SPACE

Coastal Planning

COASTAL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT IN VICTORIA

THE VICTORIAN COASTAL STRATEGY – ONE YEAR ON

by John Ginivan

INTRODUCTION

The present era of reform in coastal planning and management centres around the 1995 Coastal Management Act. This important Act had 5 key objectives:

• to plan for and manage the use of Victoria’s coastal resources on a sustainable basis for recreation, conservation, tourism, commerce and similar uses in appropriate areas;
• to protect and maintain areas of environmental significance on the coast including the ecological, geomorphological, geological, cultural and landscape features;
• to facilitate the development of a range of facilities for improved recreation and tourism;
• to maintain and improve coastal water quality;
• to improve public awareness and understanding of the Victorian coast and to involve the public in coastal planning and management.

Basic reforms were to be achieved by simplifying approval processes, clarifying management responsibilities, increasing resources and forming a Victorian Coastal Council and Regional Coastal Boards.

In August 1995, the Victorian Coastal Council (VCC) began its tasks as the key strategic advisory coastal body.

The Gippsland, Central and Western Coastal Boards (RCBs) were established in early 1996 to provide regional advice, co-ordination and advocacy.

In November 1997 the Victorian Coastal Strategy, prepared by the Council, was approved by the Victorian State Government and is now being implemented.

THE VICTORIAN COASTAL STRATEGY - sustain, protect, direct and develop

The strategy is built around four themes: sustain, protect, direct and develop.

These themes provide a useful framework for addressing the wide range of issues that impact on the coast, and establishing future actions. It is a strategy that deals with the coast in its entirety, including public and private land, strategic land-use, off-shore and sea-bed activity, tourism, recreation, industry and conservation.

It identifies a hierarchy of principles for coastal and marine planning and management to guide the implementation of the Strategy and to resolve conflict where there are competing interests for the use of coastal and marine resources.

The Victorian Coastal Strategy is available at the Council’s web site: Victorian Coastal Council

FOCUS FOR ACTION

All to often, strategies and plans fail because there is no clear accountability for following through on actions, and resources are not targeted effectively. The Victorian Coastal Strategy identifies a lead agent with responsibility for key actions. Whilst the lead agent may not necessarily undertake a particular activity, they will be expected to account for progress in meeting the targets outlined in the strategy. Council, in accordance with the requirements laid down by the Government in the Coastal Management Act, will advise the Minister for Conservation and Land Management on progress.

Many of the actions in the Strategy are at various stages of implementation. Recently the Western Coastal Board conducted a workshop with Lead Agents responsible for actions affecting the west coast. This workshop demonstrated that work was progressing on all of the actions to various extents.

Already the Council and Regional Boards have been able to provide strategic advice in the framing of overall budget bids through the Government’s Capital Works Program, using the Victorian Coastal Strategy as the principal guide in setting priorities. A well-targeted commitment of available resources will enable significant progress to be achieved.

In 1998 the State Government announced the Bringing the Bay to Life initiative. This is a high level commitment to coordinate all agency programs and actions in Port Phillip under the auspices of the Central Coastal Board to give effect to the Coastal Strategy recommendations for the Bay.

Initiatives are being commenced at key activity nodes with a view to improving opportunities for public use and enjoyment of the coast whilst at the same time resulting in improved environmental management. Lorne and Queenscliff are two relevant examples. At Lorne the Western Coastal Board completed a Coastal Action Plan in May 1998 and a range of exciting foreshore improvement works are currently being implemented in accordance with the plan. This will ensure that Lorne remains one of the Victoria’s premier coastal destinations and continues to make a very significant contribution to the regional economy.

A Coastal Action Plan is under preparation for Queenscliff under the leadership of the Central Coastal Board and the Gippsland Board recently completed an Action Plan for the Gippsland Lakes. Other Coastal Action Plans are also being prepared.

The coast is increasingly being addressed in municipal planning schemes. The State Planning Policy Framework requires coastal municipal planning schemes to address coastal issues consistent with the Victorian Coastal Strategy. Already there is evidence that the Strategy is being used to help guide decision making in relation to permit applications and appeals. In addition, the Coastal Siting and design Guidelines and Landscape Units reports produced by the Council are in use and providing a guide to improve the quality of outcomes on the coast.

