ATTACHMENT ONE
OFFICER REPORT – Dromana Life Saving Club
250 Point Nepean Road Dromana
INTRODUCTION
1.
The Dromana Bay Life Saving Club (DBLSC) wrote to the Minister for Planning on 14
December 2010 seeking Ministerial consideration of a planning application which was due
to be considered by VCAT on 23 March 2011.
2.
If successful in obtaining planning permission DBLSC hopes to complete building its new
facilities in the winter of 2011 in readiness for the 2011-12 summer.
3.
DBLSC is currently using two shipping containers for storage and operational space and
requires more permanent, long term accommodation to enable it to continue to provide life
saving services to the community and to have room for a projected increase in club
members.
4.
On 3 March 2011 the Minister wrote to VCAT and affected parties, calling in the
Application for Review under clause 58(2)(a) of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and
Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 for determination by the Governor In Council and
nominated me to chair a meeting of all parties to consider submissions on his behalf.
5.
The meeting took place on 24 March 2011. Prior to the meeting I inspected the land and
its surrounds. Revised plans were provided to all parties prior to the meeting addressing
condition 1 of the Notice of Decision. (Reference - Revision C, Sheets 1-4 dated 18
January 2011).
IN ATTENDANCE
6.
For The Permit Applicant
Mark Bartley, (instructed by Ms Leilani Kuhn, DLA Phillips Fox).
The Project Architect, David Norman of David Normal Design and Construct and Planning
Consultant Jackie Prossor of Nepean Planning Consultants were also present and
provided a useful outline of the project and the factors influencing its design.
7.
For Mornington Peninsula Shire MPSC
Mr Matthew Beazley (Instructed by Judith Perlstein, Norton Rose Australia).
8.
For the Objector
Mr Len Warfe, President - Port Phillip Conservation MPSC Inc, assisted by Ms Jenny
Warfe, Secretary - Port Phillip Conservation MPSC Inc.
9.
For Scouts Australia
Ms Carole Richards, Legal and Property Services Administrator – Scouts Australia,
Victorian Branch.
PRELIMINARY MATTER - REVISED PLANS
10.
The revised plans depicted a realignment of the Dromana Bay Trail, to allow adequate
clearance for the proposal. The revised plans also revealed a previous error in the
computer generated drawing layers which had caused the proposed clubhouse to appear
further from the sea wall than was the case.
11.
All parties viewed both the original plans submitted with the application and the amended
plans. All conceded that on both sets of plans the sea wall was dimensioned 15110mm
(15m approx) from the proposed built form.
Page 1 of 8
12.
There was concern by the Port Phillip Conservation Council Inc (PPCC) about the original
plans being ‘misleading,’ however as both sets of plans were clearly dimensioned, and the
error occurred on only one revision of the plan, (landscape plan and heritage reports
contained the correct layering) the difference cannot be regarded as substantial or
significant.
THE PROPOSAL
13.
The new building would be sited to the rear of the existing memorial hall on what is
currently a flat grassed area. The building would connect with the existing hall via the
space occupied by the existing kitchen. The kitchen area would be demolished and rebuilt
to comply with current building and health requirements. The location of the building
ensures ample visibility of the patrol area as well as providing adequate visibility from the
coast for the provision of first aid services.
14.
The proposed building has an overall height of 8.6m and is setback approximately 7.9m
from the existing public toilet facilities located on the north east of the existing memorial
hall. The north western (front) aspect of the new building is set back 15m from the existing
rock sea wall located on the foreshore. At ground level, the new building has a total area
of just under 400m2 (excluding the wash bay) with the upper floor area consisting of
approximately 335m2. The natural ground level, ranges between 3 and 4m above sea level
(AHD).
15.
The use will generally operate with 6 to 8 people in attendance on weekends, public
holidays and school holidays over summer. During the "nippers" training season and club
competition events there will be more members in attendance. In addition to life saving
activities DBLSC provides training and life saving instruction for members of all ages.
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE PERMIT APPLICANT
16.
Mr Bartley’s submissions on behalf of the permit applicant can be summarised as follows:
The Proposed Development Is In Accordance With the following State Planning Policy
17.
‘Clause 12 - Environmental And Landscape Values, Clause 12.02 Coastal Areas’ as the
proposed development incorporates a range of sustainability components, makes efficient
use of the coastal environment and will provide a highly valued service to the community
which is heavily coastal dependant given the nature of its use.
18.
‘Clause 13 - Environmental Risk - Clause 13.01-01 As It Relates To Coastal Inundation
And Erosion’. DBLSC have had a coastal assessment prepared which assessed the
possible coastal impact on the proposed building, where it concluded that:

