Hans Lovejoy
Are the public happy to lose Belongil beach to around 34 private landowners?
That reality continues to unfold after consultants preparing a management strategy for the beach say a seawall and groynes are still the best ‘economic’ option.
The long-awaited draft Coastal Zone Management Plan Byron Bay Embayment, or CZMP BBE, will be tabled at this Thursday’s Council meeting. And while it’s incomplete and bases some of its research on assumptions, it’s likely to be accepted by the ruling council faction and put out on public exhibition as quickly as possible.
The minority councillors have been highly critical of the process, claiming that the report is authored by a company whose core business is designing coastal engineering solutions. And thus, they could be biased against other options such as planned retreat.
Desired outcomes
Remarkably the plan admits that ‘some assumptions’ are required for ‘desired outcomes’ and does not take into account ‘ecological impacts, value of surfing and visual amenity impacts’. Nor is there any details regarding the suggestion for sand nourishment, which will be required to replenish Belongil beach.
While the focus is on Belongil, the draft CZMP BBE also covers other areas: Wategos, the Pass, Clarkes Beach, Main Beach and Cavvanbah.
The Echo understands that for 12 years Council have operated without a CZMP. Most recently, the issue was shrouded in legal confidentiality when the last draft CZMP was inexplicably withdrawn amid legal threats by Belongil landowners in April 2011.
Given rock-type structures erode beaches over time, consultants Water Research Laboratory (WRL) have hosed down the loss of public amenity by stating there are a ‘range of usable public beaches’ that will still be available within the 37km of the shire’s coastline.
Land value up 40pc
Regardless, the likelihood of protection is good news for landowners; WRL told councillors in a recent workshop that land values since July 2015 have increased 40 per cent, which is ‘up to 140 per cent increase since commencement of study.’
Protection cost $15m
The cost of protecting Belongil landowners, according to WRL, would be $15m in the first year, and then be $34m over a ten-year construction phase.
For the first year, WRL suggest landowners pay $12m, council $1m and the state government $2m.
For the ten-year plan, WRL suggest $21m (62 per cent) should be paid by landowners and the public would stump up the other $13m. council would use $6m of ratepayer’s money and the state government would contribute $7m of public funds.
The contentious plan led by Cr Sol Ibrahim aims to overturn a long-held previous policy of planned retreat.
And despite legal threats by Belongil landowners, Council staff told The Echo planned retreat is considered as ‘one of six shortlisted management options.’
The Echo previously reported that Belongil landowner and Brisbane-based developer John James – along with un-named fellow neighbours – intend to take Council to court if planned retreat was included within the draft CZMP BBE.
Council staff have also previously stated that there is legal uncertainty with overturning a planned-retreat policy in favour of rock-type structures, owing to erosion issues.
Planned retreat cost $43m: WRL
WRL claim the funding cost of planned retreat would be $43m, split 69 per cent for landowners and 31 per cent for the public sector. There are 34 Belongil properties that are at immediate risk, says WRL.
And while consultants WRL admit that planned retreat ‘most closely aligns with the NSW Coastal Policy 1997 and the Coastal Protection Act 1979’, they argue the Belongil landowners’ property is now the ‘status quo’.
They say, ‘Planned retreat has received backing in court rulings regarding setbacks for new development and removable buildings… Seawalls now protect all private Belongil beachfront properties and are the status quo.’
‘Planned retreat could only be implemented with the orderly removal of all seawalls on Belongil.’
The main disadvantages with planned retreat, WRL say, are ‘low economic viability, funding inequity, likely protracted resistance from affected landowners… and a high probability of a breakthrough of Belongil Spit at Manfred Street during a major storm.’
Council’s last Belongil project – a 105-metre rock wall – was highly criticised owing to it being outside an operational CZMP, and for a lack of broad community involvement.
But a workshop presentation by WRL claims that if the new seawall works were removed and there were a breakthrough of Belongil spit, it could threaten approximately 15 properties to the north of Manfred Street.
Legitimate errors
It’s been a difficult document in the making; most recently the state government’s office of environment and heritage (OEH) rejected the consultant’s cost benefit analysis (CBA) within the draft CZMP.
