It is the order of the Tribunal that the decision of the Responsible Authority in permit application No 1/2006/P is affirmed. The Responsible Authority is directed to issue a Planning Permit based on the Notice of Decision dated 2nd August 2006.

Mr Geoffrey Good (Port Phillip Conservation Council Inc.) and Mr Jim Kerin.

1 Barbara Kuhl and other residents and groups oppose the grant of a permit for the construction of a new building which will, amongst other things, replace the existing Seaford Life Saving Clubrooms. Their opposition is based on six grounds:

i

The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of Direction 5 of Melbourne 2030.

ii

The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the Seaford Foreshore Reserve Management Plan.

iii

The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the Victorian Coastal Strategy.

iv

The proposal represents and overdevelopment of the site.

v

The proposal is unsatisfactory in terms of bulk and mass.

vi

To approve the proposal would create an undesirable precedent.

2 The Notice of Decision was issued on 2nd August 2006.

3 The existing single storey life saving club building and the existing bluestone public toilet block near the highway are to be demolished and a new building constructed broadly in the position of the existing clubrooms. At ground level the new building contains a boat store, multi purpose room, public toilets, a café/kiosk with 20 seats, an extensive outdoor viewing deck, boat ramp, revised car park layout with the number of spaces reduced from 47 to 40 and new pathways and fencing. A first floor observation area 55m2 in area is provided above the multi purpose room and reaches a maximum height of 7 metres. The building is of a modern 'beach' design - finishes include timber slats, glazing, timber decking and colours are to be of muted natural hues. The café is to operate 6am to 6pm in summer months and 6am to 5pm in winter months while the kiosk will operate year round 10am to 4pm (Monday to Friday) and 10am to 5pm on weekends. The building will be primarily used by the life saving club but it is expected that a maximum of 20 non life saving club events will be held each year.

4 The site is located within the foreshore reserve and is zoned Public Park and Recreation Zone. The foreshore to the north and south is within a Public Conservation and Resource Zone. The whole foreshore is also affected by an Environmental Significance Overlay (Schedule 1).[1] A number of state and local planning policies were highlighted for my consideration.[2]

5 I undertook a site visit within two weeks of the hearing. Documents and photos submitted at the hearing have been retained on the Tribunal file.

Do the zone, overlay and policy provisions support this proposal?

6 The way in which land is zoned is the starting point for any assessment of whether a particular proposal is appropriate. In this case a relatively small block of land occupied by the car park, life saving clubrooms and associated paths, fences and other structures are zoned Public Park and Recreation. This is in contrast with the long strips of foreshore to the north and south which are included in a Public Conservation and Resource Zone.

7 Submissions by Mr Kerin and Mr Good stressed the environmental character and importance of the vegetated foreshore areas to the north and south and what they see as the risk to this natural environment if a café and associated works are allowed as part of this approval. I fully accept that the foreshore areas to the north and south are a greatly valued natural environment and I also agree that it is one that should be protected from inappropriate development. The observer readily understands that character just by standing towards the end of the Seaford Pier and looking north and south to a coastline devoid of any obvious man made structures or activities. The zone recognises that character.

8 However as discussed at the hearing, the land in the vicinity of the Seaford Pier is different. It is in effect one of only two nodes between the northern boundary of the city at Keast Park and the foreshore adjacent to the Frankston activity centre. The different zone reflects the fact that the Seaford Pier and the land between the pier and Nepean Highway has been a centre of activity for at least a century. That intensity of activity has no doubt varied over time but it is worth recoding that a life saving clubrooms has existed on the site since 1936. It also worth recording that the Seaford foreshore to the north and south which is so highly valued by the objectors to this proposal was not so very long ago severely degraded and denuded of vegetation. Despite what I am told is my often poor memory I can still remember the rather bare and unappealing character of the foreshore during visits to the area in the 1960's.

9 I note that the third zone purpose for the Public Park and Recreation Zone is:

•

To provide for commercial uses where appropriate.

10 In contrast the Public Conservation and Resource Zone does not contain any purpose even remotely similar and instead its purposes are focussed on the natural environment and resources.

