nsw coastal strategy consultation workshops outcomes...

Outcomes Report - NSW Coastal Strategy Consultation Workshops Page | 1

NSW Coastal Strategy Consultation Workshops

Outcomes Report

February 2012


Reported by: SD Environmental Management PO Box 3149 Valentine NSW 2280 Ph: 61 2 4946 7811 Fax: 61 2 4946 7822 Report for: Office of Environment & Heritage (NSW)


Table of Contents

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 4

2. WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS ............................................................................................................. 6

3. WORKSHOP OUTCOMES .................................................................................................................. 8

i. Wyong Workshop 27th October 2011 .............................................................................................. 9

ii. Sydney 28th October 2011 ............................................................................................................. 21

iii. Sydney 31st October 2011 ............................................................................................................. 35

iv. Batemans Bay 2nd November 2011 ............................................................................................... 45

v. Port Macquarie 14th November 2011 ............................................................................................ 57

vi. Ballina 16th November 2011 ......................................................................................................... 78

vii. NSW Coastal Conference 9th November 2011 ........................................................................... 105

4. POWERPOINT SLIDES ................................................................................................................... 126


1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report documents the outcomes of six Coastal Strategy consultation workshops and an additional workshop held at the NSW Coastal Conference on 9 November 2011. The purpose of the consultation workshops was to engage with communities and their representatives to explore the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the current coastal erosion management framework and to document opportunities and barriers for future coastal zone management in NSW. Consultation workshops were held at the following locations in October and November 2011: Date Location 27/10/2011 Wyong Council Chambers 28/10/2011 Sydney Masonic Centre 31/10/2011 Sydney Masonic Centre 2/11/2011 Batemans Bay Soldiers Club 14/11/2011 Port Macquarie The Glasshouse 16/11/2011 Ballina Council Chambers The six interactive workshops sessions were facilitated by SD Environmental Management, with the following agenda followed for all six workshops: Time Allowance Agenda Item Who Welcome and Introduction by OEH 1:30 – 1:45pm 15 mins Welcome Minister or OEH

representative 1:45 – 2:15pm 30 mins Presentation from OEH on

existing framework Phil Watson (Principal Coastal Specialist)

Facilitated Session – External Facilitator (Leonie Johnson or Sonja Duncan) 2:15-2:20pm 5 mins Introduction to SWOT Leonie Johnson or

Sonja Duncan 2:20 – 2:40pm 20 mins Individual SWOT analysis Individuals 2:40-3:20pm 40 mins Development of action

plan At tables

3:20-3:50pm 30 mins Report back from tables Each table 3:50-4:00pm 10 mins Close Leonie Johnson or

Sonja Duncan Attendance at these workshops was by invitation only, with participants from community, government and private companies invited based on their understanding of the NSW coastal management framework and previous involvement in coastal zone management decision making processes. The workshop held at the Coastal Conference was facilitated by OEH staff and was open to all attendees at the Conference.


The workshops provided a starting point for the consultation process in NSW and it is anticipated that the Coastal Taskforce to be shortly established by the Minister for the Environment will undertake further consultations in 2012. A number of common themes were identified for the various categories of the SWOT throughout the six workshops, which are summarized below: Strengths:

• Local government involvement • Community interest and engaged volunteer sector • Strong legislative framework in NSW • Innovation and ideas across regions

Weaknesses:

• Limited funding, capacity and resources • Confusion over definition of the “Coastal Zone” and complexity of processes • Lack of coordination and consistency between levels of government • Limited or ineffective community consultation and consideration • Reactive, rather than proactive responses to issues (including Emergency Coastal

Protection Works) Opportunities:

• Capacity to learn from and adapt policies from other states and countries (i.e. the UK) • Existing legislation provides a framework to restructure and clarify roles and

responsibilities • Enhanced communication and engagement of all stakeholders • Whole-of -government, systems-based approach

Threats

• Many conflicting stakeholder perspectives (differing social, economic and environmental concerns)

• Lack of knowledge and uncertainty about responsibilities and issues • Short-term thinking dominates the debate • Media and misinformation (about sea level rise, climate change and solutions)

Key actions to address the issues proposed by workshop participants included:

• Develop clear vision, policies and guidelines and streamline the legislative framework • Increase funding and interaction between levels of government and stakeholders • Education and awareness of the ‘value’ of the coast to underpin increased funding • Encourage State Government to prioritise coastal management and fund accordingly, with

better distribution of resources • Include ratepayers and other individual stakeholders (i.e. residents) in all levels of the

decision-making process for greater transparency and accountability • Establish an independent Task Force to increase coordination of programs


2. WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS A total of 109 people participated in the six workshop sessions, with a further group of 65 undertaking the SWOT analysis at the NSW Coastal Conference held in November 2011. The workshops included participants from the following groups: NSW Members of Parliament or their representatives:

• Member for Wyong, Mr Darren Webber MP (representatives attended) • Member for Port Macquarie, Ms Leslie Williams MP • Member for Tweed, Mr Geoff Provost MP • Member for Ballina, Minister for Local Government, Minister for the North Coast, Mr Don

Page (representative attended) • A Member of the Legislative Council, Ms Jenny Gardiner MLC

NSW Government agencies:

• Office of Environment and Heritage • Department of Planning and Infrastructure • Department of Primary Industries – Crown Lands • Ministry for Police and Emergency Services • State Emergency Service • NSW Coastal Panel • Northern Rivers and Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authorities

Local councils:

• Ballina Shire Council • Bega Valley Shire Council • Byron Shire Council • Coffs Harbour City Council • Clarence Valley Council • Eurobodalla Council • Gosford City Council • Great Lakes Council • Greater Taree City Council • Hornsby Shire Council • Lake Macquarie City Council • Newcastle City Council • Pittwater Council • Port Macquarie Hastings Council • Port Stephens Council • Randwick Council • Richmond Valley Council • Rockdale City Council • Shellharbour Council • Shoalhaven City Council


• Sutherland Shire Council • Tweed Shire Council • Warringah Council • Waverley Council • Wollongong Council • Woollahra Council • Wyong Shire Council • Local Government and Shires Associations • Sydney Coastal Councils Group

Community groups:

• Byron Preservation Association • Coastal Communities Protection Alliance - Wooli • Coastal Residents Inc • Lake Cathie Coastal Residents Group • Lake Cathie Progressive Association • Lennox Head Residents Association • Long Beach Community Association (Batemans Bay) • Old Bar Beach Sand Replenishment Group • Narrabeen Collaroy residents • New Brighton Village Association • Suffolk Park Progress Association • Winda Woppa Association

Other stakeholder groups:

• Australian Property Institute • Engineers Australia • University of NSW, Griffith and Southern Cross Universities • Law firms and engineering consulting firms • Environmental Defenders Office • Surf Life Saving Australia • Property Council of Australia • Surfrider Foundation • Planning Institute of Australia • Australian Coastal Society • Lennox Head Chamber of Commerce

The Honourable Minister Robyn Parker welcomed participants to the Ballina workshop and gave the opening address. OEH (NSW) staff Jane Gibbs, Phil Watson, Derek Rutherford, Carolyn Davies and Mike Sharpin also attended one or more consultation workshops.


3. WORKSHOP OUTCOMES Workshop participants were seated in small groups (randomly or as specifically requested by them). Following a presentation by Phil Watson, OEH Principal Coastal Specialist on the current NSW coastal management framework, participants were asked to document their individual thoughts on the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of this framework. They then worked in their groups to develop an action plan around the key themes or issues identified in their group. The following tables provide an overview of the outcomes from each of the six workshops.


i. Wyong Workshop 27th

October 2011

Group 1 Individual SWOT outcomes Internal Strengths

• Statewide approach - consistent approach across local government boundaries • Estuary and coastal management grant program – excellent! • Allows councils to achieve many of the priority actions identified by the community • Principle of ‘protectee’ pays • Council indemnified • Mangrove Creek pipeline will no doubt mitigate flooding problems in Tuggerah Lake system • Federal and state governments insure inland flood regions - same responsibility for coastal regions affected by climate

Internal Weaknesses

• Often not clear who benefits from protection works • Coastal zone management plan (CZMP) Guidelines fail to recognise links between ecological resilience and hazard

management. Likewise hazard not considered strongly in estuarine environments. • Emergency Coastal Protection Works cannot be practically implemented. Very unlikely that any coastal specialist would

agree that ECPW would not have an impact on adjoining coastline. • Ability of people to protect their property • We are all responsible for Nature’s Climate Change. We need to be equally human in sharing measures to reduce

effects. Ignore man made suggested intrusion. • The first objective of the Coastal Protection Act (CPA) refers to environmental value. Very little detail provisions in the

Act refer to this. Primarily focused on built assets. • Lack of a national approach to the problem $$ • A lot of work has been and is to be done on coastal management. Much of this work may be unnecessary if the

underlying assumptions are overly conservative.

External Opportunities

• Insurance and banks are incorporating sea level rise (SLR) factors • Opportunities to review strategic planning provisions in relation to coastal protection ie a standard LEP • To improve the flexibility of the current controls • Identify specific regions imminently at risk of erosion or continuous flooding and consider sustainable precautions to

reduce financial impacts (residential / commercial)


External Threats

• Community perceptions on what is achievable: adapt? Retreat? Defend? • That projections (SLR) are inaccurate – either more or less than predicted • Political interference in logical processes of policy responses • A regulation of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act requiring landowners to contribute to “protection” works.

This needs to be considered very carefully. • Land and Building Domestic and Commercial investments over time in coastal areas likely to be affected by Natural

Climate Change • No longer does the aspect of property protection apply to coastal areas only many recent disasters are caused by

inland flooding viz Brisbane, Cairns, Bangkok – who pays?

Group 1 Action Plan Key Issues Actions to Address Issues Additional Comments Internal Strengths

Council indemnified Grant funding Consistent state wide approach Adaptive management approach

Internal Weaknesses

Not clear who the beneficiary is (shared or private responsibility?) Practical constraints on protection works Lack of national approach and budget Failure to recognise links between ecological resilience and hazard

Set guidelines that can be applied to individual scenarios Streamline documents Directions and funding from Federal and State Government CZMP guidelines address coastal health and estuary hazard



Review links with strategic planning provisions ie standard LEP Identify local and community needs and discuss protective mechanisms Improve flexibility of current controls

LEP provisions that prevent future inappropriate development.

External Threats

SLR projections are not accurate either up or down Community perceptions – shared vs private responsibility, adapt? retreat? defend?

Review science regularly



• CPA objective (f) is a great strength and opportunity • The dynamic fast changing coastal framework has created an environment where new and novel planning

arrangements can be created and implemented • More options available for property owners • Liability protection for councils

Internal Weaknesses

• A small part of the community will be impacted by the effects of SLR – a potentially divisive situation • Political adoption of unpopular strategies in CZMPs • Lack of consultation around coastal protection • Existing settlements at risk need new planning tools / mechanisms for resettling. Cost of protection outstrips the

capacity of the individual and government to act.


• There are no simple solutions – costs are very large and beyond the resources of any level of government • Examine new landuse planning tools and mechanisms eg buy back / lease back based on time. Will help get over the

private ownership issue • More detailed info on s149(2) - list of hazard and EPI eg DCP • New and novel planning tools for landuse planning need to be developed (how do governments “unplan settlements

without causing overwhelming issues on communities? • Requirement for “compensation” to enable planned retreat – particularly of 3 level of government, insurance

companies and stakeholders to contribute to Assurance scheme to enable payout

External Threats

• S149 certificate messaging = problem • Impact on property values (perceived) • Inconsistency solution • Different community aspirations • Lack of compensation for property recovery • Devolving responsibilties from state to local gov’t limits consistency of adaptation planning across the state.



Internal Weaknesses

Costs of protection too high for government and landowners Lack of consultation as per (f) of CPA Political adoption of unpopular strategies Small area affected by SLR – divisive situation

Assurance schemes Verify costs of adaptation to overcome perceptions of cost More “open” consultation try to involve more people “Compensation” to make planned retreat palatable


Lack of enough planning instruments

Novel innovative new planning instruments – strategic level

External Threats

s149 certificates Different community aspirations Where to move people to

Detailed hazard studies done and available to people Questions of equity Strategic planning – population planning



• New amendments have given Councils a range of new tools for managing coastal areas • Strong support from community for a trigger based (adaptive management) approach to SLR • Council would strongly support state government direction on dealing with SLR on a State level rather than at individual

council levels

Internal Weaknesses

• Compartmentalisation of environment and agencies > leads to ad hoc un-integrated coastal management initiatives • Balance isn’t right between local government and state government • Planning – Regional vs local approach • Existing legislation is still toothless • Legislation has not been rigorously tested in court to determine its robustness • Piecemeal approach to planning • Why aren’t we taking a more consistent approach to SLR risk management similar to our approach to bushfire

management • No Federal direction which leads to no State direction • Roles in managing coastal areas are undefined and confusing • Local government does not have certainty that State Government will back them up eg legislation and media • Multitude of legislation (legacy of updating different legislation)


• Govt/Council to hand ‘liability’ to individuals to manage ‘risk’ • State Govt buy a dredge for beach nourishment • Commercial off shore sand mining for beach nourishment • Expand levy to cover existing protection works and coastal management • Fund coastal / estuary management initiatives with a local government levy

External Threats

• Negative and continual misinformation in the media regarding climate change and SLR • Media focuses too strongly on residential / private assets rather than also including public assets



Council would strongly support State government direction on dealing with SLR on a state level rather than at individual council levels Strong support from community for a trigger based (adaptive management) approach to SLR New amendments have given councils a range of new tools for managing coastal areas

Broaden “coastal protection” to “coastal management” Needs to be more guidance on how to implement trigger based response

Internal Weaknesses

Multitude of legislation No federal direction which leads to no state direction. Roles in managing coastal areas are undefined and confusing Local government does not have certainty that state government will back them up (legislation, media) Piecemeal approach to planning

Integrate the existing legislation Provide stronger and clearer directions to Councils for consistency – especially development assessment – make it enforceable Reduce compartmentalisation of agencies and councils Move the issues from a local level up to being a state level


Fund coastal / estuary management initiatives with a local government levy Expand levy Commercial off shore mining for

Expand existing levy to cover “coastal management” not just “protection” Reconsider off-shore sand mining


Key Issues Actions to Address Issues Additional Comments beach nourishment

Government / councils to hand “liability” to individuals to manage “risk”

– state government buy a dredge

External Threats

Media focuses too strongly on residential/private assets rather than also including public assets Negative and continual misinformation in the media regarding climate change and SLR

Put more emphasis on other aspects of the existing coastal erosion issues rather than focusing on SLR



• Prescriptive SLR values to ensure all councils / assessments work from same numbers • Coastal panel – potential to increase consistency in decision making • Increased fines for illegal works and dumping • Ability to implement long term option of seawall and have all property owners willing to pay and be able to maintain

amenity through nourishment • Improved indemnity under s733 LG Act • Indemnity provisions • Skeleton of the policy / regulations

Internal Weaknesses

• Lack of ability to practically implement options like beach nourishment • Planned retreat • Minimal notification to local government and community regarding release of documents for comment (have to check

OEH website weekly) • Why is there a guide note for everything? – No clarity where to find info (one document needed) • Emergency protection works • Overly complex set of legislation, guidelines etc which are not complimentary • Complexity of legislation and processes • Rich landowners, ie Belongil is driving knee jerk government reactions to Coastal Policy • Lack of resources available to implement CZMPs • Impractical measures for emergency protection • Lack of coordination between 3 tiers of government


• Review property rights legislation in NSW to enable adaptation options to be implemented for existing. • Allowing offshore sand deposit to be for beach nourishment • Community engagement – opportunity to provide / clarify facts to combat fear campaigns • Improve communication of role and adaptation approaches to community • Increase transparency


• Integrate flood planning with CZM planning to improve ability to address “coastal flooding” and “tidal inundation” • Clarify the role of different government departments • For decision makers in OEH to better involve specialist staff and regional officers in process • Write and finalise guidelines before giving directives! • Provide NSW govt assistance to Local Government for employment of Coastal Engineers on staff (and professional

development of coastal management staff)

External Threats

• Lawyers – potential to challenge new provisions • Media – The Australian – Alan Jones • Weakening of Committee Process in Guidelines • Misinformation being spread by uninformed source • Local government having to implement action independently of NSW Govt leadership (guinea pigs) ie s149 notification

wording • NSW Government devolving responsibility upon Local Govt and communities • Lack of political will to implement change • Lack of funding to implement works


s733 strengthening see as a positive move Adaptive management framework

Great work OEH Clarify good faith provisions Strengthen and improve

Internal Weaknesses

Complexity of Policy, Guidelines, etc Emergency protection works?!! Planning and OEH policies inconsistent Devolving responsibility of CZM

Release of Draft Coastal Zone Management manual (comprehensive document – streamlined into one document) Remove provision within guidelines or make it possible to do them effectively Continued dialogue with Planning – working groups


to Councils and landowners WHOLE OF GOVERNMENT APPROACH

Key Issues Actions to Address Issues Additional Comments External Opportunities

Rolling easements and other more innovative management options Strengthen community engagement and education Offshore sand sources for beach nourishment

Include more innovative solutions Address current moratorium on use of o/s sand sources for beach nourishment New guidelines to engage community in decision making

External Threats

Misinformation through media etc Lack of political will and leadership Lack of resources (people and money)

Provide community education Allow

Show me the money!!

messages to counter misinformation to be delivered to community and media.


