Latest News
November 2008
The WAPC have approved a highly contentious structure plan for the area. The shire has requested community submissions for the development plan that is based on the approved structure plan.
This contentious coastal area is about to make Margaret River famous for one of the worst coastal environmental disasters on the WA Coastline.
Currently there are 243 house lots in the Gnarabup area 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 over the summer period. This equates to 700-1000 people living in residential housing.
Combine this number with the peak numbers for the current resorts on Walcliffe and Riedle (400), the proposed development under submission (600-800) and the lodge above Gnarabup Beach (200-400) this could see peak numbers in the summer around 2800 people in the Gnarabup area. Combined with the present peak numbers at Prevelly (500) the number of people along this coastal strip would be around 3300 people in peak periods. This is more people than in the Margaret River Town area perched on wilderness coastline in a predominately high density development.
Planning documents for the Gnarabup area recommend peak numbers of 500 for the area. TPS18 defines the Tourist Peak potential for Gnarabup as 350-450. The LRNSPP clearly defines Gnarabup as a Tourist Node which should have a permanent population of up to 500 people. Placing 3300 people in this area over the summer becomes a problem because of the following.
High Bushfire Risk Area – The area is a very high bushfire risk area. There have been several fires in the last 5 years that have threatened the area. There is only one road out. It is a very high risk to have this amount of people potentially trapped in this area.
Residential Area- There are many young families in the area with little traffic calming facilities. Point Marmaduke drive is particularly bad with two blind corners and no centre lines. There was a major car accident in the area recently.
The Surf conditions immediately in front of the proposed development are lethal and exposing this amount of tourists from other countries to this area is an extremely dangerous situation.
The Sewage farm needs to moved off the coast especially if it is servicing this amount of people. On a cold morning it is very clear there is warm water moving from the sewage plant into the ocean and as a consequence the name Gas bay has become prevalent for the area south of gnarabup. On a southerly the smell from the plant would blow directly through the proposed development area.
The building height of 8m is too high for the proposed development. This area can only really accommodate 3m at most. There are several very high value houses immediately behind the area which will have their views destroyed by the proposed development.
Gnarabup Beach access is already a major problem in summer. Adding another 1200 people to the area it will become a disaster.
Margaret River is famous for waves, wines and coastal wilderness.
Margaret River will now become famous for one of the worst coastal environmental disasters on the WA coast.
You would hope commonsense can prevail at this late stage because it would be a shame to see the area destroyed.
October 2008
Evidence has now become available through the freedom of information act that a structure plan has been reintroduced by the developer for the Gnarabup area. The shire was asked for comment 2-3 times on this plan by the WAPC however they have refused to comment. This has only come to light through investigation by the local coastal resident association. It does appear the shire is not acting in the best interests of residents and this does require more investigation. The shire council has previously been spilled due to issues with transparency and these issues within the shire do not appear to be going away.
The Shire attempts to shore up its position by going to the media.
At last week's meeting, shire president Steve Harrison said it was a shame that a small minority could try to pervert proper process. "The clause in IDO16 makes the clause in TPS18 redundant," he said. Cr Jenny McGregor said it was a sad day for Augusta-Margaret River when a minority wanted to question the shire's professional staff. "If this action is taken to the shire I think it will be detrimental to all of the shire," she said.
"Under DTPS 1 land at Gnarabup Beach is designated as both a special control area and a structure plan area," it says. "As such, land at Gnarabup Beach is subject to special planning controls under DTPS 1. "These controls require structure plans prior to development and also specify numerous requirements for development. "These provisions were specifically included in DTPS 1 to ensure there is tight control of development at Gnarabup Beach."
The shire has tried to cover up its mistakes made in the past and ignore local residents by deriding them as a minority. There are few options left to the local residents. The shire has removed key population controls from the DTPS with no reference to the local residents. The shire needs to correct its mistake in IDO 16 and process the 1993 structure plan correctly under TPS18 which should be transferred unaltered into DPS1. Without the constant errors made by the shire council over the last 15 years TPS18 and the 1993 structure plan would have guided the development without an issue. The local residents will now pay for these mistakes with massive overcrowding. June 2006 The Shire publishes facts on its website about gnarabup. There are many glaring inaccuracies. http://www.amrsc.wa.gov.au/c4c/060530gnarabup.html. Examples of the statements are as follows and an explanation around why they are wrong is explained.