11 Perhaps not surprisingly given the damage done to the foreshore in the past, the level of usage in warmer periods and development pressures generally, considerable effort has been expended on trying to understand what makes the Seaford foreshore 'tick' and to come up with suggestions and plans to guide what is to happen in the future.

12 Ms Marcus, Mr Kerin and Mr Good all made reference to these various documents, including the Seaford Foreshore Reserve Management Plan 1991, Seaford Reserve and Keast Park Management Plan 1999, Seaford Life Saving Club Precinct Master Plan. They also made reference to the Victorian Coastal Strategy 2002 and I was also taken to the various state and local policies, with particular emphasis being given to local policies.

13 I do not intend to recite all the relevant material but the underlying theme in the Victorian Coastal Strategy 2002 is that development on the coast must result in increased environmental, social economic benefits while enhancing the community's value of the coast. Such development should also be coastal dependent or related to coastal dependent uses.

14 State and local policy complements these themes (see for example 15.08 and 21.08) although local policy, not surprisingly, is more specific about issues and strategies affecting foreshore development within the City of Frankston.

15 Redevelopment of the life saving clubrooms and associated works are clearly coastal dependent. Despite submissions to the contrary, I consider that the proposed café is integral to the clubrooms development and that allowing it accords with one of the zone purposes to allow commercial use in appropriate locations.

16 The objectors to this proposal are primarily concerned about the café component, although they have related concerns about the size of the building/deck footprint, inadequate parking and the use of the building for non life saving purposes.

17 Let me say at the outset that I think the design of the building is highly appropriate for this foreshore location and despite submissions to the contrary, have no qualms about its height, building footprint, materials and colours or about the size and function of the areas set aside for life saving and non life saving purposes. The footprint of the building and decks is larger than the existing but on my inspection I was able to satisfy myself that the works are within the largely 'disturbed' area located within the perimeter fences separating the site from the pathway to the pier, the beach and the vegetated dunes to the north. To the east it will occupy much of the cleared, open area used for parking.

18 The existing building is primarily used at weekends and public holidays in the warmer summer months. It is effectively nestled in the foreshore vegetation and can only be glimpsed from the car park through a relatively narrow opening in the vegetation. The building has been vandalised and has a very forlorn appearance. It is obvious that more activity in and around the site will discourage vandalism and make the area more inviting to visitors, although I accept that late at night the area may still remain fairly deserted and perhaps an attractive location for nocturnal activities. The rubbish around the clubrooms and viewing platform suggests that it is a popular spot for eating, drinking and other private pastimes. On my inspection I was the only person anywhere near the beach and clubrooms and although not concerned about my own personal safety, was very aware of how isolated the site is despite being so close to Nepean Highway and the Seaford shopping centre. The use of the building for non life saving purposes for up to 20 occasions a year will help bring activity and people to an area and to a building which would otherwise be unused. Apart from the benefit of making more use of a very good facility, I consider it highly desirable that more people be attracted to this location over longer periods of time to overcome or alleviate the very problems, such as vandalism, caused by its isolation and current lack of use.

19 There is an apparent concern by opponents that the current application for a 20 seat café is the 'thin end of the wedge', that such a small café will not be viable and hence within a very short time there will be pressure to increase its size and/or trading hours. I cannot comment about what may happen in the future and am only concerned with the specific proposal before me. Worrying about what may or may not happen in the future is entirely speculative and ultimately pointless since we cannot know what the future holds. For example, it is inconceivable that the people responsible for building the existing clubroom 38 years ago could possibly have foreseen the future - not only in terms of the physical condition of their beautiful new building but also attitudes to life saving club membership, changes to the condition of the Seaford foreshore and broader societal changes affecting how we are as a community. I have no illusions that projects approved now will not, unless of an iconic status, be changed or demolished sometime in the next 50 to 100 years. I emphasise that this is an application incorporating a 20 seat café and that is what is specifically referred to in the Notice of Decision - not some large dining establishment.

