CASE STUDY 1: HILLARYS BOAT HARBOUR - … · (86%) of these submissions were duplicated letters of...

What We Thought Would Kill Us 3

CASE STUDY 1: HILLARYS BOAT HARBOUR

MARCH 2011

Committee for Perth 1

Research Report: ‘What We Thought Would Kill Us’

Case Study 1: Hillarys Boat Harbour

1

2

1. Introduction

2. History of the Hillarys Boat Harbour

3. Community Opposition and Key Concerns 5

3.1 Environmental Protection Authority Report and Recommendations................... 5

3.2 Spectrum Research Survey ................................................................................ 5

3.3 Key Community Concerns .................................................................................. 6

3.4 Environmental Issues.......................................................................................... 6

4. Key Issues, Community Concerns and their Outcomes 7

4.1 Environmental and Ecological Concerns ............................................................ 7

4.2 Amenity Issues.................................................................................................... 9

4.3 Beach Usage .................................................................................................... 10

4.4 Cost and Need for project ................................................................................. 11

4.5 Lack of Consultation ......................................................................................... 11

4.6 Wrong location .................................................................................................. 12

5. Summary and Conclusions 13

Appendix 1

Location Plan

Appendix 2

History of the Development

Appendix 3

Researcher profile and References

©This paper is copyright of the Committee for Perth. While we encourage its use, it should be referenced as: What We Thought Would Kill Us, Hillarys Boat Harbour, 2011, Committee for Perth, Perth.

SECTION 1

Introduction


“We love to have access to waterfronts with amenity such as commercial, tourism and leisure activities; yet we fear any change to our much treasured coastline”

1. Introduction

1.1 Introduction

Hillarys Boat Harbour has arguably become one of the most successful tourism, commercial, recreational and boating developments in Perth. With its protected swimming beach, cafes, restaurants, retail, commercial, tourism, leisure and marine activities, the harbour attracts between four to five million visitors annually, provides the recreational and leisure needs of the wider regional population and directly employs more than 1,200 people, (Department of Transport (DOT), 2011). People love it.

However, at the time of its development in the 1980s, the boat harbour became one of the most hotly and sometimes violently disputed developments in Perth’s history. Protestors lay down in front of bulldozers demanding that the government stop works on the project.

The main concerns of local residents and wider community members were that the harbour would destroy the beach by having a disastrous effect on natural ecological features and deprive the people of Perth of a safe and naturally beautiful swimming beach.

There was also fundamental concern that the project was not consistent with Perth’s character and history of no or low development on the coast and foreshore - therefore threatening the special undeveloped, natural character of the Perth coastline.

This case study has been undertaken by the Committee for Perth to examine the then community’s concerns and fears about the boat harbour and whether they have come to fruition, or whether Hillarys Boat Harbour is an example of how development that the community feels threatened by in the short term can, in the long term, become our biggest assets or even be judged as unambitious by the next generation(s).

The boat harbour is of particular significance in Perth because it demonstrates one of the Perth population’s major dichotomies: we love to have access to waterfronts with amenity such as commercial, tourism and leisure activities; yet we fear any change to our much treasured coastline.


“The marina, then known as Sorrento Quay, was to be constructed on reclaimed land as a tourist and boating facility to support the 1987 defence of the Americas Cup.”

2. History of the Hillarys Boat Harbour

On May 11 1984, the then Wanneroo Shire Council accepted a State Government proposal to build a 1,000 boat marina at Sorrento, 18 kilometres north of the Perth Central Area (see location plan attached as Appendix A).

The marina, then known as Sorrento Quay, was to be constructed on reclaimed land as a tourist and boating facility to support the 1987 defence of the Americas Cup. The development was to provide for the construction of the boat harbour and associated facilities including a range of commercial, recreational, tourist, club and maritime activities (Sorrento Quay Story, 1988).

At the time the harbour was planned and when construction commenced, it was anticipated that up to thirty syndicates were trying to raise challenges for the cup, and it was anticipated that ten or so of these would be housed in the Hillarys Boat Harbour (DOT, 2011).

