Developer’s flood plan will fail, say experts on West Culburra
by Lucy Robertson /
Engineers and environmentalists have slammed a developer’s response to community concerns over flawed flood projections for a new subdivision proposed in West Culburra.
In the development plan, 40ha of critical habitat for threatened species would be cleared to make way for a 400-home housing estate in West Culburra.
But it is the developer’s flood data and flood mitigation plan that has now come under fire as the planned subdivision sits on Curleys Bay and impacts the local oyster industry.
Sealark Pty Ltd, owned by the Halloran Trust, last week closed its 10-day exhibition period of responses to almost 70 public submissions received under its Environmental Protection and Conservation Biodiversity (EPBC) Act ‘controlled action’ application last year.
In the 10 months since submissions were received, Sealark produced a 28-page analysis with responses that some experts have described as “an insult to the intelligence of residents”.
Critics cite a lack of any new detail following the response-to-feedback period, a failure to independently test its own water data and species surveys, and a misleading claim that it has made modifications to the development proposal.
Coastal engineer and Culburra Beach resident, Elizabeth Freeman, found the Sealark development’s proposed hydrology plan and flood mitigation flawed.
“Most notably, the 2020 flood impact assessment by Allen Price & Scarratts has referenced incorrect flood planning levels and thus underestimated flood levels by up to one metre,” Ms Freeman said.
“This will result in a greater impact to the proposed site than has been stated.
“Sealark has had many opportunities to review its hydrology plans, given a number of experts raised concerns throughout the process, but the developer has chosen to press on with its flawed proposal.”
Vice President of the Culburra Residents and Ratepayers Action Group (CRRAG) Carolyn Henshaw described the Sealark response to submissions as “completely inadequate”.
“A year ago, many local residents and organisations raised concerns over the developer’s justification for destroying threatened and endangered species habitat.
“But these have not been addressed and there are also some glaring red flags in the response analysis.”
“It looks like shoddy work and makes the community think that it’s nothing but a box-ticking exercise and that they expect to just be waved through by the Minister.”
Among the specific list of concerns from CRRAG about Sealark’s responses is:
- Inadequate fauna surveys
Many submissions raised concerns that an inadequate number of surveys of threatened species such as the Greater Glider or Yellow-Bellied Glider have been completed since catastrophic bushfires swept through the Shoalhaven.
In response, Sealark confirmed only eight hours of surveys over two nights were completed since 2020 for these notoriously shy nocturnal species. No further justification of Sealark’s survey protocols were given.
Ms Henshaw also noted the developer’s EPBC Referral application for a separate development in Callala Bay by the same environmental assessor, Eco-Logical, found no evidence of these glider species.
However, independent ecologists and local photographers documented a healthy community of endangered Greater Gliders, Yellow-Bellied Gliders and other threatened species on that site also earmarked for destruction.
- Flood mitigation ponds insufficient
Several submissions, including those written by qualified engineers, claim incorrect flood height predictions have been used by Sealark for the placement of water biofiltration ponds that are supposed to protect the oyster industry from water pollution.
Specifically, experts claim there are inconsistencies between the 2020 Allen Price & Scarratt flood study, relied on by the developer, and the 2023 Shoalhaven City Council flood certificate.
The developer’s response was to deny the alternate professional analysis of local water experts without any new supporting material or updated modelling.
- Misleading plan modifications
On the first page of its EPBC response documentation, Sealark claims to have reduced its overall footprint and included a foreshore protection zone that removes a network of coastal boardwalks in response to EPBC submissions.
However, this was actually a requirement of the Land and Environment Court’s 2021 concept approval decision rather than a modification Sealark made on its own.
- Lack of genuine consultation with Jerrinja community
Sealark claims to have satisfied its legal requirements to consult with Jerrinja Wandi Wandian traditional owners. However, many indigenous community members living in Culburra Beach claim the developer has failed to address ongoing concerns about the cumulative impacts of Halloran Trust developments in the Culburra area.
Jerrinja Local Aboriginal Land Council CEO, Alfred Wellington, denies that any adequate or genuine consultation has taken place between his organisation and Sealark about the West Culburra proposal.
This was recently illustrated in a Shoalhaven City Council moratorium on all Sealark developments until an independent review of cultural heritage impacts can be obtained. There is no reference to this historic motion in the developer’s EPBC response documents.
Ms Henshaw said it was farcical that Sealark did not publish the original submissions with the response.
“Sealark spent 10 months preparing a response to the more than 60% of submissions objecting to the plan, and then basically said they are all wrong but did not provide any further evidence or detail about why .
“Given that multiple inquiries and regional planning strategies over the past three decades have recommended that Culburra Beach is not suitable for urban expansion, it is disappointing to see a developer doing such a cursory job of its environmental responsibility, especially at a time when we are faced with dual pressures of housing and climate change.”
Ms Henshaw urged Federal Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek to “look closely” at the Sealark responses to its EPBC Referral application and apply the rigorous attention to detail and scientific standards that residents expect.
“Ms Plibersek is one of the last gatekeepers of common sense when it comes to allowing West Culburra to be developed in one of the only unburnt tracts of bushland on the coast.
“We are relying on her to view Sealark’s application for the offensive junk science it is.”
Eco-Logical’s environmental scientist leading the Sealark assessment, Joseph Gleeson, refused to answer any questions about specific concerns, saying “no further consultation about the details of the project will be undertaken”
Despite numerous attempts to contact Sealark about its EPBC Referral and its response to community concerns, representatives from the company, including director Matt Philpott, declined to make any comment.