"At present there is no approved structure plan for TPS 18. Reference is sometimes made to a 1993 structure plan, but as this predates TPS 18 it has no legal status. This position is intended to be corrected under the new DTPS 1 which proposes to give the 1993 structure plan legal status until such time as it is superseded, modified or revoked."
The WATC and the Shire allowed the 1993 structure plan to be acted on before TPS18 was gazetted through a corrupted process causing all building in the area to cease in the Year 2000. This structure plan has guided the development of gnarabup since its inception.
"Finally, clause 9.2 of IDO 16 makes a structure plan unnecessary as a prerequisite to subdivision. In view of these reasons the number of 243 residential lots is not a binding and inflexible legal limit."
The Shire made a mistake in drafting the IDO in 2001. The clause read
9.2 The provisions of Clauses 3.2.2, 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 of Town Planning Scheme No. 18 – Prevelly Park, insofar as they relate to the requirement to prepare a structure plan as a pre-requisite to development "do not apply".
The last sentence should have read "'development do apply"'. .
DOES THE PROPOSED DTPS 1 PROVIDE ANY LIMITS ON DEVELOPMENT AT GNARABUP BEACH?
The criticism has been made that the proposed DTPS 1 provides for unrestricted development at Gnarabup Beach. This is incorrect. Under DTPS 1 land at Gnarabup Beach is designated as both a special control area and a structure plan area. As such, land at Gnarabup Beach is subject to special planning controls under DTPS 1. These controls require structure plans prior to development and also specify numerous requirements for development. These provisions were specifically included in DTPS 1 to ensure there is tight control of development at Gnarabup Beach.
The Shire has specifically removed all lot limit clauses from DTPS1 to control development at Gnarabup becasue they have to conform with the structure plan that has been imposed on them by the WAPC. Council has replied to criticism of its actions in dropping the protective clauses in the Draft District Planning Scheme by twice placing full page advertisements in the Augusta Margaret River Mail. The advertisements are confusing and in places incorrect and contradictory. They do not even attempt to explain why Council dropped the protection. A media release from the Margaret River Coastal Association in response to this is given at the bottom of this page. May 2006 The Council has without any debate or public consultation dropped clauses and made changes to the DDTPS on a structure plan for development at Gnarabup. They have removed all clauses around lot limits that structure plans need to be judged by. In future a structure plan will need to be put in place and at present there are no controls on population in the present DDTPS. They can be reintroduced in a future review process but they should never have been removed. Please write to the press, politicians and shire if you feel this this is a wrong and deceitful action by an organisation that should be protecting the community interests. Further information is under Who To Lobby heading.
Ward member Bob Wyburn has been asked to obtain a copy of the Structure Plan presently under consideration in secret by Council and the WAPC. He has requested a copy along with all current correspondence pertaining to Gnarabup but he has been told by James Trail that this will take 2 – 3 weeks.
According to TPS 18, which still governs development at Gnarabup, a Structure Plan must come to Council for advertising for public comment. Why hasn’t this happened?
The council seems determined to keep its community in the dark. The CEO Gnarabup Facts (which are not the facts) AMR Mail 5 April 2006 are an example of this.
More detail from the coastal community association
Council, DPI and the Minister for Planning approved the Draft District Town Planning Scheme and that it be advertised for public submission in Nov 2005. They agreed that the original limitation to development as in TPS18 should be included in the Draft District Town Planning Scheme as the developer’s Appeal against the decision of the Supreme Court had not been handed down and therefore no change should be made to the limitation wording while awaiting the Supreme Court decision.Only one of the over 800 public submissions on the Draft District Town Planning Scheme referred to the Gnarabup development limitation and that was from Koltaz Smith on behalf of the Gnarabup landowner/developer. It did not ask for removal of the limiting clause.Shortly after submissions closed the developer withdrew its appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court against the decisions handed down against it by the single judge of the Supreme Court. A report was made to Council about the submissions on the Draft Scheme. No submissions were made in favour of removing the limiting clauses pertaining to Gnarabup. There were over 50 submissions that supported its retention. Attached to that report was an amended copy of the Draft Town Planning Scheme, which removed all the limitation on development of the land on the west side of Wallcliffe Road at Gnarabup. There was an officer report about the future limitation on development at Gnarabup, but there is no formal recommendation to remove the Gnarabup limitation clause contained in the advertised Draft District Town Planning Scheme (at clause 6.6.5 of the advertised draft scheme) or in the submission table, or in the officer addendum to the report, or in the specific resolutions of Council. However, without any recommendation or specific resolution of Council and inconsistent with the other recommendations in the submission tables presented to Council, the Gnarabup limitation clause has been completely removed from the amended draft of the District Town Planning Scheme adopted by Council February 2006. Why?
