Susan Skyvington, Member of Mullum RAG (Residents Advocacy Group)
“The Belongil – what a spectacular place to live!” one thought on checking out a move to Byron 25 years ago.
Hardly any houses, you had the pick of blocks to buy at Belongil. Except that…it was a frontal dune and Byron Council zoning regulations, adopted in 1988 after serious erosion events, clearly stated that any dwelling built at Belongil must be a demountable able to be removed ‘’on the back of a truck”. I took this law seriously and found a place high up on Paterson Street to buy. Did those who have subsequently built large luxury houses on the Belongil foreshore choose to ignore the law?
The fact that a frontal dune must be structure-free was established science long before this: you cannot build houses, and especially not rock walls, on the fragile dune because the natural movement of sand will prevail and constantly shift its location. And it will erode! Twenty years earlier I was co-founder of Capricorn Coast Conservation Council, involved with monitoring coastal development including protecting the iconic sand dunes on Fraser Island. Even in the dark days of Bjelke-Peterson’s Queensland in 1971-73 we knew this scientific fact.
Less ignorant were we than today’s majority bloc of Byron Shire Councillors (Ibrahim, Cubis, Hunter, Wanchap, Woods) who voted last week for the building of a rock wall to proceed on the Belongil sand-spit. Cr Ibrahim said it is to protect the houses existing before 1988. As I recall, there were only about two houses on the Belongil foreshore in 1992. In 2010 Byron Council CZMP advocated planned retreat of existing structures. But the current pro-development councillors choose to wipe out proper safe planning processes that have been progressively put in place over 22 years: solid grounded planning thrown out, for houses unwisely built on sand!
Susan, it sounds like you chose not to purchase at Belongil 25 years ago and now you live inland at Mullum. So what exactly are you saying other than that you feel you were right 25 years ago? The Belongil story is far more complex than you are suggesting. The current concillors are far from ignorant – I have no doubt many of those in support have probably spent more time talking to experts and reading reports in the past few years than they have spent doing much else! A few ‘facts’:
1. When the land was subdivided in 1883 there was a road between many of the properties and the main dune
2. There were once sand dunes right through the beach end of fletcher st etc. it is important to look at these issues consistently
3. Many reports since the 1978 report have suggested that the coast here is NOT in long term recession and that the beach realignment at Belongil was caused by the artificial headland at Johnson St. I believe the council was warned of potential damage to Belongil at the time.
4. Surely you would have seen rocks in place at Belongil 25 years ago? Many of these were built with council input.
5. My house was (legally) built prior to 1998 – I’m not sure it is correct that there was only one other house here at the time!
6. The extreme greens policy of planned retreat failed in 2010 and the CZMP was abandoned
So what exactly is your point and what are you suggesting should happen now? A lot of things happened in Byrons history – whaling, sand mining, and also building the town. These things are part of the towns history. Saying ‘I told you so’ doesn’t make it right to take away a persons legally aquired and built house. Should the rest of the town and rocks at Johnson st be removed too?
People love Belongil for what it is and it is a beautiful and vibrant area with 175 lots and many homes and businesses. You have 15km of natural beach to use at Tyagarah that is actually much closer to Mullum.
I’m sure Mullum was once a rich forest full of koalas and peacocks and other species. Maybe Mullum should also have never been built – and you should give your property back to nature for the good of all – if you feel strongly about this issue?
As I stated in my letter, the Byron Council planning regulation that mandated “demountable-only buildings” at the Belongil, came in in 1988 – NOT in 1998. I lived in Byron Bay for 12 years, until 2005 when uncaring absent owners renting their houses out weekly to noisy young drunken tenants, drove me out – which has nothing to do with building at the Belongil.
Susan Skyvington
Hmm. I am concerned about people who comment on this issue and do not identify themselves. I believe that if you want to be taken seriously, you must at least use your own full name when commenting on letters, exactly as you do if you were to write a letter to the editor yourself. I note that detailed comments are added to this and other letters about this topic by unidentified writers.
David and M Gardner
It is simple. If you purchase a house in a location that is prone to tidal inundation and erosion that is your choice. But no matter how loud you howl or try to silence the opposition other people do not want to bankroll a seawall to protect your risky real estate investment. Nor do they want to finance a sea wall which scientific research shows will damage the shared environment.
Why would they? Unless of course they either (a) own a piece of beach side real estate elsewhere and want to see a precedent set or (b) have a pecuniary interest in the development of Belongil.
M, Is your real name really ‘M’? I have identified myself with my real name. What do you need my last name for and why is it relevant? I have chosen not to use my last name as this has nothing to do with my children and other family members who also live in Byron Bay.