Mr Nutt provided the following submission to the facilitator, requesting inclusion in the workshop report.


ii. Sydney 28th

October 2011


• Protect existing – limit future development • State wide process give guidance to local level to suit that region • Council processes excellent local knowledge of coastal issues, history of events • Partnerships developed to implement CZM actions • Formal framework and control • Community interest

Internal Weaknesses

• Funding • Too complicated • Funding – not enough funding to rectify problems • Does not mention the protection of property or the rights of the landholders • Poor coordination between state agencies and councils with respect to coastal issues • Limit to hot spots – 1% of coastline yet other areas could be at risk • State government priorities maybe different / irrelevant at the local scale • Extensive environmental approvals prevent councils from carrying out any works • Implementing emergency protection works at are suitable to purpose


• Raise standards of CZMP • Best practice opportunity to implement best practice CZM • Improve / simplify planning approach • Avenue for both state and local government to obtain federal funding for Coastal Protection Works • Able to put into place long term protection, not just retreat • Funding – private and commercial investment


External Threats

• Uncertainty in predicting / assessing coastal hazards • Lack of funds will result in no works being undertaken • Funding – lack of government assistance in terms of funding • Confusion – responsibilities – Council/landowners • Unjust levy regulating rights away – limited or no compensation


Level of knowledge Partnerships Leadership on CZM Formalised frameworks / procedures Community interest

Formalise strengths through Coastal Zone Management Committee

Internal Weaknesses

Poor coordination between government agencies Extensive environmental approvals Complicated planning process Inequitable allocation of funding Loss of individual land owner rights

Integrated / whole of government approach Consistent / equitable funding Long term focus / funding

Over-aching body may just create another agency to deal with. Must consider long term maintenance.


Implementation of best practice / raise standards Simplify planning approach Involve federal government (including potential funding source)

Completion of Tech. Notes (including regular updating) Education of CZ managers / decision makers Establish research partnerships between government/private entities Accreditation of Councils


Key Issues Actions to Address Issues Additional Comments Long term strategic focus on protection of public / private assets

Funding Assessment of Council measures by Coastal Panel

External Threats

Implementation dependent upon funding Susceptibility to political interests (overriding strategic intent of CZM) Short term focus (not long term) Uncertainty in assessing hazard Limitations / quality of studies underpinning plans Division of responsibilities

More accountability and transparency to rate payers and tax payers Establish a champion (agency/group) to coordinate CZM strategies



• There is already existing policy which can be reviewed and refined • Finally we have some action on this important issue “a starting point” • Stimulated debate and ‘discussion’ • Promotes community understanding

Internal Weaknesses

• What applies where? “Coastal zone” in Sydney Harbour • Too many requirements to be taken into account by DA planners too onerous and confusing • What legislation relates to Councils in estuaries? • Lag between research > planning, controls > implementation • Lack of funding • Ad hoc; not effective; reactionary • Confusion; responsibilities and action very poorly defined • Conflicting advice from DoP and OEH


• Consider Codes SEPP, Infrastructure SEPP and how they over-rule hazard areas • Rationalisation; strategic consultative vision for NSW coastal; Review and new NSW coastal policy • Planning Review could address complying development in the coastal zone • Sydney Harbour; Regional Coastal Planning • Rationalise policies, regulations, etc; Clarify / consistent definitions • Develop a ‘no go’ coastal zone for LEPs • Extend NSW ‘mapped’ coastal zone to Sydney Metro area, with necessary exemption from specific Coastal Policy

actions eg 13 storey building • Update NSW Coastal Policy and SEPP 71 • Training for DoP staff to better understand/implement/advise Councils on integrating coastal risks and flood risks info

(studies) into planning instruments • Training, capacity building • Increase focus on the biggest issue of estuary and estuary foreshore areas


External Threats

• Councils fear liability so worried about what to do / how extensive restrictions • Legal challenge; loss of value of coastal zone; no beaches • Federal vs state requirements are inconsistent ie benchmark planning levels – inconsistency undermines confidence

and understanding • Development intensification on the coast through - exempt and complying development don’t have to address

requirements – abolition of the Foreshore Building Line allows development right to the coastal boundary. • Councils sued by landholders even when Council’s follow NSW Gov’t reqt’s


Promoted debate and communication amongst community, councillors, council staff Existing policies / legislation a starting point Raise the profile of the issue(s)

Maintain Fix them NSW Government takes on responsibilities

Internal Weaknesses

What applies to where ie coastal zone definitions and estuary application Conflicting advice from OEH and DoP Overwhelming information and confusing Lack of ownership – responsibilities and actions poorly defined Not strategic Lag between research, planning

Clear map Legislation / consistent definitions Legislation / consistent definitions


Key Issues Actions to Address Issues Additional Comments controls, implementation


Rationalise legislation and policies Coastal zone definition Consistency across planning legislation and coastal legislation Update existing policy Training and capacity building Consider codes SEPP and infrastructure SEPp and how they over-rule hazard areas.

Rationalise Redefine coastal zone and apply to all planning / coastal legislation – a good clear map is needed Integration Standard methodology (scenarios etc) for coastal risk assessments Consistent methodologies for communicating risk assessment results to community Provide supporting materials for community consultation Provide conditions of consent and wording for s149 updates Hazards must trigger DA not be permitted to do exempt or complying development Resources to meet the requirements (which keep changing) Keep funding open continuously (for studies etc ) – flexibility

External Threats

Ongoing liabilities for Councils Unknown when funding will be available – and whether it will fit with Dept Local Government integrate planning reporting requirements Loss of value of coastal zone Abolition of foreshore building line allows development right

Fund / support regional strategies from collective councils Re-establishment of independent

coastal panel


Key Issues Actions to Address Issues Additional Comments to coastal lot boundaries Exempt and Complying development don’t have to address hazard Federal and state sea level rise benchmarks inconsistent Loss of beaches



• Indemnity provisions for local government – at the coal face of managing the coastal zone • Local government involvement – strong community opinion – interest • Policy now ~30 yrs old – experience in CZM – general acceptance • Good basic objectives of 1979 Coastal Protection Act

Internal Weaknesses

• Separation of flood and coastal programs • Local Government planning requirements and liabilities – rules • Level of funds – CM plans, nourishment, buyback, works etc • Limited funds – no holistic approach (from a policy perspective and a practical, day by day management perspective)


• To look at combined coastal impacts related to seal level rise, storm surge, heavy rainfall and coastal erosion • Current process offers a new chance to look at Coastal Prot framework • Consolidation of a myriad and confusing set of instruments for coastal management • Potential for movement from local planning to regional planning • Review of policy approach CZM • Commonwealth funding?

External Threats

• Climate change – sea level rise; storm surge; flooding; heavy rainfall • Local government flooded with issues of coastal management • Piecemeal decision making, due to lack of uniform action (see, ie, court decisions against local authorities or

government decisions triggered by not-so-relevant issues) • Climate change etc • Sea change • Lack of funds



Basic principles good – 30 year record Local government and community involvement Indemnity provisions for local government

Ongoing improvement of the Policy: proven record of 30 years Retain and enhance their ability to cooperate in coastal management Monitor effectiveness and improve if required

Internal Weaknesses

Limited funding – state and local Lack of holistic approach Separation of flood and coastal programs

Increase funding Review policy to allow coherent approach Combine


Consolidation of many bits of instruments Regional coastal planning / management Commonwealth involvement

ToR for taskforce Review framework to allow it - funding targeted to regional approaches Funding / coordination

External Threats

Piecemeal decision making (courts, government) Climate change and sea change Local government flooded with work beyond capacity

Review framework, allow input from all levels and make a cohesive, long-term plan. Plan, monitor, model and coordinate these actions Cost sharing arrangements need consideration



• Good technical expertise within the OEH • Strong legislation and guidelines to consider/plan for SLR benchmarks • Good technical knowledge of coastal geomorphology and erosion/accretion processes

Internal Weaknesses

• Emergency management provisions complicated and relatively ineffective • It does not clearly address all issues and it can lack flexibility when compared to the spontaneity that coastal storms

and erosion can occur • Complexity of planning system • Implementation of CZMPs is inconsistent and ad hoc • Enforcement of CZMP


• Stop selling off existing public foreshore • NZ’s Queen’ Chain 20m public access to all new foreshore development • If we get it right and process has clarity and applicability significant savings in resources (monetary and otherwise) can

be achieved • Clarifying roles and responsibilities for dealing with properties at threat • Increased funding for the implementation of CZMPs • Population concentration along coast makes public funding of major responses and infrastructure (at government

expense) palatable • Increased consistent identification and mapping of coastal hazards

External Threats

• Lack of financial support / funds • Uncertainty of climate change and sea level rise impacts • Stop selling off existing public foreshore • Inability of policy to work well could lead to increasing legal issues and inconsistency in application of policy • Self-interest and well healed coastal dwellers and political influence


• Existing use land rights over-riding future uses Group 4 Action Plan Key Issues Actions to Address Issues Additional Comments Internal Strengths

Technical understanding of issues and problems well documented and understood

Ease accessibility of information eg websites Bringing all the information together Need to maintain expertise with funding

Internal Weaknesses

CZMPs not enforced and implemented Complexity of CZMPs and planning guidelines etc

Councils need a consolidated document and training (in order to do strategic planning etc)

Emergency Management Procedures – dominates thinking at expense of strategic interests. These workshops should have been held 2 years ago before the policy was progressed to this stage in order to get feedback from all stakeholders on how to go forward.


Queen’s NZ Chain 20m public access back from foreshore for all new large developments Consistency in implementation of CZMPs and id of hazard

Increase funding to the NSW coastal program Coordination and prioritisation of regulation and action

External Threats

To stop selling off public foreshore land Clash with existing use rights Perceived threat of liability stops council actions

Greater transparency and accountability Adaptability as systems evolve



Strengths – puts coastal protection on the agenda S733 provides some help Preparation of CZMPs Potential to give required power to Local Government Roles and responsibilities clarified somewhat Private landowners now have options Penalties increase a good disincentive to ad hoc dumping Focus on expending resources on protecting public assets Sandbags on beaches is politically more palatable than rock Acknowledgement of SLR and climate change Support for environment and assets Protection for local government as front line manager Assists planning process There is a reasonable body of work as a start Framework for setbacks for Greenfield subdivisions are good

Internal Weaknesses

Certificates issued under Pt 4c of the CP Act will have to be issued with a condition saying that “Council does not warrant that the ECPW will protect the owner’s land from erosion, prevent damage to any building located on the owner’s land or achieve the result (if any) specified in the Part 4c application. If the ECPW causes impacts on adjacent areas they can be ordered to be removed at the owners’ expense” Emergency provisions unworkable Difficult to enforce against common law property rights Inequitable Confusing mish mash of policy and legislation Paralysis in options – no access to sand; retreat not supported; opposition to seawalls Definition of “protection” Framework currently too cumbersome


Local Government can’t meet demands Increased funding needed ECPW more expensive and less effective than rock CPSC likely to be an administrative nightmare Civil Liability Act System approach “Emergency protection” gives false sense of security to homeowners Relies on “sandbag” technology that is there yet Too many pieces of legislation / guidelines etc Could be ineffective in combating some storm events Panel won’t provide help when needed Lack of clarity as to whether protective engineering only applies to exist


Provide hazard and risk info to the public Research; novel methods; unifying legislation; rational decision making; non adversarial model Property Boundary re-def Recognise new vs existing development Long term management of protection CPA Principles: Offer opportunity for ongoing better evolution of CP mgt; Community engagement assisted; better planning outcome Better research/dev in sandbag technology; provides protection in some storm events; better discussion on coastal issues. Harmonisation of legislative framework with re-write of EPAA Policy consolidation to have generic core principles for assessing and determining DAs.

External Threats

Litigation; Insurance; Make problem worse for future Increased pressure from insurers to limit insurance coverage; more litigation by affected owners – negligence suits Climate change and variability; property market out of sync with risks; shock jock over simplification; “living memory” 3-5 years; denial, head in the sand Confusion / conflict with SERM Act; Different agencies legislation; Resource limitations supplies, consultants local/stage agency staff Inconsistency between council approaches; Increasing insurances premiums



Clearer definition and clarity of roles of landowners and local government Emphasis on policy framework Defined materials to be used to control erosion (ie sandbag)

Further policy development and consolidation of controls into single piece of legislation Better dissemination of information to public through hazard assessment tools (ie similar to BASIX assessments) This will assist initial design methodology

Internal Weaknesses

Emergency protection actions unworkable Legislative framework too difficult Sandbagging not total solution No differentiation between development types (ie existing development and new development)

Re visit legislative framework and devise an easier system Introduction of alternate ECPW materials Needs to be better demarcation between existing and new development


Harmonisation of legislation with community and industry engagement Clearly assessment guidelines

Uniform principles incorporated in all planning legislation and planning policies Uniform set of guidelines for planning authorities and community and industry groups (ie proponents) and designers

External Threats

More litigation Insurance coverage diminished Greater scrutiny on processes and procedures Property market expectations no in sync Ad hoc assessment processes

Clearer better systems to be introduced to facilitate comprehensive uniform assessments of development proposals (guidelines) More guidance for prospective purchasers through due diligence awareness tools Fundamental protocols to be developed to ensure consistency.


through inconsistent practices

iii. Sydney 31st

October 2011


• Existence of risk provision in Coastal Protection Act (s.56B) and categories in regulations • Benefit of having a notification process such as s.149 that defines risk now and into the future (unique to NSW) • Indemnification of local councils under s.733 as amended 2010 for coastal management decisions within the defined

Coastal Zone (strongest provisions of any state in Australia) • Existence of a Coastal Panel that can obtain external (e.g. coastal engineering) advice to assess CZM Plans and in

absence of plans be consent authority for beach protection works with powers under EP&A Act (this provides border-to-border consistency better that Regional Planning Panels)

• Integrated CZM framework that links legislation such as Coastal Protection Act, EP&A Act, Local Govt. Act (s733), Crown Lands Act, Conveyancing Act under a generic Coastal Policy

• Rapidly prepared and introduced • Still has local council’s preparing planning controls • Innovative govt. • Engaged populace • Technology / expertise • Openness to ideas

Internal Weaknesses

• Emergency provision of Coastal Protection Act and guidelines are difficult to implement and require more flexible approach to suit approach to suit local council condition

• Emergency sand bag options may not work • Local govt. without a clear and uniform approach • Perceived lack of support from local councils • Role of local govt. who will make final decisions • Tweed by-pass funding means more long-term commitment to Queensland beaches by NSW govt. than to its own state


(crown) beaches • Lack of funds • Absence of whole of govt. advice to ministers as existed under previous Coastal Council (axed 2003) • Confusion over the definition of “Coastal Zone” – 4 different definitions in use today


• To establish a protocol for uniform coastal protection ( science vs legislation) • Ensure planning system integrates up to date measures at all levels • EP&A review NOW! • Standard instrument provisions and SI/EP zones/controls • SEPPs – 71, infrastructure • Part 3A processes • Planning practice notes • Metro and regional planning to channel the whole of govt. message and actions • Time on side • Ideas from other jurisdictions (a shared problem) • Opportunity to recreate coastal parkland, increase public access through acquisition • To bring back the independent technical-based Coastal Council as defined under repeated Pt.2 of Coastal Protection

Act with Coastal Panel to be a committee of the council External Threats

• Insufficient action in time • Lack of sufficient cross-agency / govt. / organisation coordination • Lack of political continuity and will over time • Lack of funding • An economic system tied to growth as its basic premise... • Some hotspots cannot be protected • With sea-level rise the hazard becomes impossible to solve • Many interests to balance • Conflicting interests • Individual land owners can opt out of sea wall construction • Need more integrated advice on coastal processes compatible with sediment compartment similar to US system.

