You don't have to look around too hard to see the rapid changes occurring on Eurobodalla's coast. As in all coastal areas of NSW, villages are turning into towns, towns into mini-cities and natural landscapes are being transformed into urban and rural-residential subdivisions, void of most vegetation.
The NSW coast is under huge pressure from a growing demand for coastal properties (either by investors or people moving now), from the subsequent spiralling land prices and from speculators and developers who are marketing the coast to create that demand and cashing in on the "good times" while they last.
Recently the Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources produced population projection figures to 2051. They rated the coastal regions as the fastest growing in NSW after Sydney. With relatively few migrants from overseas moving to the coastal regions and a projected decline in the annual birth rate the pressure is mainly coming from intrastate from those wanting to escape the cities and inland NSW.
The NSW 2003 State of Environment Report shows actual growth has fallen in the five years to 2002 compared to the previous five years. The difference between the projected growth and development accompanying it and actual growth is probably a reflection that most of the development growth occurring right now in places like Eurobodalla is in investment properties and holiday homes - the actual population growth to fill those developments is likely to occur once baby boomers reach retirement over the next 10-20 years. This fits predictions by DIPNR that up to a third of the populations in most regional coastal areas will be over 65 by the year 2030.
As land and house prices spiral, fewer people seeking rented accommodation or first homes will be able to afford to live on the coast unless there is reasonable and steady work available for them. Apart from tourism and services one of the main employers on the regional coast is the building trade and associated industries, so a huge number of existing residents and newcomers are reliant on perpetual growth in new housing to keep them employed so as to pay their mortgages or rent. Just as the desire by so many to live on the coast due to its attractiveness is leading to its degradation, the desire by so many to see development continue to grow so they can stay employed has created a spiral that will be hard to escape.
When I visited Eurobodalla 18 months ago, I was shocked by the extent of urban sprawl and rural residential development resulting in the fragmentation and loss of native vegetation. The newish Long Beach Estate I thought was the saddest example of lack of sympathy for the natural landscape. I saw it again this time - it is now like a dead moonscape dotted with … oversized and largely empty mansions or dual occupancies between the vast expanses of completely cleared land . When you consider the beautiful old growth coast forest that was there before it is nothing short of a crime that this was allowed to occur. The prices asked are so high that very few can afford to live there now so it appears a lot of destruction has occurred for nothing and sadly continues to occur as the developer frantically continues to market the place and buyers come and go. Whether this estate gets filled up over the next 10-20 years as baby boomers retire, remains to be seen, but added to existing housing it appears that Eurobodalla at least is vastly oversupplied with housing right now and new empty investments or holiday homes are more the norm than exception.
Other issues in Eurobodalla that reflect what else is occurring on the regional coast include:
The styles of most new developments are similar on the coast everywhere you go. Huge multi-garaged, multi bathroomed mansions that eat up natural vegetation and replace it with thirsty manicured lawns and non native plants or with concrete. Lack of shade from trees or no sympathy with aspect means huge demands on power. There is no consideration for using natural resources sustainably.
The impact this development growth is having on the coast is enormous. The natural environment is suffering in many ways. As coastal forests, wetlands and heath for example are replaced with hard surfaces, our wildlife, including threatened species have less chance of survival. As the natural filters, regulators and providers of water are degraded and replaced with development, incidences of flooding will increase in some areas while in others there will be less water available. Remnant vegetation, including that in reserves, will become more vulnerable to feral animal and weed invasion, and more prone to fire caused by humans. More pressure will also be put on Services to burn remnant vegetation to "protect" all those new houses spreading into the bushland. More roads and vehicles will mean more road kill and more fragmentation of the bush and as corridors are eroded animals will become more isolated and unable to properly feed, breed or migrate. Water will become increasingly polluted and flows affected by urban run off, sewage overflow, erosion and sedimentation.
You could compare the landscape to a Swiss Cheese. As the holes increase there will be less and less to keep the cheese together until eventually the whole system collapses.
If we accept that growth in development is inevitable, and it is not possible to prevent people from moving to the regional coast from the cities, does this mean we have to accept that the coastline will be transformed into one long string of urban housing estates?
My answer to that is no, but it will require tough choices and trade offs. It will require a firm commitment to planning that is designed with nature, not against it. It might mean saying ok to sympathetically located apartment blocks in return for stemming urban sprawl. Or it might mean opting for new settlements in locations further back from the coast in areas where land is already cleared. It would also mean requiring all new development to be environmentally sustainable in terms of water and power use.
It would mean planning that goes from a regional down to a local level and that doesn't work on a development by development basis; that is designed with nature not against it and that doesn't allow developers and landowners to drive it. It would mean ensuring that wetlands, lakes, rivers and creeks, wildlife corridors and certain vegetation communities are absolute no go areas. Planning would have to be more certain, less flexible and state clearly what is allowed and what isn't and shouldn't be able to be changed at a developer's whim. Coastal design guidelines such as those developed by the former Coastal Council of NSW should be mandatory as should Development Control Plans and Local Environment Plans should be clearer and more detailed and include ESD principles.
In the end it comes down to having the will to change the way
things are. I believe that there are many councils, staff within
them, people working in government departments and politicians
and certainly many people in the broader community who care enough
about the beautiful coastline to work towards a change that places
the landscape and environment at the forefront of planning.