_Mackay Conservation Group Inc v Mackay City Council and East Point Mackay Pty Ltd_

_Mackay Conservation Group Inc v Mackay City Council and East Point Mackay Pty Ltd_ - [2005] QPEC 94 - QPEC 2005 case summary — Zoe

[23]

1. This approval is for the above uses in accordance with Schedule A - Level of Assessment Tables and Codes, and the Development Structure Plan (Plan of Development) as amended by the following:

a) The fisheries buffer in the southern and western edges of the development is to be increased in width to protect several regional ecosystems (8.2.2 and the mosaic 8.2.9/8.2.2) all listed as "of concern" under the Vegetation Management Act to include all the large patches of dry rainforest.

b) The proposed 5 storey development in the Tourist Hub to be not more than 3 storeys in height.

c) THAT the residential density is not to exceed 10 dwellings per hectare.

2. The currency period for the Preliminary Approval shall be ten (10) years starting the day the approval takes effect. The currency period is conditional upon completion of the Hotel in the Tourist Hub by the end of 2008. If the Hotel development is not completed by 2008, this preliminary approval shall lapse at that time.

3. Water Supply and Sewerage Headworks Contributions

Where an application for any development listed in the approved Plan of Development is made, the Applicant must pay all contributions required by:-

a) Council's Water and Sewerage Headworks Policies; or

b) Council's Infrastructure Charges Regime; or

c) Any infrastructure charges agreement between the Applicant and Council in existence at the time of lodgement of the relevant application.

4. Parkland

Parkland shall be provided generally in accordance with the Plan of Development and Council's Planning Instruments current at the time of an application for a Development Permit for any part of the proposal.

5. Electricity/Telephone Services

It shall be satisfactorily demonstrated that electricity and telephone services can be provided to the subject land.

6. Bikeways/Footpaths

Bikeways and Footpaths shall be provided generally in accordance with the Plan of Development, and Council's Planning instruments current at the time of application for a Development Permit for any part of the proposal.

7. Within six (6) months starting from the day of the approval takes effect and prior to any development commencing, submit for Council approval an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for the whole of the subject land. Such EMP shall contain plans outlining strategies, actions, timelines, performance indicators, monitoring regimes, reporting mechanisms and remedial action procedures in the following areas:-

• Stormwater management and erosion and sediment control,

• Water quality and water quality monitoring,

• Vegetation management,

• Fauna management;

• Weed management; and

• Turtle management plan.

The assessment of the above EMP shall be undertaken by Council utilising independent professional advice, and any costs incurred by Council in relation to that advice shall be borne by the Applicant.

8. External Roadworks

a) Duplicate Ron Searle Drive between the roundabouts at Harbour Road and the Marina. The Marina roundabout is to be upgraded in accordance with the approval design.

b) Upgrade the roadway south of the Marina roundabout to a four lane road to the most southern entry to Mulherin Park/Surf Life Savers and then transitioned over a 50 metre distance to a two lane road.

c) Provision of a contribution and/or works towards the State Road Network as determined in consultation with the Council and Department of main Roads and recorded in an infrastructure agreement.

9. Provide an Evacuation Centre building to hold up to 3000 persons and which shall have a minimum floor level of Q500 immunity.

10. The ground level of the development area shall be raised to the Q100 level. A lesser ground level may be acceptable if a bund wall is provided within the development area to provide Q100 immunity. Filling is to be minimised in the development area.

11. Comply with the requirements of the Department of Natural Resources and Mines for Vegetation Management as detailed in their letter of the 27th May, 2003.

12. The minimum floor levels for the development shall be set at 300mm above Q100 level.

[31]

