Objectors lose bid to stop a third bowling green and tree removal in a heritage park (VCAT, 2026)

What happened

A bowls club has occupied about one hectare of a larger 11.1 hectare public park at 47 The Esplanade, Torquay, for more than 100 years, under a long-term lease. The land is owned by the State through DEECA and managed by the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority. The site already held two bowling greens, maintenance sheds, a clubhouse with a restaurant, a formal car park and a war memorial associated with the RSL. The park is in a Public Park and Recreation Zone and is covered by a Heritage Overlay, Schedule 128, under the Surf Coast Planning Scheme.

The club applied to build a third bowling green with four rinks, alter and extend the clubhouse, add lighting and a kiosk, move the vehicle access off The Esplanade and reconfigure and expand the car park from 89 to 98 spaces. The works required the removal of a row of Moonah trees along the northern boundary and planting within the existing car park. The club obtained in-principle support from the land owner and the land manager, through processes outside the planning system.

On 5 January 2026 the Surf Coast Shire Council issued a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit, with conditions. A Notice of Decision is the council's signal that it intends to grant a permit, which objectors can then ask the tribunal to review. A local community group and other objectors applied to VCAT under section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to review that decision.

The hearing was held in person in Melbourne on 29 July 2026. The club called three expert witnesses, on traffic and parking, on ecology and on arboriculture. The objectors were represented by counsel acting without charge but did not call expert evidence, relying instead on their own submissions and supporting statements. Orders were made on 22 October 2026.

What each side wanted

The objectors argued that a separate permit was needed under clause 52.17 of the planning scheme to remove the Moonah trees as native vegetation, that the trees had been planted with public money, and that losing them would cut vegetation cover, affect wildlife and damage the park's appearance and the screening between the club and the park. They also said the works would harm the park's heritage significance, that removing the Moonahs could damage nearby mature trees inside the park, and that extra traffic and parking demand would spill into surrounding streets, with the parking surveys failing to capture the peak summer period. The club and the council both supported the proposal, saying it was an appropriate extension of a long-established recreational use kept wholly within the existing leased area, that the Moonahs were planted landscaping rather than naturally occurring native vegetation, and that the shortfall in car spaces could be absorbed by the surrounding street network.

What the tribunal decided

The Tribunal varied the council's decision and directed that a permit be issued for 47 The Esplanade, Torquay, in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A to the orders. The permit allows works associated with an existing minor sports and recreation facility under clause 36.02, the construction of a building and works, demolition of a building and removal of a tree over three metres in height under clause 43.01, and a reduction in the number of car parking spaces required for a four-rink bowling green under clause 52.06.

The conditions largely follow those in the council's Notice of Decision. They require amended plans and a landscape plan before the development starts, tree protection plans and specifications compliant with AS 4970:2025 for the heritage-listed trees, a qualified arborist present during excavation, work to stop if a significant tree root is found, a stormwater management plan, external lighting designed and baffled to prevent adverse effect on adjoining land, and no fewer than 98 car spaces on the land. The Moonah trees marked for removal must stay on site until construction has started, unless the council agrees in writing to earlier removal. The permit expires if the development does not start within three years or is not completed within five years.

The Tribunal departed from the council's conditions in two places. It deleted condition 1(v), which would have required a darker tone for the light poles, because paint colour is not a control in the schedule to the heritage overlay. It also deleted condition 24, which required a traffic and parking management plan and a staff parking allocation.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

On the native vegetation question, clause 52.17 requires a permit to remove native vegetation, subject to exemptions. The Tribunal accepted the ecologist's and arborist's evidence that the Moonahs along the northern boundary were an even-aged stand planted in rows over modified ground and imported fill, pruned and maintained into a hedge, and that those in the car park were planted specimens arranged with other species for landscaping. The Member held that a tree being a native species does not by itself make it naturally occurring vegetation. The Tribunal also accepted that there was no evidence the trees were planted with public funds, supported by a letter from the land manager confirming it had found no such records. On that basis no permit was required under clause 52.17, and the only permit trigger for removing trees over three metres was the Heritage Overlay in clause 43.01.

Under clause 43.01 the question was whether the demolition, vegetation removal and new works would adversely affect the heritage significance of the park. The Member worked from the Statement of Significance and the Taylor Park Incorporated Plan. The Statement identifies the layout of clearings and gravelled pathways, the mix of native and exotic trees, the man-made lake, the bluestone gate piers and the bowling green itself as elements of the park's aesthetic significance. It does not identify the clubhouse, the car park or the Moonah trees as contributing elements. The Member agreed with the council's heritage advice that the mature pines to the north do contribute and are to be retained, but that the Moonahs do not, and held that a heritage overlay does not require every tree in a heritage place to be kept where it is not identified as contributing. Bowls has been played on the site since 1924, the works stay inside the leased area, and moving the car park behind the new green was found to improve the view from The Esplanade.

On damage to the trees being kept, the arborist's evidence was that any root encroachment into the site was less than 10 per cent and minor when measured against AS 4970-2025, and that most of the affected area already sits beneath a sealed vehicle access that will be replaced with a similar surface. The Tribunal was not persuaded the removals would cause unacceptable damage and was satisfied protection could be secured through conditions.

On parking, clause 52.06 requires six spaces per rink, so 24 spaces for the four new rinks, leaving a shortfall of 15. The traffic expert put peak demand from the new green at about 16 spaces and identified 219 on-street spaces along the park frontages, with at least 100 free during surveys in August and September 2025. The Member accepted those surveys missed the peak summer period, but found the shortfall could still be absorbed given the modest scale of the expansion, the likelihood of car pooling, walking and cycling, and the nine extra on-site spaces. Weighing everything under the integrated decision making direction in clause 71.02-3, which asks decision makers to balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit, the Member found the community benefit of a viable club outweighed the loss of the boundary trees.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position, objecting to a development near you, this decision shows that a tribunal review is decided against the specific controls in the planning scheme, not against general concern about change. The objectors here raised real issues about trees, habitat and parking, but the Tribunal could only test those issues against the clauses that actually applied: the zone, the heritage overlay and the car parking clause. Where a Statement of Significance sets out what makes a place significant, the items it names tend to drive the outcome, and vegetation it does not name can be removed even inside a heritage place.

The decision also shows how much turns on the origin of vegetation. Whether a tree is protected as native vegetation can depend on whether it grew naturally or was planted as landscaping, and on whether public funds were used. Here that question was answered by an ecologist and an arborist who inspected the stand and described its spacing, age and maintenance, and by a letter from the public land manager about its records. The objectors relied on submissions and supporting statements rather than expert evidence, and the Tribunal preferred the evidence it had. Parking worked the same way: survey counts and an estimate of peak demand carried more weight than a general concern that summer would be busier.

In this kind of dispute the usual first step is a written submission or objection to the council that is deciding the permit, setting out which control the objector says applies and why, with any supporting material attached. If the council then issues a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit, an application to the tribunal for review is the step that follows.

How to apply: our step-by-step guide to a VCAT application. More decisions: VCAT cases and other civil disputes.

Source: Friends of Taylor Park Torquay Victoria Inc v Surf Coast SC [2026] VCAT 873 (read the full decision). This summary was prepared from the published decision for general information. It is not legal advice, and the tribunal’s own reasons are the authoritative record.