Wamberal Save Our Sand (SOS) has uncovered covenants and indemnities that commit Wamberal beachfront property owners to undertake perpetual frontal dune restoration after storms – at their expense.
The deeds prove some beachfront property owners signed paperwork showing they accepted the risks of buying or building on the dunes, and the risk of sand erosion.
The titles give Council extraordinary powers to enforce sand nourishment and restoration, yet this has not been happening, SOS says.
Central Coast Council has not answered questions on how many properties have the covenants and if they have been enforced in the past five years.
But it confirmed the covenants transferred with the properties whenever a property was sold.
Wamberal SOS says the paperwork shows that property owners knew the risks and committed to restore beachfronts at their cost.
Under the covenants, Council can order landowners to restore sand to their dune frontages after storms and replant native dune vegetation all at the owners’ expense, in perpetuity.
In most cases, the covenants also empower Council to undertake the dune restoration work if owners don’t meet their obligations and Council can charge the owners for those works.
SOS volunteer Corinne Lamont asked why Council was pushing an end-to-end seawall when there are already covenants in place with many landowners to ensure the restoration of dune frontages after storms.
“Anyone familiar with Wamberal Beach can see Council is failing in land management as dune restoration under Positive Covenants has not, for whatever reason, been actioned in most cases,” Lamont said.
Several deeds stipulated native vegetation as the method to stabilise the dune and reduce dune erosion and are signed by the beachfront owners.
“Many property frontages are a mess of rocks, not a restored sand and native vegetation frontage,” Lamont said.
“Sadly, Council is allowing some beachfront owners to shirk their legal responsibility to restore their beach frontages after storms.
“Council let beachfront owners off the hook and the beach has suffered as a result.”
Wamberal Protection Association (WPA) declined to comment but a spokesperson said the group would comment in due course within the framework of the legal Development Application (DA) process.
Council is working with the WPA to submit a development application for a whole of embayment approach to a seawall for the beach.
It was revealed earlier this year that Council had contributed $100,000 for its share of the work.
It has said the deeds would become unnecessary and could be revoked should a whole of embayment seawall be in place.
Lamont said Council should hold residents accountable to the deeds, and work with owners who wish to honour their deeds, rather than helping the WPA with their seawall Development Application.
“The WPA talks about a ‘permanent solution’, but the solution is they just need to honour their beach restoration covenants,” Lamont said.
SOS also questions why DAs were approved along the beachfront in recent years without Positive Covenants registered on title as required under Council’s Development Control Plans of both 2013 and 2022.
Council did not respond to CCN’s questions before deadline.
However it responded to earlier questions about beachfront Crown land.
“Crown Lands is responsible for the beach, which is not directly affected by proposed coastal protection works, which are mainly proposed for private land,” Council said.
“The Office of Strategic Lands (OSL) does hold five parcels along the alignment of the proposed protection works.
“Council continues to negotiate with OSL about the future status of these lands.”
Wamberal beachfront homes have been affected by storm surges since the 1970s.
Merilyn Vale
Council statement that the beach is Crown land and is not affected by the Proposed Seawall DA is another half truth being put out there by our unelected council under administrator Rik Hart. The wall will be 1.3 KLM long passing by several lots of public owned land that we the ratepayers will pay to be walled at an unknown cost. The Seawall is on private land but will use the beach for access and will turn the beach into a construction zone for several years. And when the vertical Seawall is built it will destroy the beach by scouring the sand from in front of it. The sand will have to replaced! Who will pay for that? The ratepayers again. How much will this environmental vandalism cost the ratepayers. Try and get a straight answer out of the council. Council is not telling the community the full story,
All the times I walked past those beachfront properties thinking, surely they have a moral obligation to clean up their mess. When they actually had a legal obligation !
The WPA states a Legal DA application ! It won’t be legal unless all the beachfront land owners have signed on to the Seawall DA. Apparently some owners don’t want the Seawall. The Seawall must be continuous to be legal !
Ratepayers will be paying for a Seawall the community doesn’t want on land that doesn’t need a Seawall.
Why is a sea wall on Rik Harts agenda when he was put in as administrator to get the council out of debt.
I was talking to a real estate agent who told me he built a block of units on the beach some years ago and he had to sign up to being responsible for damage caused by ECLs and said a revetment wall was what was mentioned for the future.