Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The implications of sea level rise for Sydney’s coastal planning and
management
Claire Jones 3131004
31 October 2008
i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would firstly like to sincerely thank Peter Williams, my thesis advisor for all his
assistance, great advice and for also making his time available to meet me regularly
during the course of my work especially at the end of the semester when it is a busy
time. I would next like to thank Robert Freestone, Course Authority for his guidance
in particular in the course Research Design which enabled me to set early on, a
relatively clear direction for the undertaking of this thesis project. I am also very
grateful for the responses of the council officers who participated in the survey as
without their information and insights, the exploration of the implications of sea level
rise for local governments would not have been possible. Finally, thank you to my
Mum and Dad for their support during this time period.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables and Figures....................................................................... Abstract...................................................................................................
1. Introduction
1.1 Project background................................................................. 1.2 Aims and objectives................................................................ 1.3 Methodology........................................................................... 1.4 Thesis structure.......................................................................
2. Literature Review
2.1 Introduction............................................................................. 2.2 Assessment and modelling..................................................... 2.3 Planning and management approaches................................. 2.4 Conclusion..............................................................................
3. Legislative and Policy Context 3.1 Introduction............................................................................. 3.2 Commonwealth Government.................................................. 3.3 NSW State Government......................................................... 3.4 Local Government.................................................................. 3.5 Conclusion..............................................................................
4. Sydney and Environs 4.1 Introduction............................................................................. 4.2 Results.................................................................................... 4.3 Discussion.............................................................................. 4.4 Conclusion..............................................................................
5. The Northern Beaches – a case study 5.1 Introduction............................................................................. 5.2 Pittwater Council..................................................................... 5.3 Warringah Council.................................................................. 5.4 Manly Council......................................................................... 5.5 Conclusion..............................................................................
6. Conclusion 6.1 Thesis summary..................................................................... 6.2 Recommendations.................................................................. 6.3 Concluding Remarks..............................................................
Bibliography.............................................................................................
Appendix 1.............................................................................................. Appendix 2..............................................................................................
iii iv 1 2 2 5 7 8 10 13 14 14 17 24 25 26 28 39 41 42 44 48 54 57 58 61 63 65 70 71
iii
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Tables Table 1: Vulnerability of SCCG council to sea level rise, storm surge and climate change Table 2: Information sources typically consulted by professionals Table 3: Snapshot of Northern Beaches LGAs Table 4: Climate Change Levy poll results
28
30 44 56
Figures Figure 1: Research methodology structure Figure 2: Theory diagram Figure 3: Photo montage of Sandon Point development from Bulli Lookout Figure 4: NSW Coastal Policy framework of key roles and implementation Figure 5: Map of current SCCG member councils Figure 6: Net vulnerability map Figure 7: The type of tools used by coastal professionals Figure 8: The type of likely affected areas by SLR Figure 9: The level of community interest in SLR as rated by the Sydney coastal councils. Figure 10: Hierarchy of priorities identified by the councils for future SLR management and planning Figure 11: Sydney’s Northern Beaches Figure 12: Coastal vulnerability of Sydney’s Northern Beaches Figure 13: Schematic diagram of the determination of Coastline Management Lines Figure 14: Narrabeen Lagoon, looking west from Narrabeen foreshore Figure 15: Sand Point, on Pittwater foreshore Figure 16: Snappermans Beach, Palm Beach Figure 17: The Collaroy Beachfront following a major storm in 1920 Figure 18: Looking north along Narrabeen Beach on 18 June 2007 Figure 19: Looking south along Narrabeen Beach on 18 June 2007 Figure 20: Summary of management options for Collaroy/Narrabeen Beach Figure 21: Major storm damage along Manly Ocean Beach in 1950 Figure 22: Looking south along Manly Ocean Beach Note: All other images were taken by the author unless otherwise stated.
3 7
19 22 26 28 33 34 36
38
43 43 45
47 47 47 50 50 50 52 55 55
iv
ABSTRACT
Scientific research both globally and domestically has argued that human-induced,
accelerated sea level rise (SLR) will lead to a range of impacts to coastal locations.
However sea level rise impacts will vary from location to location which is why local
government will primarily be responsible for confronting these local issues. The
central question this thesis examines is the preparedness of local governments to
address the challenges that potential sea level rises will bring to marine and
estuarine areas. Existing legislation and policy are reviewed, a broader survey of
coastal based Sydney councils undertaken, and the planning and management
approaches of three councils examined in detail. The research indicates that most
Sydney coastal councils are starting to take some action in relation to sea level rise
issues but there is a pervasive view that the State Government must exercise
leadership and set clear directions on climate change adaptation planning. Sea level
rise is a global issue but one that is primarily going to be dealt with at the local level.
It will be vital that appropriate resources and consistent guidelines and directions be
provided to local governments to implement new planning and management
approaches.
1. INTRODUCTION1. INTRODUCTION1. INTRODUCTION
1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project background
The months of May and June 1974 marked one of the most volatile weather periods
in New South Wales (NSW). A number of severe storms caused significant damage
and erosion to beaches and properties on the NSW central and southern coasts
(Resource Assessment Commission, 1993). Thirty-three years on, a landmark court
decision (discussed in Chapter 3) on a NSW south coast development site has
illuminated the seriousness with which decision makers must consider climate
change impacts, particularly accelerated sea level rise (SLR) that threatens the future
health and vitality of our coastal environments.
The threat of accelerated, human induced rising sea levels and its implications on
coastal planning and management processes for the coastlines of Sydney is the
focus of this thesis. Scientific research led by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) on a global level and domestically through the CSIRO has
argued that accelerated SLR, as one potential impact caused by climate change, will
‘likely’ result in further widespread coastal and beach erosion, land inundation and
loss of ecosystems (Pyper, 2007). The IPCC and CSIRO suggest that NSW ocean
levels could rise by between 18 centimetres to 91 centimetres by 2100, also taking
into account ice flow melt from the Polar Regions (Ribbons, 2007). There are
however, gaps in current understanding in the effects of sea level rise and in turn the
application to coastal planning and management (Hebert and Taplin, 2006).
With this general acceptance, the Commonwealth Government is starting to take
research and planning further. However sea level rise impacts will vary from location
to location which is why local government will primarily be responsible for confronting
these local issues. In the NSW context there have been limited attempts to create a
state wide strategic framework to deal with future planning and adaptation issues
associated with sea level rise. Thus the responsibility has typically fallen on local
governments, but it will be crucial that decisions be made under national and/or state
strategic frameworks and that appropriate resources be provided to local government
to implement new and/or revised planning and management approaches.
2
The central question this thesis will examine is the preparedness of local
governments to address the challenges that potential sea level rises will bring to
marine and estuarine areas.
1.2 Aims and objectives
In order to investigate the implications of sea level rise for local governments in the
Sydney context and how local councils will adapt their coastal planning and
management approaches, the following four key objectives underpin the thesis:
► Critically evaluate the existing scope of coastal related legislation, policy and
strategy and identify gaps where relevant.
► Survey the information usage and planning and management approaches,
that local governments are currently implementing across Sydney’s coastal
regions.
► Undertake detailed investigations of planning and management approaches
for a sub-regional level case study, using the study of the three local councils
on Sydney’s Northern Beaches.
► Analyse the findings from the broad survey and the regional case study to
elicit specific recommendations for future planning and management
frameworks for application at all levels of government.
1.3 Methodology
The research proceeded in two main stages to operationalise the key research
objectives. The following general research methodology structure was applied and is
shown diagrammatically in Figure 1:
3
Figure 1 – Research methodology structure. Source: Jones (2008).
Stage 1 consisted of a critical review of relevant existing domestic and international
scholarly literature presented in the format of a literature review. Following this
literature review, a critical review of the coastal legislation and policies at the
Commonwealth, NSW State and local government levels was undertaken to provide
the context for exploring Sydney’s coastal planning and management approaches in
more depth. This first stage was desk based.
Stage 2 is the core part of this thesis which provided the basis for the identification of
planning and management recommendations. This consisted of two areas:
► Broader quantitative survey; and
► Intensive sub-regional case study.
A broader quantitative survey of Sydney coastal councils was undertaken. The
purpose of this survey was to gather information on current and future approaches to
coastal planning and management taken by local councils. Local councils who were
current members of the organisation, Sydney Coastal Councils Group Inc were
selected and evaluated as being suitable participants. Officers from each of the 15
member councils were identified on the basis of their anticipated knowledge and
Sub-regional case study: Three Northern Beaches local councils.
Literature Review + Review of coastal legislation & policy
Broader quantitative survey of Sydney coastal based local councils.
Findings & Discussion
Recommendations
Stage 1
Stage 2
4
expertise on SLR issues. This sampling technique was a type of purposive or
judgemental sampling.
A standardised, self-administered questionnaire consisting of three sections:
information; current planning and management; and future responses was
developed. The questionnaire consisted primarily of closed and open-ended
questions. The questionnaire and Project Information Statement was sent individually
by email to the targeted council officer. A self-administered questionnaire was
considered more appropriate than approaching individual council officers to
participate in in-depth interviews as a standardised questionnaire is generally quicker
to administer and more convenient option for respondents (Bryman, 2008). As a
means of overcoming general weaknesses that can exist in utilising a questionnaire
format such as handling missing data and restricting the ability to probe (Bryman,
2008), open-ended questions were included at different points. This provided the
opportunity to respondents to elaborate further on specific issues. The use of the
email option was preferred over the traditional mail-out technique used in survey
research due to the ability to process electronic data quicker and privacy issues
associated with using personal contact details on mail-out questionnaires.
A total of 13 councils were sent the questionnaire as two councils did not respond to
the request for the contact details of an appropriate officer. Of these 13, a total of
seven completed questionnaires were returned. A follow-up email request was sent
to councils who had not responded initially but no further responses were received.
The receipt of seven returned questionnaires represents a response rate of 54%
which is slightly better response than the study undertaken by Hebert and Taplin
(2006). This percentage was a satisfactory response rate for the purpose of this
survey and is therefore adequate for analysis purposes. Typically, a response rate of
around 50% is classified as only just acceptable but as the sample design was
focussed to a specific grouping of councils, the risk of bias with respect to any
differences between the participants’ views and refusals is arguably to be a
significant issue (Bryman, 2008).
Building on this broader review of Sydney councils, a sub-regional case study was
selected. The three local councils that encompass the Northern Beaches peninsula
5
of Sydney (Pittwater, Warringah and Manly) were chosen as the study focus. The
reason for this choice of sub-region is due to the level of study and planning
undertaken so far by these councils, location of iconic beaches and the general level
of co-operation that exists between the councils. The intensive investigation involved
a detailed exploration of the planning and management approaches of these councils
both current and historically and their approach to adapting to potential sea level
rises. This included analyses of reports, documents and newspaper articles. Site
visits were undertaken at various marine and estuarine locations within the three
local government areas.
In undertaking this thesis, ethical research practices and protocols were applied.
Formal approval was sought from the Faculty of the Built Environment’s Human
Research Ethics Advisory Panel (HREAP) to undertake the research using the above
described methodology. Issues such as participant selection and privacy and
confidentiality of the research were identified and discussed in the documentation
submitted to the HREAP. A copy of the approval letter received from the FBE HREA
Panel for Application No. 85041, dated 12th August 2008 can be found in Appendix 1.
A FBE Fieldwork application was also lodged with the Head of the Planning Program
to cover the site visits.
1.4 Thesis structure
The following is the chapter structure of the thesis with a brief description of the
respective chapter contents:
Chapter 1 – Introduction
This chapter introduces the topic, provides background information to establish the
problem setting and presents the central research question and key objectives. This
chapter also includes a methodology outlining the framework and rationale for the
methodological approach, describes the actions taken and ethical implications of the
research.
6
Chapter 2 – Literature Review
This chapter critically reviews thematically the relevant domestic and international
scholarly literature. The review discusses the main ideas of key researchers in the
field and indicates research gaps where present to provide a basis for which this
thesis can contribute to the field.
Chapter 3 – Legislative and Policy Context
This chapter critically reviews the existing legislation, policies and strategies
associated with coastal planning and management at the three levels of government
in Australia: Commonwealth, State (NSW) and Local.
Chapter 4 – Sydney and Environs
This chapter focuses on the broader survey of the Sydney coastal councils. The
study area is introduced, followed by a presentation of the results and findings from
the survey with comparison to other relevant studies and a discussion of the key
findings.
Chapter 5 – The Northern Beaches – a case study
This chapter involves a detailed investigation of the three Northern Beaches local
councils as an example of a sub-regional case study. The case study involves
delving into the planning and management approaches of the respective councils
both currently and historically with respect to adapting to the challenges presented by
the threat of accelerated sea level rise.
Chapter 6 – Conclusion
This chapter concludes the thesis and summarises the key arguments presented. A
series of recommendations are outlined with respect to future coastal planning and
management approaches for dealing with sea level rise at all levels of government.
2. LITERATURE 2. LITERATURE 2. LITERATURE REVIEWREVIEWREVIEW
7
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
The effects on coastlines attributed to sea level rise (SLR) have increasingly gained
prominence in government, scientific and academic discourse. Australian coastlines
like others around the world have been identified as being highly vulnerable to the
effects caused by global accelerated SLR such as coastal erosion, land inundation
and loss of ecosystems (Pyper, 2007). Although a significant volume of scientific
assessments and modelling are producing highly useful estimates of SLR,
uncertainty in the data is hindering the ability of coastal managers and planners to
accurately plan for and adapt to the expected implications of sea level rise on their
communities. In the case of Sydney, gaps in Australian research does exist to hinder
understanding the potential effects of SLR, and in turn its application to coastal
planning and management practice and decision-making (Hebert and Taplin, 2006).
The focus of this chapter is to review relevant Australian and international scholarly
literature under two key themes: first, assessment and modelling which represents
the scientific dimension of this topic; and second, planning and management
approaches, being the practical application. These two themes are intrinsically linked,
thus it is useful to construct a ‘bridge’ between the two themes so that they may be
applied to the practical setting that face principally local government decision makers
including planners. The themes and their related concepts have been depicted in a
theory diagram in Figure 2.
Figure 2 – Theory diagram. Source: Jones (2008).
Throughout this chapter, references will be made to linkages or lack thereof between
these two themes to highlight current challenges and potential areas for further
Scientific Assessment & Modelling Global National Regional/Local
Planning & Management Approaches Science to Planning Day to Day Management Stakeholder Engagement
8
research. The literature to be reviewed in this chapter has been sourced from various
electronic databases provided by the UNSW Library and government websites.
