Help save Bells Beach from tourist development

Stu Nettle
Swellnet Dispatch

From Change.org:

A local landowner in the hinterland immediately surrounding the globally iconic Bells Beach submitted a development proposal for tourist accommodation. 

The local community opposed the proposal. The local Surf Coast Shire refused the proposal. And now the landowner is taking it to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). 

If VCAT approve the proposal the tourist development will proceed and the first precedent will be set for further tourist developments in the Bells hinterland/viewshed. 

This is it. 

The final stand to ensure the magical ancient resonance, surfing folklore, visitor nirvana and beautiful natural environment of Bells and surrounds are respected and protected now and for all future generations to enjoy.

The VCAT hearing begins 24 October 2016.

Local community members will be attending the VCAT hearing to again oppose the proposal for tourist accommodation at Bells.

You can help save Bells Beach from tourist development by signing this petition.

Your signature and voice will make a difference.

Time is now.

Please sign this petition to stop tourist development at Bells and start the process of achieving true, legislated protection for Bells Beach and surrounds in perpetuity.

Thank you.

Please note: an earlier version of this article displayed an incorrect Google Maps image showing the location as 130 Bells Beach Road, instead of 130 Bells Road. We apologise for the error.

Comments

OHV500's picture
OHV500's picture
OHV500 commented Monday, 19 Sep 2016 at 10:26am

I totally understand opposing tourist development of the Bells area. I just wonder if anybody has thought that every year a development of sorts is erected in the carpark at Bells and stays for around 30 days and causes unknown harm to the immediate environment. Are we kinda hypocritical ?

Baconeater's picture
Baconeater's picture
Baconeater commented Monday, 19 Sep 2016 at 10:50am

I am happy to oppose unregulated, over the top tourist development.....but I can't seem to find a link to the planning proposal....is this someone trying to erect 3 tents....or is it a racv type development on the hill. Allow me to make an informed opinion...not react to Hype.

stunet's picture
stunet's picture
stunet commented Monday, 19 Sep 2016 at 11:13am

"Summary: The application proposes to construct alterations and additions to the existing dwelling, construct a new dwelling attached to the existing dwelling and the use of these two dwellings for group accommodation and the use and development of a new dwelling and native vegetation removal."

http://www.surfcoast.vic.gov.au/files/assets/public/council/minutes_and_agendas/2016/26_april/item_5.1_appendix_2_-_hearing_of_submissions_minutes_-_5_april_2016.pdf

Baconeater's picture
Baconeater's picture
Baconeater commented Monday, 19 Sep 2016 at 11:26am

thanks Stu - would be nice to see the original submission...ie how many people are they planning on accommodating....what business are they planning on running? How big is the building....sightlines etc.
There is already a number of dwellings visible as you drive into bells/winki. Will this one be visible from the carpark or the lineup? are they planning a 50 seat deck with pumping techno and bunch of euro backpackers.....etc etc

Pauanui's picture
Pauanui's picture
Pauanui commented Saturday, 7 Jan 2017 at 5:40am

Anyone that is opposed to this development should attend the VCAT hearing. Having just gone through a similar process myself, we (the commuity) comprised 84 individual objections to the original application to Council but only 4 objectors attended the subsequent VCAT hearing. Council defended its original rejection of the development application and I suppose the community put its faith in Council to stay true to its position. Long story short, Council didn't and capitulated on most of its position and generally put in a poor performance. Moral of the story is Council planning Departments doesn't really care about the result. If the community really does then it should put in a private defence and attend the VCAT hearing.

tonybarber's picture
tonybarber's picture
tonybarber commented Monday, 19 Sep 2016 at 11:40am

And of course, the expected customers would be surfers and families.
My two cents worth. Don't allow the development. There are better family beaches in town and rather push development in Torquay.

paully's picture
paully's picture
paully commented Monday, 19 Sep 2016 at 2:22pm

Population growth will destroy many Aussie beach towns.

Wharfjunkie's picture
Wharfjunkie's picture
Wharfjunkie commented Monday, 19 Sep 2016 at 2:53pm

Is this really some over development thats going to destroy the place? Or is it going to fit in the landscape? The proposal provided by Stu doesn't seem to be a major threat to the environment or backdrop.
The developer obviously hasn't paid off the council or got someone in there to let his proposal through. Obviously doesn't know the true function of a local council.

velocityjohnno's picture
velocityjohnno's picture
velocityjohnno commented Wednesday, 21 Sep 2016 at 5:51pm

have seen that council stuff happen in person, it's as subtle as a hit to the head and disappoints equally

Bungan33's picture
Bungan33's picture
Bungan33 commented Monday, 19 Sep 2016 at 3:44pm

There is no description of size or capacity of the accommodation there. Mind-driving that road I am not sure you will see the new building or not as you sweep into the Bells car park, especially not the existing one.
Need more details before I help stop someone's dream project! Also depends if thobjection is to visual intrusion, environmental or surf crowds....cause God knows stopping one building isn't going to make mid-week Winki any less crowded than it already is!

Tarzan71's picture
Tarzan71's picture
Tarzan71 commented Monday, 19 Sep 2016 at 4:59pm

Exceptionally good questions Wharfie, what could possibly be wrong with an eco friendly development?
Paully, population growth is a fact of life, the only cure for it is genocide, which would you prefer. Coastal towns rely on population growth to keep their building industry and economy from going into mini recessions

hangingtomatoes's picture
hangingtomatoes's picture
hangingtomatoes commented Monday, 19 Sep 2016 at 5:04pm

Is population growth a fact though?
If two folks have one child... wait... but... no no hold on... i think i got this...

Wait wait if they don't have any children is that genocide?

Super confused.

stunet's picture
stunet's picture
stunet commented Monday, 19 Sep 2016 at 7:41pm

Reckon a lot of it has to do with precedent, and for that alone it deserves some serious forethought. Dismissing it as 'just one small development' misses the larger picture. Once one development is allowed other property owners can use that case as leverage to process their own developments. In the NSW Land and Environment Court precedent gets a considerable degree of weighting and I imagine it'd also be the case in other states.

So the point is, if they allow this then there could potentially be many more developments that follow suit, and before long the 'untouched' hinterland is a memory. Each one of them a completely legal development that leveraged off the first.

Drawing a long bow? Take a look around...

Willow995's picture
Willow995's picture
Willow995 commented Monday, 19 Sep 2016 at 8:41pm

I agree with you Stunet, once they allow one development they really do not have the grounds to start declining developments. If they allow it the precedent is made and a court will have no trouble following it if it gets taken there.

I love the bells area driving in with the bush around you and paddocks on either side, but lets face it Torquay is now a suburb of Geelong which is almost part of Melbourne itself nowadays.

Wharfjunkie's picture
Wharfjunkie's picture
Wharfjunkie commented Monday, 19 Sep 2016 at 9:11pm

Nobody likes an eyesore such as the RACV resort in torquay but lets face it are they really protecting something pristine anymore? If the development is Quality small scale environmentally friendly accommodation it could be a positive for the area.

Hako o hakonde ni-biki no inu's picture
Hako o hakonde ni-biki no inu's picture
Hako o hakonde ... commented Tuesday, 20 Sep 2016 at 5:33am

So what are you saying Affir? In 12 months time you'll be able to buy Bells Beach?