In late May the Shire of Wanneroo held a public meeting on the proposal, attended by 250 people, 200 of whom voted in favour of the proposal. A motion that the Shire should hold a referendum on the proposal was defeated at the meeting (City of Joondalup, 2011).

However, within two months of the Council’s approval of the proposal, local residents against the proposal had formed powerful lobby groups opposing the development including the Wanneroo Beaches Action Group and the Sorrento Marina Watchdog Committee (City of Joondalup, 2011).

Opponents claimed that the development would not only have disastrous effects on the natural ecological features in the area but that it would deprive the people of Perth of a safe and naturally beautiful swimming beach. “Turning Sorrento into Miami Florida” read an anti-marina slogan and members of the vocal Wanneroo Beaches Association group declared that they would “stand in front of trucks and bulldozers” (Sorrento Quay Story, 1988).

In January 1985 the EPA released the Hillarys Boat Harbour Environmental Review and Management Program (ERMP) for public comment and received 4,211 submissions, which is noted as being seven times higher than the previous highest total for an ERMP. This indicates a very high level of public interest in the proposal by this time. However it is noted that the very large majority (86%) of these submissions were duplicated letters of opposition rather than personal letters or comprehensive submissions. Just 114 (3%) of submissions received were in support of the project (EPA,1985).


In 1985 a tent “embassy” was constructed within the boundaries of the proposed marina and in October 1985 two people were arrested during demonstrations.

Opponents of the project argued that the government had failed to properly assess the environmental impacts of the proposal, and experts from influential international environmental groups became involved and claimed that the marina would irreparably damage the beach (The West Australian, 1985).

The marina was finally completed in October 1986 in time for the America’s Cup, however at $13 million dollars the final cost of the project went well beyond the original estimate of $4 to $5 million (The Sorrento Quay Story, 1988).

A full summary of the history of the development is provided at Appendix B


“There is no doubt that the marina generated very significant community concern”

3. Community Opposition and Key Concerns

3.1

3.2

There is no doubt that the marina generated very significant community concern, however opponents of the proposal were very vocal and visible and it is possible that they may have generated a greater perception of opposition than was actually the case.

Environmental Protection Authority Report and Recommendations

In May 1985 the Environmental Protection Authority released their Report and Recommendations on the Sorrento Quay project. The report provides a summary of the large number of submissions (4,211) received on the boat harbour project and summarises that the community was most concerned about the social and economic impacts of the development. Concerns were also raised about the impact of the project on the natural environmental values which many submitters considered to be inherently superior to man-made environments, in particular the loss of the beach and visual impacts; and impacts to local amenity with local residents objecting to having to bear the impacts of a regional project. There was also criticism that a proper cost-benefit analysis was not undertaken and that, in submitters view the benefits of the project would not outweigh the costs. This view was often accompanied by a perception that the project was elitist and unnecessary just for the America’s Cup defence and that it should cater more for trailer boats which were said to make up a large proportion of the demand at the time.

The report also noted that a number of submissions were received supporting the concept of a boat harbour in the region, but not at Sorrento, with Ocean Reef being identified as the most supported alternative site.

Spectrum Research Survey

The issues identified in the EPA report as being the primary community concerns were largely verified in a survey undertaken in March 1985 by Spectrum Research which was commissioned by then Planning Minister Bob Pearce. The aim of the survey was to identify public attitudes towards the proposed Sorrento Boat Harbour development;to assess the level of public disapproval/approval for the proposed boat harbour development, particularly among residents in the northern corridor; identify and quantify reasons for public concern; identify whether there were any changes, if any that would improve public acceptance of the plan; and obtain an indication of the number of likely users of the facility.


3.3

3.4

The survey comprised 800 telephone interviews with a random sample of adults residing in the northern corridor. The survey found that 52.9% of people approved of the harbour plan and 32.9% disapproved. This was compared to disapproval/approval rates for other controversial projects proposed at the time including the Burswood Casino which had a 52.3% approval rate and 36.9% disapproval rate and Observation City which had a 51.4% approval rate and 30.4% disapproval rate.

