Chris Dobney
The Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) has told Byron Shire Council that it will not proceed with proposed funding for so-called interim rock protection walls at Belongil.
In a letter dated October 1, OEH’s acting director of environmental programs, Peter Dixon, said that ‘on this occasion the application and the request for variation to the existing grant are not supported’.
Under the arrangement, put to OEH by council last year, existing funding was to be diverted to help pay for construction of the wall, with rocks provided at no charge by RMS from tunnelling at St Helena.
In February this year, council considered either asking landowners to chip in or using money from its environmental levy to complete the works.
In his letter, Mr Dixon wrote that funding for the proposed works was withdrawn as they ‘might compromise the long-term management strategy for this area currently being considered in developing the Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) for the Byron Bay embayment’.
In doing so, he echoed concerns expressed by Crs Duncan Dey and Basil Cameron, who have repeatedly said the finalisation of the CZMP should precede any decision on the rocks, which Cr Cameron estimated would cost in excess of $1 million to install.
Mr Dixon added that OEH also had ‘concerns about the scale of the proposed interim works, which will have significant impact on the amenity of the already compromised beach area and associated public access’.
Cr Dey told Echonetdaily, that while ‘many are upset… I am pleased that public money is not being wasted on this project, which has never been tested for the support of the shire’s ratepayers or the state’s taxpayers’.
‘The process to do these tests is to propose the works under a Coastal Zone Management Plan, rather than hoist the rocks proposal off the floor of the Council Chambers (as was the case with this project),’ he said.
OEH acknowledged it was open to council to proceed with the works if it could find another source of funding.
But in a briefing note to councillors, Byron’s organisation development manager, Shannon McKelvey, said OEH could be open to liability claims for withdrawing the funding so long after initially approving it.
‘You may recall that Council had been provided assurances that no decision would be made to withdraw funding without Council first being consulted, so clearly the receipt of the letter today without prior consultation is very disappointing,’ she wrote.
‘Staff also intend, subject to advice, to write to OEH and put them on notice in relation to potential liability flowing from their decisions, actions and omissions in relation to this matter,’ she noted.
‘For example, it is particularly relevant that it has been the funding agreement with OEH which has been the primary cause for a number of delays which could have been avoided if OEH had made their position on funding known well over [a] year ago when the design was first mooted and then again over 10 months ago when they were informed that Council had considered their and the Coastal Panel’s comments.
Ms McKelvey said the options remaining open to council were to seek further funding from residents towards the cost of the walls or fund it out of general revenue, which would be a highly contentious move.
She added that Ballina MP Don Page, who had been attempting to organise a meeting with the minister over the issue, had also been informed of the decision.
Cr Dey has predicted ‘a storm will follow’.
‘The Belongil Preservation Association is already angry, saying the shire has no plan to protect them. But there has been a plan since 1987, to relocate if erosion threatens. The BPA just don’t accept that plan. The rocks project was the start of the plan they do want. Its delay will upset them,’ he said.
An excellent decision. At last some sanity from someone willing to pay attention to overarching planning laws in NSW rather than cow-towing to the shrill cries of a handful of ostrich-like landowners.
The problem with shoreline recession at Belongil Spit stems back to May 1921 when the Steam Ship Wollongbar went aground adjacent to Byron Bay’s first jetty onto the seaward edge of a Crown Reserve notated on survey plans as R1082. Available photos confirm its position on the beach at low tide with the wreck then becoming a dominant feature on the beach for many years. By 1925 it was showing signs, because of wave turbulence striking a now immovable structure, of sinking into the sand. This created turbulence had continued to the point where in 1978 the remnants of the wreck was only visible at low tide with a channel created on the wreck’s landward side which wiped out most of the remainder of the Crown Reserve. This situation remains the case today after some 36 years with this wreck still generating wave turbulence preventing any natural build-up in front of these coastal properties. Under these circumstances the recession is part of a man made problem and it is an obligation for the Government to assist these land owners to protect their properties.
I agree wholeheartedly. Excellent sober decision. Probably made after noting the State government has recently rejected similar Council plans for rock walls at Old Bar and now seems to favour planned retreat. Why waste taxpayers money on a project that will remove public amenity while benefiting only a handful of landowners for a very short period of time. The whole idea and the exorbitant costs involved are a folly.
Afraid I agree with Christina. Not that I am prejudiced against Belongil Landholders but building on coastal sand dunes and estuaries should be at “owners risk”. I don’t see why local authorities should take responsibility for such decisions. It really is time we all grew up a little and ceased the endless blaming so prevalent in our society…..
You can guarantee that belongil will only cost the shires ratepayers more and more money.
The Belongil land owners who have ignored the knowledge of ‘planned retreat’ are now facing their self created reality.The BPA is another self interest group. No way my rate-dollar should be spent preserving property of the wealthy when they ignored the ‘writing on the wall’.
I notice that all the people commenting are not living on the beachfront. But I would like them to consider if it was their home that was being washed away if their reaction would be the same.
At Old Bar the home owners were happy to pay to protect the beachfront at their own cost and the council turned the application down. Many people are losing their life savings and pensions
Planned retreat is the council doing nothing to save the beachfront.
I am perplexed that individuals who are not affected by the sea erosion are commenting.
The sea front home owners are asking to protect their property that is all.
Anne Hanel