Wamberal Beach – or the lack of the sandy beach at Wamberal to be precise – continues to dominate the news and the stories are likely to continue for weeks to come.
Court cases are being held in the Land and Environment Court in Sydney and at Gosford court house; the regional planning panel is deliberating on a seawall application and Central Coast Council will next week debate alternatives for a medium to long-term solution to the coastal erosion.
Meanwhile, sections of the beach are closed to the community.
The story has gone off on social media and also in the traditional media including making the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald, after what police described as an “altercation” on the beach on August 12.
Councillor Corinne Lamont and husband Mark Lamont are charged with assault and affray and the case goes to Gosford Court today, Thursday, August 20, for mention and again on September 4.
They are alleged to have assaulted Wamberal Beach landowner Warren Hughes who will face the Land and Environment Court (LEC) on Friday, August 22, after Council issued two stop work orders on rocks being placed in front of his beachfront home at 9 Pacific St.
Both cases are expected to be adjourned to continue at future dates.
Central Coast Council addressed the LEC on Wednesday, August 20, asking for permission to add two more landowners to its summons.
They are the owners of homes at 5 and 11 Pacific St, Wamberal.
The LEC meets again on Friday, August 22.
Central Coast Council and the regional planning panel are in deep conversations about the future of Wamberal Beach.
On Wednesday, August 19, the regional planning panel met to make a decision on a seawall development application from beachfront owners at 85, 87, 89 Ocean View Drive, Wamberal.
Councillors Rachel Stanton and Doug Eaton attended as members of the panel.
A decision won’t be public until next week but the recommendation to the panel was to refuse the application.
Council’s development control plan 2022 states that all structures constructed within a designated Coastal Hazard Area should not give rise to any increased coastal hazard on other land.
On top of that DA, Wamberal Protection Association, a group of landowners, has submitted three DAs for three different sections of a proposed seawall that would extend along the entire beach.
But in April of this year, Premier Chris Minns said the State Government was not interested in being part of that solution for its land on the waterfront.
Instead, he talked about sand nourishment as a possible plan.
The 2025-26 State Budget saw $21.5M committed to fund the next stage of sand nourishment works at Stockton Beach, north of Newcastle, and Minns said that will act as a statewide trial site for similar soft management approaches at other erosion-impacted beaches.
Coastal erosion of Wamberal Beach has been front page news periodically since 1974 when storms threatened homes.
Homes were lost in 1978 storms.
Council says there is a long history of emergency mitigation works and there are very limited further temporary works practicable.
Council wants a longer-term sustainable solution.
It says erosion is impacting land loss but no homes are at immediate risk of collapse.
“While this is impacting land loss and consequently loss of landscaping materials, including unauthorised works, there is no immediate risk of significant structural collapse – notwithstanding the recognised likelihood of significant structural collapse during a major or extreme coastal storm event, for which no further temporary emergency works are practicable,” Council said this week.
“A long-term solution consistent with Council’s Engineering Design Requirements is necessary.
“The approved protection to be provided at The Entrance North offers a similar level of protection to that existing at Wamberal from previous emergency works.”
Council said owners have been advised to reduce pressure on the slope by removing unauthorised works and to redirect any local rainfall runoff away from the escapement.
“These works undertaken with proper guidance and support offered will reduce present slope instability risk and do not require Ministerial Authorisation,” Council said.
“Many owners have not complied with this advice.”
Meanwhile, Council says advice at this point in time is that only a terminal protective structure correctly designed in accordance with Council’s Engineering Design Requirements can provide an acceptable level of further risk reduction to dwellings while improving and sustaining public beach amenity and public safety.
As Coast Community News was going to press, Council’s agenda for the August 26 meeting included a notice of motion about that.
In summary, it wants to draw up an alternative seawall and sand nourishment plan to present to the relevant minister for approval.
The motion is expected to ask Council to direct the CEO to engage appropriately qualified consultants to develop, in conjunction with private land owners, an alternative design for medium/long-term remediation works including sand nourishment underpinned with a rock toe wall at Wamberal.
The work would to be funded from Council’s special project reserve.
Once approved by impacted land owners, Council would seek a ministerial authorisation for such works via a request to the Reconstruction Authority.
The Reconstruction Authority (RA) is the government agency tasked with responding to the coastal erosion emergency at North Entrance and Wamberal.
RA works are paid for by the affected residents, whereas storm emergency works directed by the LECON (the local emergency management committee) are paid for by the general ratepayer.
The motion is expected to generate debate among the councillors and possibly will attract speakers addressing them at the public forum held half an hour before the meeting.
The forum starts at 6pm at Council’s chambers in Hely St, Wyong.
Meanwhile, Council has closed the section of the beach where the rock works occurred.
Council said the main reason is potential unsafe conditions.
Council has a sign at each end of the impact zone around Pacific St.
Merilyn Vale
Wamberal does not face a sudden collapse that justifies emergency works. council’s own chief executive said so. pushing for a ministerial shortcut through the reconstruction authority is not about public safety, it is about giving beachfront owners a backdoor to a seawall they have long wanted.
this motion demands council spend public money on design work that only proceeds if private landowners approve it. that flips accountability. taxpayers carry the risk while a handful of wealthy residents control the outcome.
the normal process sits with the regional planning panel. it requires scrutiny, transparency, and a fair weighing of community impact. bypassing that with a ministerial authorisation undermines probity. it locks in private gain, strips the beach of space, and ignores state opposition to a seawall.
public money should never be a bargaining chip in a private protection scheme. this motion is a dangerous precedent dressed up as emergency response.
The CEO “While this is impacting land loss and consequently loss of landscaping materials, including unauthorised works, there is no immediate risk of significant structural collapse”
Similar situations have been arising,all over the world and will only worsen,due to climate change. To spend millions and millions of rate payers dollars,will be an exercise in futility,in the long term. While having a lot of sympathy for owners affected, there is no miracle solution. Council having to address whole beach erosion,is a monumental task,that could send a them ‘to the wall’ and/or result in exorbitant rate rises. These homes have devastatingly,for owners, become almost worthless over time.
However,only Mother Nature will determine the final outcome. Not any man.
Where are the Engineers?
Only if they have some common sence should not be granted to build there in the first place. Did not learn a thing from 1974 storms.
Who owns the beach. Who or what determines beach access and the right to walk along a beach. Seawalls and large rocks on the beach are tourist and local hazards creating difficulties for many people wishing to enjoy what should always be a public amenity. There could be drownings injury or other property damage like surfcraft damage or dangerous situations for even experienced Ocean users. Have a good look at our public amenities since these land owners have dumped rocks on the beach.