2.2 Scientific Assessments and modelling
Global
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the peak body
established by the United Nations to prepare the most comprehensive assessment
and investigation into climate change impacts including sea level rise for all world’s
regions. The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 has confirmed that
global sea level rise is going to occur, although the estimates according to Harvey
and Clarke (2007) may have been underestimated. Chapter 11 of the IPCC’s
Working Group II Report (Hennessy et al, 2007) deals with both Australia and New
Zealand and this chapter tends to take a very broad approach to the discussion of
key impacts and vulnerabilities. In terms of the discussion of coasts, only a small
section is dedicated and is a summary of important studies that have been compiled
in certain locations such as in Tasmania. However, this document should be viewed
as setting the broad agenda for further thorough investigation into the range of
climate change related impacts for Australia.
National
The apparent limited nature of the IPCC’s chapter on Australia and New Zealand has
prompted the CSIRO (2007) to produce a report titled, Climate Change in Australia to
explore further the impacts of climate change. One chapter of this series of technical
reports deals with sea level rise projections at a regional level. The case studies
selected for further analysis were from states outside NSW. On a scientific level, this
report is sound but more detailed analysis is required into the aspects of sea level
rise for the Australian coastline.
This next step however has begun with a panel of academics (Voice, Harvey and
Walsh, 2006) producing a report, titled Vulnerability to Climate Change of Australia's
Coastal Zone: Analysis of gaps in methods, data and system thresholds for the
Australian Greenhouse Office (now Department of Climate Change) in 2006. The
purpose of this report is to identify gaps in studies and information for assessing the
9
vulnerability of Australia’s coastlines. Of relevance to this topic are the chapters
dealing with “Beaches and sandy coasts”, “Coastal infrastructure” and “Estuaries”.
This report talks about first and second “pass” assessments in terms of vulnerability
of the coastlines. This comprehensive and detailed report is extremely useful as it
identifies the type of studies (three main types) that have been undertaken so far in
terms of vulnerability assessments and gaps that are present in current information
for beaches and sandy coasts. The three main types of studies identified include:
national studies; state-based planning documents and local case studies (Voice,
Harvey and Walsh, 2006).
One particular data research need identified by Voice, Harvey and Walsh (2006) is
the need for the creation of a high resolution coastal digital data set. With this
information available it could then be integrated with the morphodynamic modelling
and Geographic Information System (GIS) programs (Voice, Harvey and Walsh,
2006). This need was also suggested by Harvey and Clarke (2007, 53) as the means
to which more “accurate estimates of coastal areas at risk from sea level rise” can be
identified.
Regional/local
Whilst there is increasing attention at the national (Australian) scale for an approach
to assess vulnerability of coastlines to sea level rise, significant work has been
undertaken by state and local governments. Pyper (2007, 237), states that there has
“been an unprecedented level of interest in assessing vulnerability to sea-level rise
since mid-2006”. Voice, Harvey and Walsh (2006) conclude that most of the detailed
studies that have been undertaken are carried out mostly at the local level, whereby
individual local councils have commissioned a specific study of a particular beach, on
a ‘as needs’ basis. Further, there has been significant academic interest both in
Australia and internationally in specific beaches/regions concerning the impacts of
sea level rise.
One notable Australian study is by Hennecke et al (2004) which has been referred to
by other authors and in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. Using GIS, Hennecke
et al (2004) were able to model and simulate potential land and property loss as a
result of sea level rise and major storm events at Collaroy/Narrabeen Beach, NSW.
10
The results achieved in this study demonstrate the ability of using GIS to show the
extent of land loss in a practical setting. It was noted however, that the results,
discussions and conclusions section was quite brief compared to the sections
devoted to the model which highlights the need for scientific research to be able to
translate this information into a resource which coastal managers can use.
There are also a host of recent international case studies that utilise a range of tools
to demonstrate the challenge in managing coastal land against the threat of sea level
rise and potential adaption strategies. Examples include: Fitzgerald et al (2008); who
profiled a number of international locations; Purvis, Bates and Hayes (2008) et al., for
the River Severn estuary, United Kingdom; Al-Jeneid et al (2008) for the Kingdom of
Bahrain; Jolicouer and O’Carroll (2007) for Quebec, Canada; and Schleupner (2007)
for the island of Martinique in the Caribbean.
2.3 Planning and management approaches
With an extensive and rapidly expanding collection of scientific information available
for coastal managers, what has been said about how scientific information transfers
(or not) over to coastal planning and management practice?
Science to planning
Academic literature in recent times has suggested that there are uncertainties in
scientific knowledge which in turn makes the planning process more difficult (Walsh
et al 2004, Tribbia and Moser 2008, Hebert and Taplin, 2006, Pyper 2007). Walsh et
al (2004) discuss extensively the science to planning process and the challenges for
planners especially relating to the wide range of estimates provided by scientists.
Importantly, it is pointed out that “sea level rise per se does not cause geomorphic
change: extreme wave activity does” (Walsh et al, 2004). This statement
demonstrates that there can be misconceptions as to the nature of sea level rise and
its apparent impact on coasts.
Klein, Nicholls and Mimura (1999) investigated the extent to which the IPCC
Technical Guidelines could be applied to a practical setting. It was noted that the
IPCC Technical Guidelines did not include substantial coverage of spatial and
11
temporal planning issues (Klein, Nicholls and Mimura, 1999). Thus the IPCC
Technical Guidelines could be enhanced by taking a broader view with the goal to
establish a “multi-stage and iterative” coastal adaptive framework (Klein, Nicholls and
Mimura, 1999, 244).
In addition, there are books such as Coastal Management in Australia written by
Harvey and Caton (2000) with university students as its target audience, that provide
a useful introduction to a range of coastal management issues coupled with an array
of relevant case studies. This type of resource also acts as a bridge between the
realm of science and planning practice. However, this resource would also need to
be regularly updated to reflect changes in coastal policy and legislation and changing
debates in the field.
Day-to-day management
The day-to-day management of coastal areas especially beaches generally falls
under the responsibility of local governments. Indeed, local governments have a
strong influence on planning and development processes in coastal areas. Harvey
and Clarke (2007) discuss the challenges that face local governments in dealing with
sea level rise, however this article is focused on the implications for sea-change
(non-metropolitan) communities. The situation is much different where the coastal
zone is already highly developed, which creates a different set of issues for coastal
managers to respond to.
Tol, Klein and Nicholls (2008) broadly reviewed the role and characteristics of
adaptation as it relates to climate change and the various literature on the topic. They
then examined “the current status of adaptation to sea level rise and climate change
in the context of European coasts which revealed four categories of countries in
terms of their sensitivity, awareness and level of implementation” (Tol, Klein and
Nicholls, 2008, 432). Of interest is the discussion which highlighted a range of
concerns that would typically face the day-to-day managers of coastal zones.
The key study with respect to coastal planning in Sydney and management
processes at the local government level is that by Hebert and Taplin (2006). A
questionnaire with three focus areas was sent to the then 16 members of the Sydney
12
Coastal Councils Group (SCCG) but only received a 50% response rate, which is
surprising considering the support provided to this study by the SCCG. One key
finding of the study is especially alarming, namely that “the effects of coastal climate
change impacts on developments within the Sydney GMR is not a high priority of
local governments” (Hebert and Taplin, 2006, 39) however this could be attributed to
a lack of resources available to councils at the time. This study did elicit some
interesting insights into local government management approaches but there was no
discussion into whether any previous research into local government and coastal
planning had been undertaken. It would be clearly useful to undertake a further study
of how councils have progressed since 2006 especially as vulnerability assessments
have grown since that time.
Tribbia and Moser (2008) on the other hand have undertaken an in-depth study of
the information needs of coastal managers in California, United States. As part of this
study, they conducted interviews and parallel surveys with a range of coastal
managers. The findings of this study illustrated a range of issues associated with day
to day management of coastal areas. Similar issues were also generally identified by
Hebert and Taplin (2006), however Tribbia and Moser (2008) were able to explore
much further the dimensions of the needs of managers and also offer some solutions
to the issues. The discussion was particularly well thought out and although it was
concluded that their findings may be [emphasis added] broadly applicable outside the
US, it still is a highly useful study which most likely can be transferred to an
Australian based management context.
Stakeholder engagement
Another new area of literature emerging is about stakeholder engagement in the
coastal planning process. Tompkins, Few and Brown (2008) applied a scenario-
based stakeholder engagement model for use in two case study sites in the UK. This
particular study drew some interesting conclusions, such as that there may not need
to be a wait for updated information to become available as local stakeholders are
sufficiently capable to make decisions in the current time period. Although this article
is based on the UK system of shoreline management planning, the general coastal
planning ideas would be worthy of broader consideration and comparison.
13
2.4 Conclusion
This chapter has reviewed domestic and international scholarly literature under two
broad themes: scientific assessments and modelling and planning and management
approaches. Increasingly there is a recognition that there needs to be improved
linkages between the science of sea level rise and the selection of appropriate
adaptation strategies for current and future coastal planning and management.
Similarly, an improvement in the quality of scientific knowledge will play a significant
part in reducing the uncertainty in planning for sea level rise.
In the context of Sydney, there has been limited scholarly literature responding
specifically to the issues associated with sea level rise and coastal planning. The
study by Hebert and Taplin (2006) raised some pertinent issues for local government
practice, thus providing a basis for further research which could be carried out in this
area. At the national level, there is however progress being made with regards to
understanding where gaps in knowledge exist as demonstrated by Voice, Harvey and
Walsh (2006). It is hoped then that this progress will be translated into a national or
state approach that local governments can adopt to effectively cope with the impacts
of sea level rise on the most vulnerable coastlines in Australia.
3. LEGISLATIVE 3. LEGISLATIVE 3. LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY AND POLICY AND POLICY CONTEXTCONTEXTCONTEXT
14
3. LEGISLATION AND POLICY CONTEXT
3.1 Introduction
Coastal planning and management related legislation, policy and strategy came to
prominence in the 1970s as part of a widespread environmental movement. In the
context of New South Wales, the storms of 1974 triggered action with respect to the
enactment of coastal management legislation (Watson and Lord, 2005). Since that
period there have been a number of changes and enhancements to legislation, policy
and strategy. A prominent review of coastal legislation and policy in Australia was
undertaken in 2008 by the NSW Environmental Defender’s Office for the Sydney
Coastal Councils Group, titled Coastal Councils and Planning for Climate Change:
An assessment of Australian and NSW legislation and government policy provisions
relating to climate change relevant to regional and metropolitan coastal councils. This
report will be referred to throughout this chapter. Therefore, this chapter will critically
review current coastal and related legislation, policy and strategy across the three
levels of government in Australia. Also considered in this chapter is a recent
landmark court case on the impacts of sea level rise (SLR) that has significant
implications for planning practice.
3.2 Commonwealth Government
Legislation
The principal piece of Commonwealth legislation that governs environmental
protection and actions across Australia is the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The EPBC Act is quite
comprehensive in its provisions relating to various environmental areas including
matters of national significance, protection of heritage listed places and
environmental assessment. According to the Environmental Defenders Office
(2008a), the EPBC Act is one of few related Commonwealth environmental based
legislation that includes words associated with ‘climate change’, ‘greenhouse’ and
‘sea level rise’.
15
In relation to environmental assessment of a proposed ‘action’, which is a similar
concept to ‘development’ as defined by the NSW Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act 1979, one of the key issues that the Commonwealth Minister for
Environment must take into account when considering an ‘action’ that has been
referred to the Minister is “the principles of ecologically sustainable development”
(Department of the Environment and Water Resources, 2007, 4). There are five
principles as defined in the EPBC Act 1999 in relation to ESD. Of note is the
precautionary principle whereby for decision makers considering short and long-term
consequences and the threat of significant environmental damage of a proposed
action, the existence of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for
postponing action: which may include the refusal of a project. However, the
assessments that are undertaken by the Commonwealth are generally restricted to
specifically examining aspects of an action that may impact on, for instance, certain
matters of national significance such as threatened species. For example, the
assessment of the proposed Reef Cove Resort development at False Cape near
Cairns, Queensland was limited to mainly the impact on threatened species, listed
migratory species and the World Heritage Values of the Great Barrier Reef and some
aspects of development control (Department of the Environment and Heritage, 2004).
Thus at the Commonwealth level, the specific assessment does not have the
provision to consider climate change impacts directly. In that case, if there is a
bilateral agreement with a state government in place, then the state-based approval
system is then adopted for a development which will also ensure that duplication is
reduced. This then presents the issue of gaps and inconsistency between planning
frameworks at the national level and Australian states and territories who all possess
different planning systems by which to deal with climate change scenarios.
Policy
In 2003, the Australian Commonwealth Government adopted the Framework for a
National Cooperative Approach to Integrated Coastal Zone Management. This
Framework has six priority areas including climate change. An implementation plan
was then created as an adjunct to the framework in 2006. This framework uses the
principles of integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) to attempt to achieve the
goals of ecologically sustainable development. ICZM is a framework that has been
adopted by a number of countries to guide coastal management decision-making.
16
The Framework includes ‘climate change’ as being one of the key issues that should
be addressed co-operatively across Australia. One of the main limitations that has
been recognised with climate change is that “the implications of projected changes
are not well understood” (Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, 2006,
10). This being a common theme amongst the scholarly literature that was discussed
in Chapter 2.
In terms of implementation of this Framework, climate change is Priority Area 3 and
has three main actions over a timeframe ranging between two and ten years. Action
3.1.1 relating to best practice research has been implemented to some extent by the
report prepared by Voice, Harvey and Walsh (2006) in identifying gaps in current
research. Actions 3.1.2 and 3.1.3, consisting of creating a national picture of
vulnerable coastlines and regional scale modelling respectively, have been given
timelines of between five and ten years. It seems that the need for this type of
scientific assessment and modelling will become a key priority as the latest scientific
research predicts that the increased acceleration of sea level rises may be sooner
than expected. Action 3.2.1 is a stand-alone action that aims to develop resource
tools for coastal managers. Again, this is of high priority as coastal planners and
managers need to have the information and tools available to them to be able to
effectively plan for climate change.
The newly formed Department of Climate Change has initiated three key programs
that will further build on the climate change actions identified in the previous
paragraph. The first program is targeted towards local governments who will be
primarily responsible to managing the likely impacts of sea level rise and hence is of
particular importance. The Climate Change Adaptation Actions for Local Government
report aims to identify adaptation strategies which could be applied and implemented
in response to the variety of risks that face local governments (Department of Climate
Change, 2008). As part of this, any Australian local government could apply for
funding as part of the Local Adaptation Pathways Program to support “local
governments building their adaptive capacity to respond to the impacts of climate
change” (Department of Climate Change, 2008). Six NSW regional councils or
‘alliances’ have received funding from this program and three Sydney metropolitan
councils have also been successful in obtaining funding. This demonstrates the
17
strong stance that these councils wish to take on climate change matters. The other
two programs relate to a skills program whereby appropriate professionals can seek
small grants for tertiary education and the broader National Climate Change
Adaptation Program. It will be inevitable that increased support and partnerships will
need to be extended to local governments as the level of information on climate
change impacts keeps improving.
