Peninsula unlikely to be faced with managed retreat

The Peninsula is unlikely to be faced with "managed retreat" in the face of climate change and sea level rise, according to Mr Pat Aiken from the Coastal Alliance.

"The Peninsula, especially Woy Woy, is more developed than other areas and Council and the State Government are now looking at redevelopment.

"The area's major beach, Umina and Ocean Beach, is growing and not likely to be subject to huge erosion," he said.

However, he said the area still deserved a strong community engagement strategy along with multiple tactics to defend the community from the impact of sea level rise.

"The NSW Government should be far more positive and focused on how we can do this so there is no damage to our local communities," Mr Aiken said.

"I think solutions like building sea walls are too black and white because there may be a case where you can't put sea walls in or where managed retreat may be the only choice at the end of the day but people need to understand what that means," he said.

Beach scraping to combat erosion, the building of revetments, and man-made offshore reefs are all solutions being explored an applied in other countries that the NSW Government appears to have turned its back on, according to Mr Aiken.

"Under the new laws if councils or private individuals wanted to use sand to bolster dunes after a severe weather event, they could not shift it from one area of the beach to another, they would have to truck it in from another location," he said.

Adaptation plans appear to have been abandoned by the NSW Government in favour of planned retreat, according to Mr Aiken.

According to Mr Aiken St Hubert's Island is an example of a man-made environment that could be used as a model for future adaptation plans to combat sea level rise on the Peninsula.

"All houses on St Hubert's Island are above the flood line," he said.

"It takes about $25,000 to raise a residential property above the flood line."

He said Gosford Council had committed to exploring adaptation plans that involved land raising but has since withdrawn support for such strategies.

"Lake Macquarie has now become the lead council in NSW in terms of being the liaison council for the national climate change authority and Gosford Council had that opportunity and dropped out," he said.

"What would be wrong with improving the amenity of our beaches with works like the recently-completed boardwalk at Ettalong yet an engineer said that work would not have been approved if attempted under the proposed reforms," he said.

He said raising the land level of the Woy Woy CBD as part of any redevelopment plan would not only combat sea level rise but would create employment and economic growth for the area.

The alternative, single solution of managed retreat from areas impacted by sea level rise, which seems to now be the State Government's preferred approach for the future, won't only affect the private land owner but "ultimately it will filter back down to the local LGA" in the form of lower property values, reduced rates and land taxes.

He said the Coastal Alliance doesn't support strategies such a relocating residents impacted by sea level rise to new subdivisions located well above sea level.

"That is just a complete nonsense because with that you lose community, infrastructure, it has all got to be rebuilt," he said.

He said the establishment of a new Coastal Council under the reforms meant a shift of power from local to state government.

The current NSW coastal zone is based on up to 1000 metres landward from the high water mark.

According to Mr Aiken that means the new rules will apply to all the Peninsula foreshore areas and the suburbs behind them - virtually the whole Peninsula.

"That is how it is at the present time anyway but what is different is they plan to introduce 70 new development controls that can be applied in that area.

The new coastal zone will have four management areas but local communities will not have access to the NSW Government's maps that show where those areas lie until the reforms become law.

He said that Zone Four was Coastal Usage and basically covered all the developed areas of the Peninsula.

Developments in that zone would have to comply with 15 new controls orientated towards stronger environmental protection.

Zone Three was called Coastal Vulnerability and was the next highest management area and would include any of the areas currently affected by flooding.

Zone Two was Coastal Environment and any development would have to comply with new controls covering zones four, three and two.

Zone One was Littoral Forest and Wetlands which includes land located within a 100 metre buffer that may affect some developments.

Under the draft law, residential properties in Zone One will be excluded from the State Environment Protection Plan that will set out the new development controls but local councils may be able to apply local plans to those developments.

"Zone Two would include property within 100 metres of the high tide mark.

"So that could be the whole of The Esplanade in Umina or many properties in Booker Bay and not only waterfront houses but those across the road that may not even have water access," Mr Aiken said.

"In Zone Two council is going to have to tick a box that you have included arrangements in your development application to maintain the existing beach," he said.

Mr Aiken concedes that property owners in some Peninsula locations may benefit from the reforms.

Pearl Beach, for example, already had a building line that effectively consumed 50 per cent of some residential properties and zoning in that location may even be pushed seaward.

The difficulty was that coastal communities will not know which zone they fall into until after the law is passed, Mr Aiken said.

Interview, 2 Mar 2016

Pat Aiken, Coastal Alliance

Reporter: Jackie Pearson