Surf Coast council can be a bit silly sometimes with the way they go about things, I've seen many people trying to do the right thing by the environment being told that they are not by some expert that wont even come and look at the site first hand.
That petition is a bit underhanded I reckon, asks you to sign up without giving out any real information.
I think genocide at Torquay could work, then bring in the bulldozers replant and start afresh. Will I need planning permit to do that?

freeride76's picture
freeride76's picture
freeride76 commented Tuesday, 20 Sep 2016 at 6:32am

Hard to get much info from this about the development in question but one thing I have noticed on yearly trips to Bells is the insane pace and scope of development in the Torquay area...From one year to the next I hardly recognise the joint.

Surely worrying about precedent is 20 years too late, the horse bolted long ago, no point shutting the gate now. The place is going gangbusters......

stunet's picture
stunet's picture
stunet commented Tuesday, 20 Sep 2016 at 8:58am

The point is to keep the development in Torquay and not the Bells/Winki area. Do people just accept that in a generation the hills behind Bells will be houses?

Wharfjunkie's picture
Wharfjunkie's picture
Wharfjunkie commented Tuesday, 20 Sep 2016 at 4:06pm

Is it a proposed housing estate or a few dwellings on farmland?

udo's picture
udo's picture
udo commented Tuesday, 20 Sep 2016 at 6:38am

Any one know Fadguyas Planning success rate in D.A . applications ? pretty good i would imagine.

AJ's picture
AJ's picture
AJ commented Tuesday, 20 Sep 2016 at 8:12am

As a regular at Bells and Winki surf breaks, I agree with Stu this sets a precedent that can be built on over years inch by inch. If this decision is lost, it won't be too long before the land eventually gets fully developed over the next 10 -20 years. It would be a travesty for the sake of economic gain to destroy this natural environment for future generations.

smithyg's picture
smithyg's picture
smithyg commented Tuesday, 20 Sep 2016 at 8:42am

People from all over the world come to see the natural beauty of our coast. The Great Ocean Road is the most popular tourist attraction in Victoria. It is economic madness to not preserve the natural beauty that attracts so many visitors. I would love to be back in the sixties when I first visited the area via the old road, that can't be but we can preserve and control how we now share this natural wonder and surrounds.

GS

stunet's picture
stunet's picture
stunet commented Tuesday, 20 Sep 2016 at 8:56am

"It is economic madness to not preserve the natural beauty that attracts so many visitors."

Exactly. Rather than rationalise away every last stand of bush within sight of the coast, can't we begin the protect it? The significance of Bells isn't just the wave.

redrocket's picture
redrocket's picture
redrocket commented Tuesday, 20 Sep 2016 at 9:06am

Fairly disappointed in the majority of comments here. Seems the attitude is 'who really gives a fuck' , thought if anyone had spent any time surfing here they would think this is the shittiest idea ever. Like Stu said it will set a precedent and before you know it a little mid week session with 4 or 5 other guys out at centreside will be a thing of the past . C'mon people have a crack, sign the petition at least

terrance's picture
terrance's picture
terrance commented Thursday, 5 Jan 2017 at 8:19pm

red, you seem to be up-to-speed on this whole shindig. do you know how much they'll be charging a night and when she'll be ready to rock'n'roll? Got a few mates from Canberra who surf a bit and I was going to meet them there with their wives and groms (who also surf a bit).

let me know the cost and opening date asap?

cheers

redrocket's picture
redrocket's picture
redrocket commented Sunday, 8 Jan 2017 at 7:46pm

Hi Terry, the nightly rate is $800. That includes a vegan/paleo /homo buffet breakfast , that should be right up your alley hole. Hopefully it opens soon and we can get you and your friends in the water before all the sharks disappear.

terrance's picture
terrance's picture
terrance commented Monday, 9 Jan 2017 at 12:18pm

Thanks Red, information much appreciated.

Seems a pretty good deal, my Canberra friends will easily afford a couple of weeks probably at Easter or in January, especially when you add in their ability of cater for different dietary requirements and activities such as shark diving and surfing with the great whites.

I'm working on the assumptions that the beer will only be stubbies of Lord Nelson Trafalgar Ale and Modus Operandi IPA at $15 a pop. Don't want any of that commercial rubbish like Carlton Draught or VB attracting the wrong crowd do we.

Red, with your flair for words and organising events, you’re not secretly working in marketing/events for this shindig are you?

Aldous Hacksley's picture
Aldous Hacksley's picture
Aldous Hacksley commented Tuesday, 20 Sep 2016 at 9:21am

First of all let me preface this by saying that I am not a local (however that may be defined), but have enjoyed surfing and staying with friends that live in the bells region for a number of years. I am providing no opinion in the below, as there are already plenty of them provided above!

Stu you need to provide more context if you want an informed debate around this proposal. This kind of clicktivism can actually do more harm to the activism and democratic process, as the planning process regards arguments based on merit, not 'NIMBY' type responses that a change.org typically generates.

Te planning officer at Council has stated the following (again, I am not posting in support or against the proposal, just to provide some missing context):

"In summary, it is considered that the proposed group accommodation has a limited scale and intensity and that with its proposed locations will not be highly prominent within the viewshed of the Bells Beach surfing recreation reserve. Whilst it may have been possible to avoid all impacts on native vegetation and place the dwelling and group accommodation further from the bushfire hazard (existing native vegetation) this would have resulted in buildings that are prominent within the landscape, which is contrary to the Rural Landscape Policy (Clause 21.06). It is considered that the proposal has minimised vegetation removal to an acceptable level and is able to meet the approved measures of Clause 52.47 (Planning for bushfire) and such has balanced the impact on the environment with the amenity impacts, associated with the prominence of the proposal within the rural landscape, specifically the Bells Beach surfing recreation reserve."

The officer recommends approval. Council have voted it down, but this suggests that it will be an uphill battle at VCAT. I encourage those concerned about this development to engage a planning professional if they haven't already done so, as it will need a very well made argument to halt the progress of 'progress' itself.

davetherave's picture
davetherave's picture
davetherave commented Tuesday, 20 Sep 2016 at 1:24pm

Well said aldous. But your dismissal of the intentions of those attempting to preserve the real economic driver here being the rugged unspoilt landscape is way off the mark. No one should be criticized for caring. Yes professional help is needed but passion to help is to be applauded not derided.

davetherave

Aldous Hacksley's picture
Aldous Hacksley's picture
Aldous Hacksley commented Tuesday, 20 Sep 2016 at 2:24pm

I wasn't meaning to dismiss anyone's cares or concerns Dave. Just bemoaning the ill-informed opinions that online clicktivism promotes. If this is such a bad thing for the area (and again I am not saying it is or isn't) then providing some plans/text objectively describing the development will allow for people to provide more helpful and meritorious arguments against it.

Hako o hakonde ni-biki no inu's picture
Hako o hakonde ni-biki no inu's picture
Hako o hakonde ... commented Tuesday, 20 Sep 2016 at 2:03pm

Ahhh.....Torquay, you didn't want it, you protested vigorously but in the end you embraced McDonalds and can't get enough of it.

Bells Beach Is not on the Great Ocean Road, it starts at Eastern View.

Wharfjunkie's picture
Wharfjunkie's picture
Wharfjunkie commented Tuesday, 20 Sep 2016 at 4:16pm

Be nice if more info was provided . Still doesn't seem like a proposal that will ruin your view or experience of the surf or decimate endangered species or allow a floodgate of developments in the area.