3.3 NSW State Government
Since the mid 1970s there has been legislation designed for coastal protection,
environmental planning and various strategies, policies and initiatives for coastal
zone management in NSW. All of these have been subject to a number of reforms
since that time. Watson and Lord (2005) recognise that there are many constraints
and challenges for future coastal planning and management in NSW including
population growth; housing; management of coastline hazards and sand
nourishment. Projected sea level rise is also identified as one natural hazard which in
conjunction with the other challenges will be further amplified in the future (Watson
and Lord, 2005).
Legislation
The Coastal Protection Act 1979 is the over-arching coastal legislation in NSW. The
Act sets out guidelines for the use of the coastal zone and the preparation of coastal
zone management plans. The principles of ESD are also applied in this Act. The
NSW Environmental Defender’s Office (2008a, 7) notes that the decision whether to
prepare a coastal zone management plan is at the discretion of the Minister, but it is
highly recommended for councils to prepare one as it would “enable a strategic
approach to be taken in responding to climate change impacts within the coastal
zone”.
The NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) governs
the planning system in NSW. Part 3 of the EP&A Act contains the provisions for plan
making, called environmental planning instruments (EPIs). The types of EPIs are
State environmental planning policies (SEPPs), regional environmental plans (REPs)
and local environmental plans (LEPs). A number of these EPIs are applicable to
18
coastal regions in metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas but only the key EPIs will
be reviewed in this section.
In November 2005, the area defined as the ‘NSW Coastal Zone’ was extended to
include the previously excluded 13 Sydney metropolitan area councils (Department
of Planning, 2005a). The extension of this zone had planning implications for three
planning policies: SEPP 71 – Coastal Protection; SEPP (Major Projects) and NSW
Coastal Policy 1997 (to be discussed later) plus a Ministerial direction for the
preparation of draft LEPs (Department of Planning, 2005a). The implications as
explained in the accompanying Departmental fact sheet for the Sydney metropolitan
context states that buildings that are taller than 13 metres in height and are situated
within a ‘sensitive coastal location’ require ministerial consent and certain types of
development would also require that consent (Department of Planning, 2005b). The
phrase ‘sensitive coastal location’ refers to a coastal location that would be subject to
known coastal hazards such as beach erosion but it would generally appear to not
encompass potential for sea level rise as this concern does not form a strong position
within current planning frameworks. The fact sheet also made reference to past
inappropriate developments that have occurred in the coastal zone, namely at
Narrabeen/Collaroy Beach (Department of Planning, 2005b).
SEPP No. 71 Coastal Protection came in to force in 2002. This SEPP guides
development in coastal zones, specifies land uses in coastal zones and contains
provisions for the creation of master plans. The provision in the SEPP which has
some relation to climate change consideration is where councils have to take into
account coastal hazards and processes in decision-making (NSW Environmental
Defenders Office, 2008a). SEPP No. 14 Coastal Wetlands is another coastal related
policy. At the next level there are then various regional specific REPs that include
coastal issues such as Sydney REP No. 14 Eastern Beaches and Sydney REP
(Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005. Further detailed discussion of these instruments
is contained in the report of the NSW Environmental Defender’s Office (2008).
One of the major reforms of the EP&A Act occurred in 2005 when the new Part 3A
Major Infrastructure and Other Projects was introduced. This new Part 3A
“consolidates the assessment and approval regime for all major projects that need
19
the approval of the Minister”, which was previously captured under Parts 4 and 5 of
the Act according to the Department of Planning (2005c, 1). In conjunction, a new
SEPP (State Significant Development) 2005, now called SEPP (Major Projects) 2005
was also created to provide the criteria for the types of development which would
require assessment under Part 3A, with approval only to be granted by the Minister
for Planning. Typical projects that are assessed under Part 3A include extractive
industries, significant infrastructure projects such as highway construction and larger
scale residential, commercial and industrial developments. However, one such
proposed development has raised some very significant issues regarding the
assessment of projects and the consideration of possible climate change impacts.
Sandon Point is located between Thirroul and Bulli on the South Coast of NSW in the
Wollongong Local Government Area. It is a site of approximately 60 hectares, a
significant green corridor that provides a habitat for threatened flora and fauna
species and contains a number of Aboriginal heritage sites (National Trust, 2002).
The original development application for the development of Sandon Point was
rejected by Wollongong Council in 2001, which was then followed by a Commission
of Inquiry in 2003 (Wollongong Council, 2008). In 2006, the Minister for Planning,
Frank Sartor granted conditional approval under Part 3A for a scaled-down concept
plan consisting of 181 lots (Figure 3) at Sandon Point (Wollongong Council, 2008).
This development had sparked long-standing community concern regarding the scale
of the development and the impact on the local indigenous and natural heritage of
the area.
Figure 3 – Photo montage of Sandon Point development from Bulli Lookout.
Source: Stockland (2006).
20
In 2007, a local resident, Jill Walker with the assistance of NSW Environmental
Defenders Office decided to challenge on three grounds the approval of the concept
plan by the Minister for Planning in the NSW Land and Environment Court (refer to
Walker v Minister for Planning [2007] NSWLEC 741). Two out of three grounds of
challenge were rejected by Justice Biscoe, but the decision on the third (successful)
grounds of the 27 November 2007 has now presented a number of implications for
planning practice. Specifically, the Sandon Point site possessed flood prone land
which was an important issue to resolve in the preparation of the concept plan with
respect to ESD principles (NSW Environmental Defenders Office, 2008a). The
applicant thus challenged that:
“the Minister failed to consider ESD by failing to consider whether the impacts of the proposed development would be compounded by climate change; in particular, by failing to consider whether changed weather patterns would lead to an increased flood risk in connection with the proposed development in circumstances where flooding was identified as a major constraint on development of the site.” (Walker v Minister for Planning [2007] NSW LEC 741, par. 120)
Justice Biscoe extensively reviewed previous case law regarding climate change
matters both in Australia and overseas. Justice Biscoe declared that climate change
is a “deadly serious issue” but for this particular challenge it was narrowed down to a
matter of “statutory construction” that would prescribe the actions of the Minister and
Director General (Walker v Minister for Planning [2007] NSW LEC 741, par. 161-
162). It was noted that ESD is one of the objects of the EP&A Act and consequently
that under Clause 8B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation, is
an issue the Director General is obliged to consider as a matter of public interest
when assessing the development application on its merits (NSW Environmental
Defenders Office, 2008c). Justice Biscoe’s decision on this challenge was in favour
of the applicant, with His Honour stating (at Paragraph 166):
“In my opinion, having regard to the subject matter, scope and purpose of the EPA Act and the gravity of the well-known potential consequences of climate change, in circumstances where neither the Director-General’s report nor any other document before the Minister appeared to have considered whether climate change flood risk was relevant to this flood constrained coastal plain project, the Minister was under an implied obligation to consider whether it was relevant and, if so, to take it into consideration when deciding whether to approve the concept plan. The Minister did not discharge that function.” (Walker v Minister for Planning [2007] NSW LEC 741, par. 166)
21
This landmark decision by Justice Biscoe was hailed as a significant victory for the
Sandon Point community (NSW Environmental Defenders Office, 2008c). More
importantly, this case has highlighted a number of planning implications with respect
to climate change. The NSW Environmental Defenders Office (2008c) add that this
decision could become applicable to other developments which could be at risk from
climate change and hence decisions may become void if climate change is not
seriously considered in the planning process. After the decision, the Department of
Planning’s Director-General (2007) argued that the Land and Environment Court
decision would lead to significant uncertainty for all consent authorities and would
further have a number of ramifications for the administration of the EP&A Act. This
particular case should serve as a warning for the Federal and State Governments
that with the level of science improving, specific guidelines plus possible
amendments to statutory planning for assessing the impacts of climate need to be
developed to guide decision-makers.
The Department of Planning lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court of NSW Court
of Appeal. On the 24th September 2008, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision
by Justice Briscoe in 2007 that the Minister for Planning had not properly considered
climate change flood risk at Sandon Point, (refer to Minister for Planning v Walker
[2008] NSWCA 224). The planning implications of this decision for climate change
issues are yet to be determined at this early stage.
Policy
Despite its contrary stance in relation to Sandon Point, coastal protection has been
recognised by the NSW Department of Planning as one of its key ‘Plans for Action’.
As well as legislation such as the Coastal Protection Act 1979 and EPIs, there are
also dedicated policies for coastal planning and management. There are many other
broader strategies in NSW which incorporate climate change related issues including
the NSW State Plan; NSW Greenhouse Plan and the NSW regional and sub-regional
strategies. The NSW Coastal Policy 1997 is the main policy to guide coastal planning
and management in NSW which is grounded in the principles of ESD (Figure 4). The
policy applies to development control by two means: for implementation in LEP
making and by taking provisions into account when considering development
applications (NSW Environmental Defenders Office, 2008b). With respect to ESD,
22
there are four principles incorporated including the precautionary principle which is
noted as being applicable to climate change including sea level rise issues (NSW
Government, 1997).
Figure 4 – NSW Coastal Policy framework of key roles and implementation. Source: NSW Government (1997).
In terms of implementation of this policy, there is one goal dedicated to natural
processes and climate change. The objective of Goal 2.2 is “to recognise and
consider the potential effects of climate change in the planning and management of
coastal development” (NSW Government, 1997, 47). The NSW Government (1997)
identifies three strategic actions related to this goal which include:
► Studies in collaboration with the CSIRO on coastal climate change issues;
► Planning mechanisms to incorporate IPCC sea level change scenarios; and
► Port Kembla Harbour monitoring project to form part of national program.
The first and last strategic actions have been implemented over the last 11 years that
this policy has been in force – from a statutory sense through Ministerial directions
provided to local councils under Section 117 of the EP&A Act whereby they are
23
required to take provisions of the NSW Coastal Policy into consideration when
preparing draft LEPs. The second strategic action is now one of the most important
issues that NSW local councils are currently expressing. According to the NSW
Government (1997), three key players have prime responsibility for the
implementation of this action: local councils; former Department of Land and Water
Conservation (now Environment and Climate Change) and the former Department of
Urban Affairs and Planning (now Planning). It has been recognised in the literature
that local councils do not have the resources to be able to undertake extensive
scientific assessment and modelling to inform their planning and management
responses but it would be more appropriate for the State Government to provide this
guidance for the incorporation of sea level rise scenarios into planning processes and
controls for implementation at the local level.
The NSW Coastline Hazard Policy 1988 was created to facilitate financial and
technical assistance to local councils in order to “reduce the impact of coastal
hazards on individual owners and occupiers, and to reduce private and public losses
(NSW Environmental Defenders Office, 2008a, 8). This Policy allowed the NSW
Coastline Management Manual 1990 to be developed, with the Policy then being
incorporated into that Manual. For councils to implement the Policy, they are required
to prepare a coastline management plan which has to satisfy a number of objectives.
A framework to illustrate a Coastline Management System was included and climate
change was identified on a number of levels. Climate change was identified as both a
coastal process and coastal hazard and as one factor to inform a coastline
management study. The latter is described further in Section 3.5.8 where the notion
of ‘uncertainty’ is especially highlighted as a restriction to planning activities. It is then
recommended that “sound planning judgement” be applied with a simple strategy
outlined in Appendix D7 in the Manual to guide the planning process. The advice
provided seems logical and reasonable but the main concern with both the Policy
and Manual is that they are both relatively older strategic documents (20 and 18
years respectively) and like any strategic planning document they should be revised
on a regular basis to reflect new research and planning and management
approaches such as the recent focus on adaptation measures.
24
3.4 Local Government
Local government generally has a significant portion of the responsibility for the
management of NSW’s extensive and diverse marine and estuarine areas. Formally,
the responsibilities of local governments are defined under the Local Government Act
1993. In relation to sea level rise issues, Section 733 provides for a number of
exemptions in terms of council’s liabilities particularly Section 733(2) for natural
hazards (NSW Environmental Defenders Office, 2008a). The key point of these
exemptions according to the NSW Environmental Defender’s Office (2008), is that
councils will not incur negligence claims provided that they have clearly applied ‘good
faith’ in the making of decisions as expressed in the NSW Coastline Management
Manual 1990. The report the NSW Environmental Defender’s Office has undertaken
is comprehensive in its review of council liability under the Local Government Act and
so any further discussion on this issue is beyond the scope of this thesis.
Under the EP&A Act, local governments are required to prepare local environmental
plans (LEPs) for their local government area (LGA). LEPs are designed to guide the
use and development of different land uses within the LGA. Councils are obliged to
consider and be consistent with the NSW Coastal Policy and NSW Coastline
Management Manual in the making of their LEPs. The introduction of the Standard
LEP will however have some implications for local plan making. In 2006, the
Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006 was gazetted by the
Minister for Planning which is intended to provide a principal LEP ‘template’ to
councils which will effectively standardise zones; definitions; clauses and format
(Department of Planning, 2006). In terms of zoning, there are three standard zones
dedicated to environmental features and similarly three for waterways. In clause 32
of the Standard Instrument – Principal Local Environmental Plan, there is a list of
objectives that relate to development within the coastal zone, specifically, sub-clause
(iv) which requires to “recognise and accommodate coastal processes and climate
change”. Further there are mandatory provisions which require consent authorities to
consider a range of coastal issues including sea level rise. The Standard LEP will
create a level of consistency amongst local plan making in NSW, but there will most
likely need to be over time even greater consideration and provisions outlined for
climate change impacts within local planning frameworks.
25
The NSW Environmental Defenders Office (2008a) found that only seven current
LEPs in NSW contain terms ‘climate change’, ‘greenhouse’ or ‘sea level rise’. Of
these seven, six of these are from Sydney metropolitan councils. It may be likely that
regional councils are not in a position to be able to incorporate climate change
considerations, such as through a lack of resources or having the expertise available
to advise on these matters. In addition to LEPs, local governments can create
development control plans (DCPs) which are not statutory instruments but are used
widely to complement and extend the desired controls that councils wish to apply
over their LGA or for specific locations, for example, Gosford City Council’s DCP 125
Coastal Frontage and Pittwater Council’s Pittwater 21 DCP (Amendment 3).
