By Catherine Watson
COUNCILLORS have approved plans for a $2 million redevelopment of a central Cowes camping and caravan park, but they aren't happy about it.
There has been a camping ground at 137-143 Thompson Avenue for decades. The developers propose to reduce the number of sites from 100 to 49 and upgrade facilities. They sought retrospective approval for works that have already begun to demolish existing buildings and build 12 cabins and an amenity block.
Holiday Lifestyle has been the subject of complaints by at least two purchasers who thought they were buying into a permanent lifestyle village only to find it would still be a caravan park.
There were 13 objections to the application.
COUNCILLORS have approved plans for a $2 million redevelopment of a central Cowes camping and caravan park, but they aren't happy about it.
There has been a camping ground at 137-143 Thompson Avenue for decades. The developers propose to reduce the number of sites from 100 to 49 and upgrade facilities. They sought retrospective approval for works that have already begun to demolish existing buildings and build 12 cabins and an amenity block.
Holiday Lifestyle has been the subject of complaints by at least two purchasers who thought they were buying into a permanent lifestyle village only to find it would still be a caravan park.
There were 13 objections to the application.
An officer’s report recommended approval of the application as it was consistent with the existing use rights of the land for a camping and caravan park.
Moving the motion to approve the application, Cr David Rooks said Phillip Island had lost a lot of camping grounds, especially in Cowes, and this one was well placed.
“Visitors can just walk straight down the main street of town and enjoy the beach.
“It’s going to provide accommodation for both permanents and holiday makers so gives a range of accommodation at a lower price.”
Cr Leticia Laing said officers had worked with the developer to address amenity concerns raised by objectors with conditions on the permit.
Cr Ron Bauer questioned what responsibilities councillor had in a situation where people had bought into the development with a different conception to what is now being proposed.
“The council report states an amenity block containing communal cooking laundry and bathroom facilities. This is not indicative of permanent living but transient accommodation.”
Cr Michael Whelan said he had an unhappy feeling about the development.
“I understand our legal concerns that it’s a valid occupancy given the classification of that land but it wasn’t sold to these people as a camping ground; it was sold to them as a home, then they find out they’re in a camping ground.
“It’s not good enough. I don’t think this developer has covered themselves in glory.
“This has been delayed and that concerns me because those same people suffer even more if it’s delayed further.
“I understand the developer wants to blame council for that. It’s not council’s obligation to make sure that someone follows the legal obligations to apply for a planning permit. It’s an excuse.”
Cr Brett Tessari said they could lose a lot of ground if they rejected the application and the developer took it to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).
“You’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t. I tend to agree with a lot of the sentiment but he has existing rights and that ties our hands.
“I will be supporting it but I’m not really happy about it.”
Crs Geoff Ellis and Rochelle Halstead concurred that the outcome could be worse at VCAT.
Cr Rooks acknowledged that there were issues around the application but said that was beside the point.
“We’re not voting on their advertising and marketing or what’s been written in the papers. We’re voting on this application, whether the community wants it and whether it falls within our planning regulations.”
The application was approved by seven votes to two, with Crs Whelan and Bauer voting against it.
Moving the motion to approve the application, Cr David Rooks said Phillip Island had lost a lot of camping grounds, especially in Cowes, and this one was well placed.
“Visitors can just walk straight down the main street of town and enjoy the beach.
“It’s going to provide accommodation for both permanents and holiday makers so gives a range of accommodation at a lower price.”
Cr Leticia Laing said officers had worked with the developer to address amenity concerns raised by objectors with conditions on the permit.
Cr Ron Bauer questioned what responsibilities councillor had in a situation where people had bought into the development with a different conception to what is now being proposed.
“The council report states an amenity block containing communal cooking laundry and bathroom facilities. This is not indicative of permanent living but transient accommodation.”
Cr Michael Whelan said he had an unhappy feeling about the development.
“I understand our legal concerns that it’s a valid occupancy given the classification of that land but it wasn’t sold to these people as a camping ground; it was sold to them as a home, then they find out they’re in a camping ground.
“It’s not good enough. I don’t think this developer has covered themselves in glory.
“This has been delayed and that concerns me because those same people suffer even more if it’s delayed further.
“I understand the developer wants to blame council for that. It’s not council’s obligation to make sure that someone follows the legal obligations to apply for a planning permit. It’s an excuse.”
Cr Brett Tessari said they could lose a lot of ground if they rejected the application and the developer took it to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).
“You’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t. I tend to agree with a lot of the sentiment but he has existing rights and that ties our hands.
“I will be supporting it but I’m not really happy about it.”
Crs Geoff Ellis and Rochelle Halstead concurred that the outcome could be worse at VCAT.
Cr Rooks acknowledged that there were issues around the application but said that was beside the point.
“We’re not voting on their advertising and marketing or what’s been written in the papers. We’re voting on this application, whether the community wants it and whether it falls within our planning regulations.”
The application was approved by seven votes to two, with Crs Whelan and Bauer voting against it.