Developer wants justice VCAT to rule on motel plan

Alex de Vos
A bid for a motel at the start of the Great Ocean Road is headed for Victoria’s planning tribunal, according to a Geelong lawyer.
Andrew Senia said Surf Coast Shire’s two unfair rejections of his Torquay Towers plans had cost him “a lot of money”.
The shire also refused Mr Senia’s appeal to revoke the planning committee decision, which he labelled “ambiguous, inconsistent, incorrect and impractical”.
“In the meantime I’m forced to spend a lot of money to hold the land and now take the proposal to Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal,” Mr Senia said.
“Everyone wants the motel to go ahead. It should never have been knocked back in the first place.
“I won’t quit until I see justice done.”
Last month Mr Senia demanded a shake up of Surf Coast Shire’s planning processes after the second knock-back.
He had proposed a three-storey motel at 2-4 Geelong Road, comprising 36 apartments, covered parking for 33 cars, a reception centre and a manager’s residence.
The planning department told the architect to go back to the drawing board with the first application and come back with a plan befitting the site, opposite a roundabout at the start of the Great Ocean Road.
The planning department wanted a “more iconic design”.
The proposed motel site is next to a Splish Splash car wash, also opposite the start of the Great Ocean Road.
Mr Senia said his architect’s second design “conformed to the wishes of the first committee”.
But the committee knocked him back again after ruling the second design failed to achieve the committee’s “preferred character”.
Mr Senia said the goal posts changed when different members sat on the committee reviewing the second application.
The first committee had approved the size of the motel but the second ruled it was too big, he said.
A shire spokesperson said after the refusal to revoke the committee’s second decision that the committee acted with “the delegated authority of the council”.
“The committee considered that, on balance, the proposed use (was) appropriate for the site (but) the designs submitted to date are not considered to respond adequately to the relevant planning controls.”
The spokesperson said Mr Senia could submit “a fresh application” or appeal to VCAT.