3.5 Conclusion
This chapter has reviewed coastal legislation, policy and strategy across the three
levels of government in Australia. At the Commonwealth level, there exists a national
framework for ICZM and a number of programs aimed to assist decision-makers
including local government in their planning and management activities. In NSW,
there is both principal coastal legislation and policy which provides the framework for
coastal planning and management. In conjunction with the EP&A Act, a raft of
planning instruments do provide the guidelines for the protection and use of the
coastal zone, mainly for implementation by local governments. Climate change
impacts including sea level rise will however need to be further integrated into coastal
legislation and policy to ensure that clear directions are provided to councils on how
to manage and adapt to the likely challenges facing their marine and estuarine areas.
4. SYDNEY AND 4. SYDNEY AND 4. SYDNEY AND ENVIRONSENVIRONSENVIRONS
26
Figure 5 – Map of current SCCG member councils. Source: SCCG (2005).
4. SYDNEY AND ENVIRONS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter will present the results of a survey undertaken with the member councils
of the Sydney Coastal Councils Group Inc (SCCG) and a discussion of these results.
In the first part of this chapter, the study area will be introduced and the latest
research activities will be briefly discussed. In presenting the results of the primary
research undertaken with the SCCG member councils, the results of other relevant
studies by Hebert and Taplin (2006) and Tribbia and Moser (2008) will be
incorporated for comparative purposes.
Study area
There are 15 current member councils of the
SCCG Inc – see Figure 5 for the location of the
councils. The SCCG Inc was established in 1989
originally as seven ocean based councils but now
includes both marine and estuarine councils
(Withycombe, 2007). This regional organisation of
councils represents a total area of 1346 square
kilometres which is home to approximately 1.3
million residents; 86 kilometres of marine shores;
340 kilometres of estuarine frontage; 38 coastal
beaches and 60 estaurine beaches (Withycombe,
2007). The principal aim of this voluntary group of
Sydney councils is:
“to promote cooperation between, and coordination of actions by member councils in consultation with the broader community on issues of regional significance concerning the sustainable management of the urban coastal environment.”
(SCCG, 2005, 13)
27
Latest research activities
Hebert and Taplin’s survey of the SCCG member councils was published under the
title ‘Climate change impacts and coastal planning in the Sydney greater metropolitan
region’ in Australian Planner, 2006, volume 43, number 3. Their survey revealed a
number of interesting insights into planning and management approaches of local
governments in Sydney at that time. This was the first such academic study
undertaken in Sydney concerning coastal climate change impacts. The results of
Hebert and Taplin’s research will be incorporated for comparison purposes into the
following results and discussion sections of this chapter.
The SCCG conducted a Climate Change Workshop in 2005 and undertook direct
consultations with councils between 2005 and 2007 (Withycombe, 2007). The 2005
Climate Change Workshop identified two additional main needs of local governments
for addressing climate change: information and capacity to address climate change.
The latest significant research project for climate change involves collaboration
between the SCCG, CSIRO’s Climate Adaptation Flagship and the University of
Sunshine Coast, called the Systems Approach to Regional Climate Change
Adaptation Strategies in Metropolises project. The purpose of this project is to assist
the “fifteen Sydney Coastal Councils Group (SCCG) Member Councils in assessing
their vulnerability to climate change and the barriers and opportunities associated
with adaptation at the Local Government scale” (SCCG, 2008a). There are three
stages to this project: vulnerability assessment and mapping; workshops with SCCG
member councils; and council adaptation case studies (SCCG, 2008b).
Stage 1 assessed the exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity of the 15 SCCG
councils for five climate change impacts: extreme heat and health effects; sea-level
rise and coastal management; extreme rainfall and stormwater management;
bushfire and effects on ecosystems and natural resources (SCCG, 2008b). In terms
of sea level rise vulnerability, which is the principal focus of this thesis, the results for
the respective councils have been extracted as shown in Table 1 and mapped in
Figure 6. Local governments with highest apparent overall vulnerability to sea level
rise are Botany Bay, Rockdale, Leichhardt and Sydney and the lowest being
Hornsby, Willoughby, North Sydney and Warringah. It is important to note that sea
28
level rise was only one measure employed and councils scored either worse or better
on other measures mentioned previously.
Table 1: Vulnerability of SCCG councils to sea level rise, storm surge and climate change.
Local government
Mean vulnerability
score
Degree of vulnerability
Botany Bay 9 High
Hornsby 1 Low
Leichhardt 8 High
Manly 7 High
Mosman 3 Low
North Sydney 2 Low
Pittwater 5 Moderate
Randwick 6 Moderate
Rockdale 9 High
Sutherland 4 Moderate
Sydney 8 High
Warringah 2 Low
Waverley 4 Moderate
Willoughby 1 Low
Woollahra 6 Moderate
4.2 Results
This section will present the results of the primary research undertaken with the
SCCG member councils with comparisons drawn to other relevant studies.
Questionnaire
The purpose of this broader survey of Sydney coastal councils was to gather
information on current and future approaches to coastal planning and management
taken by local councils. Local councils who were current members of the
organisation, Sydney Coastal Councils Group Inc were selected and evaluated as
Adapted from: Preston et al (2008). Figure 6: Net vulnerability map. Source: Preston et al (2008).
29
being suitable participants. A standardised, self-administered questionnaire
consisting of three sections - information; current planning and management; and
future responses - was developed. The questionnaire consisted primarily of closed
and open-ended questions. A copy of the questionnaire is found in Appendix 2.
A total of 13 councils were sent the questionnaire as two councils did not respond to
the initial request for the contact details of an appropriate officer. Of these 13, a total
of seven completed questionnaires were returned. A follow-up email request was
sent to councils who had not responded initially but no further responses were
received. The receipt of seven returned questionnaires represents a response rate of
54% which is slightly better than the study undertaken by Hebert and Taplin (2006).
This percentage was a satisfactory response rate for the purpose of this survey. Four
of the councils are located to the north of Sydney Harbour and three to the south of
Sydney Harbour. The positions of council officers that responded to the survey
included: sustainability officers; environment officer, stormwater engineer, coastal
project officers and team leaders.
The survey data was analysed using simple statistical analyses for the close-ended
questions and the qualitative data obtained through the open-ended questions was
coded into key themes for discussion purposes.
Information
A number of councils have now undertaken studies that address the implications of
climate change for their marine and/or estuarine areas. The most common form of
study undertaken were risk assessments followed by vulnerability assessments and
then hazard mitigation. Only one council reported that no such studies had been
undertaken so far. When compared to Hebert and Taplin (2006), who reported that
only two councils had undertaken such studies, this represents a substantial
improvement in the level of information now available to councils. These studies
however, are generally restricted to being undertaken for a specific location only,
such as a single beach, rather than for a specific catchment region. One council
surveyed indicated that studies had been undertaken at all levels, that is, for a
specific area, a catchment region and across the whole local government area.
30
Another council noted that they plan to undertake one of these three types of studies
across all their marine/estuarine areas in the next four to five years.
Three councils stated that they considered to have had ‘comprehensively’
implemented the NSW Coastline Hazard Policy 1988. Two councils listed a partial
implementation of this Policy and one said not at all. All three councils who said they
had implemented the Policy to a considerable level, have also prepared Coastline
Management Plan(s). One of three stated that it believed its wider Coastline Risk
Management Policy covered similar issues to that of a Coastline Management Plan.
Similarly, for the councils who have partially implemented the Policy, they have either
prepared or are in the process of preparing a Coastline Management Plan.
In terms of information needs of the council officer working in the coastal
management field, a series of questions focused on rating the sources they typically
consult in their professional role; identifying current gaps in knowledge and
information; improvements they foresee to currently available information and the
type of tools they utilise to assist in their professional role. Tribbia and Moser (2008)
conducted semi-structured interviews and a parallel survey of coastal managers in
California, United States to understand the information needs of the managers, key
challenges and the level of preparation for climate change. Tribbia and Moser (2008)
asked the California coastal managers to rate by frequency of use of the various
information sources consulted. This question was adapted for use in this survey of
Sydney coastal councils. The results are presented in Table 2 below.
Table 2 - Information sources typically consulted by professionals (by frequency of use)
Scientific / Prof.
Journals (%)
Colleagues - internal
(%)
C’wealth agencies
(%)
State agencies
(%)
Other local
councils (%)
Conferences /workshops
(%)
Private consultants
(%)
Internet(%)
Other(%)
Do not use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rarely 43 0 57 14 14 0 0 0 0 Occasionally 57 14 29 0 29 43 57 0 0 Frequently 0 43 14 72 14 57 43 57 0 All the time 0 43 0.0 14 43 0 0 43 100
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Note: The ‘Other’ column only had 1 response
31
Tribbia and Moser’s (2008) three main findings from their study in California relating
to the information sources consulted included: 70% respondents never or rarely
utilised scientific journals; 80% had at least consulted professional journals; and
there was a relatively high use of inter-personal channels such as internal colleagues
and state agencies. Comparing these results, although sample-wise Tribbia and
Moser’s study was significantly larger, some similarities can be drawn between the
studies. There was a similar pattern of use for consulting scientific and professional
journals, with 43% (3) indicating that they rarely consult these journals and the
remaining 57% (4) saying only occasionally.
The use of inter-personal channels including internal colleagues scored particularly
well with strong percentages in both the ‘frequently’ and ‘all the time’ categories.
Consulting with the State agencies was also highly represented with 86% either
consulting ‘frequently’ or ‘all the time’. There was a mixed representation for
consulting with other local councils, but at least 50% consulted regularly.
Consultation with Commonwealth agencies was far less than with State agencies,
with 57% (4) of respondents indicating only ‘rarely’. Attendance at conferences and
workshops proved to be useful for the respondents, indicating they either attend
occasionally or frequently.
Private consultants were also used relatively often by the council respondents. 43%
(3) indicated they frequently use the expertise and time of private consultants to
provide advice and reports to councils. The Internet is now becoming a widely used
information tool for coastal managers due to its ease of access, with the respondents’
choices falling in either of the two highest categories. Tribbia and Moser (2008)
acknowledge this trend but caution that there could arise issues of quality assurance
with some of the material available on the Internet.
The respondents were then asked to nominate what they believe are the current
gaps in knowledge and information for them as professionals working in coastal
management and planning. Three main themes emerged from the analysis of this
question:
32
► Need for further modelling of local impacts and a broader study and mapping
of the NSW coastline in relation to climate change impacts;
► Lack of Commonwealth/State Government leadership and guidance to local
governments for responding to and planning for climate change; and
► Other planning practice issues such as application to development
assessment, Standard LEP zones and community interaction.
The next question following on from the identification of the current gaps in
knowledge and information required the respondents to suggest improvements that
could be made to the currently available information. Falling under two main areas
were the following key suggestions:
► Guidance and direction -
Definite figures to use for planning purposes over different timeframes
Another zone for the Standard LEP or amendment to existing zones
Similar guidelines to those provided in Queensland
More site specific studies for coastal hazards and processes.
► Access and support -
Seminars for councils
Information in format for ease of integration into council processes
Scientific information more easily accessible
Working groups and support networks for council officers
Increased utilisation of the Internet.
Lastly, the respondents were asked to select the type of tool(s) they utilise which
assist in their professional role. The results are shown in Figure 7. Traditional tools
such as the map still remains the most popular tool used to assist professionals in
their planning and management work. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is now
a commonly used tool to assist decision-making as it can provide multiple layers of
information and analysis and upgrade from existing paper-based maps. Analytic
models, forecast models and databases are starting to be further incorporated into
planning and management through application to modelling and assessment for local
levels. These findings are consistent with Tribbia and Moser (2008) who found that
33
the most commonly used tool was the standard map followed by GIS. Tribbia and
Moser (2008, 321) comment that sophisticated analytic models are quite costly to
establish but if they are to be utilised should be in a format which is in a “highly
processed form, and/or in formats”.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Maps
GIS
Analytic Models
Forecast Models
Databases
Other:
Types of Tools Used by Professionals
Figure 7 – The type of tools used by coastal professionals. Source: Jones (2008).
Current Planning and Management
This section covered a range of issues including establishing the likely affected areas
by sea level rise; identifying current responses to coastal management and planning
approaches; exploring the level of community interest; and gauging council’s
preparedness for sea level rise. Based on existing information, councils were asked
to indicate how likely they think SLR will impact on their area. Overwhelmingly, the
majority of councils stated that they believe SLR is ‘very likely’ to affect their LGA.
One council further added that it is ‘certain’ SLR will have an effect. SLR thus will
likely affect a range of different areas as illustrated in Figure 8. Beaches, estuaries
and creeks and rivers will be most likely affected areas, followed by floodplains, tidal
areas and bays as suggested by the councils surveyed. The diversity in natural
features that characterises Sydney thus presents a range of issues for differing
natural systems which have varying capacities to cope with climate change.
34
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Floodplains
Coastal lagoons
Beaches
Bays
Tidal areas
Creeks and rivers
Wetlands
Estuaries
Not applicable
Other:
The type of likely affected areas
Figure 8 – The type of likely affected areas by SLR. Source: Jones (2008).
One of the key points that arose from the literature review discussed in Chapter 2
was that scientific uncertainties in sea level rise projections do present difficulties for
planning for climate change. The majority of councils shared that same view as the
scientific uncertainties appear to hinder planning and management activities at their
councils. The typical responses by councils to managing properties and infrastructure
that is located in areas that are likely to be affected by SLR is either adaptation or
protection or a mix of both measures. It was agreed by a number of councils that
planned retreat is not a viable option as the cost of such option is too large. A mix of
both adaptation and protection measures were suggested as the most suitable
approach. Such measures that could be implemented include establishing hazard
lines, construction of sea walls, raising development in flood prone land and beach
nourishment. Following that, councils were asked if they think that they will continue
with the same approach in the next five years. 57% (4) of councils said they would
continue with the same approach to coastal planning and management in the next
five years; 14% (1) said ‘no’ and 29% (2) indicated they were unsure. One council
noted that with continued improvements and increasing availability in data this will
guide their future approaches.
Sea level rise will present many challenges to coastal planning and management.
Councils were asked to nominate what they believe the five key challenges are for
35
addressing the impacts of SLR. A summary of the key themes elicited from the
responses include:
► Receiving consistent direction and leadership from the Commonwealth
and State Governments and their agencies;
► Costs to local governments;
► Ability to manage impacts both on council and private properties;
► Liability and compensation issues;
► Minimising risks to public safety and the environment;
► Planning timeframes of when impacts are likely to occur;
► Consistency across local governments;
► Acceptance and consultation for the community;
► Obtaining funding and support;
► Protecting beachfront properties;
► Changes to the Building Code of Australia; and
► Implementation of robust and practical planning actions and controls.
The planning functions of a council are usually contained in the two traditional
‘planning’ areas: development assessment and strategic planning. There were some
disparities in the extent of how councils incorporate sea level rise into daily planning
functions. Two councils indicated that they do now consider SLR when assessing
Development Applications (DAs) in areas that are likely to be impacted. Four councils
indicated that they do not, with one, however, commenting that it does not include all
DAs as yet. In terms of strategic planning, again two councils have incorporated sea
level rise into strategic planning functions such as local environmental plans, three
have not and one added that this process is currently underway.