Community involvement and participation continues as an important element of the overall coastal program both in planning and direct participation. The CoastAction / CoastCare program continues to strengthen the base of volunteers who are involved directly with coastal rehabilitation projects and skills development. The Council Chairs the State Assessment Panel and has played a key role is setting overall priorities for these grants schemes.

Risk management on the coast has continued to receive significant attention, with a dedicated risk minimisation program being implemented.

At a management level, the Victorian Coastal Council finalised a review of coastal management arrangements in late 1998. The recommendations of this review have largely been accepted by the Minister for Conservation. Implementation of the recommendations has commenced and will ensure that Victoria has a robust structure in place that is able to provide for day to day coastal management needs.

Boating continues as a major recreational and commercial activity. The Coastal Strategy provides strong support and direction for boating. To underpin this, a statewide boating strategy has been initiated in cooperation with the State Boating Council, the three Regional Coastal Boards and the Victorian Coastal Council. The boating strategy will be of great value in identifying likely demand for facilities and providing strategic direction for allocation of resources which support boating.

Research and understanding continue to be a major requirement in effective coastal management. Council is advancing well with a feasibility study looking at opportunities to improve southern waters research and coordination. This will be vital work in progressing key objectives from the recently released Commonwealth Oceans Policy.

CONCLUSION

Victorian coastal planning and management is at an exciting stage. A reform process has been initiated, new structures have been established, and a strategic vision and framework for action has been established. Already many actions consistent with the strategy are being implemented and others are being planned. The process adopted in developing the vision has been effective and whilst there will always be some argument about the detail, particularly as some development initiatives proceed, there is a significant level of optimism and expectation that the vision for the Victorian coast will be realised.

The Coast is a vital part not only of our natural environment, but also of our industry, our economy, our work, our recreation and our quality of life. The Victorian Coastal Strategy deals with the Coast as not only a source of passive and active recreation for many Victorians, but just as importantly as a critical source of income and livelihood for many communities.

Being one of Australian’s highest environmental priorities, any sharing of wisdom that brings about improved, integrated coastal management will increase the likelihood of "a sustainable future".

To this end the Victorian Coastal Council is very pleased to be hosting the National Coastal Conference in Melbourne 6 – 9 March 2000.

Titled ‘Beyond the Beach’, the conference is being held at the start of the new millennium, providing a major opportunity for delegates to focus on Australian marine and coastal issues, evaluate and assess strategies, set directions and report on outcomes. It is the intention of the Conference Committee to stimulate a strong professional outcome for specialists while ensuring individuals and community members also fully participate to benefit from their shared experiences.

For Conference details visit the Council web site: Victorian Coastal Council or phone the Conference Organisers Pty Ltd on (03) 9521 8881.

John Ginivan is the Executive Officer for the Victorian Coastal Council

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COASTAL PLANNING PRACTICE IN VICTORIA

by David Harper

Local Government has the single greatest ability to effect the management of the coast in Victoria. Whilst there are over 20 government agencies and organisations involved, Local Government plays a pivotal role in affecting on shore activity that ultimately affects our coastal and marine areas.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S COASTAL MANAGEMENT ROLE

Some 96% of the Victorian coastline is publicly owned. With the exception of National Parks that are managed by the State Government through Parks Victoria, the majority of the coastline is managed by Local Government as delegated manager under the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978. It has been this way for the best part of this century and given the recent State Government's Coastal Crown Land Management Review in 1998, this is the way the State Government wishes it to continue.

In many ways, Local Government is the best placed authority to be the coastal manager in Victoria. The strong affinity of coastal municipalities and their communities is often represented as a defining feature in the municipalities’ logo, representing the importance that the coastal asset holds for that community. Combined with their roles of Planning Authority and Responsible Authority, Local Government has significant influence over both the public and private realms, and this positions it well to act strategically for the coast at a local and regional level.

Council's management and decision- making has impacts on:

• onshore and offshore activity;
• siting, design and development;
• local residential requirements balanced with visitor requirements;
• servicing;
• general amenity, and
• destination point.