Pete, I’m sorry to say that you have been grossly misled by articles on this site and lies spread by the ignorant ideology of the anti protection brigade. no one is ‘bankrolling the seawall project’. In addition, the majority of approximately 15 research reports listed in the CZMP written by scientists and experts over the past 40 years support rock protection at Belongil.
The draft CZMP states that landowners will pay 100% for their own walls. At total cost of $12m. Even though these walls protect the entire Belongil spit including roads, beach access, town water and power for the whole community to enjoy. These walls will also stop the sea breaching the silt creek creating an environmental disaster zone and destroying little tern nesting areas, and potentially flooding the town.
These walls are only needed because the Council once built an artificial headland in town which causes a realignment of Belongil beach, which has been otherwise stable for 5000-6000 years. So in effect, belongil landowners will pay because our sand is trapped and diverted due to walls that protect other landowners land to the south east of Jonson St.
But you are correct… There are good lessons in this and I would advise anyone living beachside at Suffolk park, Broken head, Lennox heads, Ocean Shores, on Cavenbah St, Shirley St, Marine Parade or immediately behind Clarkes beach… And also anyone living on land below the 6m above sea level that Belongil beachfront homes are built on to abandon their homes immediately. Oops. That’s a fairly large percentage of Byron Bay and surrounds. What a silly bunch of people we are!
David
It is estimated that the proposed sea wall involves ongoing maintenance costs of between thirty and forty million dollars.These costs will be shouldered by the community via paid parking fees and rates.
I doubt many people think you are silly. But they may think that your arguments are driven by self-interest and a sense of entitlement.
Half truths unfortunately do not add together to make a whole. Last names, not first, signify that the author may be identified. Reports are not assessed by quantity or volume but by content. At last night’s community information session, council staff said Belongil owners have not yet agreed to pay costs.Nor is it clear who pays the costs for the second and third part of the preferred option 6 — who will pay for the inevitable groynes and the ‘sand nourishment’? A strip of wall will not prevent water coming around or in from behind. According to several of the ‘number of reports’, the erosion at Belongil are not a response to the works at Main Beach.
But it’s great that you are reading and thinking about other properties in the region. You may be interested in reading this from the Guardian. It brings me back to my first question: how do properties at Belongil sandspit become so highly priced even as erosion continues?
FROM the Guardian
The risk that houses in some areas of Australia are likely to become uninsurable, dilapidated and uninhabitable due to climate change is kept hidden from those building and buying property along Australia’s coasts and in bushfire zones, a Climate Institute report says.
The report says there is untapped and unshared data held by regulators, state and local governments, insurers and banks on the level of risk, but that most homebuyers and developers are not told about the data and do not have access to it.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/30/homeowners-kept-in-dark-about-climate-change-risk-to-houses-says-report?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+AUS+v1+-+AUS+morning+mail+callout&utm_term=174703&subid=9006712&CMP=ema_632
Pete, that is just completely wrong. Have a read of the CZMP. Maintenance costs are included and split between landowners on a per square meter basis. There has been much comment about the community paying for seawalls and parking funding it, and it is all complete lies. It is really important that people get properly informed is there is a very active group of people who have been on an anti Belongil crusade for decades, and clearly the community is being misled to further their own goals.
M, you can chose to identify yourself however you like. And I will too. What do you plan on doing with my surname? Very strange.
I was just looking at photos of Belongil from 30 years ago, and other than some great landscaping and planting of trees (making Belongil much more beautiful) the area is virtually identical to what it was. The author of the letter above stated that there were two houses in 1992. I can count exactly the same number that there are today. More than 30 in the section of photo that I have. The Guardian can speculate all it likes about what might happen in the future, and people could have done the same back in 1985. But in the meantime life goes on and I am enjoying Belongil. The truth is that many families have enjoyed Belongil properties for the past 30 years, and many more will into the future. Yes there are risks. I own a property here and conducted a lot of due diligence. I spoke to Council staff, lawyers, engineers, coastal experts. The bank lent me the money and it is insured (not for tidal inundation but neither is any other house in Byron I expect). Fortunately we live in a free market economy and not a socialist one (much to the horror of many Echo readers I am sure!). So properties sell for what people are prepared to pay for them. Yes, a house on the beach at Belongil might cost 3 times more than a house in Mullumbimby. it might cost the same as a nice house in a nice suburb of Melbourne or Sydney. I made the decision that that was a fair price, and others have too. The past 30 years has shown the risks not to be as great as many claim. And to Pete, yes of course my arguments are driven by self interest. I don’t want to lose my house. The greatest risk is not erosion but those in the community who would like to see it taken away. What an odd and harsh world in which we live. I feel much better arguing for the protection of my family home than I expect others do arguing for the destruction of someone else’s home.