Yes to a new Manly Life Saving Club. No to taking the promenade.
Council’s assessment report recommends approval. The application is listed for the Northern Beaches Local Planning Panel on Wednesday 4 November 2026 at 11:30am. Council says Panel meetings are held by teleconference and are open to the public through a Teams link.
On the Plan of Management’s limit of a “minor increase in floor area”, the report itself says: In terms of floor area, the increase is far more significant and can be argued as not minor.
It recommends approval anyway, calling the Plan an outdated document
. (Assessment report, Panel agenda for 4 November 2026, p 51.)
Northern Beaches Council proposes to demolish the Manly Life Saving Club and build a three-storey replacement that pushes north onto the promenade: public reserve set aside for the public, which Council’s own design panel says is Crown land, and into the root zones of the heritage-listed pines. Four of Council’s own departments are still recorded on Council’s DA tracker as “unsupported” (as at 30 October 2026).
This site is run by a group of Manly residents. It is not a Northern Beaches Council or Manly Life Saving Club site.
An 80% increase and a third storey are not a minor increase on any reading of that word.
Nobody should have to choose between the lifesavers and the beach. A thoughtful, skilful design, suited to a tight site beside the heritage-listed promenade and Norfolk Island Pines, can support the operations and the remarkable work of Manly’s surf lifesavers, and still protect the open space, the heritage and the views, public and private, that the whole community enjoys.
What we are asking for: a new club that stays within the existing footprint, going no further north than the building that stands there now, with the height reduced, as Council’s own heritage officer asked.
What bothers you most? Tap a topic for facts and questions to start your own submission.
The only control is the Manly Ocean Beach Plan of Management 2002, section 6.2, which permits a “minor increase in floor area and intensity of use”. The building goes from 863 m² to 1,552 m², up 80%, and from two storeys to three. And it pushes north onto the promenade: public reserve set aside for the public, which Council’s own design panel says is Crown land. Council’s Statement of Environmental Effects quotes the rule without the word “minor”.
Check it yourself: Plan of Management 2002 ↗ (Council’s website; PDF, 20 MB; section 6.2 is on page 28)
The building pushes about 10 m north onto the promenade. Council’s own parks officers would not support “the proposed loss of public open space”, finding it “diminishes recreational opportunities for the general public”.
Said in February, shown in May. In February 2024 Council said putting the amenities inside the clubhouse “will avoid a large expansion onto the promenade and will limit view loss”. Three months later it showed its working group “a proposed extension of approximately 10m in this northerly area”.
Council’s own design panel says all outside areas should stay open to the public “as this development is on Crown land which is only managed by Council”.
See the map: the walkway at pine T6 narrows from 12.7 m to 6.5 m ↓
Check it yourself: Council’s working group notes, 6 May 2024 ↗ (Council’s Your Say site; PDF; “approximately 10m in this northerly area”)
On Council’s own management plan, only 12% of the new building is marked for public use: 190 m² of 1,552 m². The other 88% is space the public cannot walk into.
The club’s private change rooms are 27% larger than the public ones for the whole beach, and have more showers than the public gets: eight against five.
Add a members’ gym, two bars, a function hall, a third-storey club room and a 254 m² store that also holds members’ own racing skis and competition boards.
Check it yourself: Operational Management Plan – Amended ↗ (on Council’s DA tracker, 14 Sep 2026; see the “Primary Use” column)
The planning portal prices it at $19,853,804. No quantity surveyor’s cost report has ever been exhibited, and no request for one appears in the assessment correspondence that has been published.
Council’s last published budget was $11.5 million, in November 2023. Its own minutes say the project is “short on funding for all the inclusions”.
Questions every ratepayer can ask:
Check it yourself: DA2025/1424 on Council’s DA tracker ↗ (see “Cost of Work”)
The assessor visited homes with the height poles up and confirmed some would rank as experiencing a “severe” or “devastating” impact on their views, the top two rungs of the Land and Environment Court’s scale. The assessor then required another height pole.
Five and a half months later, the assessor recorded the private view assessment as “remains incomplete”. Council’s heritage officer also required the height to be reduced. It was not.
