The General Manager
Paul Anderson
Eurobodalla Shire Council
PO Box 99 MORUYA 2537

Re Draft Eurobodalla Local Environment Plan

Dear Mr Anderson,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Eurobodalla’s Draft Local Environment Plan (LEP), 2009. As you are aware The Coastwatchers Association Inc (Coastwatchers) submitted a preliminary submission to the Eurobodalla Shire Council during the drafting of the LEP. This new submission reiterates that document and goes further to support and suggests alterations to the exhibited Draft LEP. We have resubmitted our preliminary submission so that it may be considered as a formal submission to the Draft LEP.

This submission is written with reference to the Eurobodalla Shire’s obligations under the Council Of Australian Governments (COAG) agreements to conserve the natural environment and have polices that adheres to the concept of Ecological Sustainable Development(ESD). ESD is defined in the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (1992) as ‘using conserving and enhancing the community’s resources so that ecological processes, on which life depends, are maintained, and the quality of life, now and in the future, can be increased’ (1).

Regarding the current Draft LEP, we congratulate the Council for including all relevant mapping into the one plan which should aid in the decision making processes of professional and non professional people dealing with development of the shire. However, we feel that ideally more time and resources are needed to refine the boundaries of wetlands and Ecological Endangered Communities as well as consultation regarding community based Place Statements. Until this work can be completed we would advise a precautionary approach be taken to the Draft LEP.

We strongly support the direction of the Draft Plan in particular the E1, E2, E3, and E4 zonings and recommend adoption of these with some minor modifications to bring them into line with their objectives.

In particular, we feel that Lots 1,2,12,23,24,153,155,157 and 158(lots 18-22),159,269 and 292, DP 752137 Parish of Congo, County of Dampier be shown as E2 rather than E3. Our justification for this request is that these lands, subject of comprehensive archaeological study, have been found to be of high cultural value and therefore appropriately reflect the aims of the E2 zone which seeks to protect these values (2). Furthermore, north south vegetation corridors should be a priority to link the flora and fauna communities of the different sections of the Eurobodalla National Park. We further note that parts of this area are listed on the Register of the National Estate and the Statement of Significance states that ‘this area preserves good examples of a number of important types of archaeological sites…. The extent of the worked material and the good condition of the sites which comprises the site is uncommon… and the place is important to the local Aboriginal people’.

Part 1 Preliminary
 
The aims of the plan added by Council are very appropriate for our shire.  The draft LEP largely supports the Settlement Strategy, Structure Plans and natural resource studies done for the region. However, we recommend that the following is added to the Aims of the Draft LEP. Add 2(i) ‘reduce land clearing and focus development onto cleared and degraded lands’.
 
Aim 1.2.2(c)

This aim focuses on the economy of the Shire; however there is little evidence within the document to support this aim. Many contemporary geographers and demographers describe sea change areas like the Eurobodalla as generally depressed and economically unviable. In particular, Baum (2006) and Stimson, Baum and 0’Connor (2003) describe the Eurobodalla as ‘a disadvantaged welfare/retirement dependant region’ (3). This is despite a history of strong development. It is therefore apparent that the economic model of the past 25 years has failed to bring any long term benefits to the area. We conclude that this LEP will be a business as usual document and fail to meet the aim of clause 2(c).

We therefore recommend that a clear statement be added to the Draft LEP that demonstrates how the aim 1.2.2(c) will be achieved. If the economic development model for the Shire is not changed from the past development at all costs ethos, the Council, through the Draft LEP, will be repeating the mistakes of the past and exposing generations of ratepayers and the Council itself to severe financial stress. We raise this issue here because of recent public statements from Councillors Thompson and Vardon regarding the futures of the Shire which lacked insight into the seriousness of the economic issues that faces the Shire.

Aim 1.9 (2)

We support the clause to NOT APPLY the Lower South Coast Regional Environment Plan No 1 from this Draft LEP.

Land Use Table

Existing uses continue under the new LEP.  This has the effect of undermining some of the aims of the zones within the Draft LEP.  Where harmful land uses such as grazing of riparian buffers or EECs exist there should be provision in the Plan for phasing out these uses.

