Parliamentary Committees

ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: COASTAL DEVELOPMENT

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (16:30): I move:

That the 61^st report of the committee, on coastal development, be noted.

The Environment, Resources and Development Committee, by its own motion, commenced the inquiry in August 2006. With the beauty of the South Australian coastline and the popularity of coastal recreation, there is an increasing demand for development along the coastline. This increases the pressure not only on local communities but also on the coastal environment. While acknowledging the complexity of the issues around coastal development in the light of increasing pressure on the coast for housing, recreation, industry and other uses, the committee feels that more could be done to protect coastal landscapes and habitats.

Generally, the committee believes that South Australia is maintaining good best practice guidelines, policies and strategies. However, there are issues around compliance, consistency and integration that need addressing. In general, no matter how good they are, best practice policies and guidelines are only advice, and advice can be ignored, rules can be bent and inappropriate developments put in place, despite clear policies that should prevent this happening. Inappropriate development is still occurring in coastal zones, even in fragile systems such as dunes. No matter how good the development plan, there is always potential for bad development decisions, and the committee has explored ways to tighten up planning loopholes and improve legislation.

The committee is very concerned that the Coast Protection Board may only 'direct' (that is, enforce decisions) under very limited conditions (that is, for substantial earthworks or for the construction of protection works). Most submissions and witnesses saw this as a problem, particularly as around 20 per cent of the board's advice was not followed by planning authorities.

An issue of particular concern is that the majority of the advice on development applications that was not followed recommended refusal or attached conditions on account of coastal hazards. The committee believes that the Coast Protection Board should be given power of direction in regard to coastal hazards.

While many state agencies are involved in coastal management, very few actually have a coastal focus. Without an agency with a specific coastal focus, state departments may provide local government with conflicting advice about coastal management issues. There have been problems in other states that have not kept their coast-based agencies. The committee believes that, to enable integrated management and planning, it is critical to maintain a specifically coast-focused agency in South Australia.

In addition, the committee believes that protection of wildlife and biodiversity is lacking. There is no mandatory development application referral to the Native Vegetation Council, even though that body must approve any clearance of native vegetation, and there is no referral process for developments threatening rare or vulnerable species.

The role of the NRM boards in planning is vague and, despite much coastal biodiversity assessment, risk assessment and capacity building, there is no formal input back into the planning process, and this should be addressed. The committee believes that the relevant aspects of biodiversity plans, marine plans, and natural resources plans must be reconciled and reflected in development plans.

The committee believes that establishing throughout South Australia development plan coastal zones over land containing sensitive features should be a priority, along with regular revisions of the rezoning. The advantages of coastal zoning are that development is not placed in areas of risk of coastal hazards and that sensitive coastal features can be protected from the adverse impacts of development. Consistent and appropriate zoning of coastal land would also assist in overcoming issues of the lack of consistency and integration.

Visual impact is a major issue on the coast. The committee feels that areas of significant landscape value should be recognised and stringently protected, perhaps by the establishment of scenic protection areas, with associated guidelines for development. Ribbon or uncontrolled development should also be prevented by the use of methods such as urban growth boundaries for coastal towns and careful zoning.

As more and more people explore the 'seachange' phenomenon and move to coastal areas, many coastal communities have reported a loss of a 'sense of place'. This is often due to residential and tourism developments being out of character with the existing environment. Built form has had a significant impact on both visual impact and scenic value, and the committee believes that new development must be kept in sympathy with adjoining developments, be appropriate for its location and be in harmony with its environment.

The committee is concerned that the condition of the coastal zone is generally declining. Pressure on the coast is increasing faster than any ability of the coast to stabilise and self-repair. Coast and marine environments are likely to continue to be under pressure, and the active management of human impacts on the coastal zone is critical to maintaining the health and productivity of coastal and marine systems. The committee has explored a wide range of approaches to do this, including managing access, preventing development in fragile areas, utilising urban growth boundaries to contain development, and encouraging the planting of local species in all coastal developments.

The current planning system does not address cumulative impact, where either a single development might have ongoing effects that accumulate over time and/or a number of combined stresses that have a severe impact. Developments are assessed in isolation, at a single point in time.

The committee feels that changes should be made to development plans to limit contributing activities where there is evidence to indicate that cumulative impacts have occurred and that some environmental threshold has been or will be breached. This process will be facilitated by thorough biodiversity assessments of coast and marine habitats, the collection of baseline data, risk assessment workshops and ongoing monitoring programs, with detailed reporting against sustainability indicators for coast, marine and estuary habitats across South Australia.

The committee chose to place considerable attention on the impact of coastal development on marine systems for several reason, particularly the strong concerns noted in submissions and from witnesses. Problems in marine systems are much less visible and obvious and there is less information available.

For example, it is easy to observe damage to a dune system but marine habitats are out of sight, being below the surface of the water. Marine habitats such as seagrasses and reefs are at risk and are being lost at a considerable rate, particularly in metropolitan waters. In addition, while there are many books and reports on the impacts of development on coastal habitats, there is relatively little focus on the impacts of development on marine systems.