There was a negligible risk of the proposed building development being threatened
by erosion of the coastline as a consequence of sea level rise due to climate change;
and

There was negligible risk of the proposed building being inundated by an extreme
storm event causing storm surge and high tide combined with a predicted sea level
rise due to climate change.
The Proposed Development Is In Accordance With Local Planning Policy
19.
‘Clause 21.08 - Foreshores And Coastal Areas’ as the proposed development will provide
long term accommodation to a highly valued and necessary public service that is reliant
upon its coastal setting to properly function. The responsive design provides a functional
and practical sustainable building that will enable DBLSC to effectively operate in
providing a net community benefit without detrimentally impacting upon coastal users.
20.
The proposed development is in accordance with the objectives of ‘Clause 36.02 Public
Park and Recreation Zone’ and ‘Clause 42.01 The Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 25.’
21.
The built form and siting of the proposal is in accordance with Victorian Coastal Strategy Siting and Design Guidelines for Structures on the Victorian Coast (1998) (Coastal design
guidelines).
The Proposed Development Is In Accordance With The Following Policy Documents
Page 2 of 8
22.
The Victorian Coastal Strategy (2008) (VCS) as it satisfies the criteria outlined in the VCS
for use and development on coastal Crown land, its objectives and key guidelines.
Responses To The Objector (PPCC) Grounds For Appeal
23.
‘The proposed development is not in accordance with the VCS and its underpinning
documents, various local and State planning policies’.
24.
As outlined above, the proposal is clearly in accordance with the VCS and its underpinning
documents, local and State planning policies.
25.
‘The development will alienate public land in an area already heavily used and highly
valued by the public’.
26.
The proposal will provide a net community benefit for the Dromana area. It will only use a
relatively small area of land. The proposal will also make the public land more valuable to
the community by offering a space that can be utilised by other community groups and
through the provision of rescue and life saving for beach users.
27.
‘A substantial number of users are dissatisfied with the location and design of the facility’.
28.
This statement is unsubstantiated, PPCC have not consulted, nor do they represent the
local users of the foreshore. The DBLSC consulted with a wide range of key stakeholders
including Dromana Foreshore Group, 1st Dromana Sea Scouts, Dromana RSL, Life
Saving Victoria and the Department of Sustainability and Environment which consultation
has strongly influenced the location, size, scale and design of the proposal.
29.
‘The proposed site has not been properly assessed for potential impacts on traffic flow if
the development was to proceed’.
30.
There is no evidence of a traffic issue associated with the proposal.
31.
‘In order to serve the proposed uses, the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site’.
32.
As outlined the proposal is consistent with the VCS and is not an overdevelopment of the
site.
33.
‘The proposed development will overshadow and otherwise adversely impact on the
attached historic Sea Scouts Hall (formerly Dromana RSL Memorial Hall)’.
34.
As also outlined the proposed development will not have any adverse impacts on the
existing memorial hall.
35.
‘PPCC's Policies, especially Nos. 2 and 6 cannot be upheld if the proposal proceeds’.
36.
PPCC contend that some of their policies cannot be upheld if the proposal proceeds.
PPCC policies are not official or statutory policy under any planning scheme, and
therefore have no statutory weight in the assessment of the proposed development.
Proposed Changes To The Conditions Of The Planning Permit
37.
While DBCSL supports the decision of the Responsible Authority, some of the conditions