The significant ability of Local Government to affect the coast is measured by its ability to:

• define and protect the character and values of the coast through zoning and controls, and the development of local planning policies;
• co-ordinate the different agencies and organisations they have to work in conjunction with, to achieve integrated planning outcomes on the coast;
• work together with other municipalities to achieve Local and Regional coastal objectives; and,
• mobilise and direct the resources they have available to them to coastal management priorities.

RECENT CHANGES IN VICTORIAN COASTAL MANAGEMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

In 1995, the State Government acknowledged the importance and complexity of the coast, and the need for a high level of co-ordination and integration of Government agencies and interested organisations to achieve effective coastal management by the development the Coastal Management Act 1995.

This Act provided for the establishment of the Victorian Coastal Council and three Regional Coastal Boards, Gippsland, Central and Western, appointed in 1996. It also provided for the development of a Victorian Coastal Strategy, 1997, and Coastal Action Plans.

The Strategy provides policy and objectives to sustain, protect, direct and develop the coast, and requires the involvement of some 20 government agencies and organisations that have a role in coastal management, to effect its implementation.

At the same time, the State Government, through the Department of Infrastructure (Planning) commenced a program to revise Victoria's planning approach, in order to make it simpler and more consistent across the State.

The Victorian Planning Provisions were developed as a set of tools, which Local Government was required to use, to revise and develop a Local Planning Policy Framework. This included the development of a Municipal Strategic Statement for each Municipality; revision of their Planning Schemes with respect to the Victorian Planning Provisions; and integration of local and state policy.

The Victorian Coastal Strategy and Local Planning Policy Framework were developed concurrently, but largely separately, and the challenge for Local Government now in partnership with the State Government is to appropriately integrate these two mechanisms to be effective in protecting the coastal and marine environment.

Local Government's need to consider the coast in this new context?

Local Government needs to provide a strong active role for the municipality to determine future direction for the coast on a local community needs basis. However, it must also appreciate that the foreshore that it managers often services far more than just the local community, in fact all Victorians and visitors. What is required is a visionary and holistic approach that looks beyond the municipality’s boundaries without the need to defer to a different authority.

Visionary coastal management should enable all parties’ views and visions to be identified and discussed, and aim for an agreed way forward and improved relationship between parties. Local Planning Policies developed by Local Government and State Government policy would be the subject of evaluation and negotiation with the aim of being complementary for the coastline's management.

When Councils consider what comprises the coast it should really be seen as:

• the foreshore or the coastal Crown land strip
• private land adjacent to and within the critical viewshed of the foreshore
• the seabed and water immediately offshore, and
• defined tourist precincts

Plans for the coast require profile with the wider community, the State Government, and with key stakeholders, and require unified consent to their actions. The actions should be complimented by appropriate strategic alliances to achieve funding and commitment, otherwise they should be revised with more feasible outcomes to be achieved within approximately a 5 year timeframe.

Coastal Action Plans, as a tool provided via the Victorian Coastal Strategy, provide a mechanism that enables Councils to look beyond their immediate coastline and how its management, protection and development, relate to its context, position, accessibility and demand.

Such Plans should have the following characteristics:

• take a regional view and may extend beyond the City's Municipal boundaries, and inland or seaward from the foreshore
• involve co-ordination of State and local agencies
• involve integration of land and water areas and/or public and private land
• involve the resolution of complex and sensitive issues, which require a lot of integration, co-ordination and resolve
• address new issues or needs that as yet may be unidentified
• include strategic directions and objectives relating to use and development
• provide protection and enhancement of significant features of the coast and marine environment
• include an action program which is clear, identifies responsibilities and has achievable outcomes
• have a high degree of commitment from key stakeholders
• have support from the broader community, and
• provide protection and enhancement of the natural and built form features of the foreshore.

So what to the future?

The State Government, acting as the land owner for coastal Crown land, has clearly stated that Local Government plays an important role in managing the coast, that it has been performed successfully, and that this role will continue for the foreseeable future.

The State Government wishes to manage, maintain and improve a strong working partnership arrangement with Local Government, in an effort to maximise effective use of available resources. This desire should equally be met by Local Government so that appropriate assistance for coastal management tasks, that are of State or regional significance, is achieved to benefit the coast and the wider community.