[6] The Master Plan referred to has undergone changes, including some since the negotiated decision notice said to be acceptable to all parties and summarised in Mr Schomburgk's town planning report (Exhibit 4, par 3.2.11) improving the location and increasing the area of conservation corridors and green space. As summarised by Mr Trotter in his opening address for the Co-respondent, apart from the contentious residential development, which includes what he called "resort retirement units", there is now proposed an international standard resort hotel, "tourist accommodation...resort style accommodation units, 330 of them", retail and commercial, in the nature of boutique shops, as well as a small local store, an indigenous cultural centre, a community amphitheatre intended to be a performing arts centre of a substantial proportion ("probably enough to facilitate some hundreds of seats"), provision for future public facilities and an "environmental centre for excellence...the purpose of that is an explanation of the importance of the site and its surrounds." My understanding is the explanations will be given in words, pictures and diagrams on suitable billboards, posters, et cetera. The "centre for excellence" will adjoin what Mr Trotter referred to as the "eco-tourism - eco-conservation area" of five hectares of Casuarina woodland, part of about 13 hectares of the site (over and above a dedication for the extension of Mulherin Park to the north) to be dedicated and made over to the public. In the area of Mulherin Park will be the "entry statement", with the future public facilities also nearby. There is to be a wide corridor for fauna connecting the south-western part of the site to the eastern part, and a second, narrower such corridor further north. A feature of the conservation areas is the "linkage to Bassett Creek...that is, without doubt, the important area." There are proposed "roads going through those various public open space concessions...raised on timber structures, something like a metre above the ground, so that there will be a continuous passage for fauna across the site." Substantial parts of the perimeter of the site (increasing over the years) are to be provided as buffers to reduce impacts of the development. The currently proposed land use mix appears in [14] below.

[33]

[7] The site, which extends over 68 hectares or more, has had an unusual history. East Point has long been associated with port-related activities. Dr Pillsworth has included in his Ecological Report (Exhibit 12) interesting historical material. At the time when the Port of Mackay was first officially recognised in 1862, the Pioneer River entered the Coral Sea about where Illawong Beach is now. Passengers and cargo were unloaded from steamships in deep water out from Flat Top Island. They were then transported to riverside wharves. The course of the Pioneer River changed during a cyclone in 1898, when it broke through the sand bars about where south East Point is today. The present outer harbour was opened on 26 August 1939. It was necessary to armour and stabilise the river mouth. There was a training wall constructed on the East Point side, in particular. Granite was transported across the site for use in works, by means of a railway carried across Bassett Creek by a bridge. Relics of the railway or tramway may still be seen. There is a well in the centre of the site originally used to obtain water for the Pilot's house, more recently used as a watering point for cattle which have been pastured on the site for some four decades, until recently. The site and some land to the south were subdivided into 35 lots (over and above some existing subdivision in the south, it seems) around 1926 according to Dr Pillsworth (I cannot locate a clear date in the survey copies in his Appendix B). Thirty-one lots are shown on the site. The subdivision project had little, if any, impact. Dr Pillsworth says (on hearsay from staff at the Mackay Port Authority) that freehold blocks were offered for sale in the 1920s and 1930s. The land became port strategic land, set aside as a proposed "tank farm" for storage of hydrocarbon products to be derived from the Condor shale oil project, the residential development contemplated in earlier years not proceeding. Dr Pillsworth gives a useful summary of the history of grazing on the site:

[34]

"2.2 Grazing Lease

Grazing of cattle on the development site has occurred since the early 1960's. At this time, the Port of Mackay promoted a grazing lease situation, as then rates were not incurred on the area as industrial land. The original grazing lease had a fence line along the beach front to approximately the now position of the Surf Life Saving Club (SLSC), then turned westward at 900 and continued behind Mount Bassett. The eventual configuration being both sides of Bassett Creek, and it seems probable that the grazing lease utilized the creek itself as the western boundary of the current East Point site.

To make the current East Point site suitable for grazing was principally a two phase operation. In this it is meant that the open sand areas had to be stabilized and suitable pasture established, much of this activity eventuating as the diverse weed environ which persists today. The grazing was initiated by Mr A Pask in the 1960's and continued by Vaucraft Braford Stud (Cliff and Heather Flor) until 30th May of this year. Both promoted grazing conditions by planting of Pangola grass by runners. A chronology for grazing activities is as follows:

s In 1983 Vaucraft Braford Stud purchased the grazing lease and improvements from A. Pask who had a permit from the Harbour Board (now Mackay Port Authority) for over 20 years previously.

s The Port Authority renewed the lease to Vaucraft Braford Stud up to 14th March 1995 when the land passed back to the Department of Natural Resources.

s Department of Natural Resources issued permit to occupy 204991 for grazing purposes.

s Department of Natural Resources indicated that there was to be an investigative permit to be issued to Transtate Developments Pty Ltd (now Eastpoint Mackay Pty Ltd) and Vaucraft Braford Stud was advised to vacate the site by 3rd November 1999.

s Vaucraft Braford Stud held discussions with Department of Natural Resources officers (Leo McKenna & John Grenhill) who advised that provided an arrangement was made with Transtate Developments Pty Ltd, Vaucraft Braford Stud could continue to graze cattle on a care-taker basis.

s Department of Natural Resources & Energy advised that cattle must be removed from the site. Department officers declined to meet to discuss the situation and advised that grazing of cattle on the East Point site be stopped by 30th May 2004. EMPL had no issues with the grazing continuing by Vaucraft Braford Stud on a care-taker basis.