Cover up and Secrecy
It was certainly not part of this process, as there were no submissions to that effect. There was no discussion in Council meeting regarding the removal of the limit to development or the impact that this may have.There is no note anywhere in the planner’s report of the limit on development at Gnarabup contained in the State government policy pertaining to Gnarabup contained in the Leeuwin Naturalise Ridge Statement of Planning Policy that Gnarabup is a Coastal Node and that the permanent residential population not exceed 500 people.
Comment
If this Council wishes to remove all limitation on the future tourist and residential development permitted at Gnarabup, against the provisions of TPS 18 and the LNRSPP, it should have been done as a separate Scheme Amendment to the draft scheme once it is operative and advertised the proposal for public comment. This sneaky and clumsy, and extremely convoluted attempt is not only a betrayal of community representation but leaves the area vulnerable to unsustainable destructive development never envisaged by Council or Community or the State government. Not only was the limiting clause "lost" in the process but the development tables now allow for development of a type never envisaged. Previous councils since 2000 have been open with the community. They have consulted and made information freely available. This Council is empowered to propose excessive development that favours landowners and developers against community wishes and aspirations. But why would it? This Council has breached the trust that the community has reposed in it by throwing away the limitations to development at Gnarabup of its own initiative, without any public submission suggesting that this ought to be removed, in the face of significant community support for the limitations contained in the advertised scheme and without debate or specific resolution in the Council meeting concerned with the changes. Why?
This Council and Minister could allow a District Scheme, which clearly incorporates the existing limitation to development at Gnarabup, clarified to reflect the Supreme Court decisions.
. Current action re Structure Plan WAPC
The CEO has said in the AMR Mail that the SWRC did not endorse the developer’s structure plan from 2000. Well what Structure Plan is presently being considered by whom? In 2003 an informal mediation meeting was set up to negotiate a compromise settlement prior to the Supreme Court hearings. The community and Council at this time were negotiating to change the Scheme to allow some development on 226 provided the developer dropped the Lodge Site development. This attempt failed. Officers from DPI will not forward a copy of the Structure Plan to the community but refer us back to Council who also will not provide a copy of the Structure Plan presently under consideration. The Gnarabup development limitation clauses have been removed mysteriously from the amended DTPS adopted by Council in February 2006. Obviously someone at least in this Council wanted to remove the limitation with no fuss as if it had been done as part of the Submission process of the Draft District Town Planning Scheme consideration. SW Regional Committee of the WAPC has considered a Structure Plan that describes the future further development at Gnarabup. (This is the same committee that approved further subdivision of the land on the west side of Wallcliffe Road, Gnarabup into super lots, in breach of TPS 18, against the wishes of Council, without public advertisement or consultation. We know this only because the March 2006 Minutes of the Council Ordinary Meeting states that a Structure Plan was endorsed by DPI and will be forwarded to Council. Under TPS 18, a structure plan process is commenced at the local government level. The only Structure Plan that has been advertised to the community and presently awaiting consideration by the SWRPC is the Structure Plan that received over 700 submissions against it and none in support in 2000 and which the then Council refused to support. The landowner appealed against this recommendation and lost. SO it can only be assumed that this is the Structure Plan that has been considered and endorsed by the WAPC through the SWRPC in August 2005. Since so much time has passed since the Structure Plan was advertised and resolved against, it is likely that the DPI referred this Structure Plan to Council beforehand for comment. Was it and what did they say about it this time? There is no record in Council minutes about any such recent consideration. Consequently the community heard nothing of it. M1 July 2006
The WAPC have approved a highly contentious structure plan for the area. The shire has requested community submissions for the development plan that is based on the approved structure plan.
