Timeline News
July 2020
Release of plans for a five star hotel in an area that was ravaged by one of the worst coastal fires in Western Australia's History has proved to be very unpopular. There have been no additional sewage services or fire control measures in this area for over twenty years despite major issues . The area suffered a severe fire in 2011 which was one of the most costly fires in Western Australia's history. It is also one of the most dangerous areas of coast in Australia with giant swells and unpredictable conditions immediately in front of the development. The site of the development was originally zoned coastal environmental protection area reserved for no development. This was overridden through direct minister approval in 1993 despite recommendations from several government bodies and local council recommendations.
The present development has been pushed through under the guise of helping tourism in Western Australia during the COVID pandemic. The hotel could be placed in many other places in the Margaret River region with a lot better environmental and financial outcomes.
December 2015
The developers for the lodge site have reapplied for further expanded development and more lots. This has been accepted. This is an area that was originally zoned for no development and is in direct contravention of the Leeuwin Ridge Policy.
November 2008
The WAPC 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 will 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 (400-800), Lot 226 (600-800) and the Lodge (Lot 227) above Gnarabup Beach (120-200) 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 and dangerous 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.
Margaret River is famous for waves, wines and coastal wilderness.
Margaret River could become famous for one of the worst coastal environmental disasters on the WA coast.
October 2008
Evidence has become available through the freedom of information act that a structure plan had 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, the shire president 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.
"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 because 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
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.
2020
Lot 227 and Lot 226 were onsold to a large propoerty developer. Plans have been put forward for a large scale development of the area. Updated news is on https://preservegnarabup.org.au/news/
Release of plans for a five star hotel in an area that was ravaged by one of the worst coastal fires in Western Australia's History has proved to be very unpopular. There have been no additional sewage services or fire control measures in this area for over twenty years despite major issues . The area suffered a severe fire in 2011 which was one of the most costly fires in Western Australia's history. It is also one of the most dangerous areas of coast in Australia with giant swells and unpredictable conditions immediately in front of the development. The site of the development was originally zoned coastal environmental protection area reserved for no development. This was overridden through direct minister approval in 1993 despite recommendations from several government bodies and local council recommendations.
The present development has been pushed through under the guise of helping tourism in Western Australia during the COVID pandemic. The hotel could be placed in many other places in the Margaret River region with a lot better environmental and financial outcomes.
December 2015
The developers for the lodge site have reapplied for further expanded development and more lots. This has been accepted. This is an area that was originally zoned for no development and is in direct contravention of the Leeuwin Ridge Policy.
November 2008
The WAPC 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 will 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 (400-800), Lot 226 (600-800) and the Lodge (Lot 227) above Gnarabup Beach (120-200) 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 and dangerous 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 classified as a very high bushfire risk area. There have several fires through the area in the last 20 years that have threatened the area. There is only one road out from this area that was supposed to have been upgraded many years ago. It is a very high risk to have this amount of people potentially trapped in this area.
- The surf conditions immediately in front of the proposed development are extremely dangerous and exposing this amount of tourists from other countries to this area can only result in fatalities.
- The sewage farm needs to moved off the coast. On a cold morning it is very clear there is warm water moving from the area of the sewage plant into the ocean. As a consequence the name Gas bay has become prevalent for the area south of gnarabup.
- The building height of 8m is too high for the proposed development in lot 226. The area can only really accommodate 3m height buildings at most. There are several very high value houses immediately behind the area which will have their views destroyed by the proposed development.
- The underlying geology of the area west of Walcliffe road is totally unsuitable for high density development.
- Gnarabup Beach beach parking is already a major problem in summer with a boat ramp in the middle of a busy swimming beach. Adding vastly increased numbers of people to the area will cause major problems for the area.
Margaret River is famous for waves, wines and coastal wilderness.
Margaret River could become famous for one of the worst coastal environmental disasters on the WA coast.
October 2008
Evidence has become available through the freedom of information act that a structure plan had 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, the shire president 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.
"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 because 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
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.
2020
Lot 227 and Lot 226 were onsold to a large propoerty developer. Plans have been put forward for a large scale development of the area. Updated news is on https://preservegnarabup.org.au/news/