RU1 remove electricity generation works from ‘permitted with consent’
RU2 remove electricity generation works from ‘permitted with consent’
RU3 remove electricity generation works from ‘permitted with consent’
RU4 agree
RU5 add Mogo, Nelligen and Nerrigundah
R2 agree, however the minimum lot size of 450sqm if applied to the land west of Rosedale would contradict the low density nature of the zone. A more appropriate minimum lot size of 600sqm should be applied to this area. Seniors housing is allowed in low density urban eg where they want to build seniors units at Rosedale.  There should be some clause specifying that seniors housing must be near town centres and facilities.
R3 agree but would seek to have  ‘shop top housing’ removed as permitted with consent as this has led to considerable conflict in suburban environments in the past and can also critically add to the bulk of buildings.
We do not see why land that is prone to flooding/coastal inundation should be zoned R3 Medium Density.  How could any development properly satisfy a consent authority that it will not affect any of the things listed under subclause 6.2 (2).  There will inevitably be “social and economic costs to the flood affected community or general community” so what is meant by “unsustainable social and economic costs”.
Where the community has expressed a firm desire for a lower height limit this should be observed – the R3 zone near Tuross shops, for instance.
R5 remove secondary dwellings as it would be difficult to achieve the objectives of the zone, that is, to preserve and minimise the impacts of this type of development on the environmental and scenic qualities of an area.
There are zonings of land R5 that are remote from services that undermine sound planning principles For instance it is difficult to see the advantage of subdivision down to 2Ha lots in an area that has an existing use as animal boarding kennels (west of the Princes Hwy and south of Jeremadra). This contravenes the principles within the Draft LEP and this use is prohibited development within the R5 zone. We therefore recommend that this area be zoned RU4 and shown as A1 in the Lot Size Map 011.
IN1 Generally the strategic development of industrial land in the Shire has been very poorly thought through. The Nth Moruya industrial zone extension (general industrial not just light industrial like the rest of that area) has avoided most of the flood prone land and potential acid sulphate soils but takes in most of the surrounding endangered ecosystem.  If this zoning is adopted will offsets apply and what will be the ratio set to improve the percentage of EEC lost to development?
SP3 We support the apparent prohibition of residential units in the SP3 Tourist zone for the Zoo, The Oaks Ranch and The Moorings.  However, the Moorings already has residential units and wants to build more of them.  How will this and similar proposals for SP3 zones be treated? We have heard that Oaks Ranch wants to build residential units too. We object to Barlings Beach Van Park being zoned SP3. We believe that to be consistent with the Draft LEP it should  be RE2 like other privately owned caravan parks.  SP3 would allow resort style development which would be completely unsuitable for this low-lying beach-front site that also includes the main drainage line from Barlings Wetland. Given climate change, rising sea level and future development of the wetland catchment it makes the site much more likely to be inundated.
B1 agree
B2 agree but the main street of Narooma needs clarification and the B2 zone should be removed from Broulee.
B4 agree
B5 disagree with the clause relating to the Surf Beach precinct. This whole saga has been ill conceived particularly the design of the road network. We feel that the road known locally as the Spine Rd should not have intersected with the coastal road near the tip site. The prior zoning of the land surrounding the land fill site as industrial does not justify the continued use of the area for bulky goods style development. This in planning terms is a very poor outcome driven by Council’s desire to realise a return on land holdings rather than sound planning and social principles. 
W1 We are pleased to see this zoning of the natural waterways.  If not already covered under water recreation structures, we think the zone should also allow low-impact activities such as hire of canoes or other non-motorised craft.

Electricity Generation Works

We want the definition of “electricity generation works” to expressly prohibit nuclear plants and bio-mass power plants that use products from native forests. If it is not possible to define this use clearly, we would like to see electricity generation works listed as prohibited in RU1, RU2 and RU3 Zones.

This is a very contentious issue in the Eurobodalla. Because of the vague nature of the definition and that the definition is a non negotiable part of the Dictionary this land use should be left out until the Council has a policy outlining the types of electricity generation works compatible with the needs and views of the community. For instance, electricity can be generated from a number of sources, commonly coal; there are emerging generation opportunities such as solar wave and wind. The full range power generation options should be investigated and those incompatible with the regions natural amenity rejected. We understand that this is subject of the NSW SEPP for Infrastructure and that there is provision within this SEPP for domestic energy units and that the use of native forests is prohibited as a source of energy for Biomass burners, however we strongly believe that this Draft LEP should have provisions that reflect the views of the community and recommend that provisions for this type of development be clearly defined and included in the final LEP.

E3
We are pleased to see that most sensitive land is zoned E3 Environmental Management apart from an area at Congo (see above).  This flags to land owners and developers the constraints they will have to consider in proposing developments for the land. As mentioned earlier in this submission, the economy of the Shire cannot withstand a business as usual approach to development of the area. Although rural landholders may complain that the Draft LEP impinges on their rights to farm their land, evidence presents a different picture of the realities of land use in the Shire. Rural land use in the as at the 30th June 2004 indicates that of the 2327 holdings in the Shire 2114 holdings were primarily used for residential/lifestyle; that is 91% of rural land is NOT primarily used for agricultural purposes (4).

The South Coast Regional Strategy further supports the Bureau of Statistics findings by indicating that most of the jobs growth in the area will be in finance, administration, business services, health and aged care and tourism.