One of the conditions of lease with the Harbour Board was control of lantana across the site. Lantana was prolific across the site and became impenetrable thickets with establishing Casuarina along the front dunes. These thickets became increasingly unmanageable (Cliff Flor, Vaucraft Braford Stud pers comm.) and as a consequence, fences were moved back from the frontal dunes to their present position (Refer Figure 8). A mix of Casuarina and Lantana persists to this day. Mr Cliff Flor in an advice to Greg Long (Long Development Management; Refer Appendix A) states:

Regarding the business of grasslands, we note that the bulk of the area presently used for grazing was planted by Pask and ourselves to Pangola grass as during the summer the only vegetation on the soil is weeds.

The cattle have now been removed at the request from (then) Department Natural Resource and Mines, so there had been no grazing pressure on the pasture species present for approximately three months at the time of the field investigations for this report. Indeed, weed species do proliferate and clumps of trees were recovering from marginal grazing (Refer Figure 9). The size and number of clumps of trees in remote imagery (2002) show very little change from those able to be discerned from aerial photography from 1958. Indeed this is a harsh environment and wind shear, coupled with blows of sand and salt, would have considerable impact on species establishing here. Grazing, started in the early 1960's, then would have suppressed any individuals trying to establish on the periphery of these clumps."

[54]

[13] The proposal at that time envisaged a retirement village at the far north of the site and, south of that, two similarly-sized areas of "tourist hotel accommodation" separated by public open space providing access to the ocean and foreshore (also a golf house and health club on the northern shore of a lake, for canoeing, etc) centrally located in the southern part of the site. It was to be surrounded by a band designated "residential", in turn encircled by public open space (an eight-hole golf course) and beyond it, on the perimeter of the site, more "residential". The Department of Natural Resources' letter of 13 June 1997 referred to the recent announcement of the selection of Transtate Pty Ltd as the preferred developer for the East Point redevelopment site. Unsurprisingly, issues of various kinds arose. Concerns about a Native Title claim were resolved by an "indigenous land use agreement", parties to which were traditional owners, the State of Queensland and the Co-respondent, by now called East Point Mackay Pty Ltd. See Exhibit 32 page 137ff. The golf course project was abandoned. No doubt such a facility (likewise the lake, also abandoned) would have been attractive to tourists. There was no focus on the reason for the change during the appeal; it may well be linked to the idea that establishment and maintenance of such a facility would threaten the natural values of the site and surrounds, the Bassett Creek area, particularly. The Australian Government became involved, in particular in relation to arrangements for turtles which nest on the beach. Environment Australia on 6 September 2004 indicated approval by the Department of Environment and Heritage of the Turtle Management Plan prepared for the Co-respondent. A separate condition of an antecedent decision by the Commonwealth Minister that the proposed action by the Co-respondent "to develop an integrated tourist resort and residential community" is not a "controlled action" for purposes of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 was:

[63]

"Eastpoint Mackay Pty Ltd have submitted an application for a Preliminary Approval to construct an 'Integrated Tourist and Residential Development' on land at East Point. The development could include up to 670 residential lots, 410 Multiple Dwelling Units and a 150 room Hotel Resort.

There are significant concerns raised by a number of State Government Agencies over the potential risk to human life and infrastructure as a result of approving the proposed development at East Point because of storm surge.

The Strategic Plan preferred dominant land use for the site is Tourism. The proposal is dominantly urban residential and higher density residential development. A substantial part of the proposed development does not constitute Tourism development as envisaged by Council's Intent, Objectives and Performance Criteria for the site stipulated under the Strategic Plan. The applicant has requested in writing and confirmed in discussions that they consider that the mix of uses as proposed is the correct economic model to facilitate the development. They do not want to amend this basic principle and have requested that the Council decide the application as submitted rather than amend the design.

The proposal does not guarantee an 'Integrated' approach to the development of the site, other than associated with the installation of infrastructure. There is no nexus between the Tourism Preferred Dominant Land Use (PDLU) designation and the proposed residential estate that forms over half of the subject development. An integrated management of the whole site would go further than the current proposal towards ensuring that issues related to ground water contamination, stormwater run-off, vegetation retention, landscaping species and the potential damage to mangrove systems as a result of fresh water intrusion could be alleviated.

