Bayside Council proposes building a commercial Restaurant and Function Spaces on Melbourne's unique world famous iconic Dendy Street Beach, which we don’t support. It will be about three times the size needed and is an inappropriate and over development of a sensitive beach and heritage site. Why are the ratepayers paying for Function Spaces and Commercialisation (estimated cost $8 million), a sma
ll part of which is the important Lifesaving club, which we do support? NEGATIVE IMPACTS include:
1. Commercialisation of a Family Beach Area:
Function Spaces serving alcohol with potentially less than satisfactory behavior from patrons is not compatible with this family beach. Note that in late November 2016, due to community outrage, Bayside Councillors asked Council officers to withdrew it's planning application for a 218 patron liquor licence covering most of the 1st floor. Hours of operation from 9 am to midnight on Friday and Saturday and to 10 pm on other days. However, the Chief Executive then stated in the media that a tenant could apply for a liquor licence in the future. Why isn't the Council including a "No Alcohol" clause in the tenancy agreements?
2. Traffic / Parking Congestion:
Car and bus parking is currently woefully inadequate, so commercialisation with significant added pressure on parking cannot be accommodated. The car parking spaces will reduce from about 68 for the public and about 8 for the Lifesaving club to 58 combined and there will still be NO Bus parking, just a drop off/pick up bay which will be shared with delivery trucks. Buses now park across several car bays each and there are often 2 or 3 buses parked at once, sometimes even 6. Why isn't the Bayside Council addressing this major problem and why are they making it worse? There will be parking chaos.
3. Destruction of Limited Parkland:
Why is the much appreciated foreshore grass area to the north of the Lifesaving Club which is used for weddings, christenings and the general public being sacrificed for a long winding road to the beach? The Council say that it is to enable combined vehicle and disabled access. Experts in the disability field do not recommend shared use. We think that there may be also a hidden agenda to provide for future parking? The current road access could be used and a dedicated disability access path can easily be incorporated into the design as advised by a Professor of Architecture. Why will Council not meet with him to discuss? Why destroy limited parkland when there is no need to and safer options for the disabled are available?
4. Lack of Respect for an Important Heritage Area:
The proposal lacks respect for an important heritage area, which includes the world famous bathing-box beach, a great sand dune containing the Dr Jim Willis flora and fauna reserve, an extensive aboriginal midden and the imprint of white settlement. Why is the design so unsympathetic to these remarkable features?
