By Luke Voogt
Geelong community groups have demanded detailed plans for Osborne House amid fears for the historic mansion’s future.
Osborne Park Association president Cheryl Scott slammed a “totally vague” plan that council officers published online for public comment until 30 April.
“They’ve come up with a coloured map, some thought bubbles and no business case,” she said.
“This doesn’t tell us anything that we should be commenting on. It’s four pages of nothing.”
The draft concept plan listed potential uses of the historic mansion but lacked detail on specific sections, Ms Scott said.
For example, the mansion’s east wing and nearby foyer would be great locations for a caf¨¦ or wedding reception area, she suggested.
Community groups, small businesses and start-ups could use up to 25 rooms on the mansion’s first floor, she added.
The concept draft plan proposed relocating a current car park to a site next to a nearby substation, which risked isolating Osborne House, Ms Scott said.
“That’s a long way for someone to walk in the dark.”
Last July council decided to keep Osborne House and its stables in “public ownership” and rent an adjacent former depot.
Council moved to complete a master plan for Osborne Park by December 2018 with consultation from groups such as former tenant Geelong and District Vietnam Veterans Association.
In December council extended the deadline to 24 June, 2019.
But association president Rieny Nieuwenhof said the concept draft failed to achieve what the “vast majority“ of councillors and stakeholders wanted.
“It doesn’t look at Osborne House at all except in very broad terms that it should be renovated.“
The concept plans failed to reflect the motion’s original intent of finding uses for Osborne House, Mr Nieuwenhof said.
They instead focussed on a larger precinct, causing “major headaches” due to competing “industrial and commercial interests”, he said.
Council posted the concept plans after councillors voted on 9 April to defer any decisions on the site.
Eddy Kontelj, who moved the motion, said he was “just wasn’t comfortable” he understood if planning so far met the intent of the original motion.
“I’d certainly like to see more detail.“
Cr Kontelj backed the calls for the release of more-detailed plans to the public before the June deadline.