When the tender for the development of East Point was accepted by the State Government, the Council identified at that time that the concept plan needed amendment to better reflect the Strategic Plan intent for tourism development in the area. The current proposal further increases the Urban Residential component compared to the approved tender.

This report does not recommend exclusion of development from the site, but recommends a more integrated tourism approach that takes into consideration the natural attributes of the site. The issue at hand is whether the proposal constitutes over development and an inappropriate form of development on the subject site as envisaged under the Strategic Plan. It is considered that the applicant has failed to provide sufficient planning grounds to set aside the Strategic Plan not withstanding the conflict.

On balance, it is considered that the application should be refused. An additional recommendation will be to encourage the applicant to pursue alternative development proposals that better reflect the intent, objectives and performance criteria of Council's Strategic Plan."

[95]

The mainland areas in this land use allocation, shown on Strategic Plan Maps 1-4, are intended for development of major tourist facilities such as comprehensive resort developments, eco-tourism establishments, marina and associated facilities and the like. High standards of development are expected and due regard is to be had for the environmental attributes of the site to ensure ecological sustainability.

...

Objectives and Performance Criteria

Element 1 - Location

Objectives

(a) To provide opportunities for the establishment of major tourism facilities in locations likely to be attractive to visitors.

(b) To ensure locations are accessible and ultimately capable of being provided with an appropriate level of services.

(c) To provide locations for the focusing of tourism development to facilitate service provisions and promote economic viability.

Performance Criteria

(a) Those areas are generally depicted on the Strategic Plan Maps 1-4.

(b) Other mainland areas where the scale and nature of the use does not adversely impact on the predominant preferred land use.

Element 2 - Land Use

Objective

(a) To provide for the development of high quality ecologically sustainable and accessible tourist facilities.

(b) To ensure any use is compatible with the natural values of the site and would not impact on the long term viability of natural systems.

Performance Criteria

(a) Land use compatible with the existing nature of uses.

(b) Uses which are themed in accordance with the natural values of the site.

(c) Uses which protect significant vegetation and are designed to be subservient to the natural environment.

(d) Uses, the scale of which can be absorbed by the natural environment and for which an appropriate level of servicing has been provided.

Element 3 - Site Suitability

Objective

(a) To ensure that land used for tourism development is relatively free from environmental constraints.

(b) To prevent conflict with incompatible land use and achieve effective separation and buffering from such land use.

Performance Criteria

(a) Land which is:

(i) above the Council's adopted flood level and free of drainage problems;

(ii) not potentially unstable and not excessively steep;

(iii) not a high risk of bushfire;

(iv) not good quality agricultural land;

(v) not required for urban development, extractive industry or water catchment purposes;

(vi) is not in a buffer-zone; and

(vii) is not in a coastal "control district" as declared under the Coastal Protection and Management Act or subsequent relevant State legislation.

(b) Land which is serviced by an arterial or submission-arterial road."

[219]

•

Whatever concerns may be harboured, there is no basis in the evidence for concluding that the Co-respondent will not, or probably will not or may not proceed with the hotel: Cf Daniels v the Brisbane City Council [2005] QPEC 47.

•

On the evidence, in current and foreseeable economic circumstances, there is a price to be paid for getting the desired hotel or any sizeable tourist development; viability depends on there being concomitant profit-making development for other acceptable uses, here the residential development.

•

The court should not ignore those practicalities where they are the price of getting a facility long sought by responsible State and/or local authorities to supply a glaring deficiency in the accommodation possibilities available for visitors to the city.

•

The inclusion of residential elements with freehold titles to the land available in "resorts" is well established in Queensland, to the extent of generating no surprise. Examples given include Hyatt Coolum (Exhibit 43) and Kingfisher Bay Resort (Exhibit 78). Mr Long made reference to Keswick Island (where there is scope for, and he would like to see many more freehold lots than are presently permitted). At 1220 ff, Mr Brannock acknowledged having been the project director for a proposal called Royal Reef presented to Cairns City Council about 1992 as an integrated resort development, for purposes of the eponymous Act. It was to contain attractions for tourists, 2,451 tourist accommodation units and 4,024 residential lots and houses.

•

The foregoing indicates that expressions such as "integrated tourist development" and the one in the Mackay City Council Strategic Plan 3.17, being "comprehensive resort development", are of flexible import. It is not quite a case that "the word means what I choose it to mean", to quote Humpty Dumpty; there are some limits, but the court should acknowledge that there is no clear meaning, with the consequence that usage over the years has conferred an ability of proposals that are substantially for permanent residential development to claim to qualify as a comprehensive or integrated resort. In respect of either expression, it would be difficult to justify any particular connotation or denotation as appropriate to the exclusion of others.