It is not only the height. The new building also pushes about 10 m north, towards the beach and the pines. The assessor required public views from the promenade and the beach north of the club to be assessed, and on 24 Aug 2026 recorded that as “pending”.
Check it yourself: Request for Further Information letter ↗ (on Council’s DA tracker, 3 Mar 2026; section 2)
Six of Council’s own departments recorded it “unsupported”: Parks, Waste, Landscape, Traffic, Heritage and Development Engineering. Traffic (14 October 2026) and Development Engineering (23 October 2026) have since re-issued their referrals as supported. As at 30 October 2026 the other four were still recorded “unsupported” on Council’s DA tracker, and the rooms Parks objected to have not changed by a square metre.
Heritage: seven amendments required, none made. Council’s heritage officer found the design “visually dominant and overbearing” and said it “encroaches too far forward into the curtilage of I174”, the heritage-listed Beach Reserve.
The pines pay too. Four trees go, including a Norfolk Island Pine, and a Cook Pine’s root zone is encroached 22% against a 10% limit: a “Major Encroachment” on the applicant’s own arborist’s figures.
Check it yourself: The referral responses on Council’s DA tracker ↗ (Parks, Waste, Landscape and Heritage; Traffic Engineer and Development Engineering, re-issued Oct 2026)
Rebuild it, just not onto the promenade. This is not an argument against surf lifesavers. Manly’s volunteers patrol one of the busiest beaches in the world, and the early-1980s building really is inadequate. Rebuild it. What is objected to is the expansion north onto public land, and the bulk and height with it.
Which of these matters most to you? Pick a topic and start your own submission.
Council’s own traffic referral says the site is in “an area of very high pedestrian and cyclist activity” and asks the applicant to show it “will improve, rather than exacerbate, pedestrian congestion”. Measured from the lodged plans, the gap at pine T6 is 12.7 m today: 4.7 m from the seawall to the pine surround, and 8.0 m from the pine to the existing building. After, it is 6.5 m: the same 4.7 m, plus 1.8 m from the pine to the new built-in seating. The seawall side does not change; the whole loss, 8.0 m to 1.8 m, is on the building side. The route across the front of the club is built over, so walkers, swimmers and anyone carrying a board or ski from the car drop-off to the ramp use that one gap.
In practice the through-route is about 4.7 m, because the 1.8 m strip runs past the entrance to the surf club, the kiosk where people order, and the new seating: people will be queuing, going in and out, and sitting there. That is our judgement of how the space will be used, not a measurement.
In fairness, two things cut the other way. At the north end, where the seawall ends, the ground-level gap gets wider: 3.0 m to 4.1 m, and 5.1 m to 5.7 m just south of it. And at the assessment’s own peak count of about 2,500 people an hour, even 4.7 m rates Level of Service A on the standard walkway measure. The point is where the squeeze falls, beside the entries, seating, kiosk and craft heading for the ramp, not raw capacity.
A best-efforts map to help visualise the impact. Local residents drew it from their own measurements of the applicant’s lodged plans. It is not the applicant’s drawing, not a plan and not a survey. The outlines are approximate.
Ask that the application be refused, so the club is rebuilt within its existing footprint: no expansion north, the ground floor kept within today’s line along the beach frontage, and the height reduced, as Council’s own heritage officer asked.
Walk this path often? Topic 11 has the facts and a question to start you writing ↓
Open DA2025/1424 on Council’s application tracker and use “Make a submission”. It can be short.
This is your open space. The new building pushes north onto the promenade: public reserve set aside for the public, which Council’s own design panel says is Crown land, the walkway everyone uses to reach the beach and the ramp, and the ground under the heritage pines.
And much of it is not for lifesaving. A members’ gym, two bars and a function hall: 431 m² of private club amenity and function space on the applicant’s own schedule. The largest room in the building is a 254 m² store that also holds members’ own racing skis and competition boards.
Tell the Panel what that means to you: the promenade and public space you enjoy, the pines, your view, the beach you use. That is the part nobody else can write, and the part the decision-maker must consider by law. Please don’t copy and paste: two sentences of your own beat a page of anyone else’s.