The level of community interest in sea level rise issues was also examined from the
perspective of the councils. Figure 9 shows the breakdown of the results. One
council noted the level of community interest as ‘significant’, three as ‘moderate’ and
two as ‘little’. The reasons given for the higher ratings provided include: media
promotion; well informed and educated community; local community groups and
examples of property damage. On the other hand, less positive ratings attracted
36
reasons such as little information and understanding of the issues and public doubt
on the accuracy of predictions.
0 1 2 3 4
None
Little
Some
Moderate
Significant
Unsure
The level of community interest in SLR issues
Figure 9 – The level of community interest in SLR as rated by the Sydney coastal councils. Source: Jones (2008).
The last series of questions in this section concerned the level of preparedness of the
councils when addressing the impacts of SLR within the local government area. 86%
of councils rated their Council’s preparedness as ‘average’ and the remaining 14%
as ‘good’. The answer ‘average’ is a fair and neutral representation of the question.
Some of the reasons provided with this rating include the following:
► Significant work has been done by some for the assessment of risk and plans
that have been prepared for most of the LGA;
► Others have done preliminary work but need to examine in greater detail
potential impacts;
► Collaboration with other councils and SCCG will advance the adaptation
planning process;
► Issues surrounding costs and ability to obtain assistance;
► Many councils are now advancing in their planning process;
► Consultants have little experience and vary in methodologies employed;
► Lack of direction and guidance from the NSW Government; and
37
► Different SLR projections for different time periods to dictate Council’s
preparedness.
Future Responses
In this last section, five questions were presented regarding possible future actions
both from the State Government and the councils themselves. The first question
asked if policies of adaptation were the most appropriate way forward for the council
in addressing the impacts of SLR. All councils agreed that was the case. The second
question asked if the NSW Government should issue a set of standard planning
guidelines to councils. Again, there was a very positive response to this question,
with six out of the seven saying ‘yes’. Next, councils were asked if there should be
comprehensive reforms to the existing coastal zone management legislation in NSW.
There was a mixed response to the question, four said ‘yes’ and three said ‘unsure’.
This question could have been more specific to elicit a clearer response, for example
on a particular type of coastal legislation and policy. The fourth question inquired if
councils would consider adopting a regional based approach (that is with other
Councils) to address the impacts of SLR. As for the first question, all agreed that they
would consider working with other councils.
The last question was an open-ended question which asked councils to list the five
key priorities that they would like to adopt over the next five to ten years with regard
to SLR management and planning. From the responses received, a pathway of the
steps required to be able to adapt sea level rise clearly emerged. This pathway is
shown in Figure 10. The four steps shown in Figure 10 demonstrates how the
priorities identified by the councils generally follows a hierarchy structure. The first
step involves undertaking mapping and assessment of the areas likely to be
vulnerable to sea level rise. This step then allows the planner to identify the possible
range of impacts that may affect both public and private land. The next step relates to
the preparation of a climate change adaptation plan for the local government area or
on a regional level. After the plan is adopted, the last stage is the crucial
implementation of the plan. One of the key concerns regarding the implementation of
any plan is finding the funds and resources to be able to effectively implement
strategies and works identified in the plan. This was one of the key priorities
identified, summarised strikingly by one respondent, “work out how Council is going
38
to pay for it all!” Also linked to implementation is the need to raise the levels of public
awareness associated with the plan. Although this would be carried out in step 3
through community consultation it would be important to see that this is continued to
ensure that the plan has the support required. Lastly, the plan which would become a
key component of the planning framework at a council would lead to existing plans
and development controls being revised to reflect the new understanding obtained
through the creation of the plan. This would include: adding or changing local
development controls; revising coastline management plans and placing notifications
on planning certificates.
Figure 10 – Hierarchy of priorities identified by councils for future SLR management and planning.
Source: Jones (2008).
39
4.3 Discussion
The results presented showed that the Sydney coastal local governments that were
surveyed have made good progress in recent years with regard to gaining a better
understanding of the potential impacts of SLR and starting to adjust their planning
and management approaches. This is in comparison to the conclusion Hebert and
Taplin’s study came to that “the effects of coastal climate change impacts on
development within the Sydney GMR is not a high priority of local governments”
(2006, 39). Hebert and Taplin (2008, 39) also commented that councils at that point
in time were more focussed on looking at climate change “from an energy use
perspective”. It can be argued now that SLR issues in particular are starting to gain a
higher prominence within councils to match similar concerns for reducing greenhouse
gases as part of the Climate Change Protection (CCP) program. Many councils have
now undertaken a range of studies and assessments such as vulnerability and risk
based assessments with the aim to increase their information of the potential areas
to be impacted by SLR. The role of the Sydney Coastal Councils Group Inc in
providing assistance to the local councils is also invaluable in the push for greater
leadership and direction from the State Government.
One of the key themes that emerged through the responses of the councils is the
need for the State Government (and Commonwealth Government) and its agencies
to provide consistent leadership and guidance to local councils on how to respond to
the challenges posed by climate change including SLR. In particular, councils
stressed the need for planning guidelines for climate change adaptation, such as
which predictions to use over what timeframes. This was cited as both an information
need and a management challenge. This is also set in the context of considerable
uncertainties that do exist and will always exist with scientific modelling and
assessment, but high levels of confidence in declaring that SLR is very likely to affect
their local government area. One respondent summarised the SLR concerns with the
following thoughts:
“Our Council’s preparedness will depend on the level of SLR and the role of SLR, eg:
o 0.2m in 2058 might be manageable o 0.5m in 2058 would be a significant challenge o 1.0m in 2058........?”
40
Tribbia and Moser (2008) conclude that coastal managers have a number of
preferred types of information that they utilise in their day-to-day roles but appear to
under-use some information sources such as scientific journals and some
institutions. These findings were consistent on some levels with this study which
showed that professional and scientific journals were not highly used and
consultation with Commonwealth Government (which would include the eminent
scientific research organisation, CSIRO) agencies were not that prevalent. Tribbia
and Moser (2008) describe the concept of ‘boundary organisations’ which are
intermediary organisations which can help alleviate the gaps that occur in the
science-practice disconnect and create a medium through which scientific
information can be expressed to coastal managers and planners for active use in
decision-making processes. In Australia, such organisations do not appear to exist.
The level of community interest in SLR issues is on the increase. A significant factor
in raising the public interest in climate change is through the media, both in the
popular media and other local publications. The highlighting of coastal issues brings
into view the ‘real’ potential effects of climate change. Media promotion has a strong
influence over the ‘politics’ of climate change and thus assists in driving certain
political agendas at all levels of government. Some councils surveyed indicated that
their residents were intelligent, articulate and well-informed. These factors therefore,
contribute to an increased awareness of the issues. On the other hand, lack of
information or scepticism can contribute to public doubt over the actual threat the
accelerated SLR problem presents. But whether a heightened sense of interest and
awareness of the issues would translate into positive community action, such as
through an agreement to fund climate change levies, is another question.
In terms of future responses of councils, there was a consistency in the views of the
councils regarding moving towards adaptation based plans and strategies;
considering regional partnerships with other councils and the need for the State
Government to provide councils with guidelines for SLR. Regional partnerships or
collaborations would definitely be a logical move from councils so that they can pool
resources, information and expertise to address issues in a regional context. The
next five to ten years will be an important period for the ‘climate change problem’ as
there will be strong expectations for the level of understanding, assessment and
41
modelling of potential impacts to improve and actions being taken by all levels of
governments - particularly local governments - which will be faced with the prime
responsibility to respond to the issues in an appropriate manner. For this reason,
councils identified a clear hierarchy of actions that need to be taken to ensure that
they can be in the best possible position to deal with challenges presented by sea
level rises to their extensive and diverse marine and estuarine areas. At the same
time the NSW planning system will need to be flexible enough to be able incorporate
new information which can lead to a revision of planning controls, but be regulated in
a manner that is sensible for both land managers and landowners.
4.4 Conclusion
This chapter has shown the level of preparedness of the coastal councils of Sydney
for addressing the impacts of SLR. Most councils have in the last three years
significantly approved their position on climate change planning through increase in
the level of study undertaken and an acceptance of the threat SLR poses to their
LGA. However, the need for State Government leadership and direction on planning
and management approaches was the strongest theme that came through from the
survey of the councils. It will be crucial that this step can be taken within the next five
to ten years to match the improving levels of understanding of likely climate change
impacts that is being received from scientists. Also in that time, the level of
community interest will build and will assist with the implementation of plans and
policies especially at the local government level.
5. THE NORTHERN 5. THE NORTHERN 5. THE NORTHERN BEACHES BEACHES BEACHES --- A CASE STUDYA CASE STUDYA CASE STUDY
42
5. THE NORTHERN BEACHES – A CASE STUDY
5.1 Introduction
“The impacts are local, the problem is local and so the solutions need to be local too” (Dr Peter MacDonald, former Mayor of Manly, 2008)
The Northern Beaches of Sydney are renowned for its abundance of natural assets
with numerous beaches, lagoons, wetlands, estuaries, creeks and bays. Residents of
Sydney, domestic and international tourists place a high ‘value’ on these assets. The
threat of sea level rise will pose many challenges to these natural assets which have
significant social, economic and environmental values attached to them. The
Pittwater Sea Level Rise Seminar commissioned by Pittwater Council and with the
support of neighbouring councils highlighted the current concerns of NSW coastal
councils, and the willingness to co-operate with each other to develop adaptation
strategies. The peninsula councils had also been rated by the CSIRO as being in a
good position to cope with climate change “because of their relative wealth,
adaptability, preparedness and their expenditure on infrastructure” (Morcombe,
2008a, 12). This chapter will therefore examine the planning and management
approaches of the three local governments that incorporate the sub-region of the
Northern Beaches peninsula: Pittwater, Warringah and Manly. Historical and current
approaches are explored, coupled with various secondary sources to form part of this
case study. The management of Collaroy/Narrabeen Beach as a sub-case study is
also explored as it is one of the most recognised ‘at risk’ stretches of coastline in
Australia.
Study area
The three local governments of the Northern Beaches are shown in the map in
Figure 11. The Northern Beaches region falls under the ‘North East Subregion’ for
planning purposes of the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy, recently for which a draft
Sub-Regional Strategy was prepared. Table 3 presents a basic snapshot of the
characteristics of the three local governments to set the context for the discussion of
individual council areas in the following sections. Warringah is the largest local
government in terms of land size and resident population whilst Manly is the smallest
for those same characteristics. However, Manly has longest coastline mainly due to
43
the large extent of the North Head peninsula. Figure 12 which adjoins Figure 11
shows the coastal vulnerability of the Northern Beaches (minus land between Whale
Beach to Barrenjoey Headland) as measured in the project undertaken by the SCCG
in collaboration with the CSIRO and the University of the Sunshine Coast. Potentially,
most severely affected include the lands surrounding Manly Lagoon, Dee Why
Lagoon, Narrabeen Lake and Pittwater estuary as illustrated with the orange-red
colours.
Figure 11: Sydney’s Northern Beaches. Source: Messent (2000).
Figure 12: Coastal vulnerability of Sydney’s Northern Beaches.
Source: Preston et al (2008).
44
Table 3: Snapshot of Northern Beaches LGAs
Pittwater Warringah Manly Size (sq km) 90 149 14
Population 57,944 141,133 39,234 Wards 3 3 0
Length of coastline (approx)
18 14 30
Adapted from: Department of Local Government (2008).
5.2 Pittwater Council
Pittwater Council was established in 1992 when the council seceded from Warringah
Shire Council. The Pittwater local government area stretches from North Narrabeen
in the south to Barrenjoey Headland to the north. Within the LGA there are eight
coastal embayments with ten surf beaches (Pittwater Council, 2008a). As it was
formerly part of the Warringah Shire Council, all of Pittwater’s coastal management
and planning originally fell under Warringah’s control. Since 1992, Pittwater Council
has particularly taken a lead in commencing the process to actively incorporate
climate change into its planning frameworks.
The Pittwater Local Environmental Plan 1993 sets the direction for the development
and use of land in the Pittwater LGA. The Pittwater LEP however does not contain
any reference to climate change or sea level rise. Pittwater Council consolidated
most of its development control plans into one comprehensive document with four
major parts, titled Pittwater 21 DCP (Amendment 3). This DCP incorporates locality
statements, general controls by theme including heritage, water management and
natural hazards, more specific controls for localities and special controls for the
Warriewood Valley Land Release. Part B.3.3 Coastline (Beach) Hazard states that
development must comply with the Coastline Risk Management Policy for
Development in Pittwater – to be discussed in more detail. In particular,
“development must not adversely affect or be adversely affected by coastal
processes nor must it increase the level of risk for any people, assets and
infrastructure in the vicinity due to coastal processes.” (Pittwater Council, 2008b, 27).
A number of controls (B3.7, B3.8, B3.9 and B3.10) are provided for estuarine
hazards and an Estuarine Planning Level is applied to various scales of
45
development. Following that, there are similar strict controls and flood mitigation
measures established for the differing flood levels.
The Coastline Risk Management Policy for Development in Pittwater was created
using a risk management based approach, which aimed to be consistent with the
NSW Coastline Management Manual 1990 (Pittwater Council, 2008b). It has now
been formally integrated into the Pittwater 21 DCP as an appendix. The definition of
coastal processes is the same as specified in the Manual which includes ‘climate
change’. Development controls are outlined for Coastline Beach Hazards areas. A
Coastline Management Line (CML) and Coastline Planning Level (CPL) have been
created to ensure that only appropriate development can be constructed in coastal
hazard areas. The CPLs are however, determined on a case-by-case basis by
Council’s engineers (Ribbons, 2007). A schematic diagram that Pittwater Council has
adopted from another Council’s Coastline Management Plan is provided within the
Policy which shows how CMLs are determined (Figure 13). Pittwater Council has not
developed any Coastline Management Plans for any specific areas within its LGA but
it can be considered that this Policy meets the objectives of the Coastline
Management Manual. In time, this Policy should be updated to incorporate revised
sea level rise scenarios.
Figure 13: Schematic diagram of the determination of Coastline Management Lines. Source: Pittwater Council (2008b).