This contentious coastal area is about to make Margaret River famous for one of the worst coastal environmental disasters on the WA Coastline.
Currently there are 243 house lots in the Gnarabup area 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 over the summer period. This equates to 700-1000 people living in residential housing.
Combine this number with the peak numbers for the current resorts on Walcliffe and Riedle (400), the proposed development under submission (600-800) and the lodge above Gnarabup Beach (200-400) this could see peak numbers in the summer around 2800 people in the Gnarabup area. Combined with the present peak numbers at Prevelly (500) the number of people along this coastal strip would be around 3300 people in peak periods. This is more people than in the Margaret River Town area perched on wilderness coastline in a predominately high density development.
Planning documents for the Gnarabup area recommend peak numbers of 500 for the area. TPS18 defines the Tourist Peak potential for Gnarabup as 350-450. The LRNSPP clearly defines Gnarabup as a Tourist Node which should have a permanent population of up to 500 people. Placing 3300 people in this area over the summer becomes a problem because of the following.
High Bushfire Risk Area – The area is a very high bushfire risk area. There have been several fires in the last 5 years that have threatened the area. There is only one road out. It is a very high risk to have this amount of people potentially trapped in this area.
Residential Area- There are many young families in the area with little traffic calming facilities. Point Marmaduke drive is particularly bad with two blind corners and no centre lines. There was a major car accident in the area recently.
The Surf conditions immediately in front of the proposed development are lethal and exposing this amount of tourists from other countries to this area is an extremely dangerous situation.
The Sewage farm needs to moved off the coast especially if it is servicing this amount of people. On a cold morning it is very clear there is warm water moving from the sewage plant into the ocean and as a consequence the name Gas bay has become prevalent for the area south of gnarabup. On a southerly the smell from the plant would blow directly through the proposed development area.
The building height of 8m is too high for the proposed development. This area can only really accommodate 3m at most. There are several very high value houses immediately behind the area which will have their views destroyed by the proposed development.
Gnarabup Beach access is already a major problem in summer. Adding another 1200 people to the area it will become a disaster.
Margaret River is famous for waves, wines and coastal wilderness.
Margaret River will now become famous for one of the worst coastal environmental disasters on the WA coast.
You would hope commonsense can prevail at this late stage because it would be a shame to see the area destroyed.
October 2008
Evidence has now become available through the freedom of information act that a structure plan has been reintroduced by the developer for the Gnarabup area. The shire was asked for comment 2-3 times on this plan by the WAPC however they have refused to comment. This has only come to light through investigation by the local coastal resident association. It does appear the shire is not acting in the best interests of residents and this does require more investigation. The shire council has previously been spilled due to issues with transparency and these issues within the shire do not appear to be going away.
The Shire attempts to shore up its position by going to the media.
At last week's meeting, shire president Steve Harrison said it was a shame that a small minority could try to pervert proper process. "The clause in IDO16 makes the clause in TPS18 redundant," he said. Cr Jenny McGregor said it was a sad day for Augusta-Margaret River when a minority wanted to question the shire's professional staff. "If this action is taken to the shire I think it will be detrimental to all of the shire," she said.
"Under DTPS 1 land at Gnarabup Beach is designated as both a special control area and a structure plan area," it says. "As such, land at Gnarabup Beach is subject to special planning controls under DTPS 1. "These controls require structure plans prior to development and also specify numerous requirements for development. "These provisions were specifically included in DTPS 1 to ensure there is tight control of development at Gnarabup Beach."
The shire has tried to cover up its mistakes made in the past and ignore local residents by deriding them as a minority. There are few options left to the local residents. The shire has removed key population controls from the DTPS with no reference to the local residents. The shire needs to correct its mistake in IDO 16 and process the 1993 structure plan correctly under TPS18 which should be transferred unaltered into DPS1. Without the constant errors made by the shire council over the last 15 years TPS18 and the 1993 structure plan would have guided the development without an issue. The local residents will now pay for these mistakes with massive overcrowding. June 2006 The Shire publishes facts on its website about gnarabup. There are many glaring inaccuracies. http://www.amrsc.wa.gov.au/c4c/060530gnarabup.html. Examples of the statements are as follows and an explanation around why they are wrong is explained.