[234]

"It may be..., as Mr Collins accepts, that Dr Nott's research will one day change the way we look at the effect of cyclones, but it is not the Court's function to pre-empt proper consideration by the Council and other relevant bodies of that research. A responsible Council, in making land use planning decisions, takes into account other factors such as risk acceptance, emergency planning measures and community economics. This Court is not charged with that type of, or degree of, planning.

[25] In my view, condition 28 in its amended form secures compliance with the Council's adopted standard. Whether Dr Nott's preferred level (the marine inundation level) should be substituted for the Council's adopted level depends on whether wave run-up will penetrate 100 metres inland or not. I prefer Mr Collins's opinion and in any event, there are simple engineering solutions to prevent wave penetration which are commonly adopted.

[26] The approval given by the Council is only a preliminary approval, and as Mr Collins says, at the detailed design stage further investigations of wave run-up and penetration will be required. Mr Collins goes on to say that the proposal can be designed to provide an appropriate level of safety adopting lot/fill levels as currently conditioned by the Council and with great confidence. Dr Nott's evidence does not cast any doubt on that opinion.

[27] Finally, s.3.5.30 of IPA requires that a condition be relevant to but not an unreasonable imposition on the development or use of premises as a consequence of the development, or be reasonably required in respect of the development or use of premises as a consequence of the development. The imposition of Dr Nott's preferred marine inundation level sets the bar far higher than has been set for other comparable developments. So it would be an unreasonable imposition on this development, and is not reasonably required by this development. It requires this development to be immune from cyclonic wave effects to an extent that other development is not required to be."

[263]

1 For the purposes of this document, the "site" is defined as that area defined as the "East Point Development Site" as

described in Figure 3 of Watson (2005) Terrestrial Vertebrate Assessment East Point, Mackay.

3. Watson and Agnew agree that parts of the site (i.e. areas identified on Figure 3 of Watson (2005) within the southwest corner, southeast corner, on the western boundary and northeast corner) support habitat suitable for significant fauna species (see Watson figure 3).

4. Rogers, Watson, Olsen and Agnew agree that the prohibition of cats and dogs on the site is highly recommended.

5. Watson and Agnew agree that the following significant species are known or likely to occur on the site:

a. Spectacled Flying-fox Pteropus conspicillatus - Likely

b. Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus - Likely

c. Short-beaked Echidna Techyglossus aculeatus - Known

d. Eastern Curlew Numenius madagascariensis - Known

e. Rainbow Bee-eater Meops ornalus - Known

f. Dollarbird Eurystomus orientalis - Known

g. Spectacled Monarch Monarcha trivirgatus - Known

h. White-throated Needletail Hirundapus caudacutus - Likely

i. Fork-tailed Swift Apus pacificus - Likely

j. Black-faced Monarch Monarcha melanopsis - Likely

k. Beach Stone-curlew Esacus neglectus - Known

l. Rufous Fantail Rhipidura rufifrons - Likely

6. Watson and Agnew agree that the portion of the site not described in the point of agreement (Point 3) above, i.e. the remainder of the site, supports habitat suitable for certain significant species (but not including those listed as "Rare, vulnerable, endangered" under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Wildlife Regulations) or/and "Endangered or vulnerable under the EPBC Act 1999) listed below

• Short-beaked Echidna Tachyglossus aculeatus - Known

• Rainbow Bee-eater Merops ornatus - Known

• Dollarbird Eurystomus orientalis - Known

• Spectacled Monarch Monarcha trivirgatus - Known

• White-throated Needletail Hirundapus caudacutus - Likely

• Fork-tailed Swift Apus pacificus - Likely

• Black-faced Monarch Monarcha melanopsis - Likely

• Rufous Fantail Rhipidura rufifraons - Likely

Points of disagreement

7. Rogers and Olsen disagree on the native vegetation description for the site with respect to the area described by DNRM as disturbed, as pasture by Rogers and as Regional Ecosystems 8.2.9 by Olsen.

8. Rogers and Olsen disagree on the appropriate survey protocols to be used to define the nature of the area described by DNRM as disturbed, as pasture by Rogers and as Regional Ecosystem 8.2.9 by Olsen.

