Amended Plans to Apartment Complex
Wharf Road, North Batemans Bay
Application Number 871/02
Reference Number 82.6547.D9

Coastwatchers Association objects strongly to this development proposal and urges Council to refuse it. Our Association also requests a deputation to the Environment, Planning and Administrative Committee when the matter is dealt with.

SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR OBJECTION

In our submission we have reviewed the appropriate state and local planning instruments and demonstrated that this development does not comply with legislative planning requirements. This proposal is clearly not in the spirit of the Council's own 'Ecological Sustainable Futures Policy'.

This development, if approved, would set a dangerous precedent. It will expose ratepayers to unjustifiable financial risk and is likely to have serious social impacts on future residents of the apartments and surrounding waterfront environment. The 100% land based historical data line does not take sea level rise into account and appears to be seaward of the December 1993 high water mark in parts of the site.

The proposal does not comply with planning instruments, including a legally binding height limit, and there are no genuine extenuating circumstances that would justify Council allowing variations. If approved the development will set a precedent for exceeding the height limit no matter what words are attached to the approval.

FINANCIAL AND SOCIAL RISK DUE TO COASTAL HAZARDS

The 100% land based historical data line is questionable

The amended plans show that two of the multi-storey buildings have sections within a couple of metres of the 100% land based historical data line as determined in Webb McKeown & Associates' Batemans Bay Coastal Hazard Management Plan 2001. Landward of this line is supposed to have been above the high tide limit at all times since records began.

The 100% line is based on historical data gleaned from 8 aerial photographs and 4 hydrographic charts but does not seem to have used the survey of the high water mark done in December 1993 and presented to Council on 14 June 1994 (copy attached). None of the charts or photos used to determine the 100% line were made/taken near December 1993. The closest date was 1996.

Parts of the December 1993 line appear to be further inland than the 100% line.

What other incursions have been missed?

Even so the 100% land based historical data line does not make any allowance for sea level rise. The CSIRO has recently re-discovered 160 year old records that confirm that there is a rate of sea level rise of about 1mm a year, consistent with other Australian observations at Freemantle and Ford Denison. This rise in sea level will continue and its effect is likely to be compounded by a predicted increase in storminess due to climate change.

The site is at risk of ocean inundation and wave impact

Webb McKeown say that during a 1% AEP event wave/flood water would be more than 1m above the average ground level. (BBCHMP 2001, 6.1.3)

The zoning conditions require new development to recognise and address inundation and wave impact hazards. The BBCHMP 2001 says that the whole site will be affected by inundation unless raised. (6.3.4)

Will the site be raised and if so what effects will this have on surrounding areas?

Options in the BBCHMP for protecting new development are to "have floors above inundation levels, special foundation requirements, wall strengthening, wave runup barriers, flood proofing, etc." (6.3.6)

Which, if any, of these options are included in the design?

If developed the site will have to be protected from erosion

The site is exposed to serious coastal hazards. There would be serious wave impact damage to "low lying residences along the foreshore". (BBCHMP 2001, 6.2.1)

The Coastal Hazards Management Plan also points out that sediment movement along this part of the shore is more commonly current dominated ( 6.1.3) and that erosion often occurs during this phase of the cycle.

To protect new development from these risks the Plan suggests that a wall and/or artificial dune and beach nourishment may be needed. If either of these options has to be used then the Plan says the 100% line should be adopted "and with appropriate allowance for a foreshore seawall/dune development and access requirements." (6.3.3)

The Plan repeatedly stresses that if a sea wall is built it should be landward of the 100% line to minimise the likelihood of impacts on other parts of Batemans Bay. It says that the two most likely significant effects on sediment movement of constructing a wall are -
* periodic loss of a sandy beach along the Wharf Road foreshore
* changes to sediment supply rates from the channel margin shoal to the nearshore of
Surfside and Cullendulla beaches. (6.3.8)

The Plan goes on to say - "In keeping with the precautionary principle of ESD, a foreshore without a constructed barrier will definitely have a permanent natural beach foreshore and a wall landward of the 100% foreshore alignment should have a minimal probability of adversely impacting on coastal processes." (6.2.2)

However, the proposed buildings are so close to the 100% line that there is no room to build a seawall landward of the line let alone have room for a buffer as well.

Financial and social risk to ratepayers.
The estimated costs of a rock wall to protect the eastern section of the Wharf Road foreshore is $1.4 million. An artificial dune, which would have to be replaced periodically, is between $700,000 and $1.1 million, presumably each time.

How will Council ensure that the developers pay for all necessary protective works either now or in the future?

However, if a sea wall is constructed there is the possibility that it will cause significant damage to other nearby beaches such as Surfside.

