You may remember our article late in 2014 , applauding Wyong Council for being the first to jump away from the doomsday scenario when setting sea-level rise forecasts for coastal plans. But, as we all know, one hand clapping doesn’t make much noise.
However, things quickly became noisier when Shoalhaven Council decided to follow a similar approach based on a medium term (2050) and a medium rise (230mm) to be reviewed every seven years based on actual measurements. Two hands clapping starts to sound like communities applauding.
Last week the volume went up again when Gosford Council joined Wyong and Sholhaven by halving its sea-level rise benchmarks. Maybe these three amigos will give more councils the fortitude to direct their bureaucrats to come up with plans that sensibly manage risk rather than avoiding it at all costs.
Even better would be for Environment Minister Stokes to mandate that councils adopt moderate, not doomsday, scenarios.
Gosford Councillors rejected even lower benchmarks when the 4 Liberal Councillors backed The Greens councillor in defeating a motion supporting the lower benchmarks. It seems we are fighting a Liberal / Greens climate change coalition in Gosford, stranger things may have happened but not recently.
I suspect the applause for Gosford is misplaced, council admin have played a very good strategy which has delivered to them 2 wins.
1: the public perception that they have slashed the sea level rise benchmarks (ie- fixed the problem )
2: a result that doesn’t disrupt their Green agenda.
Here’s how it is played,
Adopt moderate SLR benchmarks ( when I say moderate I mean the second highest of the 12 options outlined by the IPCC )
So Gosford now had SLR benchmarks of
20cm / 2050
39cm / 2070
74cm / 2100
But the unspoken part of this equation are planning horizon benchmarks, till now 2050 has generally been used as a basis of residential planning, however Gosford Admin have flagged the use of “appropriate planning horizons” and for residential have discussed 60-70 years, so in their methodology a DA for a residence submitted in 2015 needs to consider SLR projections for its life term, hence 2075 or 2085.
So for planning purposes NOTHING has been delivered to residents, it is likely planning will still take in to account a minimum of 40cm SLR and possibly more ( Given the 2070 benchmark is 39cm ).
So exactly what benefit have these new SLR benchmarks delivered?
Thanks for the extra information on Gosford Craig.
Clarence Valley Council (CVC) continues to maintain the highest IPCC benchmarks for its SLR policy (ie 40cm by 2050 and 90cm by 2100).
So what you ‘ve achieved looks pretty good to us albeit with the planning horizon uncertainties.
I plan to confirm CVC ‘s version of the residential planning horizon next week and will let you know.
Cheers
Pete
PS Let ‘s call it 2.75 Amigos for now