require amendment and one condition should be deleted.
38.
Condition 2 should be changed to include the hours of operation "Saturday to Sunday
9.00am and 4.00pm. This change would not apply during the summer months (i.e. from
the beginning of December until the end of March).
39.
Condition 15 should be deleted as it is invalid as a lease exists.
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE MORNINGTON PENINSULA SHIRE COUNCIL – RESPONSIBLE
AUTHORITY
40.
Mr Beazley supported the submissions made on behalf of the DBLSC regarding the
substitution of the original plans with the amended plans and changes to the conditions.
41.
Mr Beazley confirmed that the application was referred to the DSE and internally to
MPSC’s Coastal Planner, Heritage Planner, Property Department and Development
Engineer for comment. None objected to the application and appropriate conditions were
inserted into the permit.
Page 3 of 8
42.
He Noted that the DBLSC was formed in 1997 with 12 members who aimed to service the
community need to provide a range of services to swimmers and beach goers within the
popular Dromana foreshore and pier area. It has now grown to 107 members and has
been able to purchase a variety of rescue equipment to facilitate its activities. It provides a
wide range of life saving services including education and training to the community on
water safety and awareness in an attempt to minimise and avoid injury and loss of life.
43.
As was noted in the background to the initial planning submission provided by DBLSC with
its application, the provision of additional equipment and increased membership numbers
has placed demands on DBLSC for suitable areas for storage and training facilities.
Temporary approval was sought and granted in 2006 for the use of two shipping
containers. More permanent and long term accommodation is now required to enable
DBLSC to continue to grow and to provide its services to the local community. Extensive
community consultation was undertaken prior to the application being made, with the
MPSC, the Dromana Foreshore Group, 1st Dromana Sea Scouts, Dromana RSL, Life
Saving Victoria and the DSE. This all strongly influenced the location, size, scale and
design of the building.
44.
The proposal takes into account the needs of DBLSC for viewing, storage and training and
the needs of other users of the Dromana Sea Scouts Hall as well as respecting its
sensitive coastal location.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE OBJECTOR PORT PHILLIP CONSERVATION MPSC INC. (PPCC)
45.
Mr Warfe made submissions on behalf of the PPCC to the effect that the proposal is
inconsistent with, the Coastal Management Act 1995 (CMA Act) and various state and
local planning policies. The CMA Act and various policies are listed below in bold with
PPCC submissions following.
Coastal Management Act 1955.
46.
The development does not allow the Minister to meet his obligations under the Coastal
Management Act 1995.
State And Local Planning Policy Framework
47.
Clause 12.02 Coastal areas
48.
Not all elements of lifesaving activities are coast dependent, and DBLSC’s claims that its
activities are heavily coast dependent are not substantiated.
49.
Clause 13.01 Climate change impacts
50.
DBLSC’s coastal vulnerability assessment has not adequately taken account of potential
coastal inundation impacts.
51.
Clause 21.08 Foreshore and Coastal areas states that preference should be given to reuse of existing structures. DBLSC has not demonstrated that this requirement has been
adequately investigated.
52.
DBLSC has not provided an adequate assessment of vulnerability to climate change
effects, nor any objective evidence of substantial net community and/or coastal benefit.
53.
DBLSC has made no provision whatsoever for car parking, stating that adequate car
parking is available in the area around the site.
MPPS - Environmental Significance Overlay
54.
Schedule 25 Port Phillip Coastal Area
55.
The location, height, overlooking issues and overall bulk of the proposed structure cannot
