22 December 2004
The General Manager
Eurobodalla Shire Council
PO Box 99
Moruya 2537
NEIGHBOURHOOD SHOPPING CENTRE & UNITS
LOT 75 DP 880731, 9-15 BLAIRS ROAD LONG BEACH NSW
(DA: 158-04 Ref No: 00.4878.D)
The Eurobodalla Coastwatchers Association opposes this development
proposal for five shops and five residential flats and requests
that we be permitted a deputation to discuss our concerns before
the Environment, Planning and Administrative Services Committee.
Coastwatchers would like to be formally advised when this meeting
is to take place.
Coastwatchers contends that Development Application: 158-04, although
modified and re-submitted as only five shops and units, is still
inappropriate for the site for the following reasons;
SEPP 14 - Coastal wetlands
SEPP 14 - (7) -Restriction on development…) relates
to the survival of native wildlife populations and the provision
of quality habitats for the indigenous and migratory species of
native wildlife that inhabit the wetland.
OCULUS when preparing their Plan of Management for the Long Beach
Foreshore and Wetlands Reserve reported, "…it is
likely that threatened or endangered species may be found within
the reserve. This especially applies to the wetland and its catchment.
The wetland is one of the major ones in the shire and supports
a large number of both flora and fauna. In order to determine
whether any threatened or endangered species occur in the reserve
a detailed study should be undertaken…"
The Long Beach Dunecare Group was successful in receiving funding from Envirofund to undertake a Flora and Fauna Study at Long Beach, including the Reed Swamp Lagoon (wetland). To ensure that it includes threatened migratory species, it is important that a Flora and Fauna Study coverS a twelve-month period. As the consultants were not engaged until May 2004, the Study is not expected to be finalised until May 2005, with the final draft due in February this year.
Coastwatchers and residents alike, place protection of the wetland as their overriding concern. The survival of native wildlife populations and the provision of quality habitats for the indigenous and migratory species of native wildlife that inhabit the wetland, must take precedence over any other consideration.
Before the proposal is considered, it is imperative that any decision on this development is deferred until the Flora & Fauna Study is finalised and the final report adopted.
QUESTION:
Was the development application accompanied by a Species Impact
Statement under the requirements of the EP&A Act?
SEPP 71 - Coastal Protection
The aim of SEPP 71 - 2 (k) is, "to ensure that the type, bulk, scale and size of the development is appropriate for the location and protects and improves the natural scenic quality of the surrounding area"
As the site is unchanged, it is subject to the same planning controls as for the original Planning Report. Section 4.1 & 4.2 (Statutory Planning Controls) were omitted from the amended Report, but the section refers to the original Report prepared by Bishop, Hitchcock and Irwin, where it incorrectly states," the site is not directly connected to any foreshore".
Coastwatchers contests this claim and refers to the Long Beach - Maloneys Beach Urban Local Environmental Plan 1999 (as amended). Lot 75 is shown as being on, or partly on land within the SEPP 71 Sensitive Coastal Location zone and described as being,
Coastal foreshore - (Part 1, (3) "land with
a frontage to a beach, estuary, coastal lake, headland, cliff
or rock platform"
A sensitive coastal location - "land within
100m above mean high water mark of the sea, a bay or an estuary"
and,
(1V) land to which the SEPP No. 14 - Coastal Wetland applies"
SEPP 71 - Part 3 (1) (b) - Significant Coastal Development, (Schedule 2 (1) (b) development (other than specified in Schedule 2) Comprising the erection of a building that is 2 or more storeys in height. The number of storeys being determined in accordance with clause 6 of State Environmental Planning Policy No.65 - Number of storeys in a building, on or partly on land within a sensitive coastal location.
The proposed development would contravene the aims and conditions of SEPP 71.
The Architects, Bishop, Hitchcock & Irwin falsely claim in their Planning Report, that "The amenity of the locality will therefore be improved through this development as it will display visual interest and texture in its architectural expression, in a manner that is low key in response to the domestic character that is desired by Council and residents alike"
Coastwatchers contends that the amenity of the locality will unlikely be improved by this development, it being in such close proximity to Reed Swamp Lagoon and could not be described as 'low key'. Even though reduced to five shops and residential units, it is still an imposing structure, in bulk, scale and size, and would degrade the amenity of the locality, dominate the streetscape and destroy the scenic qualities of the area.
Environmental impacts
The claim by the architect that the cumulative impact of this development on the environment would be negligible, is just one of the many incorrect assumptions made by the Architects in their Planning Report. In particular, they have displayed a total lack of understanding of the significance of the wetland and the need to protect its environment, as defined in SEPP 14. The cumulative impact of the proposed development on the environment, is therefore extremely significant.
Coastwatchers has enormous concerns about the environmental
impacts of the development on the location. Lot 75 Blairs Road
is clearly within a designated SEPP 71 Sensitive Coastal Location
Zone and if approved, this development would expose the Reed
Swamp lagoon to an increased risk of environmental degradation.
The rise in number of vehicles entering and exiting the complex
would not only generate an increase in noise and pollution levels
but would further degrade the tranquillity and ambience of the
neighbourhood.
Polluted stormwater run-off from the rear car park, debris
and discarded packaging from a fast food shop would inevitably
be carried into the wetland, affecting the water quality, the
biodiversity of the wetland and ultimately the survival of native
wildlife populations that inhabit it. The cumulative impact of
the proposed development on the environment would therefore be
significant and contravene the aims SEPP 71.