OEH pointed to ‘legitimate errors’ and suggested that if calculated differently, planned retreat would be a better option rather than rock-type structures.
But now the latest cost benefit analysis (CBA) report, which cost ratepayers $13,500, suggests that an engineering solution for Belongil should roll out over stages and include a seawall, walkway, groynes and ‘small-scale sand nourishment.’ The Echo asked OEH if they have full confidence in the document, but OEH is yet to reply.
WRL have coined the strategy as ‘adaptive management’.
But Cr Duncan Dey (Greens) says, ‘“Adaptive management” is the key phrase, as this management plan is based on ideas and intentions. It commits to the one-kilometre seawall, but leaves it for others later to overcome their impact, which includes loss of beach at and north of Belongil.
‘For example, there is no consideration of how the Little Tern nesting area at the Belongil Creek mouth will survive’.
Dailan Pugh, who is one of the members of the project reference group (PRG) that is overseeing the plan’s development, is also highly critical.
He told The Echo, ‘If this proceeds it will result in the loss of 1.6km of Belongil Beach in front of, and to the west of, the walls, dramatically increased erosion of the mouth of the Belongil estuary within the Cape Byron Marine Park, cause loss of shorebird habitat, SEPP 14 wetlands, and endangered littoral rainforest, and increased erosion of North Beach, none of which has been considered.
‘It will leave council vulnerable to claims for millions of dollars in compensation for increased erosion from the Elements resort.
‘It will also make council liable for the tens of millions of dollars for works (groynes, sand-pumping) required to try to vainly retain a public beach in front of the new walls.
The council’s latest conservative estimates are that Byron Bay’s beaches generate a minimum local income of $115 million annually for Byron Bay due to beach-related tourism expenditure.
‘By their calculation, the loss of 1.6km of Belongil’s beaches will equate to a loss of $20 million in tourism revenue each year.
‘Byron’s beaches are also worth millions more annually for Byron Shire’s residents, so the losses will be far more than this.
‘This proposed option is directly contrary to legal and planning requirements, as it is effectively getting rid of the beach and public access to it.
‘The fact that council staff are recommending it speaks volumes about their competence and independence.’
There is much drama and scaremongering in this article. Just like the countless articles that claimed that the Manfred St wall would destroy the beach and surfing in Byron Bay. What wall? It’s buried under sand and will only have an impact in a major erosion event – and then the sand will quickly return as it always has. I encourage anyone interested in this issue to actually read the documents when they are released and get informed. These are important and complex issues. The community of Byron Bay deserve proper journalism, not propaganda!
Yes, they are happy Hans. They are happy little Vegemites.
Isn’t it curious that the main disadvantages with planned retreat (as identified by WRL) could also be advanced as disadvantages for a rock wall being ‘low economic viability, funding inequity, likely protracted resistance from affected landowners… and a high probability of a breakthrough of Belongil Spit at Manfred Street during a major storm.
The main difference being that the rock wall is for the benefit of the rich few and not the majority.
This is not a complex issue at all.
If you buy close to the ocean you accept what may come. You have no right to build a rock wall.
Merely a bunch of 34 Lindsay Foxes bullying a meek and moronic Council
The big picture is being ignored by the pro-development councillors here.
There are 3 factors that will be working against this:
1) the groynes/ seawall
2) the West Byron development will have an impact upstream on Belongil Creek and estuary mouth
3) when Element’s action their plan to build a protective wall within the estuary mouth to prevent further erosion of their property, you one almighty unpredictable mess – what a legacy for my kids!
Nature cannot be controlled nor circumvented by man, no matter how large his ego. Working within nature’s constraints is the only sensible option. The precautionary principal is our only hope.
This article is replete with factual errors and halves truths. Rather than try to correct them, I prefer to condense this 20 year saga into a few simple facts. If anyone really wants to get the full story, please read through the 600 page management study.
• Belongil has already retreated 80 meters in the last century. These properties did not start out on the beach. The same will one day occur for hundreds of coastal homes in this Shire.
• The current rocks were dumped during a big storm period using NSW police emergency legislation. They are NOT illegal. This legislation has been repealed, but that does not make them retrospectively unlawful.
