Eurobodalla Shire Council
PO Box 99
MORUYA NSW 2537

14th March 2008

Re Surf Beach Bulky Goods Concept Plan

Firstly, we congratulate Council in proposing to markedly reduce the physical footprint of industrial zoned land which is subject of the concept plan.
In responding to the Surf Beach Concept Plan, Coastwatchers Association are concerned that the development of all public land in the Eurobodalla Shire Council’s (ESC) is and must be, undertaken competently, fairly and in the community’s best interest.

The undertaking of the consultant GHD in formulating The Surf Beach Draft Concept Plan is primarily to be guide to appropriate future land uses and to clarify future zoning under the new Local Government Environmental Plan (LEP) before developing a development Control Plan. The wide range of community needs must be canvassed during the consultation phase before a new zoning plan is determined.

The Development Application submitted last year by the Walker Corporation for the earthworks associated with construction of a 19,000sqm bulky goods centre on a 4.8ha site of public land, appears to pre-empt the consultation process. It has raised many concerns about this proposal, the whole site and the specific stage one site it would occupy, which is described as being on “Council Land”. Land that is, in parts, known to be ecologically sensitive and the concept plan is incompatible with the wishes of the local community.

Coastwatchers have some major reservations about the Surf Beach Draft Concept Plan which are detailed in dot point format below:

Land Use and Zoning:

• The bulky goods development, in particular the DA for the 4.8ha Walker Bulky Goods development is already under consideration, but any decision on development should be deferred until after the new LEP review process is underway and zoning and land uses can be determined through a legitimate community consultation process.
• The document is defined as the Surf Beach Draft Concept Plan yet the document only deals with a portion of Surf Beach, left out are the residential, commercial and seaside recreational precincts. The concept of a locality precinct plan is commendable and as such must include the totality of the locality. To do less could be construed as confusing and not addressing the full potential of a ‘concept plan’.
• Within the document the majority of drawings and imagines contained no scale or dimensions. This is problematic because as a concept document scale and presents are significant issues.
• Strategically, it does not appear to be sound town planning to local a potential high turnover retail operation in the middle of what is normally defined as a high quality residential locality.
• Regarding any receipt of a DA for a bulky goods proposal any decision on development should be deferred until after the LEP process is underway and zoning and land uses can be determined through a legitimate community consultation process.
• The subject site described as ‘Council land’ has in the past been zoned for Non-Urban Special Uses and is currently zoned for industrial purposes, but this should not restrict the land from being considered for purposes other than industrial, that are in accordance with more ecologically based and sustainable outcomes for, the local community and the environment, and rezoned accordingly.
• Council has supported this zoning without considering any rezoning for other more appropriate uses of this site. Interestingly, in the case of the Batemans Bay Marina redevelopment, Council has not hesitated to rezone to allow prohibited uses in the Sensitive Coastal Zone. This demonstrates to Coastwatchers Association that Council will consider rezoning to allow development but not to conserve threatened species.
• Other appropriate land uses are discussed, but considered to be limited due to the proximity of the tip and STP, but residential development already exists outside the 400m buffer zone surrounded by bush, and well separated from the tip and STP by a heavily vegetated ridge.
• The close proximity of the site to this already established residential area and to Wimbie and Surf beaches, which are both popular tourist attractions, are legitimate concerns for local residents who believe that an industrial and bulky goods development is not compatible with the amenity of the Surf Beach locality.
• The land is considered unsuitable for large-scale health facilities, such as hospitals. This is despite the study commissioned by Council, which identified this land as a potential site for a regional hospital. Although the site has been ruled out for this use, there is still the potential for a smaller scale medical facility, and this could be explored.
• As with any concept plan, there is no guarantee that future assessment of this industrial development proposal would adhere to this Concept Plan. In reality it could later be drastically altered allowing the ecologically sensitive nature of the site to be compromised, as occurred with the Bay Ridge development. Mention must be made that the height of the buildings can be varied under delegated authority by the Eurobodalla Shire Council. This gives us little confidence that this proposal will not look like all other bulky goods estates in other parts of the country. In fact we ask Council to assure us and the community by formal notice and motion of Council that the height of the building will not be varied from the concept plan.
• In other cities /towns industrial parks are located well away from residential areas, e.g. Fyshwick, Mitchell and Hume in Canberra, where a greater range of retail, industrial and bulky goods services complement each other and space provides for future expansion.
• An industrial park and associated bulky goods storage facilities would be better-located closer to the Princes Highway, the existing Batemans Bay CBD/industrial estate or Moruya CBD, where the potential for better consumer and employee access, and passing trade from the highway would make it more commercially viable. The concept plan is misleading and inaccurate in representing the road lay out and should be with drawn for comment, redrawn and readvertised.