David Harper is currently the Foreshore Co-ordinator at City of Port Phillip. He was formerly a Coastal Planning Officer in the Department of Natural Resources and Environment

BUILDING THE COASTAL MANAGEMENT CAPACITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

by Michael Ward

Local councils play a considerable role in the planning and management of the Victorian Coastal Zone. This role is poised to increase over the coming years. Currently local councils are the responsible authorities to carry out statutory planning of private coastal land, however their planning responsibilities are in the process of extending into public land. Under the Coastal Management Act 1995, local councils may have the responsibility for development and work approvals. In terms of management, local government has recently been delegated greater day to day responsibilities of coastal management. This trend has occurred as the Department of Natural Resources and Environment continually downsizes and delegates further responsibilities to local government.

These trends, combined with the dynamic and sensitive nature of the coastal zone, make it crucial that local coastal councils are equipped with the capacity to manage and plan the coastal zone in a sustainable manner. I recently addressed this issue in my honours thesis entitled the "Coastal Training Needs of Local Government". The aim of this research was to determine what is required in terms of training or other initiatives, to provide local councils with a continued capacity to perform effective coastal planning and management.

To investigate this issue, my research focussed on two local coastal councils, the Greater City of Geelong and the Bass Coast Shire. I conducted interviews with council employees who work in areas relevant to coastal management and planning, ranging from councillors through to the works crew. Experts in the fields of coastal management were also interviewed to provide an alternative insight.

NEED FOR A BROAD KNOWLEDGE BASE

A low level of collaboration on coastal issues was observed within both councils, providing a major obstacle to their coastal management capabilities. The perceptions and understanding of coastal issues also varied between the various council departments and occupational backgrounds of employees. The majority of council members had previously received little or no training in coastal issues.

Training was identified as an effective tool to develop a common broad knowledge base throughout the council, in order to improve integration within council, and therefore the council’s overall ability to respond to coastal issues.

At an individual level, council members showed genuine interest in participating in training programs relating to coastal issues. However up until now it appears this interest has been un-realised due to a lack of training opportunities.

RECENT REFORM AND COASTAL CAPACITIES

Recent local government reform has seen an enormous cultural change take place within local government with the primary focus shifting to "cost efficiency" . Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT), which requires local councils to contract out 50% of their operational duties, looms as a clear obstacle to local government’s ability to perform sustainable planning and management of the coastal zone. The high level of individual interest in coastal training that was observed within councils will, it seems, become increasingly difficult to reach, because the "performance" driven nature of CCT has placed less emphasis on skill and knowledge and greater emphasis on achieving "efficiency". Training funds are prioritised to areas that result in an immediate improvement in economic efficiency. My research found that the specifications of local government contracts currently require little or no training in environmental issues. Thus coastal training programs, where skill and knowledge do not produce an immediate improvement in economic efficiency, are unlikely to be undertaken by councils. As one council member noted: "Its not what you know, it’s if what you know is going to make you more efficient that is more important".

CCT was observed to have a particular impact on the on-ground coastal management capabilities of local council. In both councils under study, the in-house Parks and Gardens teams were successful in winning the initial contract for on-ground work. However fears were held for the longer term picture. As the emphasis of the tendering process continually moves towards efficiency and away from skill and knowledge, original in-house teams will find it difficult to compete continually with national and multinational companies. The implications of a national or multinational company winning the on-ground coastal management work was seen to be severe, because the coastal zone is such a diverse and dynamic system, which requires local knowledge of its intricacies for its sustainable management. The massive loss of local knowledge of the out-going in-house team.

Currently contracts under CCT run for a maximum of three years, whereupon the contract is open for tender. Training efforts could therefore be fruitless in cases where contractors lost the subsequent contract. Thus the prospect of developing coastal training programs that provide a continuing skill and knowledge base within local government is a difficult task.

Assuming local government reform continues, it will be increasingly difficult to convince councils of the need for environmental training. In this climate, I hold great concerns for the capacity of local councils to manage and plan areas of the Victorian coastline in a sustainable manner, particularly at a time when their responsibilities are set to increase.