Not sure where to start? Choose from 25 topics, each with the facts and a question to answer ↓
Say you object and ask that the application be refused, not approved with conditions, so the club can be rebuilt within its existing footprint, with the height reduced, as Council’s own heritage officer asked. It is not a vote against a new surf club.
Tell other people. Your neighbours, your building, and the groups who use the promenade and the beach. Most people don’t know the re-exhibition is open. Organisations can lodge submissions too.
Conditions (“approve it but limit the hours”) don’t fix this. The size can’t be managed: ask for refusal. A condition cannot make an 80% increase minor; refusal is how the smaller building gets built, not an alternative to it.
A submission in your own words counts for far more than a form letter or a copied paragraph. This section gives you facts to cite, not sentences to copy. Each angle has one fact from a published document, a question only you can answer, and something to ask for. Every ask is a reason to refuse, not a condition to approve with. Do not copy the wording here. Use the fact, answer the question in your own words, and make the ask.
How does this building affect you: your view, your street, the promenade you walk, the pines, the beach you use? Say it plainly, first.
Not all of them. Choose the ones you care about, and for each one use the fact and answer the question in your own words.
Say that you object to DA2025/1424 and ask that it be refused. Then say what you want: the club rebuilt within its existing footprint, with the height reduced, as Council’s own heritage officer asked.
Jot down how the building affects you as you read. Use “Add to my notes” on any angle to add its heading, then write the rest yourself.
What bothers you most? Pick a topic, then open any card.
Twenty-five angles: pick two or three, and write them in your own words.
The only control on size is section 6.2 of the Manly Ocean Beach Plan of Management 2002: a “minor increase in floor area and intensity of use”. The building goes from 863 m² to 1,552 m² (+80%) and from two storeys to three.
Plan of Management s 6.2, p.28; applicant’s Response to RFI and Room Area Schedule, Sep 2026
See also: 10 · Public open space
There are no height or floor-space controls on this site.
Floor area is the sum of a building’s floors. A building with more floors has more floor area even if it covers exactly the same ground, and this building goes from two storeys to three.
Council’s own appointed assessor wrote that with no envelope control, “the contents of the building must be scrutinised to ensure that the building footprint and height are appropriate”.
The one provision that limits the size of this building is quoted in Council’s own Statement of Environmental Effects (the main planning report lodged with the application) without the word “minor”. A limit becomes a permission.
Plan of Management s 6.2, p.28; Statement of Environmental Effects s 5.5.1, p.38
“Minor increase… subject to”, which is a limit, has become “an increase… may occur, subject to”, which is a permission.
Don’t guess why it happened. Just point out the difference.
Searched in full, the phrase “minor increase” appears in exactly one document on this file, the assessor’s own Request for Further Information of 3 March 2026.
Council says the ground floor grows about 10%. Measured as floor area, building against building, it goes 452.4 → 665 m², up 47%. The 10% counts a 159 m² open-sided store as building.
Council’s working-group notes, 6 May 2024; lodged Room Area Schedule
The existing 611 m² is 452.4 m² of building plus a 159 m² open-sided craft store at the rear, open to the weather. The proposed figure is building.
In fairness: Council’s 611 m² is not a mistake. As a footprint figure it is orthodox: a footprint is the ground a building covers, and covered storage counts.
It is that footprint is not what the rule measures.
Council and its architects say the design has been cut back substantially: the Design and Sustainability Advisory Panel supported it in February 2026, citing “the substantial reduction in gross floor area – from the original 2325m² sought in the brief to 1552m²”.
But 2,325 m² was never Council’s brief. The applicant’s own Needs Analysis labels that column “Club Requested Area” and the next one “Original Council Suggestion”, at 1,730 m². Against what Council itself asked for, the reduction is 10%.
Against Council’s own brief the gym is 72 m² (suggested 60) and club change rooms 121 m² (suggested 110).
Design and Sustainability Advisory Panel, Feb 2026; Needs Analysis, Aug 2026; Council’s 2022 brief
See also: 7 · Was the gym cut back?
The applicant also points to rescue craft stored under a tarpaulin and substandard facilities for its women members. None of that is disputed.
