Summary
History in a Nutshell
In 1994 the town planning scheme for the area TPS18 was not gazetted before the structure plan presented by the developer was acted on. (presumably as a favour to the developer).
In 1998 an area that was to be used for a 12 bedroom retirement home, low key tourist development and shopping centre was onsold to other developers. This was converted into a very high density development of 70 units and a backpacker housing over 800 tourists in peak periods. Coincidentally the town planner at the time left the employ of the shire and went to work for the developer.
In 2000 the orignal developer now could not build any further because the population controls for the area had been breached due to the level of development by the secondary developers. The original developer then declared the structure plan null and void as it was accepted before TPS18. This suspended all building in the area for a 8 months until an Interim development order (IDO) could be put in place. The interim development order was incorrectly drafted. It should have recommended that a structure plan not be required for the area East of Walcliffe. However the words not required for the whole development were used.
The shire and developer then spent the next 4 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees defining lot limits. Despite an appeal by the developer being rejected the WAPC have allowed the structure plan to be accepted for the area. In 2008 the development plan based on the structure plan has been released by the shire for final comment by residents.
There are many subplots in the story with two local resident organisations being bankrupted through trying to fight issues. An area of land immediatley above Gnarabup Beach was rezoned from special conservation to tourism development by a Minister in 1996 and allowed a 400 person lodge to go ahead despite huge shire and resident opposition. The Minister allowed it to go ahead becasue the shire did not give it enough consideration because the plan was so outrageous. The shire was spilled in 2003 due to many issues related to the development.
The area is now in danger of having 4 high density tourism developments within a 2km radius housing 2200 tourists in 8m high buildings and no population controls on the new developments once the development plan is approved. Once the areas are unsold to secondary developers the development can morph further into unbridled development. There are other remaining open areas of land that have no control on them which could also be further developed by the original developer.
The whole development has become an ongoing series of mistakes and blatant misuse of the town planning practices causing massive resident discontent and wasting a lot of energy and time for all people involved. A independnent commision of investigation needs to be invoked. The town planning laws need to be reviewed and replaced in WA. The situation of big money developers imposing their will on underfunded shires and residents with no direct input needs to be corrected. The outcomes that the Save Smiths campaign has acheived in revealing deep seated corruption in large developments where there are huge amounts of money to be made need to be protected against.
Overall History
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 developers that the current Tourist Development would have little visible impact, it 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. 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.
3.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. 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
Town Planning Scheme 18 GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, WA
Thestructure plan shall provide for a variety of residential, tourist and ancillary development, with particular regard to providing for a range of economic groups. Tourist Development proposals should have due regard to the guidelines of the Environmental Protection Authority and WA Tourism Commission.
The structure plan shall show an ultimate development that provides similar tourist opportunities and no more than the number of residential lots existing in the present Prevelly Park townsite as existing in its gazetted form at the time of the gazettal of this clause unless otherwise considered appropriate by Council in the light of social, environmental, topographical, servicing and visual impact considerations, up to a maximum of 243 lots inclusive of the R20 residential subdivision proposed at the northern end of Location 815.
The Original Spirit of the proposed Gnarabup development.
Published speech in the AMR Mail by Councillor West on July 31 1991 and then ingrained into TPS18. This has now been perverted by uncontested Lawyers Interpretations.
A minor, low key expansion of Prevelly has clearly been the expectation for the last 20 years.
Assuming minor to be no larger than the existing townsite we can use the size/scale of Prevelly to define our input into the guidelines.
For example Councils only criterion in these guidelines could be ”the development zone may provide a similar lot yield and similar tourist opportunities as the present townsite and be located in those areas identified elsewhere in the guidelines as most suited to development.”
In 1994 the town planning scheme for the area TPS18 was not gazetted before the structure plan presented by the developer was acted on. (presumably as a favour to the developer).
In 1998 an area that was to be used for a 12 bedroom retirement home, low key tourist development and shopping centre was onsold to other developers. This was converted into a very high density development of 70 units and a backpacker housing over 800 tourists in peak periods. Coincidentally the town planner at the time left the employ of the shire and went to work for the developer.
In 2000 the orignal developer now could not build any further because the population controls for the area had been breached due to the level of development by the secondary developers. The original developer then declared the structure plan null and void as it was accepted before TPS18. This suspended all building in the area for a 8 months until an Interim development order (IDO) could be put in place. The interim development order was incorrectly drafted. It should have recommended that a structure plan not be required for the area East of Walcliffe. However the words not required for the whole development were used.
The shire and developer then spent the next 4 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees defining lot limits. Despite an appeal by the developer being rejected the WAPC have allowed the structure plan to be accepted for the area. In 2008 the development plan based on the structure plan has been released by the shire for final comment by residents.
There are many subplots in the story with two local resident organisations being bankrupted through trying to fight issues. An area of land immediatley above Gnarabup Beach was rezoned from special conservation to tourism development by a Minister in 1996 and allowed a 400 person lodge to go ahead despite huge shire and resident opposition. The Minister allowed it to go ahead becasue the shire did not give it enough consideration because the plan was so outrageous. The shire was spilled in 2003 due to many issues related to the development.
The area is now in danger of having 4 high density tourism developments within a 2km radius housing 2200 tourists in 8m high buildings and no population controls on the new developments once the development plan is approved. Once the areas are unsold to secondary developers the development can morph further into unbridled development. There are other remaining open areas of land that have no control on them which could also be further developed by the original developer.
The whole development has become an ongoing series of mistakes and blatant misuse of the town planning practices causing massive resident discontent and wasting a lot of energy and time for all people involved. A independnent commision of investigation needs to be invoked. The town planning laws need to be reviewed and replaced in WA. The situation of big money developers imposing their will on underfunded shires and residents with no direct input needs to be corrected. The outcomes that the Save Smiths campaign has acheived in revealing deep seated corruption in large developments where there are huge amounts of money to be made need to be protected against.
Overall History
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 developers that the current Tourist Development would have little visible impact, it 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. 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.
3.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. 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 claims, is still 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 yet we find 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 2000-2500, 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.
- 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.
- 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 by the WAPC, in February six days before the 2001 state election.
Town Planning Scheme 18 GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, WA
Thestructure plan shall provide for a variety of residential, tourist and ancillary development, with particular regard to providing for a range of economic groups. Tourist Development proposals should have due regard to the guidelines of the Environmental Protection Authority and WA Tourism Commission.
The structure plan shall show an ultimate development that provides similar tourist opportunities and no more than the number of residential lots existing in the present Prevelly Park townsite as existing in its gazetted form at the time of the gazettal of this clause unless otherwise considered appropriate by Council in the light of social, environmental, topographical, servicing and visual impact considerations, up to a maximum of 243 lots inclusive of the R20 residential subdivision proposed at the northern end of Location 815.
The Original Spirit of the proposed Gnarabup development.
Published speech in the AMR Mail by Councillor West on July 31 1991 and then ingrained into TPS18. This has now been perverted by uncontested Lawyers Interpretations.
A minor, low key expansion of Prevelly has clearly been the expectation for the last 20 years.
Assuming minor to be no larger than the existing townsite we can use the size/scale of Prevelly to define our input into the guidelines.
For example Councils only criterion in these guidelines could be ”the development zone may provide a similar lot yield and similar tourist opportunities as the present townsite and be located in those areas identified elsewhere in the guidelines as most suited to development.”