Councils now reliant on consultants individually



Provisions in amended legislation and regulations highlight innovation in NSW beyond that in other states (e.g. 733) – NSW framework fairly advanced Rapidly prepared and introduced integrated CZM framework despite difficulties in specific details Local govt. involvement Community interest and involvement

Retrieve positive aspects of previous framework Strengthen local govt. involvement and community involvement

Internal Weaknesses

Lack of funds and equitable funding Lack of clear govt. mandate for local councils Definition of Coastal Zone Emergency provisions inflexible and hard to implement Lack of coordination and structure across all levels – agencies, political over time

Increase funding and interaction between different levels of government


Planning system to integrate up to date measures at all levels Bring back independent coastal council UK model / advice from other

Recreate / open up new parkland / acquire new assets Harness all of these opportunities


Key Issues Actions to Address Issues Additional Comments jurisdictions can be utilized Time on side to work on problem

External Threats

Individual land owners can opt out of sea wall construction Many conflicting interests Economic and population pressures Sea-level rise is unstoppable

Develop strategy to address Land surrender for new developments / Greenfield sites Manage its consequences effectively



• Community willing and knowledgeable • Passionate community who want healthy, usable beaches and waterways • Community, govt. and business committed to action • Community happy to pay as coast is economic generator • Many different users bring lots of possibilities • Multiple acts and supporting instruments • No choice but to pay – may as well face up to it now • Cost of inactivity far outweighs strategic sustainable approach • Property sector underpins strength of economy • “Value” of the coastal zone

Internal Weaknesses

• Practical application of ECPW provisions – clunky / unworkable / ineffective • Lack of incorporation of “whole of system” approach to Coastal Zone management • Often reactive to a simple erosion event (fail to include CZ dynamics over time) • Guidelines replace a well-known and respected manual • Legislative ambiguities and lack of context against existing statutory framework • Access to funding • Decrease in real value of CZM funding • Decrease in property value / compensation • Weakening of property rights • Increased levies • No one making rules is paying for solutions


• To obtain far more comprehensive knowledge of coastal process • Far better knowledge, more flexible solutions • Need federal guidelines and position feed into states, instruct clearly


• Local govt. to deal with solutions • Learn lessons from other states and countries, and history • Streamline policy framework! Simplify it! • Access to funding • Property sector can be constructive player • Costs to property owners extreme if nothing is done • Sport / recreation funding (surf break, sandbanks) needs property protection • Must include dynamic systems approach (regionalisation) • Opportunity to educate and inform and demonstrate stewardship • Opportunity to act and enlist the support of all

External Threats

• Not enough money from State to assist local govt. plan and manage CZ in particular in regards to CC and CCT • How to make long-term strategy in a short-term political world • State govt. lacks clarity and purpose – failure to assist local govts. deal with local response • Short-term ‘knee-jerk’ fixes predominate • Rights of private property overriding public policy

Our coast decreasing (detrimental changes)



Value of the Coastal Zone Property sector underpins strength of local economies

Asset valuation – multipronged – ecosystem goods &services personal and public property Raise awareness that the community has a broad vested interest in property prices Erosion is not a “front-line” issue but affects whole communities

Look at the fundamentals

Internal Weaknesses

Decrease in real value of CZM funding Decrease in property values

Integrated approach to tap into diverse funding opportunities Education and awareness of ‘value’ to underpin increased funding Enlist all stakeholders – collaborative approach, apolitical Need innovative ways to finance compensation and remediation Levies need to be fair and reasonable


Benefit from other states National studies and programs International experience and our own history Property sector can be a constructive played

Wide-reaching review Analysis and monitoring of program Partnerships / collaborations to share information; alliances Form diverse alliances Vested interests are not always opposing interests

Consider ownership of intellectual property (creative, common, sell) Don’t reinvent / duplicate resources, etc

External Threats

Top down and bottom up barriers Lack of clarity of responsibilities Lack of agreement between states (e.g. sea-level rise benchmarks) Local govt. lack of resources Interdependency of policies and

Separate coastal management from popular ‘knee-jerk’ politics

Decisions will be unpopular with some elements of society


politics rather than science-based

Group 3

Individual SWOT outcomes Internal Strengths

• Reasonable scientific basis to make decisions now rather than continue to defer • Volunteers are very passionate about their spot • Surf life saving clubs are good at getting their voice heard and sharing • Dedicated staff and volunteers who want to help • Consultation is taking place • Legislative framework exists

Internal Weaknesses

• If they are not impacted (clubs) they are not thinking about it • Gaining community support for decisions / actions given uncertainty surrounding climate change • Absence of consistent views on climate change • No funding or knowledge to assist • Absence of funds to implement coastline management plans • Volunteers, info not getting out to them • Wrong information and a ‘too hard, don’t care’ attitude • Lack of sufficient govt. resources (people) • Stakeholders cannot reach consensus on appropriate management strategy


• Provide future generations with options / flexibility, not final solutions • Experts in field that want to help / share knowledge • Learn and adapt from others in regard to best practice • Timelines that are easily followed


• One step at a time with community support

External Threats

• Climate change impacts materialise more quickly that current projections • Focus will be on land / development areas (money makers), not history • Vested interest groups actively resisting any changes to the status quo • Change / improvements will demand a cost • Mother nature cannot be controlled • A range of govt. agencies each doing things in isolation • No whole of government approach


Strength of volunteer group all working towards the same thing

Engage the members Identify where these people are (location / groups / create a list) Bring groups together

Internal Weaknesses

Lack of agreement and consistency on climate change now and into the future

Education processes (use the existing groups) Make it targeted at groups in the community Target main criticisms Dispel the big myths Use the education system to target children and education


Use others’ best practices to learn from and adapt practices

Compile best practices from industry experts Create options or flexible solutions / thinking for now and future generations

Provide future generations with options / flexibility, not final solutions

External Threats

Lack of knowledge and certainty around issues

Scenario planning for Future options / outcomes that may take place Undertaken in a specific way / geographically-based As detailed as we can make it

Potential for this threat to be exploited by this view


Brendan Donohoe, National Director Surfrider Foundation Ltd asked for the following flyer to be included in the workshop report:


iv. Batemans Bay 2nd

November 2011


• Recent attempts to integrate LUP (land-use planning) and CZM (coastal zone management) • Strong policy position on future issues pressures • Frame work for local government and communities to manage the coast • Strong agency (OEH) support in implementing CZM • Support coastal management plan (holistic/ strategic approach) • Law development pressure (to date) • Existing foreshore reserve system

Internal Weaknesses

• Need to better understand value ($$) of coast • Resourcing issues • Capacity• Limited dollars to implement CZMPs

(e.g. Few staff in council to carry out CZM)

• Giving false impressions that emergency works will protect property – it may in fact just put life at risk doing emergency works

• Dealing with people’s livelihoods – anger at limitations for existing property and limited options to compensate

• Range of adaptation / response options BUT no clear pathways or processes to follow • Last year’s reform (private owners’ ability to protect property)


• Better guideline materials • Give clear directions (set boundaries) • Make it clear that developments may not be possible and have ways / strategies to deal with this • Improve integration of CZM into land-use planning • Need to have strategic direction • Positioning coastal hazards in same light as flood / bushfire


• Opportunity for collaboration between community and all levels of government or state-wide issues • Opportunity to be proactive on critical issues before they occur

External Threats

• Need more resource / technical support to develop CMP • Reactive not proactive • Lack of basic understanding by community of coastal processes • Short-term thinking and policy directions • Emergency works implications for adjacent / adjoining needs to be addressed • Public foreshore reserves seen as “sacrificial” buffer zones • Debate – private asset vs community benefits (access to beaches, etc) • Inaction or critical issues will be costly in the future



Agency support and coastal zone management (inc. CZMP) Relatively low development pressure Policy position/framework for local govt. to manage coast

Maintain ongoing commitments Provide long-term certainty for resources Continue to improve management of development pressures Continue to improve guidance and improve linkages between planning processes

Internal Weaknesses

Resources (dollars and staff) Limited response options (if any) have been developed or are feasible in NSW to date False impression of effectiveness of emergency works

Increase resources where possible Look for efficiencies in resource distribution across regions/ councils State govt. to state coastal management as a priority and fund accordingly Develop/formulate State Govt. policy or responses (ie. planned retreat, etc.) Scrap emergency works provisions and implement better strategic planning up front


Opportunity to adopt strategic approach to key issues Opportunity to be proactive on key issues Improve guidance on how to deal with issues Improve community understanding of coastal hazards in the same light as bushfires and floods

Policy or legislation should reflect necessity of strategic approach Formulate strategic vision early State Govt. to produce better guidance materials Education/ awareness campaign on coastal hazards

External Threat of becoming reactive, Formulating strategic vision early


Key Issues Actions to Address Issues Additional Comments Threats not proactive

Short term thinking and lack of basic understanding of coastal management measures Resolving public vs private ownership issues in relation to coastal management

Educate community and politicians on benefits of long-term planning and coastal management measures Understand the impacts on private and public interests from coastal hazards and develop management options to best suit



• A ‘1st

• Common approach pass’ only at providing a framework for coastal management

• Ministerial interest for impact from all

Internal Weaknesses

• Impossible to implement a retreat policy • Threat to the local economy re: visitors and migration • No framework to perform social impact statement • Competing objectives and priorities • Double standards • No basis of review • No independent appeal mechanism • Limited input from community • Passes the buck to ratepayers • Councils have limited direction, make it up as they go. Result: even LGA interprets it differently • Limited direction to council in how to do implementation • Complete lack of concern for the affect on landowners as a result of current recommendations


• A starting point to get it right (next time) • Include more opportunities for residents to be aware and have more input in the process • Requires landowner / community representation on Task Force

External Threats

• Economic hardship • Protection is a dirty word. Retreat is improper focus • Loss of public amenity and public asset • No rights for land owners • If works to secure commercial areas, result in further risk to residential areas located opposite or in near

vicinity


• Social dislocation Group 2 Action Plan Key Issues Actions to Address Issues Additional Comments Internal Strengths

Ministerial interest to include “all stakeholders” A “1st

Include coastal residents, consider the impacts on coastal residents

pass only”

Internal Weaknesses

Inadequate provision to protect private property Existing protection works negatively impacting on private assets and community Impossible to implement retreat policy Passes the buck to ratepayers Limited direction to council No mechanism for social impact studies Councils interpret act and regulations differently Double standards No appeal process Limited to no consultation No process to review if circumstances change

Rework the regulation CZM’s have to include studies on past and correct work that impacts coastline Better community consultation Landholder participation in the decision-making process viz. Memberships of (a) the ‘task force, (b) coastal panel Councils to be directed to include all

stakeholders to planning, policies and strategies

Ratepayer to be included in all

levels of decision making


To have direct community involvement A framework to restructure

Include on coastal panels and task force separate to council representatives Rewrite legislation and regulations


Key Issues Actions to Address Issues Additional Comments External Threats

Council applying double standards re: CBD vs residential Landowner rights ignored Retreat is the only

Social dislocation and economic hardship

word / policy

Dictatorial approach (regarding Sartor, re: coastal protection regulation) Loss of public assets and amenity

All areas to be treated equally People’s lifestyle and livelihood must be foremost Protection must be a consideration Replace response categories and ministerial determination from draft CP regulation The cost of replacing public assets must be dominant in any decision re: retreat or protection



• Uniform planning benchmarks for SLR • Guidelines that support practice • Section 733 Local Government Act • Councils have to integrate actions and policies • Currently good technical and policy support staff within NSW govt. agencies • Statutory recognition of climate change (although dispersed) • Councils hold a lot of historic local info

Internal Weaknesses

• Post-retreat legal status (i.e. who owns land after retreat condition is triggered?) • Lack of integration between different legislation and statutory instruments (e.g. EP&A, Property Act, LEP’s) • State agencies operate separately (e.g. where is today planning) • Delay outcome • Professional expertise in area comes at high cost • No mandatory use of S.149 notification • Need to have certain benchmarks rather than flexible objectives • Guidelines need specific directions (e.g. what is light weight, removable or easily decommissioned) • How to incorporate condition of retreat into development consents? • 149 wording?


• Improve community awareness of possible threats to their environment • Collaboration with other community groups (e.g. SROC) • Planned treat with legislative support • Re-write of EP&A – front load SR considerations • Inter-department cooperation to integrate legal and planning environment • State to lead the technical risk assessments of NSW coast rather than individual consultants • Councils do the “planning” with community


• Community education External Threats

• Political will – scope for well-funded and highly-motivated groups to influence political will • Community perceptions or “misperceptions” • Ignorance – climate change scepticism drives political response • Ignorance – community not aware of what they will give up if CWP are adopted at broad scale • Stakeholders representation must support individual property rights • Moving too strongly from questionable assumptions • Making system too inflexible and time-consuming • Lack of tsunami warning measures in individual communities • Insufficient clear direction and guidance from State and Federal governments


Current provision of technical support and guidelines a benchmark for govt. Councils hold lots of historical local info Councils tend to integrate policy and action Protection of 733

More resources to existing strengths

Internal Weaknesses

Integration and cooperation of legislation and agencies Cost of technical expertise Time taken for plan to be completed Lack of acceptance for councils of sea-level rise

Need coordination role at State level (e.g. Task Force on commission) State Govt. to do state-wide assessment More support for council from State Govt. Education made impartial

External Legislate sea-level rise (SLR) Lobby State politicians


Key Issues Actions to Address Issues Additional Comments Opportunities adaptation option

Inter-department cooperation options to be improved Improve councils’ education and understanding

Task force / commission role Task force / P.R. / advocating

External Threats

Indecisive guidance from govt. Community ignorance of threats and consequences of inaction Implementation of policies based on false basic assumptions Lack of tsunami warning system at community level

Need strong NSW State govt. leadership Must ensure expert reviews


THE FOLLOWING WAS SUBMITTED BY A PARTICIPANT OF GROUP 2


v. Port Macquarie 14th

November 2011


• Legislation = good starting point • Work with community and effective residents • Community involvement at last – legislation needs to be clearer to understand • Maintain strong community spirit. Strong tourism for local area. Business opportunities • Based on principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) • Promotes value of the coast for the broader community • Seeks community input • Provides for local merit-based approaches / solutions

Internal Weaknesses

• Sea-level rises are global average • Risk categories too broad • Council officers not necessarily qualified • Impact of man-made structures on beach • Deletion of risk categories • Estuaries and adjacent beaches needs combined study • Too long in delaying positive resolving of actions • Concerns with clarity of guidelines, re: public roads and owners’ response • Compensation must be paid (housing) • Lack of suitable funding sources • Not supported by a strong federal government policy position • Too many words/not enough action • Government inaction / Local council / funding • Timeframe for action • People’s property • Inability to improve dwelling to retirement standard from holiday home • Response categorisation deleted in Part 4 Coastal Protection Regulation 2011 to the detriment of affected coastal,


private and commercial property owners • Right of appeal risk – response categorisations draw on studies by council. Present different findings and

interpretations External Opportunities

• Simplification of guides / codes / acts / regulations • Generating revenue from direct beneficiaries to contribute to management costs • Involve residents in taskforce • Include property owners in panels • Include and improve community consultation, social, economic and environmentally in ESD determinations • External levy as a “natural disaster” levy for funding already pay levy for all property owners (fire, SES, etc) • Include property owners in panels. More consideration given to residents • Lost tourism opportunities – forward planning of tourist plan / local council • Promotion of local area vs. Devastation of local area • Untapped potential

External Threats

• Planned retreat • No provision for continued risk assessment of sea-level rise • Impact on tourist industry • Impact on individuals • Long-term scale of impacts (requires decisions that have a long-term view) • Property owner litigation • Compensation should be based on each property’s market value prior to receiving risk and response categories • Political decision making • Uncertainty associated with extent of sea-level rise impacts • Loss of public amenities , eg roads • Loss of rate income for local govt. • Retreat then protective works – where does the retreat end • Cost to the community in funding management approaches • Retreat – excessive compensation if arising s/be based on each property’s market value prior to risk response

categories


• Detrimental impact on owners’ health, mental and physical, due to the amount of undue stress due to uncertainty of future

• Possibly made worse before it gets better • Personal ramification (suicide?) • Property value • Stressful delay tactics – information overload



Strong community support Solid legislation Local merit-based solutions

Information-based results and promote value of the coast for the broader community ESD forward planning Local issues to be acted on locally – estuary and lake combination

Internal Weaknesses

Timeframes Right of appeal Lack of suitable funding Impact by man-made structures on beach Compensation issues and inability to improve homes