Once an impact is found, the decision-maker asks whether a more skilful design could reduce it. Council’s own assessor said whether the club’s needs “can be achieved in an envelope with less impact” is “essential to the application”, and asked whether floor heights and the roof could be reduced.
Set against a finding of “severe” or “devastating” view loss, the stated reason for the height of that roof is the service life of the roof sheets.
A smaller design would also stay off the promenade. The building extends about 10 m north onto the promenade. The same question applies to the gym, the bars, the function hall and the 254 m² store. Every rescue function in this application (lifeguards, first aid, rescue craft, training rooms, public amenities) can be built without taking public open space on the promenade.
Request for Further Information, 3 Mar 2026, item 1; assessor’s email, 7 Sep 2026, and the applicant’s reply; Room Area Schedule
See also: 6 · Private club and surf skis · 10 · Public open space · 14 · Views from your home
The applicant’s own heritage consultants describe the existing club as low-scale with a flat roof, whose height “allows direct uninterrupted views to the beachfront and ocean foreshore”, and advise that new development “should limit its height where practical to retain this low scale”.
The externally appointed assessing planner wrote on 24 August 2026: “The need for three training rooms… I am seeking a better understanding that three rooms / 143m² is the necessary space.”
The assessor’s own email records: “Answered by NBC/Club as of Wednesday 2/09/2026 via email”. The answers are not on the public file, and the exhibition closed on 16 October.
Council’s own Operational Management Plan provides a hire programme covering “corporate training, meetings, conferences and seminars”.
The largest room is a 254 m² store, including members’ competition boards. Council’s Parks officers found facilities “over and above” lifesaving needs that “may be located elsewhere”, and suggested storing competition craft in the rear yard the club already controls; the applicant declined.
Parks also say storing competition craft “is not an essential operational requirement for surf lifesaving responses”. Across all three versions of the plans the store is still 254 m². The amendments did not touch a single thing Parks objected to.
The store also holds rescue craft. How the 254 m² splits between rescue gear and members’ own craft has not been published.
Less private storage would mean a smaller ground floor, and less need to push north onto the promenade.
Needs Analysis; Parks referral, 3 Dec 2025; Room Area Schedules, Oct 2025, Aug 2026 and Sep 2026
See also: 5 · The assessor’s question: could it be smaller? · 10 · Public open space
The applicant’s own Needs Analysis describes the store as a permanent home for equipment “that volunteers personally own and maintain in order to train, compete, and respond to emergencies”, including “competition boards belonging to members”.
Parks named “club member only amenities area; training room area; and entry foyer area” among the components “that result in the encroachment of public open space that is not justified”.
The applicant declined, replying that the referral “does not appear to be in keeping with that of the broader Council’s Parks Team”.
In May 2024 residents told Council the members’ gym was too big. Council’s concept plan of that month shows one gym of 125.4 m² on Level 1. The lodged plans show a 72 m² gym and, immediately beside it, a new 37 m² “Training Room 3”, together 109 m², just 16 m² less than the single gym Council drew.
Working group notes and Council’s concept plan, May 2024; lodged Room Area Schedule
See also: 4 · Wants vs needs · 5 · The assessor’s question: could it be smaller?
In November 2023 the residents’ representative told the working group they “were not against a redevelopment” but were “strongly concerned… about any buildings being extended to the northwest”, that the club had “too much ‘private craft storage’ that should not be stored onsite”, and questioned the gym. Six months later the same three points were put again. All three are in the lodged plans: the northward extension, 254 m² of club storage, a 72 m² members’ gym.
Council’s own 2022 brief suggested 60 m² for the gym; the plans show 72.
The application counts balconies for the old building but not the new one.
Its own totals compare 1,209.3 m² for the existing building, including 346.3 m² of balcony, covered outdoor area and storage, with 1,552 m² for the new one, which records none. Yet the plans show two balconies on Level 1 and three decks on Level 2.
Response to RFI, 15 Sep 2026; Comparative Facilities Analysis, 15 Sep 2026; lodged plans
See also: 1 · Too big for the one rule · 22 · Late nights and events
The applicant’s own Comparative Facilities Analysis of 15 September 2026 credits the existing club with “346 m² Balcony, outdoor area and other”. In the very same column, the row “Proposed Manly SLSC” is recorded as 0 m².
