The implications of sea level rise for Sydney’s coastal planning and management

Claire Jones 3131004 31 October 2008 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.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables and Figures...... iii

Abstract...... iv

1. Introduction 1.1 Project background...... 1 1.2 Aims and objectives...... 2 1.3 Methodology...... 2 1.4 Thesis structure...... 5

2. Literature Review 2.1 Introduction...... 7 2.2 Assessment and modelling...... 8 2.3 Planning and management approaches...... 10 2.4 Conclusion...... 13

3. Legislative and Policy Context 3.1 Introduction...... 14 3.2 Commonwealth Government...... 14 3.3 NSW State Government...... 17 3.4 Local Government...... 24 3.5 Conclusion...... 25

4. Sydney and Environs 4.1 Introduction...... 26 4.2 Results...... 28 4.3 Discussion...... 39 4.4 Conclusion...... 41

5. The Northern Beaches – a case study 5.1 Introduction...... 42 5.2 Pittwater Council...... 44 5.3 Warringah Council...... 48 5.4 Manly Council...... 54 5.5 Conclusion...... 57

6. Conclusion 6.1 Thesis summary...... 58 6.2 Recommendations...... 61 6.3 Concluding Remarks...... 63

Bibliography...... 65

Appendix 1...... 70

Appendix 2...... 71

ii

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Tables

Table 1: Vulnerability of SCCG council to sea level rise, storm surge and 28 climate change Table 2: Information sources typically consulted by professionals 30 Table 3: Snapshot of Northern Beaches LGAs 44 Table 4: Climate Change Levy poll results 56

Figures

Figure 1: Research methodology structure 3 Figure 2: Theory diagram 7 Figure 3: Photo montage of Sandon Point development from Bulli Lookout 19 Figure 4: NSW Coastal Policy framework of key roles and implementation 22 Figure 5: Map of current SCCG member councils 26 Figure 6: Net vulnerability map 28 Figure 7: The type of tools used by coastal professionals 33 Figure 8: The type of likely affected areas by SLR 34 Figure 9: The level of community interest in SLR as rated by the Sydney 36 coastal councils. Figure 10: Hierarchy of priorities identified by the councils for future SLR 38 management and planning Figure 11: Sydney’s Northern Beaches 43 Figure 12: Coastal vulnerability of Sydney’s Northern Beaches 43 Figure 13: Schematic diagram of the determination of Coastline 45 Management Lines Figure 14: Narrabeen Lagoon, looking west from Narrabeen foreshore 47 Figure 15: Sand Point, on Pittwater foreshore 47 Figure 16: Snappermans Beach, Palm Beach 47 Figure 17: The Collaroy Beachfront following a major storm in 1920 50 Figure 18: Looking north along Narrabeen Beach on 18 June 2007 50 Figure 19: Looking south along Narrabeen Beach on 18 June 2007 50 Figure 20: Summary of management options for Collaroy/Narrabeen Beach 52 Figure 21: Major storm damage along Manly Ocean Beach in 1950 55 Figure 22: Looking south along Manly Ocean Beach 55

Note: All other images were taken by the author unless otherwise stated.

iii

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.

iv

1. INTRODUCTION 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.

1

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:

2

Stage 1

Literature Review + Review of coastal legislation & policy

Stage 2 Broader quantitative Sub-regional case survey of Sydney Findings & Discussion study: Three coastal based local Northern Beaches councils. local councils.

Recommendations

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

3

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

4

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.

5

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.

6

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 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.

Scientific Assessment & Modelling Planning & Management Approaches

Global Science to Planning

National Day to Day Management

Regional/Local Stakeholder Engagement

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

7

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

8

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.

9

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

10

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

11

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.

12

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.

13

3. LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY CONTEXT 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’.

14

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.

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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).

19

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)

20

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,

21

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

22

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.

23

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.

24

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.

25

4. SYDNEY AND ENVIRONS 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) Figure 5 – Map of current SCCG member councils. Source: SCCG (2005).

26

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

27

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 Mean Degree of government vulnerability vulnerability score 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

Adapted from: Preston et al (2008). Figure 6: Net vulnerability map. Source: Preston et al (2008).

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

28

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.

29

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 Colleagues C’wealth State Other Conferences Private Internet Other / Prof. - internal agencies agencies local /workshops consultants (%) (%) Journals (%) (%) (%) councils (%) (%) (%) (%) 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

30

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:

31

► 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

32

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”.

Types of Tools Used by Professionals

Other:

Databases

Forecast Models

Analytic Models

GIS

Maps

01234567

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.

33

The type of likely affected areas

Other: Not applicable Estuaries Wetlands Creeks and rivers Tidal areas Bays Beaches Coastal lagoons Floodplains

012345678

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

34

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

35

reasons such as little information and understanding of the issues and public doubt on the accuracy of predictions.

The level of community interest in SLR issues

Unsure

Significant

Moderate

Some

Little

None

01234

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

36

► 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

37

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).

38

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...... ?”

39

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

40

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.

41

5. THE NORTHERN BEACHES - A CASE STUDY 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

42

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. Figure 12: Coastal vulnerability of Sydney’s Source: Messent (2000). Northern Beaches. Source: Preston et al (2008).

43

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 18 14 30 coastline (approx) 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

44

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).

45

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

46

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 15: Sand Point on the Pittwater foreshore. Note the lack of sand and the narrow width of the small beach even at low tide.

Figure 16: Snappermans Beach, Palm Beach with mean high tide water mark evident.

Source: Jones (2008).

47

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)

48

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.

49

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).

50

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.

51

Figure 20: Summary of management options for Collaroy/Narrabeen Beach. Source: Warringah Council (1997).

52

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.

53

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;

54

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 21: Major storm damage along Manly Ocean Beach in 1950 which resulted in the sea wall being separated.

Source: Manly Council (2008d).

Figure 22: Looking south along Manly Ocean Beach.

Source: Jones (2008).

55

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 Formal Informal Total Yes No Votes Votes Votes Polled 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 38.47% 61.53% *2.85% Votes 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.

56

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.

57

6. CONCLUSION 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

58

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;

59

► 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

60

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

61

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

62

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

63

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.

64

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.

65

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.

66

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/devel opment_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.

67

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/WebView2/03D BC0A7B81845EFCA2573A60020290D?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.

68

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.

69

APPENDIX 1

70

FACULTY OF THE BUILT 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 Your application is approved; however, there are certain things you conditions 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 Item completed before research can 1 You will need to obtain a letter of support from the organisation’s commence: 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 2 approval to carry out your fieldwork. This must be obtained prior to physically conducting your research.

3 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 1 We do not recommend that you use your own personal address or comments: telephone number on any documents issued to participants. If possible, you should supply an office or University contact details.

2 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.

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:

Jim Plume Michael Brand (Convener) Head of School FBE HREA Panel Faculty of the Built Environment

Copy to: Peter Williams, Supervisor

SYDNEY 2052 AUSTRALIA 2 Email: [email protected] APPENDIX 2

71

QUESTIONNAIRE

The implications of sea level rise (SLR) for Sydney’s coastal planning and management

FACULTY OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

Please return this questionnaire by saving the questionnaire and then return reply by email to: [email protected] by 5pm, Monday 8 September 2008.

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

Page 1 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.

Scientific Colleagues C’wealth State Other Conferences Private Internet Other / Prof. (internal) agencies agencies local / workshops consultants journals councils Do not use Rarely Occasionally Frequently All the time

Note: Adapted from Tribbia and Moser (2008)

Page 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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

Page 7 of 7