News 
 Local News 
 News 
 General 
 Lake council backdown on sea level 

Lake council backdown on sea level

25 Feb, 2012 06:04 AM
LAKE Macquarie City Council is planning to reduce the number of properties with controversial sea level rise notations from 10,000 to 4450.

The planned backdown coincides with councillors facing a major decision on a development in Marks Point that council staff have recommended to refuse because of sea level rise concerns.

Councillors will consider on Monday whether to allow a plan to increase dwellings from three to 22 in Marks Point Road.

The council introduced sea level rise notations in 2009, but has come under fire over concerns that they reduce property values and restrict development. A new flood study has led the council to propose removing the notations from properties on land one to three metres above sea level. Properties below the one-metre level would keep the notations.

The notations were placed on section 149 property certificates, which prospective property buyers can obtain from councils.

A council statement said the council was ‘‘obliged by law’’ to indicate on section 149 property certificates ‘‘any special development restrictions attached to properties’’.

‘‘We cannot predict the likely effects on property values of a notation on section 149 property certificates,’’ the council statement said.

Community concern about Lake Macquarie council’s sea level rise policy has gained attention over the past five months, with legal and political action planned.

Belmont businessman Jeff McCloy proposed a class action against councillors for devaluing and restricting properties.

The Marks Point area is among the lowest land in Lake Macquarie.

Federal maps show Marks Point headland would become an island under a worst case scenario of rising sea levels.

The maps show Marks Point under water if sea levels rise by 50 centimetres to 110 centimetres by 2100.

Federal agency Geoscience Australia published the maps, which the council’s website has linked to.

An agency statement that accompanied the maps said they were ‘‘developed to help communicate the risks of sea level rise’’.

The agency, fearful of legal action, added a disclaimer.

‘‘The images are not provided as professional advice and should not be relied upon for site-specific decision-making or for making financial or any other commitments,’’ it said.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
People have already determined the sea level safe height for their homes. Thats easy to appreciate.

Safe water level for drainage inadequacy and for drainalge malfunction is much harder to perceive

Just how many homes have a flood potential from drain issues and burst water pipes.

My guess is far more than from the sea.

Posted by Bigfeller, 25/02/2012 6:11:46 AM, on The Herald
While Council has found reverse gear it should stay in it a bit longer!

It's policy was always based on a poor interpretation of a piece of theoretical mathematical modelling out of Camberra, of all places!. So much for a large environment department in Council!

Posted by snorkel, 25/02/2012 6:36:08 AM, on The Herald
So that's the ebb & flow of the political tide
Posted by edteech, 25/02/2012 6:45:47 AM, on The Herald
Finally LMCC has learned the difference between 90mm and 90cm rise in sea level. Ratepayers have always known the difference between a 7% and 70% rise in rates. Bring on the council elections and the rates, roads and rubbish candidates.
Posted by JB, 25/02/2012 6:58:54 AM, on The Herald
Ah.........so the tide is turning,eh?

Combet,take note.

Posted by suzie-girl, 25/02/2012 7:19:23 AM, on The Herald
Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery has a house right on the water in the Hawkesbury. I think he might know more about the real sea level 'rise' data than does LMCC. And the rise, wait for it, is zilch zip nada for the last decade. But maybe council should urgently move the chambers to the top of Munibung Hill, just in case.
Posted by Bruce, 25/02/2012 7:37:33 AM, on The Herald
Maybe LMCC can now concentrate on things that are real and that matter - like mowing the embarrassing, overgrown centre strips and footpaths on the roads through the town.

What a sad joke is LMCC. An administrator and a few contractors would get the job of council done quicker and at a fraction of the cost. We would no longer need that 70% rate rise.

Posted by Pipers off tune, 25/02/2012 7:41:34 AM, on The Herald
having spent over 40 years around the lake, i have seen much of the surrounds go under water at times of extreme weather. Extreme weather is increasing. if we are seriously adopting policy, why is it industry seems to get a free pass? i note they still plan for 1 in 100 events, which is proven rubbish. toxic overflows go where? into the Lake. Why arent State Gov watchdogs barking?
Posted by Ali, 25/02/2012 7:55:32 AM, on The Herald
This whole Council thing is predicated on circumstaces and predictions as they exist today. Are they seriously suggesting that technology to counter any suggested unknown change will not eventuate?
Posted by MizJasper, 25/02/2012 9:04:04 AM, on The Herald
What a bloody mess! Environmental alarmists........carbon tax........and a bunch of highly paid (sending ratepayers broke) sustainability department in LMCC. Absolute foolishness!!! And now Emperor Rudd wants the throne again.......I need a drink so I can throw up!
Posted by Green Froggy, 25/02/2012 9:05:36 AM, on The Herald
1 | 2  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
COASTAL CHANGE: The change in the council's stance coincides with a decision on a development at Marks Point.
COASTAL CHANGE: The change in the council's stance coincides with a decision on a development at Marks Point.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
POLL
Q: Are you concerned about rising sea levels?

Yes, we need to start preparing now
(22.9%)

Yes, but it will be decades before property is affected
(17.6%)

No, I don't believe sea levels are rising
(59.5%)

Total Votes: 363
Poll Date: 24 February, 2012

Most popular articles


 
 
 


Newcastle Herald







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...