Development ban & higher rates loom for coastal property owners
Coastal property owners could be barred from developing or subdividing their land by paying higher rates as part of efforts to combat erosion along Peel’s coastline.
The proposal is part of the Southern Beaches coastal hazard risk management and adaptation plan, which City of Mandurah council adopted 10-2 at its April 28 meeting.
The plan is intended to manage the effects of erosion, rising sea levels, flooding and severe storms on Mandurah’s ocean-facing coastline from Roberts Point at Halls Head to the city’s southern boundary at Clifton.
Their proposals propose the establishment of a special control area on all land considered vulnerable to coastal erosion and/or flooding, where planning consent would be required for all proposed development, including those that do not currently exist.
Non-habitable buildings and small extensions may be exempt.
The plan states that grouped and multiple dwellings should be prohibited, even if allowed under planning rules.
“This strategy is recognized as having the potential to create anxiety among the public, particularly landowners, which is a natural response from citizens seeking to protect property values,” he said.
“However, it is worth noting that the government has no obligation to compensate for land lost due to coastal hazards, and it is much more proactive for the city to identify land at risk in the future and take appropriate action.
“It is important to note that for landowners considering purchasing or developing land, they should not assume that any funding will be forthcoming to support future adaptation responses or retreat.”
Another proposal was to create a coastal management fund in which 1 to 2 percent of the city budget would be transferred to this fund from a special rate or tax.
“(The benefit distribution analysis) will determine whether certain parties will benefit more than others and therefore contribute more to the intervention, reducing the fiscal impact for other taxpayers or ratepayers who will not or are unlikely to benefit from this option,” the plan said.
The erosion of property rights and the potential cost of implementing the plan have caused concern among some councillors.
Cr Ryan Burns was concerned the recommendations would bypass planning controls.
“These include banning subdivision and higher density development, requiring approval for work that would not normally require approval, introducing time-limited development approvals and placing notices on property deeds,” he said.
“These are not small measures. They have real impacts on property rights, land value and how people can use land they already own.
“If we get this wrong, it’s not borne by the government. It’s borne by the people who are affected.”
Cr Owen Mulder said he could not support the plan without knowing how much it would cost.
The coastal management fund needs increased rates to raise an additional $2 million to $3 million a year, he said.
“It is recommended that we adopt some type of differentiated financing arrangement where some residents and businesses will pay more than others,” he said.
“The report goes on to identify a huge cost for parts of our coastline such as Halls Head, Falcon, Wannanup and concludes that a large percentage of the cost could be allocated to the owners or occupiers of these areas.
“The high levels of missing costs… show costs in the millions of dollars, $10.5 million every 10 years for beach sand nourishment at Blue Bay as an example.”
Cr Jacob Cumberworth said the city needed to carry out conservation work and seek State and Federal support as it would be at an “extraordinary cost”.
“Tens of millions of dollars pale in comparison to the capital value of our waterfront properties, which could easily be over a billion,” he said.
“If we allow the sea to rob our coastline and wash away our city, people may lose confidence in the City of Mandurah and we will cease to function as a city that is actually a safe place for people to live.”
Cr Peter Jackson said the plan was “fantastic” but he was also concerned about how much it would cost.
“I don’t understand where the money is going to come from,” he said.
“We need money to do this, and I don’t think we’re going to have this extra money sitting around unless we stop doing other things, or do we have a fund set aside to do this?”
Deputy mayor Jess Smith said the city’s only alternative appeared to be to do nothing.
“The document is merely a guide to manage coastal hazards and ensure long-term sustainability,” he said.
“The actions seem realistic in terms of the city’s capabilities to deliver, but funding will be something we will need to investigate further.”
Built and Natural Environment Director Matthew Hall said the plan does not cost the city any money other than developing a 10-year action plan.
“The action plan itself will actually talk about the potential costs that could be incurred for certain actions,” he said.
“At this point, council will need to make a decision that should be reflected in the city’s long-term financial plan and also considered as part of future annual budgets.”
He said the plan is needed so the city can seek State and Federal funding.
Other plans had helped the city obtain funding for coastal protection work at Doddi Beach and Town Beach seawall repairs.
“It gives us a vantage point on what is needed and then allows us to plan and work on those potential solutions, access State and Federal government funding and make decisions about what the city will and will not invest in in terms of coastal protection,” Mr. Hall said.
Cr Dave Schumacher wanted to know who was ultimately responsible for managing coastal erosion.
Mr Hall said it was a “shared responsibility”.
“We have an obligation to consider and plan for what might emerge as a result of the change we anticipate,” he said.
Fears emerged in January that Tims Thicket and White Hills beach would be closed indefinitely as part of the plan.
At the time, a city spokesman denied plans to ban four-wheel drive beach access at Tims Thicket or White Hills but said there could be changes in the way they are accessed.
A report to council said no changes to the management plan were required following public consultation in December and January.
The scheme received 45 submissions, of which 13 did not support closing beach access to 4WDs.
A summary of the applications said many appeared to be influenced by other concurrent coastal projects.
“Visiting beaches and fishing, accessible only by 4WD (was seen as a ‘local way of life’, family activity, connection to the land and tourism asset for the area),” he said.
“Almost 25 per cent of all submissions suggested strategies to manage 4WD behaviour, including signage, speed limits, infringements, the presence of enforcement at peak times, number plate recognition, dune access barriers, education and more bins.”
The plan’s recommendations do not include restricting access, but dovetail with the Yalgorup National Park concept master plan dated 2024, which includes recommendations on managing beach access.
“The beach from North Rocks car park to Whitehills Beach car park (White Hills Road) is proposed to be car-free with north-south movement via open access paths in the dunes,” the summary said.
The Shire of Waroona was among those calling for 4WD beach access to continue.
“The district would be pleased to acknowledge that the beach from White Hills to Preston Beach remains a popular 4×4 access route and that a collaborative approach between the district and the city is important to sustainably and safely manage this access in the future,” he said.
A presentation acknowledged there were problems in the dunes driven by “intellectually challenged 4WD owners”.
“Some of the costs could be offset by creating an access pass for beach users,” they said.
Another said it didn’t matter whether they supported the plan or not because the council would create bullies to do what they wanted.
“Being able to use these beaches has been a rite of passage for almost every citizen of Mandurah since the birth of Mandurah,” another application said.
