VCAT ruling could stifle future development
No risk: Jim Harry in front of the property in question.
By Bert van Bedaf
A LANDMARK ruling on rising sea levels at Waratah Bay could severely limit property development along Victoria’s coastline, including South Gippsland.
The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal is currently considering the impact of climate change – and specifically, the potential for future coastal flooding – on a proposed subdivision within the township zone of Waratah Bay.
The case has been labelled as a “red dot” decision by VCAT, indicating there are wider repercussions from the outcome.
Climate change was again in the news last Saturday with yet another Federal Government report warning of rising sea levels, putting billions of dollars of coastal housing and industry at risk by 2100 as sea levels can rise by up to 1.1 metres.
Located opposite the beach, the proposed subdivision is next to a recreation reserve and separated from the sea by a road, known as Gale St.
The subdivision was approved by South Gippsland Shire Council on November 5 last year but referred to the tribunal by objectors.
Following a number of hearings, the tribunal is expected to rule on the proposal within a fortnight. Early last year, the tribunal overturned another approval by the South Gippsland council for six small developments in Toora on similar grounds, involving potential sea level rises due to the effects of climate change.
The tribunal applied the so-called “precautionary principle”, finding that increases in the severity of storm events, coupled with rising sea levels, created a reasonably foreseeable risk of inundation of the subject land and the proposed dwellings, which it found unacceptable.
The block, on 2 Brown St, is owned by Waratah Bay Caravan Park operator Jim Harry, who wants to build a seafood restaurant on the smaller block to be created by the proposed subdivision. A dwelling already exists on the original block, which would remain on the larger portion.
“A seafood restaurant near the water would be sensational,” Mr Harry enthused. “It would be a valuable asset for the shire, the local people, weekenders and holiday makers.”
Mr Harry said the caravan park was already putting $3.5 million into the local economy and he wanted to add further growth by creating more jobs.
“I live here and work here and I provide employment for local people. A restaurant would be a great addition,” Mr Harry said.
Ten objections were made to council. Objectors believed it would have an adverse impact on neighbouring properties, but more importantly, they claimed the site “would be prone to flooding from rising sea levels due to the impact of climate change”.
Melbourne resident Deborah Myers, who owns a three-storey property behind Brown St, took the case to the tribunal on behalf of the objectors.
At the June 22 hearing this year, the objectors were asked to provide a “hazard vulnerability assessment” before a decision could be made.
Presiding tribunal member Tracey Bilston-McGillen said no proper decision could be made “without a proper assessment of the impact of climate change and in particular the effect of storm surges on the proposed subdivision and future construction of a dwelling.
“I have accepted the precautionary principle of the Managing Coastal Hazards and the Coastal Impacts of Climate Change, general practice note December 2008.”
It is State Government policy to plan for a sea level rise of “not less than .8 metres by 2100 and allow for the combined effects of tide, storm surges, coast process and local conditions”, stated in its Victorian Coastal Strategy 2008.
The tribunal report also cited the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority, which advised that the property was “directly opposite the beach and thus the potential impact of climate change should be considered.”
Ms Myers presented the required assessment late October and is now waiting for the final decision.
She said the block was “prone to flooding” and rising sea levels as part of climate change were now part of future assessments.
She said preventative options included building a rock wall as a form of dune fortification, raising Gale St or moving the street further way from the sea.
She also believed construction of a restaurant on the corner was “not a good visual to the gateway of Waratah Bay”.
“It is out of keeping with the Waratah amenities. We’d like to keep this part of the world not over-developed,” Mr Myers said.
Mr Harry, who bought the land early last August from Telfano Holdings which was mentioned as the respondent at the June 22 hearing, is also anxiously awaiting the ruling, hoping it will be in his favour.
He believed the assessment presented to the tribunal was not quite right.
“I don’t believe the coastal report was totally correct,” Mr Harry said.
“It failed to mention that seven houses already exist at the same level. This would not have gone to VCAT if the person next-door had not objected. There should be no drama with the subdivision at all.”
If the decision goes against Mr Harry, the land will not be available for further development, which is a big risk. “Life’s full of risks,” Mr Harry said. “There’s nothing I can do at the moment.”
Short URL: http://www.thestar.com.au/?p=110
Posted by 