"At present there is no approved structure plan for TPS 18. Reference is sometimes made to a 1993 structure plan, but as this predates TPS 18 it has no legal status. This position is intended to be corrected under the new DTPS 1 which proposes to give the 1993 structure plan legal status until such time as it is superseded, modified or revoked."
The WATC and the Shire allowed the 1993 structure plan to be acted on before TPS18 was gazetted through a corrupted process causing all building in the area to cease in the Year 2000. This structure plan has guided the development of gnarabup since its inception.
"Finally, clause 9.2 of IDO 16 makes a structure plan unnecessary as a prerequisite to subdivision. In view of these reasons the number of 243 residential lots is not a binding and inflexible legal limit."
The Shire made a mistake in drafting the IDO in 2001. The clause read
9.2 The provisions of Clauses 3.2.2, 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 of Town Planning Scheme No. 18 – Prevelly Park, insofar as they relate to the requirement to prepare a structure plan as a pre-requisite to development "do not apply".
The last sentence should have read "'development do apply"'. .
DOES THE PROPOSED DTPS 1 PROVIDE ANY LIMITS ON DEVELOPMENT AT GNARABUP BEACH?
The criticism has been made that the proposed DTPS 1 provides for unrestricted development at Gnarabup Beach. This is incorrect. Under DTPS 1 land at Gnarabup Beach is designated as both a special control area and a structure plan area. As such, land at Gnarabup Beach is subject to special planning controls under DTPS 1. These controls require structure plans prior to development and also specify numerous requirements for development. These provisions were specifically included in DTPS 1 to ensure there is tight control of development at Gnarabup Beach.
The Shire has specifically removed all lot limit clauses from DTPS1 to control development at Gnarabup becasue they have to conform with the structure plan that has been imposed on them by the WAPC. Council has replied to criticism of its actions in dropping the protective clauses in the Draft District Planning Scheme by twice placing full page advertisements in the Augusta Margaret River Mail. The advertisements are confusing and in places incorrect and contradictory. They do not even attempt to explain why Council dropped the protection. A media release from the Margaret River Coastal Association in response to this is given at the bottom of this page. May 2006 The Council has without any debate or public consultation dropped clauses and made changes to the DDTPS on a structure plan for development at Gnarabup. They have removed all clauses around lot limits that structure plans need to be judged by. In future a structure plan will need to be put in place and at present there are no controls on population in the present DDTPS. They can be reintroduced in a future review process but they should never have been removed. Please write to the press, politicians and shire if you feel this this is a wrong and deceitful action by an organisation that should be protecting the community interests. Further information is under Who To Lobby heading.
Ward member Bob Wyburn has been asked to obtain a copy of the Structure Plan presently under consideration in secret by Council and the WAPC. He has requested a copy along with all current correspondence pertaining to Gnarabup but he has been told by James Trail that this will take 2 – 3 weeks.
According to TPS 18, which still governs development at Gnarabup, a Structure Plan must come to Council for advertising for public comment. Why hasn’t this happened?
The council seems determined to keep its community in the dark. The CEO Gnarabup Facts (which are not the facts) AMR Mail 5 April 2006 are an example of this.
More detail from the coastal community association
Council, DPI and the Minister for Planning approved the Draft District Town Planning Scheme and that it be advertised for public submission in Nov 2005. They agreed that the original limitation to development as in TPS18 should be included in the Draft District Town Planning Scheme as the developer’s Appeal against the decision of the Supreme Court had not been handed down and therefore no change should be made to the limitation wording while awaiting the Supreme Court decision.Only one of the over 800 public submissions on the Draft District Town Planning Scheme referred to the Gnarabup development limitation and that was from Koltaz Smith on behalf of the Gnarabup landowner/developer. It did not ask for removal of the limiting clause.Shortly after submissions closed the developer withdrew its appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court against the decisions handed down against it by the single judge of the Supreme Court. A report was made to Council about the submissions on the Draft Scheme. No submissions were made in favour of removing the limiting clauses pertaining to Gnarabup. There were over 50 submissions that supported its retention. Attached to that report was an amended copy of the Draft Town Planning Scheme, which removed all the limitation on development of the land on the west side of Wallcliffe Road at Gnarabup. There was an officer report about the future limitation on development at Gnarabup, but there is no formal recommendation to remove the Gnarabup limitation clause contained in the advertised Draft District Town Planning Scheme (at clause 6.6.5 of the advertised draft scheme) or in the submission table, or in the officer addendum to the report, or in the specific resolutions of Council. However, without any recommendation or specific resolution of Council and inconsistent with the other recommendations in the submission tables presented to Council, the Gnarabup limitation clause has been completely removed from the amended draft of the District Town Planning Scheme adopted by Council February 2006. Why?
