MORNINGTON PENINSULA RATEPAYERS AND RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION INC and McCRAE ACTION GROUP

Transcription

1 MORNINGTON PENINSULA RATEPAYERS AND RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION INC and McCRAE ACTION GROUP 31 March 2015 Reg No: A B PO Box 4087 Rosebud Vic Central Coastal Board PO Box 500 East Melbourne Vic 8002 Dear Central Coastal Board Central Regional Coastal Plan Draft The Mornington Peninsula Ratepayers and Residents Association Inc. and its precinct group, the McCrae Action Group is pleased to comment on the Central Regional Coastal Plan Draft. Our Association includes members who are active in the Friends of Rosebud Foreshore and the McCrae Foreshore Coastal Groups who help maintain the McCrae and Rosebud Foreshores. We have previously provided our views on the development of the Coastal Plan in April 2014 Our submission is as follows: Summary: Item 1 indicates that we are aligned with, and support, the submission by Peninsula Speaks Inc. The Central Coastal Board needs to ensure that any subsequent Coastal Management Plans are consistent with the Victorian Coastal Strategy 2014 and that there is no local government or departmental parochialism. Items 3 and 4 indicate that planners can be unrealistic in what can be achieved. Funding for coastal projects is likely to become under increasing pressure as the government is proposing to peg local government rates increases. The Central Regional Coastal Plan needs to also consider the efficient management of the coast. It may be that some managers need to look at their effectiveness and efficiency and/or some reorganisation is necessary to better utilise funds available. More emphasis needs to be placed on adaption planning for climate change and sea level rise. Inundation of some coastal areas will also be

2 affected by increased storm run off. Some actions may be able to be implemented now rather than being put off. In recent years some barriers have arisen which make life difficult for some of the volunteer groups. These groups may need support for recruiting and assistance with funding. Details 1. Our Association is affiliated with Peninsula Speaks Inc which co-ordinates and facilitates input into environmental matters on the Mornington Peninsula for groups like our Association. In this instance we are fully aligned with the Peninsula Speaks submission but have added a few additional comments of our own. 2. We support the concept for Regional Coastal Plans providing high level direction as on occasions local authorities can be parochial and narrowly focussed on their own self-interest. They seldom look beyond their own particular area and often do not consider the wider benefit to the Melbourne and Victorian community of our bays, coasts and foreshores. A major example of this was the Mornington Peninsula Shire s Southern Peninsula Aquatic Centre. Although the Victorian Coastal Strategy indicated that development on coastal Crown land should be coastal dependent some councillors and shire executives tried for many years to locate the Centre on Crown land on the Rosebud Foreshore. There are over 150 aquatic or leisure centres located inland in Victoria so it was quite clear that such a centre is not coastal dependent. Literally, hundreds of thousand dollars of ratepayers money was wasted by the shire executives. Following a recent by-election the balance of power in the Council changed and the new Council voted to write to the then Minster Ryan Smith who withdrew consent to use the foreshore. 3. Further need for high level direction on Coastal Pans is the Mt Eliza to Point Nepean Coastal Action Plan (CAP) which was prepared in Consistent with the Victorian Coastal Act 1995 the Plan was reviewed by the Central Coastal Council in 2011 which found that 24% of the proposed actions in 2005 CAP, despite these being the result of much community effort and funds were deemed no longer required, and only 26% CAP was completed. Despite the review and significant research and strategies being developed on climate change and sea level rises since 2005 the CAP has still not been revised. 4. On the 14 November 2011 the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council approved the Rosebud Foreshore Management Plan which was subsequently approved Minister on 9 May The management plan outlined around 100 actions many being in a medium to high category which were proposed to be undertaken within a 1-3 year timeframe. We have not undertaken an audit but would be very surprised if the shire s performance on delivering the Rosebud Foreshore Management Plan is any better than its performance on delivering the Mt Eliza to Point Nepean Coastal Action Plan. 2

3 5 Following is a copy of our submission to the shire s preliminary hearing on the budget. Our Suggestion is that if the shire cannot improve its performance on managing the foreshore then it should be handed back to Parks Victoria Review the cost to maintain the Rosebud Foreshore and the camping operation. In 2005 the Shire executed an agreement with Parks Victoria to takeover the management of the Rosebud Foreshore. Shortly after the Shire accepted responsibility the Manager - Recreation and Leisure stated in response to a question by Mr. Gary Howard at the , 223 Budget Hearing that: The net operating cost of the Rosebud Foreshore Reserve is three hundred and seventy thousand dollars ($370,000) per annum for 2006/2007. This compares to an initial expectation of approximately three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) per annum. We do expect however to improve on this once we have managed camping operations for a full year. The Business Plan (see Table 2) in the Council approved Rosebud Coastal Management Plan indicates that the predicted loss for the Shire to manage the foreshore was -$420,000 for and -$345,000 for and Advice from the officer who prepared the budget was that there were further additional costs that would be incurred by some of the Shire s units such as, the Strategic Planning Unit which is required to prepare master plans in accordance with the Management Plan. Business Plan included in the Rosebud Management Plan. 3