20 Mr Kerin submitted that approval of this proposal would set a precedent for other similar coastal development. I do not agree with him. This proposal involves a unique site with a particular history, an existing use and a site context and policy framework different from any other site around our coastline. What may apply at Rosebud, Rye, Frankston or Keast Park will be different at each location. Indeed the two Tribunal cases involving skate board parks quoted by Mr Kerin demonstrate how different outcomes for the same activity may occur in two different locations.

21 The Seaford Pier/Life Saving Clubrooms environs have always been a node of activity within the long strip of foreshore between Keast Park and Frankston. Approval of this proposal will not change that historic role but will have the benefit of making the pier area more attractive, more accessible and safer than it is at present. It will provide a means whereby more people can enjoy the coastal environment in a location where activity has always occurred. It does not follow that allowing people to sit at a 20 seat café or to attend non life saving club functions will damage the natural environment so highly valued by the community.

22 In the terms of Clause 11 of the Planning Scheme, I am quite satisfied that there is a net community benefit in approving this proposal.

Consent under the Coastal Management Act 1995

23 The Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) has given conditional consent for the use and development under Section 40 of the Coastal Management Act 1995. While I agree with Mr Kerin and Mr Good that there appears to be inconsistency between the advice given at different times by the Department and its officers, approval is still required under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and I need to be satisfied that what is proposed is an acceptable outcome having regard to the Planning Scheme provisions.

24 I note that the consent given by the Department, which is included as permit conditions in the Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit, makes reference to the same plans as those forming part of this permit application. There is therefore no inconsistency between the final consent given by the Department and the plans forming part of the planning approval.

25 The loss of 7 existing car spaces was of concern to objectors, as was the inability to provide additional parking to cater for people eating at the café. While I accept that there is no opportunity to provide additional on-site parking close to the building without utilising part of the foreshore reserve, it seems to me that the car park is now largely used by people attending the shopping centre. On the day of my visit there was no one visible anywhere on the beach or foreshore and yet the car park was more than half full of vehicles.

26 I do not accept that the proposed development will in itself cause a parking shortage. If people associated with the shopping centre are utilising foreshore parking then it may well be that Council will have to reassess parking supply and management within the Seaford shopping centre. Redevelopment and reuse of the Seaford Life Saving Clubrooms must not be driven by whether or not additional on-site parking can be provided, particularly where existing foreshore parking is being used by people not actually visiting the foreshore. To do so would almost certainly condemn the clubrooms to eventual removal since any viable reuse incorporating a cafe/food outlet will generate a parking demand that cannot be met by providing additional parking within the foreshore reserve.

27 Moreover, removing the informal car parking area between the car park and the existing building will be both a physical improvement and consistent with coastal policy which aims to reduce the impact of vehicles in the coastal environment (see 4.2 of the Victorian Coastal Strategy 2002).

28 At the hearing I made some reference to possibly altering the hours of operation to reflect the difference between Eastern Standard Time and daylight saving time rather than winter and summer months. On reflection I think it preferable to leave the reference to summer and winter months since these do not change from year to year whereas daylight saving can vary (for example as occurred this year during the Commonwealth Games).

29 Planning policy requires a balancing of competing objectives and in this case I am satisfied that construction of the new life saving clubrooms, cafe and associated buildings and works is acceptable. I consider that this is a design that has responded well to the specific coastal site context and that it is a proposal that warrants my support.

30 I will therefore affirm Council's decision and Order that a permit issue subject to the conditions set out in the Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit dated 2nd August 2006.

[1] Clause 36.02 requires a permit for use of the land for a place of assembly, café and multi purpose room use and for buildings and works. Activities associated with the life saving club (including kiosk, boat store, boat ramp, observation deck and car park) do not require a permit because the clubroom has been on the site in excess of 15 years. Permission is also required for a waiver of car parking and for native vegetation removal. Approval is also required for buildings and works under the Environmental Significance Overlay (Schedule 1).

[2] Other relevant Planning Scheme provisions include Clauses 11, 12, 14, 15, 18.02, 19.03, 21 (various), 22.06, 52.06, 52.07, 52.17 and 65.