New plans for Wamberal erosion

Councillors have reconsidered a decision made at a previous Central Coast Council meeting about Wamberal Beach erosion.

Last month, a plan put forward by Councillor Doug Eaton was voted down.

This month the councillors voted to reconsider the matter and adopted a motion similar to the one they voted down last month.

The difference was that Councillor Rachel Stanton was not at this meeting.

Stanton had voted against the motion at the August meeting, giving the numbers to the Labor and independent councillors.

With her away this month, the Liberals and Team Central Coast had seven votes and the Labor and two independents had seven votes.

The Mayor used his casting vote to get the new motion adopted.

The new motion is similiar to the August motion except it leaves out two paragraphs.

The new motion notes that Council is able to request a Ministerial Authorisation, called a Section 68 under the NSW Reconstruction Authority Act, for development works in the circumstance where a Reconstruction Area has been declared such as at Wamberal.

The option then goes on to reaffirm its position that while this is the relevant process, Council does not see
further temporary works as being appropriate for Wamberal Beach and is instead focusing its efforts on medium-long term solutions.

It notes that Council’s consultant engineers have advised that only a terminal protective structure 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.

It notes a Development Application for a seawall solution at Wamberal is currently under consideration by the Regional Planning Panel and is yet to be determined.

The motion then directs the CEO to engage consultants to develop, in consultation with private landowners, an alternative design for a medium/long term remediation works at Wamberal.

“This design should be in accordance with Council’s Engineering Design Requirement and should offer
protection from moderate-severe storm events,” the motion states.

“Alternative design work is to be funded from available funds in the Special Project Reserve.

“The design should be developed in accordance with the following design principles in order of priority,
and should only pursue lower priority design principles where site constraints at certain locations prevent the Engineering Design Requirements from being sufficiently met: a) Sand nourishment underpinned by a buried flexible terminal rock revetment; b) Sand nourishment underpinned by a tiered rigid terminal protection
structure; c) Sand nourishment underpinned by a vertical rigid terminal protection structure,” the motion reads.

It notes that there may be different design solutions for different parts of the beach, and that each option is
intended to be a predominantly buried option most of the time but will also become exposed during significant erosion events.

Upon completion of the design, the CEO is directed to lodge a request for a Ministerial Authorisation for such works via a request to the Reconstruction Authority.

Implementation of any approved works is to be undertaken at the expense of impacted landowners and in accordance with any conditions of consent.

A section in the August motion noting that that Council’s draft Open Coast Coastal Management Program was the appropriate framework through which permanent protection works should be considered was deleted from the September motion.

Consulting with the community about its views on a sand covered revetment was also removed from the September motion.

Merilyn Vale