Too long on decisions and positive resolutions Deletion of risk categories (need to be able to appeal) Decisions re: funding and funding sources Repair of pipes (stormwater flowing to beach and dunes)


Property owners in panels Improve community consultation Simplicity of laws and guidelines Rates or levies

Include property owners in the task force Include in ESD determination in social, economic and environmentally Re: guides, codes, acts and regulations – simplified External levy as all pay levy for “natural disasters” Funding issues – loss rates, etc

External Threats

Loss of tourism potential Loss public amenities Detrimental impacts on owner – health, mental and physical Retreat rather than doing any compensation needs Uncertainty due to sea-level rise Legal action Political decision making too long

Untapped tourism revenue and development revenue Roads, etc Any compensation needs to be based on each properties market prior to risk Property owners to sue


Key Issues Actions to Address Issues Additional Comments Where does retreat end? No one can say – goal posts keep moving



• Government acting on risks • Appeal to be option in Lake Cathie - how it’s handled • Basis to develop a solid framework for coastal protection measures for future • Recognition of principles of sustainable development • Analysis and data available to predict impacts • Able to obtain State funding to protect public and private land

Internal Weaknesses

• Regulations and act are not substantive • People confused about scope of responsibility, eg LGA, State and federal • Existing CP Act far too prescriptive – endless ministerial requirements and emergency protection work of sand bags not

workable • False impression of protection • CZM framework to be fully integrated at 3 levels govt. National, State and local – this to be agreed to by all! • Emergency protection works unworkable • Lack of guidance from State Govt., multiple local councils reinventing the wheel • Planning horizons of 50-100 years seem excessive • Response clauses have been deleted from this act • Financing difficult – banks wary of what may happen • Marketing of real estate difficult


• Act now to ensure long-term sustainability • Move forward quickly • Lake Cathie move forward prior to it becoming more a problem • Range of options open to combat impacts • Some funding be derived nationally to address major natural events issues – coastal/flood/fire • Pool of $$ be set aside to assist with response and planning as required • To get it right! To provide certainty for all stakeholders


• Acknowledge the rights of the local communities who are affected by erosion • CZM framework to be fully integrated at all 3 levels of government as Australia’s Coastline is iconic and important as

the outback to Australian ethos • Explore rolling easement concept to retain beach in public ownership • Opportunities to reinstate response clauses back into the act • More guidance from state govt. on appropriate response

External Threats

• Time taken to prepare action plans • Adverse affect on communities if retreat is adopted • Loss of local govt. income if protection of coastline is not adopted • Inadequate funding to enable meaningful implementations • Lack of funding • Need to have ability to develop local strategies • Lack of government funding to implement actions • Valuations of properties of retreat is adopted • Total loss of equity in property • No finance available for home



Basis to develop solid framework Recognition of principles of sustainable development Govt. acting on risks Obtaining state funding to protect Options are actually available for protection Analysis of date available to predict impacts

Implement CMP Implementation within CMP Be proactive, not reactive Clarity of funding opportunities Some areas clearly can be protected opportunity to involve community future

Internal Weaknesses

Planning horizons over 50-100 yrs excessive Lack of guidance from State govt. Emergency protection works unworkable Marketing of real estate and financing difficult Response clauses have been removed from act

Reduce these horizons within CMP – too much uncertainty Clear direction within CMP to also include funding for LG planning Act needs to be revised and must be workable Action by Govt. to confirm action (create certainty) Reinstate clauses back into act


Act now before further deterioration Reinstate response clauses back into the act Acknowledge rights of local communities who are affected Certainty for all stakeholders

Action plans to be implemented sooner than later Review act to reinstate More local consultation and all

stakeholders to be included


Key Issues Actions to Address Issues Additional Comments Range of options to protect Involve all levels of Govt. National disaster funding pool

Planned retreat is last option available More consultation Consult federal Government (flooding, fire, erosion)

External Threats

Valuation of properties if retreat is adopted Finance unavailable Lack of funding for protection and strategies Loss of local Govt. income if coastline is not protected Adverse affect on communities if retreat is adopted Excessive tie to prepare CMP Imposition of 149 notations of certificates

Value properties on valuations prior to 149 notations are implemented Certainty within CMP to be adopted Range of funding options to be forthcoming Special levy for coastal protection Must make retreat a last resort a clear definition on planned treat must be formulated for compensation and calculation State minister must set timeframe for implementation 149 notations must be removed and must be fair to affected land owners



• Consistent regulating free work for the NSW coast • Appears to be a more thorough and proactive set of methods than other states • Public access principles • ESD principles

Internal Weaknesses

• Confusing legislation and framework – so open to interpretation • Local Govt. as a facilitator for policy / guidelines • Developers are able to convince authorities that low lying land is suitable for development • Some councils adversely affected by policy and limited funding • Base information for models (sand) is wrong• Constrained by planning department

– does not go to local level

• Limited specialist (consultant) experience • Lack of technical expertise in councils • Multiple acts, regulations, codes and guidelines • Funding / support for councils to prepare and workshop their CHMP • No federal direction and funding • No $$ to implement measures • Available funding


• Planned retreat is the most sustainable option • Opportunity to plan for settlement on higher ground • Don’t make the same historical mistakes with structure on beaches (maintenance, eco effects) • Opportunities to learn from other places/states • Further geotechnical studies and studies of coastal processes • Formalising a process for planned retreat • Funding to implement measures (eg acquisition) provided to priority areas • Funding to purchase properties that are threatened


• State Govt. take on planning process to ensure consistency for whole coastal community • Further State/Federal involvement • Regional plans as opposed to local plans • Time for a review is perhaps time for rationalising the number of policies, guidelines and practice notes • Streamline guidelines regulating framework into one document

External Threats

• Debate over the science of climate change • Council’s developing different approaches – inconsistent • Different approaches to deal with coastal processes • Community opposition and accepting changed regulation • Community’s perception that there is an easy answer • Government timeframes • Local government ability • Councils do not have technical expertise to undertake studies / plans • Many approaches are too costly to implement. If a council has funding, a range of options can be considered • High cost impost on councils to develop plans • Limited funding available – residents, councils, state + fed • Cost of physically repairing coastal damage is prohibitive • Ongoing costs / problems associated with measures (eg break walls, shore reefs, etc)



Consistent framework Public access principles ESD principles

Review and update? Expand and fund acquisition scheme

Internal Weaknesses

Funding – planning and implementation Technical experience – CCC and consultations Inconsistency within and across state and CCC departments Multiple legislative layers Politics influences results

Increasing $$ from State and Fed Government; hot spot area priority Regional studies; universal increase in funding More communication Consolidate/define into single document Strong legislation


Funding to implement – acquire land State govt. / regional approach Learn from our mistakes Undertake investigations into coastal processes Streamline legislation

Commitment to acquire land Consider hazard studies across all boarders – regional approach Use mistakes to set minimum benchmarks Fed and State studies regarded National approach

External Threats

Funding Technical experience Timeframe Poor community perception and acceptance Inconsistency across councils

Fed and State increasing funding University and industry to collaborate Be realistic Need to understand reality of hazard and costs Federal, State and/or regional approach



• Seeks community input • State and local government involvement • State funding to protect public land and private land • Seeks community input • State funding to protect public and private land • Minimise social disruption and economic cost • Sets out principles foremost • Accepts threat of rising seas due to climate change • Accepts and addresses global warming • Broad range of issues considered • Sets out principles followed • Comprehensive legislation and guidelines • There is a system in place • Legislation will improve with use and interpretation and formulation of policy

Internal Weaknesses

• Issues can become political • Emotional and financial implications • Issues are complex – no easy solution • No agreed position • Response categorisation deleted • Planning horizon excessive • Estuaries and adjacent beaches insufficiently covered • Right of appeal required • Littoral rain forest ignored • Estuaries and adjacent beaches insufficiently covered • Right of appeal required • Legislation may appear to be a ‘one size fits all’ (possibly due to lack of understanding)



• Reinstate response categories • Clarify response categories • Reduce planning horizon • Include property owners • Closer uniformity in ESD • Strategic way of dealing with issues • Acknowledge social and economic rights and importance • Community involvement in process • Reduced conflict between development and coastal processes in long-term • Include property owners in panels • Improve community consultation generally • Consistency along the coast • Protective works – opportunity for individuals to do something to save their property or at least lengthen tenure • Revision of framework to meet current needs / expectations • Fresh look at issues • Incorporation of current/new issues, eg sea-level rise • Reinstate response categories • Closer uniformity in ESD

External Threats

• Excessive retreat valuation of properties • Adverse impact on local economies and communities • Unsuccessful ESD studies • Loss of public influence structure • Loss of government revenue • Political interference • Non-acceptance of date/predictions • Changing political landscape – changing importance of issues • Outcome will not be able to satisfy all stakeholders • Change and compromise is not easily accepted


• Excessive retreats • Valuation of properties • Adverse impact on local economies and communities


Community and government cooperation and funding Minimisation of social/economic costs Response to broad range of issues/principles There is a legislation/policy framework

Ongoing workshops between all stakeholders Ongoing funding through government Merit-based decision making. Community input

Internal Weaknesses

Planning horizon excessive Right of appeal required Emotional/financial implications with any outcome Response categorisation required One size fits all policy response

Reduce planning horizon to 50 yrs Include right of appeal for decisions made Strategic planning of new development Reinstate response categories Merit-based approach to each location/issue

Debatable


Reduced conflict long-term, strategic approach Community involvement Incorporate “response categories”

External Threats

Excessive/one-sided application of ESD policy No solution will satisfy everyone Political cycle

Environment and community impact must be considered Education, merit-based decision making per locality



• Gives an ability to work together • Communities working together • Community support for action • The people of Old Bar raised $54000 in fundraising and Govt. funds to pay for the preliminary study for an offshore reef

at Old Bar • Having the prelim study completed to build offshore reefs to bring back the sand to Old Bar Beach

Internal Weaknesses

• Legislation too convoluted, eg. EAP refers to many acts but not for eg, an 8 point action plan • Lack of certainty • Not specific, vague, generalised • Greater Taree City Council only see “planned retreat” as an answer to the erosion of Old Bar Beach • Lack of communication and coordination between councils and the public, as well as government • The weakness us that Greater Taree City Council don’t want the responsibility of accepting the OBBSRG’s plan to build

offshore reefs • Where councils are preparing plans does not seem to be enough consideration of community ideas and expectations


• Community input • To assist in slowing down the coastal processes by way of man-made structures • To create workable guidelines – not just philosophies (eg, NSW Coastal Policy 1997) • Bring management plans etc up to date • To protect coastal land with sustainable infrastructure, opposed to measures with very high maintenance costs • Off shore reefs have been proven to work in other places – they will work in old bar • Offshore reefs can save Old Bar Beach which could be a pilot for other areas • We have the opportunity to gain funding from state and federal Govt. to build the offshore reefs at Old Bar to bring

back the sand – but first Greater Taree City Council has to OK this plan. External Threats

• Having to persuade local council to get behind the OBBSRG’s proposed offshore reefs, which we have already paid for and conducted the preliminary study for


• Planned retreat is not an option – planned retreat at Old Bar would cost local, state, private investors in the order of $300 million

• Time it takes to research / prove various ‘solutions’ • Lack of funding to support sustainable solutions • Limited government and council financial resources • Policy gets lost in an actual, in reality, “do nothing” mentality when “all boiled down” • Inundation of ocean to homes and towns


Strong community support for finding solutions, eg Old Bar OBBSRG raised $54000 for a study for an offshore reef

Local and state governments need to listen to the community and take into consideration their suggestions, eg. Feasibility study already completed

Internal Weaknesses

No clear legislative path for the EAP Lack of council and government cooperation and communication Greater Taree City Council does not want the responsibility of making a decision on an offshore reef Needs to take on board community ideas and expectations GTCC only interested in one solution, ie. planning retreat Legislation and regulations vague and generalised

EAP should be more like the emergency action plan in a hospital Easy to understand in an emergency Fund council so they can act responsibly

Local Govt. is unable to act due to no funding or the fear of 50/50 funding and then the fear of approving a plan and having it fail – restricts any action

External To protect coastal land with FUNDING


Key Issues Actions to Address Issues Additional Comments Opportunities sustainable, low-maintenance

infrastructure To gain funding from State and Federal Govt. for an offshore reed at Old Bar, as a pilot for other hot spots

External Threats

Lack of government and council funding to support sustainable solutions Planned retreat is not an option Planned retreat at Old Bar would cost local, State and private investors in the order of $300 million Inundation of ocean to homes and towns Lengthy process to research and prove solutions and then to get councils to act Policy gets “lost” in action even though two studies have been completed

Council and Government should act on the studies

What would it take? 100 houses, 600 houses, 7000 dwellings to be inundated before the current “planned retreat” becomes the last option? Planned retreat is the “do nothing” plan.


Independent SWOT Input by Lake Cathie Progressive Association (LCPA) and Lake Cathie Coastal Residents Group (LCCRG)

SWOT INPUT ON CURRENT LEGISLATION & GUIDELINES. STRENGTHS

POST-IT ENTRY ENTRY ON SHEET Accepts and addresses global warming.

Accepts and addresses global warming and resulting sea level rise.

Comprehensive legislation and guidelines.

Comprehensive body of legislation and associated guidelines.

State funding to protect public and private land.

NSW Sea Level Rise Policy Statement outlines Government funding criteria to protect public assets and private land.

Minimise social disruption & economic costs.

A stated NSW Sea Level Rise Policy Statement objective is to minimise social disruption and economic costs.

Seeks community input. Seeks initial and ongoing community input. Sets out principles followed.

Sets out the principles followed. This opens the way for discussion and debate on the legislation and guidelines.

WEAKNESSES Response categorisation deleted.

Last minute inexplicable deletion of Response Categories in Part 4 of Coastal Protection Regulation 2011, to the massive detriment of affected coastal private and commercial property owners.

Planning horizon excessive.

The NSW Sea Level Rise Policy Statement recommends matching planning horizon to expected life of asset

Littoral rain forests ignored.

, which for a residence is 50 years or less. Basing S149 certificates on 100 years is resulting in massive asset losses for affected owners of coastal residences, when selling. The CZMP preparation guidelines also call for “relevant time periods”, S 2.2.1, and recognises forecasting imprecision. Reference to the preservation of littoral rain forests appears to be missing in legislation and guidelines.

Estuaries and adjacent beaches insufficiently covered.

Principle 4 in the CZMA preparation guidelines establishes the need for composite CZMPs when interacting estuaries and beaches are present. Currently, adopting separate CZMPs is open to councils, contravening Principle 4.

Right of appeal required. Risk and Response categorisations both draw on studies by the experts retained by councils. The right to


appeal and present different findings and interpretations to the Minister should be provided by amending Coastal Protection Regulation 2011 to include appeal. Natural justice.

OPPORTUNITIES Re-instate Response Categories.

Last minute inexplicable deletion of Response Categories in Part 4 of Coastal Protection Regulation 2011, was massively detrimental to affected coastal private and commercial property owners. Re-introduction of likely response will properly record the outcome of detailed study, and justly reduce the loss for many thousands of coastal property owners when they sell.

Clarify Response Category A.

Assuming its re-introduction, the definition of Response Category A will include the draft’s wording “the public authority is likely to undertake the works when funding is available”, and should replace the words “funding is being sought for implementation”, which currently appear in the CZMA preparation guidelines. This will properly reflect the “real world” situation for all stakeholders.

Reduce planning horizon. Restrict planning horizon for existing and new coastal residences to 50 years, as this is the generally accepted time frame for this class of building. In further support of adopting 50 rather than 100 years, the guidelines acknowledge the imprecision of scientific forecasts, which compounds as the planning horizon is extended.

Include property owners in panels.

Include landowners on the Coastal panel and the forthcoming Taskforce.

Improve community consultation generally.

Required if the best available data is to be available on all three elements (social, economic and environmental) in Ecologically Sustainable Development determinations.

Closer uniformity in ESD Legislate to achieve uniformity in addressing ESD principles across all councils.

Acknowledge social and economic rights and importance.

Currently, guidelines do not sufficiently acknowledge and reflect the social and economic rights and importance of affected private and commercial coastal property owners.


THREATS Excessive retreat. There could be excessive application of compensated

retreat, rather than protective works, if not effectively processed by objective and balanced application of ESD principles.

Valuation of properties. Retreat compensation, when arising, should be based on each property’s market value prior to receiving risk and response categories. Otherwise the owner will be unjustly penalised.

Adverse impact on local economies and communities.

Would happen if balanced ESD principles and studies are not applied.

