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

CHANGE OF USE TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS,
" The Moorings", 2180 George Bass Drive, Tomakin
DA 419/05 Ref no 80.3076.D

The Coastwatchers Association objects to this proposal to convert part of "The Moorings" to residential use unless approval is conditional on withdrawal of consent for the yet to be constructed buildings closest to the river, especially Block D. We also ask for an extension of time for submissions as we are seeking legal advice. Coastwatchers would like the opportunity to make a deputation to Councillors.

We request that the old files be retrieved from archives and examined. The history of "The Moorings" could be read as an example of how to manipulate the planning approvals system. There has been one long succession of modifications, each adding to the impact of the development that was never properly environmentally assessed in the first place.

If this proposal to change the use of most of the proposed buildings to residential units is approved it seems highly likely that it will only be a matter of time before a "modification" is requested to change the rest of the tourist facility units to residential.

The Statement of Environmental Effects accompanying the application for change of use is misleading in places:

• It euphemistically refers to the "rear"or "western" portion of the site instead of saying that these units will be closest to the river.
• It refers to a Rural 1(c) development as "directly adjacent" when in fact it is on the other side of the river.
• It says "It is proposed to retain the existing public foreshore reserve to the Tomaga River", when in fact there is no reserve between Block D and the river despite a reserve appearing to be a condition of the Director of Planning's concurrence for Modification 270/91 (Minute PM64, 15 April 1997). The existing reserve to the south west is not part of the property.

The Statement of Environmental Effects says there will be no additional impact upon the physical environment above that of the already approved development. We argue that this is not so and the proposed change of use is NOT substantially the same.

Our Association objected to the original proposal for the tourist facility as ecologically unsound. It destroyed a saltmarsh wetland and concentrated holiday-makers on a part of the river bank that is prone to erosion.

Pedestrian traffic from "The Moorings" to Tomakin club has added to the degradation of the saltmarsh on the opposite side of George Bass Drive. If people do not cross the saltmarsh they have to walk beside George Bass Drive, a high speed road with narrow verges and no footpath. Vehicles entering and leaving "The Moorings" already pose a traffic hazard and this will increase if the development is completed and partly or wholly converted to residential use.

The time-share units are only partly occupied for most of the year. Converting the full development to residential units will ensure that its population is virtually doubled and on site all year round, no doubt with extra visitors at peak holiday times. In effect this will convert what is now an on average low density tourist facility to a permanently medium to high density residential development. Even if only part of the development is converted to residential use the population will effectively increase.

The proposal does not comply with relevant planning instruments.

Since the original DA there have been various studies for the Tomaga River estuary plan and bank erosion was a big issue. The units that are yet to be constructed are closest to the riverbank, appearing to be as close as 6 metres to the mean high tide mark in places. Most of the riparian vegetation will be removed to make room for the new units, probably worsening bank erosion along this section.

Virtually all the existing vegetation on "The Moorings" side of the entrance to the marina has recently been removed and replaced with a wall of toxic marine grade treated pine.

A permanent population in some of the units is likely to lead to more use of power boats from the site. Boat wash was identified in studies for the Estuary Management Plan as a major factor leading to bank erosion along most of the lower estuary and speed limits have not been successful in reducing this impact.

The Strategic Environment Assessment report to EPAS on 2 November 2004 set out some of the objectives of the Eurobodalla Rural LEP :

• to identify zones where particular classes of development are most likely to be appropriate, having regard to the environmental characteristics of the area;

We argue that medium to high density residential development is not appropriate for "The Moorings" site. Council's Coastal Capacity Planning studies will confirm this opinion.

• in relation to environmental protection - to protect coastal areas, estuaries, wetlands, rainforest and other environmentally sensitive areas from the effects of inappropriate use or development;

This development is inappropriate and would be prohibited under current laws. It will lead to further degradation of the estuary, riparian zone and nearby wetlands.

• to promote the retention of trees and tree cover and to conserve as far as practicable the existing pattern of vegetation to maintain landscape quality and remaining natural ecosystems;

The trees that remain in the riparian zone at this site are Casuarina glauca. This ecological system is currently being considered by the NSW Scientific Commitee for listing as endangered. It appears from the plans that nearly all these trees will be removed as at least half are within 3 metres of a building.

The objectives of the LEP are to be achieved by various strategies including:

• requiring sufficient set back of lot boundaries, buildings and other works from wetlands, streams, rivers, estuaries and the coast to prevent erosion, protect water quality and avoid flooding hazards;

There is not sufficient setback at "The Moorings" and as a result the proposed buildings and increased population density will seriously degrade river bank stability, exacerbate erosion, and reduce water quality. Note that the proposed car wash area beside Block D is within a few metres of the river - how are the detergent, oils, etc to be trapped and prevented from entering the river?

SEPP 71 says Council has to consider matters in Clause 8. These include (paraphrased)-
8 (a) and (b) - improving or providing new public access to foreshores;
(i) the impact of coastal processes on the development and vice versa (eg bank erosion)
(m) the likely impact on water quality
(p) (i) cumulative impacts on the environment.

The EP&A Act section 79C says the consent authority has to consider the suitability of the site for development (c) and the public interest (e). By any measurement this site is not suitable for medium density residential development and it would not be allowed in any new proposal. It is not in the public interest to allow residential development so close to the river especially in a time of climate change when sea levels are rising and bank erosion is already a problem. Council has already had experience of being forced to take action to protect unsuitably sited buildings as McLeods Beach, Surfside.

It appears to us that Clause 96A of the EP&A act allows Council to revoke a development consent. We ask that the consent for Block D at the very least be revoked and that the remaining development stay a tourist facility.