The project’s own BCA report requires safety barriers to “decks, raised terraces, balconies and the rooftop drone landing area”.
On a comparable scheme the same design team recorded a 125.2 m² balcony and a 77 m² deck.
Nearly all the new outdoor space is club-controlled.
Council calls it a community facility. Where is the community?
The application promises the community a benefit. The plan for running the building says the community comes second.
On Council’s own use column the public may enter 190 m². The other 1,362 m², 88% of the building, is space the public cannot walk into. Of that, 431 m² is private club amenity and function space, and a further 593 m² is controlled by the club.
On the ground floor, 375 m² is members-only against 95 m² of public amenities for the whole beach. That is almost four times as much members-only space as public amenity, on the one floor that sits on the public reserve.
Application description on Council’s DA tracker; Council’s Operational Management Plan, 14 Sep 2026; Room Area Schedule
See also: 6 · Private club and surf skis · 22 · Late nights and events
The club’s private change rooms are 27% larger than the public ones for the whole beach, and have more showers than the public gets: eight against five.
Council’s own Operational Management Plan: “Members access Club-controlled areas via a FOB/proximity card system… Member bathrooms, relevant rooms and equipment storage areas are restricted to members only.”
The plan’s own summary of who uses the building: “General Public and Community, accessing public amenities, change rooms, and beach promenade.” The toilets, and the footpath outside.
The building extends about 10 m north onto the promenade. Council’s own parks officers would not support “the proposed loss of public open space”, finding it “diminishes recreational opportunities for the general public”. Only the 56 m² net change is reported.
Working-group notes, 6 May 2024; Parks referral, 3 Dec 2025
See also: The pinch-point map · 11 · The new pinch point · 6 · Private club and surf skis
New ground taken at the front, along the promenade: nowhere in the application. Ground released at the rear, which stays in club use: nowhere in the application.
Council’s heritage officer: “Reduce all building encroachments onto public land within the heritage-listed reserve to reinforce the civic and community values of the site.”
Council’s own traffic referral says the site is in “an area of very high pedestrian and cyclist activity”. Measured from the lodged plans, the gap at pine T6 goes from 12.7 m (4.7 m seawall side, 8.0 m building side) to 6.5 m (4.7 m, plus 1.8 m beside the new seating). The route across the front is built over, so walkers, swimmers and boards from the Nippers drop-off to the ramp all use that one gap.
Traffic referral, 19 Feb 2026, p.2 (re-issued 14 Oct 2026 as supported, subject to conditions, with the February comments kept); Transport Impact Assessment, Figure 5-2 (concept layout). Widths: residents’ measurements from the lodged plans, not a survey.
See also: The pinch-point map · 10 · Public open space
The seawall side does not change; the whole loss, 8.0 m to 1.8 m, is on the building side.
In practice the through-route is about 4.7 m, because the 1.8 m strip runs past the entrance to the surf club, the kiosk where people order, and the new seating: people will be queuing, going in and out, and sitting there. That is our judgement of how the space will be used, not a measurement.
In fairness, two things cut the other way. At the north end, where the seawall ends, the ground-level gap gets wider: 3.0 m to 4.1 m, and 5.1 m to 5.7 m just south of it. And at the assessment’s own peak count of about 2,500 people an hour, even 4.7 m rates Level of Service A on the standard walkway measure. The point is where the squeeze falls, beside the entries, seating, kiosk and craft heading for the ramp, not raw capacity.
The applicant’s own heritage consultants say the existing low, flat-roofed club “allows direct uninterrupted views to the beachfront and ocean foreshore”. Council’s assessor asked for public views from the promenade and beach north of the club to be assessed, and on 24 Aug 2026 recorded that as “pending”.
Statement of Heritage Impact; Request for Further Information, 3 Mar 2026; assessor’s email, 24 Aug 2026
See also: 13 · The view from the top: Reddall Street · 14 · Views from your home
The Norfolk Island Pines along this stretch are identified in Council’s own referral as heritage items under Manly LEP 2013: “Ocean Foreshores” (i168) and “Beach Reserve – Merrett Park, North Steyne and South Steyne” (i174), of high scenic quality and high significance. The three-storey element sits in front of them.