46
Updating flood and estuary management policies and strategies is an area for which
Pittwater Council is committing resources for adaptation to sea level rise. Sue
Ribbons, Project Leader Floodplain Management from Pittwater Council gave a
detailed presentation at the Sea Level Rise Seminar on 29 May 2008 on the
approach the Council is taking on adapting to sea level rise for floodplain, coastal
and tidal areas. Ribbons (2008) suggested that the State framework for adaptation
strategies in terms of floodplain management is already developed compared to
other natural features affected by climate change. Pittwater Council had undertaken
extensive flood studies for the LGA but has now come to the realisation that flood
planning levels for areas such as Narrabeen Lagoon had not taken into account
climate change and sea level rise (Ribbons, 2007). It was further noted that Coastline
Planning Levels had not included a proper assessment of climate change including
sea level rise (Ribbons, 2007).
The main vulnerable areas to sea level rise are not surprisingly areas which are
already subject to flood events. Ribbons (2008) identifies the following areas as the
most vulnerable to sea level rise (when also combined with large rainfall events):
Narrabeen Lagoon (Figure 14); North Narrabeen (Nareen Creek); Warriewood
(Mullet and Narrabeen Creeks); Mona Vale/Bayview; Newport; Pittwater Foreshore
(Figure 15); Avalon (Careel Creek); and Great Mackeral Beach. Further it was
highlighted in the Peninsula Living article of August 2008, titled ‘Floodplains:
Pittwater’s expensive problem’, that one in four properties could be affected with
price estimates ranging from $10,000 to $50,000 per property over 100 years, to
potentially around $400,000 to protect each individual property in low lying areas. For
example, Narrabeen Lagoon which is jointly managed with Warringah Council, had
the last major flood modelling undertaken in the 1980s, with a later minor flood study
in 1990 providing some scope for rising ocean levels, but now action is being taken
by Warringah Council to update the flood study to include new understanding of
climate change (Ribbons, 2007). Snappermans Beach located on the Pittwater
foreshore is one location which is showing indications that it is being affected by
rising sea levels (Figure 16). Phil Watson, Team Leader of the Coastal Unit at the
NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change demonstrated in his
presentation at the Sea Level Rise Seminar, 29 May 2008, that the mean high tide
water mark boundaries at Snappermans Beach has begun to migrate inland since
47
2001. This landward migration of these boundaries was illustrated as being one
example of the impacts of SLR.
Figure 14: Narrabeen Lagoon, looking west from Narrabeen foreshore. Source: Jones (2008).
Figure 16: Snappermans Beach, Palm Beach with mean high tide water mark evident. Source: Jones (2008).
Figure 15: Sand Point on the Pittwater foreshore. Note the lack of sand and the narrow width of the small beach even at low tide.
48
The overall aim of Pittwater Council is to update all flood and management studies
over the next four to five years to include the consideration of climate change
(including sea level rise) and devise a range of flexible adaptation strategies covering
different timeframes (Ribbons, 2008). Pittwater Council is taking a strong stance on
sea level rise issues with significant community and councillor support and is keen to
work on a sub-regional level with the neighbouring Northern Beaches local
governments. Indeed, going on the strong attendance at the Sea Level Rise seminar
hosted by Pittwater Council especially from coastal professionals all over NSW, the
model Pittwater is moving towards has attracted a lot of interest.
5.3 Warringah Council
The original Warringah Shire Council was formed in 1906 and at that time that part of
the Northern Beaches had a fairly scattered rural population (Warringah Council,
2008a). Coastal management and planning issues have been particularly highlighted
in the Warringah Shire with an extensive history of coastal erosion and development
concerns principally at Collaroy/Narrabeen Beach, which will be examined in more
detail later on. As mentioned in the previous section, Warringah Council was formerly
responsible for the current area now governed by Pittwater Council.
The Warringah Local Environmental Plan 2000 is a current (but soon to be replaced)
example of an LEP which uses localities rather than the traditional land use-based
zoning system to guide development of land in the LGA (Warringah Council, 2008b).
There are 73 localities with each containing a desired future character statement
(Warringah Council, 2008b). A small development control plan does accompany the
Warringah LEP but it relates more to procedural matters. With respect to climate
change and sea level rise issues, there is one reference to sea level rise within the
LEP. In Schedule 13 – Development Guidelines for Collaroy/Narrabeen Beach, there
is a note which is included in all consents and approvals, stating in part that:
“This property is on land located in an area where there is likely to be a risk of coastal erosion and wave impact during severe storms. The risk to the property may increase with time due to long-term beach recession caused by greenhouse induced sea level rise or natural coastal processes.” (Warringah Council, 2000, 102)
49
In terms of flood management carried out in Warringah, the majority of the controls
are contained within the Warringah Local Environmental Plan. As discussed for
Pittwater Council, practical guidelines have been developed by the NSW
Government with regard to climate change adaptive strategies for floodplain
management. The major project that Warringah Council is currently working on is the
Narrabeen Lagoon Flood Study. Narrabeen Lagoon has a catchment size of 55
square kilometres and is the largest of the coastal lagoons in Warringah (Warringah
Council, 2008c). As discussed in the previous section, Warringah will be working with
Pittwater Council to update the current flood studies. One of the key aims will be to
address the likely impacts of climate change with the assistance of computer
modelling that will inform the Councils of potentially affected land within the
catchment area (Warringah Council, 2008c).
Collaroy/Narrabeen Beach is an internationally renowned surf beach but also lays
claim as being a major ‘hot spot’ in coastal erosion terms (ranked third in Australia)
mainly due to previous inappropriate developments in the coastal zone (Cameron,
2008). It is also a beach which has been subject to a large number of academic
(including a recent four year monitoring project) and technical studies to guide its
current and future planning and management. The beach is approximately 3.6
kilometres in length making it the longest beach to Sydney’s North. Major storm
damage occurred in 1920 (Figure 17), 1945, 1967 and 1974 with the latter two years
being exacerbated by further intensification of residential development along the
beachfront (Cameron, 2008). Since that time there have been less severe events but
some of which have resulted in substantial erosion such as the back-to-back weather
events in June 2007 – see Figure 18 and Figure 19. The main issue is that
development has been constructed in the active coastal zone along some parts of
Narrabeen Beach, that is, in a position which was formerly dunes which act as
natural barriers from storms, resulting in a disruption to the beach’s sand budget and
cycles.
50
Figure 17 – The Collaroy beachfront following a major storm in 1920. Source: Faviell Collection, obtained from Cameron (2008).
Figure 18: Looking north along Narrabeen Beach on 18 June 2007 with boulders exposed and the beach almost non-existent in this part. Note the erosion scarp is at least five metres high. Source: Jones (2007).
Figure 19: Looking south along Narrabeen Beach on 18 June 2007 in front of Flight Deck apartments with boulders exposed again and properties close to the erosion scarp. Source: Jones (2007).
51
The first building hazard lines and setbacks for Collaroy/Narrabeen Beach were
created following the major storms in 1967 in which the foundations of the Flight
Deck apartment were undermined (Cameron, 2008). Between 1985 and 1993, eight
technical studies and reports were undertaken specifically for Collaroy/Narrabeen
Beach. The key report, titled Collaroy-Narrabeen Beach – Hazard Mapping prepared
in 1990, outlined hazard lines with maps for immediate impact and 50 year prediction
lines which are still used today by Council planners in their daily practice (Cameron,
2008). The main management document is, however the Collaroy/Narrabeen
Coastline Management Plan 1997 which was prepared in accordance with the NSW
Coastline Management Manual 1990. In terms of climate change issues, this Plan
recognises that climate change is a coastal process, one which will cause coastline
hazards. In relation to coastal design parameters, it is stated in the Coastline
Management Plan that a sea level rise of 0.22m by 2050 from the 1996 IPCC Report
is adopted, which is then extrapolated across the five precincts along the beachfront
(Warringah Council, 1997). The five precincts and a summary of the management
options proposed in the Plan are shown in Figure 20.
52
Figure 20: Summary of management options for Collaroy/Narrabeen Beach. Source: Warringah Council (1997).
53
The need for robust planning and management approaches is critical for the ongoing
maintenance of the beach and the protection of property. Hennecke et al (2004)
estimated that for a 50 year event based on a 1998 market value, the loss in
monetary property value along Collaroy/Narrabeen Beach would be in the order of
$92 million and if combined with a major storm event it would increase to around
$245 million. A proposal that was identified in the Coastline Management Plan was to
upgrade the sea wall, however this protection option was not favoured by the
community. Significant public demonstration and objections in 2002 thus resulted in
Council choosing not to proceed with that option (Cameron, 2008). Another option
which has been pursued and a commitment made by Warringah Council are
purchasing properties, but this is widely known as being an extremely expensive
exercise for any coastal council. Three properties that were identified to be in the
‘Wave Impact Zone’ have been acquired by Council using Section 94 Developer
Contributions (Warringah Council, 2008d). The latest of such acquisitions took place
in 2005, when a single storey house at 1146 Pittwater Road was demolished and
turned into a parking area and open space.
The way forward for coastal planning and management for Collaroy/Narrabeen
Beach is to update the Coastline Management Plan and its management strategies
to reflect the new understandings of sea level rise. Cameron (2008) states that
Council has commissioned a detailed revision of the hazard lines that date back to
1990 as they do presently not take into account likely accelerated sea level rise. The
monitoring project that was undertaken by the Water Research Laboratory, University
of New South Wales which utilises a five camera set positioned at the top of the
Flight Deck apartment complex between 2004 and 2008 is an invaluable coastal
monitoring tool and once all the data collected is fully analysed, the results will be of
great benefit to track changes in the beach character to inform future management
options. Beach re-nourishment has also been undertaken in recent years but an
investigation into using off-shore sand deposits has been instigated by the SCCG
(Morcombe, 2008b). In all, Warringah Council has a sound management framework
in place which will be refined further as the level of information improves about sea
level rise impacts.
54
5.4 Manly Council
The Manly LGA at the southern end of the Northern Beaches is the smallest of the
three LGAs in terms of land size but has an extensive coastline, being mainly the
steep cliffs of the North Head peninsula. It contains the iconic Manly Beach, a
popular destination for locals and tourists. Therefore, with the high economic and
social values intrinsic to Manly Beach, the Council has an important role in managing
this beach plus other highly valued marine and estuarine assets. Manly Council has
prepared a number of Coastline Management Plans and elected to run a climate
change poll at the NSW Local Government Election held on 13 September 2008, the
results of which will be discussed.
The Manly Local Environmental Plan 1988, in force now for 20 years sets out the
development controls for the Manly LGA. The Manly LEP does not contain any
provisions relating to climate change and sea level rise. In terms of development
control plans, these are broken into categories such as business, residential,
advertising signs but none that specifically relate to coastal management and
planning. However, any apparent lack of coverage in the main planning instruments
seems to be adequately covered in a number of coastline/estuarine management
plans prepared for marine and estuarine areas in the LGA. As well as coastal
planning, Manly Council has a number of flood studies and plans which cover
development in flood prone areas. The following plans have been prepared or are
currently being prepared for the these locations: Manly Ocean Beach; Little Manly
and Forty Basket; Cabbage Tree Bay; North Harbour and Manly Cove. Additionally,
an Estuary Management Plan (EMP) has been prepared for Clontarf/Bantry Bay. The
Manly Ocean Beach Management Plan contains a statement in section 3.2.4 and in
the Action Plan about climate change which suggests that ocean inundation is
unlikely to be a major concern but should be monitored and further investigated
(Manly Council, 2008b). Manly Ocean Beach could potentially face the same issues
as Collaroy/Narrabeen Beach as it has also witnessed severe erosion events in its
history as well (Figure 21 and Figure 22). One of the management options in the
Clontarf/Bantry Bay EMP adopted in 2008 is designed to address climate change.
Objective HR2 contains four points: assess and adapt to impacts; work with SCCG
on a regional/local model; collaborate with SCCG on adaptation projects in Manly;
55
and revise Council policies and strategies (Manly Council, 2008c). The Plans that are
in place are quite comprehensive but the coastline management plans could benefit
from the inclusion of additional information and discussion of the potential impacts of
sea level rise.
Figure 22: Looking south along Manly Ocean Beach. Source: Jones (2008).
Figure 21: Major storm damage along Manly Ocean Beach in 1950 which resulted in the sea wall being separated. Source: Manly Council (2008d).
56
Manly Council is however taking the climate change issue seriously. As part of the
Local Government Election on 13 September 2008, a Poll of Electors was presented
with the question being asked of the voters, “Do you support a 4.4% Climate Change
Levy to minimise the impact of climate change in Manly?” (Manly Council, 2008a)
The results of this Poll broken down by polling place are shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Climate Change Levy poll results
Polling Place Question 1 Total FormalVotes
Informal Votes
Total Votes PolledYes No
Balgowlah 359 608 967 34 1,001 Balgowlah Heights 715 1,531 2,246 45 2,291 Fairlight 468 708 1,176 39 1,215 Manly 1,348 1,673 3,021 71 3,092 Manly West 994 1,362 2,356 100 2,456 Manly Central 337 438 775 25 800 Manly Hospital 109 213 322 5 327 Queenscliff 509 691 1,200 33 1,233 Seaforth 959 1,620 2,579 111 2,690 Seaforth East 654 1,220 1,874 56 1,930 Total (all votes) 7,249 11,595 18,844 553 19,397 % of Total Formal Votes
38.47% 61.53% *2.85%
Source: NSW Electoral Commission (2008).
Overall, 61.53% of the residents voted ‘no’ to the proposed climate change levy.
There was not one polling place where there were a majority of voters in favour of the
levy. However, in some polling places there was either closer to a 50-50 split or more
than twice the voters voting ‘no’ than ‘yes’. It could be argued that those voters who
perceive their residence to be threatened, for instance those situated in a low lying
area such as at Queenscliff, may be more likely to be impacted by climate change
than those in places at a higher elevation such as Seaforth. Some of the reasons
why the community voted against the proposed levy were outlined in a Manly Council
(2008a) pre-poll information sheet, including: the council should maintain focus on
community services; existing rates already contain significant sums; environmental
and infrastructure levies are already in place; the public have different choices and
behaviour patterns; a number of households are struggling with basic costs and
business partnerships should be considered as alternatives.
57
5.5 Conclusion
This chapter has examined the coastal and planning management approaches of the
three local governments that constitute the sub-region of the Sydney’s Northern
Beaches. These three local governments share a common goal of starting to
expedite adaptation planning to the likely affects of sea level rise to their marine and
estuarine areas, as evidenced by the staging of the Pittwater Sea Level Rise
Seminar in May 2008. Each local government will face different challenges as sea
level rise will vary from location to location but collaboration with neighbouring
councils is one means of sharing resources and creating a consistent planning
framework. Pittwater Council is in the process of updating all its flood management
plans to incorporate newer estimates of sea level rise. Warringah Council’s coastal
management in the last 20 years has particularly focussed on Collaroy/Narrabeen
Beach which is ranked as being one of the most severely affected beachfronts by
coastal processes. The updating of the coastal hazard lines to also include revised
sea level estimates will be the main priority as these lines are used in daily practice
by the Council’s planners. Manly Council has taken the option to prepare a number of
coastline management plans and similar estuary management plans. These plans do
address climate change and have the scope to further include new information, for
instance, based on the projects done in collaboration with the SCCG. Through the
actions of its local councils, Sydney’s Northern Beaches can be seen as constituting
a region which is making good progress in dealing with sea level change. However,
there is still a lot further work that will need to be undertaken over the next 10 to 20
years and beyond.
