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

  1. 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.

  1. For MorningtonPeninsula Shire MPSC

Mr Matthew Beazley (Instructed by Judith Perlstein, Norton Rose Australia).

  1. For the Objector

Mr Len Warfe, President - Port Phillip Conservation MPSC Inc, assisted by Ms Jenny Warfe, Secretary - Port Phillip Conservation MPSC Inc.

  1. For Scouts Australia

Ms Carole Richards, Legal and Property Services Administrator – Scouts Australia, Victorian Branch.

PRELIMINARY MATTER - REVISED PLANS

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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).
  3. 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

  1. 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

  1. ‘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.
  2. ‘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

  1. ‘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.
  2. The proposed development is in accordance with the objectives of ‘Clause 36.02 PublicPark and Recreation Zone’ and ‘Clause 42.01 The Environmental Significance Overlay - Schedule 25.’
  3. The built form and siting of the proposal is in accordance with Victorian Coastal Strategy - Siting and Design Guidelines for Structures on the VictorianCoast (1998) (Coastal design guidelines).

The Proposed Development Is In Accordance With The Following Policy Documents

  1. 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

  1. ‘The proposed development is not in accordance with the VCS and its underpinning documents, various local and State planning policies’.
  2. As outlined above, the proposal is clearly in accordance with the VCS and its underpinning documents, local and State planning policies.
  3. ‘The development will alienate public land in an area already heavily used and highly valued by the public’.
  4. 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.
  5. ‘A substantial number of users are dissatisfied with the location and design of the facility’.
  6. 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.
  7. ‘The proposed site has not been properly assessed for potential impacts on traffic flow if the development was to proceed’.
  8. There is no evidence of a traffic issue associated with the proposal.
  9. ‘In order to serve the proposed uses, the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site’.
  10. As outlined the proposal is consistent with the VCS and is not an overdevelopment of the site.
  11. ‘The proposed development will overshadow and otherwise adversely impact on the attached historic Sea Scouts Hall (formerly Dromana RSL Memorial Hall)’.
  12. As also outlined the proposed development will not have any adverse impacts on the existing memorial hall.
  13. ‘PPCC's Policies, especially Nos. 2 and 6 cannot be upheld if the proposal proceeds’.
  14. 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

  1. While DBCSL supports the decision of the Responsible Authority, some of the conditions require amendment and one condition should be deleted.
  2. 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).
  3. Condition 15 should be deleted as it is invalid as a lease exists.

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE MORNINGTONPENINSULA SHIRE COUNCIL – RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY

  1. Mr Beazley supported the submissions made on behalf of the DBLSCregarding the substitution of the original plans with the amended plans and changes to the conditions.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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)

  1. 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.

  1. The development does not allow the Minister to meet his obligations under the Coastal Management Act 1995.

State And Local Planning Policy Framework

  1. Clause 12.02 Coastal areas
  2. Not all elements of lifesaving activities are coast dependent, and DBLSC’s claims that its activities are heavily coast dependent are not substantiated.
  3. Clause 13.01 Climate change impacts
  4. DBLSC’s coastal vulnerability assessment has not adequately taken account of potential coastal inundation impacts.
  5. Clause 21.08 Foreshore and Coastal areas states that preference should be given to re-use of existing structures. DBLSC has not demonstrated that this requirement has been adequately investigated.
  6. 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.
  7. 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

  1. Schedule 25 Port Phillip Coastal Area
  2. 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.
  3. ESO 25 Decision guidelines require the Responsible Authority to consider issues including:
  4. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. The Victorian Coastal Strategy, Siting and Design Guidelines for Structures on the VictorianCoast (May 1998) and Landscape Setting Types for the VictorianCoast (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.

  1. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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

  1. The land is located in a ‘PublicPark and Recreation Zone’ (PPRZ) and covered by an Environmental Significance Overlay, Schedule 25 (ESO25).

Use Under The PPRZ

  1. The use ‘Life Saving Club’ is an innominate use and is captured within the definition of ‘Restricted recreation facility’, which the Scheme defines as:
  2. ‘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, gymnasium and fitness centre. It may include food and drink for consumption on the premises, and gaming.’
  3. 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.
  1. Accordingly, if the use was conducted on or behalf of a public body it could operate without the need for a planning permit.
  2. 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