Shoal Bay carpark ~ finding a better balance between nature, development and community consultation

The Day Paradise Put Up a Parking Lot received 157 comments.

Nearly all comments were on topic and were strongly against tree removal.

A portion were off topic, more political statements.

A comparative miniscual number were in favour of the tree removal, generally expressing concern about tree risk, particularly the coral trees. Though others suggested routine maintenance should overcome the risk.

Others expressed concern about the process, suggesting other Councils consult on the detail before the tender.

A sample of these comments

Loss of 5, or even 10 carparks (needed maybe for 8 of 52 weeks of the year) is hardly going to make any difference to the economy of Shoal Bay nor the satisfaction of users in the long term.

However an extra 2-4 blackbutts that are 60 may be 100 years old are highly valued environmentally and aesthetically, and consequently are likely to have more impact on the economy and satisfaction of most visitors than a few extra carparks.

What value do we place on nature?

All the additional leafy shade trees, about 22 exotic, and considered invasive, coral trees will be removed. Then a hot black bitumen carpark will be deployed.

We believe an alternative plan should be considered that retains more trees, and provides a central corridor of shade with the new planting rather on the western extremity.

However, within the context of the current plan, we suggest a slightly modified plan that potentially retains at least another 2 blackbutts with only minimum loss of car parking, and requires permeable paving at additional cost – possibly something like that at Little Beach boat parking may be suitable, where mature trees successfully persist despite there been parking for a very long time. Possibly there’s a more modern permeable technique that is as hardy.

Understanding the plan

• Bright green dots are the current native trees to be removed — one tree at the edge is planned for retention.
• Pink shows where at least a couple of blackbutts potentially could be retained without major redesign of the car park.
• Green circles at top (western side of carpark) are proposed trees.
• Green dots on bottom and right (east and north respectively) are rain gardens related to draings (blue stripes).

All trees require consideration for protection of a suitable root zone and past compaction is not desirable. There’ll be many reasons to justify their removal — but the trees have been standing with associated parking for many many years now, and something for which Council charges fees, so really are they too problematic?

Let’s look through an environmental and aesthetic lens also, with a nature-oriented developmental lens and try to retain whatever is possible and feasible please.

For each project Council attempts to balance the environmental, social and financial impacts (and opportunities), and the Shoal Bay carpark design is no different. Unfortunately on this site there are no other viable options for further tree retention without loss of carparking compared to pre-construction levels. Given the operational nature of this site, the loss of car parking is not acceptable for social and financial (i.e. local economy) reasons.

We have reviewed the mark up you provided and unfortunately the design impacts of these changes are considerable as the re-design needs to adjust for tree impacts, parking impacts, vehicle movement, drainage, lighting and surveillance layout, and the various existing and new underground services that need to be installed. The proposed tree retention and relocated kerbline conflicts with a number of these factors – in particular the structural root zone of the tree which is likely to impact its future health and stability. The concept of permeable paving is a good suggestion, and one that the design picks up for the road surface and path around the large gum tree that is being retained, however it is not a viable solution elsewhere nor on a broader scale.  

The current plan has no allowance for tree retention beyond the peripheral tree. The tiny suggested modification, though not feasible within the constraints of the current plan, does demonstrate that had a modified and more balanced brief been adopted from the outset, it is likely more trees may have been retained with potentially only a small cost to the number of carparks in peak period.

EcoNetwork acknowledges the greater financial cost in facilitating more extensive permeable paving beyond that of the peripheral tree ~ however Little Beach carpark  (though possibly ‘old fashioned’ in style) demonstrates that Council once considered that a priority. At some stage Council used to consider trees an important part of an operational site and protect their drip /root zone and also accomodate car parking.

Council maintains that the “loss of car parking is not acceptable for social and financial (i.e. local economy) reasons”, however we contend that

• financially, any business so reliant on a few extra cars for a few weeks of the year is possibly unlikely to survive
• socially, we are not clear which social parameters Council considered important, certainly not those related to aesthetic appreciation of the trees, shade and climate impacts.

Initially we were told that Council is planting ‘natives’ which when we asked about compensation these were considered compensation ~ that was then Lemon-scented gums Corymbia citrodora (a dwarf cultivar) which is a Queensland species not found in NSW, and Water Gums, not found on the Tomaree Peninsula though are on the extreme west edge of the LGA. These were initially suggested as compensation for the majestic blackbutts and the angophora.

Under development controls (B2.11), compensation (at least for developers) is required. We were advised during the discussion that there will apparently be compensatory planting with something somewhere – we await this advice.

We believe compensation should be of the same local native species (or other if environmentally more beneficial) nearby ~ though how can some saplings ever compensate for the loss of magnificent mature trees?

Private developers are governed under Part 4 of the EP&A Act. Council as a public authority is governed under Part 5 of the EP&A Act for these public infrastructure works. This is State Government legislation and there are a number subtle differences between Parts 4 and 5, including the requirement for offset planting in this instance.

Despite this, we have a desire to minimise our environmental impact so we will fund some additional plantings – locally if possible, however it may be in the wider LGA. We are working with our Natural Systems staff to complement the good work they are already doing in this space.

We are pleased Council decided to provide compensatory planting, and are using local natives. We will report on the compensatory planting which we hope will relate to the Shoal Bay area.

At this stage EcoNetwork are not clear about the species being used for the 8 advanced trees to be planted on its western periphery.

EcoNetwork will encourage Council to ensure generous compensatory planting for any project that requires clearance, however all measures should be undertaken to avoid clearing.