In regards to benefits of the proposal, the most commonly identified benefits were the provision of much needed mooring facilities; the stimulation of business and employment in the region; attraction of tourists; improving the area and increasing real estate values. These benefits have occurred over time, and although the direct impact of the harbour on real estate values is difficult to quantify , according to Gavin Hegney from Hegney Property Group, Hillarys and Sorrento have outperformed neighbouring suburbs such as Mullaloo since the harbour was developed and were the top performing coastal areas just after the harbour was completed. Peter Peard of Peard Real Estate shares this view, stating that “the property values in Hillarys ,Sorrento are about 10 to 15% higher because of the marina”. This perspective is supported by Landgate statistics for the area which indicate that Hillarys and Sorrento have out-performed Mulalloo since the late 1980s (Landgate, 2009).

The survey found that those in favour of the project were more likely to be potential users of the facility. Similarly, those in favour of the development were more likely to identify land based amenity issues as possible adverse impacts of the proposal than those against the development, who were more likely to be concerned about environmental impacts and effects on the beach. A positive correlation was also observed between people who opposed the development and people who frequently used the beach in the vicinity of the development.

The primary issues that were identified as being of concern to community members through both submissions on the ERMP and Spectrum Survey are discussed in detail in section 4.

Key Community Concerns

Community concerns have been identified through a review of the EPA’s Report and Recommendations (1985) the 1985 Spectrum Survey, a review of reported in The West Australian in 1985 and public consultation information released by the Department of Marine and Harbours in the 1980s. The concerns identified in regard to the proposal can be categorised into four main groups: environmental; amenity; beach usage and location and process issues. These are discussed below.

Environmental Issues

The information outlined in section 4 provides an overview of the primary environmental, social and amenity concerns that were identified as of being of significant importance to community members and then provides a short statement in regards to the actual outcomes of the project to date (i.e. whether any of these concerns have come to fruition or not).


“The local community were concerned that the development would irretrievably change the nature of the area”

4. Key Issues and Community Concerns and their Outcomes

4.1 Environmental and Ecological Concerns

Key Issues and Community Concerns

Outcomes



Outcomes



Outcomes

4.2 Amenity Issues


Outcomes

,



Outcomes

4.3 Beach Usage


Outcomes



Outcomes

4.4 Cost and Need for the Project


Outcomes

4.5 Lack of Consultation


Outcomes



Outcomes

4.6 Wrong Location


Outcomes

W


“The development clearly contributes positively to the amenity of the region and has been an essential contributor to employment and economic sustainability of the corridor”

5. Summary and Conclusions

It is evident that while opposition to the development of Hillarys Boat Harbour was very substantial, it may not have been as significant as it appeared: i.e. a majority of adults in the region were in favour of the development but were not as passionate, visible or vocal as the minority who strongly opposed the harbour development. It is therefore clear that for development of this type it is of significant assistance to obtain the views of a large proportion of the population as an indication of the majority community viewpoint.

However, it is also clear that those people who opposed the development were vehemently opposed to it, and strongly believed that the development would have significant to catastrophic impacts on the local terrestrial and marine environment and would irreparably ruin a naturally beautiful swimming beach. These opponents did not trust in government development processes and assessments and would not be reassured by them.

However hindsight has shown that the EPA assessment undertaken at the time was largely accurate and adequate and the development of the harbour did not result in any significant environmental impacts that were not foreseen. The major environmental concerns of opponents did not eventuate or appear to have been adequately mitigated.

It is therefore important that government agencies provide transparency, communicate effectively and work to build confidence in the assessment and approval process.

Amenity impacts have become more problematic however these largely did not eventuate until over a decade after the harbour development when there was considerable increase in visitors to the facility as well as substantial expansion of the northern corridor substantially increasing pressure on local infrastructure. There have also been some additional unforeseen safety and anti-social behaviour issues which the 2004 Structure Plan has aimed to address.

