City of Stirling Exclusion Zones

Meeting this morning between CofS, SSLSC,WAKSA,WWA.
Tried to raise all of the points mentioned in this thread and in messages sent.

General tone of meeting was cooperative to allow possible conflicts to be aired and Council to consider the implementation of the policy. Aim to penalise those that do the wrong thing by going between the flags or endangering SSLSC swimmers etc.
CofS has jurisdiction out to 200m off shore but is most concerned with the area used by other water users. Intends to issue warnings and a fine as last resort.

Start of 1 Dec 2011 (this year) as a trial to be reviewed by above parties in July 2012. Then Oct start 2012.
Beach access still permitted using existing path at SSLSC and grassed area at car park for rigging. Exclusion applies to the water.
Not a ban but a formal introduction of no kite /wsurf in front of SSLSC and main beach swimming area.
Request was put to council by WWA to move exclusion zone North to at least black line. Council will consider but probably launch will be south of red line (first path south and better than drain).
Council will provide clear signage to explain area including kite launch and zone markers visible from the water for red / blue lines. Also a recommendation on signage not to swim outside exclusion zone.
WAKSA continuing to recommend Sth of Brighton rd (blue line)as Kite area.




I appreciate that it means windsurfers have lost sailing area and many will not be happy. If the water is clear it is unlikely that infringement notices will be issued but if sailors do the right thing we will be in a stronger position for next year.

Please continue to send your feedback and particularly thoughts concerning information to be placed on signs.

I did raise this. An angled zone was deemed too complicated.
CofS said that their concern was really the first 50m or so.
So they are seing it interpreted as more like this.



So as long as launching landing and in the break is upwind of the zone it would be ok.
This is where we now need to try and get this pinned down and explained on the signage. Also that the signs need to reflect the need for kites to stay upwind of this area.

Phil,

I think you are missing the point. It is not a proposal - it has been voted in by Council and thus its LAW already. The fact they will review it after a year means nothing, they do that to appease people and the "review" is not a review at all they just ignore submissions (like they have already) and keep the law in.

You mention an acceptable wave just to the south. Hang on - so you are saying that when there has been no windsurfer v swimmer conflict, you are OK with them arbitrarily moving us to another area, for no reason? And squished into a smaller area, closer to the kiters. But because there is a wave there "albeit not as good" then it is OK?


You seriously think that is good?

"hopefully the council will see sense and keep things how they have been for years" was what we said last year when they called for submissions (which they fully intended to ignore) - and look what has occurred.

Just directed to this thread via Windsurfing General....

Same issue occurred many years ago where council wanted to ban Windsurfers from particular areas along their beaches here in Adelaide. Brighton-Seacliffe areas.

I negotiated on behalf of the Windsurfing community at that time successfully lifting the ban but Kiters were affected and restricted.

It pretty well came down to perceived public liability and I requested management provide information on incidents and or claims. There were absolutely no claims or incidents on record resulting from windsurfing activity at that time. If your getting stone walled on this then go the FOI (freedom of information) route. Anyone dealing with council really needs to dig around and separate fact from hearsay (very very important)! Also try and determine who is driving this. Is it councilors, council management, council workers or anonymous public or not, government, other stakeholders, etc?

Discussions included that the Windsurfing community confront any cowboy activity (eg sailing full speed in shallow areas even with people obviously about... etc), encourage sailors to join State bodies and be covered for public liability in competition, spread the word on safety in crowded areas, that sailors be respectful to and mindful of the needs of the general public.

If the windsurfing community is being lumped in with kiters try to distance ourselves. Try to get a take on what incidents have occurred and by whom and when (hopefully not windsurfing).

Educate the council that launching and landing generally take short amounts of time, we are highly visible and compact (versus kiters lines goes for miles). That we enjoy and respect our environment and are always safety conscious:-) Also by making restrictions this may create further pressure on other areas, even discouraging engagement with recreational activities. Make mention that equal opportunity in accessing our public areas should be granted and provided to all our citizens. etc etc...

My two cents worth anyway.

