Re the article ‘Belongil Rock wall to go ahead’, Echonetdaily, December 24, I would like to respond in regards to the comments made on the way I voted in Council to continue the process towards replacing present geo-bags with rock revetment protection works in order to repair and protect beach accesses and three public roads that are now in urgent need of repairs at Belongil.
I do have a difference of opinion with my fellow Greens councillors on a couple of key issues but the majority of the time we are in agreement.
As a councillor I am first and foremost accountable to the whole community. Once I have researched an issue, sought expert advice and carefully considered the options I have no choice but to vote according to how I see the facts.
What was approved at Council’s last meeting was a planning decision on the design and application, which doesn’t mean final approval has been granted. This will depend on the funding options and other relevant issues being addressed. It was simply another step in the process, which I am currently in agreement with.
The Coastal Panel was not the determining authority and as such they were required to provide comment to Council. They did not rule against the report and their points were addressed accordingly by the consultants and staff.
Ultimately, Council is the determining authority and therefore it was our responsibility to make a decision on the viability of the report. I am confident every aspect was covered by the experts and I’m satisfied all the points were addressed reasonably. I believe it is imprudent to continue using inferior measures when a more efficient and affordable alternative is available.
Expert advice from the UNSW Water Research Laboratory was that for a short seawall between two existing longer seawalls there would be minimal incremental difference in alongshore erosion, therefore shorebird roosting and nesting sites would be minimally affected. The main advantages of rock seawalls are that they offer a higher level of land protection and have a longer life and lower maintenance. Specialist engineers agree that the effect on the beach is the same whether the protection works are sand-bags or rocks.
The staff estimation of cost of the design approved was not prohibitive. The largest of the three sites is at Manfred Street and it is just 103 metres in length. This was costed at $838,000 with free rocks from the RTA site. Though if you were to subtract from that figure the cost of rock removal from the beach of $175,000, which could be said to be far less than repair and replacement yearly of the failing geo-bags, this total would come to $663,000. With the promised state government grant I can hardly see what all the fuss is about. We would be able to provide a formalised safe access to the beach and repair to Council’s road, which is reasonable, since it would have a higher level of protection from further erosion.
The Greens’ policy is for ‘managed retreat’ and I agree that we do need to ‘manage’ our retreat.
However, I do not think having a half a dozen homes dangling from a cliff with all of their contents, building materials, asbestos, etc being added to waste in our oceans is managing our retreat very well. Neither do I believe managing our retreat entails relocating dozens of homes to another site in the hills or otherwise. Properties in the hills continue to have serious access issues caused by landslips from recent storm events. Nowhere is safe from increasing weather events, certainly not the township of Byron, which has been built on a swamp. I believe ‘planned retreat’ is in principle all we can do in the light of future sea rises but in practice it has proven hard to implement. I believe it is in the best interest of the whole community to find a way of ‘managing’ our shoreline that does not entail ‘abandoning’ a whole suburb.
As one expert noted, the geo-bags are significantly vulnerable to ever-increasing storm events. These types of events don’t give warning, they just happen, and therefore we need to hope for the best but plan for the worst. With the small distance between the ocean and the estuary at Manfred Street there is every possibility of a breakthrough with the ocean breaching the dunes and the estuary overflowing on a king tide.
While the word interim has been used often in connection with these proposed works, this new designed structure has been required to meet both the interim nature of being able to be removed a well as meeting the more stable qualities of protecting the land from further erosion, over-topping and collapse from wave action.
The geo-bags, while being interim, were in fact in place for a term that would be more aptly considered permanent while not adequately preventing erosion.
What is environmental about floating hessian bags negatively impacting on our bird and marine life? What is financially savvy about the ongoing cost of the maintenance and replacement of geo-bags? I believe there are many more Greens supporters who would agree with me once they looked at the facts.
I am all for opening up discussion to public debate. I would like to see a ‘critical conversation’ at the community centre in early February to present experts opinions on both sides of the issue so that the public can be fully informed. I believe knee-jerk reactions have no place in policy making and I am finding that just the words rocks and interim are enough to call forth a torrent of abuse.
Perhaps those who feel disappointed with my position on the rocks issue could answer this question: If, as our consultants have advised, a 103-metre rock wall that follows closely the curve of the present geo-bags between existing rock walls is a safer option, more affordable, provides better protection, has less impact on the marine life and the environment and does not reduce the beach any more than geo-bags, then why would we continue with the present maintenance-intensive geo-bag structure?
Byron Shire councillor Rose Wanchap
Editor’s note: Councillor Wanchap was approached for comment at the time of writing Echonetdaily‘s article but because of business commitments she was unable to provide any by our deadline. A modified version of the article, together with some of Cr Wanchap’s comments, appears in this week’s Byron Shire Echo.
For four decades The Echo has printed the stories some people loved, some people hated, and some pretended not to read. If you want us to keep telling the truth, the real truth, not the sugar-coated version. We’ll need your support to keep the presses rolling. 
