Revoke the decision to remove this South Trigg Park
The Issue
To the members of the Statutory Planning Committee;
We believe you have made an irresponsible decision and respectfully request that you take the necessary steps to revoke it immediately.
On 20/4/2021, you approved the removal of the public park referred to as Crown Reserve 12992, located at South Trigg, within Bush Forever area 308, so that it may be replaced with an 854sqm, precast concrete building comprised of offices and storerooms, plus 413sqm of paved driveway, to be occupied by the staff of Surfing WA, the business charged with the administering the sport of surfing in Western Australia.
In doing so, not only have you failed to fulfil your responsibility to ensure that the intent and objectives of Development Control Policy 5.3 – Use of land reserved for Parks and Recreation and Regional Open Space - have been adhered to, you’ve chosen to ignore the voices of 472 people who have already declared that this public green space is valued by the community and they do not want it to be removed.
We urge you now, to please, hear our voices!
Development Control policy 5.3 clearly stipulates that the applicant, Surfing WA, must demonstrate that:
i. the nature and scale of the proposal is compatible with the use and zoning of surrounding land, the nature and purpose of the reserved land and the environmental character of the location
Given the proposed building replaces ALL of this park bar the awkwardly shaped north west corner - and that the building footprint extends beyond the park’s boundaries into fenced off protected dune vegetation – this cannot possibly, logically apply!
Furthermore, one picnic table positioned outside somebody’s office, in the shadow of a 4-metre-high precast concrete wall, is not in any way compatible with the current purpose of the park - which is to provide much needed shade by virtue of several mature Casuarina trees, along with an area of lush green grass – so that the community can gather and enjoy the panoramic ocean views afforded by the elevated position, or simply seek some respite from sand and sun.
ii. there is a community need for the proposed facility in the proposed location
Aside from administration, Surfing WA conducts surfing lessons at various locations across metropolitan Perth. From October to May, Trigg beach is one of these locations and a converted kiosk is used to store the surfboards and wetsuits it provides its customers. Between May and October however, lessons are conducted elsewhere because the prevailing conditions at Trigg beach are deemed unsuitable. (The requisite equipment is transported to the alternate site).
According to the floorplan of the proposed building, an area of 164sqm at the rear of the building is set aside for surfboard/wetsuit storage, and new changerooms covering 28sqm will be built for the use of surfing school customers. This amounts to the surfing school section of the proposed building having a smaller footprint than the existing facility!
Only 15% is devoted to a purpose that can be argued is necessarily located within close proximity to the beach, although, as the equipment is portable, this too is not essential. Otherwise, everything else in this building might easily be found in Balcatta - where the offices of the similar organisation, Surf Life Saving WA are located!
Additionally, according to the Surfing WA's 2021 calendar of events, only 5 out of 30 occur at Trigg beach, with the remainder, 84%, taking place in regional areas!
Why then, would any community NEED a public park to be removed, in favour a building which will be comprised predominantly of private offices and staff amenities for a mere 8 full time staff? Why would any community NEED their green space replaced by storage rooms and an enormous paved driveway?
This building belongs in a business park - not on top of a public park!
iii. the community and local government support the proposal
206 people purportedly completed a survey conducted by the City of Stirling which ran during August 2020. Of these, only 187 answered the question “How do you use this area?” and of these, 38 respondents identified themselves as customers of Surfing WA and a further 17 people identified themselves as either employees or members of Surfing WA.
When deciding whether or not to take public green space away from the community, is it common for decision makers to take into account the opinions of the beneficiaries’ customers and employees, who are unlikely to live anywhere near the land in question? Especially as awareness of the survey in the first instance would have been far more likely if you were connected to the organisation as opposed to an impacted member of the public.
Removing known associates, who presumably, would only have completed the survey to register support, the number of people in favour of this proposal reduces from 120 to…65.
More importantly though, regardless of whether it’s 120 or 65, these inherently bias and insignificant figures have been cited as the only evidence of community support for the proposal! That’s it!
In contrast, there has already been and continues to be a far stronger demonstration within the community of an unambiguous lack of support!
Please, we urge you, do not be swayed because Federal government funding was obtained for this building in 2019. Please, do not be swayed because the cart has been put before the horse.
This land should continue to be available for use by the entire community and not be replaced by a building that the community has no requirement for at this location!
And finally, according to DC5.3,"... use which would result in restrictions to public access, notwithstanding the possible benefit which could be derived from the use and development to the general community or to a specific educational or religious group within the community WILL NOT BE SUPPORTED".
Access to this public land should therefore NOT be restricted to only the staff or the paying customers of one organisation.
Please, listen to us.
Please, revoke your decision immediately, before the Trigg landscape is ruined forever.
