It's an age-old story — the million-dollar development and the locals who oppose it.
But at Princetown, in south-west Victoria, a battle over plans to build an eco-resort near the Great Ocean Road is more than just a fight between development and the environment.
On one side are the proponents, whose eco-lodge-and-restaurant proposal has the backing of the state and federal governments, regional tourist organisations, local council, and the area's catchment management authority.
They say the construction of the eco-resort near the mouth of the Gellibrand River is vital to helping revive a struggling tourism industry and capitalising on one of the under-valued jewels in Australia's tourism crown — the Great Ocean Road.
On the other side are locals and environmentalists who say the development not only puts an entire ecosystem at risk, but is a flood disaster waiting to happen that could cost lives.
Bigger than Uluru and the reef
The Great Ocean Road begins at Torquay near Geelong, runs along some of Australia's most beautiful coastline, and ends just east of Warrnambool in south-west Victoria.
Pre-pandemic, it attracted more visitors than Uluru and the Great Barrier Reef combined, pumping an estimated $1.3 billion into the economy and creating approximately 11,200 jobs.
But for two-thirds of visitors, the Great Ocean Road is not a place to stay — they're day-trippers who hop in a car or bus in Melbourne or Geelong, reach the Twelve Apostles, then turn around and head back to the city.
As a result, the tourist route and its surroundings are seen as a land of missed opportunities.
Great Ocean Road Regional Tourism (GORRT) general manager Liz Price said a recent study found there was a 3,000 to 4,000 room shortage in accommodation along the road.
"The challenge people aren't necessarily understanding is there's lots of small accommodation [but no larger facilities]," Ms Price said, noting the most recent large-scale accommodation built along the road was the RACV Torquay Resort, which opened in 2013.
But the proposed Princetown Eco-Stay project was a step in the right direction that GORRT supported, Ms Price said.
The federal and state governments have also contributed more than $7 million.
Rooms with a view
Montarosa Pty Ltd plans to build an eco-lodge with 18 rooms and 20 villas, sleeping up to 200 people, on farmland next to the Princetown campgrounds and now unused footy ground.
It will also build a 300-seat restaurant and an activity centre as a base for hiking, kayaking, and cycling.
The site is just off the Great Ocean Road and sits along the Great Ocean Walk and Gellibrand River, about a five-minute drive from the Twelve Apostles.
The state government's Shipwreck Coast master plan singled out the spot as a possible site for "low-key eco-tourism opportunities".
Montarosa director Gavin Ronan and his wife bought the farmland about six years ago, having previously set up an award-winning eco-lodge along the Great Ocean Walk that they operated for more than a decade.
Mr Ronan said they did their homework to ensure the resort was the right fit for their property.
"We've been through every hoop to make sure that we're doing this by the book and sustainably," Mr Ronan said.
Flood worries
Locals who oppose the development have raised concerns about acid sulphate soils, the impact of the development on local flora and fauna, traffic issues, and potential pollution from the site.
The lodge will be built beside federally-listed nationally important wetlands, that are home to threatened flora and fauna.
There's also only one access road to the site and they're concerned hundreds of tourists could be stranded, or put in danger in times of flood.
Resident Kim Morton said flooding occurred regularly in the area, including a major flood in 2010 and minor floods in 2015 and 2016.
"The fact that it's only a couple of hundred metres from the ocean, the storm surge that affects the site can be pretty severe," Ms Morton said.
Concerned residents, unimpressed by Montarosa's own flood reports and the work of the Corangamite Catchment Management Authority, hired their own consultant to assess the flood risk in the area.
Floodplain consultant Matt Hayes, who has worked in the industry for 25 years, said "the developer's [preliminary] flood report … treated an incredibly complex bit of floodplain as if it's a bathtub".
"It has grossly underestimated the flood risk," Mr Hayes said.
"They're saying the 1-in-100-year flood level is 2.3 metres, and it's beyond the scope of probability that it could be more than 3 metres ... and it could be even more than that."
Mr Hayes said Montarosa's "preliminary hydraulic report" from 2016 used only two rain or flow gauges along the Gellibrand River and about eight years of data to make its assessment.
Mr Hayes used 44 gauges in the catchment or wider area and assessed many decades of data.
"They've cherry-picked the data," he said.
He said in a 3-metre-plus flood, the resort would only be accessible by helicopter or boat, and the floodwaters would be in the accommodation.
"It would be pushing a huge volume of water quite fast and the damage that does with debris from the catchment can be phenomenal," Mr Hayes said.
"[The location] is just far too volatile — I've never seen anything like this.
"It's the wrong place to put any kind of resort — to site major infrastructure in the estuary is foolhardy at best.
The battle begins
Mr Ronan disputed Mr Hayes's assessment, noting that a further flood report had been done and the Corangamite Catchment Management Authority had signed off on the project.
He has accused the locals of spreading misinformation to "influence public opinion".
"Our property is 120 acres in size, it goes up to 20 metres above sea level, nearly 30 acres of it is cleared farmland above the wetland and floodplain, and we've concentrated our development on that high ground."
Mr Ronan said the "misinformation" is part of a campaign against him and his family.
There have been protests on the site numerous times in recent years, with a dispute over access to the property last year triggering police intervention and accusations from both sides.
The matter went through the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), where it was settled following mediation and negotiation.
A permit for the development was approved, and Mr Ronan hopes the resort will open within two years.
Not over yet
But Ms Morton said the fight was not over yet.
"The community certainly understands that we need more accommodation along here," she said.
She pointed to proposed hot springs and accommodation further along the Great Ocean Road that has the full support of her group.
Ms Morton and her fellow opponents believe Mr Ronan has not met the 70 conditions imposed on him by VCAT, though Mr Ronan disagrees.
Locals are taking the local Corangamite Shire back to VCAT for a two-day hearing in October, alleging a failure to adhere to the conditions.
But the community also feels the cards are stacked against them, given the wide-ranging bureaucratic support for the project.
Former Corangamite Shire mayor and local resident Neil Trotter said the fact the project had been given federal and state funding to improve the road and bridge leading to the site had been particularly galling.
"My contention is that public money shouldn't be expended on a project that has an inherent risk of flooding," Mr Trotter said.
"You have crumbling infrastructure [around here], yet $8 million is handed over to the private developer when that money could be spent on improving public roads, communications, etc.
"The developer has a right to put up a development and, to date, he's probably gone through due process, but my contention is that public funding shouldn't be allocated to the project, especially in the amount that it has been.
"[Local federal member Dan] Tehan has stated [the funding] was for community benefit — well, the community didn't want it."
Mr Tehan's office was approached for comment but did not respond.