Water quality is the biggest single issue threatening marine habitat, and the committee supports strongly all strategies to prevent nutrient-rich and sediment-laden water from entering marine systems. This might include water reuse, reduction of nutrients and sediment loads and stormwater retention. Cleaning up and reusing stormwater and waste water is critical for drought-proofing South Australia, but it is also critical for the survival of valuable marine ecosystems.

The committee suggested a number of aspirational targets aimed at protecting marine systems. The committee acknowledges that providing sufficient infrastructure to meet the needs of rapidly growing communities situated in such fragile environmental landscapes is one of the key challenges affecting the management of the coast. The provision of coastal infrastructure and services can strain local council budgets, particularly for small, dispersed populations.

This is a particular issue in communities with high numbers of seasonal visitors where infrastructure needs such as the supply and treatment of water, waste management and provision of facilities must cater to a much higher level of demand than that of the resident rate-paying population. The committee feels that the development of a long-term infrastructure plan, with an outline of funding for the first 10 years, would greatly assist in planning for coastal infrastructure. While not an impact on coastal development, nearly every submission voiced concern about climate change and sea level rise.

Climate change impacts on almost all the terms of reference of this inquiry. Climate change must be considered in all aspects of planning, development and assessment. South Australia was the first state to incorporate allowances for sea level rise in its policies. The committee regards it as important to ensure that development plans are amended to incorporate updated IPCC projections of sea level rise as they are provided. The committee regards climate change and sea level rise in particular as the single biggest issue facing coastal planning.

The measures outlined above and described in detail in this report will greatly improve South Australia's ability to protect and preserve its coast. The committee heard from 19 witnesses during the inquiry and received 31 submissions. I take this opportunity to thank all those people who contributed to the inquiry, as a result of which the committee has made 86 recommendations and looks forward to their consideration and implementation by the government.

I thank and acknowledge the work of my fellow members of the committee: the Presiding Member, the member for Giles; the member for Schubert; the Hon. Michelle Lensink, MLC; the member for Fisher; and the Hon. Mark Parnell, MLC. I also thank the committee staff for their work in preparing this report and the support they provided to the committee.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (16:40): I rise to support this motion and indicate that I found it a very interesting inquiry. I will reiterate the terms of reference for the benefit of members; that is, the committee was to investigate and report on the impacts of coastal development in South Australia, with particular reference to eight points: adequacy of planning legislation and guidelines; visual impact; built form; environmental impact; ownership of coastal land; preservation of coastal land; infrastructure; and any other relevant matter. Clearly, they were very broad terms of reference.

I do not propose to speak for very long on this matter, because the report speaks for itself, and I note that the Hon. Russell Wortley, who preceded me in this debate, has read into the record the committee summary of findings, and I think the correlation of word for word would be over 99 per cent. In summary, bearing in mind that I did come in part way through the committee's inquiry, I have noted that development and planning, as one of the issues involved, have a somewhat fractured structure in South Australia.

We did hear evidence from Michael O'Brien, who is conducting a review into development, and we hope that some outcomes from that review will improve our planning system. It is not to point the finger at anyone in particular, but environmental concerns within our development and planning process have not always been in the state's best interests. As time progresses and we understand better the importance of protecting our fragile environment, I think those issues will need to be given greater consideration. In this sense, one of the issues that was raised time and again was the role of the Coast Protection Board and the fact that it needs more teeth. It does have a role in making recommendations but, unfortunately, it can be ignored and has been ignored on many occasions.

One of the most startling parts of the evidence that I heard related to the impact of development and urbanisation on our coastline, and the degradation of our marine environment along the metropolitan coast. My understanding is that the northern reefs, which are off the coast of areas such as Port Adelaide and Semaphore, are the most highly degraded. However, as you travel further south, the reefs at Horseshoe Bay and in the area of Moana are in much better condition but are still under threat.

Professor Anthony Cheshire and a number of highly qualified marine biologists provided advice about the impact of the turbidity and nutrient load of stormwater that goes out to sea. Clearly, there are opportunities for South Australia—and in a number of ways this is being driven by councils—to capture stormwater and reuse it. Indeed, I have a bottle labelled 'recharge', which comes from the Parafield wetlands, containing water that was pumped underneath, left for 12 months and is now suitable for drinking.

Also, I direct members to look at the list of recommendations which are diverse. For a number of inquiries they would be considered large; they run to 86. We thought that, if we were to do this job justice in terms of reporting, all the recommendations should be included. They relate to areas such as development assessment panels, changes to the Coast Protection Act, marine planning, the role of NRM boards, coastal zoning, built form, off-road vehicles, feral species, coastal acid sulphate soils, climate change and a number of other planning and conflict of interest issues.

The report is well worth reading. I particularly congratulate Dr Sue Murray-Jones our research officer. She was able to pull this report together from the broad range of evidence we received. She brought it all together in a coherent document, which I endorse to the council.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. M. Parnell.