SAT decision on coastal setbacks a win for coastal planning and climate change
/For those unfamiliar with coastal planning in WA, the WA Planning Commission’s (WAPC) State Planning Policy 2.6 - Coastal Planning (SPP 2.6) has guided coastal planning since its gazettal in 2013. A critical element of SPP 2.6 is a requirement to take into account the impacts of climate change at the coast, notably, because of predicted sea level rise and increased storm activity, increased coastal erosion of sandy coasts and more frequent and extensive inundation of low lying areas. Planners and developers are required to apply a 100 year timeframe – i.e. predict the likely impacts in 2120 and plan for this.
SPP 2.6 requires that a CHRMAP process be applied to calculate the likely impact of erosion – i.e coastal hazard risk management and adaptation planning. This first part of this work (the CHR) is highly technical and usually leads to lines on a map which show the likely shoreline at a particular time in the future – typically 2030, 2070 and 2120. Critically, the width of public foreshore decreases, and, depending on the adaptation action chosen, the beach could disappear.
The second part of the process (MAP) is more subjective and involves making decisions about how to respond to the predictions, given that future erosion would likely impact on coastal infrastructure (paths, carparks etc.), roads and in some places, private houses.
SPP 2.6 sets up a decision making hierarchy as follows:
· Avoid;
· Planned and managed retreat;
· Accommodate; and
· Defend/protect.
The avoid option is not possible for existing development, and the subsequent choice of the adaption option is highly contentious, but was not the subject of the SAT hearing I will discuss below, so I won’t ‘go there’ for the debate around existing development. I will tackle that in a later blog.
The case that was before the SAT last year involved setting the width of the coastal foreshore for some yet to be developed land in Two Rocks (Two Rocks Investment Pty Ltd and Western Australian Planning Commission [2019] WASAT 59).
The developer submitted site to the WAPC a structure plan for the development of 834ha land at Two Rocks which included a proposed foreshore for about 2.6km of coast. The extent of the coastal foreshore had been previously agreed to between the previous owner and the WAPC in 1997, but did not take into account climate change (as noted above, SPP 2.6 came in effect in 2013).
The new owners were required to carry out a coastal hazard risk assessment to predict the likely shoreline for the 100 year planning timeframe. That work showed that landward movement of the shoreline would move between 145m and 171m depending on the location. The biggest movement would be in the central part of the site. This would mean that in 100 years’ time all of the foreshore as proposed by the developer would disappear, as well as an additional 9.9 ha of the non-reserve land.
The WAPC rejected the structure plan and requested it be amended to take into account coastal erosion – i.e. a wider foreshore reserve was required. The developer appealed this decision to the SAT.
The developer proposed a different strategy to allow for the predicted erosion. The developer recognised that more land would ultimately have to be ceded to the crown as a reserve, but suggested that the land furthest from the current shoreline, but within the land subject likely to erosion in 50-70 years, could be developed in the interim. The developer proposed that this land be included in a 'Special Use (Coastal) zone' that would allow development and use in the interim – i.e. delaying vesting of the land to the Crown. The provisions of the Zone would require this extra land be reserved without compensation when it becomes vulnerable to coastal erosion.
This is not the preferred avoid option, but is the less preferred planned retreat.
The SAT found as follows.
First, it dismissed the appeal and upheld the WAPC position requiring that the foreshore be extended to accommodate likely erosion by 2120. This is a significant decision which gives great weight to both the impact of climate change and SPP 2.6 in coastal planning and decision making.
The second finding is more nuanced but just as important, and involves on-going planning for coastal nodes.
A key principle of coastal planning in WA is that there will not be strip development of our coast (i.e. like the Goldcoast), but development will occur at pre-determined coastal nodes – e.g. Scarborough, Rockingham and Hillarys. These nodes have significant public, social and economic value, and it has been assumed that these nodes would be defended for as long as possible, beyond the time when erosion would begin to impact on these sites.
The Two Rocks sites had two proposed coastal nodes and the SAT found that these sites could be included as 'Special Use (Coastal) zones’ and developed in the interim, but that when the shoreline reaches within 40 m of each development, the land would then need to be ceded to the Crown (reserved). This was conditional on the Zone and relevant provisions are added to the local planning scheme within 10 years, i.e. by 2029. This decision could well have implications for all the other coastal nodes in WA – it maybe that defend/protect will not be the medium to long-term planning options for these sites.
Interesting decision!