4 A further response was received from Mr Kevin Clarke shortly before he resigned from the Shire concerning the expenditure on the Foreshore. This was different from the Business Plan and it was difficult to correlate the two estimates. The Association suggests that since taking over the management of the foreshore from Parks Victoria ratepayers now appear to have to fund a loss of around $ million per annum. This does not include the cost for capital works which will be required for projects such as relocating the Bowling Club, construction of the Civic Square or the $4 million cost of the proposed Jetty Road, Rosebud precinct works. We note that the Shire s camping fees only increased by 2-4% this financial year compared to an average increase in rates of 5.9%. Other adjacent foreshore managers, such as those at Dromana, West Rosebud and Whitecliffs to Camerons Bight are managed by foreshore committees at little or no cost to ratepayers and this raises the question as to why the Shire can t do the same. The Association suggests that the Shire needs to look at its management costs and there needs to be some accountability, particularly in view of the statement above by the Manager- Recreation and Leisure. If the Shire cannot manage the foreshore at little or no cost to ratepayers it should look at handing over the management to a committee of management like the adjacent areas or returning the foreshore management to Parks Victoria. 6 To our knowledge Rosebud has been flooded three times in the last five or six years. The article in the Herald Sun dated 21 October 2012 (Attachment 1) reflects the work undertaken by DELWP and the Municipal Association of Victoria and the Bayside Municipalities projects. While the issues have been identified there is an attitude that it is many years away and there is no urgency for action to be taken. It is our position that this continued work should be given a high priority and there are a number of sensible decisions and actions which can be taken now rather than being deferred. 7 Our Association includes members who are active in the Friends of Rosebud Foreshore and the McCrae Foreshore Coastal Groups who help maintain the McCrae and Rosebud Foreshores. Feedback from these members is frustration with insurance. We understand that they now have to find their own insurance. It also seems for health and safety reasons they must now work under supervision from the shire. In addition these groups are finding that their supporters are getting older and are having difficulty in recruiting new younger members. They are not blaming the shire or any of the departments who assist them but any help they could get would be appreciated. Yours faithfully Dr Alan Nelsen President Tel: Mob: Attachment 1. Herald Sun dated 21 October

5 ATTACHMENT 1 - THE SUNDAY AGE Climate change bill of $1b for suburbs Date: October 21, 2012 Cameron Houston WATERFRONT communities from Southbank to the Mornington Peninsula face a damage bill of more than $1 billion from severe storms and rising sea levels over the next 90 years, according to a confidential climate change report. The report, by federal, state and local governments, warns that parts of Rosebud foreshore could be completely submerged by 2100 during coastal flooding, while residents around Elwood's canals face massive annual losses if government and local councils fail to act. Maps from the report show a large section of Point Nepean Road would be regularly cut off during storms, while local residents and businesses would encounter frequent floods resulting from climate change. Illustration: Matt Golding. 5

6 The research warns that riverfront properties at Southbank are at greatest risk from flooding, with the annual cost of damage expected to increase from about $3 million in 2011 to almost $20 million by The annual cost of flooding in Elwood would rise from about $2.5 million in 2011 to $15 million by the end of the century, according to the report, which is based on data from Melbourne Water. Mordialloc would also experience a sharp increase in flood damage without immediate government action. Due to be released next February, the Port Phillip Coastal Adaption Pathways Program examined four vulnerable coastal areas and another flood-prone area in North Melbourne known as Arden-Macaulay. All four Melbourne councils involved with the research have been briefed on the findings. The report, excerpts of which have been obtained by The Sunday Age, establishes a cost-benefit framework that will be used to shape planning decisions and infrastructure investment by governments. While some owners of foreshore land in Queensland and New South Wales will be urged to implement a ''staged retreat'', councils in Melbourne's flood-prone areas will be advised to adapt to climate change challenges. The adaption option includes resilience to flooding and providing moderate protection from floods, according to a confidential document from Mornington Peninsula Shire Council. At a private briefing in Rosebud on September 24, Mornington councillors and staff prepared a community response to the report. ''If somebody leaks this report in the next few weeks or the federal government releases it we need to be able to reassure the community. If this got out, without the right information, it could upset people,'' a council officer told the meeting. Another council officer at the meeting said: ''There is clearly a lot of concern amongst people engaged in coastal management issues that the media don't treat this issue well; they tend to jump to extreme positions and seek to divide the community.'' An audio recording of the meeting was accidentally placed on the council's website. Yesterday, federal Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said scientific evidence had proved that climate change was real and posed significant risks for future generations. ''This is why we have also been working closely with state and local authorities to help start planning for climate change so we can adapt our infrastructure and minimise the economic impacts,'' Mr Combet said. Estimates by the Climate Change Department from last year revealed that 247,600 coastal homes across Australia worth up to $63 billion were at risk of inundation from a sea level rise of 1.1 metres over the next century. A recent study by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated Australian sea levels would rise by 90 centimetres by Municipal Association of Victoria chief executive Rob Spence said the long-term prospects for coastal property owners around Port Phillip Bay were more positive than in other states. ''Reassuringly for all five case study areas, even under the worst-possible scenarios modelled, the research confirms it is economically viable to occupy the areas,'' Mr Spence said. He said the affected municipalities had already begun work to mitigate the impact of climate change. In June, Victorian Planning Minister Matthew Guy introduced measures to counter coastal inundation, including a 20-centimetre floor-level rise in new houses in urban infill developments. [email protected] Read more: 6