meet the environmental objectives of ESO 25 including the requirement for protection and
enhancement of the natural features, vegetation, ecological diversity, landscape quality,
heritage values and recreation opportunities of the Port Phillip Bay coastal areas.
56.
ESO 25 Decision guidelines require the Responsible Authority to consider issues
including:
Page 4 of 8
57.
The degree to which the proposed development is dependent on a coastal location.
Some of DBLSC’s activities are not coast dependent - such as meetings, fitness training,
and could be undertaken in numerous other nearby locations.
58.
The ability to reduce the number of buildings and other structures by combined use or
reuse of existing buildings.
Rather than reduce the number of structures on the coast, as the ESO 25 advises, the
proposal would introduce another very large building, duplicating many of the facilities
already available in the immediate area.
59.
The Victorian Coastal Strategy, Siting and Design Guidelines for Structures on the
Victorian Coast (May 1998) and Landscape Setting Types for the Victorian Coast (May
1998).
The VCS and its two underpinning documents guide against large structures in foreshore
locations which intrude into view lines and reduce the experience of natural coastal
scenery. The 'Landscape setting types for the Victorian coast 1998’ advises that this
section of coast has high scenic quality stating that Nepean Hwy and adjoining townships
need to express a greater coastal character, and the "progression experience" to the
natural headland at Pt. Nepean and The Rip should be enhanced.
60.
A two storey structure of such substantial bulk on the foreshore will intrude into view lines
and will replicate the less pleasing aspects of more urban coastal areas closer to
Melbourne.
Amenity Issues
61.
The site is already subject to traffic and car parking congestion for much of the year.
Vehicle access to the site is difficult and would require further alienation of foreshore land
to achieve reasonable vehicular access from Pt. Nepean Rd.
62.
The building would alienate a substantial area of well used open space for the exclusive
use of a small number of LSC members. The large footprint, overbearing two storey
design and relocation of the Bay Trail will substantially reduce public access and
enjoyment of this highly valued and much loved public open space.
SUBMISSIONS BY SCOUTS AUSTRALIA - VICTORIAN BRANCH
63.
Ms Richards began by clarifying if the position of Scouts Australia had changed given it
did not apply to be a party to the VCAT appeal.
64.
It is clear that Scouts Australia initially had issues with the proposal which were addressed
by DBLSC. These concerns revolved around appropriateness of bathroom facilities for
young scouts, and various other security matters which had been addressed sufficiently to
the satisfaction of Scouts Australia for them not to proceed to VCAT with any remaining
concerns.
65.
Notwithstanding this, Ms Richards contends the relocation of the bay trail now shown on
the amended plans (a condition of the notice of decision issued by MPSC) presents a
problem for the scouts ability to use the grassed area in front of their boat shed for
activities like de-rigging of sail craft.
PLANNING CONTROLS
66.
The land is located in a ‘Public Park and Recreation Zone’ (PPRZ) and covered by an
Environmental Significance Overlay, Schedule 25 (ESO25).
Use Under The PPRZ
67.
68.
The use ‘Life Saving Club’ is an innominate use and is captured within the definition of
‘Restricted recreation facility’, which the Scheme defines as:
‘Land used by members of a club or group, members' guests, or by the public on
payment of a fee, for leisure, recreation, or sport, such as a bowling or tennis club,
Page 5 of 8
69.
gymnasium and fitness centre. It may include food and drink for consumption on the
premises, and gaming.’
The ‘Table of uses’ at Clause 36.02-1, governing the PPRZ, states that a Restricted
recreation Facility does not require a permit if the use is:

