A tribunal member has sought to reassure Bells Beach locals that allowing farmers to build a small tourist lodge on their property would not open the "floodgates" to major tourism developments at the popular surfing spot.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal last month granted Ian and Phillip McNaughton a permit to build tourist accommodation for up to four people at their property at Bells Beach, setting aside the Surf Coast Shire Council's earlier refusal.
The permit also allows the brothers to remove a small amount of native vegetation.
They plan to extend their current house, and turn it into a tourist lodging with two, two-person bedrooms on the 85.9 hectare property, used to fatten cattle throughout the year. They also want to build a replacement home on the property with four bedrooms.
More than 30,000 people last year signed a petition to stop the development, and the Surfrider Foundation – a non-profit conservation group – has flagged on Facebook it may challenge the decision in the Supreme Court.
Senior tribunal member Anthony Liston said in his decision that most visitors to the area, including regular surfers, would "not notice the change".
The site would also contribute to the local economy and increase access to "this important tourist destination for all people".
While several groups, including the Surfrider Foundation, had told the tribunal they were concerned that grating the permit would open "the floodgates to new tourism ventures", Mr Liston said that the decision was only a precedent for "a very small facility, on a very large site, which on analysis will only have a negligible impact on environmental and landscape values".
The foundation described the dispute on its Facebook page as "Bell's last stand" and said it was deciding whether to challenge the decision in the Supreme Court or ask Planning Minister Richard Wynne to intervene.
"By continuing to stand together and standing firm we can save Bells Beach from commercial/tourist development and achieve true, legislated protection for Bells Beach and surrounds in perpetuity," it said.
Mr Liston accepted that surfing at the beach was a "spiritual experience" but said community members had a range of interests, and he did not think the accommodation would significantly lower the "spiritual value of this place".
He said the level of activity at the units, including infrequent reunions of "surfies ... reliving past glories", "pales into insignificance by comparison to the activity generated on daily basis as a consequence of the surfers and tourists who come to and fro from the Bells Beach Surfing Recreation Reserve".
Lawyers for the McNaughtons were not available for comment on Tuesday.
