Officers recommend rejecting $22m Torquay development

THE Surf Coast Shire council appears to have finally come to a position about a proposed $22 million development in Torquay, with officers recommending the proposal be rejected, mostly on traffic and car parking grounds.

The belated decision comes too late for proponents Baines Torquay, who have already secured a hearing next month at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) due to the council not resolving it within the 60-day limit.

The original application for a planning permit, lodged in July 2019, would transform the site at 85 Geelong Road into a six-theatre cinema with a total of 600 seats, a childcare facility for 130 children, a medical centre to accommodate up to 12 practitioners, a 7-Eleven service station, KFC and Zambrero restaurants, and a drive-through Bean Squeeze coffee shop.

The amended version submitted in May this year added a three-storey backpackers’ hotel with 56 rooms with associated restaurant and bar, as well as a single-storey children’s play centre.

The application received 57 submissions during the public exhibition period, with only two of those in favour.

At their meeting on Tuesday this week, councillors considered the officer’s recommendation, which opposes granting the planning permit on seven grounds.

Six of these relate to traffic and car parking:

• Traffic generation associated with the use and development of the land will be detrimental to traffic flow and road safety
• Car parking does not satisfy the requirements of the Surf Coast Planning Scheme
• The application has not demonstrated that car parking can be supplied on site to meet the typical peak demand for car parking generated by the proposed use and development
• If the supply of car parking onsite does not meet typical peak demand, it is likely the amenity of nearby residential areas would be detrimentally impacted by overflow parking
• The application has not demonstrated residential amenity will be protected from noise generated by the proposed uses, particularly noise from patrons associated with the residential hotel and vehicles using car parking areas located close to residential boundaries, and
• Inadequate loading and unloading facilities are likely to lead to amenity, traffic flow and safety impacts.

“On balance, the applicant has not been able to address critical issues identified… that, without a known solution, prevent the ability to provide conditional support for proposal,” the officers’ report to councillors states.

VCAT have scheduled a compulsory conference about the permit for October 16, with a major case hearing set for December 14-18.

Explaining the council’s delay in resolving the matter, the shire’s general manager of environment and development Ransce Salan said last month that the council had decided more than 80 per cent of applications within the 60-day period in the previous financial year, but “it is acceptable for some applications to take longer, to provide the community with the appropriate opportunity to be involved”.

“It also provides the applicant with the chance to respond to issues as they arise and to allow for a considered and well-informed decision.”