Underlying Issues
The underlying conflict in the Gnarabup issue is the cumulative effect of large predicted numbers of tourists, the increasing number of permanent residents and the environmental impact of the developments that will house these people. There has been intense conflict between the community and the developers (multiple developers as the initial developer sells on the development sites) over these issues and a sense of complete distrust of the developer’s intentions currently prevails. This has been brought about by a number of autonomous actions by the developers without consulting the community who will be ultimately affected. These are listed as follows.
1.Despite repeated assurances from the early developers that the current Tourist Development east of Walcliffe road would have little visible impact, the current large white high density development is a very clear and visible reminder of what can go wrong. The environmental and aesthetic damage to the area is irreparable. By its presence it constantly reminds people that the Gnarabup development has to be more controlled.
2.The Sewage works servicing the development is inappropriately placed 200m from the Ocean and over a drainage line to Grunters beach and Gas Bay. The actual environmental damage is considerable and there is clear potential for far greater damage. This again gives a constant reminder that the development has to be more controlled. The local residents tried to control this however a legal loophole allowed the developer to move forward.
3. An in-depth geotechnical and hydrogeological survey of the area has never been completed. The tourism development areas west of Walcliffe Rd are sited on fragile limestone karst geology. Karst geology by its nature contains voids and cavities throughout the rock. The Margaret River region has many karst caves throughout the Leeuwin Ridge. Water flow through the karst geology is often rapid and is very open to ground pollution from human development. Situating any form of building development on this type of geology is dangerous and open to contamination of the surrounding area including gnarabup bay which is a popular swimming area. The 2000 structure plan did not include a detailed geotechnical or hydrogeological study of the area. There is a brief one page description of the landform in the plan which describes the geology and lists several monitoring bores that are towards the prevelly township. The EPA has never conducted a comprehensive assessment on the area. The area west of Walcliffe road was never meant for high density development. Lot 227 (lodge site) was zoned special conservation land and through a direct appeal to the Minister of the time Lot 227 was created and rezoned presumably as a favour to the developer despite several goverment and local council bodies recommending that the area is unsuitable for development. Lot 226 was to be a low density tourist development such as a caravan park. It is now zoned high density with 8m high buildings in a dense formation similar to the present resort however on a larger scale. Both lots were protected from development in the initial structure plan for the area due to the fragile nature of the area. This has now been overidden through corruption of the planning process.
4.The Gnarabup development area has had several fires through the area in the last 20 years with the most severe in 2011 being rated as the most costly in terms of property damage in Western Australia's history. There is no second exit road to the gnarabup area and in the 2011 fire many residents were trapped in the area. The exceptionally high fire risk in this area was played down in the 2001 structure plan report.
5. Gnarabup is surrounded by a very dangerous coast with large waves and severe winds regularly battering the area over winter. Extended development in this area is dangerous and damaging to the coastal environment in the area. The risk of putting large numbers of tourists from foreign countries on the coast that are unfamiliar and unprepared for this environment will result in a major hazard in the area. The local lifeguard and sea rescue services will need to be enhanced to deal with these tourists as the risk of fatalities from people being washed off rocks or attempting to enter the water in large swells is very high.
6.The constant manipulation of the legal processes using lawyer’s tactics rather than adhering to the true spirit of the Town Planning Scheme and State Planning Policy for the area, and clear community requests for such work and planning has caused many issues. The community and the council have constantly compromised to accommodate the developer only to find they are faced with lawyers and slippery tactics. The following cases illustrate this fact
These issues all show a breakdown in responsible government actions (Minister's Office, WAPC and the EPA) and need to be investigated
I
1.Despite repeated assurances from the early developers that the current Tourist Development east of Walcliffe road would have little visible impact, the current large white high density development is a very clear and visible reminder of what can go wrong. The environmental and aesthetic damage to the area is irreparable. By its presence it constantly reminds people that the Gnarabup development has to be more controlled.
2.The Sewage works servicing the development is inappropriately placed 200m from the Ocean and over a drainage line to Grunters beach and Gas Bay. The actual environmental damage is considerable and there is clear potential for far greater damage. This again gives a constant reminder that the development has to be more controlled. The local residents tried to control this however a legal loophole allowed the developer to move forward.
3. An in-depth geotechnical and hydrogeological survey of the area has never been completed. The tourism development areas west of Walcliffe Rd are sited on fragile limestone karst geology. Karst geology by its nature contains voids and cavities throughout the rock. The Margaret River region has many karst caves throughout the Leeuwin Ridge. Water flow through the karst geology is often rapid and is very open to ground pollution from human development. Situating any form of building development on this type of geology is dangerous and open to contamination of the surrounding area including gnarabup bay which is a popular swimming area. The 2000 structure plan did not include a detailed geotechnical or hydrogeological study of the area. There is a brief one page description of the landform in the plan which describes the geology and lists several monitoring bores that are towards the prevelly township. The EPA has never conducted a comprehensive assessment on the area. The area west of Walcliffe road was never meant for high density development. Lot 227 (lodge site) was zoned special conservation land and through a direct appeal to the Minister of the time Lot 227 was created and rezoned presumably as a favour to the developer despite several goverment and local council bodies recommending that the area is unsuitable for development. Lot 226 was to be a low density tourist development such as a caravan park. It is now zoned high density with 8m high buildings in a dense formation similar to the present resort however on a larger scale. Both lots were protected from development in the initial structure plan for the area due to the fragile nature of the area. This has now been overidden through corruption of the planning process.
4.The Gnarabup development area has had several fires through the area in the last 20 years with the most severe in 2011 being rated as the most costly in terms of property damage in Western Australia's history. There is no second exit road to the gnarabup area and in the 2011 fire many residents were trapped in the area. The exceptionally high fire risk in this area was played down in the 2001 structure plan report.
