The General Manager 27 July 2007
Eurobodalla Shire Council
PO Box 99
MORUYA NSW 2537

DRAFT DCP - BARLINGS BEACH

Our Association acknowledges that much of this development proposal has been approved by the State Government so we limit our comments to those aspects of the DCP that are still able to reflect the aspirations of the wider community.

FLOODING EVENTS Section 2:9
The DCP does not appear to take into account predicted impacts of climate change, namely increased sea level and more intense storms. It also dismisses the likelihood of flooding from the Bevian Wetland catchment saying this is only small. The developers admit that the water table is only 1.8 to 2m below the surface.

Climate change will increase peak tidal levels, the height of the water table and storm surge heights. Development of the Bevian Wetland catchment will result in more rapid runoff especially during storms.

Recommendation : The development level of 3.3m needs to be re-examined.

VULNERABILITY TO COASTAL EROSION
Dr John Hunter of UTAS (sea level rise expert who is working on the impact on developments in Hobart) advises that when calculating the sea level rise impact on development the rule of thumb is, for every 1 metre of sea level rise there is 100 metres loss of foreshore. While the Barlings Beach dunes may not have been breached since photographs were made that does not mean they will not be in future.

Recommendation: Ensure buildings near the foredune are built to withstand waves.

ASSET PROTECTION ZONE
The DCP allows clearing in the Banksia forest buffer to the Littoral rainforest (pp 13,14) on what will be public land. Coastal Banksia forest is a vulnerable ecosystem. Even more worrying, on page 30, the DCP says "the APZ easement allows maintenance by individual land owners to reduce fire risk". This is an open invitation to even more destruction of the Banksia forest.

Rear setbacks to properties in Zones 2 and 5 should be increased to 8 metres or more (as has been done with those fronting the dunes). An increased rear setback will allow more of the APZ to be on private property, will ensure the properties have more private open space in back yards and will allow for better solar access to the buildings.

Recommendation: Rear setbacks to properties in Zones 2 and 5 should be increased to 8 metres or more

ACCESS TO CONSERVATION ZONES
The DCP specifically prohibits access to the conservation reserve to the rear of lots in Zone 4. Presumably this is to prevent "privatisation" of the buffer adjoining the properties. This restriction should apply to the medium density lots in Zone 5.

Recommendation: Rear access to the conservation zone should be prohibited from the medium density lots in Zone 5.

SETBACK TO DUNE
We understand that the DCP will be amended to exclude ancillary buildings such as garden sheds, etc in the 6-8m setback to the rear boundaries adjoining the dunes.

Recommendation: The DCP be amended to prohibit ancillary buildings in the setback to the rear boundary of lots adjacent to the dune.

COMMERCIAL USE NEAR MELVILLE PT
Our members object to commercial development near Melville Point. Such shops generate large amounts of litter which will inevitably find its way onto the beach or public conservation area. They would also lead to traffic congestion and parking problems

Recommendation: Change the proposed use of the 3 lots to residential - single dwellings.

PLANT SPECIES
Why is the weed Kikuyu being recommended for planting in the development? Native couch or other native grass suited for sandy sites would be better choices.

RISING MAIN
It appears from the diagrams that the rising main passes under the middle of the medium density lots and the Aboriginal Cultural Centre. If this is the case what restrictions will it pose for buildings?

CARPARK
The proposed changes to the carpark extend onto part of the Barlings Beach dune where Dunecare work was done in the past The Southeast corner cuts into the embankment and may impact on the old gravesites as it is not known how far down Melville Point the old cemetery reached. The carpark is rarely full and then only because of haphazard parking of vehicles so the need to extend the carpark is debatable.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Jenny Edwards
Secretary