rare orchids and the diversity of marine life, he said opening up residential development to the north would result in overdevelopment of the town and a serious threat to the environment, especially from stormwater runoff.

He also claimed that growth projections and assumptions about the number of houses needed had been disrupted by the unanticipated number of people who moved to the area permanently simply to occupy existing holiday houses or houses they owned as second residences.

At the 2016 Census, 366 houses in Cape Paterson were occupied (36%) and 647 unoccupied (63.9%). At the 2021 Census, 471 houses were occupied (41.9%) and 652 unoccupied (58%).

“This is an important source of housing supply that was downplayed,” he said.

“The smaller the settlement, the less reliable are projections of the number of houses needed, and the longer the timeframe, the less reliable still,” he said, claiming that “projections beyond three years were useless”.

“They set up a problem (the need for a high number of dwellings) that didn’t exist.”

He said Cape Paterson was ranked consistently low, in an assessment of 27 settlements in Gippsland, as being suitable for accommodating growth, but despite that, had been locked in, via a path of dependence, to massive, unsustainable growth, more so against the backdrop of better understood environmental risks.

Professor Hayward said there was also the opportunity to promote and develop Wonthaggi as a coastal town, located as it was little more than 3km from the coast at its closest point, to absorb demand.

In summing up the submissions from the CPRRA, he said the panel should take the opportunity to recommend that the settlement boundary of Cape Paterson be returned to its previous place, along Seaward Drive, finally eliminating the development potential to the north.

It was a compelling submission, supported by another Cape Paterson "second home" owner, highly-experienced strategic planner, Paul Byrne.

But the CPRRA didn’t have it all its own way with the chair of the panel, Kathy Mitchell saying that it was a fact that everyone supported the development of additional housing just so long as it wasn’t near them.

She also indicated that the panel was assessing the appropriateness of existing settlement boundaries and submissions for and against expansion, rather than considering recommendations for rolling back boundaries, as they were being asked to do at Cape Paterson by the CPRRA.