9. Watson agrees and Agnew disagrees with the findings of Pillsworth (2005) in regard to fauna matters.

10. Rogers agrees and Olsen disagrees with the findings of Pillsworth (2005) in regard to flora matters."

[268]

Points of Agreement

1. The proposed perimeter filling for the site, as detailed in the refined proposal, to a minimum level of RL 6.5mAHD, and with minimum allotment levels of RL 5.4mAHD provides an appropriate level of protection against river flooding and satisfy the approval conditions set by Council. Peak river flooding is unlikely to be coincident with storm tide. PMF flood levels are predicted by Chaseling McGriffin to be RL 6.4mAHD at the site.

2. The proposed RL 6.5mAHD perimeter filling provides protection against the Probable Maximum Pioneer River Flood.

3. The provision of first floor safe refuge areas in at least 3 locations distributed across the site provides adequate emergency accommodation during extreme river flood events.

4. The refined proposal presents an acceptable safety level, and is a much safer site than much of Mackays current CBD, in terms of river flood inundation.

Points of Disagreement

5. Subject to appropriate detailed design, the provision of a balanced water cycle on the site, including the use of rainwater tanks and distributed infiltration points, and the specification for no groundwater extraction, can ensure, subject to appropriate detailed design, minimal changes to groundwater and the water table. Such a balance could be achieved through strict covenant requirements on landholders as conditions of sale, e.g. restrictions on the use of exotic plants, prohibition of spear pump irrigation, restrictions on fertilizer usage.

-Agreed N. Collins & P. Harding

-Disagreed A. Patterson

6. The proposed stormwater management system for the refined proposal has been quantitatively assessed, using accepted industry practice, and has been shown to be capable of achieving the desired water quality prior to infiltration or runoff from the site subject to appropriate detailed design.

-Agreed N. Collins & P. Harding

-Disagreed A. Patterson

7. Accidental spills can be managed through containment in roadside swales.

8. Sewer wet well storage sizes can be such that adequate holding capacity for up to 24 hours can be provided, allowing time for repair or pump-out to tankers. Such an arrangement means the risk of spills adversely affecting adjacent water systems is low. The containment strategy proposed for the site is extensive and adequate, particularly when compared to the current Mackay CBD, where any spills will directly discharge to the river.

-Agreed N. Collins

-Disagreed A. Patterson

-P. Harding advised that this is outside his area of expertise

Reasons for Disagreement

5&6 -A. Patterson advised that he needs access to models/analysis for more detailed checking. He also has concerns about the degree of impermeability proposed affecting surface and groundwater quantities.

7. A. Patterson expressed concerns about the ability to neutralise spills.

8. The degree of sewerage overflow in the event of major power outages (.e.g. during a cyclone) was of concern to A. Patterson.

[277]

To the extent practicable, the coast is conserved in its natural or non-urban state outside of existing urban areas. Land allocation for the development of new urban land uses is limited to existing urban areas and urban growth is managed to protect coastal resources and their values by minimising adverse impacts.

Section 2.1.10 Tourism and recreational activities.

...

Policy

The diversity and quality of recreational and tourism opportunities are maintained while ensuring that the coastal resources and their values upon which these experiences rely, are protected. ... New tourist or recreational developments must be compatible with the coastal landscape values of the area and be of a scale that does not result in a significant impact on the coastal resources and their values.

2.2 Physical coastal processes

Coastal management outcome

The coast is managed to allow for natural fluctuations to occur, including any that occur as a result of climate change and sea level rise, and provide protection for life and property.

Principles

...

2C The consequences of physical coastal processes are recognised and such processes are generally allowed to occur naturally.

2D Risks associated with all relevant hazards including storm tide inundation and cyclone effects are minimised.

2E The natural topography and physical features of coastal dune systems which provide adjacent areas with protection from inland erosion are to be protected and managed on an ecologically sustainable basis.

...

2.4 Water quality

Coastal management outcome

Water quality in the coastal zone is maintained at a standard that protects and maintains coastal ecosystems and their ability to support human use.

...

2.7 Coastal landscapes

Coastal management outcomes

The scenic and cultural values with coastal landscapes are protected.

...

2.8 Conserving nature

Coastal management outcome

Coastal ecosystems, including their ecological processes, opportunities for survival, biological diversity and potential for continuing evolutionary adaptation, are maintained, enhanced and restored.

...

2.9.4 Private use of State land on the coast

...

Policy context

State land on the coast is a key public resource that should be managed to achieve coastal management outcomes. Where private interests are permitted on State land on the coast, they should be compatible with achieving these outcomes.

...""

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (315 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (2)