The Department of Planning and Transport is currently preparing instructions for public notice.

PUBLIC NOTICE will take place over 14 days.

During this time anyone can make a submission to the DTP.

We will notify all on our mailing list, on this site and on social media when the PUBLIC NOTICE period begins.

SOS Submission POINTS:

The SUBMISSION POINTS we have made below respond to the Planning Report and Application submitted to the DTP in September 2024. SoS will update submission points when we receive reports etc made available during the PUBLIC NOTICE stage.

Summary Save Our Seat of objection: PA2403185.

The proposed expansion of the Arthurs Seat Eagle precinct—including a luge track, observation tower, and expanded summit station—introduces significant risk to human safety, environmental values, and public land integrity.

The proposal is inconsistent with key provisions of the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme, including:

1. Bushfire Management Overlay (Clause 44.06-2): The proposal increases the number of visitors—many of whom will be children, elderly, or tourists unfamiliar with the area—in a landscape highly prone to bushfire. Gondola evacuation is estimated to take 6 to 23 minutes, while fire in 1997 reached the summit in just 7 minutes. The applicant fails to adequately address this contradiction or provide for a realistic emergency evacuation plan. The planning scheme prioritises protection of human life and discourages discretionary uses in high-risk areas. This proposal is inconsistent with those objectives.

2. Erosion Management Overlay (Clause 44.01-2): The luge track is proposed through an area known to have active landslide risk. The applicant’s own report (Intrax, 2024) admits to active creep and boulder movement, with a moderate risk to life/property unless mitigation is applied. This fails to meet the purpose of the EMO, which seeks to prevent inappropriate development on unstable land. The proposal does not remove risk—it accepts it.

3. Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO), (Clause 42.03-2) Objection: The proposal is visually intrusive and inconsistent with the purpose of the SLO. The proposal includes removal of native vegetation and the construction of highly visible structures. The 34-metre observation tower and luge track visually and physically intrude on a classified landscape with State-level environmental and heritage significance. These works are inconsistent with the Significant Landscape Overlay and Environmental Significance Overlay purposes.

Key grounds for objection:

1. Threat to landscape character and visual prominence

   • The development introduces bulky infrastructure that disrupts the open, treed skyline and scenic views of Arthurs Seat.

   • It fails to respect natural ridge-lines, escarpments, and public lookout views.

2. Inappropriate scale, design, and siting

3. Unjustified vegetation removal

4. Impact on public viewlines and tourism values

   • Arthurs Seat is a valued regional tourism destination and public amenity.

   • Intensifying commercial infrastructure conflicts with SLO objectives to protect scenic views and visitor enjoyment.

4. No Net Community Benefit (Clause 71.02-3): Save Our Seat previously lost at VCAT in 2014 on Net Community Benefit grounds when opposing the original gondola. This proposal goes well beyond the gondola and introduces commercial, high-impact recreational development into public parkland. It offers limited public accessibility, is based on private ticketing, introduces environmental and life safety risks, and undermines the passive recreation character of the area. Unlike basic access to views and trails, these new facilities shift the area toward a pay-to-play model. The public loses peace, biodiversity, and safety while the operator gains revenue. This is not a balanced outcome and does not meet the planning scheme’s requirement that development must result in a net community benefit.

5. Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ), (Clause 36.02-2) – Save Our Seat opposes the Arthurs Seat Eagle expansion under Clause 36.02-2, which prioritises public recreation and environmental conservation over commercial use. The proposal — including a commercial luge track and major station upgrades —:

1. Prioritises commercial interests over public recreation and conservation.

2. Poses ecological risks to wildlife, vegetation, and sensitive habitats.

3. Alters the natural character of Arthurs Seat, shifting it toward a privatised entertainment precinct.

4. Sets a concerning precedent for future commercial developments in protected public spaces.

The application undermines the purpose of the PPRZ by serving private profit rather than community or environmental values. Save Our Seat urges the Minister for Planning to reject it to protect public land, biodiversity, and the long-term natural character of Arthurs Seat.

6. Summary – Clause 36.04 “Transport Zone” (TRZ) Objection

The Transport Zone (Clause 36.04, effective January 2022) is intended for land used as part of the transport system—state rail, arterial roads, major municipal roads, or other transport uses—and typically applies only to Crown land or land with formal consent from the Head of Transport for Victoria.

Key points relevant to the Arthurs Seat proposal:

• TRZ sub-zones: TRZ1 (state transport), TRZ2 (declared arterial roads/freeways), TRZ3 (major municipal roads), TRZ4 (other transport uses).

• Permits & referrals: Any works in a TRZ require a planning permit and referral to the Head of Transport. Land must be government-owned or formally consented.

• Potential issues with the proposal:

  1. Land-use conflict: Parkland is usually Public Park & Recreation Zone (PRZ). If the luge or summit station is zoned TRZ without transport justification, it may be misclassified.

  2. Consent missing: Lack of formal approval from Transport for Victoria could invalidate zoning.

  3. Environmental/community impact: Transport zoning does not negate potential disruption to parkland amenity, wildlife, or public recreation.