The graph below shows the trends in employment by industry in the Eurobodalla Shire over three census periods. Of interest, is the decline in the traditional industries of Farming, Fishing and Forestry and the growth of Service Industries (5).

We conclude that the perception that E3 zonings will adversely impact on the welfare and economy of the Shire is false and that the development that does occur in this zone if managed sensitively will help underpin the areas reputation as a desirable tourism destination.    

We agree with the inclusion of non subdivision rules, shown as A1, in the Lot Size Maps Nos 001-014. With regard to Maps 012-014, these contain too many 2Ha blocks many of which are fragmented in the landscape. This represents very poor planning for the future of the shire and glaringly highlights the inadequacies of past planning instrument for this shire.

We are particularly pleased to see some areas which we have raised concerns about in the past zoned E3 eg:

• Maloneys eco resort site
• Part of the urban expansion land at Long Beach
• Most of the surrounds of Nelligen
• Private land west of George Bass Drive, Bengello
• West of Congo village
• Duesbury Hill south of Duesbury Rd
• Land at Glasshouse Rocks Rd, Naroma except the industrial land
• Most of the land east of the Hwy south of Bullengella Lake.

Much of this land South Moruya rural small holdings east of the Highway  is mapped as EEC and habitat corridor but this is not reflected in the zoning which should be E3 not RU4 because of these significant environmental features.

E2 We strongly support the E2 zoning of waterfront land at Wharf Rd, Batemans Bay.  It supports the findings of the Coastal Hazards Management Plan for the area. Congratulations for zoning some of the publicly owned land at Bengello E2 and we suggest that other EECs should also be zoned E2.

The crown land at Durras has so many threatened species and contains an EEC) that is should be zoned E2 instead of E3.
 
We are disappointed that the Bengello land nearest Broulee is proposed to be zoned RE1 Public Recreation.  The area is identified as Yellow-bellied Glider habitat, is vegetated with an Endangered Ecological Ecosystem and is mapped as habitat corridor.  If the zoning is adopted it is hard to see how any Plan of Management could reconcile recreational use such as sports fields with the need to preserve the vegetation. This contradicts the directions of the South Coast Regional Strategy to improve and enhance the natural environment and contravenes the Council’s obligation in law to protect threatened ecosystems and biodiversity. This last point has been the subject of precedents set in the Land and Environment Court of NSW.

Part 3: Exempt and Complying Development

Coastwatchers agrees with this section in total Part 3 Exempt and Complying Development However we must highlight the different approaches between the NSW Scientific Committee (describing) vs the Eurobodalla Shire’s method of mapping of EECs.

Part 4: Principled Development Standards

4.1 &4.2

Coastwatchers supports these sections of the Draft LEP but has some concerns regarding strata plan and community title development. We suggest that 4.1(4) be reworded so that strata plan and community title developments meet minimum lot size requirements compatible to the amenity of the surrounding area.

4.3
The two parts to this section are very subjective and need to be tightened up to exclude over shadowing of buildings and the word “desired” should be removed.

Part 5 Miscellaneous Provisions

Part 5.6 Architectural Roof Features is of concern to our Associations members. Some contemporary examples of poor roof design or over height development are; the design of the roof of the Moruya East commercial precinct development by Silver Spirit Partners, that we believe is unsuitable in a semi rural environment and represents poor design. Another example is Development Application 677/09, due for consideration at the Council meeting 28/7/2009. The height of the building is 15 metres and the architectural features add another 4 metres to the height of the building. This exploitation of the height rules and poor design options undermines the Objective 2 of development standard 4.3(2). We therefore recommend that a percentage of the height for architectural roofs for new buildings be set at not more than 20% of the height of the building.

We agree with all other local provision in this section of the Draft LEP.

Part 6 Additional Local Provisions

Part 6.2 Development on Flood Prone Land  

We agree with this section of the provisions and strongly support Part 6.2 (3).

Part 6.3 Biodiversity Lands

It would have been ideal to have a comprehensive Regional Biodiversity Plan to properly inform this section of the Draft LEP. The objectives of this section are to ‘maintain and improve the biodiversity of landscapes’. This ignores the impacts that inappropriate development can have on the biodiversity of the freshwater and marine environments. Therefore the word ‘landscape’ should be amended to read all ecosystems including marine, freshwater and terrestrial environments.

Part 4 (d) should be removed in total. If adverse impacts cannot be avoided the development should NOT proceed. To do otherwise is not consistent with the objectives of this section. To not maintain and improve the areas of EECs in the shire is contradictory to the obligations of the Council under many inter-governmental conventions and agreements.

