Coastal planning controls removed

 

Last week the government touted the heritage protection given to parts of the town as a decision aimed at quelling opposition to the development.

Now it has emerged that the state environment planning policy No. 71, which overrides all coastal planning controls to ensure public access to beaches, limits to overshadowing and ensuring the scenic quality of the coast, will not apply to the proposed development.

In the environmental planning policy put forward for Catherine Hill Bay, it is stated that neither state environmental planning policy No. 1, which relates to development standards, or No. 71, which relates to coastal protection, will apply.

The proposed development has been mired in controversy, with the Land and Environment Court rejecting the initial plans last year due to a claimed unlawful land swap by Rosecorp for as many as 800 dwellings at Catherine Hill Bay.

”It means the developer can build on the headland and right on Moonee beach,” Sue Whyte, a resident, said.

”We’re terribly upset about it. An approval would exceed the plans approved originally by [the former planning minister] Frank Sartor. This is paving the way for an outrageous development.”

The opposition planning spokesman, Brad Hazzard, said the government ”appears to be falling over itself to steamroll” coastal protection planning policy. ”The question has to be asked: why? The draft SEPP for the development purports to switch off the SEPP 71 coastal protection,” he said.

”Despite the fact that this policy cannot be switched off, since SEPP 71 incorporates … all future legislation and policies … At best, perhaps it is sloppy drafting. At worst, it would appear state Labor has some very questionable intent to switch off what everybody has said is a good policy to protect our coast.”

A spokesman for the Planning Minister, Tony Kelly, said the state environmental planning policy drawn up for the Catherine Hill Bay development was stronger than SEPP 71 and provided greater protection.

”The proposed SEPP includes specific provisions relating to development in coastal areas, which deliver stronger coastal protection outcomes than SEPP 71,” he said.

”Similarly, the proposed SEPP also does retain the key elements of SEPP 1 … These changes are in line with a Department of Planning policy to make planning instruments easier to understand, by including relevant planning provisions applying to the land within the one instrument.”

There are also concerns the government may be seeking to expedite development approvals.

”The problem with the government’s approach is worse than it first appears, since they’re dealing with the rezoning even before the development application has been lodged,” one source who has analysed the proposal said.