Be different if he was developing a resort or caravan park there. Maybe Eco Cabins would be the go.

twoplusone's picture
twoplusone's picture
twoplusone commented Tuesday, 20 Sep 2016 at 6:53pm

A big issue is really with the Victorian Planning Scheme and how changes in planning can allow inappropriate development. An applicant can tick off all the boxes for a development application - but that doesn't mean that its appropriate for that location - 'eco' or 'no eco'. The precedent this would allow through VCAT for the Bells hinterland is a big concern. Torquay itself is a prime example of inappropriate development or just really bad town planning - new subdivisions pop up like mushrooms with little or no regard to the surrounding natural environment. Spring Creek being a prime example. I've worked in the environmental assessment sector for the last 15 years and have seen very few examples of development resulting in an improved outcome in environmentally sensitive areas such as this location.

velocityjohnno's picture
velocityjohnno's picture
velocityjohnno commented Wednesday, 21 Sep 2016 at 6:02pm

Not to mention the potential for flooding as the new housing in the east of Torquay creeps into very low land behind the Whites beach dunes...

sharkman's picture
sharkman's picture
sharkman commented Friday, 6 Jan 2017 at 8:29am

2010 computer models show in 30 years North Torquay under water as the sea levels rise , and those dunes are now the high tide line , doomed real estate!

x

ringmaster's picture
ringmaster's picture
ringmaster commented Tuesday, 20 Sep 2016 at 7:01pm

OK.....Here's the deal in a nutshell. Old mate (who is an older bloke and one of the early surfers in the area) has owned the big chunk of land that lies between Bells and Bones Rd longer than most of you have been alive. His home is roughly in the middle of the property and it's a run down heap of shit (I know cause he used to have the odd party there years ago and they were open house). He wants to convert this into 'backpacker' accom and then build himself a new smaller dwelling closer to Bells but still on his land. He's not subdividing which is obviously not permitted there and he will most likely succeed with this proposal. Oh yeah.......he's also a retired QC (that's Queens Council for those not familiar with the legal system). VCAT will be a minor hiccup for him.....

twoplusone's picture
twoplusone's picture
twoplusone commented Tuesday, 20 Sep 2016 at 7:29pm

So old mate (and Ive worked out who it is) should be aware of the implications of his proposal on this area. This is self interest neatly dressed and packaged as an 'eco' development to sweeten the deal. QC he may be but the potential backlash from the local population won't make it a pushover.

lawncigar's picture
lawncigar's picture
lawncigar commented Tuesday, 20 Sep 2016 at 7:04pm

shitty idea because of the precedent it might set. keep this stuff in Torquay which has already become a nightmare and isn't far away.

Wharfjunkie's picture
Wharfjunkie's picture
Wharfjunkie commented Tuesday, 20 Sep 2016 at 7:45pm

Can anyone apart from Ringmaster hint on what the fuck is actually being built?

Aldous Hacksley's picture
Aldous Hacksley's picture
Aldous Hacksley commented Wednesday, 21 Sep 2016 at 3:41pm
Tarzan71's picture
Tarzan71's picture
Tarzan71 commented Wednesday, 21 Sep 2016 at 6:09am

So if what Ringmaster says is what the proposal involves I cant see an issue with it. As a grom going in the Conservation event every year it was always tough finding accom and transport. This could be good for surfing and good for the environment all in the same concept.

Ontheroad's picture
Ontheroad's picture
Ontheroad commented Wednesday, 21 Sep 2016 at 8:05am

Just take a look at what Torquay has become...

tonybarber's picture
tonybarber's picture
tonybarber commented Wednesday, 21 Sep 2016 at 8:34am

Aldous is correct, I suggest. Given the location and the people this development is targeted to, ask yourself the question - 'if housing were available in that location would you buy there ? (assuming you had the means of course)'.
I'm hearing that the redevelopments down at Lorne are very restricted due to fire ratings - maybe that will be a deterrent or does that just make more 'exclusive'.

This is not an easy decision, regardless.

DCBells's picture
DCBells's picture
DCBells commented Wednesday, 21 Sep 2016 at 9:33am

Just to clarify, the proposed development is at 130 Bells Road, not 130 Bells Beach Road as depicted above.
The worrying aspect is the precedent rather than this particular development.
Torquay and surrounds have a terrible recent history with regard to property development.
It would be an awful shame for the Bells area to end up like all the other areas surrounding Torquay.

velocityjohnno's picture
velocityjohnno's picture
velocityjohnno commented Wednesday, 21 Sep 2016 at 6:07pm

Did anything come of the 'Save Spring Creek' community action? Wasn't development spared from Spring Creek, and the northern corridor of Torquay (which now evokes Mandurah through to Rockingham) was where the town would expand?

belly's picture
belly's picture
belly commented Wednesday, 21 Sep 2016 at 10:17am

There doesn't appear to be a Bells Road...

Irrespective a Google map search shows that 130 Bells Beach Rd is a mere 108 km from Melbourne, soon to be the largest city in Australia.
I love the area as much as the next person but have since moved away and time marches on, hopefully any development is done tastefully.

DCBells's picture
DCBells's picture
DCBells commented Wednesday, 21 Sep 2016 at 10:53am

Take a look at the link provided by Stunet above. Definitely Bells Road as opposed to Bells Beach Road.
I'm only pointing it out as due to comments above some may be confusing which person or property is trying to get the development through.

Aldous Hacksley's picture
Aldous Hacksley's picture
Aldous Hacksley commented Wednesday, 21 Sep 2016 at 3:34pm

To everyone mentioning precedent, this isn't exactly a consideration of the planning assessment. This goes both ways as it means areas that are already compromised by bad development can't be used as a precedent for more bad development. What is considered is the strategic intent for the area which doubtless would try to contain development in the the local centre, Torquay. Unless of course the proposal can demonstrate that it will be appropriate for the area, meeting tests around environmental, visual, land-use conflict impacts etc.

But once it goes to VCAT and the lawyers...

Wharfjunkie's picture
Wharfjunkie's picture
Wharfjunkie commented Wednesday, 21 Sep 2016 at 5:11pm

Put it to the swellnet legal team all about precedent.

Wharfjunkie's picture
Wharfjunkie's picture
Wharfjunkie commented Wednesday, 21 Sep 2016 at 5:13pm

I got absolutely no idea fong I think some bloke wants to open a backpackers and build another house that will barely be visible behind the toilet block at bells. This monstrosity will set a precedent for high rises that will create bad vibes. Better get Dennis Denuto onto it.

greyhound's picture
greyhound's picture
greyhound commented Wednesday, 21 Sep 2016 at 5:27pm

And the tourists staying at said accomadation can drop in to the newly opened chocolate factory, that's right I said factory, via the recently approved (VCAT) adventure park. Both nearby in bellbrae.both in a rural farming zone.both on the ocean rd. The lure of the ocean rd area is under threat. Keep that shit in torquay.. Both of these development were knocked back by council,then overruled by VCAT.. It seems if you have enough money, you can't be stopped...
I'm not against development,as we built a house on elkington rd( chocolate factory), but the area for which they were approved.wrong IMO.

velocityjohnno's picture
velocityjohnno's picture
velocityjohnno commented Wednesday, 21 Sep 2016 at 6:10pm

The adventure park, iirc it was rated for multiple thousands of people in peak summer time! There's also the precedent of the poor Mallacoota community being overturned at Bastion Point (I think by the minister in this case) and having their point break become a boat ramp.

J1m's picture
J1m's picture
J1m commented Wednesday, 21 Sep 2016 at 9:21pm

Stu, I think you raise some good points. Precedent is very important in the courts and unfortunately we don't have a land and environment court in Victoria. Instead we have VCAT which deals with all sorts of civil matters on a day to day basis and has a history of bad decisions with respect to planning (think building an estate on a landfill - http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vcat-stuck-to-cranbourne-policy/story-e...). Unfortunately, councils often can't match proponents legal budget and VCAT is forced to roll over on planning matters.