Regards PJ

ps - Remind stakeholders (Surf Life Saving Clubs. Yacht clubs etc) via Council that no-one has direct ownership of the water they use.

urmmm calm down mate...love looking for any way to have a say on something eh!
just saying its nice on to those involved with keeping us up to date..Read my post, never said it was good dude, its sh1t. Just better than going to mullaloo (closest beachie to me). Do you sail at scarbs?

Sent to CofS councillors via e-mail this morning. Thanks for the input everyone and please encourage as many people as possible to contact the council in support of our position.

"Submission from Windsurfing Western Australia Inc (WWA), the state body for windsurfing in response to the City of Stirling Beach Recreational Activity Policy‏ passed at the council meeting on 13th September 2011.

WWA and its members are angered that windsurfers have been excluded from an area they have traditionally used safely for many years and are deeply concerned about the precedent set. We contest the classification of windsurfing as “high conflict” and “likely to pose a hazard to others” (Beach Recreational Activity Management Plan section 2).

WWA recognises the need for safety for all beach users but feel windsurfers are unfairly treated by this new exclusion zone.

WWA attended an information session for the Scarborough Beach Development Master Plan in 2010 and made a submission on 9/10/10. It has reflected badly on WWA and angered Scarborough windsurfers that we received no further information until the policy had been passed and posted on the City's website.

WWA acknowledges that windsurfers need to stay out of designated swimming areas whether they appear inside or out of any exclusion zone.

WWA is concerned that windsurfing has been considered with kitesurfing as a single activity. Kitesurfing requires a much bigger area on land and water and the participants at Scarborough include those less experienced in the sport as well as highly competent surfers. Rigging a kite needs space to put out 40m of lines whilst a windsurfer needs a few square metres. On the water, a board stops almost instantaneously when a windsurfer falls whereas a kite may blow some distance and strong tangling lines pose a hazard for windsurfers and other water users north of them (as the wind is blowing them in a northerly direction). Kitesurfers sometimes lose their small hard to see boards, that are not attached to them, which then become floating hazards to other water users.

WWA insists that the City of Stirling consider Windsurfers and Kitesurfers as separate sports.

WWA attended a very productive meeting with representatives of WA Kitesurfing Association, Scarborough Surf Life Saving Club and John Snook, the City's Beach Services Co-ordinator, on 24/9/11 at SSLSC. There was no conflict in recognising the need for safety and many helpful ideas were raised outlining ways the council could help make the area safer with signage and markers. It was also agreed that the trial exclusion would be reviewed by all parties in July 2012.

WWA would like assurance that this review will be evidence based and not anecdotal as complaints from the general public often fail to distinguish windsurfers and kitesurfers.

WWA feels that windsurfing has, unfairly, been the only activity to suffer a loss of amenity through the exclusion zone. The location near the SSLSC clubhouse offers a perfect combination of waves and wind direction. In summer we use the water when most other beach users have left. Usually the correct conditions do not arise until after late afternoon and by 7pm we see very few other water users. The wind also makes the waves rough and unpleasant for surfing and swimming.

When the seabreeze blows, a strong current runs from south to north and the path of windsurfers is at an angle to the coast (please see diagram below). The exclusion zone runs perpendicular to the coast and would therefore force windsurfers much further South in to the area WA Kitesurfing has designated a kitesurfing area. This will lead to increased risk of collision and create a new problem.



WWA supports signage displaying suggested areas for windsurfing and kitesurfing with a clear recommendation that swimming be avoided in these areas when windsurfers / kitesurfers are active. Also the use of markers visible from the water indicating these zones.

WWA requests that the Southern end of the exclusion zone move from the Colin St drain to the SSLSC observation tower and that the western extent of the zone be shortened to 75m in the windsurfing area. This would allow windsurfers access to the area which has been used for many years. We also request confirmation that the exclusion zone applies from the low water mark and that beach access within the zone is permitted.

The City of Stirling Council's consideration of changes to this policy is appreciated by all windsurfers.