  4. Referral process concerns: Failure to properly refer the proposal may make the permit flawed.

Exposing misclassification, missing consent/referrals, or conflicts with PRZ and environmental objectives strengthens objections to the proposal.

7. Summary – Clause 42.01-2 Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO) : Save Our Seat strongly objects to Planning Application PA2403185, which proposes buildings and works for the luge, summit station, and base station expansion, because it falls within an Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO) and fails to meet the objectives of Clause 42.01-2. The application provides insufficient environmental information and fails to demonstrate compliance with ESO requirements. Approval in its current form would degrade Arthurs Seat’s sensitive natural environment and landscape.

8. Heritage Overlay (HO), (Clause 43.01-1 ): The application fails to demonstrate respect for Arthurs Seat’s cultural and historical heritage. Approval in its current form would irreversibly harm one of the Peninsula’s most significant heritage landmarks.

Key grounds for objection:

1. Loss or alteration of heritage fabric

   • Proposed demolition or major modification of summit/base structures lacks justification.

   • No Heritage Impact Statement (HIS) or conservation management plan provided.

2. New works out of scale and character

   • Infrastructure, including the luge track, is visually intrusive.

   • Design does not respect the form, scale, materials, or heritage character of the site.

3. No Heritage Impact Statement or design response

   • Planning Practice Notes recommend a HIS, design rationale, and heritage consultation.

   • Without these, Council and Minister cannot assess compliance.

4. Conflict with Mornington Peninsula Heritage Policy

   • Proposal undermines LPPF objectives to conserve heritage, maintain cultural landscape integrity, and protect viewlines from Arthurs Seat Lookout.

Conclusion:

For the reasons above, PA2403185 fails to comply with the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme. It places life at risk, undermines environmental and landscape protections, and does not deliver a net community benefit. SoS respectfully request that the application be refused.

You may copy any or all of the points Save our Seat have outlined above - but it is also important that your personal opinion and story is added to the submissions.

If you have any questions - feel free to email: saveourseat2024@gmail.com

Additional Policy Grounds for Objection:

1. Victorian Marine and Coastal Policy (2020)

This is a key policy document under the Marine and Coastal Act 2018, which applies to coastal Crown land and waters including areas like Arthurs Seat adjacent to Port Phillip Bay.

 Key Principles the Proposal Contradicts:

·       Precautionary principle: Where there is risk of serious environmental harm, lack of scientific certainty is not a justification for approval.

·       Avoid then minimise: The policy requires coastal use and development to avoid impact first — not rely solely on offsetting or mitigation.

·       Protect significant landscapes and vistas: Structures that impact views to/from coastal cliffs and lookouts are discouraged.

·       Discourage private/commercial development on coastal Crown land unless it clearly serves the public good.

Relevance: The luge, tower, and sky bridge are on coastal escarpment land, visible from the bay and abutting sensitive public reserve. No part of this project demonstrates compliance with the above.

2. Victoria’s Biodiversity 2037 Strategy

This statewide strategy (DEEC, 2017) commits the government to:

·       Protecting habitat in high-value conservation areas,

·       Avoiding net biodiversity loss, especially in bushfire-prone zones,

·       Conserving threatened species and ecological connectivity.

The Arthurs Seat precinct is home to documented koala corridors and native vegetation under pressure from fragmentation. Introducing high-impact tourism infrastructure undermines these biodiversity goals.

3. Mornington Peninsula Localised Planning Statement (Victorian Government)

This document recognises the Mornington Peninsula as having:

·       Distinctive landscape and environmental values of state significance,

·       Coastal and ridgeline sensitivity that should restrict built form,

·       Green wedge protection priorities.

The proposed development — especially the tower and bridge — cuts across these principles by encouraging urban-style intensification in a natural setting.

4. Federal Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC)

If threatened species habitat (e.g., koalas) is impacted, or if the area has matters of national environmental significance, a referral under EPBC is often required.

No EPBC referral has been cited. This is a vulnerability — you can request that the proposal be referred due to:

·       Cumulative impacts on habitat connectivity,

·       Vegetation removal in a bioregion of concern, and

·       Risk of erosion affecting water quality entering marine protected areas.

 Additional Strategic Conflicts

·       Parks Victoria’s own Strategic Plan and Healthy Parks, Healthy People framework – which prioritises low-impact recreation and ecological integrity.

·       Climate Change Act 2017 (Vic) – requires decision-makers to consider long-term resilience and emissions. Introducing emissions-heavy commercial tourism is counterproductive in high-risk fire zones.

·       National Heritage and Landscape classifications – the Arthurs Seat escarpment is visually and culturally prominent, and any perceived “theme park-isation” devalues its heritage.

Suggested Framing for Submission:

The proposed expansion of the Arthurs Seat Eagle is not only inconsistent with local planning provisions — it also directly contradicts higher-level state and national policies intended to protect Victoria’s coastlines, biodiversity, fire-prone parklands, and public environmental assets. The Marine and Coastal Policy alone provides ample reason for refusal, as does the principle of precaution embedded across relevant legislation and strategies.