I'm surprised at the lack of concern on this (in the forum at least) considering the inappropriate development at Spring Creek and the re-zoning of farmland around Torquay and beyond. Not to mention the Soviet inspired RACV resort building!

Shall a precedent be set it'll be death by a thousand cuts so this is an important decision.

Blowin's picture
Blowin's picture
Blowin commented Wednesday, 21 Sep 2016 at 9:59pm

I can't get my head around how much the opinions of surfers have veered towards pro development.

Some are even saying it would be good for the area !?

For Fucks sake.

Wouldn't you rather have a few less dollars in the bank and maintain that which is truly of value in the world , the natural beauty of the place ?

Got to draw a line in the sand somewhere.

As Stu says, it's a precedent.

Fucking developers.....

PS "Eco " cabins !

What are they called when they're at home ?

A cabin is a cabin.

The " Eco" is from leaving the ecology of the joint as it is .....without a fucking cabin.

Backpackers can stay in Melbourne.

Hako o hakonde ni-biki no inu's picture
Hako o hakonde ni-biki no inu's picture
Hako o hakonde ... commented Wednesday, 4 Jan 2017 at 5:16am

It's economy cabins

terrance's picture
terrance's picture
terrance commented Thursday, 5 Jan 2017 at 8:27pm

are backpackers ever allowed to leave melbourne or is that there final destination?

Coaster's picture
Coaster's picture
Coaster commented Wednesday, 21 Sep 2016 at 10:35pm

Governments of all persuasions are pro-development. VCAT may be bad, but the NSW Department of Planning and Environment is no better. I'm happy to sign the petition, but don't hold out much hope. When the NSW state government, or the courts, overturn a decision by a local council to reject an application and then people complain to the local state member about over-development, the state member deflects and blames the council for wasting public funds. And no one says any more about it. Of course, the planning is usually inadequate and they never allow enough car spaces. Old mate at Bells will probably scrimp on his development expenses and the backpackers' cars will overflow into the public car park. About the only thing that stops developers is finding an endangered species in the area (golden bell frog?).

andrew-pitt's picture
andrew-pitt's picture
andrew-pitt commented Wednesday, 21 Sep 2016 at 11:40pm

Don't know about VCAT. But in NSW the precedent argument is mostly irrelevant. Court decision is largely based on determining if the proposed development is consistent with the planning conditions of the particular site. Planning regs wHich change and have changed. Hence why precedent is a weak argument
If local council officers gave it the nod. You can be sure this development complies

Ontheroad's picture
Ontheroad's picture
Ontheroad commented Thursday, 22 Sep 2016 at 12:12am

If anyone's ever travelled to Chile you'll know how 'Eco-cabins' can totally the destroy an entire region. Pichilemu used to be sleepy little village with world class waves, now it's a sea of small 'eco' cabins. Torquay's already half-fucked with suburban mediocrity - keep it over the hill.

We need to keep Bells - not sell it.

I don't know the ins and out's of world surfing reserve listing, but is there anything in legislation about preserving the view or serenity of the place. Does the listing mean anything?

Wharfjunkie's picture
Wharfjunkie's picture
Wharfjunkie commented Thursday, 22 Sep 2016 at 7:19am

Cant believe every cunt is screaming precedent. VCAT decisions do not set the same precedent the supreme or high court does.

Further to that can anyone tell me how this development will hinder your enjoyment of Bells and Winki given what we do know that the development will be barely visible from the road behind the eyesore of a toilet block.

twoplusone's picture
twoplusone's picture
twoplusone commented Thursday, 22 Sep 2016 at 8:21am

Sorry Wharfjunkie you are wrong about the precedent that can be applied by a VCAT ruling in planning outcomes, which is what a lot of this argument is about. There are numerous documented examples where a ruling has set a precedent in planning. Surf Coast Shire has rejected the proposal with the understanding of how allowing a commercial development in Bells hinterland could set off similar applications. I'll give you an example - RACV applied for a three storey development on the Torquay golf course which was knocked back by Council. They take it to VCAT and win. They then apply for five storey development and win again which is what we now have. If some other well healed turkey comes along with a proposal for a five storey development along the Torquay beachfront - well there is a precedent in place that can be argued for in the planning application.

I'm fortunate enough to drive along that road everyday - part of it's allure is the rural setting. There is so much poorly planned and inappropriate development throughout Torquay and along other areas of the coast - where do you draw the line in the sand??

Aldous Hacksley's picture
Aldous Hacksley's picture
Aldous Hacksley commented Thursday, 22 Sep 2016 at 10:41am

Yes but the precedent you mention is the actual application of the planning law itself, not the specific development or even 'vibe'. A precedent is a guide to be used for similar cases. At the moment the pro-development needs no precedent for similar cases as it is already allowable (providing certain standards are met). If a precedent is to be established by this case at VCAT it would more so be if VCAT refuse it, that a large amount of community dissent can override an otherwise compliant decision. Frankly there is buckleys of this happening...

Unfortunately the planning process whilst claiming to be democratic is only democratic for those that know how it works. Yes development is subject to third party objections and appeals, but they can only be made in respect to what the planning law is.

This will be approved, sorry to say it. I understand the concern aired in this forum, there needs to be a line drawn somewhere to protect the rural and indeed unique coastal setting around Bells and the GOR. Those stirred in to action by this would be best served by lobbying local members to amend the planning scheme to better protect these qualities. Otherwise we are all just arguing against the current system...

Wharfjunkie's picture
Wharfjunkie's picture
Wharfjunkie commented Thursday, 22 Sep 2016 at 4:50pm

Aidous has summarised it pretty well what ever decision is made can be appealed at the Victorian Supreme Court. This ruling would set a precedence on how the law applies to this matter unfortunately for those opposing it unless this development does not comply with the Planning and Environment Act the court will rule in favour of the applicant.

redrocket's picture
redrocket's picture
redrocket commented Thursday, 22 Sep 2016 at 11:43am

I'll tell you what every cunt knows wharfy...you're a muppet! Anyone with half a brain would realise that this will potentially bring more people...more surfers...less enjoyment

Wharfjunkie's picture
Wharfjunkie's picture
Wharfjunkie commented Thursday, 22 Sep 2016 at 12:59pm

Bring more surfers? Are you fucking serious mate if crowds are a concern why would you even bother with bells or winki ? A small scale development will barely impact surf numbers.

redrocket's picture
redrocket's picture
redrocket commented Thursday, 22 Sep 2016 at 2:22pm

That's my point Wharfy. You can still have a session at Centreside or the beachy at southside with only a couple of other people out . It isn't always crowded but it sure as fuck will be if shit like this goes ahead, so why encourage any development?

Wharfjunkie's picture
Wharfjunkie's picture
Wharfjunkie commented Thursday, 22 Sep 2016 at 3:34pm

red rocket you still will be able too its a small scale development not a fucking high-rise hotel.

Also why would you broadcast uncrowded spots online? If you hope to keep them uncrowded even when they are know you don't post it over swell net.

I am not encouraging the development I am stating that it is low impact and will not be some eyesore and questioning those who believe it will set some unknown precedent for rampant development.

Ash's picture
Ash's picture
Ash commented Thursday, 22 Sep 2016 at 11:59am

Agree with all arguments/concerns against any development in the immediate area surrounding Bells and hope the authorities can realize the true value of the place which does not need new accommodation of any sort, there's plenty of that in Torq. I'm going there tomorrow to stay till Monday and pick up my new MC stick, and am staying with friends that live not far from there, and it's always an interesting visit to the carpark at Bells, plenty of people and those double decker tourist buses that clog up the carpark, that's enough in my opinion for the place.