Environmental Constraints:

• The confirmed existence of a number of Endangered Ecological Communities (EECs), listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act, on the site should preclude it from this type of industrial and bulky goods development.
• The location of EECs, habitat movement corridors and areas of high ecological value on the site are highlighted in Fig 3 of the Concept Plan, including the triangular section in the northwest corner of the site and the 4.8ha “Walker” site at the northeast corner. While damage to the natural environment on the remainder of the site appears to be kept to a minimum and measures have been taken to protect identified endangered ecological communities, wildlife corridors and riparian zones, the ecological value of the site has yet to be agreed upon and requires further expert examination.
• This Consultant comments on the disagreement and emphasizes that ‘the extent of areas with high ecological value remain an issue and that more detailed ecological assessment is required to ensure that threatened species are protected and that habitat is appropriately retained.
• It is unlikely that further costly ecological assessment could provide more conclusive results, but if this were the case, the proposed site uses could change considerably and affect the final layout of development of the site
• The most recent study identified areas of potentially high ecological value, having endangered ecological communities of Swamp Sclerophyll Forest, that generally coincide with riparian corridors and also identified the high ecological value of the Walker site as being highly unsuitable for any commercial or residential purpose due to the presence of a creek bed and its location within the 400m STP exclusion zone.
• The Concept Plan fails to preserve an important wildlife corridor and exposes the site of any development to high site preparation and construction costs to control water flows and treatment of the air inside of any of the buildings.
• The triangular northwest precinct is proposed for a business park in the first scheme and to be left undeveloped in the alternative. This in area that could be rezoned for residential use in keeping with the surrounding homes. The land is steep, only lightly vegetated and the corridor north of the Spine Rd has been compromised by past development. The corridor value of the Walker site is much higher.

The development of the STP and the tip:

• The sewage treatment plant (STP), landfill and quarry operations on the subject site provide limitations on other development to ensure their continued operation and to avoid encroachment from other sensitive uses, but Council have specified that they should be accommodated in the Concept Plan.
• Their retention could influence the site’s potential land uses and ignores some relevant facts. At its December 2007 meeting council agreed to an important and expensive program to upgrade the STP technology expected to reduce airborne pollution from the plant, reducing its nuisance value, particularly outside the 400m exclusion zone.
• It is a long-standing council policy to eventually resite the tip. This policy recognises that its present location does not meet modern environmental standards and this was restated when council introduced kerbside recycling. The community was advised that it was managing its operations in pursuit of an objective of “no waste to landfill by 2015’.
• The life of the existing landfill within the 400m buffer zone has a future life of 10­15 years and the site is deemed suitable for reuse as a sporting facility or public recreation after remediation and revegetation. This would be a sensible use of the site.
• As stated in the Concept Plan, any future use of the STP site would need the approval of the Department of Environment and Climate Change and the effects of odour, noise, contamination and other impacts would need to be mitigated before it could be put to other uses. Coastwatchers believes these precautions are wise, given the environmentally sensitive nature of the remainder of the site.
• There was no mention in the Concept Plan of the remediation and reuse of the quarry site. What if anything, could the site be used for when it is no longer operational?

Conclusion:
Coastwatchers requests that the Final Draft of The Concept Plan be realistic and that future land uses and zonings under the new Local Environmental Plan (LEP) result in favourable outcomes for residents of Surf Beach. Residents’ concern that the site in question is clearly not suited for a large-scale commercial development, especially not on public land, must be taken into account.

Likewise, the current impasse on the areas of potentially high ecological value that will likely determine the outcome of the northeast corner of the site needs to be satisfactorily resolved before the Walker Bulky Goods Proposal is even considered.

Coastwatchers Association formally requests the Eurobodalla Shire Council to rezone the area covered by the Surf Beach Concept Plan to a less intrusive zoning including for conservation of the threatened species known to occur in the vicinity.

Yours Sincerely

Mark Fleming (President)