SAT decision on coastal setbacks a win for coastal planning and climate change

For those unfamiliar with coastal planning in WA, the WA Planning Commission’s (WAPC) State Planning Policy 2.6 - Coastal Planning (SPP 2.6) has guided coastal planning since its gazettal in 2013. A critical element of SPP 2.6 is a requirement to take into account the impacts of climate change at the coast, notably, because of predicted sea level rise and increased storm activity, increased coastal erosion of sandy coasts and more frequent and extensive inundation of low lying areas. Planners and developers are required to apply a 100 year timeframe – i.e. predict the likely impacts in 2120 and plan for this. 

SPP 2.6 requires that a CHRMAP process be applied to calculate the likely impact of erosion – i.e coastal hazard risk management and adaptation planning. This first part of this work (the CHR) is highly technical and usually leads to lines on a map which show the likely shoreline at a particular time in the future – typically 2030, 2070 and 2120. Critically, the width of public foreshore decreases, and, depending on the adaptation action chosen, the beach could disappear.

The second part of the process (MAP) is more subjective and involves making decisions about how to respond to the predictions, given that future erosion would likely impact on coastal infrastructure (paths, carparks etc.), roads and in some places, private houses.

SPP 2.6 sets up a decision making hierarchy as follows:

·      Avoid;

·      Planned and managed retreat;

·      Accommodate; and 

·      Defend/protect.

The avoid option is not possible for existing development, and the subsequent choice of the adaption option is highly contentious, but was not the subject of the SAT hearing I will discuss below, so I won’t ‘go there’ for the debate around existing development. I will tackle that in a later blog.

The case that was before the SAT last year involved setting the width of the coastal foreshore for some yet to be developed land in Two Rocks (Two Rocks Investment Pty Ltd and Western Australian Planning Commission [2019] WASAT 59).

The developer submitted site to the WAPC a structure plan for the development of 834ha land at Two Rocks which included a proposed foreshore for about 2.6km of coast. The extent of the coastal foreshore had been previously agreed to between the previous owner and the WAPC in 1997, but did not take into account climate change (as noted above, SPP 2.6 came in effect in 2013). 

The new owners were required to carry out a coastal hazard risk assessment to predict the likely shoreline for the 100 year planning timeframe. That work showed that landward movement of the shoreline would move between 145m and 171m depending on the location. The biggest movement would be in the central part of the site. This would mean that in 100 years’ time all of the foreshore as proposed by the developer would disappear, as well as an additional 9.9 ha of the non-reserve land. 

The WAPC rejected the structure plan and requested it be amended to take into account coastal erosion – i.e. a wider foreshore reserve was required. The developer appealed this decision to the SAT.

The developer proposed a different strategy to allow for the predicted erosion. The developer recognised that more land would ultimately have to be ceded to the crown as a reserve, but suggested that the land furthest from the current shoreline, but within the land subject likely to erosion in 50-70 years, could be developed in the interim. The developer proposed that this land be included in a 'Special Use (Coastal) zone' that would allow development and use in the interim – i.e. delaying vesting of the land to the Crown. The provisions of the Zone would require this extra land be reserved without compensation when it becomes vulnerable to coastal erosion.

This is not the preferred avoid option, but is the less preferred planned retreat.

The SAT found as follows. 

First, it dismissed the appeal and upheld the WAPC position requiring that the foreshore be extended to accommodate likely erosion by 2120. This is a significant decision which gives great weight to both the impact of climate change and SPP 2.6 in coastal planning and decision making.

The second finding is more nuanced but just as important, and involves on-going planning for coastal nodes.

A key principle of coastal planning in WA is that there will not be strip development of our coast (i.e. like the Goldcoast), but development will occur at pre-determined coastal nodes – e.g. Scarborough, Rockingham and Hillarys. These nodes have significant public, social and economic value, and it has been assumed that these nodes would be defended for as long as possible, beyond the time when erosion would begin to impact on these sites.

The Two Rocks sites had two proposed coastal nodes and the SAT found that these sites could be included as 'Special Use (Coastal) zones’ and developed in the interim, but that when the shoreline reaches within 40 m of each development, the land would then need to be ceded to the Crown (reserved). This was conditional on the Zone and relevant provisions are added to the local planning scheme within 10 years, i.e.  by 2029. This decision could well have implications for all the other coastal nodes in WA – it maybe that defend/protect will not be the medium to long-term planning options for these sites. 

Interesting decision!

Workshop Outcomes - National Biodiversity Offsets Conference

Description

In August this year the EIANZ organised a 2 day conference to explore the current state of offsetting in Australia, in particular, the conference allowed participants to

• Discuss their history and effectiveness in addressing environmental impacts;

• Share the experiences from all levels of government;

• Learn from academics, the legal fraternity and those involved in offset markets;

• Hear from individuals involved in the hands-on delivery of offsets;

• Explore different metrics for measuring impact and calculating offset delivery; and

• Debate the relative benefits of direct, indirect and ‘pay and go’ offsets.