Tarzan71's picture
Tarzan71's picture
Tarzan71 commented Thursday, 22 Sep 2016 at 4:21pm

what started out as a fair and reasonable debate has now denigrated into something a bit ludicrous and abusive. Reckon I might disperse now, you guys are getting out of hand.

bonza's picture
bonza's picture
bonza commented Thursday, 22 Sep 2016 at 4:31pm

I'm not from there, never surfed there ( have surfed nearby areas)..

I'm interested how becoming a surfing reserve as pushed by various interests would, has, can, will, or should stop -development issues??

Bells Beach surfing 'recreation' reserve appears to have several pieces of legislation that include, but not restricted to the Victorian Heritage Register VHRH203; The Coastal Management Act 1995; The Commonwealth Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984; and the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Management plans include both the Victorian Coastal Strategy 2008 and Coastal Management Act 1995.

How many acts do you need? is seeking status as a surfing reserve making these places more on the map for developers? if you really want to protect these areas shouldnt interests focus their attention on strengthening the multiple pieces listed above rather than trying to gather more attention (more diverted money) for more plaques...

bonza's picture
bonza's picture
bonza commented Thursday, 22 Sep 2016 at 6:00pm

it just bothers me on few levels. 1. surfers (should) hate other people, particularly others surfers- so why stick up a sign saying SURF HERE!! 2. surfers have created or at least are in some way responsible for the fuckery that exists in many surfing meccas. 3. creating more legislation arguably diverts, and in the case of creating surfing reserve is COMPETING with the money and attention from existing acts and other equally if not more important and comprehensive causes that various interests could be paying attention to..

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming commented Thursday, 22 Sep 2016 at 7:45pm

I never realised private owned land was so close to the reserve/wave.

Really not enough information to have an opinion either way.

Yes id be against it if it was a three story place that accommodated one hundred people and stood out like dogs balls in the landscape, but if it is a low key development for example, single story and generally hidden from the road and accommodates a sensible number of people, then i can't see the harm.

Please Stunet give me an ignore button for Talking Turkey, Shatners Basoon, Dale Cooper, Factotum, Pupkin, and any new fake profile he decides to create.

penmister's picture
penmister's picture
penmister commented Thursday, 22 Sep 2016 at 11:49pm

Maybe it should of not been sold to him in the first place guys...
Its his land now....

sharkman's picture
sharkman's picture
sharkman commented Friday, 23 Sep 2016 at 10:25am

yes its his land , so he should be able to do what he wants with it. I think a multistory resort hotel would have great views , and if it was 5 star , we could even start to get rid of those who's income is not up to paying for accommodation , and the resort owners might be able to legislate , that their clients have priority in the waves , because they pay more , and should even have exclusive days of usage!

x

davetherave's picture
davetherave's picture
davetherave commented Friday, 23 Sep 2016 at 11:46am

Get popular local identity surfing or otherwise and get media to do story. Main emphasis on untouched environment important for people to relax contemplate etc especially with torquay geelong and Melbourne close by. Local council probably signed up to agenda 21 agreement which has emphasis on protecting inter generational equity. Politicians ripe to score any wins at moment and ABC or the Project or even Sir Derryn could bury it before it takes off cause make no mistake, if one gets up more will follow.

davetherave

Vic Local's picture
Vic Local's picture
Vic Local commented Friday, 23 Sep 2016 at 9:58pm

Don't want the development but the surfing "community's" anti tourism attitude is wearing a bit thin. Tourism buses and accommodation face an almighty backlash, but when surfers use and abuse the Bells Beach reserve, there's silence.
A couple of weeks ago Jeep came in to film a commercial on a packed Sunday. They buzzed the line up in a low flying helicopter for ages and then flipped the local rescue boat. Any complaints? Not a bloody whimper. Same too with the comp whose infrastructure just gets bigger and bigger? Anybody pulling up the commercial arm of surfing for their impact on the reserve? Crickets.

"angry online, smiley in the brine"

sharkman's picture
sharkman's picture
sharkman commented Saturday, 24 Sep 2016 at 1:11am

I actually spoke to long time local , who says that tourism is already dropping , as there are now 17,ooo residents in Torquay , no extra parking or infrastructure , to support the growth and the retailers go backwards by about 10% per summer period ,Tourism is now dropping rapidly , when Torquay get to 40,000 with Armstrong creek (10 mins away)contributing another 65,ooo , there will be zero tourism , so t there is no anti-tourism , the Surf Coast shire and the State Government have completely facked the area , no industry , no jobs , unless you work in Melbourne.
So what did you do about the Jeep commercial crew??? Did you report them or just whinge ?

x

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming commented Sunday, 25 Sep 2016 at 7:39am

There will always be tourist people would visit for beach and just for the name "Bells" those things will never change.

People also visit for all the surf outlets and many expect going to the source you can get good buys, but the reality is prices are the same at the majority of the outlets and there is only a few bargains to be had at the almost hidden factory outlets out back (if you want a bargain these days you are more likely to get one online)

IMO torquay itself the shopping centre though is a shit hole with no soul, its a town that could be so much but actually gives nothing, i guess you can blame local council planning for that.

Please Stunet give me an ignore button for Talking Turkey, Shatners Basoon, Dale Cooper, Factotum, Pupkin, and any new fake profile he decides to create.

brainiac's picture
brainiac's picture
brainiac commented Saturday, 24 Sep 2016 at 11:34pm

17000 farrrrrk I remember when I first went there the population was 2200. What has happened to Torquay is horrendous. Now a soul less mass of poor planning and obscene developments. Lets try to protect what's left. This land has has a real beauty and spiritual feel to me. Does any one know if the local Wautherong people habituated the hills behind Bells or used it for any spiritual /ceremonial activities?

brainiac's picture
brainiac's picture
brainiac commented Saturday, 24 Sep 2016 at 11:37pm

17000 farrrrrk I remember when I first went there the population was 2200. What has happened to Torquay is horrendous. Now a soul less mass of poor planning and obscene developments. Lets try to protect what's left. This land has has a real beauty and spiritual feel to me. Does any one know if the local Wautherong people habituated the hills behind Bells or used it for any spiritual /ceremonial activities?

Hako o hakonde ni-biki no inu's picture
Hako o hakonde ni-biki no inu's picture
Hako o hakonde ... commented Sunday, 25 Sep 2016 at 5:29am

There are other accommodation options in them there hills , just not the property directly opposite Bells. There was a backpackers somewhere out the back there, so this place isn't setting a precedent. I can't believe how many people will blindly sign this petition that gives absolutely no details, it just say's "believe me it's bad, sign here".

Last time I surfed bells there was a lot of digging going on at the entrance, I spoke to a long time local he said they were building a roadhouse on the corner with bus parking with a McDonalds incorporated in it, it got council approval because it saves them money for a toilet block at Winki. This guy was a really really long time local so he new what was going on, he had the good oil.

Vic Local's picture
Vic Local's picture
Vic Local commented Sunday, 25 Sep 2016 at 9:06am

Spot on re comments on Torquay planning. What a shambles. Souless suburbia for as far as the eye can see and a car clogged central commercial area with no views despite being on the coast. It takes a very special talent to fuck it up so badly.
The long term "locals" can't really complain (but they do big time). Who builds the new houses? the real estate mob aren't out of towners, and who bloody sells these people boards and wetsuits? That's right, the biggest whingers in the line up are the ones making the $$$ from rampant over development and commercialisation of the surf industry.
Give me a 5 minute local who spends plenty of time in the water and never drops in over the angry "long term local" mob who surf 6 times a year and think they own the surf.
Rant over.

