Surf (Fight) Club Meeting

The Peregian community has been deeply affected by fighting about different visions for it’s surf club. Here are some fast, furious and sober notes taken by special correspondent Alex Murray at the Peregian Beach Surf Club community meeting on Saturday 19 May 2018. (Lifted from facebook – with minor edits)

by Alex Murray

The meeting didn’t bring any big surprises, but here are a few things that might be of interest to those who couldn’t make it.

Attendees

• The room was PACKED.
• Peregian Beach Surf Club (PBSC) had two representatives, Rob Neely and Gina Foster.
• Peregian Beach Family and Friends Association (PFaFA) had three representatives: Ollie Hooper, Scott Armitage and Rory Chapman.
• Noosa Council (NC) representatives were Kim Rawlings, Director Environment and Sustainable Development; Dennis Wallace, Planning Officer; and Kerri Coyle, Development Assessment Manager.
• Noosa Heads Surf Lifesaving Club (NHSLC) and Surf Lifesaving Qld (SLSQ) declined to attend.
• Attendees also included Noosa councillors (Frank Wilkie and Brian Stockwell) as well as Qld MP for Noosa Sandy Bolton.
• The event was arranged by the Peregian Beach Community Association and moderated by former Noosa and Sunshine Coast councillor Vivien Griffin.

Peregian Beach Family and Friends Association (PFaFA)

At the start of his presentation, Ollie from PFaFA asked for a show of hands of the audience as to who was confused about the issues and who wasn’t, and the room was fairly evenly split.

Ollie also asked the audience whether they lived in Peregian Beach, and (perhaps unsurprisingly considering the topic) it seemed most people did.

• PFaFA emphasised that their aim is to enable everyone to express an opinion, not for PFaFA to make decisions or run a surf club. They are running an online survey that will be available until 12 June, and in the first week had about 200 responses. The report based on the survey answers will be prepared by a third party and presented to the community. PFaFA will then champion whatever the survey outcome is and will take the report to stakeholders such as Noosa Heads Surf Lifesaving Club.
• PFaFA’s actions will be guided by the survey outcome, except they feel the new surf club building must be financially viable (it is unclear how they will assess this). PFaFA will make environmental sustainability a priority if the survey indicates this.
• PFaFA is not saying they want a pokie palace. If they can find a way of running the club without pokies they will get behind that. If experts tell them pokies are needed they will take that back to the community.

When asked why they can’t work with PBSC, PFaFA responded they don’t see the point of fighting NHSLC and instead want to embrace them.

PFaFA attempted to refer a question about its survey to its contractor but members of the audience loudly objected to an uninvited speaker.

Peregian Beach Surf Club (PBSC)

Rob from PBSC described his extensive surf lifesaving experience.

• PBSC feels that ultimately the reason for the meeting was because NHSLC proposed a new $16m building and threatened to pull out of PB.
• PBSC is grateful to Noosa for its financial support but concerned about the decline of services (closing nippers and reducing patrols).
• PBSC believes Noosa member numbers are declining. While it is cash rich, it is resource poor and it will not be able to fulfill its PB patrol obligations.
• PBSC efforts to communicate with SLSQ have been rebuffed with PBSC asked to contact NHSLC. NHSLC is not responding to any attempts at contact.
• SLSQ has written to NC to indicate it would like to take over the PB building if NHSLC withdraws. PBSC believes SLSQ wishes to relocate its administration offices to the space upstairs and the beach would be exclusively patrolled by professional lifeguards. There would be no community volunteers (lifesavers), nippers or other social aspects.
• PBSC has a 10 point vision and is working towards accreditation. Wants to be ready to step in if NHSLC is unable to patrol, and present a viable option for lifesaving to continue at PB.
• PBSC believes the existing building is big enough as it is within 8msq of the part of NHSLC used for lifesaving operations. A new building is not needed – perhaps in 20 years time, but that is a matter for the club management at the time.
• PBSC supports Sharyn Kerrigan’s vision eg including marine/ocean research and conservation activities upstairs. Wants a club that is socially and environmentally sustainable as well as financially.
• PBSC is totally opposed to pokies.
• PBSC’s budget has been available online since February and continues to be scrutinised and refined by a working group, eg additional sources of revenue such as selling food at Originals. A 20-year strategic plan is also online.
• PBSC has tried to work with PFaFA and issued multiple invitations.
• PBSC believes that it’s obvious that people want their surf club back.