Cover up and Secrecy
It was certainly not part of this process, as there were no submissions to that effect. There was no discussion in Council meeting regarding the removal of the limit to development or the impact that this may have.There is no note anywhere in the planner’s report of the limit on development at Gnarabup contained in the State government policy pertaining to Gnarabup contained in the Leeuwin Naturalise Ridge Statement of Planning Policy that Gnarabup is a Coastal Node and that the permanent residential population not exceed 500 people.
Comment
If this Council wishes to remove all limitation on the future tourist and residential development permitted at Gnarabup, against the provisions of TPS 18 and the LNRSPP, it should have been done as a separate Scheme Amendment to the draft scheme once it is operative and advertised the proposal for public comment. This sneaky and clumsy, and extremely convoluted attempt is not only a betrayal of community representation but leaves the area vulnerable to unsustainable destructive development never envisaged by Council or Community or the State government. Not only was the limiting clause "lost" in the process but the development tables now allow for development of a type never envisaged. Previous councils since 2000 have been open with the community. They have consulted and made information freely available. This Council is empowered to propose excessive development that favours landowners and developers against community wishes and aspirations. But why would it? This Council has breached the trust that the community has reposed in it by throwing away the limitations to development at Gnarabup of its own initiative, without any public submission suggesting that this ought to be removed, in the face of significant community support for the limitations contained in the advertised scheme and without debate or specific resolution in the Council meeting concerned with the changes. Why?
This Council and Minister could allow a District Scheme, which clearly incorporates the existing limitation to development at Gnarabup, clarified to reflect the Supreme Court decisions.
. Current action re Structure Plan WAPC
The CEO has said in the AMR Mail that the SWRC did not endorse the developer’s structure plan from 2000. Well what Structure Plan is presently being considered by whom? In 2003 an informal mediation meeting was set up to negotiate a compromise settlement prior to the Supreme Court hearings. The community and Council at this time were negotiating to change the Scheme to allow some development on 226 provided the developer dropped the Lodge Site development. This attempt failed. Officers from DPI will not forward a copy of the Structure Plan to the community but refer us back to Council who also will not provide a copy of the Structure Plan presently under consideration. The Gnarabup development limitation clauses have been removed mysteriously from the amended DTPS adopted by Council in February 2006. Obviously someone at least in this Council wanted to remove the limitation with no fuss as if it had been done as part of the Submission process of the Draft District Town Planning Scheme consideration. SW Regional Committee of the WAPC has considered a Structure Plan that describes the future further development at Gnarabup. (This is the same committee that approved further subdivision of the land on the west side of Wallcliffe Road, Gnarabup into super lots, in breach of TPS 18, against the wishes of Council, without public advertisement or consultation. We know this only because the March 2006 Minutes of the Council Ordinary Meeting states that a Structure Plan was endorsed by DPI and will be forwarded to Council. Under TPS 18, a structure plan process is commenced at the local government level. The only Structure Plan that has been advertised to the community and presently awaiting consideration by the SWRPC is the Structure Plan that received over 700 submissions against it and none in support in 2000 and which the then Council refused to support. The landowner appealed against this recommendation and lost. SO it can only be assumed that this is the Structure Plan that has been considered and endorsed by the WAPC through the SWRPC in August 2005. Since so much time has passed since the Structure Plan was advertised and resolved against, it is likely that the DPI referred this Structure Plan to Council beforehand for comment. Was it and what did they say about it this time? There is no record in Council minutes about any such recent consideration. Consequently the community heard nothing of it. M1 July 2006