"angry online, smiley in the brine"

Tarzan71's picture
Tarzan71's picture
Tarzan71 commented Sunday, 25 Sep 2016 at 12:53pm

Very well put Vic Local,
As Mick Dundee once said "Its a bit like a couple of fleas arguing over who owns the dog". Ive lived in a few different states and surfed in a few different towns and the beach I grew up at is just down the road, having said that, Ive always considered that staunch locals need to get themselves a passport and go look around so they can appreciate their lives in a more global scale.

Blowin's picture
Blowin's picture
Blowin commented Sunday, 25 Sep 2016 at 2:35pm

So the staunch local goes on a global jaunt - Hawaii, Indo, Europe , California.

The return home confirms what he already knew .... that he is one of the luckiest people in the world to be surfing in clear, clean water with a pristine backdrop in more locations than not.

And you think he is going to foresake this because some parts of the coast are on the road to ruin and a few dollars are being made in the process ?

Maybe you should get out a bit more if you think that an untrammelled coastline isn't going to be valued at an exponentially increasing premium in the coming years.

That's if your stupid enough to require a dollar sign put on things to appreciate their worth in the first place of course.

Tarzan71's picture
Tarzan71's picture
Tarzan71 commented Monday, 26 Sep 2016 at 8:06am

Such a jaunt would have a quite a large carbon footprint Blowin, guess that dosent effect the guy's local beach so its all good.

Blowin's picture
Blowin's picture
Blowin commented Monday, 26 Sep 2016 at 6:35pm

Good call Tarzan.

People travel in aeroplanes.

May as well bitumise the rest of the planet then.

thermalben's picture
thermalben's picture
thermalben commented Tuesday, 3 Jan 2017 at 9:42am
Nick Bone's picture
Nick Bone's picture
Nick Bone commented Tuesday, 3 Jan 2017 at 12:42pm

What is the point of councils putting up notices asking for the publics opinion when they the decision is already made. Its the most futile thing and such bullshit. Happens heaps here at home in numerous scenrios, building approvals, speed limit reductions.

Happening further west too at a place i like to spend a bit of time at, the locals where gearing up for a protest against a resort being built that will have 'no enviromental impact.' Yet there gonna plonk right in the middle of a nice big resever where roo's, foxes, frogs etc all are abundent. I was there last friday and enquired how the protest went and while there was protest the resort still got apporval, the only positive way they looked at it there might not be construction for another couple of years. Its a beautiful part of the world there and how this gets the pass with whole town dissaproval is beyond.

What can the little people ever do?

I am the bone

southey's picture
southey's picture
southey commented Tuesday, 3 Jan 2017 at 9:38pm

To Quote" Toe to Toe " .....
" Build it up or tear it down ? TEAR IT DOWN !!!!!!!!! "
" What can you do when the minority is you ............. "
I'm not sure where parks Victoria or DNRE is on this , but Victoria should change its Number plate slogan to " On the Take " !
As for where you speak of Nick . I know one local surfer that is trying to become mayor or high in the local council . Again VCAT is the weak link in any local opposition . Again there was a precedent with so called Eco development .And in this case it's one guy that is pushing his development barrow , as he has a history of doing it in the area . In this case I hope Mother Nature gives Em hell and we have another wet winter on the back of a wet summer and another 15 mths . Maybe the workers will die of footrot .
Same thing is happening in all the major cities , as many first and second generation citizens decide that Australia really should assimilate to all the errors of over development Fron their homeland . Astro Turf for a garden anyone !
Wharfy we know where you sit in this .

" SA's Reserve Capacity "

Timm-Dah's picture
Timm-Dah's picture
Timm-Dah commented Tuesday, 3 Jan 2017 at 11:21pm

Some people have principals...some people have money... rarely do the two ever combine in the one person. It's clearly a cash-grab and the government has been happy to accommodate on top of all the (cash) land-tax, captial gains and stamp-duty taxes they also make...nothing to see here but progress. Happening everywhere fella's, even the 'protected' locations are copping there fair-share of human impacts via increased tourism, mining, fishing, land-clearing and the 'ol climate change thief. ;-) C'est la vie.

Never a sad day on the waves…but as far as other things go…well, let me talk (moan-away) to you.

lost's picture
lost's picture
lost commented Wednesday, 4 Jan 2017 at 12:28am

The most prominent house at Bells is always rented by teams or pros at Easter and a farmer ferries them to the site on his quad bike. Anyone against that ? There are also other homes for rent on airBnB and Stayz. This planned development is very modest - renovating a existing property and the building a new home for themselves on 85 odd hectares. That's hardly massive development. Maybe Surfrider or other concerned should pool there money, buy the land and put a nature covenant on it. Now if anyone is serious about the Bells natural environment let's start with moving the car park to the other side of the road, revegitate and return the cliff top to a natural state with careful walkways to access the breaks. Make people walk to through a tranquil setting to surf these great waves - surely that would be a better goal than worrying about a small house on a private property in the surrounding area. Oh and how about stop shitting and pissing in the bushes folks.

knB

memlasurf's picture
memlasurf's picture
memlasurf commented Wednesday, 4 Jan 2017 at 8:34am

Yeah lost it was only 4 rooms on a farm. Modest is an understatement. The farmer just wants a BB thing happening can't blame him. I think the Bells area can handle this without any problem. The zoning on the area hasn't changed from rural conservation zone and the member was very clear that open slather development will not be tolerated in this area by VCAT, so a precedent of sorts has been set. I think it was a very reasonable decision it wasn't Foxy trying to put a heliport and 5 star resort there.

swab's picture
swab's picture
swab commented Wednesday, 4 Jan 2017 at 12:42am

As long as it doesn't start lookin like jeffries...fark thet would be to ekse! Thets rart ey?

mick-free's picture
mick-free's picture
mick-free commented Wednesday, 4 Jan 2017 at 7:49am

Bloody premium article Ben......got another link? Or can someone cut and paste.

Mick Free FIFOFOMO

thermalben's picture
thermalben's picture
thermalben commented Wednesday, 4 Jan 2017 at 8:29am

Only other option I can find via Google this this one:

http://www.ntnews.com.au/news/national/vcat-allows-resort-at-famed-surf-...

wally's picture
wally's picture
wally commented Wednesday, 4 Jan 2017 at 8:37am

This article in The Age (no paywall) gives the VCAT view.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/vcat-tries-to-calm-the-waters-over-far...

lostdoggy's picture
lostdoggy's picture
lostdoggy commented Wednesday, 4 Jan 2017 at 10:03am

The trick is
- copy link
- go to google (don't just paste it in address bar at the top of your browser)
- paste in google search
- hit the article from the results

sandspit's picture
sandspit's picture
sandspit commented Wednesday, 4 Jan 2017 at 8:37am

are there plans online for the development?

wally's picture
wally's picture
wally commented Wednesday, 4 Jan 2017 at 9:24am

As I understand it, the plan is for 2 structures, one at each of the points indicated on the aerial photo. Plus some associated driveway work.

Yep, fairly modest and low impact. But, if the community didn't oppose it, then the assumption is everybody is happy with tourism development in the area and it is forge ahead. At least, the VCAT has acknowledged the 'spiritual' values of the Bells surfing experience as a real thing that is worth maintaining.

terrance's picture
terrance's picture
terrance commented Thursday, 5 Jan 2017 at 8:41pm

was mike brady the architect?