Coastwatchers contend that because both SEPP 71 and SEPP 14 would be compromised in respect of the environment, the development should not be permitted in this location.
The Architects' claim that the development will meet the objectives of SEPP 65, are unreliable. The objectives of SEPP 65 are to ensure that residential flat developments are,
Whether this development will be a long-term asset to the neighbourhood, as claimed by the architects, is purely speculative. A majority of residents believe it is inappropriate for the locality and would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the environment and the scenic qualities of the coastal location.
Discussions with local residents highlighted their concern about lack of consultation, regarding their needs for a neighbourhood shopping centre and many believe that such a large development is unnecessary. The majority would prefer a convenience store that would be less intrusive and not impact so adversely on the environment.
Coastwatchers and a majority of residents concur that the location of the shopping centre, in such close proximity to the SEPP14 wetland, is inappropriate and for this reason the proposal is unacceptable.
The Long Beach Foreshore and Wetlands Plan of Management
The Plan advised as a matter of urgency,
"…mechanisms to protect the Reed Swamp Lagoon which
is a wetland of State significance, and its associated unique
natural environment from the adverse effects of adjacent urban
development and clearing of the bushland within the wetland's
catchment. This involves the protection of the lagoon's catchment
through appropriate zoning, development controls and covenants,
the establishment of an adequate buffer zone around the wetland's
edge dedicated to environmental protection…"
The advice to maintain an adequate buffer zone of public space around the wetland edge, to be dedicated for bushland conservation and wildlife habitat has been disregarded as the wetland foreshore adjacent to Lot 75 has been almost totally cleared.
The Biodiversity Conservation, Protection of Wetland, Dunes, Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat Action Plan (Section 4.3, p.54) clearly recommends "…Ensure that the objectives of SEPP 14 are achieved and implemented, and that the wetland environment is adequately protected and managed for biodiversity conservation. Conserve the bushland and natural riparian vegetation around the lagoon as a means of protecting the significant wetland and local wildlife from further degradation and disturbance …an adequate buffer zone of public open space around the wetland edge, dedicated for bushland conservation and wildlife habitat, should be maintained in all areas adjacent to the Lagoon… and, that as a high priority the wetland edge be protected from further urban encroachment and that current zoning be upheld and only changed in favour of the protection of the wetland's catchment".
The Draft Long Beach Foreshore and Wetlands Plan of Management was presented to Council in April 2002, but according to the Architect's Amended Planning Report, the consultation phase with Council to rezone the land only commenced in February 2003, almost a year later.
Despite OCULUS stressing the urgency for mechanisms to protect the Reed Swamp Lagoon from further urban encroachment and specifically, that the current zonings be upheld and only changed in favour of the protection of the wetlands' catchment, this advice to Council was disregarded to accommodate the developer's needs allowing Lot 75 to be rezoned from 2(g) to 3(C).
The increase in traffic movements was not adequately addressed by the Architect. The narrow roads in the Estate were not designed to cope with a high volume of traffic. Beatrice Place, a cul-de-sac, is not adequate to cope with all vehicles exiting the shopping centre, especially large delivery vehicles. Blairs Road is adjacent to a children's playground, traffic entering and exiting the parking area will present safety issues for the community and place small children at risk. Such problems could not have been anticipated by residents, when they moved to the area, and it is unreasonable to inflict this development on them now.
Amenity of locality.
Despite the claim by the Architect, that the community has
always had an expectation that a neighbourhood shopping centre
would be built within the area, a centre comprising multiple shops
and residential units was not envisaged. The original concept
was for a single storey convenience store and community centre,
both of which could have provided a meeting place and a sense
of community, in keeping with the existing population size and
the projected increase.
Another claim by the architect, is that the proposal relates to
the other developments in the locality and photographs of villas,
dual occupancies and other large residences, as examples of established
precedents in the Estate have been inserted into the Planning
Report. It is important to note that while these residences may
be excessive in bulk, scale and size, they are not adjacent to
a SEPP14 wetland and are not subject to the same stringent planning
controls.
A shopping centre of this scale is both unnecessary and inappropriate for the location and consideration needs to be given to a more appropriate site where environmental and traffic impacts are not of major concern.
As the hamlet of Long Beach grows and develops into a sizeable village, there will be a need for a more substantial shopping centre in the Long Beach/Cullendulla area, but, it should be located elsewhere, where it would be less controversial, serve the needs of the Long Beach/Maloneys Beach communities and be compatible with the aims and objectives of state and local government environmental planning policies.
As the Amended Planning Report fails to address significant environmental issues, to meet the aims and objectives of SEPPs 14,71 and 65, or to adequately address community expectations and concerns, regarding the amenity of the locality, traffic concerns and appropriateness of the development, Coastwatchers recommends that,
Option 1
(a) The Development Proposal be refused outright, and
(b) A resolution be put to the EPAS Committee to (1) revoke the enabling clause that permitted Lot 75, 9-15 Blairs Road to be rezoned to 3(a) commercial and, (2) that the site be back-zoned to 2(g) residential, and
(c) The developer be directed to seek a more acceptable site for five shops in the Long Beach/Maloneys area to maximise future commercial opportunities.
or Option 2
(a) A decision by the EPAS Committee be postponed at least until the Flora and Fauna Study is finalised, and a site inspection be carried out to examine all environmental concerns, and
(b) The original concept of convenience store and community centre be reverted to, in keeping with community expectations.
Reina Hill
Committee member
for
The Secretary,
The Coastwatchers Assoc Inc