Unsuccessful ESD studies. Property owners unsuccessfully seeking coastal protection should be informed as to the reasons, and have the opportunity to make inputs which could warrant re-assessment.

Loss of public infra-structure.

There could be loss of infra-structure, for example roads, if CZMAs are too limited in the area they cover, and/or the ESD considerations they address. Separate CZMAs for adjacent areas would fall short, in ESD terms, of what would emerge from composite studies, an example being interacting estuaries and beaches.

Loss of Government revenue.

Decisions not to pursue coastal protection works will reduce coastal property values and hence stamp duty revenue and rates revenue, estimates of which should be included in ESD studies.

To the facilitator of the coastal legislation workshop at Port Macquarie Glasshouse 14.11.2011

.

The above forms part of the workshop input of Lake Cathie Progress Association Inc. (LCPA) and Lake Cathie Coastal Residents Group (LCCRG), as pre-digested for the workshop. It will be introduced in this written form within each SWOT group at which LCPA and/or LCCRG are represented, and we request it go forward to you, in full, as part of the record of that SWOT group’s deliberations. We look forward to your confirmation that it will be so recorded. Paul Flemming. For LCPA & LCCRG. 14.11.2011.


vi. Ballina 16th November 2011 Group 1 Individual SWOT outcomes Internal Strengths

• Protection walls for public access funded by State government; funded walls by residents for protection • Community involvement as a stakeholder • Community passion for their ‘own’ coastal beaches, e.g. Beach or House on Dune • Small issues (i.e. beach access) are supported by funding • Studies are supported by funding • Section 149 advises of hazard • Statewide consistent approach • Sets out limits of what is acceptable • Linking coastal and estuary foreshore threats rather than only looking at coastal foreshore threats in isolation • CZMP planning process • NSW coastal policy and SCR policy • Current CMP/CZMPs exist to implement objectives

Internal Weaknesses

• Not enough State funding to address local issues beyond capacity of local government • Inadequate funding to implement CZMPs • ECPWs • Weak enforcement / upholding of public amenity access considerations • ECPW abilities are not sustainable and unreasonably raise community expectations of benefit • Lack of Coastal Zone 7 f(2) • Not much direct action of a positive nature lately • Some areas of the Act are unclear and need to be clarified • $4 million in inadequate State funding of the problem • Land uses: - Full economic use of land during its lifetime (town planning restrictions) • Politicians will to implement adopted sustainable CZMP actions • Limited ecological integration • Lack of targeted funding will limit works to least cost – funding will drive solution


• Legislation, guidelines not consistent / integrated • Lack of land use zone in LEP SI Order for coastal lands • CP Act infers EASP is a CZMP – therefore statutory weight and all provisions apply • Limited engagement of wider stakeholder groups who benefit / enjoy the coastal zone and good access and amenity


• Protection of coastal communities for future intergenerational use • To allow offshore sand extraction for beach nourishment • Opportunity to address flood plan urgent impacts • In some estuary flood plains asset value is relatively low • To find a way to make planned retreat work • To plan now for future adaptation to climate change related hazard and existing hazard • Remove ECPW provisions in CP Act as are fraught with problems and will not achieve a single benefit • For all relevant NSW govt. agencies to play a role in implementation, e.g. land supply for planned retreat • Local Govt. levy for adopted coastal management approach to fund purchase / protect / management • Fed/State/Local govt. clear identification of funding and management options • Support / assistance for landowners who might be faced with relocation – asset rich, cash poor, elderly – “where will I

go?” • To make more funds available to implement CZMP actions • For the government to provide clear, direction and adequate funding for the coastal erosion issues and solutions

External Threats

• Integration with planning instruments • Community acceptance of CZMP actions that result in significant change, e.g. planned retreat • Adversarial outcomes • Precedents for statewide applicability • Continued litigation and expenditure on this rather than on problem solving • Conflict of land uses inherit legal conflicts • Muddy legislation creating legal uncertainty



Improved planning and policy process Reasonable social, community engagement Provides for funding opportunities Good CZMP planning process integrating coastal & estuary issues

S149 Certificates Coastal & Estuary Programs, protection works (management)

Internal Weaknesses

Current planning regime – no 7f(2) zones Political will to enforce objects of the Act Limited ecological integration Integration of planning instruments Long timeframe for implement of actions to address risks

Include an appropriate coastal zone in standard instrument LEP Strengthen buffer zoning, preserve ecological function Improve EP&A Act, standard instrument and CP Act Increase support to councils and State to lead on front foot moves


Strengthen funding framework between community and government Finalise government position and funding for offshore sand extraction for beach nourishment

Develop rate levy models for adopted coastal management approach Develop funding model, e.g. stamp duty portion to fund CZM implementation Fed/State/Local govt. collaboration on funds Develop a policy position and recommended funding model


Key Issues Actions to Address Issues Additional Comments Develop/finalise govt. position on a range of CZM issues

Policy position on planned retreat with proposed funding model for implementation Review NSW Coastal Policy and strengthen Coastal Planning – improve standard instrument to include a coastal zone

External Threats

Integration between planning instruments – muddy legislative basis Legal conflicts stifling planning approval process Community acceptance of CZMP management actions Adversarial outcomes for people and the coast ECPW’s

Improve robustness of legislation to remove legal uncertainty/threat Improve clarity/integration of legislation Improve funding mechanisms and models Better communication, honest discussion about what we can afford / not afford to do Strengthen and clarify what is possible for coastal management Get rid of them



• The power of volunteers to change the world is unlimited – something that governments have yet to fully understand and respond to

• Partnership between national parks, marine parks and community • Land/Dune Care environment protection groups • Recognition of community – esp. Dunecare, Coastcare • Comprehensive framework of regulation which are sensible • The State plan takes into account ecosystem and environmental conservation • Ecosystem services are recognised as an asset • Government commitment to achieve Coastal protection at all levels • Beach amenity for walking (with and without dogs), playing cricket, etc, is very important as a community gathering

place and daily exercise – is ritual • The legislation puts the environment first, with economic assets only as a secondary matter. That is as it should be. • There’s a lot of sand on the beach to move around • The beach profile is malleable and can be changed to help preserve it • That beach scrapping does work is short/mid-term at New Brighton

Internal Weaknesses

• The discussion of coastal management gets hijacked on all occasions by being focused only on transient economic assets such as land, property and infrastructure

• The sand on the beach is too mobile and gets taken away too early by wind and water • Conflicts between the aims of parts of the Act • Objectives are over-restrictive in that they do not see to take Lake Ainsworth into consideration • Opposition from the community to accept the cost of coastal protection, e.g. ‘short-term pain for long-term gain’ not

accepted by sections of the community • Amended legislation threatens private landowners and challenges 1000 years of Westminster law relating to property

rights vis a vis protection • Belief that this is just a token gesture of community consultation • Framework of regulation embracing coastal protection are not rationally codified and different pieces of legislation


create confusion • Councils still need to interpret and there can be conflict between council boundaries • Lack of funding for estuary • There is no guaranteed share of Land Tax and other income that is mandated to be spent on ecosystem management


• Advertising programs to create awareness and action on coastal threat • Education • Work with Dunecare, Coastcare and Rivercare • New planning guidelines based on extensive forecasts • There is a great opportunity for new technology or a new process to reduce erosion • Community members who value and care for the environment are motivated altruistically, which is the most powerful

and enduring motivation of all • Use coastal land tax to pay for remedial works and buy-backs

External Threats

• Private vested interest • Political interest • Entrenched short-term planning • Vested interests prevent positive local action against coastal protection – expect action of reassure land holder

compensation • Asset protection threatens the environment and habitat of many endangered species, e.g. rock walls destroy dune

habitat for nesting birds • Sea-level rise will do far more than erode the coastline, but will inundate and gradually destroy coastal habitats, which

can never be recovered once they are lost • Sea-level rises will be higher than projected and extreme weather events need to be considered • Random use of legislation by councils • Lack of thought, consideration and preparation for this process by participants • Send us the SWOT forums and coastal protection Act prior to meeting • Lack of public awareness of the reality of coastal erosion and threat to the environment – apathy • Environmental decisions such as those which determine the future of endangered coastal ecological communities are

determined by economic decisions about property protection • Legislation threatens to create social disharmony


• The detrimental effects of... walls and man-made structures Group 2 Action Plan Key Issues Actions to Address Issues Additional Comments Internal Strengths

Community involvement (dune and river care) Beach nourishment can be successful Partnerships between marine parks, community groups and governments The legislation puts the environment first and the comprehensive nature of regulations, etc.

Recognition by all levels of government Appropriate levels of funding Further research needed Incentives for innovation and funding Legislators ensure that regulations are implemented – they have teeth.

Internal Weaknesses

Beach nourishment in one area has detrimental effect further on the coast Confusion between council and State responsibility Funding insufficient Conflict between economic and environmental issues Lakes don’t seem to be included

Further research needed Think it through better and be mindful of the realities of council responsibility FUNDING! ESD over long-term overrides private interest Add them in


Promotion and education of the complex issues Planning based on science New technologies provide opportunities

Do it

Plan Give incentives and support to research bodies

External Detrimental effects on Prevent, remove, study


Key Issues Actions to Address Issues Additional Comments Threats environment from man-made

structures Vested landholder interests threaten ecological processes and community access Lack of understanding about coastal processes Sea-level rises may be understated and extreme events Lack of consistency within a council, between councils and between States Lose public access to beaches

Consult insurance companies Adopt democratic processes to support coastal protection Educate Study (pray) – reduce carbon emissions



• Liberal Party NSW pre-election commitment to repeal 2010 changes to Coastal Protection Act and improve protection for Hotspot erosion

• Informed, well-educated groups such as Byron Preservation Association and Wooli community groups Internal Weaknesses

• Recognise and respond to the impact of past man-made coastal structures • Current legislation only allows beachfront protection once – ridiculous! • Type of protection permitted in rules will not work or achieve desired protection • Rules for no upstream protection render policy unworkable • Bureaucrats have undermined intention of Act (new revisions) • 2010 Amendment to CP Act is unworkable on a practical level for property protection • Current changes to coastal CPAST legislation must be repeated as promised by shadow Minister (has not been done) • Not properly acknowledging legal and ethical responsibility for car park rock wall causing erosion at Belongil despite all

• State government to provide stronger leadership / direction on development of CZMP

council consultants stating it over many year – “head in the sand syndrome”, denial

• Belongil erosion in particular cause by man-made structure at Jonson St not normal processes • Council need to acknowledge this and remove structure or protect Belongil. Cost to protect far less than cost of retreat


• State to fund all protection required for erosion cause by man-made structures • Percentage of beachfront local govt. rates to be allocated to beach management protection as this is self-enabling, i.e.

will increase land values, therefore increases rates further (and Land Tax increase) • Isolate zealots within State and Local govt. from power • Amalgamate councils to improve professional management of these issues and economy of scale. Also less opportunity

for small political council to take inappropriate rogue actions • NSW needs Gold Coast model • Failing all other recommendations for beach protection, land owners must be allowed to at least fund their own

protection as last line of defense • State government take over CZMP rather than local government • Amalgamate councils to get economies of scale to manage the coastal problem


• No planned retreat for existing legally developed land, only future vacant land • If forced retreat, State must acquire land at pre-planned retreat policy • In Byron Bay, an offshore reef protection could be well received by beach users (esp. Surfers) • Mimic or copy Gold Coast model for protection which is paid for by land owner • Sell crown land to fund protection initially and use Land Tax and rates to sustain it • Land Tax within 100m of Coast to be identified as Coastal Land Tax and used specifically for coastal management • Sell some crown land on beach where land would otherwise be eroded/lost (and therefore lost to crown anyway) to

fund protective measures for beaches most at risk, e.g. Belongil – Byron Bay is targeted to be sacrifice and has many multi-million dollar value lots owned by crown

• Funding from sale of crown land for coastal management • State govt. funding allocation to protect Hotspots and particularly tourist key areas that thrive/exist because of

beaches. This is an investment by state in future revenue (not just a cost). External Threats

• Selfish individuals suing councils because they built on sand • State guidelines within legislation not workable, do not achieve objectives and appear to have been designed to

frustrate intention of protection in legislation • Personalities within Local and State govt. pushing personal agendas, e.g. Byron mayor stating in council meeting that

worst day of her life was the day planned retreat in DCZMP was rejected • Private property to be lost due to planned retreat without fair compensation • Provisions for protection not effective • Byron council ideological objective to achieve planned retreat for developed areas at any coast; regardless or cheaper

better alternative of protection and in direct contradiction of their own consultants/advisors and specific expert advice • State guidelines are unworkable • Response to Erosion Emergency impossible



There are well educated and informed community groups who can provide advice which is practical and achievable

Include Byron Preservation Association, BPA and Wooli CCPA in the stakeholder groups

Internal Weaknesses

2010 Amendment CP Act unworkable and detrimental to coastal management State and LGA to take full responsibility for man-made structures that cause erosion events

Amend or repeal legislation as promised by Shadow Cabinet prior to election Mitigate impact or allow proper extension of protection, e.g. Gold Coast system


Funding – sale of crown land on foreshore Allocate part of Land Tax within 100m of coast Amalgamate councils to get economy of scale State govt. to manage all coast Percentage of LGA rates to be allocated to beach management

List all foreshore crown land possible for sale for funding Establish Land Tax amount paid by coastal residents Establish coastal rate base as percentage of LGA area and allocate funding resources accordingly

External Threats

Personal goals of individuals should not supersede overall community benefit

Greater importance to be places on residential need rather than council ideology



• Local community and local council working together on CZMP – preparation and implementation

Internal Weaknesses

• Framework that inhibits innovation is detrimental to innovation • Reticent to examine funding opportunities to date • A lack of recent funding to produce the knowledge needed for innovative development (physical solutions, funding

solutions) – beach surveys, photography, currents, waves, etc


• Tiered legislation – subject to governance should accommodate innovation and ongoing development • Need better alignment between “best practice” and “accountable practice” • CCPA has a good working relationship with council • We need a similar relationship with State govt. • A planning framework which allows innovation beyond lowest common denominator (advanced research) – provable

solutions for individual situations • Use proven solutions: reinstate sand-dredge program for sand replenishment • Revise legislation to allow whole-of-government (multi-departmental) solutions

External Threats

• Planned retreat is the lowest common denominator • Complexity of departmental legislation doesn’t cross boundaries • ECPW are neither practical nor effective – they raise unrealistic expectations • Legislative frameworks are typically cumbersome, lowest common denominator, and inhibit implementation of

innovation • Opportunity (see tiered legislation)



CCPA and CVC working well together

Internal Weaknesses

Lack of research and funding A single-level framework can inhibit implementation of innovation

Advanced research leading to provable site-specific solutions Tiered legislation allows innovation beyond lowest common denominator Use provable and reusable solutions, e.g. sand-dredging program


CCPA and State working relationship needs enhancement

Need alignment and ‘best practice’ and ‘allowable practice’

External Threats

ECPW are neither practical nor effective. They raise unrealistic expectations Legislative frameworks are cumbersome, lowest common denominator an inhibit innovation and implementation

Remove ECPW and focus on long-term solutions Implement tiered legislation to allow greater innovation



• Buried tea-tree fence • A very attractive coastal area/village which must be preserved • Large section of beach undeveloped north of Lennox (if coast moves inland still a beach) • Existing defenses artificial dune/rock walls and tea-tree fences • Rock wall buried under dune • Passionate community • Active dune care groups revegetating the dune • Reef and headland at southern end of village

Internal Weaknesses

• Low lying flat, sandy land • Poor official understanding of the effects of the sea on different areas of Lennox Head Beach • Development close to the beach • Financial barriers to best practice • Current structures on fore dunes • Potential to overlook or not research adequately existing barriers to coastal erosion, e.g. rock wall underlying dune

along beach at Lennox - council regards this as non-PTD External Opportunities

• Extend tea-tree fence rock wall • Artificial reef • To focus on the environment as part of any protection works • To raise areas as barriers and to form amenities – activity areas, play areas • Extending existing defenses, especially using inexpensive (relatively) means, e.g. tea-tree fences • To minimise coastal erosion in the least visually and functionally damaging manner, by appropriate masking

landscaping, e.g. bury rock walls • Research ‘best practice’ worldwide to minimise coastal erosion

External Threats

• Risk of reduction of appearance / aesthetics of beachfront • Unrealistic (expensive) solutions • Cycleway development


• Impact of other neighbours coastal erosion policies on our coastline, e.g. loss of sand migration due to groynes • Cycle/storm surge • Climate activities, e.g. cyclones • Cycleway development • Retreat policy • Lack of protection from human activities - erosion


Already some defenses (dune, rock wall, tea-tree fences) Headland and reef Community motivated to preserve Lennox Head and natural environments

Extend protection works React/build ONLY as needed More vegetation in vulnerable areas World’s best practice expertise Use landscape architects

Large section of beach is undeveloped

Internal Weaknesses

Development on fore dunes Poor understanding of effects of sea on different locations Financial barriers

No more development More education and clarification and understanding of existing situations and historical events Spend money wisely, Land Tax, allocation


Engage world’s best practice to minimise erosion and keep natural beauty

Produce amenity – play, viewing, picnic areas Artificial reef? Community consultation in choices

Local and professional expertise

External Threats

Impact of neighbouring shires Extreme weather activities Loss of natural beauty Lack of money for best practice

Landscape architect involved in planning Reduce carbon emissions Land Tax – use for coastal management



• We are talking • Good to have local OEH coastal and flooding experts to help local government with coastal and flooding risk

management plans • 50% funding from OEH to do studies • Some State and federal recognition of climate change impact • Good cooperation between State /Local government • Issues being addressed by government • Adopted coastal erosion DCP for Tweed • Increasing community awareness that arises from significant erosion events • On strength is the ability to understand historic processes and climactic patterns in formulating policy. i.e. for the

future management of threatened areas • Consistent approach to issues (underlying philosophy of approach) • ‘Good science’ is being applied to the issues

Internal Weaknesses

• A lack of shared values on the magnitude of the problem • Focus on coastal erosion – need to acknowledge estuarine issues – ecology, infrastructure, development • State-based, can lead to abrupt change in philosophy / rules when change states • Difficult to implement in time / associate with changes planning legislative • Importance of ecology not considered highly enough • No adequate provision for ecology retreat • Council will still be paying off infrastructure debts when future generations will be looking to pay to remove this

infrastructure • High cost solutions produces by CZMP process that cannot be funded • Funding • Sometimes too much time and money spent getting it right – 9/10 can be good enough • Slow timeframes for action • Reduced practical expert advice from State govt.


