This development application should be rejected. Here are 10 reasons why:
1. The land is literally a stone’s throw from the shoreline and as such the land is vulnerable to coastal movement. This is acknowledged by the requirement for the building to be constructed so it is demountable, i.e., able to be moved in the event of climate change driven instability. Why then would $4million be spent on a building that is essentially a “portable”? Why risk ‘sinking’ $4million of taxpayer funds by constructing so close to a beach? The impact of a building the size of 2 basketball courts with additional “hard stand” area over native vegetation currently fenced off on fragile coastal land was dismissed by the Mayor and councillors as insignificant during previous debate over granting the ground lease. Like many arguments used to support the choice of this location, this defies logic!
2. There is zero requirement for the administrators of a sports club to sit in offices overlooking the ocean. There is absolutely no requirement to build brand new private function rooms on top of land which is currently well patronised by the public as it’s current purpose is a grassed park and picnic area. There is no requirement for this land to be used as a warehouse which both aesthetically and functionally do not belong on top of a beachside park. There is no reason to store surf skis on a park when the only space for them to enter the water is near the entrance to the life saving club 250 metres away, a club which by the way already has facilities for storage of surf skis. Doesn’t it make far more sense for both organisations to share existing publicly owned storage facilities in the vicinity, than to bulldoze an existing coastal park to build a new garage?
3. Compared to each eastern state, the number of surfing participants in WA is less than 25%, spread across an area the equivalent in size of the three states combined. However, none of the equivalent interstate surfing administration bodies in Victoria, New South Wales it Queensland have been gifted with such excessive government funded clubhouses. NSW however does have a state of the art training facility. This may or may not be connected to the overwhelming majority of successful surfers hailing from the eastern states. According to social media and true to the nature of this proposal, not even members of the WA organisation consider this building necessary and would much prefer such an enormous sum channeled into where it could actually directly benefit the sport. Many members view this building as merely a perk for a handful of “bigwigs”; not for surfers themselves.
4. Most local residents and visitors to the area DID NOT KNOW about this proposal until it was too late to take commensurate action against it. The majority of the community slipped through the gaps in the woefully inadequate “community consultation” process. Additionally, the City of Stirling deliberately misled the public by manipulating the presentation of the data gathered from 200 or so “your say” survey respondents - many of whom were biased as they had been directly asked by invested parties to complete the survey. Conversely, in a very short time, approximately 500 people responded to a petition objecting to this choice of land. It could easily have been thousands had the proposal been properly socialised. Furthermore, had impacted residents knew what was being proposed prior to the closing of commenting via “your say” instead of becoming aware of it after the opportunity to do so had expired, the results would have been the very different indeed.
5. The information presented to the public by the council was and I might add still is littered with misrepresentations. For example, this is not a redevelopment of existing headquarters, it is a brand new building on what would be described in the construction industry as a “greenfields” site. All of the land In question will need to be cleared and levelled. Several very tall Casuarinas and other trees that currently provide a much need canopy of shade to beach goers seeking respite from the sand and wind will be felled. Two of the three picnic shelters will be gone and the remaining one will be located directly in front of the building entrance as though forming an outdoor waiting area. Additionally, the building itself was described as having a footprint of 900sqm however the dimensions did not include additional hard stand area making the total footprint closer to a whopping 1,500 metres. Similarly, statistics quoted by the Surfing org and City of Stirling councillors regarding the number of Trigg surf school customers in the 8 months of the year it operates (one of several Surf schools operating along the coast) were without doubt falsified! Shamefully, when notified of this, none of our local or federal government representatives considered the use of lies to justify their position important enough to retract and correct.
6. The ONLY reason given relating to choosing this particular land for this excessive building was “to ease congestion in the northern car park”. How absurd. Aside from the fact that in reality there will be a net INCREASE in car park traffic equal to the number of cars an additional building in the area would attract, and the fact that the car park traffic will simply move 250 metres away to the also at times congested southern car park, since when is constructing a $4 million building on top of a public park justified by it being a potential solution to a perceived car park congestion problem? Important to realise too is that the total number of cars In the area of course also is only a problem on a handful of days in summer. On hot weekend days the southern car park quickly becomes full forcing cars to park in nearby streets in the area known as the Sandringham estate. I am well aware if this ad I live in one of those streets. Unless the plan was to increase the number of physical car parking spaces this is where the flow on effect will be felt.
7. Most of the events the Surfing organisation runs, the most well known being the Margaret River Pro are held down south. The main focus of the organisation’s activity as reflected by the lion’s share of revenue generated is located hundreds of kilometres away and yet they want to tear up a park in Trigg for their office? Their head office, like that of Surf Life Saving, could also be in Balcatta where you would expect to find head offices, or, in an equivalent industrial further south, coinciding with their business - not right on a Trigg beach.
8. Another fallacious argument put forward for the destruction of this park is that the organisation “needs a bigger office”. The obvious solution in this instance is therefore to find a bigger office. This has absolutely nothing to do with choosing to destroy a local park and constructing a building similar in dimension to the local Bunnings on top of it. Again, an area like Balcatta makes more sense. This argument is textbook false equivalency and as such is invalid and once again, illogical.
9. The area in question is valued as a local park used often by those seeking shade and a respite from sand. Yoga classes are conducted there every week as participants can enjoy an ocean view as well as a peaceful, shady grassed area. Families flock to the park on hot nights to use use the picnic facilities. In summer, couples throw a blanket on the grass and enjoy the nightly spectacle of the sun setting over the ocean. Nowhere else along the nearby coast are people able to do this; to sit on the cool grass and look out to the sea Is a unique feature of this place many locals are well aware of and value highly. The area is at its best on hot summer nights. During the day too, there are often runners or cyclists stopping for hydration and stretching, or people and their dogs breaking up their beach path walk with a game of fetch. Or mums and babies meeting up during the day enjoying the relative peace and shade, or groups of wheelchair bound patrons and caters enjoying an accessible beachside picnic spot. Or individuals simply enjoying being in the fresh air and reading a book outside without the interference of sand and wind. This green spot is valued as an alternative to the crowds and ball games at Clarko Reserve - which of course looks out onto a car park.
10. This preservation of all public green space should be the priority of governments at all levels because of its scarcity and because of our collective responsibility to manage the use of our resources wisely. And also because paying lip service to a commitment to caring for the environment is not enough: this must be demonstrated with action. Choosing to sacrifice public green space for the construction of an enormous, unnecessary building is certainly NOT evidence of sound environmental stewardship. There should be more parks like this, not less. To proceed would be careless and shortsighted.
Please reconsider this proposal and direct attention to upgrading the existing facility as a premises for the “Learn to surf” program, as well as moving the office to a suitable location, utilising existing storage facilities and perhaps using $4million for the betterment of the sport in ways that benefit members rather than administrators. Most importantly, please acknowledge the wishes of the local community and let our park continue to be enjoyed by everybody - as it should be.