I've been away from Perth for the last 3 and a bit years and am stunned to have heard of the City of Stirlings attempt to destroy Perth metro's premier windsurfing location. This has been brewing for as long as I have sailed at Scarbs (since 2002). To think that this is a new problem brought on by kiters alone is incorrect.

I have noticed that a few (in my opinion) miss guided accusations have been levelled at the kite surfers. Just as with many sports it is very much a small minority of people within any sport whether they are just learning and possibly under estimating prevailing conditions, or just ignorant and selfish. A minority they still are. Windsurfing is not without it's learners and inconsiderate participants. On a whole I would much rather sail with kiters than have blind clubbies on their various crafts (which i find just as dangerous as windsurfing, kite surfing, fishing and walking your dog) flying in any directions and taking up just as much space or more when carrering out of control once wiped out on a wave. I can't see the SLSC letting their activities being rated as high as they have much more funding from the local rate payers, many of which windsurf, kite, surf and walk dogs to name a few activities. We need to remeber that the overwhelming majority of kiters have moved furthure south to our tradtional windsurfing location or to Contacios between Scarborough and Trigg, which on average a much less superior wave off thier own back.

For me to have a succesful out come from the zoning, which is inevidable in the future at some stage, and possibly give adequate boundaries for which all our sports can thrive into the future, I would like to see;

1. The southern boundaries of both the Brighton and Trigg were moved further north.
-Brighton to where the boat ramp is in front of the club house.
-Trigg to the second access walk way. (Don't forget how large this exclusion zone is and how un-accessable the remaining section of beach is, especially when the diplaced windsurfers and kiters will now be forced to find new areas to sail in what was a predominantly "surfers" only area).

2. Get realistic with the rating system.
- Windsurfing is just as dangerous as surf life saving. What's good for all is good for all. Windsurfing, as has been pointed out by others, has not had the same degree of potential harm to other beach users as kiters with their larger rigging area and long lines that can tangle around uneducated and unwary passers by. This should give winsurfing a rating as medium at the most.

3. Once the flags are down, which is at 5pm I think, the exclusion zone should not be in affect, or at least reduced ot directly in front of the Ampitheatre at Brighton and directly in front of the Club house at Trigg. From this time on the number of people using the water is greatly reduced as many people have already discussed in this forum.

It is true that the windsurfing community has the most to lose in this zoning policy if we adhere to the current self imposed protocol which has been developed over 30 years.

If this zoning is pushed through as is then we are on a collision course where these activities will be excluded at other beaches such as Mettams, Leightons, Cott and so on. All these beaches attract people from all sports.

Let's try and not let the great Australian spirit of out door sports flounder and die because of legal liability.

I will still sail in Scarbs, on the regular spot, when the conditions are right, and i will not pay any fines for doing so, come on mr.Ranger get in to the water and fine me for illegal windsurfing activity:-P.
There is now way they will be able to execute this silly restriction zone, which is exactly where the windsurfing action happens, the black line should be where windsurfing is allowed, it was always there, and will stay there.
Who knows maybe even tomorrow there will be a good time to check it out, if it is not too much westerly.

Mark I dunno if the emailing is working.

I have replies from 3 councillors which is TOPS.... and all say they will refer it to an officer (by that they mean an employee of CofS I gather).

But here's the thing - 2 of those councillors have said they will ask the 'officer' to get back to me with the reasons for the decision.
These are the people who voted unanimously for the ban and they have to ask somebody else why it was voted in!!!Were they correctly advised or informed? Doesn't sound like it.

They can't tell me why they voted for it!!! Now if this was banning a larger group, say bikes from roads or something, and the Govt ministers could not explain why they voted for it the media would be all over it and Ministers would be losing their portfolio.
Yet many watersports users, in the best place in the world for their chosen sport, reckon they will just lie down and take it. That's sad.

To stress again - 2 of those who voted for it in Council meeting can't tell me what the reasons were.
Bl00dy disgrace.

WWA onto the media yet?

Yeah I'm with Gazza and Premo, I don't wanna stir anyone up, but if it's 20+ knots, head high and cooking I'm out there!