How will Council ensure that the developers pay for remediation if this damage occurs?

The "footprint" of this development will extend beyond the boundaries of the property and may have long term consequences for the northern side of Batemans Bay generally.

THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT COMPLY WITH PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

It seems that the proponents are arguing that because they are dedicating submerged land to public ownership they should be allowed to exceed the height limit and build closer to the erosion prone shoreline than is sensible.

Regional Environmental Plan No 1 set a height limit of 14 metres for the South Coast.

The DCP for Zone 2t Residential Tourism Development Guidelines says:
A maximum height of 11m and three storeys applies to non-residential and tourism-related development in the 2t Residential - Tourism zone where the land adjoins land zoned 3a Business.
In all other 2t Residential -Tourism areas, a maximum of 8.5m and two storeys applies

This development is over 18 m in parts and exceeds 8.5 m throughout. The site does not adjoin the 3a Business zone.
The Urban LEP Cl 76 (a) implies that the Wharf Road site should be treated as if it were zoned 2t Residential- Tourism but with special conditions including -
(i) that the development will be secure from the influence of the ocean and from flooding, and
(ii) that the carrying out of the development will not adversely affect adjoining or nearby land by reason of oceanic influences or flooding, and
(iii) the development fulfils relevant objectives of the New South Wales Coastal Policy 1997

Coastwatchers argues that the proposal does not meet any of these conditions.

Our reasons for not accepting that conditions (i) and (ii) are met are set out in the preceding section of this submission.

Some of the relevant objectives of the NSW Coastal Policy which we believe are not being met are:

2.1 To give the impacts of natural processes and hazards a high priority in the planning and management of coastal areas
2.2 To recognise and consider the potential effects of climate change in the planning and management of coastal development
3.2 To design and locate development to complement the surrounding environment and to recognise good aesthetic qualities
3.4 To encourage towns to reinforce or establish their particular identities in a form which enhances the natural beauty of the coastal zone

Other Planning Documents

Clyde River Estuary Management Plan
WBM Oceanics are currently working on a management plan for the Clyde River Estuary and the development certainly appears to be in conflict with at least one of the objectives identified by participants during recent public consultation:
Sustainable commercial and recreational uses of estuaries and visual amenity:
S3. Maintain visual amenity of estuaries, foreshores and outlooks, by the promotion of sympathetic developments to limit visual impacts.

The proposed development will have a significant visual impact and is certainly not in sympathy with its foreshore setting.

Energy Efficiency DCP
The proposed apartments do not appear to meet the guidelines for energy efficiency either. There are huge expanses of south facing windows and virtually no northern ones.

Will the south facing windows be double glazed?

There are no extenuating circumstances

As recently as 26 August 2003 Council adopted a policy on the development assessment process which said:

Applications should fully comply with Council's various Planning Policies. Applications containing variations ….will generally only be supported by staff where site constraints, established precedents, or justification is provided clearly demonstrating compliance with performance criteria or extenuating circumstances necessitating those variations."

The clause above clearly indicates that approval of this proposal would establish a precedent that could be used to justify other non-complying DAs. However, the proposal does not comply with performance criteria and there are no extenuating circumstances necessitating variations.

The proponents bought the land before the latest enormous escalation in property prices. They will have already made huge capital gains even if they sell it without proceeding with development.

Any purchasers, especially business people, would have known that they were very unlikely to be allowed to develop the submerged land. The long and involved history of this hazard affected land, and government opposition to development of it, were well known. Lack of development rights on this "land" cannot be use as a lever to obtain variations.

A medium density apartment development that met all guidelines could be constructed on the site landward of the 100% line plus allowance for seawall/dune and still be very profitable for developers.

Such a complying development would not set a precedent with regard to excessive height and inappropriate allowance for coastal hazards. It would be safer for future owners and occupiers. And it would be less likely to result in damage to surrounding areas with consequent social and economic costs to ratepayers.

We ask Council to refuse this development, on the basis of the case we have presented. This is the only socially responsible and environmentally sustainable decision that can be made.

REFERENCES not fully cited in the text

Eurobodalla Shire Council, some of the reports from 1990 to 2003 including the report to the Environment and Community Services Committee, 14 June 1994 Wharf Road, North Batemans Bay - Development Potential

Macauley, Craig CSIRO Marine Research, "Long-lost records confirm rising sea level" in WAVES Vol 9 No 3, Autumn 2003

WBM Oceanics Australia, August 2003, Information Brochure No 2
Management Options/Objectives Workshop Summary

Webb McKeown & Associates Pty Ltd, Batemans Bay Coastal Hazard Management Plan 2001