Part 6.4 Riparian Lands

We endorse this section of the Draft LEP and would wish to see mechanisms built into the consent process that guarantees that the Riparian Lands would be protected and improved. In order to allow the buffers to cope with the landward migration of waters due to sea level rise we suggest that this can be achieved by making, as a condition of consent for development on the same lot, the fencing off the riparian lands on that lot. The coordinating mechanism could be a devolved grant from the Southern Rivers Catchment Management Authority for the fencing and off stream watering points were applicable. This can be easily written in as a condition of consent.

Part 6.5 Habitat Corridors

This is a very important part for the long term sustainability of the biodiversity of the shire. Coastwatchers submitted a series of maps in our preliminary submission to Council and we attach those maps as part of this formal process (See Appendix 1).

In particular we would wish to see the area east of Deep Creek Dam, an area west of Bodalla that connects public lands across the Tuross Valley and West of Tuross Lake. We are disappointed that the rural land north of Coila Lake through to the west is zoned RU2 Landscape Protection.  This doesn’t seem to give much hope of establishing and keeping a wildlife corridor through there although it is the only place where a viable link between the east and west of the Highway could be established.

The Draft LEP is unclear in regards to the interplay between the Rural Fires Act and the impacts of development within the Habitat Corridors. In the case of development within these areas the connectivity of vegetation communities should take priority.

Part 6.6 Wetlands/Coastal Lakes

The identification of Wetlands has been contentious in the Eurobodalla since the introduction of the SEPP14. This is because the original mapping was taken from Topographic Maps without reference to the actual perimeters of the wetlands. All wetlands and lakes should be precisely identified. Once this is finalised appropriate buffers need to be identified including an allowance for the potential impacts of sea level rise on coastal lake catchments.

Although we agree with the intent of this section we have little confidence that it will properly protect these sensitive sites. In the interim we suggest that buffers be included greater than that for Category 1 streams  in Local Provision 6.4.3 (a). The justification for this relates to the poor flushing of the shire’s wetlands and lakes which is reflected by their greater sensitivity to pollution and sedimentation.

Part 6.7 Development of Urban Release Areas

Some Urban Expansion zones are not suited to the purpose – eg

The urban expansion of Mystery Bay would see the doubling of the village although it is miles from centralised services at Narooma. This would be contrary to the directions of the South Coast Regional Strategy to discourage development that is not close to services. On the other hand we are supporting the logical expansion of Moruya and Narooma to the south.

The development of the Long Beach area would add unacceptable levels of traffic to the Princes Highway/Long Beach intersection and more delay on the Clyde River Bridge. This was highlighted in the Roads and Traffic Authorities submission to the Sensitive Sites Review in which they called for any development north of the Clyde River Crossing should include ‘significant contributions’ from the developer towards a second crossing of the river.

Public utility infrastructure

See above comment re the second crossing of the Clyde River at Batemans Bay

Part 6.9 Development of Land Subject to Coastal Hazard
Clause 1 (c) should be removed. There are some things that are non-negotiable. Development of land that is subject to coastal hazard is irresponsible and leads to unrealistic expectations from land holders. The lands very nature of being vulnerable to coastal hazard should sterilize the use of that land.

Part 6.8 Dwellings in zones RU1, RU2 and E3

We support the provisions in this section but have some difficulty understanding the intent of part (3). We suggest that this is reworded and the words ‘but may’ removed.

Part 6.13 Development on Ridgetops in Zones RU1, RU2, E3, E4, R2 and R5

This contradicts the objective of the E3 zone ‘to promote the preservation, conservation and enhancement of major landscape features and the preserve prominent hill slopes and ridgelines’. The zone E3 should be removed from this section of the Draft LEP so that ridgeline development does not occur.

Part 6.15 Building Height-Beach Road Land

Coastwatchers support the intensification of this part of Batemans Bay on the basis that it discourages coastal urban sprawl. Unfortunately this is not supported by other parts of the Draft LEP which seems to support many of the planning mistakes evident in the current planning instrument. Therefore we see little real benefit in supporting these height limits unless a firm direction is given by Council to halt coastal urban sprawl.

We object to the height limit of 11.5m seaward of Beach Road in the vicinity of the Batemans Bay Marina. If development occurs on the opposite side of Beach Road to a height of 15 metres (no objection) this will cause a tunnelling effect along the road and poor amenity for locals and tourists. This tunnelling impact could be exacerbated if developers take advantage of the generous architectural roofline provisions in the Draft LEP. To avoid this impact a reduction of height seaward of Beach Road is warranted and the establishment of an easement for public access along the foreshore desirable.

Part 6.16 Short-term Accommodation

The Council should take firm action to require development consent for this activity. Not to do so makes a mockery of the planning system and causes disadvantage to like businesses in the area, B&Bs for example, and long suffering residents.