Craig's picture
Craig's picture
Craig commented Friday, 6 Jan 2017 at 9:55am

Haha

Coaster's picture
Coaster's picture
Coaster commented Friday, 6 Jan 2017 at 8:24pm

Good call. If he wasn't then they're taking their design cues from the Waratah Park Ranger's Headquarters.

terrance's picture
terrance's picture
terrance commented Monday, 9 Jan 2017 at 12:22pm

Yes, the winner for the Waratah Park Rangers Headquarters lookalike competition goes to (drum roll...), "The Bells Beach Eco Cabins".

floyd's picture
floyd's picture
floyd commented Wednesday, 4 Jan 2017 at 10:28am

I understand the nervousness here particularly given it was only a few years ago someone wanted to put in new ugly viewing platforms and toilets on the Bells cliff tops for the bus loads of tourists who spend their 15 minutes there on the way to the GOR and beyond.

I also agree people should stop shitting in the bushes and walking all over the vegetation but equally the local council could do a lot more to improve and maintain what is already there.

Having said all that a trip to the south island of NZ will show you how development can be done properly in pristine wilderness areas. But the question is rightfully asked here can our developers and governments be trusted to do the right thing? History says probably not and hence the appeals for this development.

Timm-Dah's picture
Timm-Dah's picture
Timm-Dah commented Wednesday, 4 Jan 2017 at 11:25am

I'm pretty certain Bali was once given the air-brush, swish pictures of beautiful houses treatment by the developers...but some years later, it is a reality that sets in, which must be managed. ( I think the EAt Pray Love book was the nail in the coffin there too) http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/travel/destinations/my-honeymoon-in-...

I understand you cannot stop change (progress) but I'd say the surf industry itself is at a serious turning point now. Protecting their primary assets (pristine surf) while looking after the environment the locations rely upon..but still supporting the growing number of grommet-punters salivating for that Stoke being promoted...all driven by (generally) the dollar bills baby... One that now makes a looooootta cash, which people take notice of. http://fortune.com/2013/06/05/surfonomics-101

I feel for the locals whom get a bum deal (usually) when the developers move in and proclaim like the chameleons they are, that this development will be different. The third world has been lifted out of poverty I agree as a result of worldwide surf-travel / beach-vibed Westerners seeking out that 'secret' location that only you, your mate and soon to be 10,000 others will be chasing after. When you're that stoked on a location, it's indescribable right?? Indo-dreaming, Fiji-fantasies..etc

But the overall message is, if the use isn't respectfully contained, the Rubbish & wasteful use will continue. He doesn't give a rats?? Why would I? (You're principals are tested as such)

I'm unsurprised by the new-notion now arising of 'last chance' tourism to destinations like The Barrier Reef, Maldives, regions of Brazil, Thailand, Artic-Antartic...where the idea is actually driven on the fact that these places will eventually be not the same as they once were...so get in quick.

I think also, the irony in the surfing world is, you cannot surf a place, keep it a secret and at the same time, name it, put it in surf videos and promote it on doco's or now GoPro-YouTube/Vimeo flicks. I see Endless Summer II or the Bra Boys doco as good examples of this...the famed locations take-on a life of their own...drawing in the punters.

It is what it is. 30-50 years from now it'll prolly be worse and everyone here in there mid-20s early teens will be thinking...man, I used to think it was bad then...but I guess that old dude I was once surfin' with that day was kinda right, it prolly was better when he was a kid...just as it was good for me..years ago.

As a side note to Floydd, was surfing last summer around Vicco, was watching the waves with an 'old dude', whom said he'd come from New Zealand's South Island to live along this coastline cos the place was changing too much for him to handle & he just had to leave it with the memories he had. Took up road-trppin' in Oz before pulling up in Victoria & retiring with a girl he'd met.

I guess what I'm saying is...just try to enjoy the planet, places, people...while the moment exists, and for where it takes you. A fleeting thing. If you hanker over the past all the time...it'll just eat you up inside. Yeah hindsight is great..so also is all the times that could potentially be. Hopefully, things won't be too bad & we can learn from those whom did things incorrectly.

Again...ce la vie....or as one of my mates usually says to me after a rant like this... Cue the Cat Stevens!!!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7a4DCxAi020

Never a sad day on the waves…but as far as other things go…well, let me talk (moan-away) to you.

tonybarber's picture
tonybarber's picture
tonybarber commented Wednesday, 4 Jan 2017 at 11:55am

To expect that places, development, behaviour and attitude to stay the same is both selfish and naive. In this case the surf spot is not changing unless Mother Nature has other ideas.

surfer99's picture
surfer99's picture
surfer99 commented Wednesday, 4 Jan 2017 at 2:22pm

If they don't build this, my surf couch won't have anywhere to stay at Easter and I'll have to surf with no one watching me rip.

memlasurf's picture
memlasurf's picture
memlasurf commented Thursday, 5 Jan 2017 at 10:48am

And you forgot...no photos or videos to put up social media. Legend in your lunchtime.

surfer99's picture
surfer99's picture
surfer99 commented Thursday, 5 Jan 2017 at 11:09am

Who would want to see photos of my surf couch watching me rip? Are you taking the piss?

memlasurf's picture
memlasurf's picture
memlasurf commented Sunday, 8 Jan 2017 at 9:57am

Always take the piss. I never try to take myself or anybody else too seriously when it comes to these things.

surfer99's picture
surfer99's picture
surfer99 commented Monday, 9 Jan 2017 at 3:00pm

My surf couch says I have to take these things seriously or else I'll never get on the pro tour.

memlasurf's picture
memlasurf's picture
memlasurf commented Monday, 9 Jan 2017 at 6:36pm

Good luck with that as from what I can see it is a long, hard, haul. Make sure you enjoy the ride otherwise you will begin to resent it.

surfer99's picture
surfer99's picture
surfer99 commented Tuesday, 10 Jan 2017 at 4:08pm

My surf coach once told me a story about a long and hard thing that he resented.

sharkman's picture
sharkman's picture
sharkman commented Thursday, 5 Jan 2017 at 1:37pm

check out Bells Beach Surf Sanctuary page , full story , its all about a precedent being set by giving a commercial permit for Tourist Accommodation in an area that till now , tourist development has been banned, so it's not the size , but it opens up the door for all of the rst of the developers and when you understand there is already a $1b+ urban development about 2K's from Bells , Spring Creek , and now....just more rape and pillage!

x

terrance's picture
terrance's picture
terrance commented Thursday, 5 Jan 2017 at 8:33pm

I blame Rip Curl and the ASP/WSL (presented by Ford) for heavily promoting the area each Easter, I also blame Occy, Parko, Curren, Mick and Slater for making it look so easy to surf.

If you are into clicktovism, want to fauxtest, or a just plainly into slacktivism, go to change.org, or getup, or any other site that makes you feel like you've done your best whinging on the web.

pigdog's picture
pigdog's picture
pigdog commented Thursday, 5 Jan 2017 at 6:54pm

im not for or against this just want to point out some stuff to get off my chest…in point form:)

-if you won 40million in lotto you properly wouldn't have change if you bought this property -maby the owners don't want to sell to the chinese and need income…so we should be grateful for that
-the surf coast hwy from gellong to torquay will all be houses left to right in the next 30 years these new urban developments are just the beginning
-the builders are such big firms and get there materials so cheep that less than %5 of tradesmen working on these developments are locals working in there own town. they can't compete with the cheep quotation for the work.
-majority of council members in torquay don't live in torquay full time…they may be the ones who have let torquay become what it is today….shit load of houses with no infrastructure and little employment opportunities
-im like everyone else i can remember surfing with my mates and 4 other blokes out thats not the case now its only going to get worse i don't like you have to surf after work weekends is just brain damage…myself i have learnt how to wavesail (windsurf) and also how to kite surf….i think you have to think outside the box to get waves these days
-mini rant over.