• The regulatory framework around our ability to act quickly when issues arise • Only Holland and Germany planning for year 300, i.e. we are still encouraging investment in vulnerable areas • Different sea-level rise policy heights – 0.9m (2100) by OEH and 1.1m (2100) by Federal govt. • Lack of funding for infrastructure projects • Very complex and diverse policy – you need to be an expert to understand policy and not miss the detail • Land purchase and swaps


• Review of coastal policy 1997 • State government coordinates nourishment statewide, e.g. offshore dredging • $87 million of funds available if sand bypass was decommissioned and groyne removed • Chance to look long-long-term to reduce impacts of poor past planning and remove future risks • A time of heightened recognition of serious nature of the issue • Energy / increasing momentum for a new approach and to get it right • Opportunity to use crown land tax within 200m of coast to say return land within 100m of coast to crown/public

land/open space • A bad coastal erosion event • The establishment of the coastal taskforce that can raise the profile and priority of CZM • Identify ‘practical’ solutions always, re: cost, maintenance, etc • Accelerate (abbreviate) CZMP process • Great opportunity to bring the wider community / population into the picture, not just those under immediate threat • People power to vote for politicians that take is seriously if we can get the message out there • Educate communities about risk and inevitabilities of sea-level rise and coastal impacts, i.e. there is no permanent

infrastructural solutions • Include predictions on S149 certificate • Long-term planning to retreat – what will be now regional centres in the future

External Threats

• Politicians as climate change deniers looking after private development interests rather than public interests • Climate change predicted much faster than previously predicted – whilst we build up to line as if a policy will protect us

and as if there is no future past 2100, i.e. can remove houses but not cities • Natural process – how can you continue to hold back the inevitable and at what cost?


• IPCC new figures (1.6m, not 0.9) but not taken into account yet • Very complex issue with no single answer • Science is improving very quickly and so policy has to keep up • Politics overriding good policy • Accelerated climate change threatens planned timeframes for change • Major subdivisions / coastal estuarine developments just meeting current planning guidelines which are set to increase

and will end up in the bottom of the broad waters – can’t remove a subdivision • Market forces (property market) work against government processes to achieve satisfactory coastal management

measures • Legislative/regulatory approaches – less politics, more practical ability • Funding • A lack of adequate funding priorities to develop long-term solutions • A lack-lustre national involvement in the policy process and strategy development


Improved planning, e.g. Tweed Hazard DCP Improved understanding of science/processes and communication to community/govt. Good cooperation/advice across State and local govt. Synthesis of science into statutory documents/legislation

Will need State government support Continue dissemination and education Continue and improve – replace staff! Continue and improve

Internal Weaknesses

Ability for Local Govt. to pay for works/infrastructure and expertise

Develop achievable solutions – unrealistic expectations created Be creative about funding opportunities


Key Issues Actions to Address Issues Additional Comments Ability to provide for ecology/habitat/retreat Slow reaction and implementation timeframes – 80-20 rule Investment in vulnerable areas – debt burden for future

Incorporate ecological considerations in LEP Use 80-20 rule – sometimes info you have is ‘good enough’ Long-term planning incorporated into LEP


Encourage short-term use of land at risk in future Educate communities and politicians on threats State govt. coordinates response to erosion threat

Temporary subdivisions and land swaps / purchase of crown land Use erosion events to raise awareness / recognition of issues e.g. offshore dredging Coastline task force

External Threats

Lack of national involvement/buy-in Lack of FUNDING Uncertainty on rates and timing of CC impacts Natural processes – inevitable outcome and what money spent in the meantime (investing in vulnerable areas)

Coasts and CC council Seek creative/alternate funding opportunities Funding across 3 tiers of government Adaptation flexibility Differentiate between existing development and new subdivisions



Allows for individual council policies to stipulate policy/regulation Plenty of lead time to plan Established local govt. framework/policy Flexible/diverse teams Open communication with reference groups Provides and promotes info about hazards and coastal risks Frameworks established and linkages recognised Existing legislation enacted, empowered, tested and funded (albeit inadequately)

Internal Weaknesses

Community involvement/participation within a timeframe compressed to meet deadlines which may in part be politically driven Potential inconsistency or inability to impose development and resource management standards Should be more proactive dealing with legacy issues, man-made/artificially created erosion Lack of recognition of right of land owners Are the policies sustainable? Self-interested land owners assuming they have a right to public compensation Different or inconsistent results from export consultant along the coastline Failure to consider that sea-levels will keep rising for 2-300 years, not just 2100 Public and political refusal to accept science Costs of solutions which can seem expensive are not compared to potential contingent liability Lack of funding Lack of funding = overwhelming challenge Potential sources and funds to implement solutions have not been considered – insurers


More of a reactionary catchment approach rather than individual LGA’s Incorporation of best practice being developed globally Can implement rigorous planning for the future in stages Greater community involvement in establishment of strategies and policy implementation Re-think one strategic planning, re: zonings


Relocation of some entire communities can result in optimal planning opportunities Climate change can create both short- (20 yrs) and long-term LEP’s, eg 50-100 yrs Can plan in advance to retreat using a variety of measures that can be modified in plenty of time as sea-level predictions are refined

External Threats

Inundation of entire towns, e.g. Ballina Island No incentive / encouragement to foster collaborative public / private solutions Lack of funds compared to the challenge Lack of funding Inability of councils (such as Byron) to observe legislations Political populism at all three levels Spending good money often badly as the sea-level rises Destruction of infrastructure, e.g. Ballina drains and coast and at Sharpes Beach Breakdown in climate change science


Established local govt. framework policies Existing legislation enacted/empowered Provides and promotes information about hazards

Local and State Govt. +

Internal Weaknesses

Funding and costs Landowners and community involvement (+/-) Science acceptance LGA inconsistencies, re: boundaries Sustainable implementation People don’t take personal

Early, staged resettlement strategies well in advance


Key Issues Actions to Address Issues Additional Comments responsibility for their investment decisions


Need for greater community involvement Need for a more overall regional approach rather than individual LGA’s Proactive adoptive planning in stages Potential to import global best practice solutions Rethinking of existing rezoning processes in Hotspots

Can create 2 LEP’s, both short and long-term timeframes Local and State govt. NSW and Fed

External Threats

Inundation of towns Few incentives for public/private collaboration Lack of funds Climate change science breakdown Political populism at 3 levels of govt. Non-complying councils with own policies/NSW policies Destruction of existing infrastructure (drains, tides)

Encourage better representation NSW government More settlements, but where?


Mr Andrew Hall emailed the following submission to the facilitator, requesting inclusion in the workshop report.

Hi Sonja,

Thoughts to add to today’s meeting:

1. In the recent [Oct 29 ] edition of New Scientist magazine p.46, is an article about finding a better way to suck up spilled oil from the ocean. An environmental trust in the USA announced a competition with a prize of $1 million dollars to find a method that was at least twice as good as current methods. This was after the Gulf oil spill. The prize was won, and a better method created plus a lot of interest was aroused and several more methods are being worked on.

Similarly, here in NSW, perhaps the stakeholders...state and local govt, and residents in affected areas, could put up a prize for the best method of reducing beach erosion. When you realise that the BPA and Byron council have spent more than $3million in court costs, and only made lawyers rich, it may be a useful idea, and would reduce the ‘combatativeness’ between Council and residents, and maybe come up with solutions to some problems.

2. There needs to be much more and clearer thinking on "Planned Retreat". Retreat to where? and How? and who pays. Is it justice that after 10/20/30 yrs in one place that you be told just to go, and they don’t care where? Who owns the building? Who pays the demolition and clean-up? What about the land? Currently the dispossessed resident has title and can do strange things. Will there be any compensation? Can you insure against it. Lots of questions about a tidy little catch phrase.

3. Funding...pay to use the beach?

4. Currently, in BSC there is a lot of animosity and distrust between residents and council. We need to make it safe to work with Council. The recent raids on "Fast Bucks " property do not help. Council is seen as using its power to foster its own agenda and crush opposition.

5. Where is Industry in this quest for solutions? They are affected too, but I don’t see their input. Wharves, coal loaders, factories will all be effected. They should be at the table, and are a potential source of funding.

6. Funding – if this is connected to climate change then a source of funding could be the Carbon Tax.

7. Beach scrapping has worked in New Brighton since the late 70's, with no apparent upstream effects. Perhaps due to the truncated groyne at the North end. Check it out. May be useful elsewhere.

8. Retreat sets a precedent. This precedent can then be applied to Bushfire zones and


Flood affected areas. May be good or bad thing, but apparently there are 10's of thousands of buildings subject to tidal inundation. Where do they go? 9. It is said that" necessity is the mother of invention". By just retreating we take away that necessity and so don’t have to do anything new. That’s all for now.

Thank you for your patience and competence.

Andrew Hall New Brighton


Via email 18 October 2011

Dear Minister, Update on Coastal Hot Spot at Wooli from local community group - CCPA As you may recall, we met in July to discuss the coastal erosion issue at Wooli, one of the identified coastal “hot spots” for erosion in NSW. Following that meeting, our community group, CCPA – Wooli (CCPA), has made significant progress. The presentation of our “postion paper”, a copy of which I provided you when we met, along with a report prepared by Dr Shaw Mead, an international marine consultant, has prompted Clarence Valley Council (CVC) to reconsider the draft Coastal Zone Management Plan that was presented to the Wooli community last year. This draft Coastal Zone Management Plan presented “planned retreat” as a preferred option and met with considerable community opposition and anger. CCPA has engaged positively with CVC since we last met and we are collaboratively working towards the presentation of a revised Coastal Zone Management Plan which will involve a significant increase in community consultation. CCPA views this as a significant step forward and continues to place the emphasis on “protection” not “retreat” in our engagement with CVC. The longer term planning around a solution to the beach erosion issue in Wooli remains an important, unresolved issue, however. Through the report prepared by Dr Shaw Mead, which was funded by CCPA, and our subsequent discussions with CVC, CCPA firmly believes that there is insufficient data available at this point to make any decisions around long term solutions. We believe the officials we have met with from CVC are now also of that view, and the final Coastal Zone Management Plan that is likely to be presented to the Minister will include extensive research as a necessary next step. The Coastal Zone Management Plan will not be finalised by CVC until December and we are mindful that the approval process may take some time. CCPA would very much like to commence the beach survey process, involving onshore beach and wave data collection, as proposed by Dr Mead, immediately. We have enlisted the help of qualified surveyors in the local community to help with the data collection process. The engineers and surveyors within our CCPA working group have developed a suggested methodology for beach surveying based on Dr Mead’s report and our knowledge of best practice methodologies. We plan to discuss this methodology with CVC in early November and will request their help with obtaining the necessary approvals. We thank the Minister for the two press releases issued in September on the issues of coastal erosion. We believe that this issue requires extensive local community consultation and requires a statewide framework that places the emphasis on protection and not retreat. How can you help? CCPA has made significant progress with CVC as outlined above but has the following requests of the Minister’s office:

1. We would appreciate the Minister’s office nominating an appropriate official from the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) with whom we can discuss our proposed research methodology. CVC has suggested this might be the regional OEH representative, but we would defer to the Minister’s Office and OEH with respect to this nomination.


2. We would like to discuss the possibility of obtaining funding (to be matched by CVC) with the Minister’s Office and OEH to commence our research. Given the current La Nina weather patterns, we would like to commence this beach research as soon as possible so appropriate data can be collected in this cycle. The total amount of funding required for the initial 2 phases of work (beach survey and set-up of the camera collection processes) are estimated to be less than $50,000. We would like this research to commence before Christmas ie we would like to apply for funding prior to the release of the Coastal Zone Management Plan.

3. Despite representing a small community, CCPA is a very active community group and has representatives from the fields of engineering, finance, consulting, journalism, science, medicine, law and other professions involved. We believe we have made significant progress in changing the mindset of local council officials and seek to make a contribution to the broader coastal erosion debate in NSW. We therefore request that the Minister give consideration to one of the members of our steering committee being engaged on the new coastal taskforce.

4. We also request that we be invited to attend the far north coast stakeholder consultations. We would seek to engage with you collaboratively with CVC at this consultation meeting.

5. We would also like to invite you to a community meeting at Wooli at a time when we could announce commencement of the beach survey and have the survey camera installed in its location (CVC has agreed this can be on the local water tower), CCPA believes that there could be some media interest. We would seek to positively engage with the media around the story of an active community group positively engaging with both the local council and state government. A tentative timing for this visit could be early December after Parliament is in recess.

We appreciate your ongoing attention to this important issue and recognise the importance of staying very active as a community group. We also recognise the importance of showing progress to the local community and believe that the steps outlined above demonstrate this progress. Yours sincerely,

Kristin Stubbins On behalf of CCPA


“CCP WOOLI APPROACH TO BALLINA WORKSHOP” SPREADSHEET AND LINKS TO DOCUMENTS

CCPA - Wooli APPROACH TO BALLINA WORKSHOP

The Outcomes we want from the Workshop

1. That we get our Main Messages (see below) across to OEH and all messages into the Minutes of the meeting

2. That we learn from OEH, in particular their intentions for coastal management and the legislation.

3. That we start building a constructive working relationship with OEH personnel.

Our Main Messages

1 CCPA-Wooli is an established incorporated organisation with a Steering Committee and a broad range of professional skills.

These include engineering, finance, surveying,research,project management, law and IT.

2 CCPA is working collaboratively with Clarence Valley Council (CVC) and, with them, has initiated an on-beach research programme

supported by professional volunteers in the community. This programme commenced in Nov 2011.

3 CCPA has already prepared a number of professional papers considering the Wooli beach issues including one commissioned from

ASR Ltd, an international firm specialising in coastal analysis and protection.

4 A national or state-wide framework is needed to guide individual community/local council responses to specific beach plans.

We do not believe that this will require further legislative changes to be taken through parliament.

Our Supporting Messages

1 Strengths (i) A United Community CCPA is a 1 year old, Incorporated Association with 110 members,

and over 100 Submissions and 1200+ petition signatures against planned retreat.

Our 2/2011 Position Paper documents the problem and way forward.

Refer to Position Paper here

ii) A Cooperative and Constructive working relationship between CCPA and CVC.

To illustrate, we have almost agreed our Emergency Plan and Development Controls and are jointly researching the beach.

iii) An established and effective Dune Care group already having a substantial positive impact on Wooli beach.

(iv) A Capable community group with skills in engineering, finance, planning, proj mgt, surveying, research, IT, law.