Council’s heritage officer asked for the height to be reduced “to retain the public view corridor from the Reddall Street stairs”. The assessor required the view from the Reddall Street lookout to be assessed.
Heritage referral, 24 Mar 2026; Request for Further Information, 3 Mar 2026
See also: 12 · Views walking the promenade · 16 · Heritage advice set aside
The heritage officer also asked to recess the uppermost level significantly to the south so that the natural landscape and rocky ledges below the heritage-listed Borambil “remain visible from the Beach Reserve”.
Council’s own assessor wrote that, based on the height poles, “some properties would rank as experiencing a ‘severe’ or ‘devastating’ impact on their views”, and required another height pole. On 24 Aug 2026 the assessor recorded the private view assessment as “remains incomplete”.
Request for Further Information, 3 Mar 2026, s 2; assessor’s email, 24 Aug 2026
See also: 5 · The assessor’s question: could it be smaller? · 12 · Views walking the promenade
“Severe” and “devastating” are the top two rungs of the five-step scale the Land and Environment Court applies to view loss: negligible, minor, moderate, severe, devastating.
If you have a view, the amended Visual Analysis is the document to check against your own windows, and your own account of what you will lose is the strongest thing you can put in a submission.
Four trees go, including a Norfolk Island Pine. A Cook Pine’s root zone is encroached 22% against a 10% limit, which the applicant’s arborist calls a “Major Encroachment”. Council’s design panel said a palm and two Cook Pines should be kept, “which should lead to reconsideration of a reduction in the building footprint”.
Arboricultural Impact Assessment; Design and Sustainability Advisory Panel, 5 Feb 2026
See also: 16 · Heritage advice set aside · 10 · Public open space
The Norfolk Island Pines and Cook Pines along South Steyne are a grid planting dating from the 1850s-1890s, and the applicant’s own arborist records that T5, T6, T11 and others “appear to form part of” the heritage listing.
Root-zone encroachment on the applicant’s own figures: T6 15% from the building, 22% with the new stormwater pipes · T5 34% with the pipes.
The arborist set out what that would take: the building set back beyond 3.4 m for the palm and beyond 3.9 m for the Cook Pine. The scheduled ground floor is 665 m² in October 2025, 665 m² in August 2026 and 665 m² in September 2026, and the arborist’s addendum records no such setback having been adopted.
Council’s heritage officer wrote that the recommendations “have been largely ignored”. Seven amendments were required; none was made. In the heritage officer’s view, the club sits partly inside the heritage-listed Beach Reserve.
Heritage referral, 24 Mar 2026
See also: 13 · The view from the top: Reddall Street · 15 · The Norfolk Island Pines
Council’s heritage officer, 24 March 2026: “The current design does not adequately address these concerns. The recommendations to set back the second floor and reduce the overall height have been largely ignored, resulting in a concept that remains visually dominant and overbearing.”
In fairness: The existing 1980 building is not a heritage item.
The heritage objection is not to replacing the building. It is that Council’s own heritage officer set seven conditions for replacing it, and none was met.
Six internal referrals were recorded “unsupported” (Parks, Waste, Landscape, Traffic, Heritage, Development Engineering). Traffic (14 October 2026) and Development Engineering (23 October 2026) have since re-issued their referrals as supported. As at 30 October 2026 the other four were still recorded “unsupported” on Council’s DA tracker, and the rooms Parks objected to have not changed by a square metre.
Referral responses on the planning portal; three plan sets, Oct 2025 to Sep 2026
See also: 6 · Private club and surf skis · 16 · Heritage advice set aside
Council’s referral form ends with one sentence recording the outcome. On this file six referrals came back “unsupported” (Parks, Waste, Landscape, Traffic, Heritage and Development Engineering) against eight supported. Traffic re-issued its referral on 14 October 2026, and its outcome now reads: “Subject to conditions the development is now supportable from a traffic engineering perspective.” Development Engineering re-issued its referral on 23 October 2026, ending: “The proposal is therefore supported.” As at 30 October 2026 the other four were still recorded “unsupported” on Council’s DA tracker.
