The Director, 4 May 2005
Urban Assessments
GPO Box 3927
SYDNEY NSW 2001
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL - BARLINGS BEACH, TOMAKIN
Amended plans to subdivision of land
DA 77-3-2002
SUMMARY
Coastwatchers objects to many aspects of this proposal -
Our Association objects to the way these amended plans were advertised. There are more lots than previously, and 157 not 135 as stated in the advertisement. The advertisement also said the plans were "to enable subsequent development for approximately 183 dwellings". This too is misleading as the subdivision is likely to have many more dwellings and the amended Master Plan itself (sections 6.12.2 and 8.6.3) says there will be around 215 dwellings - probably also an underestimate as we will argue below.
As we have said previously we support some aspects of the Master Plan but the amendments do not overcome some of our concerns.
OBJECTIONS
Covenants are useless
The developers rely heavily on the use of covenants on the title of the lots to prevent future re-subdivision or dual occupancy; to control the type of buildings and where they are placed on the lots; to preserve some native vegetation; and to control what people plant in their gardens. They argue that the covenants will be enforced by an incorporated community association while also arguing that a large proportion of the dwellings will not be permanently occupied (hence lower traffic numbers). Even if all the residents were full time occupants it is highly unlikely that they would form such an association and try to police the covenant.
As council staff pointed out earlier, the Rural LEP (and the Urban LEP) enable development to be carried out in accordance with the LEP even if the development would otherwise be prohibited by a private covenant or other agreement. "This means that any covenant is considered in the assessment of an application but is not required to be adhered to in granting an approval."
The Master Plan suggests that the development guidelines it contains should be used to vary DCP 183. Eurobodalla Council has a long record of approving developments that involve significant variations to DCPs and other planning guidelines. If the Barlings Beach proposal is to have any hope of achieving its objectives then the items in the covenant will need to be a site specific amendment to the relevant LEP.
Number of lots and dwellings - The Rural LEP's Urban Expansion Zone 10 is extremely flexible and much denser development is possible with consent. If most of the site is eventually zoned Residential 2g under the Urban LEP, as the Master Plan proposes, then dual occupancies would be possible on all lots.
The number of dwellings will have a significant impact on sewer, water and electricity requirements; the traffic numbers; the types of roads that are needed; the adequacy of parking areas at the beach and boat ramp; and the pressure on the conservation zones.
Building and Landscape design - While a site specific amendment to the LEP may control lot sizes and building envelopes it is unlikely to be successful in implementing the Master Plan's design objectives for buildings or landscape. The Master Plan promotes a certain style of architecture which complements the site but then goes on to say that it is not the intent to confirm housing types and styles. "The design of dwellings should comply with council's existing development controls and any variations incorporated within this Master Plan". Given the Long Beach example we can expect the estate to fill up with numerous over-sized and inappropriate McMansions.
Once the estate is developed people will do what they want on their own properties. They will plant what they like, remove trees that they don't like, and mow where they want to. Tall reeds growing in the swales are unlikely to last long. What will be the effect on water quality if they are mown?
Figure 11 in the Master Plan shows some of the road reserves as "secondary wildlife movement corridors". This claim is too far-fetched. Even if a few street trees survive the view seekers and reach maturity the "corridors" are only likely to be used by birds, and even then only those which are most tolerant of humans.
Sensitive environmental features will be significantly degraded.
Eurobodalla Rural LEP (1987) p 2 - Objective of zone
10
Cl 1 (e) "to ensure that sensitive environmental features,
including wetlands, archaeological sites and areas of high scenic
or scientific value, are identified and permanently conserved."
The Comprehensive Regional Assessment process identified coastal banksia forest as a vulnerable ecosystem in the Eurobodalla Shire. This forest deserves protection in its own right - not just the dominant trees but the whole ecosystem. Instead the developers propose to clear all but the most mature banksias and slash the understorey. Not only will this destroy the integrity of the banksia forest and its ability to regenerate, it will make it ineffective as a buffer to the SEPP 26 listed Littoral Rainforest. SEPP 26 requires the protection of a 100 metre buffer around Littoral Rainforest.