(v) A beach which is in excellent and improving condition and has protected the dunes through 2 major storms this year

(vi) CCPA is a contributing member of the Hotspots network

(vii) CCPA has initiated a research programme into the natural processs that shape Wooli beach (refer attach 2 and 4)

Refer to report from ASR Ltd here Refer to paper on Beach Protection for Wooli here

(viii) The existing legislation gives the Minister of E&H the means to support beach protection solutions and so does

not need to be repealed and replaced.

2 Weaknesses (i) The existing Regulations and Guidelines supporting the legislation can cause conflicting objectives bewtween

stakeholders eg Emergency Aaction Plan rules

(ii) There is no clear statement of principles from the State Govt. as to its intentions towards coastal protection.

(iii) There is very little funding available for research into the natural processes that shape our beaches and upon

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22974122/CCPA Position Paper Final 13 feb.pdf�

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22974122/ASR revised report Wooli Coastal Processes_V2%5B1%5D.pdf�

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22974122/Beach Protection for Wooli 171011.pdf�

which effective long-term protection solutions must be based.

(iv) There is a tendency to jump to solutions before adequate research is conducted.

3 Opportunities (i) The La Nina effect which improves the condition of Wooli beach is forecast to last another year. This allows time

for effective research and to feed that into a realistic Beach Protection Strategy.

(ii) CVC (supported by CCPA) has an application with State Govt for research into Wooli beach processes ( including

surveys, photography and bathymetry)

(iii) CCPA has identified several creative means of tax-payer-neutral funding of long term Beach Protection Solutions.

(refer Section 4 in the CCPA Postion Paper highlighted above).

These have been done at a high level and further investigation is needed.

(iv) CCPA has identified a recent paper on best-practice methodology for tackling increasing coastal erosion.

Refer to this paper on coastal zone management here

We are exploring this paper based on Adaptive Management with its authors.

4 Threats (i) The increasing coastal erosion problem and its various solutions will cross many government boundaries

including local and state (and federal) as well as multiple departments and Ministers (E&H, Planning,

National Parks, Marine Parks). The threat is that there will not be the political will and priority to find a

whole-of-govt solution without which the situation could go in circles while the coast erodes.

(ii) Research will be delayed by budget constraints and competing priorites

5 Recommendations (i) Minister to urgently publish a Statement of Intent on Coastal Protection.

Refer to an Example of what such a statement should address here

(ii) Based on the Minister's Statement, the Taskforce/OEH to produce a Framework

for the preparation of Coastal Mangement Plans to give definite direction to councils as they prepare the plans.

(iii) A key plank of the Statement and Framework will be for coastal protection solutions to be based on

best practice research leading to Beach Protection Strategies. T

The Planned Retreat option will be considered only after all other realistic options havebeen exhausted.

(iv) The Minister's Coastal Taskforce membership to be broad enough to guide implementable, transparent and prompt

whole-of-govt-and-community solutions

(v) Regulations and Guidelines to be revised to support the Statement and Framework.

(vi) We need to learn the lessons of historical interventions. Adequate research before solutions greatly reduces

replacing one problem with others.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22974122/A risk informed aproach to CZM.pdf�

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22974122/Example of a Satement of Intent�


vii. NSW Coastal Conference 9th November 2011 Group 1 Individual SWOT outcomes Internal Strengths

Provides unified and coordinated policy Guidelines and constraints on actions that LD’s may adopt Locally based management planning Framework guidelines for landholders & developers Awareness of issues and likely consequences of actions Process underpinned by process based management plan Process is still more robust than other states Coastal erosion included in REF/EIS/EA process Coastal Zone Management Plans (CZMPs) can be gazetted/certified EP&A Act now recognises CZMPS for development assessment Data collated, accessibility whole of government approach Certificate – statutory instrument; enforcement

Internal Weaknesses

Difficulty in reconciling local, regional & national values and priorities The basis of final decision in contentious cases is not clear or strong enough to avoid conflict and expensive litigation Often best strategies are not adopted due to lack of funds or political will Move away from sediment compartment understanding - quantified sediment budget Loss of skills within government Lack of technology support to councils Too much focus on ‘protection’ works as a management option Common law property rights are at odds with coastal management actions. Local government level cannot manage this issue, requires State / Federal Political will No open coast CZMPS have actually been certified Guidelines don’t set clear guidelines for coastal hazard assessment, risk assessment, plan preparation process Legislative framework encourages fortification of development at risk CPW, work Coastal Protection Act – is a pseudo planning instrument central – but was designed to do so Emergency Action Sub Plans – what then?


Hot Spots > authorised locations Emergency works - Allowable works? No offsite impacts? Probably beyond the capability of landowners & local government to implement; May result in ad-hoc works? May exacerbate erosion on adjacent properties (even though they are not supposed to) Emergency provisions should either be scrapped or made possible to implement Bar is set too high. So high that it may be impossible to achieve What happens when they fail (easier to get forgiveness than approval) Authorised officers - issues around implementation of exercise of powers (Training, different skills, different levels of support, etc)


Digitize and archive historical records Allowing CSPC to apply to existing works State “championing” preferred management actions that don’t advocate/discourage protection works Integration of framework – better process for Emergency Coastal Protection Works to be included as hotspot under the strategy Private investment or user pay contributions to management options

External Threats

Emergency work affected will not work on open coast Common law property rights are at odds with coastal management actions. Local government level cannot manage this issue, requires State / Fed Political will Without better guidelines on how coastal risks should be assessed (eg coastal hazard definition, risk ass’t & plan preparation) inadequate Plans could be guiding coastal planning management - increased future risk Without better guidance on how coastal risks are assessed (ie processes & hazard definition plan prep incomplete, inadequate) Assessment could guide coastal planning increasing risk into future Emergency Coastal Protection Works (ECPW) – are threat to overall strategy Competing industries - litigation

Group Action Plans Key Issues Actions to Address Issues Additional Comments Internal Strengths

Provides more scope for stakeholders - guidelines Process is underpinned by a process

Authorised and becomes a statutory instrument (can take action to force implementation of plan) 79C – EP&A Act recognises CZMP


based management plan Certification and status as a statutory instrument

With all its weaknesses – better than other states

Internal Weaknesses

ECPW’s - Fraud – creates an expectation Lack of need to undertake CZMP process unless directed Service charges - doesn’t work Detail of guidelines - web based, changing constantly

Inconsistency in legislative planning framework between SEPP Infrastructure & LEPs etc Framework encourages continued development of lands exposed to risk & fortification of development or hazard Funding for implementation – (lack) Competing interests and common law property rights

Too much focus on ‘protection’ No policy of offshore extraction Weakening of guidance in preparing CZMP


Establish hierarchy for CZMP’s in planning process Further integration of both planning framework & CZMP framework under Coastal Protection Act & EP&A Act More collaborative approach between government agencies

Further collaboration between coastal councils Planning should be done on a ‘system’ – compartment basis??

Private investment or user pays contribution to management options.

External Threats

Unwieldiness of statutory process for making and changing plans No applications have been CP Act is masquerading as development central

“Based on political boundaries” Lack of ability for LG to resolve “big” issues through CZMP (umbrella issue require fundamental legal reform)



Have ideal scene for the coastal zone property Need ideal scene for all aspects of CZRM including ecology Have identified some areas under threat Create something all understand Who’s responsible for what Moving all towards Have a framework Technical expertise / handle all data Empower LGA Good data& tools Current legislation & guidelines Moving towards a consistent approach to risk assessment and management plans, open communication between OEH and councils Community awareness/engagement is encourages Clear definition of coastal zone in policy and legislation; clean who has responsibility on what (however outdated > see weakness) > attempt to increase consistency, communicate and community engagement Awareness Willingness Community awareness/understanding Science Evidence exists Cost to community will help overrule cost to individuals Expertise and drive of NR community Attempts to address future SL rise Sets a benchmark, consistent across the state Open communication One policy that can fit all locations


Empower local government and commitment with help from expertise in gov depart to create adaptation plans for loc coastal communities

Internal Weaknesses

Political influence of planning decision Prohibitive costs of engineered solutions Lack of on-going funding/delineation of who is responsible Management recommendations unable to implement / idealistic What is it (the framework) How implement Who funds Do owners understand implications Don’t understand Lack of collaboration Continuation of projects Consistent data - type, scale etc Appropriate communication 5/7 projects for long term problems – time scales Lack of consideration b/w tiers of govt

- local, State, Commonwealth Clarify around roles when it comes to emergency situations Possible stretching of local government resources to deal with CZM Existing policies too constrained and too prescriptive Affordability/practiced issues of landowner actions Business as usual Linear thinking of cause effect solution misses major aspects of CZ Focus on property protection Where does biodiversity sit?

- long-term there is a bigger question. - Estuaries = fish breeding . . . . - One house or world fish stocks? Missing the required systems approach so the wrong questions are being asked

Lack of knowledge of the framework ability / knowledge to incorporate into planning


- hazard lines / management pans address ‘human’ not natural assets Not well known Associated funding One policy / approach that tries to fit all locations No apparent localised merit base approach There are a lot of beaches, sacrificing some amenity could be the solution Lack of consideration given to Aboriginal & European maritime/underwater cultural heritage (threats to that heritage) and integrated Management options / strategies Climate change - Rising sea levels; Extreme weather events


Innovative options encouraged Imaginative and targeted community engagement Opportunity to avoid future problems Better provision of public rec Identify who can drive changes/plans Community involvement Time to implement lower cost precautionary measures Government, research, policy, private work tother – common goals / collaboration Insurance companies Learn from other countries – don’t reinvent to wheel Start ‘systems thinking’ Stop business as usual Solutions from mobilising educated misses – not just top down People help each other after ‘fire’ All to help with National base of $ level fund NOT full compensation Suitable/sustainable coastal development (Temporary) protection/existing development (adaptation) Public education / realisation Be prepared to sacrifice some beaches and beach community to solve present problems Need collective / informed decisions made by the experts / not short-sighted pollies Overseas examples applied here


Buying out at risk properties that have been de-valued because of the high risk To update coastal policy > give clear strong guidance and definition and stipulate clearly which agency has responsibility for what To simplify and made consistent state commonwealth and local government legislation, regulation & policy Develop new policy for offshore / seabed development & making aggregate extraction > not only for beach replenishment but to consider impact & mitigation measures for shipwrecks & underwater cultural heritage (Aboriginal and European) To learn from UK/European/international examples who are ahead of Australian/NSW on timeline of dealing with this Buy in resources / expertise from abroad To better define responsibility for governments Communication about science Planning sustainable communities away from active coastal eroded areas Reconstitute coastal council

External Threats

Lack of understanding of CAAF Lack of gov commitment and funds Very anthropocentric Outdated – desperately needs review Perception of rights Expectation of government action/provision Individual actions impacting on others Political decisions Private ownership not wanting to lose property Cost Insurance Linear thinking with focus on “risk to property” influencing outcomes that allow destruction of ecology and estuarine eco-system function Funding constraints > limited financial resources and short term focus for expenditure (generally annual cycle > inadequate Common law property rights Political climate Short term outcomes Loss of corporate knowledge through dept changes


Changing/unknown future impacts Undermined by community when the modelling is different to actual events Scepticism within the community on results of hazard assessment Public dissatisfaction Political discussions determining outcomes Political parties fearing consequences Demands on coastal levels Uncertainty of climate change Lack of direction

- vision for what we want in future - too much info and not enough decision making - inconsistencies/differences between how G/L interpreted and implemented

Planning for CZM doesn’t extend beyond electoral terms > restrained by short term dynamic responses to long term issues Group Action Plans Key Issues Actions to Address Issues Additional Comments Internal Strengths

Attempts to address SLR Attempts to assist local councils Allows consistent approach Good communication at local councils Encourages community engagement Clear definition of coastal zone Evidence exists Expertise & drive of VR community

Internal Weaknesses

Lack of knowledge of framework Very anthropocentric Outdated Where does biodiversity sit Business as usual Restricted funding


Political influences Short term vision


Informed decision by experts not politicians Learning from other councils/countries and buy in expertises overseas don’t reinvent the wheel Encourages innovative options to manage risk Educate public & realise the issues & implications for non action & mobilising masses Start systems thinking rather than linear Plan communities away from active coastlines Re-constitute coastal councils Collaboration with other councils & agencies Buying out of risk properties with devaluation in relation to risk.

External Threats



Legislation is quite strong Compels councils to act (but not the Crown) Emergency powers to deal with emergency seem to be quite strong …But…. Risk management approach is good – hazard lines – SLR Policy etc but…..

Internal Weaknesses

Planning powers for coastal zone hazards are D O P I – not strong enough Damages to roads & public reserves Roads Act to perm closed the road, Councils options > raising funds Really bad before can close road/reserve Resourcing for photogrammetry in OEH –only one person for whole state Commensurate Didactic Reciprocity Lack of ownership of problem by Crown Lands. Who are owners of the land?


Crown Lands to use their resources (tech + $) to manage their coastal land and coastal hazards Private / public issue if conflict Development of communities of common concern and avoidance of legal resource Decision support framework:

- procedure principles validation of decision across states & country - agreed way to deal with

Funding should be commensurate with the problem and scale of concern / initiative of govt Indemnification for closure of local roads Special area level - problem area being subsidised by rest of ratepayers

External Threats

Erosion protection works > do nothing is probably the only real option for resource less councils The “big rush’ to complete Emergency Action Sub Plan –CZMP Resources by consultants Quality of output


Inconsistencies between states and local authorities even with legislation Group 4 Individual SWOT outcomes Internal Strengths

There’s a framework and thought process in place Govt dept mechanism Good knowledge of coastal processes Innovation occurring in climate change and shoreline response Experience (from NSW, other states & overseas) Framework – legal / regulatory Planning ability General willingness to resolve the issue within the comm. Regulatory and planning framework Funding arrangements for technical studies Is a legislative framework Some funding available Uniform approach to preparation of CZMP

Internal Weaknesses

Inconsistent application of risk assessment processes from one over to another Scales of assessment not always relevant to spatial scale of issues Limited LIDAR data coverage – needed everywhere as baseline, then ongoing Land tenure issues with private property/Crown Land boundaries Valuation processes for social, cultural and natural values not well developed for proper inclusion in assessment and option evaluation processes Implementation funding mechanisms need review Planned retreat where to and for how long No (apparent) material supply strategy – rock, sand, dirt, Completion & existing public/private demand to roads/rail/building / drains etc Technical expertise across NSW and consistency Planning timeframes


Emphasis in physical not ecological Collapsing headlands - threat and houses Insufficient funding for voluntary acquisition Community fears for loss of property value Expectation of protect Lack of ‘guidance’ on how to do CZMPs not just outcomes Current legislation makes sand bags easier to implement, but it’s not necessarily effective Not uniform across the country Lack of recognition for secondary/definite consequences from seawall constructions et beach erosion downstream What is a risk? Money / funding Expectation Socio-economics is not equitable Driver by top end of town Environment less of consideration - focus on built environment, not natural environment Auditing framework Options / adaptation for erosion


Types of building structures e.g. transportable / module homes & buildings that can be easily removed if need be Have time to adopt, retreat or accommodate for most risks New guidelines move > outcome focussed strength could we get more so? Opportunity Better funding mechanisms Interest by public / business > vested investment Planning long term via LEPs, DOPs/ strengths

External Threats

Politics – change government Inconsistency Audit / monitoring Lack of commitment by Councils to make strategies planning changes Short term focus for funding and planning (lack of strategy) Fear of back zoning


Continued changes before current system even had 1st

Momentum gets lost as changes occur generation CZMPs


Existing framework program Knowledge and experience

How to take advantage?