BUILDING CONTINUED CAPACITY

For future coastal training programs to be effective in building the capacity of local government, they must be carefully planned and directed. Training must focus on those responsible for the writing of the specifications for contracts, in most cases middle management. My investigation found that currently the specifications of tenders requires little or no skill and knowledge in coastal processes. Those responsible for managing the tender need to know about the processes along the coast so that they are aware of the requirements for good management practices. A greater understanding from middle management would see the criteria and specifications of the tendering process more attuned to the needs and dynamics of the coastal zone.

However ensuring that local councils maintain the capacity to sustainably plan and manage the coastal zone requires more than well directed training programs. Developing an accredited level of training that contract applicants have to meet would ensure continuity in skill and knowledge, particularly at the on-ground level. It would limit outside companies with little coastal management expertise but low cost bases from winning tenders for on-ground work, unless they agreed to undertake training.

CONCLUSION

The implications of recent reform, primarily CCT, on the capacity of local government to achieve sustainable management are in no way restricted to coastal areas. The principles of sustainable management and planning are fundamentally the same in both coastal and inland areas. Initiatives addressing the inadequacies that reform has brought to the environmental capabilities of local government should therefore be co-ordinated between coastal and in-land regions.

Michael Ward is an honours graduate of Environmental Management (Bachelor of Applied Science), at Deakin University. He can be contacted at easywaya@Bigpond.com

COASTAL PUBLIC COMMITTEES OF MANAGEMENT:

UTILISING EXISTING STRENGTHS IN A REMODELLED SYSTEM

by Cathy Ronalds

Background

Coastal Committees of Management were the ‘pioneers’ of active coastal management in Victoria. The Committees of Management system dates back to early settlement times. Currently, coastal Committees of Management (CoMs) are the delegated managers of about 20% of Victoria’s coastal Crown land, commonly referred to as foreshore reserves. Coastal Crown land in Victoria is the management responsibility of the Department of Natural Resources and Environment, under the auspices of the Minister. The Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 empowers the Minister to delegate management to, most commonly, local Municipalities or publicly elected CoMs. Public CoMs are voluntary groups.

Above this grass-roots level of management, a complex framework for coastal planning and management has evolved, particularly within the last decade. The pinnacle has been the passing of the Coastal Management Act (1995), which provides for the coordinated and strategic planning and management of the coast. The Act appoints the Victorian Coastal Council as the peak body for strategic coastal planning and management.

This discussion focuses on the public CoMs because of the important and unique opportunity for direct public participation in planning and management they provide for communities surrounding coastal reserves.

Coastal Crown Land Review

The Victorian Coastal Council undertook a review of the management of coastal Crown Land, which concluded that the current coastal management arrangements were appropriate, with some facets requiring reform to improve the "effectiveness, accountability and integration of foreshore management".

In relation to CoMs, the number of appointed managers (both local government and public) will be reduced to improve consistency in planning and management through amalgamations of existing foreshore management bodies. This will result in the disbanding of public CoMs in municipalities experiencing higher levels of use, and the local council will assume responsibility as coastal manager for those Reserves. Opportunities for varying levels of public input are to be maintained.

This paper identifies strengths and weaknesses of the public CoM system, outlining some of the motivating factors that have influenced individuals to be involved with CoMs. It discusses the importance of these strengths with regard to the remodelled system.

Strengths and weaknesses

Over the last twenty years, CoMs have been subject to criticism. The first study was published in 1977 by the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), which revealed a great deal of inappropriate behaviour within CoMs. Studies in the 1980s by other commentators, including the then Department of Forests and Lands, also emphasised the problems. CoMs were commonly described as too parochial, having pro-development attitudes, and lacking technical expertise.

During 1997, I conducted qualitative research on coastal public Committees of Management to determine whether public CoMs should be retained, as we enter the next century. The issues and processes that affect public CoMs were investigated. A mail-out survey was sent to each of the 36 public CoMs in the State. Common themes and issues that arose from survey responses were further investigated in interviews with the presidents of four different Committees across the State.

Weaknesses similar to those aforementioned were identified. However, in light of the recent recommendations made by the VCC for improving coastal Crown Land management arrangements, it is now worth concentrating on the strengths of public CoMs, in the hope that the attributes may be incorporated to further strengthen the new system.