5. Gnarabup is surrounded by a very dangerous coast with large waves and severe winds regularly battering the area over winter. Extended development in this area is dangerous and damaging to the coastal environment in the area. The risk of putting large numbers of tourists from foreign countries on the coast that are unfamiliar and unprepared for this environment will result in a major hazard in the area. The local lifeguard and sea rescue services will need to be enhanced to deal with these tourists as the risk of fatalities from people being washed off rocks or attempting to enter the water in large swells is very high.
6.The constant manipulation of the legal processes using lawyer’s tactics rather than adhering to the true spirit of the Town Planning Scheme and State Planning Policy for the area, and clear community requests for such work and planning has caused many issues. The community and the council have constantly compromised to accommodate the developer only to find they are faced with lawyers and slippery tactics. The following cases illustrate this fact
- The initial draft of TPS18 was extended from 140 lots to 243 through a compromise. The developer has used lawyer’s definitions to try and extend this to an unlimited number. There are no definitions for lots used in the original TPS 18 although the developer has asked for a Supreme Court ruling that 243 lots mentioned are residential lots. All Tourist Accommodation except Hotels are defined as residential and therefore the lot limit can be currently been drastically exceeded using strata titling of the current blocks.
- Manipulation of the public submission process through using lawyers to find loopholes and discount submissions is repeated throughout the development process to date. The tactic has been applied to the acceptance of the TPS 18 (1995), and the acceptance of the 1993 Structure Plan. The public submission process is very important, and only part of the overall process to allow the community to have a say. To constantly undermine this process through the pursuit of legal loopholes can only further create conflict and devalue the whole process in terms of its value to the whole community of Western Australia. It is also contrary to the development of a future community to exclude the current community.
- The developer’s constant denial of the detrimental influence of the Lodge Site (Lot 227) against the aims of TPS18 and the LRNSPP and therefore on the current development plan. This lot was gained through Ministerial Appeal, a process that was outside the input of the local community, extended community or community advocate groups, and the Council Development was granted on land that was specified Special Conservation Area. This required a new zoning specification to be implemented. This sequence of events produced deep community concern and growing distrust of the developer full intentions. Although it is not a part of the current structure plan submission the impact of this development has to be considered in the light of the TPS 18, LRNSPP and the impact on the infrastructure of the area, which it uses and plainly needs to be a factor in consideration of any structure plan submission. To deny its influence only highlights the community’s distrust, and exposes the developer’s intentions to develop outside of the boundaries, set in the Town Planning Scheme, State Planning Policy (Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge Statement of Planning Policy) and the initial vision for the area.
- The developer’s misrepresentation of the Tourist potential for the area is cause for deep concern.
The TPS18 states, “the development will show an ultimate development that provides similar tourist opportunities “ “At the time of the gazettal of this clause”.
The RAC Tourist Guide defines the peak numbers for this tourist development as 350.
The DAY socio economic report in the present structure plan application defines it as 480.
The developer’s spokesperson defines this as unlimited. This conduct sends a clear message to the community of the developer’s intentions in trying to manipulate the process for their own ends. This creates deep community concern for those who will ultimately have to live with the result of this planning based on maximising economic profit from a fragile section of coastal land. - The developers have been availed in good faith many compromises, which have been abused in the past.
The initial 140 lot limit was increased to 225 giving assurances of proper development procedures. This was further increased to 243 on acceptance of a green street development (higher density). The present Beachs Development was granted a high density rating on the understanding it was to be used for a 10-bedroom retirement village. We now find it is a 40-unit high-density 8m-tourism development, which the spokesperson for the developer claimed was group housing. The current Tourist Development, through a compromise, has encroached on the Commercial Lot, where the Town Services were to be located.
The remaining Commercial Area is now being used for primarily servicing the tourism resort
The initial Developers claim this process is out of their control once it is handed onto other developers and there is still no controls on further subdivisions other than unenforceable caveats, which have been ignored throughout the current development.
Again the process causes deep public distrust of the developer’s intentions. - The LRNSPP clearly defines Gnarabup has a Tourist Node which should have a permanent population of up to 500 people.
Currently there are 243 potential house lots with many of them duplex blocks and several are used for tourist accommodation.
The average person/house ratio for the Margaret River area is 2.8 however in this area this figure may be as high as 4.
This gives a permanent population of between 700-1000 people, which is plainly outside the State Planning Policy recommendations.
The TPS18 defines the Tourist peak Potential as 350-450, which is supported by the developers own structure plan. The current estimates of the peak tourist development are 2000-2800, which is plainly outside the Town Planning Scheme Guidelines for the area. - The EPA has followed a piecemeal approach to the area and has never completed a full assessment of the area.
They are not obliged to complete an assessment of the area however in such an environmentally sensitive area this should be undertaken. The EPA never completed an assessment for the expansion of the Sewage farm in 1999 (which is located 200m from the shoreline and 400m from the nearest house) and the local community challenged this decision. The local community lost this challenge on a legal technicality that they had not registered their interest with the Court, which resulted in the demise of the organization due to damages being awarded against them.
These issues all show a breakdown in responsible government actions (Minister's Office, WAPC and the EPA) and need to be investigated
- The premature acceptance of the initial structure plan in 1993 predating the TPS Gazettal by two years causing the ruling that the subdivision was illegal in the year 2000. This resulted in owners of lots not able to build on their properties for a period of eight months in 2000.
- The acceptance of a development lot on Special Conservation Land in 1993 by the then planning minister despite strong opposition from the community the council and the ministers department
- The premature acceptance of the current subdivision immediately next to the ocean west of Walcliffe Rd by the WAPC, in February six days before the 2001 state election.
I