Internal Weaknesses

Auditing and no consistency in risk assessment Emphasis on physical rather than ecological (change from previous manual)

Assigning responsibility for auditing (e.g. NRC) Cut guidelines of ‘how to’ to get consistency in risk management etc


Time before impacts occur Adaptation options available Community & business engagement

Looking at leasehold, land tenure issue Business case e.g. offshore extraction for management options

External Threats

Change in government, councils, agencies etc

Bipartisan support and long term vision by politicians



Strong local government Good environmental community groups Improved ‘process’ Sound understanding of natural response Risk based management Council staff and community – local knowledge

Internal Weaknesses

Lack of public understanding Political interference Lack of pragmatic advice Politics - new elections 2012 during prep of CZMP Council prone to political lobby groups ‘hot potato’, tendency to avoid communicating issue Too many regulations bureaucracy guidelines Planning confusion Multiple policy Not integrated over 3 levels govt The risk assessment process does not meet the requirements of complexity of the issues Too many guidelines Acts Policies Is development of coastal land more important to governments than risks to private property ownership or public amenity & risk to life No change to current impasse Very long implementation periods mismatch with political and public focus


State government take control and make the hard decisions Planning review LEP withhold by Minister to review - precedent CZMP due December 2012 – community consultation Time frame not too late to react


Regional approach to CZM Identify ‘easy wins’ and resource as a priority Assist in developing partnerships Some state government guidance We know the threat Precautionary principle Socialise cost (beach nourishment, loss of beach amenity) and prioritise project (property protection) Transfer value Data and information

- IPCC & Scientific modelling - GIS data - Mapping (as part of LEP maps)

External Threats

Developers Political pressures Private interest by landholders Not thinking for public good Lack of coordinated effort Political inaction Conflict of interest Vague standard Instrument provisions on how to consider SLR Convoluted legislation framework Climate change deniers Coal lobby Property owners and owner groups Tony Abbot, Liberal Coalition State Govt Planning Review where does planning Minister stand? Uneducated Councillors making decisions Ability to manage ‘uncertainties’ re extent of SLR 18-59cms, 90cms + larger values Reignite sceptic debate on CC & SLR divert attention



Data available General understanding Strong LGA will Environmental volunteers ESD principles Risk based management

Coordination Improved site specific advice

Internal Weaknesses

Political interference Complete considerations Community ignorance Ambiguous guidelines Lack of funding

Continuity & delivery of CZMP Develop consensus within community


Time to plan/react Community consultation State government to take control Regional approach Partnerships

Revenue from state stamp duty

External Threats

Lack of implementation conflicting interest convoluted legislation Political inaction Sceptic / denial influences

Public awareness Streamlining



Opportunity to implement barriers that ameliorates impacts from coastal hazards as well as barriers to increased impacts due to short sighted & too localised focus on asset protection Planning systems exists Knowing risk is first step of strength. CZMPs have statutory force Councils protected by S753 LGA Requirement to understand coastal hazards and risks Funding provided to engage consultants etc Does guide coastal risk management System/approach Capability to set up & deliver projects Addresses multitude of issues of coastal management - ecological economic, social etc

Internal Weaknesses

Assets – does not appear to consider “natural” assets; or considers these of lower value, important public assets. Much coastal land is public land, (parks, and bushland); is this given equal consideration as high value private coastal lands? Only taken into consideration is what is known to us – out built structures and known natural assets. As micro organisms are mostly unknown and also marine species still badly lacking acknowledgement – they miss out of being assets & that see distinction of ecosystems support systems might prove to be much more substantial than anticipated All of the risk rests with council Coastal protection 55c(1)(b) Act is confusing regarding CZMPs/EASPs and provisions protecting property, language is unclear and open to legal challenge CZMPs are difficult to > refer guidelines > compartmentalise EASP Emergency coastal protection works – hotspot areas in schedule are not consistent with hotspot definition Resources Active / Driven approach Coordination / initiation


Exclusion of vulnerable areas from development as appropriate Compartmentalise and streamline to guidelines

- separate reference to EASPs in the CP Act


External Threats

Only taken into consideration is what is known to us – out built structures and known natural assets. As micro organisms are mostly unknown and also marine species still badly lacking acknowledgement – they miss out of being assets & that see distinction of ecosystems support systems might prove to be much more substantial than anticipated Potentially requires large amounts of money to implement hard infrastructure solutions

- Needs more consideration if public funds are used. - Does not allow enough adaptation in the face of ranging sea level rise predictions - Property prices on coastline for planned retreat

Litigation due to lack of clarity in the Act regarding obligations on Councils re EASPs / CZMPs Lack of alignment between hazard assessments, Council’s historic planning guidelines, Dept Planning interpretation of hazards lines into planning precincts


Legacy – planning system; coastal management, CZMP statutory Beach maintenance Acknowledges risk Funding

Greater emphasis on precaution than hazard – sterilize or not More community involvement and pressure

Internal Weaknesses

Hazard line vs. planning Public and private resources and protecting public

Coordination & understanding between planning and agencies Clarity in the Act


Increase community awareness Workshops / education/materials etc.

Leads to pressure for funds

External Threats

Community backlash Indecisive about how to handle loss of property



Local government tend to have community engagement capacity i.e. educate of hazard/risk Appropriate planning can assist for funding bids Attempts to use technical knowledge and research to inform policy development Many aspects are recently developed (not considered an out of date publication) Advocating a risk based approach Electoral cycles and changing political priorities

Internal Weaknesses

Links with the CMAs in NSW Skill sets and training within local government Different to neighbouring states e.g. SLR in NSW vs. QLD No overarching body guiding the development and implementation of coastal policy *Coastal Council* Climate change and coastal work very multi-disciplinary and hard to plan across government levels Land tenure Lack of flexibility over and expect to use in perpetuity no allowance for change in hazards Lack of robust, consistent data collection and reporting against policy outcomes Lack of political will to make hard/unpopular decisions Complex and hard for public to understand


Learn from existing mistakes Develop novel solutions Establish long term funding source through carbon tax Combine coastal management and planning responsibilities into one agency Create better lines with planning system Amalgamate local government areas to provide more resources $

External Threats

Implementation process is difficult Lack of funds to implement strategies Loss of public amenity for private gain Litigation Infill developments


Group Action Plans Our objective is: improve management of risks from coastal hazard Key Issues Actions to Address Issues Additional Comments Internal Strengths

Using a risk based approach in current program Maintaining a current approach Attracting fund Communication and engagement

Strengthen through a risk based approach Identify hot spots for priority Update old policy with new information as available Use technical knowledge, data, research Have an active policy/strategy to allow application for funding Utilize existing groups and local government groups to clearly communicate risk & hazard

Internal Weaknesses

Complexity of process Lack of political will Data collection MER Land tenure and property rights Complexity of issues and multi-disciplinary science creates too much variation state-wide No overarching body guiding development/implementation of coastal policy either in VIC or other states Skill sets within local government Not clear links between the CMA from states

Try to streamline procedures Communicate and educate adequately Government to provide structure and procedure to report both on research, data, and implementation Investigate via risk assessment to prioritise Make one happen


Link coastal hazard and risk documents to planning systems Too many local government areas covering small coastal strips

Devise strategies to better link local government planning to policy Amalgamate LG to allow streamlining of process Combine coastal management and planning


Key Issues Actions to Address Issues Additional Comments Cumbersome processes for CZM Funding Improve process from past

responsibilities into one agency Establish long term $$ from C Tax Learn from mistakes and improve

External Threats

Funding Government priorities Failure to implement causes negative perception (trust faith etc)

Not enough for implementation Develop systematic outcome model. Clear monitoring and evaluation Maintain faith through sound implementation strategies


4. POWERPOINT SLIDES

Coastal Strategy Workshops 1

Consultation Workshops

NSW Coastal Strategy

Facilitated by Leonie Johnson & Sonja Duncan

October 2011

1 Coastal Strategy Workshops 2

• Raise all concerns in small group workshops but don’t dominate

discussions with one issue

• Allow others within your group to put forward their ideas and

respect everyone’s contributions

• Focus on current issues AND future opportunities

• Focus on issues that are within Government control (i.e. not

market forces)

• Do not get caught up in climate change sceptic debate

• Be innovative

Workshop rules


Workshop Outline

1. Break into small groups (up to 6 people per group)

2. Review objects of NSW Coastal Protection Act and identify your group’s key objective(s) for coastal protection and management

3. Undertake your SWOT analysis individually:

4. Identify internal (council, community, individual) strengths andweaknesses to reach this objective

5. Identify external (State and Federal Government, legislation) threats and opportunities to reach this objective

6. Group the outcomes of the SWOT into like categories within your group

7. Address 2-3 key issues or ideas raised in each of the four areas of the SWOT – how do we build on strengths and opportunities; how do we overcome weaknesses and threats?

8. Report your ideas back to whole group – be innovative

3 Coastal Strategy Workshops 4

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the NSW coastal management framework?


Objects of Coastal Protection Act

The objects of this Act are to provide for the protection of the coastal environment of the State for the benefit of both present and future generations and, in particular:

a) to protect, enhance, maintain and restore the environment of the coastal region, its associated ecosystems, ecological processes and biological diversity, and its water quality,

b) to encourage, promote and secure the orderly and balanced utilisation and conservation of the coastal region and its natural and man-made resources, having regard to the principles of ecologically sustainable development,

c) to recognise and foster the significant social and economic benefits to the State that result from a sustainable coastal environment,

d) to promote public pedestrian access to the coastal region and recognise the public’s right to access


Objects of Coastal Protection Act

d) to provide for the acquisition of land in the coastal region to promote the protection, enhancement, maintenance and restoration of the environment of the coastal region,

e) to recognise the role of the community, as a partner with government, in resolving issues relating to the protection of the coastal environment,

f) to ensure co-ordination of the policies and activities of the Government and public authorities relating to the coastal region and to facilitate the proper integration of their management activities,

g) to encourage and promote plans and strategies for adaptation in response to coastal climate change impacts, including projected sea level rise,

h) to promote beach amenity.


Sample SWOT AnalysisKey Objective: robust coastal management

frameworkSupporting the Objective Detrimental to the Objective

Internal - Integrated legislation and policy framework addressing a broad range of issues

- Supported by land use planning system

- Based on principles of ecologically sustainable development

- Multiple guidelines and processes can be confusing

- Coastal zone management planning process takes a long time to complete and be implemented

External - Streamlining framework to make clearer and less confusing

- Opportunity to act now, be innovative and minimise impacts in the future

- Issues are fundamentally challenging and involve compromise

- Limited ability to control natural processes to minimise impacts


Where to from here?

• Workshop facilitators to prepare workshop report for OEH

• Consideration of workshop outcomes by Coastal Taskforce

• Outcomes to inform revised Coastal Strategy

• Recommendations to Minister by June 2012

1

COASTAL STRATEGY WORKSHOPS

October – November 2011

Phil Watson / Jane GibbsPrincipal Coastal Specialist / Manager Coast & Flood Policy

North Entrance 12-6-09 2

Outline of Presentation

Setting the Scene

Historical context of CZM in NSW

Current Regulatory Framework

Other Jurisdictions and Emerging Issues

3

Coastal Zone - Setting the SceneCoastline 1500 km in length

Estuarine foreshores 6500 km in length

721 open coast beaches

130 estuaries

Engine room of the NSW economy

Focus of domestic/international tourism

Premium property prices in the country

Largest population growth projections

Most intensive development pressures Toowoon Bay4

Historical (legacy) issuesErosion threatening beachfront development

5

Belongil Spit, Byron Bay 2-6-09 (P Watson, OEH)

6

Old Bar, Greater Taree 7-7-08 (P Watson, OEH)

7

Wooli, Far North Coast 24-5-96 (P. Watson, OEH)

8

Wamberal, Central Coast 1978 (PWD)

9

Collaroy/Narrabeen, Sydney 1974 (PWD)

10

Historical (legacy) issues

Tidal inundation threatening low-lying

foreshore development

11

Batemans Bay, South Coast

12-1-09 (Lindsay Usher) *

* A Snapshot of Future Sea Levels:

Photographing the King Tide

12 January 2009 (DECCW)12

* A Snapshot of Future Sea Levels: Photographing the King Tide

12 January 2009 (DECCW)

Booralee Street, Botany Bay 15-12-08 (Warwick O’Brien) *

13

* A Snapshot of Future Sea Levels: Photographing the King Tide

12 January 2009 (DECCW)

Carrington, Newcastle 15-12-08 (Bruce Coates) *

14


Setting the Scene

Historical context of CZM in NSW



15

Historical Context of CZM Devastating coastal erosion 1967-1975

Legislative and policy response recognising the need to manage:

future development through land use planning

existing development

NSW Government has provided technical and financial assistance to local government over 20 years to manage existing problems and avoid future problems through land use planning.

Current level of funding ~$4 million/year

16

Coastal erosion“Hot spots”

“Hot spot” defined as area where 5 or more houses and/or public road currently threatened by erosion

Other key erosion locations: Kingscliff, Stockton, Pearl Beach, Mollymook

17


Setting the Scene

Historical context of CZM in NSW (brief)



18

Current CZM Regulatory Framework Legislation

Subordinate Legislation (Regulations)

Statutory and Non-Statutory Policies and Guidelines

Coastal Zone Management Plans

- Supported by a range of technical guidelines

- Grant funding programs (50:50) State/Local Government

Implemented through planning system

Indemnity provisions under Local Government Act 1993

Strong partnership between State and Local Government

19

Planning to avoid coastal hazards Most cost-effective approach: avoid new

development in areas vulnerable to coastal hazards

- New development will incorporateprojected sea level rise impacts

Department of Planning guidelines,to support councils in place

Supported by Coastal Risk Management Guide: Incorporating sea level rise benchmarks into coastal risk assessments (DECCW, August 2010)

20

Current CZM Regulatory Framework Coastal Protection Act 1979 (amended 2010)

- Broad objectives for managing the coast

- Defines the “Coastal Zone”

- Facilitates ECPW in “Authorised Locations”

- Establishes Coastal Panel to advise Minister

- Provision for “Coastal Authorities” and “Authorised Officers”

- Modified Doctrine of Erosion and Accretion

- Increased penalty provisions

- Increased powers relating to works and structures on beaches

- Certification of Coastal Zone Management Plans

Must make provision for 7 key objectives (as relevant)

Legislation

21

Current CZM Regulatory Framework Local Government Act 1993 (amended 2010)

- Revision to S733 “Good Faith” indemnity

Strengthened

Includes provisions concerning sea level rise

Taken to have acted in “Good Faith” if action substantially in accordance with provisions of the relevant “Manual”

- Provision to levy landowners for maintenance of coastal protection structures

- 149 certification to advise of coastal hazards

Crown Lands Act 1989 (amended 2010)

- Provisions relating to storage of materials and access for ECPW

Legislation

22

Current CZM Regulatory Framework Coastal Protection Regulation 2011 (under CPA 1979)

- Ministerial concurrence required for certain development seaward of the open coast MHWM

- Requirements relating to emergency coastal protection works (refers to Code of Practice)

- Categorisation of coastal risks to land

Current, 2050 and 2100 planning horizons

Relevant notation of risk category on 149 certificates

Subordinate Legislation

23

Current CZM Regulatory Framework NSW Coastal Policy 1997

- Based on broad principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD)

- 9 Key goals, underpinned by objectives and strategic actions

- An integration of management policies, programs and standards as applied to the Coastal Zone

NSW Sea Level Rise Policy Statement (2009)

- Planning benchmarks for SLR to 2050 and 2100

- Risk based adaptation planning

- Funding assistance

- Prioritisation of funding toward public assets and infrastructure before private property

- Supersedes Coastal Hazard Policy 1988

Policies

24

Current CZM Regulatory Framework SEPP No 71 (Coastal Protection) (2002)

- Designed to protect and preserve key attributes within the Coastal Zone

- Certain developments within sensitive coastal locations to be referred to Department of Planning and Infrastructure

SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 (amended 2010)

- Provisions for public authority to construct new coastal protection works without consent

Considered by Coastal Panel in absence of certified CZMP

- Provisions for seawall or beach nourishment to be undertaken by any person with consent

Determined by Coastal Panel in absence of certified CZMP

In accordance with guidelines to assess and manage impact of works

Environmental Planning Instruments

25

Current CZM Regulatory Framework Guidelines for Preparing Coastal Zone Management Plans

(DECCW, December 2010)

- Minimum requirements for assessment of coastal risks and estuary health

- A range of technical supporting guide notes (currently being developed)

Code of Practice under the Coastal Protection Act 1979 (DECCW, March 2011)

- Requirements for placement, maintenance and removal of Emergency Coastal Protection Works

- Schedule of “Authorised Locations”

Guidelines for Assessing and Managing Impacts of Coastal Protection Works (Draft version available, being finalised)

- To support SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007

Guidelines

26


Setting the Scene

Historical context of CZM in NSW (brief)



27

Interstate practice

Queensland:

- Gold Coast: buried seawall & beachnourishment (Tweed River sand bypass - $86 million to date)

- Noosa: beach nourishment

- Councils prepare shoreline erosion management plans – few protection works built due to cost

WA & SA: some protection works, beach nourishment

Victoria: foreshore development not normally allowed –few erosion problems

28

International practice: US, UK, EU US – approach varies between states/locations:

- Seawalls/groynes (loss of beach common)

- Beach nourishment

- Purchase or abandon properties (planned retreat)

UK, Europe – protect or abandon (limited compensation), some purchase & lease back

29

Emerging Issues and Challenges Sea level rise adaptation

Coastal risk management

Preserving access to beaches, foreshores

Funding to implement CZMPs

Others

30

Questions

Image source: www.radiosocialmedia.wordpress.com

nsw coastal strategy consultation workshops outcomes...

Documents