Thank you to everyone who continues to support this petition and to the many community members who joined us at Oak Park last Saturday morning. Your presence made a real difference and clearly demonstrated how important these pavilions are to daily life, particularly for early‑morning swimmers and regular users.

Following that site meeting, and in response to a request made by the councillors present, we have written formally to Councillor Kal Glanzing and Councillor Carol Provan to summarise the community’s key concerns and proposed alternatives regarding the Oak Park and Shelly Beach pavilions renewal project.

I am sharing the email below in the interest of transparency and to keep all supporters informed of the ongoing dialogue with Council. The petition is now supported by over 2,100 signatories and continues to grow, strengthening our collective voice. Please continue to share widely. Every signature and every share helps ensure our voices are heard.

Thank you again for your commitment, engagement, and respectful advocacy.

On behalf of the Petition Promotion Committee
Save Oak Park / Shelly Beach Pavilions (Currently supported by 2,107 community signatories and growing)

Dear Councillor Glanzing and Councillor Provan,

Thank you again for meeting us at Oak Park last Saturday morning. We appreciate your willingness to engage directly with the community on the proposed Oak Park and Shelly Beach Buildings Renewal project.
Following up on your request during the meeting, we are writing to formally restate the key concerns and priorities raised by the community regarding the Oak Park and Shelly Beach pavilions renewal project.

As discussed on site, the meeting was valuable in demonstrating how intensively the pavilion and surrounding open spaces are used in the early morning by swimmers and community members, and why these everyday patterns of use must be carefully considered in any future design decisions.

In particular, the community wishes to reiterate that:
Five Top-Priority Community Concerns and Alternative Proposals for Council Discussion
1. Retain and Protect the Open‑Air Changing Rooms 
The open‑air changing rooms must be retained and restored. They are a defining feature of the heritage‑listed pavilions and a core part of daily use by swimmers and the wider community. Their openness provides sunlight, airflow, hygiene, safety, and informal shared use that works well for all genders and ages. Enclosing them or replacing them with inward‑facing cubicle toilets would fundamentally undermine both the heritage value and the functionality of the site.
2. Preserve Core Community Function and Social Value
Oak Park and Shelly Beach operate as vital early‑morning community hubs (from ~5:00 am), supporting daily swimming, social interaction, and long‑standing social networks. Many friendships and informal support groups have formed around these facilities. Retaining the pavilions substantially “as is” is critical to maintaining this social fabric, particularly for older residents and regular users.
3. Strong Opposition to the Proposed Deep‑Water Accessibility Ramp at Shelly Pool
The proposed ramp along the northern wall of Shelly Pool raises serious safety, functional, and environmental concerns. It would be unsafe in high tide and swell conditions, reduce effective swim length and pool width, increase collision risks, disrupt natural water flow and sand movement, damage marine life, and require constant maintenance to address algal growth and slip hazards.
4. Protect Open Space Around the Pavilions
The proposed access ramps to new accessible toilets would significantly reduce and fragment the limited open space surrounding the pavilions, which is already heavily used for sitting in the sun, resting between swims, socialising, and supervising children. This space is already barely sufficient during peak use, and further encroachment would materially diminish the everyday usability and enjoyment of the site.
5. Support Sensitive Renewal, Alternative Accessibility Solutions, and Co‑Design
The community supports maintenance and sensitive upgrades (e.g. concrete repair, spalling treatment, painting) that respect the Art Deco heritage and landscape values. If additional toilets are required, they should be located in a separate supplementary building in another location, not within the heritage pavilion. Accessibility can be improved through less intrusive options, including adjusted existing ramps or access to shallower areas. We request genuine co‑design with the community, drawing on daily users’ lived experience and the professional expertise within the community in heritage, landscape, and urban design.

For your reference, I have collated below some of the most relevant feedback received over the weekend.

The community remains keen to work collaboratively with Council to achieve an outcome that respects both the heritage listing of the pavilions and their vital role in daily community life.

Thank you again for your time and attention.
Kind regards,
Dr Elisa Palazzo
On behalf of the Petition Promotion Committee
Save Oak Park / Shelly Beach Pavilions (Currently supported by 2,107 community signatories and growing)