6. CONCLUSION6. CONCLUSION6. CONCLUSION
58
6. CONCLUSION
6.1 Thesis Summary
This thesis examined the central question, the preparedness of local governments to
address the challenges that potential sea level rises will bring to their marine and
estuarine areas. In exploring this question, four key objectives were identified as
underpinning the thesis: evaluation of the existing scope of coastal legislation, policy
and strategy across three levels of government; survey of the Sydney coastal
councils; detailed investigation of a sub-regional level case study; and determination
of recommendations based on the research findings (to be discussed in Section 6.2).
In terms of existing domestic and international scholarly literature, two clear key
themes emerged from the literature: scientific assessment and modelling; and
planning and management approaches. With these two themes being intrinsically
linked, it was useful to construct a ‘bridge’ between the two themes so that this
conceptual relationship could be applied to the practical setting that principally face
local government decision makers including planners in relation to the implications of
sea level rise to coastal communities. It was recognised that improvements in the
linkages between the science of sea level rise and the preparation of adaptation
strategies are needed in the future. Further enhancements in the quality of scientific
knowledge will play a significant part in reducing the uncertainty in planning for sea
level rise. In the context of Sydney, there has been limited scholarly literature
responding specifically to coastal planning and sea level rise except for the study by
Hebert and Taplin (2006) which was used as a key comparison point for this thesis.
The progress that is starting to be achieved at the national level is required to be
translated into either a national or state approach that local governments can adopt
to effectively cope with the impacts of sea level rise on the most vulnerable
coastlines in Australia.
The various coastal legislation, policies and strategies that exist across the three
levels of government in Australia – Commonwealth, NSW State and local - was
critically reviewed to provide the context for current planning and management
approaches. At the Commonwealth level, an ICZM framework has been prepared
59
which has prompted the establishment of a number of programs aimed to assist
decision makers in their planning and management activities. In NSW, there is both
principal coastal legislation and policy which provides the framework for coastal
planning and management. In conjunction with the EP&A Act, a raft of planning
instruments do provide the guidelines for the protection and use of the coastal zone,
mainly for implementation by local governments in both development assessment
and strategic planning. The landmark court case in November 2007 where it was
found that climate change had not been properly considered in the approval of the
concept plan at Sandon Point, NSW may have significant implications for planning
practice. The decision has now since been overturned by the NSW Court of Appeal –
the implications of which are yet to be determined – will require analysis at a later
date to ascertain its significance.
A broader survey of the Sydney Coastal Councils Group Inc member councils was
undertaken for the purpose of gathering information on current and future
approaches to coastal planning and management taken by local councils. A
standardised questionnaire with three sections focusing on information; current
planning and management approaches; and future responses, was sent by email to
an appropriate council officer, with seven completed questionnaires being returned.
The key findings from this survey include:
► Most councils have advanced their level of understanding of climate change
including sea level rise impacts in recent years through increased studies at
specific locations, catchment region or whole of local government level;
► Council officers use a variety of information sources in their professional roles
with the most consulted sources being internal colleagues, state government
agencies and the Internet;
► Three main gaps in current knowledge information were identified: modelling;
lack of State Government leadership; and planning practice issues;
► Two main suggested improvements to information and knowledge involves
guidance and direction and increased access and support to councils;
► The majority of councils consider that their LGA is very likely to be affected by
sea level rise;
60
► Scientific uncertainty was strongly considered to be a hindrance to planning
activities;
► A number of challenges were identified by councils in addressing the impacts
of SLR including receiving consistent direction and leadership from the State
Government; managing the impacts and its costs; and the planning process
and its implementation;
► The level of community interest in SLR was a mixed response with some
communities having a substantial interest in SLR issues;
► Most councils consider themselves to be in a satisfactory position to be able to
address the challenges posed by SLR;
► Policies of adaptation is the way forward for all councils;
► All councils expressed an interest in working with other councils on a regional
basis; and
► A four step pathway of actions emerged from the responses of councils with
regard to the key priorities over the next five to ten years. These four actions
are: mapping; identification of impacts; plan preparation and implementation.
Following on from the broader survey of the coastal councils, a sub-regional level
case study of the three local governments of Sydney’s Northern Beaches was
selected to explore in detail the historical and current planning and management
approaches. All three councils do share a common goal of facilitating action with
regards to adaptation to sea level rise as evidenced by level of support and co-
operation for the Pittwater Sea Level Rise Seminar held on 29 May 2008. As sea
level rise will affect different locations in varying ways, each council will face a
different set of challenges. Pittwater Council has commenced updating all its flood
management plans for its vulnerable areas to incorporate new predictions of sea
level rise. Warringah Council’s focus has been particularly on Collaroy/Narrabeen
Beach and it has a sound framework in place to cope with the threat of sea level rise
but will need to revise its coastline management plan for that beach including its
hazard lines. Manly Council has invested considerable resources into preparing a
number of coastline management plans and estuary management plans. It also
opted to conduct a climate change poll at the recent Local Government Election
(which was unsuccessful). The local governments of Sydney’s Northern Beaches can
61
be seen as comprising a region which is making good progress but there is still a lot
further work that will need to be undertaken over the next 10 to 20 years and beyond.
6.2 Recommendations
The impacts of accelerated sea level rise will vary from location to location which is
why local government will primarily be responsible for confronting these local issues.
In the NSW context there have been limited attempts to create a state wide strategic
framework to deal with future planning and adaptive issues associated with sea level
rise. Thus the responsibility has typically fallen to local governments, but the
strongest and continuous theme from the survey of the councils and the Sea Level
Rise Seminar is the need for a national and/or state strategic framework which can
provide consistency in planning practice. The following is a list of recommendations
for future planning and management approaches across the three levels of
government based on the information received from the survey and from the
investigation Northern Beaches sub-regional case study.
Commonwealth Government
1. Create a new national framework for sea level rise adaptation that provides
the general guidelines for the state governments and territories to develop
their own strategies which follow those guidelines.
2. Extend the support programs offered to both state and local governments in
Australia – to be linked to key objectives of the new national framework.
3. Provide mechanisms for the incorporation of climate change considerations
into environmental assessments undertaken in accordance with the EPBC
Act.
State Government
1. Provide consistent direction and leadership to local governments in NSW in
the form of:
a. A state based strategy that is consistent with a national framework
b. Guidelines to local governments on regional/local based climate
change adaptation strategies
62
c. Provision of ‘definite’ figures for sea level rises for use in strategic
planning and development assessment over differing timeframes.
2. Undertake coastal zone management reform to include revisions of the NSW
Coastal Policy, NSW Coastline Management Manual and NSW Coastline
Hazard Policy to reflect new understandings in climate change adaptation.
3. Provide support for the completion of a state-wide vulnerability modelling
project to better understand the potential magnitude of sea level rise impacts.
4. New zoning provisions within the Standard LEP ‘template’ to incorporate sea
level rise issues.
5. Institute clear provisions into the EP&A Act and Regulations for the
consideration of climate change in environmental assessment.
6. Facilitate a support network for local governments including use of working
groups, support groups, seminars and education programs targeted towards
council officers, councillors and the community.
7. Facilitate improved access to scientific information by providing it in a format
that is practical for council officers and can be integrated into council
processes.
Local Government
1. Prepare draft LEPs and DCPs that incorporate where practicably possible sea
level rise estimates.
2. Develop climate change adaptation plans and strategies for each LGA as a
whole.
3. Revise existing coastline and estuary management plans and associated
hazard, coastline, estuary or similar lines utilising IPCC guidelines or other
appropriate scientific advice.
4. Work with neighbouring councils or other councils in a region on joint projects
to enable sharing of resources and professional knowledge.
5. Increase community awareness of climate change and sea level rise issues.
The key step recommended in adaptation to the challenges presented by sea level
rise will be the NSW State Government taking leadership and direction on these
issues. This need was the most important issue expressed by the local governments
63
surveyed. The Commonwealth Government also has an important role to play in
establishing a national framework to ensure that planning can be co-ordinated on a
national scale yet still providing the flexibility for state government and territories to
implement new policies and strategies that are more specific to issues they are likely
to face. At the same time, scientists, academics and scientific organisations such as
the CSIRO have an integral part to play in the climate change challenge by
continuously providing updated advice to decision makers to ensure that the most
appropriate approaches are undertaken which maintain and even enhance the
environmental, social and economic values of marine and estuarine areas. Local
governments will be primarily responsible for this and will require the appropriate
support to allow for the implementation of strategies and policies. Future research in,
for example, five years time, should examine again local government progress in
adapting to sea level rise and re-assess where improvements are required to be
made.
6.3 Concluding Remarks
Accelerated sea level rise is a global issue but one that will primarily need to be
planned for and implemented at the local level. Sea level rise is just one part of the
climate change problem that faces all nations. It will be vital that appropriate
resources and consistent direction, guidance and co-ordination be provided to local
governments to introduce new planning and management regimes as they will be the
responsible authority required to manage the impacts to their marine and estuarine
areas. The likely costs required for adaptation to climate change by local
communities is still unknown. Scientific uncertainty will always exist in this field but
continual improvements in knowledge and understanding of sea level rise and
increasing connectivity and relevance of the science for coastal managers and
planners will be of substantial benefit. Most projections by scientists have been at
least made up to the year 2100 but seas will not stop rising at this point but will
continue to rise but to what extent is again hard to predict. In addition, other issues
that were not covered in depth in this thesis including duty of care, liability and
insurance will also have a significant influence on future decision-making. The severe
storms of May 1974 in particular resulted in major changes to coastal planning and
management in NSW. Similarly, it will be critical that all levels of government, the
64
private sector and the community in general start preparing now so they can
adequately address the implications that sea level rise will have on coastal planning
and management in Australia’s largest city, Sydney.
65
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Al-Jeneid et al., (2008) Vulnerability assessment and adaptation to the impacts of sea level rise on the Kingdom of Bahrain, Mitigation Adaptation Strategies Global Change, 13, pp. 87-104. Bryman, A. (2008) Social Research Methods, 3rd edition (Oxford, Oxford University Press). Cameron, D. (2008) Collaroy/Narrabeen Coastline Hazard Lines, Presentation at the Sea Level Rise Seminar, 29 May 2008. Christine Paul (2008) ‘Cost of climate change’, Peninsula Living, May 2008, pp. 12-15. CSIRO (2007) Climate Change in Australia, Technical Report, Chapter 5 (Clayton South, CSIRO). Department of Climate Change. (2008) ‘Australia’s Coasts – Impacts of Climate Change’ (Canberra, Department of Climate Change). Available at: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/impacts/coasts.html. Department of the Environment and Heritage. (2004) Guidelines for the Content of a Draft Public Environment Report on Reef Cove Resort, False Cape, Cairns, Queensland (Canberra, Department of the Environment and Heritage). Department of the Environment and Water Resources. (2007) EPBC Act – Environment Assessment Process (Canberra, Department of the Environment and Water Resources). Fitzgerald, D., Fenster, M., Argow, B and Buynevich, I. (2008) Coastal impacts due to sea level rise, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 36, pp. 601-647. Harvey, N. and Caton, B. (2000) Coastal Management in Australia (South Melbourne, Oxford University Press). Harvey, N. and Clarke, B. (2007) Policy implications for Australian coastal communities affected by sea-level rise, Just Policy, 46, pp. 52-59. Hebert, K. and Taplin, R. (2006) Climate change impacts and coastal planning in the Sydney Greater Metropolitan region, Australian Planner, 43(3), pp. 34-41. Hennecke, W., Greve, C., Cowell, P. and Thom, B. (2004) GIS-based coastal behavior modeling and simulation of potential land and property loss: Implications of sea-level rise at Collaroy/Narrabeen Beach, Sydney (Australia), Coastal Management, 32, pp. 449-470. Hennessy, K. et al (2007) Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press), pp. 507-540. John Morcombe (2008a) ‘Climate change alert’, Manly Daily, 30 April 2008, pp. 12. John Morcombe (2008b) ‘Offshore sand mining plan’, Manly Daily, 19 January 20088, pp. 10. Jolicouer, S. and O’Carroll, S. (2007) Sandy barriers, climate change and long-term planning of strategic coastal infrastructures, ˆIles-de-la-Madeleine, Gulf of St. Lawrence (Qu´ebec, Canada), Landscape and Urban Planning, 81, pp. 287-298.
66
Klein, R., Nicholls, R. and Mimura, N. (1999) Coastal adaptation to climate change: Can the IPCC Technical Guidelines be applied? Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 4, pp. 239-252. Manly Council (2008a) ‘Poll of Electors’ (Manly, Manly Council). Available at: http://www.manly.nsw.gov.au/content.aspx?PageID=823. Manly Council (2008b) Manly Ocean Beach Coastline Management Plan (Manly, Manly Council). Manly Council (2008c) Clontarf/Bantry Bay Estuary Management Plan (Manly, Manly Council). Manly Council (2008d) Manly Ocean Beach Emergency Action Plan for Coastal Erosion (Manly, Manly Council). Messent, D. (1999) Sydney’s Northern Beaches (Sydney, David Messent Photography). Minister for Planning v Walker [2008] NSWCA 224. Transcript available at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2008/224.html. National Trust (2002) ‘Sandon Point’ (Sydney, National Trust). Available at: http://www.nationaltrust.org.au/pdfs/nsw_2.pdf. Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council. (2006) Framework for a National Cooperative Approach to Integrated Coastal Zone Management (Canberra, Department of the Environment and Heritage). NSW Department of Local Government (2008) ‘Local Government Directory’, (Nowra, NSW Department of Local Government). Available at: http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/dlg_LocalGovDirectory.asp?index=7&mi=2&ml=7. NSW Department of Planning (2005a) ‘Planning Implications of the extension of the NSW Coastal Zone’ (Sydney, NSW Department of Planning). Available at: http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/planningsystem/pdf/circulars/ps05_012_coastalzone.pdf. NSW Department of Planning (2005b) Fact Sheet on Coastal Zone Reforms (Sydney, NSW Department of Planning). NSW Department of Planning (2005c) ‘Commencement Part 3A (Major Projects) of the EP&A Act’ (Sydney, NSW Department of Planning). Available at: http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/planningsystem/pdf/circulars/dipnr_ps05_006.pdf. NSW Department of Planning (2006) ‘Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006’ (Sydney, NSW Department of Planning). Available at: http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/planningsystem/pdf/circulars/ps06_008_standardlep.pdf. NSW Department of Planning (2007) ‘Sandon Point Decision to be Appealed’ (Sydney, NSW Department of Planning). Available at: http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/mediarelplan/mr20071221_670.html. NSW Electoral Commission (2008) ‘Ordinary Votes for Poll Question No. 1’ (Sydney, NSW Electoral Commission). Available at: http://vtr.elections.nsw.gov.au/result.aspx?areaname=manly.
