Developer says pub site should be inside Ocean Grove’s boundary

PROPONENTS behind a plan to redevelop the “Collendina” hotel site in Ocean Grove believe their land should be inside the settlement boundary in the Bellarine Peninsula Distinctive Area and Landscape (DAL) program in the same way it is in the 2007 Ocean Grove Structure Plan.

Developers have criticised boundaries proposed in the DAL’s draft Statement of Planning Policy (SPP) for being too tightly drawn around Ocean Grove, but Seachange Village Nominees spokesperson Serafino De Simone said their objections were different to those raised by a team promoting the Oakdene West estate on the opposite site of the town.

“We’ve always been included in the boundary and Oakdene West has never been included in the boundary,” Mr De Simone said.

“We’re a developed site and they’re an undeveloped site, so there’s significant differences.

“A settlement boundary is defined to include all urban uses, not just housing.

“Oakdene West is about 11 times our size, and if you only take the land that is partially developed, it’s about 16 to 18 times larger.”

He said the City of Greater Geelong council’s resolution on August 24 to not support the exclusion of the land at 139-175 Bonnyvale Road from Ocean Grove’s protected settlement boundary was proof that the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning’s evaluation of the site was flawed.

The Farming Zone land, which includes the hotel as well as the Surfside Motel and cabins, was included in the 2007 Ocean Grove Structure Plan with a designation to “support tourist-related redevelopment opportunities”, but the site was never fully redeveloped and a partially constructed aged care facility now occupies part of the land.

According to the DAL’s Settlement Background Paper, the site is environmentally sensitive and forms part of a green break to Point Lonsdale.

“While the site is not nominated for urban growth, retaining the site within the settlement boundary could result in a conventional residential subdivision, which is not a suitable outcome given the site’s sensitivity,” the paper states.

“The site’s existing use – as a hotel and for accommodation – does not require it to be within the settlement boundary, either to continue to operate or facilitate tourist-related redevelopment.

“Also, while the derelict, partially constructed retirement village is urban in nature and unsightly, this is not a reason to turn the land over for conventional residential development.”

Seachange Village Nominees launched a website and petition titled BuildOurVillage last week.

The website states the SPP will not only freeze their plan to rezone the land to a more appropriate designation and build a new and bigger pub with function spaces, but also prevent other proposed developments at the site, including a village green, wellness centre and tourism hotel as part of a bespoke eco-residential community.