A use conducted by or on behalf of a public land manager or Parks Victoria under
the relevant provisions of the Local Government Act 1989, the Reference Areas Act
1978, the National Parks Act 1975, the Fisheries Act 1995, the Wildlife Act 1975, the
Forest Act 1958, the Water Industry Act 1994, the Water Act 1989, the Marine Act
1988, the Port of Melbourne Authority Act 1958, or the Crown Land (Reserves) Act
1978.

A use specified in an Incorporated plan in a schedule to this zone.
70.
Accordingly, if the use was conducted on or behalf of a public body it could operate
without the need for a planning permit.
71.
It was suggested however that the DBLSC is entitled to such an exemption, consequently
the use is Section 2 and requires a permit.
Built Form Under The PPRZ
72.
Clause 36.02-2 states that a permit is required to:
73.
Construct a building or construct or carry out works. This does not apply to:

Pathways, trails, seating, picnic tables, drinking taps, shelters, barbeques, rubbish
bins, security lighting, irrigation, drainage or underground infrastructure.
Accordingly a permit is required under the PPRZ for the built form but not for the relocation
of the Bay Trail.
74.
Buildings And Works Under The ESO
75.
Clause 42.01 Environmental Significance Overlay, Schedule 25 (ESO25) states that:
76.
A permit is required to:

Construct a building or construct or carry out works. This does not apply if a
schedule to this overlay specifically states that a permit is not required.

Construct bicycle pathways and trails.

Remove, destroy or lop any vegetation, including dead vegetation… If within a
PPRZ.
77.
Accordingly a permit is required to under the ESO to construct a building, remove
vegetation, and relocate the Bay Trail.
Car Parking
78.
79.
Clause 52.06-1 Car Spaces states that:
‘A new use must not commence or the floor area of an existing use must not be
increased until the required car spaces have been provided on the land…. Where a
use is not specified in the table at Clause 52.06-5, an adequate number of car
spaces must be provided to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.’
ASSESSMENT
80.
The most contentious issue is that of the appropriateness of the use and built form.
81.
Mr Warfe contends that the use and development is contrary to local and state policy;
does not meet the requirements of the Coastal Management Act 1995; would be subject to
the effects of inundation; and is excessive in its scale when contrasted against what he
calls the real versus perceived needs of the DBLSC. Finally Mr Warfe is concerned that
the DBLSC activities are a ‘Trojan Horse’ for commercial development.
82.
I agree with Mr Barkley and Beazley’s assessment of the proposal against the Purpose of
the PPRZ, State Planning Policy Clauses 12.02 Coastal Areas, 13.01 – Climate Change
Impacts – Coastal Inundation and Erosion, 15.03-1 Heritage Conservation, and 15.03-2
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage
83.
Clause 36.02 of the Scheme states that the purpose of the PPRZ is:
Page 6 of 8