The planning portal shows one figure, $19,853,804. No quantity surveyor’s cost report has been exhibited. Council’s minutes: “short on funding for all the inclusions”.
Planning portal record; working-group minutes, 20 Nov 2023
See also: 9 · Who the building is for · 4 · Wants vs needs
The only dollar figure for the works anywhere in the lodged set is a footnote in the geotechnical report, where a landslide risk table assesses damage “against a projected $20 million construction cost”.
If consent is granted for a building that cannot be funded, which parts get built and which do not, and does the public get to see that before determination, or after?
Council knew in 2018 that the women’s change rooms were too small and that the club’s first aid facilities “lag behind almost every other club in Australia”. Its own records show 889 repair jobs from 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2025; the records exclude capital works.
Council’s maintenance records, released under GIPA; 2018 engagement notes
See also: 25 · Yes to a new club, no to this size
That is not an argument for approving this building. It is an argument for finally doing something the club can actually have.
Sixteen community engagement documents never used the words “Crown land”. Yet Council’s own design panel says “this development is on Crown land which is only managed by Council”. In Feb 2024 Council said the design “will avoid a large expansion onto the promenade”. Three months later it showed an extension of about 10 m north.
Council’s Your Say engagement record, 2018 to 2024; design panel report, 5 Feb 2026
See also: 10 · Public open space · 21 · Answers you can’t see
The zoning, RE1 Public Recreation, appears exactly once in the whole eight years, and only because a resident asked, in writing, whether the promenade and beach reserve would have to be rezoned.
No footprint figure appears anywhere in Council’s public engagement reports, not a percentage and not a square metre.
Key questions from the assessor were answered by emails that are not on the portal. Most of the governing documents went up between 11 and 15 September, days before the 28-day re-exhibition opened.
Response to RFI, 15 Sep 2026; Council email, 18 Sep 2026
See also: 5 · The assessor’s question: could it be smaller? · 20 · What the community was told
Against the questions on the three training rooms and the club room, the assessor’s own email records: “Answered by NBC/Club as of Wednesday 2/09/2026 via email”. Four other items are answered the same way, and none points to a document. The answers are not on the public file, and the exhibition closed on 16 October.
The re-exhibition is 28 days, with most of the documents loaded days before it opened. The amended architectural set and the amended visual analysis went up on 11 September. The amended operational management plan and noise assessment on 14 September. The overlay drawings, the comparative facilities analysis and the response to Council’s request for information on 15 September. The re-exhibition opened on 18 September and closes on 16 October.
The management plan provides two licensed bars trading to midnight six nights a week, and a hire programme for weddings, birthdays and conferences.
Operational Management Plan, 14 Sep 2026
See also: 8 · The balconies left out of the count · 9 · Who the building is for
Council’s own Operational Management Plan provides a hire programme covering “corporate training, meetings, conferences and seminars” and “weddings, birthdays and other private events”, with the club holding “sole control and management of all bookings”.
Twenty-five pages, and not one fee, rent, charge or revenue figure.
Council rated its own conflict of interest High and chose determination by the regional panel as the safeguard. That no longer operates. The application will now be decided by the Northern Beaches Local Planning Panel, with Council still the applicant. That makes a careful, independent assessment matter more, not less.
Conflict of Interest Management Strategy, 13 Oct 2025; GIPA decision, 4 Mar 2026
See also: 17 · Four referrals still “unsupported”
The change is not Council’s doing, and that should be said plainly.
In fairness: the Northern Beaches Local Planning Panel that will decide is not a committee of councillors. Councillors cannot sit on it, and its expert members come from a pool approved by the Minister. The point is not the Panel’s independence. It is that the control Council itself chose for a High-risk application no longer operates, and nothing records what replaced it.
Under Council’s own Council-related Development Applications Policy the chief executive determines whether a council application is high risk. This one was rated High at every phase on 13 October 2025, and the control that policy specifies for that rating is determination by the Sydney North Planning Panel. That control no longer operates, and no document shows anyone weighing its loss or putting another in its place.