Yet it is evident that Hillarys Boat Harbour has been extremely successful. The development clearly contributes positively to the amenity of the region and has been an essential contributor to employment and economic sustainability of the corridor. These benefits do appear to substantially outweigh any negative impacts that the development has had over time. The Department of Transport is currently working with Edith Cowan University to quantify the positive economic and social impacts of the development (to be completed in September 2011) and it is evident from both employment (1,200 people employed by business in the harbour) and visitor numbers (four to five million per annum), that these will be very substantial.


It is also clear that a very large part of the project’s success is due to the mix of uses and activities it provides for – meaning that it appeals and is accessible to a very wide demographic. There is no doubt that the project would not be judged as being such a major success if it was simply a marina. It is the public access, the sheltered beach, BBQ and picnic areas, restaurants, cafes, Aquarium of WA, water playground, shops, accommodation and boating, fishing and ferry services which give the harbour its wide appeal and ultimately add to the amenity of the region.

As such, overall it can be judged that opponents of the project were, in the main, not right about the extent of the impacts of the harbour and in focussing on its adverse impacts the benefits of the project were largely overlooked. With the benefit of hindsight we can appreciate that the development didn’t kill us, or do us any real harm - but rather provided us with some very substantial benefits, while having some negative impacts which were largely anticipated and, in the main, mitigated.

Furthermore, it is noted that, while there are no doubt still detractors of the project and those who would prefer natural over man made environments, as a whole the market likes it, and the positive market response is reflected in the success and visitor numbers to the harbour itself and the positive impact that it has had on surrounding property values.

Despite this, it is considered likely that if this development was proposed today it would also be likely to generate strong opposition. Overcoming this type of opposition has proven to be very difficult however there are some lessons to learn from the Hillarys experience:

1. The community opponents are most often genuine, passionate and knowledgeable individuals. But they are not always in the majority, and they are not always right. It is therefore important to have a good consultation/participation strategy which can ensure that a balanced perception of the community’s views can be obtained; can ensure that the wider community is well informed about a project; and can enable all community members to have a genuine opportunity to have a say in the development process and be taken seriously. Community opposition is more likely to escalate if opponents do not believe that their concerns are being taken seriously or properly addressed. However, even if community concerns are addressed, some people will still not be satisfied, and in these cases minority vocal opposition it is not a reason in itself to abandon a project. There is no doubt that most projects that have an opportunity to deliver long term gain will involve some short term pain.

2. Projects which are proposed to be developed in sensitive locations such as on the coast or river should provide a wide range of activities and be accessible to a very broad demographic. This is the key to the success of the Hillarys Boat Harbour which has provided a very successful mix of facilities, services and uses which appeal to a wide range of users and incorporate activities which can be enjoyed for free. Projects which are considered to be elitist or available to only a small proportion of the population are unlikely to be judged positively by the wider public in the short or longer term.

3. All development projects will have impacts some of which may not be supported by the local and wider community. However, in considering projects of regional and state significance we need robust processes which enable the assessment of localised impacts against the potential benefits to the wider city, region and state.

4. Development can occur on Perth’s coastline without ruining its character or environmental quality and can add to the amenity and accessibility of the beach. Therefore, while our undeveloped coastline is beautiful, there is room for some sensitive nodal development on the coast and the river to meet the diverse recreational needs of our growing population and add to the vibrancy of the city.

Scale(A4):1:8000 Date: 28 February 2011

N

DISCLAIMER: While every care is taken to ensure the accuracy of this data, the

City of Joondalup makes no representations or warranties about its accuracy,

completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and disclaims all liability

for all expenses, losses, damages and costs which you might incur as a result of

the data being inaccurate or incomplete in any way and for any reason.

