Ms Jenny Little
Development Planner
Mornington Peninsula Shire Council
Dear Ms Little,
Application to Reconstruct Bathing Boxes at
Mount Martha North Beach: P01/0476, P02/0493, P01/1355, P02/0239
As we stated in November 2000, and as appears in our record
of that statement on our Web site at www.vicnet.net.au/~phillip/ykh_morn.htm
and in our letter published in The Age in February 2001, shown at
www.vicnet.net.au/~phillip/abo_bawd.htm Port
Phillip Conservation Council Inc. objects to the replacement of "bathing
boxes" damaged by storms, on the basis that such damage demonstrates the
unsustainability of bathing boxes on a site such as the Mount Martha North
beach. Changed designs are unproven, and just experimental.
Our letter to The Age pointed out the disadvantages
to the public interest of countering an unsuitable location with more entrenched
building techniques, as proposed. These measures work against flexible
and benign management of the sites in the wider public, as opposed to the
very much narrower private interest, in that they:
-
make it physically harder and more costly for the
"bathing boxes" to be removed at the end of any given year of occupancy,
if the public interest is judged to require that, as is notionally and
ostensibly envisaged by the annual renewal requirement, and
-
represent a much larger financial stake in the occupancy,
which becomes an appreciating private investment (regrettably tradeable
on a market so small that nearly all the public are excluded from it).
The effort and expense in defending that investment tend to rise as the
investment appreciates in value.
-
in the Mount Martha North beach case, where the "bathing
boxes" will be significantly higher above the beach, they will accordingly
be more visually intrusive onto the backdrop scene of attractive
coastal vegetation; they will, at beach level, present a view of a greater
extent of ugly supports, longer entry steps, and the underside of the floor;
and their higher profile sets a precedent for higher boxes elsewhere.
-
there seem to be serious public liability concerns
about a landowner, in this case the Crown, knowingly allowing building
on a site fully accessible to the public, without any fencing around it,
of a structure where the previous structure had been weakened and destabilized
by natural forces difficult to predict or control, and had collapsed. In
this case there is an added element of danger in the increased height of
the new structures (5.2-5.7 m), and higher underfloor space. It encourages
people to seek shelter or shade under them, or to climb on the access steps,
with significant risk to themselves in the event of any failure or misuse
of the structures. That failure risk will rapidly increase as the structures
age in that proven harsh environment, and face the risk of vandalism, against
which no realistic protection appears to be available.
Port Phillip Conservation Council Inc. places on record in
the public interest, which is one of its roles, its concern at reports
that the proponents of the reconstruction of the "bathing boxes" have opposed
the public advertising of the proposed reconstruction. We are pleased that
their wishes in that regard appear to have not been met by the Shire. It
is most important that the public is informed about proposals for changes
to public land or property so that alternative proposals can be raised
and public awareness of public areas maintained. We note that Victoria’s
former Port Phillip Authority Act 1966, the first such coastal law
in the world, mandated such advertising.
Yours sincerely,
Geoffrey Goode
President, Port Phillip Conservation Council Inc.
cc. Minister for Environment and Conservation, Hon. Sheryll
Garbutt MLA; Mr Victor Perton MLA,
Councillors of Mornington
Peninsula Shire Council
|