The strengths offered by public CoMs that were identified by the study, are unique and are unlikely to exist under a system managed by local government or the Department of Natural Resources and Environment. As locals or users of the coast, the members of the current public CoMs are often a wealth of knowledge of the local and user group needs and values, and of the physical processes and capabilities of their given foreshore reserve. This is reflected in a ‘tailor-made’ management approach for each foreshore reserve, which compliments the diversity of Victoria’s coastline.

Reserves receive a great deal of ‘after hours’ attention, because as locals and users of the coast, members vest a great deal of time in the reserve, both as part of their work and at leisure. This stems from the great sense of pride and ownership members associate with the Reserve and their management role. Members often possess a variety of backgrounds, skills and experiences, and represent user groups; all of which contribute to sound decision-making. Some Committees have strong community support, which contributes to a more active CoM. Many of the older members have been involved for many years on their CoM, and can provide continuity of history and activities between outgoing and incoming memberships.

Reform should not result in a loss of the unique strengths that these volunteers have contributed to the coastal planning system. Indeed, incorporating these strengths with the expertise, resources and regional focus of local government could create an ideal blend of management approaches suitable for the application of the Strategy to Victoria’s coast. The application of the Strategy’s Statewide focus must compliment local needs and pressures in order to be effective right down to the grassroots level.

While the VCC has recommended that ‘suitable measures’ be put in place to maintain community involvement, the public must want to be involved. My study identified some of the motivating factors that currently influence individuals to join and continue membership on public CoMs. Members commonly discussed the great sense of reward that they obtained from achievements such as facility developments, financial management, and observing users enjoy the fruits of their work. In shifting the management responsibilities from the shoulders of public CoMs, there is a danger of diminishing a major incentive for these members to continue their involvement in coastal planning and management.

Other common motivating factors stated were ‘concern for the environment’, and ‘having a personal association with the area (as a local or user of the reserve). Perhaps these individuals would be content to participate in groups with few managerial responsibilities, such as local ‘Friends’ groups.

Repairing the old system

In those municipalities where the local Council will assume the role of coastal manager, it will be Council’s responsibility to provide continued opportunities for the community to be actively involved in coastal management. Such opportunities are yet to be determined, and the level of involvement will depend on what is specified in the management agreement between the Council and the Minister.

I recommend that all Municipalities provide measures to sustain public CoMs as Advisory Committees. This maintains some of the responsibility of these members, and provides an opportunity for the community to provide feedback on management directions and proposals. Such Committees can also provide the opportunity for user group and local needs to be voiced. Members should be valued as a bridge between the community and the government.

Opportunities through volunteer groups, such as ‘Friends’ groups, still exist, although these are in danger of appearing as ‘cheap labour’ alternatives to some members of CoMs. Further investigation into the motivating factors influencing individuals decisions to become involved in coastal planning and management is required in order to provide adequate opportunities for community participation under the remodelled structure.

Not all public CoMs will disband. A handful will remain in those areas of coastline experiencing lower levels of visitation and use. These CoMs will require individual attention to assess and address the potential ramifications of any associated problems.

The Victorian Coastal Council’s recommendations sound the beginning of a new era for coastal Crown Land planning and management arrangements. The continued involvement of the members of the public CoMs will ensure a smoother transition as responsibilities gradually pass to local government, and will contribute to a coordinated and integrated coastal planning and management system for Victoria’s diverse coastline.

Cathy Ronalds is an honours graduate of Environmental Management (Bachelor of Applied Science) at Deakin University. She can be contacted at cjronalds@hotmail.com

The Town and Country Planning Association Inc

Planning for People and Places

The TCPA is committed to improving the environment through effective planning, public participation and sustainable development. The TCPA provides a base for citizen participation in all matters which concern the ecologically sustainable distribution of population, the rational and effective use of land and resources, and the participation of the public in the decision-making process.

TCPA members are welcome to attend association meetings and lectures which it sponsors. They may also attend committee meetings which take place on the first Monday of each month from February to December at the Faculty of Architecture and Planning at the University of Melbourne. Bi-monthly issues seminars will be held following committee meetings, and will be advertised via the Bulletin. Members also receive a bi-monthly bulletin, and this journal, SPACE.

Contributions to, and offers to assist in the production of the Bulletin and SPACE are welcome.

TCPA Home Page

UPCOMING EVENTS:

So all teddy bears (and other interested urbanists) should come.

TCPA Activities