Council’s own Plan of Management records that “a native title claim for an area that includes the entire site is listed on the Register of Native Title Claims”. It is not mentioned in the Statement of Environmental Effects or, as far as we can find, in any 2026 document.
Plan of Management 2002; Statement of Environmental Effects
See also: 20 · What the community was told
The Aboriginal due diligence report was still recorded as “forthcoming” in September 2026.
In fairness: the Plan of Management dates from 2002. The application does not say whether the claim is still registered, which is part of the question.
Council’s own heritage officer: “Reduce all building encroachments onto public land within the heritage-listed reserve to reinforce the civic and community values of the site.” Nobody is asking the club to stay as it is.
Heritage referral, 24 Mar 2026
See also: 1 · Too big for the one rule · 10 · Public open space
Every rescue function in this application (lifeguards, first aid, rescue craft, training rooms, public amenities) can be built without taking public open space on the promenade.
So the ask in every submission is refusal of the application as lodged, not approval with conditions, because a condition cannot make an 80% increase minor; refusal is how the smaller building gets built, not an alternative to it.
These are the easiest points for Council to dismiss, so leave them out.
No. Manly’s volunteers patrol one of the busiest beaches in the world, and the early-1980s building really is inadequate: the women’s facilities, the first aid space and the rescue-craft storage all need fixing. Nobody is asking the club to stay as it is. What we object to is the expansion north onto public land, and the bulk and height that comes with it.
Refusal is of this application as lodged, not of a new club. Council knew in 2018 that the women’s change rooms were too small and that the club’s first aid facilities “lag behind almost every other club in Australia”. Its own minutes say the project is “short on funding for all the inclusions”. Every rescue function in this application can be built without taking public open space on the promenade. Refusal is how the smaller building gets built, not an alternative to it.
Conditions (“approve it but limit the hours”) don’t fix this. A condition cannot make an 80% increase minor. More on this in “What to do”.
No. Council’s assessment report recommends approval, but the decision is the Panel’s. The application is listed for the Northern Beaches Local Planning Panel on Wednesday 4 November 2026: see how to speak or write to the Panel. Council’s submission form also says: Development Application submissions received outside the official exhibition period are considered by Council, if received prior to the determination of the application.
You can read everything on Council’s application tracker ↗.
The Northern Beaches Local Planning Panel. It is not a committee of councillors: councillors cannot sit on it, and its expert members come from a pool approved by the Minister. Council is the applicant.
Specific personal impact is what the decision-maker must consider, and it is the one thing nobody else can write for you.
A 2025 submission still counts, but a new one on the amended plans carries weight.
Yes. Council says it makes all submissions available, in full, on its website, with contact details such as phone number and email address redacted. See “Before you press submit” under Lodging.
A group of Manly residents. It is not affiliated with Northern Beaches Council or the Manly Life Saving Club, and it collects nothing from you. Your submission goes directly to Council.
Use Council’s own form for DA2025/1424. Give your name and address, say that you object and ask that it be refused, and keep a copy.
Late submissions. Council’s form says: Development Application submissions received outside the official exhibition period are considered by Council, if received prior to the determination of the application.
With the Panel listed for 4 November, the more direct way to be heard now is to speak or write to the Panel.
Online: go to Council’s DA tracker (eservices.northernbeaches.nsw.gov.au) and search DA2025/1424, then choose “Make a submission”.
Or open the application on Council’s tracker to read the plans and reports first.
Council also accepts an email to [email protected] or a letter, quoting the application number DA2025/1424 and the address of the proposed development.
A 2025 submission still counts, but a new one on the amended plans carries weight.
Your submission will be public. Council says: we make all submissions available, in full, on our website
. It says contact details such as phone number and email address are redacted from public view.
Political donations. NSW Planning has rules about disclosing political donations and gifts when you comment on some development proposals. Before you lodge, read NSW Planning’s guidance on donations and gift disclosure.
Source: Northern Beaches Council, Making a submission.
Want to know what everyone else said? See the main reasons people gave, for and against, with letters you can read. You can also browse every document on the application.