67
NSW Environmental Defenders Office. (2008a) Coastal Councils and Planning for Climate Change: An assessment of Australian and NSW legislation and government policy provisions relating to climate change relevant to regional and metropolitan coastal councils (Sydney, Sydney Coastal Councils Group Inc). NSW Environmental Defender’s Office (2008b) ‘Topic 4 – Natural Resources’ (Sydney, NSW Environmental Defender’s Office). Available at: http://www.edo.org.au/edonsw/site/factsh/fs04_6.php. NSW Environmental Defender’s Office (2008c) ‘Failure to Consider the Impacts of Climate Change’ (Sydney, NSW Environmental Defender’s Office). Available at: http://www.edo.org.au/edonsw/site/pdf/casesum/sandon_point_casenote.pdf. NSW Government (1990) ‘Coastline Management Manual’ (Sydney, NSW Government). Available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/publications/nswmanual/index.html. NSW Government (1997) NSW Coastal Policy 1997 (Sydney, NSW Government). Pittwater Council (2008a) ‘Coastal & Marine’ (Mona Vale, Pittwater Council). Available at: http://www.pittwater.nsw.gov.au/environment/coastal. Pittwater Council (2008b) ‘Pittwater 21 DCP’ (Mona Vale, Pittwater Council). Available at: http://www.pittwater.nsw.gov.au/building__and__development/controls__and__policies/development_control_plans Preston, B., et al., (2008) Mapping Climate Change Vulnerability in the Sydney Coastal Councils Group Inc (Aspendale, CSIRO and SCCG Inc). Purvis, M., Bates, P. and Hayes, C. (2008) A probabilistic methodology to estimate future coastal flood risk due to sea level rise, Coastal Engineering, article in press. Pyper, W. (2007) Preparing for sea level rise, ECOS, 137(Jun-Jul), pp. 14-17. Resource Assessment Commission. (1993) Resource Assessment Commission Coastal Zone Inquiry - Final Report November 1993 (Canberra, Resource Assessment Commission). Ribbons, S. (2007) Climate Change and Sea Level Rise - Status of Adaptation Strategies in Floodplain, Estuarine and Coastline Risk Management in Pittwater, Report to the Urban & Environmental Assets Committee, Pittwater Council, 17 September 2008. Ribbons, S. (2008) Climate change and sea level rise adaptation strategies for the Pittwater Local Government Area, Presentation at the Sea Level Rise Seminar, 29 May 2008. Schleupner, C. (2007) Spatial assessment of sea level rise on Martinque’s coastal zone and analysis of planning frameworks for adaptation, Journal of Coastal Conservation, 11, pp. 91-103. Stockland (2006) ‘Sandon Point Development – Bulli, Volume 1, Appendix B Photo Montages’ (Sydney, Stockland). Available at: http://www.stockland.com.au/NR/rdonlyres/C5333CA4-3949-4288-9FDD-CBC09F623A55/0/Volume1AppendixBPhotoMontages.pdf. Sydney Coastal Councils Group Inc. (2005b) Strategic Plan 2005-2008 (Sydney, SCCG Inc). Available at: http://www.sydneycoastalcouncils.com.au/overview.htm.
68
Sydney Coastal Councils Group Inc. (2005b) ‘Climate Change and the Sydney Coastal Region Forum Summary’ (Sydney, SCCG Inc). Available at: http://www.sydneycoastalcouncils.com.au/documents/ClimateChangeForum-SummaryReport.pdf. Sydney Coastal Councils Group Inc. (2008a) ‘About the project’ (Sydney, SCCG Inc). Available at: http://www.sydneycoastalcouncils.com.au/system-approach-to-regional-climate-change-adaptation-strategies-in-metropolises/index.php. Sydney Coastal Councils Group Inc. (2008b) Systems Approach to Regional Climate Change Adaptation Strategies in Metropolises (Sydney, SCCG Inc). Tol, R., Klein, R. and Nicholls, R. (2008) Towards successful adaptation to sea-level rise along Europe’s coasts, Journal of Coastal Research, 24(2), pp. 432-442. Tompkins, E., Few, R. and Brown, K. (2008) Scenario-based stakeholder engagement: Incorporating stakeholders preferences into coastal planning for climate change, Journal of Environmental Management, 88(4), pp. 1580-1592. Tribbia, J. and Moser, S. (2008) More than information: what coastal managers need to plan for climate change, Environmental Science and Policy, 11, pp. 315-328. Voice, M., Harvey, N. and Walsh, K. (Eds) (2006) Vulnerability to Climate Change of Australia’s Coastal Zone: Analysis of gaps in methods, data and system thresholds (Report to the Australian Greenhouse Office, Canberra). Walker v Minister for Planning (2007) NSWLEC 741. Transcript available at: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lecjudgments/2007nswlec.nsf/2007nswlec.nsf/WebView2/03DBC0A7B81845EFCA2573A60020290D?OpenDocument. Walsh et al,. (2004) Using sea level rise projections for urban planning in Australia, Journal of Coastal Research, 20(2), pp. 586-598. Warringah Council (1997) Collaroy/Narrabeen Coastline Management Plan (Dee Why, Warringah Council). Warringah Council (2000) Warringah Local Environmental Plan 2000 (Dee Why, Warringah Council). Warringah Council (2008a) ‘Centenary of Warringah’, (Dee Why, Warringah Council). Available at: http://www.warringah.nsw.gov.au/council_now/centenary.aspx. Warringah Council (2008b) ‘Current LEP and Maps’, (Dee Why, Warringah Council). Available at: http://www.warringah.nsw.gov.au/plan_dev/lep.aspx. Warringah Council (2008c) ‘Narrabeen Lagoon Projects’ (Dee Why, Warringah Council). Available at: http://www.warringah.nsw.gov.au/community/narrabeen_lagon.aspx. Warringah Council (2008d) ‘All about land acquisitions and the wave impact zone’, (Dee Why, Warringah Council). Available at: ‘http://www.warringah.nsw.gov.au/services/documents/factsheet_WaveImpact.pdf.
69
Watson, P., and Lord, D. (2005) Coastline management in New South Wales Over Regulation or a Sound Investment in the Future, Coasts and Ports: Coastal Living – Living Coast; Australasian Conference 2005; Proceedings, pp. 377-382. Watson, P. (2008) Sea Level Rise: Challenges for Coastal Zone Managers, Presentation at the Sea Level Rise Seminar, 29 May 2008. Withycombe, G. (2007) ‘Issues, Needs and New Programs for Local Government’, EDO Climate Change Seminar, 24 October 2007. Wollongong City Council (2008) ‘Bulli – Timeline’ (Wollongong, Wollongong City Council). Available at: http://www.wollongong.nsw.gov.au/4444.asp.
70
APPENDIX 1
FACULTY OF THE BUI LT ENVIRONMENT
HUMAN RESEARCH
ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
12th August 2008 Application No: 85041 Project Title: The implications of sea level rise for Sydney's coastal planning and
management. Attention: Claire Jones Student Number: 3131004 Dear Claire,
Thank you for your application requesting approval to conduct research involving humans. The Panel has evaluated your application and upon their recommendation, has attached the decision below.
Please be aware that approval is for a period of twelve months from the date of this letter, unless otherwise stated below. All further information/documentation (if any) is to be submitted to FBE HREAP via Student Centre. Please submit originals plus four copies. Email submission will not be recognised.
Decision
Approved with conditions
Your application is approved; however, there are certain things you must do, before you may conduct your research. Please see below for details, and your responses will assist us in completing your file.
Items that must be completed before research can commence:
Item 1 2 3
You will need to obtain a letter of support from the organisation’s management, especially when you intend to interview employees. This letter of support must conform with Form 6. Please forward all letters to HREAP to complete your file. You will need to complete a FBE Fieldwork Application, and obtain approval to carry out your fieldwork. This must be obtained prior to physically conducting your research. The information provided in your application about the timing of your research is either too vague or implies that the research may have already started. We cannot approve your application retrospectively. Please confirm that your research involving interviews or questionnaires has not commenced. Also please provide your detailed timing schedule to the HREA panel.
Advisory comments:
1 2
We do not recommend that you use your own personal address or telephone number on any documents issued to participants. If possible, you should supply an office or University contact details. The purpose of the Project Information Statement is to provide information about your research to your research participants. Please make a copy of the approved PIS available for each participant.
SYDNEY 2052 AUSTRALIA Email: [email protected]
2
Approval is granted to the applicant for a twelve month period from the date of this letter, on condition that: • The applicant fully understands, and agrees to ensure, that all questions put in questionnaires, interviews,
and surveys, must strictly comply with the protocols, policies and rules of UNSW in relation to research data collection and must meet the overriding requirement of UNSW for 'minimal ethical impact' in research (the applicant is referred to: http://www.ro.unsw.edu.au/ethics/human/minimal_ethical_impact.shtml); and
• When required or applicable, Letters of Support (conforming to Form 6) will be obtained with a copy of each
letter kept by the Course Authority to be made available to the HREAP when requested. Any approval to conduct research given to the applicant Researcher is done so on the condition that the applicant Researcher is at the date of approval: (a) a Student undertaking an approved course of study in the FBE; or (b) a member of Academic Staff in the FBE. If, at any time subsequent to the date of approval and prior to completion of the research project the applicant Researcher ceases to be either of (a) and (b) above, then any prior approval given to the applicant Researcher to conduct will be deemed to be revoked forthwith. The applicant Researcher must inform the FBE HREA Panel immediately upon any change, or possible change, to the applicant’s status that may affect any prior approval given by the Panel to the applicant Researcher to conduct research. Evaluation Authority: Approving Authority:
Michael Brand (Convener) FBE HREA Panel
Jim Plume Head of School Faculty of the Built Environment
Copy to: Peter Williams, Supervisor
71
APPENDIX 2
Page 1 of 7
QUESTIONNAIRE The implications of sea level rise (SLR) for Sydney’s coastal planning and management
FACULTY OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
Instructions: The questionnaire consists of a total of 27 questions which has been organised into three sections. Questions where choices have been provided please circle the letter which best answers the question or place an ‘X’ when asked. In addition, where indicated some questions may require more than one letter to be circled where appropriate. Space has been provided for your answer to the open-ended questions. Thank you for your participation in this survey. Claire Jones
Please return this questionnaire by saving the questionnaire and then return reply by email to: [email protected] by 5pm, Monday 8 September 2008.
Page 2 of 7
Section 1: Information 1. Has your Council prepared any of the following types of studies which address the implications of climate change for marine and/or estuary areas? (Circle more than one if applicable)
a. Risk assessments
b. Vulnerability assessments
c. Hazard mitigation
d. None – proceed to Question 3.
2. If any of the above has been prepared, have these been prepared for…?
a. A specific location only (eg. beach or lagoon)
b. A catchment region
c. Across all marine/estuary areas within local government area
3. To what extent has your Council implemented the NSW Coastline Hazard Policy?
a. Not at all
b. Partially
c. Comprehensively
d. Not applicable
4. Have any Coastline Management Plans been prepared?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Not applicable
5. Please rate by placing an ‘X’ in each column the frequency of use the following information sources that you typically consult in your professional role.
Note: Adapted from Tribbia and Moser (2008)
Scientific / Prof. journals
Colleagues (internal)
C’wealth agencies
State agencies
Other local councils
Conferences / workshops
Private consultants
Internet Other
Do not use Rarely Occasionally Frequently All the time
Page 3 of 7
6. What do you consider are the current gaps in knowledge and information for you as a professional working in coastal management and planning?
7. What would you suggest could be improvements to the currently available information?
8. Which type of tool(s) do you utilise which assist in your professional role (circle more than
one where applicable)?
a. Maps
b. Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
c. Analytic models
d. Forecast models
e. Databases
f. Other: please specify______________________________________________
9. What is your position title?
Page 4 of 7
Section 2: Current Planning and Management 10. Based on existing information available to your Council on sea level rise (SLR), how likely would SLR have an effect on your area?
a. Don’t know
b. Not at all likely
c. Somewhat likely
d. Likely
e. Very likely
11. What would be the likely affected areas (circle more than one where applicable)?
a. Floodplains
b. Coastal lagoons
c. Beaches
d. Bays
e. Tidal areas
f. Creeks and rivers
g. Wetlands
h. Estuaries
i. Not applicable
j. Other: please specify _____________________________________________
12. Do you believe that scientific uncertainties in current SLR projections are hindering planning and management activities at your Council?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Unsure
13. What has been the typical response(s) option(s) by your Council to managing properties and infrastructure that are located in areas where marine and/or estuary hazards do exist?
a. Planned retreat
b. Adaption
c. Protection
d. Other: please specify ______________________________________________
Page 5 of 7
14. What are the reasons for the selection of those response(s)?
15. Do you think that your Council will continue with the same approach in the next five years?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Unsure
16. What do you consider are the five key challenges for coastal planning and management for your Council when addressing the impacts of SLR?
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
17. Does your council consider SLR when assessing Development Applications in areas that are likely to be impacted?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Unsure 18. Has SLR been incorporated into the strategic planning functions (eg preparing Local Environment Plans) at your Council?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Unsure
Page 6 of 7
19. How would you rate the level of community interest in ‘local’ SLR issues?
a. None
b. Little
c. Some
d. Moderate
e. Significant
f. Unsure
20. In your opinion, what are the reasons for that rating?
21. Overall, how would rate your Council’s preparedness to be able to address the impacts of SLR within your local government area?
a. Poor
b. Below average
c. Average
d. Good
e. Excellent
22. Please list what the key reasons are for this rating.
Page 7 of 7
Section 3: Future Responses 23. Are policies of adaption the most appropriate way forward for your Council in addressing the impacts of SLR?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Unsure
24. Should the NSW Government issue a standard set of planning guidelines for all Councils?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Unsure
25. Should there be comprehensive reforms to the existing coastal zone management legislation in NSW?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Unsure
26. Would your Council consider adopting a regional based approach (ie with other Councils) to address the impacts of SLR?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Unsure
27. Please list the five key priorities that your Council would like to adopt for the next 5 to 10 years with regard to SLR management and planning.
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Thank you for your participation