A key part of the conference was a workshop at the end which was aimed at identifying priorities for biodiversity offsets into the future by addressing this question “Where do we want to be with offsetting?” 

Three broad outcomes resulted:

• Addressing the broad question by jurisdiction;

• Addressing the broad question at a higher strategic level; and

• Developing a consensus Conference Statement about the state of offsetting and how best to progress its practice in the future to ensure biodiversity outcomes are further enhanced.

I was the facilitator for this workshop, and the principal author of the report that described the workshop outcomes. You can download a full copy of the report by clicking on this link - full report

The session addressing offsets by jurisdiction were set the following 3 questions to guide participants to answer the overall workshop question:

1. What is being done well?

2. What areas need work?

3. What do we need to do to make offsetting better?

The full report provides the outcomes of these deliberations.

The following broad question was posed for the strategic part of the workshop: “What can we do to improve the practice of offsetting and the offsetting community?” As a guide, the following four topics were proposed to guide the discussions:

1. Knowledge gaps,

2. Expertise gaps

3. Key elements of best practice

4. High level barriers to better practice.

The 7 topics that emerged from this part of the workshop were:

1. Better education of, and communication with, key stakeholders to improve understanding of offsets and their benefits and reduce misunderstandings – landholders, finance institutions (offsets have value), other government agencies.

2. Provide sufficient and flexible funding and resources for follow-up – management, management plans, compliance, auditing, monitoring of the offsets including oversight and expertise and ability to be adaptive and are outcomes being achieved and are they what is wanted, develop evaluation cycle.

3. Develop a consistent overarching framework/guidance that can be applied, including standardisation where appropriate, consistent use of terminology – principles not methods.

4. Greater use of, and resources for, strategic offsets including for connectivity benefits, and at landscape scale, having metrics that deliver both local and strategic outcomes.

5. More professional forums and discussions including sharing of expertise across and between jurisdictions, and the development of good practice case studies, for example monitoring, adaptive management, strategic approaches. Development of a nation-wide community of practice.

6. Incentives for landowners – using market credits, better education about conservation outcomes, and establish under a regulation/legislation, greater financial certainty, financial support for surveys.

7. Improved transparency, accountability and consistency – methodology, risk, weightings, losses and gains, reporting, and regulation independent of government.

The final part of the workshop was dedicated to producing a conference statement. 

Statement from the 2019 EIANZ National Biodiversity Offsets Conference held in Canberra

Biodiversity offsetting has evolved considerably over time, and will continue to do so. Conference delegates strongly support the continual improvement of biodiversity offsetting policy and practice by addressing the following seven matters:

1. Proponents of all development proposals likely to have impacts on biodiversity should continue to demonstrate that every effort has been made to both avoid and minimise environmental impacts

2. Offsets exist to maintain or improve the conservation, protection and ecological health of the affected biodiversity.  Implementation models and mechanisms must never deprioritise or compromise this.

3. Offsets should apply to all sectors where residual environmental impacts on biodiversity occur 

4. Strategic biodiversity offsets are preferred over ad hoc offsetting as they are more likely to deliver better biodiversity outcomes;

5. All stakeholders, including financial institutions and landowners, need to be better informed about the costs, benefits and obligations of developing and maintaining biodiversity offsets throughout their lifecycle;

6. A nationally consistent and agreed set of principles that guide biodiversity offsetting, including those for monitoring and measuring effectiveness, is required; and

7. Public accessibility, transparency and accountability of offsetting processes must be lifted to a higher standard.

Picturing Coastal Stories - new book

Picturing Coastal Stories - new book - download here

The idea for this book came out of a special session held in the 2018 Coast to Coast Conference held in Hobart, Tasmania. The session was called “Picturing coastal issues” and built on the idea that a picture is worth a thousand words. Photographers were invited to submit one of their photos that told a coastal story. These were shown in a darkened room on a screen one photograph at a time. The session concluded with a general discussion about the power of photography to tell stories, and it was decided that the photographs and the intended storied be turned into a book: this is that book.

Click here to download a PDF version of the book.

Click here to download an “.PUB” version of the book.

If you want to print a hard copy, down load this PDF version of the book - click here.

Green Growth Plan for Perth

As most of you know, the State Government has released “Perth and Peel Green Growth Plan for 3.5 million” report – or GGPP – and a whole pile of supporting documents.  These documents are, in effect, the environmental impact statement for the assessments by both the Commonwealth Government and the WA EPA of the environmental implications of the WAPC's draft Perth and Peel@3.5million. The GGPP sets out the likely impacts of the proposed urban expansion for Perth-Peel, how thsoe  impacts are to be managed, and a proposed conservation and broader environmental plans that will compensate for these impacts. These collections of documents are make up the Strategic Conservation Plan.

For your information I have prepared an unofficial summary of the GGPP, which you can download and read by clicking here. Happy reading and happy to get any feedback if you think I have missed something important or made and errors.