Noosa Council

• Council is the trustee of the foreshore land owned by the State Government. It is also the planning authority and issues permits to lease and occupy the surf club building. This is renewed annually (in December) and is awarded depending on guidance from SLSQ.
• Peregian Park is zoned recreational reserve. Surf Club is on lifesaving reserve. The reserve around the building is also zoned conservation. A new building would be considered inconsistent with this use. The location is a coastal erosion prone area.
• There are numerous planning considerations. Coastal dependent developments such as a lifesaving club are permitted in a coastal erosion zone if they can’t be located elsewhere.
• There is native title on the land. Indigenous land use agreements can take many years to negotiate.
• Any redevelopment would require council to consent to a development application being lodged and a formal application process. Applications need to meet the Noosa Plan and State requirements. Noosa is currently developing a new planning scheme which will have continued emphasis on no new development in coastal erosion prone areas.
• The PFaFA survey continues to suggest that relocation is on the table. From NC officers’ point of view it is not on the table.

Some personal thoughts

It’s fantastic that PFaFA were able to send representatives after initially declining, the event would have been a lot less comprehensive without them. Credit to these people for stepping up.

PFaFA started as a small number of people championing the building of a new surf club on the skate bowl site.

PFaFA’s founding object was “To allow the community and other engaged parties to express their support of the new, family-friendly clubhouse and an ongoing volunteer lifesaving and nippers service at Peregian Beach. Beyond this, to champion family-friendly projects across the Peregian locality.” (this has since been changed on the Facebook page).

As per the Pozible campaign page, funds raised by PFaFA are for “Community Consultation process…; Various consulting costs such as geotech and land surveying, legal, engineering, environmental expertise etc; Costs to do with preparing an application for a new lease for the surf club site including Development Application, town planning and design costs etc;…”

The “Who We Are” page on the web site of the community consulation expert hired by PFaFA starts with the sentence “Leisa Prowse Consulting helps organisations deliver infrastructure and contentious planning projects”.

The survey that PFaFA intends to rely on is not representative of the whole community. It is representative of people who find out about the online survey and then manage to complete it, and those people for whom the market researchers have phone numbers and who decide to answer questions over the phone. At least some community members are refusing to complete the survey because of their concerns with the process. The online survey also has serious usability and accessibility issues as well as problems with question construction. I question its ability to accurately and completely capture someone’s opinion. I think it is inappropriate to take the results of the survey and claim that “this is what the community wants”.

NHSLC is being held up by some as the perfect organisation for running PBSLC. I disagree. Noosa has an excellent track record of running a club with a massively successful supporters club in the heart of one of Australia’s top tourist destinations. To date, Noosa has a terrible track record of running a modest, village sized club in PB, as evidenced by the continuous decline in services. Noosa has also shown that it is either oblivious or uninterested in PB local sentiment, and not willing to engage.

The two main issues people seem to feel strongly about are the location of the surf club building (the current location, or a new location closer to the beach with ocean views on the skate bowl site); and income from pokies.

There seemed a lot of frustration in the audience that “the two groups aren’t working together”.

To sum it all up

It’s a whole lot of talking and effort but I think it comes down to this: even if everyone in PB wanted to relocate the building, it wouldn’t change the Noosa Plan. It’s nice to think about what we would ideally like, but I think it’s a better use of everyone’s energy to think about what we can realistically have.

UPDATE 23 May 2018 – Letter from Noosa Council Department of Environment and Sustainable Development to PFaFA: