Motel man slams dodgy planning

Alex de Vos
A Geelong lawyer has demanded a shake up of Surf Coast Shire’s planning processes after losing his second bid to build a motel in Torquay.
Torquay Towers proponent Andrew Senia labelled the shire planning committee’s knock back “ambiguous, inconsistent, incorrect and impractical”.
“After nearly a year of procrastination and delay it has taken it upon itself to reject the application on the ambiguous grounds of what it prefers or does not prefer,” Mr Senia said.
The decision raised “serious questions” about the shire’s planning department, he said.
“The shire is reviewing its planning policies and procedures and this is long-overdue but it’s cold comfort to Torquay Towers and other developers who have had to pay holding costs and charges due to long and unnecessary delays and procedures.”
Torquay Towers 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 motel had the backing of Geelong Otway Tourism.
The planning department told the architect to go back to the drawing board with the first application to return 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”.
Mr Senia doubted the shire put similar conditions on other developments.
“Is the RACV building, for which the shire recently granted a permit to build a resort (at 1 Great Ocean Road), iconic?”
Mr Senia said his architect’s second design “conformed to the wishes of the first committee”.
But the committee knocked it back because it did not “achieve the preferred character”.
Mr Senia said the goal posts changed for his project when a different committee reviewed the second application.
The first committee had approved the size of the motel but the second ruled it was too big, he said
Mr Senia called on Surf Coast Shire’s chief executive officer and mayor to review his application.
“All traders, developers and people in the tourism industry deserve a lot better,” Mr Senia said.
A spokesperson said the shire would not review the application.
“The committee acts with the delegated authority of the council,” the spokesperson said.
“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.
The spokesperson did not answer the Independent’s question whether the shire’s planning rules had a clause allowing rejection of plans that were not “iconic”.