HILLARYS BOAT HARBOUR

LOCATION PLAN

90 Boas Ave, Joondalup WA 6027 PO Box 21, Joondalup WA 6919 Ph: 08 9400 4000 Fax: 08 9300 1383 [email protected] www.joondalup.wa.gov.au

Hillarys Boat Harbour – Summary of Development History 1984 to 1988

Property address 255 West Coast Drive, Hillarys WA 6025

Legal description: Reserve 39197 – Lot 13455 on Crown Plan 20334

Date Background Comment Source

10 May 1984 Shire of Wanneroo and State

Government hold special meeting

at Council offices Minutes of Special Council

meeting

Council signify conditional support to the Government’s

proposed marina development in Sorrento

1

16 May 1984 Shire of Wanneroo

Notification of public meeting

Held Sunday 20 May 1984 at the Sorrento Community Hall,

Padbury Circle, Sorrento to enable the Council and the Government to explain the marina proposal to local residents.

250+ people attended

Newspaper article1

21 May 1984

22 May 1984

Sorrento Marina Endorsed at

public meeting

200+ people voted in favour of the marina at Sorrento. Motion

that Wanneroo hold a referendum on the issue was defeated

Newspaper articles1

June 1984 Concern by residents that no

environmental impact study done

Wanneroo Beaches Action Group formed Newspaper article1

July 1984 Public meeting held at Shire of

Wanneroo to try to stop plans

Sorrento Marina Watchdog Committee formed Newspaper article1

September

1984

Opposition to works commencing Members of the Wanneroo Beaches Action group state they

would be prepared to stand in front of trucks and bulldozers if

efforts to stop the development failed

Newspaper article1

January 1985 Environmental Protection Authority release ERMP for public comment

8 week public comment period ended 29 March 1985 Newspaper article1

May 1985 Proposed Sorrento Boat Harbour

Report and recommendations by the EPA

Bulletin 196 May 1985

4211 submissions received. The report notes this to be seven times higher than the previous highest total for an ERMP which in itself is an indication of the level of interest felt by the community. The report details public submissions received.

Document held in

Joondalup Local Studies library

24 July 1985 Shire of Wanneroo

Minutes of Council meeting

Hillarys Boat Harbour application for approval to commence development considered. Approval recommended and referred to the Metropolitan Region Planning Authority for final approval.

2

Date Background Comment Source

August 1985 Appeal lodged with the Town Planning appeals Tribunal by the

Sorrento Marina Watchdog

Committee

Appeal lodged against the Shire of Wanneroo’s decision to approve the construction of the Hillarys Boat Harbour

Newspaper article1

September 1985

Work commences on the Hillarys Boat Harbour

Newspaper article1

October 1985 Group called ‘Women Against the

Sorrento Marina’ hold a protest

rally on the beach and force trucks to stop

Police intervened - protestors were asked to get down from the

groyne areas

Newspaper article1

October 1985 Sorrento Marina Watchdog

Committee lose appeal

Committee disbands after Town Planning Appeal Tribunal ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The move ended a struggle that lasted over 2 years to get the marina stopped.

Newspaper article1

October 1985 Anti marina protesters picket the

Hillarys Boat Harbour construction site

About 120 people gathered on the partly constructed southern

breakwater of the marina to block trucks carrying limestone. Work stopped for about 90 mins before police moved in to escort

each truck through the protesters.

Newspaper article1

October 1986 Boat launching facilities opened Document2

15 January 1988

Hillarys Boat Harbour officially opened

Opened by Premier of WA, Hon Brian Burke Document2

5 October 2004 Hillarys Boat Harbour Structure

Plan & Implementation Strategy

November 2004

Adopted by the Western Australian Planning Commission as a

guide for the consideration of development applications and

other proposals within the harbour area

Document2

Newspaper article1 – Information taken from newspaper clippings Joondalup Local Studies Library

Document2 – Information taken from Hillarys Boat Harbour Structure Plan & Implementation Strategy November 2004 (Page 37)

Prepared by: Colette Russell-Herbert

Administration Officer, Urban Design & Policy

17 January 2011


“It is considered likely that if this development was proposed today it would also be likely to generate strong opposition”

Appendix 3: Researcher Profile

This research has been prepared Gemma Davis, a consultant for the Committee for Perth. Gemma has an Honours degree in Urban and Regional Planning and has over ten years experience in research, strategic planning, policy development and urban planning.