Thank you
The Issue
To the members of the Statutory Planning Committee;
We believe you have made an irresponsible decision and respectfully request that you take the necessary steps to revoke it immediately.
On 20/4/2021, you approved the removal of the public park referred to as Crown Reserve 12992, located at South Trigg, within Bush Forever area 308, so that it may be replaced with an 854sqm, precast concrete building comprised of offices and storerooms, plus 413sqm of paved driveway, to be occupied by the staff of Surfing WA, the business charged with the administering the sport of surfing in Western Australia.
In doing so, not only have you failed to fulfil your responsibility to ensure that the intent and objectives of Development Control Policy 5.3 – Use of land reserved for Parks and Recreation and Regional Open Space - have been adhered to, you’ve chosen to ignore the voices of 472 people who have already declared that this public green space is valued by the community and they do not want it to be removed.
We urge you now, to please, hear our voices!
Development Control policy 5.3 clearly stipulates that the applicant, Surfing WA, must demonstrate that:
i. the nature and scale of the proposal is compatible with the use and zoning of surrounding land, the nature and purpose of the reserved land and the environmental character of the location
Given the proposed building replaces ALL of this park bar the awkwardly shaped north west corner - and that the building footprint extends beyond the park’s boundaries into fenced off protected dune vegetation – this cannot possibly, logically apply!
Furthermore, one picnic table positioned outside somebody’s office, in the shadow of a 4-metre-high precast concrete wall, is not in any way compatible with the current purpose of the park - which is to provide much needed shade by virtue of several mature Casuarina trees, along with an area of lush green grass – so that the community can gather and enjoy the panoramic ocean views afforded by the elevated position, or simply seek some respite from sand and sun.
ii. there is a community need for the proposed facility in the proposed location
Aside from administration, Surfing WA conducts surfing lessons at various locations across metropolitan Perth. From October to May, Trigg beach is one of these locations and a converted kiosk is used to store the surfboards and wetsuits it provides its customers. Between May and October however, lessons are conducted elsewhere because the prevailing conditions at Trigg beach are deemed unsuitable. (The requisite equipment is transported to the alternate site).
According to the floorplan of the proposed building, an area of 164sqm at the rear of the building is set aside for surfboard/wetsuit storage, and new changerooms covering 28sqm will be built for the use of surfing school customers. This amounts to the surfing school section of the proposed building having a smaller footprint than the existing facility!
Only 15% is devoted to a purpose that can be argued is necessarily located within close proximity to the beach, although, as the equipment is portable, this too is not essential. Otherwise, everything else in this building might easily be found in Balcatta - where the offices of the similar organisation, Surf Life Saving WA are located!
Additionally, according to the Surfing WA's 2021 calendar of events, only 5 out of 30 occur at Trigg beach, with the remainder, 84%, taking place in regional areas!
Why then, would any community NEED a public park to be removed, in favour a building which will be comprised predominantly of private offices and staff amenities for a mere 8 full time staff? Why would any community NEED their green space replaced by storage rooms and an enormous paved driveway?
This building belongs in a business park - not on top of a public park!
iii. the community and local government support the proposal
206 people purportedly completed a survey conducted by the City of Stirling which ran during August 2020. Of these, only 187 answered the question “How do you use this area?” and of these, 38 respondents identified themselves as customers of Surfing WA and a further 17 people identified themselves as either employees or members of Surfing WA.
When deciding whether or not to take public green space away from the community, is it common for decision makers to take into account the opinions of the beneficiaries’ customers and employees, who are unlikely to live anywhere near the land in question? Especially as awareness of the survey in the first instance would have been far more likely if you were connected to the organisation as opposed to an impacted member of the public.
Removing known associates, who presumably, would only have completed the survey to register support, the number of people in favour of this proposal reduces from 120 to…65.
More importantly though, regardless of whether it’s 120 or 65, these inherently bias and insignificant figures have been cited as the only evidence of community support for the proposal! That’s it!
In contrast, there has already been and continues to be a far stronger demonstration within the community of an unambiguous lack of support!
Please, we urge you, do not be swayed because Federal government funding was obtained for this building in 2019. Please, do not be swayed because the cart has been put before the horse.
This land should continue to be available for use by the entire community and not be replaced by a building that the community has no requirement for at this location!
And finally, according to DC5.3,"... use which would result in restrictions to public access, notwithstanding the possible benefit which could be derived from the use and development to the general community or to a specific educational or religious group within the community WILL NOT BE SUPPORTED".
Access to this public land should therefore NOT be restricted to only the staff or the paying customers of one organisation.
Please, listen to us.
Please, revoke your decision immediately, before the Trigg landscape is ruined forever.
Thank you
The Decision Makers
Supporter Voices
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on 16 May 2021