Hako o hakonde ni-biki no inu's picture
Hako o hakonde ni-biki no inu's picture
Hako o hakonde ... commented Friday, 6 Jan 2017 at 8:49am

Fuck it's Torquay , who cares? Tourist surfers worrying about more tourist surfers being able to stay there.

sharkman's picture
sharkman's picture
sharkman commented Friday, 6 Jan 2017 at 12:17pm

c'mon you ol hack , OK Fuck Torquay , yeah understand , but it's actually Fuck bells and Winki , which when I read how people say its a flat shitty wave , ah maybe they are out there on their Hypto Cryptos , and can't catch a wave , eh Hakka!!

x

terrance's picture
terrance's picture
terrance commented Monday, 9 Jan 2017 at 6:42pm

That's right man, lets keep Bells and Winki a secret spot (like Bird Rock)! (driving directions needed if required).

If all these dudes are out on their Hippto Crappos not catching waves, what'd the diff? Just another target for a good spraying.

redrocket's picture
redrocket's picture
redrocket commented Monday, 9 Jan 2017 at 7:50pm

As well as obviously being a bit of a wit, Terrys also a gun surfer throwing some spray over the people with his massive cuttys. Terrys the best!!

terrance's picture
terrance's picture
terrance commented Monday, 9 Jan 2017 at 9:03pm

Don't need my ol' gun down at Bells or Winki there Red, never get's big enough down there for me to have to head to the rafters of the A-frame to get out old Terrance's big wave rhino chaser. No siree bob to that.

Poor old Bohdi, he'd need his big boy down that way, but then again, he couldn't master the basic tow.

redrocket's picture
redrocket's picture
redrocket commented Tuesday, 10 Jan 2017 at 12:07pm

You're a real blue flame special, aren't you, son? Young, dumb and full of come, I know. What I don't know is how you got assigned here. Guess we must just have ourselves an asshole shortage, huh?

terrance's picture
terrance's picture
terrance commented Tuesday, 10 Jan 2017 at 12:48pm

I'd very much doubt the latter there Red.

How good was Bodhi at ghost/human duo pottery after his last surf at Bells?

Do you reckon Bodhi would of stayed at the Bells Beach Eco Cabins if they were around in his day?

redrocket's picture
redrocket's picture
redrocket commented Tuesday, 10 Jan 2017 at 2:04pm

Yo, Terry! I'll see you in the next life!

terrance's picture
terrance's picture
terrance commented Tuesday, 10 Jan 2017 at 2:08pm

See ya then Red.

terrance's picture
terrance's picture
terrance commented Monday, 27 Mar 2017 at 3:33pm

hey red, those cabins at bells ready yet? I was thinking about heading down that way this Easter and was looking for a place to stay close to winkipop. Let me know.

Coaster's picture
Coaster's picture
Coaster commented Monday, 27 Mar 2017 at 9:35pm

I didn't have a clue what you were on about but a google search resolved that. Here is a bit of trivia for you Terrance:
"Although the final scene of the film is set at Bells Beach, Victoria, Australia, the scene was not filmed there. Bells Beach is a straight stretch and the beach in the film is a cove with spruce trees atop a hill. The actual location of the film was a beach called Indian Beach, in Ecola State Park, located in Cannon Beach, Oregon, USA."

terrance's picture
terrance's picture
terrance commented Tuesday, 28 Mar 2017 at 10:28am

Thanks Coaster, you know, I couldn't tell the difference.

lostdoggy's picture
lostdoggy's picture
lostdoggy commented Tuesday, 28 Mar 2017 at 10:43am

Yeh, that Torquay Pharmacy sign really threw me off as well.

Coaster's picture
Coaster's picture
Coaster commented Tuesday, 28 Mar 2017 at 7:56pm

Oh that obvious. Sounds like a real gem.

oiley's picture
oiley's picture
oiley commented Friday, 6 Jan 2017 at 9:45am

as others have said, from geelong to torquay is going to be wall to wall suburbia within about a decade.. warralilly, spring creek, armstrong creek.. etc.. the lineups at bells and winki still aren't anything as crowded as some locations in NSW, but they will become gridlocked over time. It's been relatively quite for a long time down here due to the 1.5 hr drive from melbourne.. but more and more people can't afford melbourne houses and are moving this way

geek's picture
geek's picture
geek commented Friday, 6 Jan 2017 at 1:17pm

At least the water/air temp in winter will keep a % out, Spring and Autumn will be write-off though. Glad I'm on the east side, no chance of gunna ever being crowded when its 6-8ft and closing out in a W wind haha!

oiley's picture
oiley's picture
oiley commented Friday, 6 Jan 2017 at 2:13pm

yeah true, the crowds are slightly better in winter, which is when its pumping anyhow! I haven't surfed gunna in a while, have they still got the sewerage outlet? lol

geek's picture
geek's picture
geek commented Friday, 6 Jan 2017 at 3:10pm

Yeh still there. Pumping out cleaner shit now though

inzider's picture
inzider's picture
inzider commented Friday, 6 Jan 2017 at 10:23pm

The change in Torquay and surrounding burbs in the last few years alone is staggering.
Lived in Torquay in 2012
Was horrified at the reckless nature of development back then.
I'm in Torquay tonight visiting some cobbers. It's too far gone people. The change in the 3 years ive been gone is just seriously fuckin crazy. The chump factor has gone off the Richter scale.
Paradise lost for the old locals.It's gone its over. The character that it had has vanished into a never ending burb of shit looking metriconshoe box's that will be leaking and rotting in no time .
Fuck you surf coasts shire
Wankers

ringmaster's picture
ringmaster's picture
ringmaster commented Friday, 6 Jan 2017 at 11:37pm

Fuck n hell! If you're gunna throw stones at least get some facts right.

The Surfcoast Shire have opposed nearly all of the local residential development here in some shape or form over the last 10-15 years. Unfortunately the state government and VCAT have proven time and again that local government has no real say.

Armstrong Creek, Warralilly and all of those shithole new suburbs Nth of Mt Duneed are City Of Geelong domain, not S.C.S. State Gov rammed that through as well. Have surfed and lived here (Jan Juc) since 85 and the only positive is that my joint has increased in value by about 500% since I bought it which will come in handy when I fuck off West in about 5 years.

inzider's picture
inzider's picture
inzider commented Saturday, 7 Jan 2017 at 3:12pm

Whoops
Fuck vcat and state govt then

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming commented Saturday, 7 Jan 2017 at 8:37am

As far as developments and design goes, you cant get anymore tasteful than that height is low and you would imagine it would blend into the environment pretty good, where the building are set is also non intrusive.

That said i understand the concern people have for future developments and concern this is only the start.

Please Stunet give me an ignore button for Talking Turkey, Shatners Basoon, Dale Cooper, Factotum, Pupkin, and any new fake profile he decides to create.

GuySmiley's picture
GuySmiley's picture
GuySmiley commented Sunday, 8 Jan 2017 at 12:07pm

Bells and Winki are very special places especially in the early morning light during the cooler months.

In the water with sets rolling in and the low sun reflecting bright off those beautiful orange cliffs everything is as it should be.

dimdim's picture
dimdim's picture
dimdim commented Wednesday, 29 Mar 2017 at 4:15pm

Thats a beautiful contribution right there Guy.
Enjoy it while you can brother because within 10 years there will be a bunch of Chinese surfers out there with you.
Dear people you are nearly at the end of an era.
The big industry brands are pushing into China now.Surfing is going mainstream in China.
These are the good old days.