Bunbury residents have warned Bunbury City Council to heed climate change advice in considering plans for a Hotel at the back beach on Ocean Drive.
Council last night voted in favour of the proposal despite attention being drawn to coastal planning provisions which require a horizontal setback of 150 meters from the coast as a precaution against climate change effects and predicted sea level rise.
In developing the proposal City planners were relying on a environmental assessment during a rezoning of the block carried out in 2007, which was based on data from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published in 2001.
In an address to Council on the issue, a concerned resident pointed out that this methodology meant that Council was overlooking subsequent data published by the IPCC in 2007 which indicated that sea level rise was increasing at a greater rate than the earlier data had predicted.
Following further work by the CSIRO in 2008 and a technical study of projected sea level impacts by the WA Department of Transport Marine Division, the WA Planning Commission published a Position Statement in February this year, acknowledging the changed 100 year projections of sea level change, and heralding changes to the Coastal Planning provisions. The position statement was recently approved by Cabinet.
The City’s reliance on the 2007 zoning meant that these new planning requirements had not informed the development of the proposal, and had not been brought to the attention of Councillors as an issue for their consideration.
The proposal had provoked fourteen negative responses from local residents by the time public submissions closed on August 27. In addition to concern about the risk of sea level rise, several submissions raised concerns about a hotel being built so close to a High School.
The City’s plan is to sell the 3000 square meter lot on the condition that planning approval for a hotel be obtained within 180 days. The onus is on the purchaser to achieve that planning approval, despite the location of the block being entirely within the setback area defined by coastal planning provisions.
The coastal planning provision, called Statement of Planning Policy 2.6 Schedule 1, does allow for exemptions, but a development involving a 4 story Hotel would not qualify.
One resident questioned the wisdom of entering into a sales agreement with a third party on terms requiring the development of a Hotel on the Lot, when it was foreseeable that coastal planning provisions precluded any such use within the required setback zone. It was suggested that this would expose the City to the risk of Litigation from the purchaser, especially when the planning advice given to all prospective purchasers did not include reference to the Coastal Planning provisions.
Councillor Steck, commenting after the meeting, said that she shared resident’s concerns about possible litigation if the proposal went ahead in its present form. “It is a significant risk, and for what? The money will probably just be wasted on the jetty project.”
“The suggestion from the public for a whale watching centre has merit. It’s the sort of thinking outside the square that I would like to see within Council. And it fits the vision of developing tourism, but in a way that is compatible with the existing educational and recreational uses within the locality.” Councillor Steck said. “And why should we spend $15000 of ratepayers dollars to supply power to a commercial enterprise? That alone is enough to lose my vote.”
Another Councillor drew comfort from the due diligence clause in the contract of sale, as protection from liability arising from any omissions the City had made in their description of the property and the planning requirements provided with the Marketing materials.
During further discussion Mayor Smith addressed the concerns about sea level rise and warned that residents should not make alarmist public statements about the risk of sea level rise because it could devalue coastal properties in the area. He declared that the block being considered for sale was not at risk of sea level rise because of its elevation, and in any event, there was other infrastructure such as the road between it and the sea, and Council would be committed to protect it.
The Council committee voted in favour of accepting the $2.6 million dollar offer for the Lot with only Councillor Steck opposing.