The Director
Policy, Planning Systems and Reform
GPO Box 39
SYDNEY NSW 2001

Email: innovation@planning.nsw.gov.au

10 December 2009

SUBMISSION TO THE CONSULTATION DRAFT - DRAFT NSW COASTAL PLANNING GUIDELINE: ADAPTING TO SEA LEVEL RISE

Detailed below are our responses to the specific consultation questions.

P5 Q1. Yes. Councils should be able to use investigation areas for planning or development assessment purposes until coastal hazard and flood studies are completed and hazard areas are defined.

Q 2. Yes. The NSW Government should propose a set measure incorporating the sea level rise benchmarks using the examples of possible measures that can be used in the identification of investigation areas, but bearing in mind that low lying rocky shore will not erode quickly like sand.

P7 Q3. Yes. Councils should use rates notices to advise and remind landowners if their properties are located in coastal risk areas. They should also be advised of any changes. This could also be reinforced in local media.

Renters need to be advised as well - whose responsibility would this be?

P10 Q4. Yes, when it is evident that land is subject to immediate coastal risks further development on land should be prohibited.

In such cases, there should be a system of compensation for landowners, e.g. a buy back system and where appropriate. the land could be used for public access.

Q5. Coastal risk areas should be identified in an LEP by a foreshore building line or a flood planning area, with the development controls specified in the LEP, and performance criteria specified in a related DCP.

Undeveloped private rural land should be zoned E2. If already developed try to reduce density. If subdivided but not built on, have an LEP clause saying the buildings must be demountable.

P11 Coastwatchers' understanding is that there is to be only one DCP applying to the whole LEP. Is this suggesting another? We do not have a lot of faith in DCPs - they seem to be toothless tigers.

P12 Q6. Yes, to the model clause, except for 3(d). If located seaward of the immediate hazard line, will avoid or minimise exposure to coastal processes. Prohibit development there unless it is for sand bag wall or similar that meets all other requirements.

Q7. Yes. Incorporation of this provision directly into SEPP 71 Coastal Protection would ensure development applications determined at state level and within the NSW coastal zone are consistent with local government requirements (LEPs)

Q8. Yes. SEPP 71 should cover the Sydney region

P16. Q9. No. Developers' studies are generally not reliable. There should be no development allowed until the coastal area has been identified as an at risk area or not. In areas known to be high risk, such as Batemans Bay in the Eurobodalla Shire, hazard studies need to be expedited.

Q10. No. Regardless of the scale or level of risk, developers should not undertake coastal risk assessments as part of a development application requirement before coastal hazard and flood studies are completed. The impacts on the environment, society and the economy of several smaller developments would be just as great as one larger one.

P19 Q11. Yes. New development should be prevented in coastal risk areas that are already coastal risks (as identified by an immediate hazard line). This would limit the risk of future liability and be in accordance with the precautionary principle.

We trust that our feedback on certain policy aspects will be useful in finalising the NSW Coastal Planning Guideline: adapting to Sea Level Rise.

Linda Chapman
Secretary