CEN criticises coastal management reforms

The Community Environment Network has criticised stage two of the NSW Government's Coastal Management Reforms for not providing coastal communities with adequate requirements and guidance for climate change adaptation and mitigation.

Community Environment Network CEO Ms Jane Smith said she noted that key aspects of the reform package had not yet been released, especially mapping to support the State Environmental Planning Policy, the draft State Environmental Planning Policy instrument, and the final draft of a new Coastal Management Manual.

"We wish to re-iterate the importance of the public exhibition and consultation process on these documents being completed prior to finalisation of the draft Bill and associated materials," she said.

"The draft Bill failed to identify sea level rise and increased storm activity as coastal hazards," Ms Smith said.

The NSW Government had not included state-wide sea level rise benchmarks in the Stage 2 reform package, she said.

"The Community Environment Network calls on the NSW Government to show leadership by re-introducing state-wide benchmarks for sea level rise, in order to provide a consistent approach to coastal planning and hazard mitigation."

Key elements of the coastal management package must be mandatary and enforceable," Ms Smith said.

"The compliance and enforcement provisions of the Bill are inadequate," she said.

For example, she said there are no direct offences for breaches of the Bill and gaps in relation to how certain provisions of the draft Bill will be enforced.

"The proposal to separate the 'coastal zone' into four different 'coastal management areas' appears as a more complicated and less transparent mechanism for managing the coast," she said.

According to Ms Smith, the functions and membership of the proposed NSW Coastal Council should be expanded to provide advice on an integrated approach to coastal management, including policy, strategic functions in the new Act, and community engagement.

It is unclear how the new Coastal Management Act will interact with other legislation and agencies including the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, Marine Estate Management Act 2014 and proposed new biodiversity conservation laws, she said.

"The coastal reform package does not indicate what is to become of the Coastal Lands Protection Scheme," she added.

Ms Smith said the Community Environment Network recommended that the coastal reform package provided for an acquisition scheme for coastal lands of high environmental, social and cultural significance.

She said the network was concerned with the change in terminology from 'Coastal Protection Act' to 'Coastal Management Act'.

"We believe that this downgrades the importance of coastal protection including protection of flora and fauna, ecosystems and coastal processes."

She said the network generally supported the overall objective of the new Act however requested that the objectives be modified to included "to protect and manage the coastal environment of NSW consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development for the social, cultural and economic wellbeing of the people of the State".

She said the network was also supportive of a recommendation to add "to support the social and cultural values of the coast and maintain the public's right of access, sustainable amenity and use".

The definition of 'coastal hazard' does not adequately capture anticipated impacts of climate change, including sea level rise and increased and more intense storm activity, Ms Smith said.

"The definition of foreshore seems much narrower that the definition of foreshore in the Local Government Act," she said.

According to Ms Smith, the Community Environment Network also supported requirements for consultation between adjoining councils within the same sediment compartment.

"We note that there is currently no mechanism to resolve inconsistencies in coastal management approaches," she said.

The network's submission also highlighted other omissions in the proposed reform package.

"The issues of funding, restoration and maintenance are a key consideration when granting development consent for coastal protection works, and should be included in the Bill," Ms Smith said.

In conclusion, Ms Smith said the network was concerned that consolidation of the three State Environmental Planning Policies would lead to weakening of environmental protections.

"There is concern that existing protections are not being carried through into the new system, and will be weakened.

"We are concerned that allowing Councils significant freedom and scope to change maps may lead to 're-categorisation' and undermine the evidence base of maps.

"We support the suggestion that all changes must be underpinned by substantial, scientific evidence, and ground-truthed with on-ground surveys.

"Proposals to reduce the boundaries of coastal wetland and littoral rainforest areas and coastal environment areas should not be permitted.

"Any future Planning Proposals for changes to maps and boundaries must have the concurrence of the Office of Environment and Heritage prior to consideration by the Department of Planning and Environment.

"Proposed changes must also go through a process of public consultation.

"The proposed controls for vulnerable areas could be strengthened by: prohibiting further development in coastal vulnerability areas; specifying that development consent is required for any damage or removal of removal of coastal dunes, foreshores, vegetation and wetlands that such consent must also require that any damage be rehabilitated and restored; and ensuring development controls reflect management objective

"We also submit that a consent authority must not approve a development proposal unless it meets the development controls for this area, rather than simply 'consider' the controls.

In terms of mapping: "The existing coastal zone boundary would be the most appropriate, given that no case for change has been made.

"The current boundary should be used to retain current protection measures, and be fixed.

"If councils wish to expand the development footprint, this should be done via a transparent review of coastal management area boundaries involving community consultation.

"We strongly oppose allowing exempt and complying development in coastal wetlands and littoral rainforests or in the catchments of sensitive coastal lakes and lagoons.

"No provisions should be retained for emergency coastal protection works in emergency situations.

"With proper strategic planning, based on robust science, the new coastal management framework should reduce emergency situations.

Submission, 29 Feb 2016

Jane Smith, Community Environment Network

Reporter: Jackie Pearson