Deeban Spit, which is visited by endangered shorebirds, is close to areas proposed for rezoning. Picture by John Veage

Subscribe now for unlimited access.

or signup to continue reading

Environmental and conservation groups have spoken out strongly against a proposed second attempt by Sutherland Shire Council to rezone waterfront land.

Sutherland Shire Environment Centre, which is running a public awareness campaign, has joined BirdLife Southern NSW in issuing a joint statement calling on the council to immediately withdraw the proposal.

The executive of Southern Sydney Branch of National Parks Association of NSW has also warned of impacts.

Green lines around the waterfront indicate W1 zones proposed for rezoning to W2. Picture supplied

The council decided at the March 23 meeting to defer consideration of the matter until the April 28 meeting, which is expected to have an overflowing public gallery following the protesting organisations calling on members to attend.

BirdLife Southern NSW and Sutherland Shire Environment Centre said the proposal "places the interests of a few wealthy property owners and commercial operators over the survival of critically endangered shorebirds".

They claimed the move would "cause irreparable damage to shorebird habitats in Port Hacking and Botany Bay".

"These areas are vital for the Critically Endangered Far Eastern Curlew, as well as the Endangered Bar-tailed Godwit and Pied Oystercatcher," BirdLife Southern NSW secretary Barry Walsh said.

"Bird enthusiasts from across Sydney and the country flock to these areas to observe our local wildlife, yet the council seems determined to push ahead with a plan that ignores them.

"It is heartbreaking that they appear set on prioritising the profits of a few wealthy homeowners over a natural heritage and scenic quality that belongs to, and benefits, the entire community and beyond."

Mr Walsh said the W2 zoning "permitted marinas, kiosks and charter boating facilities - developments that BLSNSW argues primarily benefit commercial operators and private owners rather than the broader public".

Far Eastern Curlews on Deeban Spit. Picture supplied / Birdlife Southern NSW

Sutherland Shire Environment Centre spokesman Cooper Riach said, "We demand that the council listens to its community through this coalition of organisations dedicated to our local environment and a people and planet-positive future".

The executive of the Southern Sydney Branch of National Parks Association of NSW, urged the council to "protect the many natural values of Port Hacking by rejecting poorly-considered aims of compromising its status as a near-natural waterway".

Port Hacking had been classified as a high quality estuary due to it bordering a national park, the association said.

The impacts of structures such mooring pens and marinas could include shadowing of endangered sea grass, damage to se grass from boat propellors, increased chance of oil pollution and anti-fouling chemicals and less public access.

The matter came to a head after the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure advised the council it was unable to support a 2025 draft Planning Proposal in its current form due to significant issues raised by State agencies during pre-Gateway consultation.

The Planning Proposal sought to rezone all waterways currently zoned as W1 Natural Waterways to W2 Recreational Waterways, where they are immediately adjacent to residential property. Some sensitive environmental areas would be excluded.

The change would allow boat mooring pens, marinas, and other structures to be constructed in the "backyards" of waterfront properties now zoned W1.

At present, such structures are only allowed in W2 zoned areas, which have a lower level of environmental protection.

Issues highlighted by the department included:

• "Environmentally sensitive areas such as Cabbage Tree Point Intertidal Protected Area, Deeban Spit, and native seagrass (Posidonia australis) require exclusion or further impact assessment due to potential for adverse environmental impacts".
  
• "W2 Recreational Waterways adjacent to C1 National Parks and Nature Reserves and C2 Environmental Conservation Lands should be further considered due to potential conflict between zone objectives".
• "The seaward extent of the W2 Recreational Waterways zone should be reduced for navigational safety."

The letter said, while parts of the Planning Proposal had merit to proceed, other parts required further information or removal from the planning proposal.

Two options were suggested to the council.

The first option was to provide additional information to support the proposal in its current form or with variations, supported by independent specialist advice, while the second option was to exclude particular areas.

Council staff have recommended progressing the revised-scope option two.

"This approach balances environmental protection, deliverability, cost, and Council's strategic objective of increasing access to waterways from waterfront properties, while maintaining a measured and evidence-based approach to potential rezoning," a staff report said.