This has included the preparation of strategic planning documents for government agencies in Australia and the Republic of Ireland in her role as a Senior Planner for Environment Resource Management Ltd (ERM); the preparation of development applications and social and environmental impact assessments of proposed housing and industrial developments in her role as Senior Planner for ERM and Senior Planner with Tom Phillips + Associates (Republic of Ireland); undertaking research, preparing policy and managing production of member services in her role as Manager of Research and Policy for the Urban Development Institute of Australia (WA); and preparing strategic planning and policy documents for Queenstown Lakes District Council (New Zealand) in her role as Senior Policy Analyst.


References

City of Joondalup (2011) Research on the History of Hillarys Marina Development (unpublished)

Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) (2002) Marmion Marine Park Management Plan 1992-2002, Perth WA

Department of Environment and Conservation (2011) Marmion Marine Park Online Visitors Guide http://www.dec.wa.gov.au/component/option,com_hotproperty/task,view/id,11/Itemid,755/

Department of Health (2005) Media Release 2 November available at: http://www.health.wa.gov.au/home/search.cfm?cx=004702629457117672014%3Azcmimyjsjye&cof=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF8&q=hillarys+boat+harbour&siteurl=www.health.wa.gov.au%2Fhome%2F&sa.x=12&sa.y=7#148

Department for Planning and Infrastructure (2004) Hillarys Boat Harbour Structure Plan and Implementation Strategy, Perth WA

Department of Transport (2011) Interviews: Donna West, Manager of Coastal Facilities, Department of Transport; and Bob Andrews, Department of Transport (and original member of advisory group on America’s Cup facilities)

Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) (1985) Proposed Sorrento Boat Harbour Report and Recommendations, Perth WA

Hobbs V, Saunders A, Bailey J (1990) Environmental Auditing: Case Studies of Artificial Waterway Developments in Western Australia, Murdoch University & EPA, Perth WA

Landgate (2009) Residential Value Watch – Hillarys, Mullaloo and Sorrento, Perth WA

Shire of Wanneroo (1984), Minutes of Council Meeting 10 May 1984

Sorrento Quay (1988), the Sorrento Quay Story, Sorrento Quay local newspaper, first edition

Spectrum Research (1985) Report, a survey of public attitudes towards the Sorrento Boat Harbour development, prepared for and distributed by Office of the Minister (Bob Pearce M.L.A Minister for Education and Planning)

The West Australian (1985) Articles outlining opposition to the proposed marina at Sorrento. 1 Feb. 1985, p.21; 22 June, p.20; 21 Sept. p.1.

The West Australian (2005) Article by Elsie Dortch “Public in dark over marina bacteria”

The West Australian (2010) Property Article: “Hillarys: Families harbour liking for the area”

Western Australia Dept. Of Marine and Harbours (1991), Environmental Monitoring 1985 – 1990, The Dept, Fremantle, WA

Western Australia Dept. Of Marine and Harbours (no date but estimated circa 1985) Questions and Answers on the Hillarys Boat Harbour, Minister for Transport, Perth WA

Cover Image by Greg Season, 2016 Passion for Perth Photographic Competition Entrant.

Committee for Perth Office 7, 996 Hoy St Perth WA 6000 T: !0819481 5699 F: (08) 9481 7738

Postol: POBox7117 Cloisters Square Perth WA 6859 www.committeeforperth.com.ou

•

Committee for

CASE STUDY 1: HILLARYS BOAT HARBOUR - … · (86%) of these submissions were duplicated letters of...

Documents

Transcript of CASE STUDY 1: HILLARYS BOAT HARBOUR - … · (86%) of these submissions were duplicated letters of...