Camps sites go in plan switch

Alex de Vos
More than 20 families will lose long-held beachfront camping sites under revised plans to upgrade Torquay Foreshore Caravan Park.
Torquay Concerned Campers Committee’s Russell Harper said he was furious about Great Ocean Road Coast Committee’s “last-minute changes”.
He accused the committee of misrepresenting its plan to mislead the campers.
“In good faith we have met with GORCC to represent the view of campers, only to find that it has made decisions about things it’s never discussed with us,” Mr Harper said.
“The whole process has been a farce.
“Regardless that we’ve met GORCC nine times over the past 12 months regarding the proposed masterplan, these last-minute changes show that GORCC has completely misrepresented us.”
Mr Harper said the revised master plan for the public caravan park proposed kicking 21 families off their permanent sites adjoining the waterfront Voss’s car park to make way for “casual campers”.
The coast committee had told campers it would use a ballot system to allocate new sites to families who would lose sites under the upgrade, he said.
Mr Harper was concerned the new proposal to hand the sites over to casual campers would also affect the environment.
“The coming and going of trailers will damage the vegetation and sand dunes,” he said.
Mr Harper demanded the committee went back to the drawing board.
“We’re seeking a delay and a review of the decision and also intend to petition the Victorian Government on this issue,” he said.
“Campers are happy to support this fantastic coastline but we would like a fair deal.
“GORCC does not understand the community and its does not understand camping.”
Great Ocean Road Coast Committee’s David Clarke said the campers would be relocated to “alternative sites elsewhere within the park before next summer”.
“GORCC has written to the campers concerned advising them of the need to relocate and inviting them to choose up to three preferred sites from among the 35 we have available as alternatives,” Mr Clarke said.
Camper Alan Puddy, who would lose his long-held site under the proposal, said the replacement sites were too small and “inappropriate”.
“We’re very disappointed and not impressed with the replacement sites,” Mr Puddy said.
“The things we agreed on have been thrown out the window.”