To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy
Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.
To recognise areas for public recreation and open space.
To protect and conserve areas of significance where appropriate.
To provide for commercial uses where appropriate.
84.
The location of any Life Saving Club is necessarily within close proximity to the shoreline.
85.
In his account of the history of the Dromana bay shoreline Mr Warfe demonstrated that
this section of coastline has a long history of land use resulting today in no fewer than 26
public and private structures between Pier Street and Arthur Street, all located on the
shoreline.
86.
These include boathouses, toilet blocks, barbeque facilities, and children’s
playgrounds/areas. Additionally all are well serviced by an abundance of commercial and
retail uses accross Point Nepean Road, and provided with parking and easy access to the
water.
87.
Due to the ease of access to the Dromana shoreline, as well as the proximity of the
facilities mentioned above, the area is frequented more by families and inexperienced
swimmers who very likely feel safe and comfortable due to the close proximity of these
services.
88.
I agree with Mr Barkley and Beazley’s assessment that a further benefit in light of
swimmer inexperience, is the security of rescue or assistance. Anecdotal evidence of such
inexperience was provided by a member of the DBLSC.
89.
Despite his own anecdotal evidence to the contrary, Mr Warfes failed to demonstrate that
the use at that location is inappropriate. On the other hand, documents tabled by Mr.
Norman of David Normal Design such as, Siting & Design Guidelines for structures on the
Victorian Coast, and by Mark Bartley the Coastal Action Plan fro Mt Eliza to Portsea on
behalf of MPSC, all support both the use and location as proposed.
90.
The proposal will provide long term accommodation to a highly valued and necessary
public service that is entirely reliant on a coastal setting. The proposal provides a
functional, practical and sustainable building that will enable the DBLSC to effectively
operate, providing a community benefit without impacting detrimentally on coastal users.
91.
In summary the use of the site as a Life Saving Club implements both the State Planning
Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal
Strategic Statement and local planning policies and provides an appropriate and sought
after service.
92.
In respect of the issue of building scale, Mr Warfe suggested that the built form represents
the ‘ambitions’ of the life saving club, rather than its ‘needs’ and is manifestly an
overdevelopment of the site.
93.
Having had the opportunity to view other Life Saving Clubs in Victoria, both in person and
by way of pictures presented to me by all parties, I find that the scale of the proposal is in
line with many such clubs located throughout Victoria.
94.
The building footprint is more functional than aspirational, being dictated by the need to
store both water craft for rescue, and a small all terraome vehicle to transport rescue crast
to and from the shoreline. In addition the ground floor houses bathroom and change
facilities, a first aid room and a store for equipment. The width of the building mirrors that
of the existing memorial hall.
95.
The overall height of the building, although two stories, is modest at 8.6m. The floor to
ceiling heights of 2.7m are the minimum one would expect for an area where physical
activity or storing/use of bulky equipment takes place.
96.
The first floor also provides a vantage point for life saving duties. The pitched roof mirrors
the pitch of the existing hall as well as surrounding boat houses and beach boxes.
97.
Mr Warfe’s remaining concern was that the site may become a de facto commercial use.
In response to this concern I would point out that the site is Zoned Public Park and
Page 7 of 8
Recreation and pursuant to this Zone a permit is required for the retail use of the site,
unless the use is undertaken by a public land manager or the like. Accordingly a
commercial use of the site would require a permit. I have faith in the MPSC’s ability to
enforce this matter.
98.
In respect to the buildings siting Ms Richards of Scouts Australia, Victorian Branch, drew
attention to the location of the bay trail, and the possibility that the trail’s new location may
interfere with the sea scouts de rigging of sail craft.
99.
Ms Richards did not elaborate on the size of sea craft or the nature of the activity other
than to say it currently occurs between the Scout Boat shed and the Bay Trail.
100. The boat shed is some 5m-6m wide and 10m deep. Logically the footprint of any boat
stored inside would have to be within these parameters, with a mast no greater than 10m.
101. Therefore de rigging of craft from that boat shed could occur within a corridor measuring
5m x 10m. Between the repositioned bay trail and the proposed life saving club there will
be an open space area of 15m x 7m. As the Scouts and DBLSC share many of the
facilities to be provided by the new clubhouse, I am confident that this space will be
available for de rigging.
102. Finally on the matter of car parking, MPSC have expressed confidence that appropriate
car parking is available nearby to justify a waiver of car parking under clause 52.06 of the
scheme. My observations of the extent and proximity of public parking and the fact that the
use operates as a support service for persons already at the beach support this view. This
is also an outcome favoured under the coastal strategy with its emphasis on co-location of
mutually supportive activities.
CONCLUSION
103. Following consideration of all matters relevant to the determination of the proceeding,
including the officer’s report, the Department considers that:

The use and development of the land as a Restricted Recreation Facility (Life Saving
Club) is consistent with both Local and State Policy.

The scale and form of the club house is appropriate to the use and is in keeping with
the scale and form of buildings on the shoreline.

There is sufficient parking in the area to meet the needs of the life saving club.

There will be ample room for the continued co-use of the grassed area to the west of
the club house for both Life saving and Sea Scouting activities.
RECOMMENDATION
104. Accordingly, it is recommended that:
(1) the decision of the Peninsula Shire Council in relation to Planning Permit Application
P10/0077 be varied;
(2) planning Permit P10/0077 be granted for the use and development of a Restricted
Recreation Facility (life saving club), for signage and associated works, to remove
vegetation and to waive car parking requirements, in accordance with the endorsed
plans, and subject to the conditions set out in Attachment 2; and
(3) Peninsula Shire Council be directed to issue Planning Permit P10/0077.
Jane Monk
Director
State Planning Services
Page 8 of 8