The flooding and coastal hazard risks appear to be underestimated
Lower South Coast Regional Settlement Strategy 1997,
- p 32
"land of bush fire risk or risk of flooding ....should
not be used for new development"
The Master Plan dismisses the risk of flooding from rainfall saying the catchment for the creek is small. Was the run-off component calculated on a fully developed catchment? Much of the Barlings Beach area will be paved when this subdivision is developed. An urban subdivision is also planned for the Bevian Swamp/Creek catchment at Rosedale, and the caravan park has recently been sold with buyers planning to eventually subdivide it too for urban development.
The Master Plan appears to base flood heights on peak tides together with predicted meteorological and storm surges. Has the study taken into account predictions of sea level rise, climate change and more storminess?
Most of the sandplain is near sea level, protected from the ocean only by the foredune. The Master Plan says there "is no evidence that the dunes have been breached in the past." However, historical and photographic records do not go far into the past. In any case they may not be a very good guide for the future. As CSIRO climate scientist Dr John Church told last year's Coast to Coast Conference, sea level around Australia has risen an average of 1.2mm a year in the last century and is expected to rise faster in future to match global averages as warmer water expands. Extreme storms are also more likely in the next few decades. Dr Church told the conference, "Put extreme storms, king tides and long-term sea-level rise together and you have a package that the insurance industry recognises will produce high-cost storms and floods in Australia and New Zealand."
The recent tsunami disaster has also alerted planners to the fact that such things can and did happen on the NSW south coast. Dr Ted Bryant, tsunami expert at Wollongong University, gave a presentation on these risks to the Floodplain Management Conference held in the Eurobodalla Shire earlier this year.
There are already many vulnerable settlements in our shire. Is it sensible to add more?
Many blocks back onto bushland or dunes
The Masterplan (Section 5.4 ) admits that the Coastal Council asked for roads to abut protected spaces rather than houses. The Weed Control plan in the earlier Master Plan also says "allow for ring roads to encircle all blocks of housing, so that no house lots back onto bush".
Despite this many lots still back onto bushland or the dunes. This greatly increases the risk of weed invasion from gardens and encourages privatisation of public land that should be used to conserve native ecosystems.
The lots could be made smaller and narrow roads could be constructed between the houses and the bush/dune. Appropriate fencing on the road reserve opposite the houses would protect the vegetation while still allowing managed pedestrian access. Pedestrian pathways should be constructed as part of the development.
If the plan is not modified to construct these new roads then the lots should be fenced by the developer and the dune buffer needs to be widened.
Hird (Report 4, Appendix A, p 14 in the earlier Master Plan ) recommends "that a buffer zone in the order of 20 metres be maintained behind the dune." The new Masterplan still only makes allowance for a 15 metre dune buffer. Even that is ambiguous as the buffer is to be from the "built environment". While buildings adjoining foreshores in other parts of the shire are required to be set back 12 metres this Plan wants to halve the setback. Is the buffer measured from the setback line or the lot boundary adjacent to the dune? Coastwatchers argues that if there is to be no road between the lots and the dune then the buffer should be at least 20 metres wide measured from the lot boundary.
Despite the drawings showing fencing, boardwalk, etc it is not clear if the developer is to construct these facilities. The Plan seems to indicate that the developer may only pay for a Foreshore Plan of Management.
The suggested boardwalk would be better constructed as a shared pedestrian-cycleway of the same standard as those elsewhere in the Shire. It and the dune fencing and boardwalks to the beach should be paid for by the developer.
Community facilities and impact on the river
There is no recognition in the plan of the impact of this development on the Tomaga River. The boat ramp and parking area are already inadequate. Erosion and damage to seagrass caused by boats is also a major problem. The Section 94 contributions required by Council do not seem to cover matters such as these.
The development should be conditioned to require substantial financial contributions towards the upgrading of the boat ramp and parking area; erosion control works at Jack Buckley Park; and the installation of buoys to mark seagrass beds.
Traffic
Our members at Tomakin are very concerned that construction traffic will make local roads unsafe and excessively noisy. If this development application is approved it should be conditioned to require the new road to George Bass Drive to be built first and all construction traffic to use that route.
Eurobodalla Shire Council should not be the consent authority for roads in the development. Council is the land owner and keen to sell the land. It has a real and perceived conflict of interest in ensuring this development goes ahead. This puts Council under some pressure to accept traffic estimates that may be underestimates, and to accept road widths and intersection treatments that may not be adequate.
Jenny Edwards,
Secretary