• I have read every final court judgement concerning Belongil. Not one of them ordered removal of the rock walls. Most cases were resident appeals against Council’s refusal to allow any building works on the sites. In each case, the judgement was ‘finish your CZMP and then reconsider the applications’. One case we lost ordered Council to maintain the Manfred St wall and allow a resident to protect his property.
• Those who are concerned about the effect the rock walls have on North Beach are therefore admitting that the artificial jutting headland at Jonson St must have had an effect on Belongil. This is exactly what the Belongil residents believe, and the Supreme Court is hearing their case now.
• The rock walls have been in place for more than 15 years. Their effect on north beach has aleady occurred. They are there to stay unless someone buys out Belongil spit. Yes, it would be great if there were no houses built there in the first place, but that is wishful thinking. If the Greens had been able to remove these walls legally they would have during their 8 year campaign that cost this shire millions in plastic sand bags and legal expenses.
• The Consultants have recommended one option out of a possible 6. Their recommendation is the only realistic and affordable one. Rebuild the rock walls to a proper engineering standard with a three meter public walk way and safe access points for everyone to use for $15 million. The improved design will retain the sand better, and help the beach to recover more quickly. The owners pay $13mil, the State pays $1mil (they own some land there) and Council pays $1mil (we own roads there).
• Our $1mil is half of what we have wasted already on sandbags that washed into the Bay. Another big storm and we will have to replace the Don St and Border St sandbags again! Council will levy special rates on Belongil coastal property owners to maintain the rocks and beach access points.
• All the other big numbers quoted in this article are pie in the sky. They were the other 5 options rejected for being unaffordable and or unachievable.
• The time will come (many decades from now) when sea level rise makes living at Belongil impossible. When that day comes, the few dozen houses at Belongil will be the least of our problems!
I think it makes sense to protect the land at Belongil 34 million is cheap probably pay for it through parking…couldnt we put a fun fair park there too since tweed have knocked theirs back
How many people have died through this Belongil rock wall (erosion) campaign?
Why don’t the council/state try and do something about Brunswick Bar, recreational boat owners risk there lives every time they cross it….
Bill, I live at Belongil with my young family and I am certainly no Lindsey Fox. Nor am I bullying anyone. Just someone who has worked hard and loves the beach. I think the image you are putting out is what the Greens and the Echo would like you to believe, it’s incorrect and judgemental. These issues are complex. Consider for example that our property is probably 5m higher than the Treehouse, the Bistro, the Beach Resort, countless homes at Belongil and in fact a fair part of the town of Byron bay. If We are under water than many more are too. Protecting the main dune and the spit is important. This isn’t just about the few dozen homes on the beach. This issue needs to be resolved properly, as it seems this council is now trying to do. Believe me, the last thing anyone at Belongil wants is loss of the beach. This can easily be achieved and this important area of Byron can be enhanced and protected for all in the process. Anyone that thinks about the implications of planned retreat for more than a few minutes will realize it is totally impossible, impractical and in no ones interest. It would simply turn a vibrant part of Byron into a rubbish dump and risk the loss of the spit and estuary and potentially lead to flooding of the town. At a massive cost for the community and the state. Good on the council for taking the hard road on this.
Correct me if Im wrong but havent all purchasers of property in Belongil since the 1980s, been required to sign a contract stating something along the lines of, they understand the planned retreat policy and agree to relocate when the time comes. Just asking
Where are the rocks coming from? How deep is the bedrock beneath these houses?
Hi Sue
There are approximately 15-20 properties that predate the 1988 LEP requirement to maintain homes behind a 100 year hazard line. Planned retreat would require Council, or some other branch of government, to buy out these properties. The cost is obviously very high. There are additional properties that have approval to be where they are. They will be adversely affected if there is a beak in the spit due to forced removal of the protection works. These owners would most likely seek compensation. A Council cannot take action that undermines or threatens a property without compensating them.
Planned retreat has been in place since 1988 and those people who purchased properties in the time since then did so knowingly and are now seeking to capitalise from more formal arrangements by bullying the council, this was a disgraceful decision by the council after being upheld by the courts. Private interest should never be put before the public interest just because people are wealthy enough to take the council to court and make demands.