EcoNetwork is not aware that community were consulted during this process on the details of the carpark plan, nor whether community appreciated the extreme loss of trees resulting and a brief to maximise parking spaces at all ‘costs’.

We understand the businesses were consulted about the carpark, but they are only one element of community. Realistically, 5-10 additional car spaces will make little or no difference to their economic return. The maximum car parking requirement is only for about 8 weeks a year.

In all fairness to community, this plan should have been made available for comment as Council knew the loss of these mature trees would be contentious. Consultation should have included a genuine ‘Have your say’ for that specific purpose and for facilitating input, or preferably a public exhibition. Instead the advertised ‘Have Your Say,’ mid May, was available predominately for information purposes only, just before going to tender, and not for carpark design comment.

We acknowledge the liveability survey and take the messaging seriously with infrastructure planning. It is often difficult to satisfy all of the priorities with each undertaking predominantly as the feedback can at time be conflicting. For example, you correctly highlight ‘elements of natural environment’ scored the highest on the category of most valued. It is also the case that ‘condition of public open spaces (footpaths, parks, street trees) scored highest in priorities and the subject carpark reconstruction was the highest ranked infrastructure project requested through the Shoal Bay Place Plan. Similar to above, we take the message to be about balance – and per the above response, we have attempted to balance the environmental, social and financial impacts (and opportunities) for this project.

With regard to the communication/consultation relating to this project, we have been consistent with the project aims between the Plan of Management for the reserve, the Shoal Bay Place Plan, the Smart Parking Infrastructure Program and their respective community engagement touch points that are in addition to our Capital Work Program exhibition and adoption process. Through these processes, the environmental feedback received has influenced the final design including the tree retention features on the design, landscaping and non-compulsory tree replacement.

EcoNetwork appreciates that Council has provided various touch points on the broader directions of the carpark plan. Some of these touchpoint, such as the early development of the Shoal Bay Place Plan was not broadly available to community and even then the Plan does not detail the carpark design.

Our understanding is that none of these touch points placed the carpark design on public exhibition or for a genuine “Have your say”. This is a flaw in Council’s processes.

Such a contentious development should be put on public exhibition, just as a developer’s design is required to go on public exhibition.

In Council’s Environmental Assessment p18, beyond the touch points, the intent was a 2 week notification of works, no plan to consult on the actual design.

Is it morally right that Council should not go through the same requirements as other developers? After all, though Crown land, we as rate payers are 100% funding the project and Council is acting on our behalf. Should we not have the right to comment on known contentious designs?

While this is an urban development, it is the context of a natural setting and we contend that where ever possible Council should plant local native trees, shrubs and ground covers, not ‘natives’ found elsewhere in Australia, nor cultivars.

Local natives can only enhance local wildlife, reduce the likelihood of garden escapees getting into the bushland, and encourage community appreciation of local plants as a desirable strategy as in the Shoal Bay Place Plan (p31). Council should lead by example in promoting the actions of the Place Plan.

This point is emphasised as local natives are those found in the immediate area, that is Tomaree Peninsula, and is not cultivar species. Ideally the species should be of the local genetic stock wherever possible to obtain.

We were interested to know the details of the Environmental and Community elements considered in Council developments. We asked:

Environmentally

• Potential loss of native vegetation?
• What consideration is provided for its (a tree’s) retention?
• Compensatory planting (lead by example and do better than basic requirements, and specify what will be planted, when and where)?
• Are local native plants possible, steps taken at the outset to plan ahead for their growth with commercial nurseries?

Community

• Will there be community interest / concern in this development?
• What potential steps have PSC taken to genuinely consult with community for input on the specifics of the development?

There’ll be a host of other elements also. We raise these for consideration and feedback as to PSC processes in this area and how we can do better for our environment and broader community desires.

PSC undertakes environmental impact assessments in accordance with Part 5 of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and associated regulations. PSC has an Environmental Management System (EMS) which is key control for environmental risk within PSC and forms a part of PSC’s Risk Management Framework and Systems. The EMS provides a set of tools to support risk-based decisions that appropriately consider Councils environmental, cultural and heritage objectives and operational threats. The environmental risk program and EMS are in accordance with AS/NZS ISO 14001:2015 Environmental Management System Standards and HB 203:2006 Environmental risk management —Principles and process and are designed to be compliant with relevant external and internal obligations.

In undertaking environmental assessments Council considers in detail its impacts on biodiversity and adopts an avoid, mitigate, offset approach to its projects

Environmental assessments are governed by the EMS template, which ensures environmental assessments cover the following key areas:

• Air quality including dust, odours, emissions.
• Noise and vibration.
• Water including impacts on stormwater, groundwater, waterways.
• Landform, geology and soils including impacts from erosion and sedimentation, landslip, acid sulphate soils and contamination. 
• Biodiversity including native flora and fauna, threatened species, threatened ecological communities, sensitive areas, priority and environmental weeds, feral animals and pathogens. 
• Cultural and natural heritage.  
• Social including community disturbance and impacts to amenity, public access and safety, traffic, aesthetics and land use. 
• Waste impacts. 
• Hazardous materials imp[acts which includes use and storage of hazardous and dangerous goods, asbestos, chemicals, APFAS etc.
• Natural hazards such  as flooding and bushfire and severe weather events. 
• Coastal processes including impacts to areas mapped as Coastal Wetlands, Littoral Rainforest, Coastal Environment Areas and Coastal Use Areas. 
• Ongoing effects such as cumulative, accumulative and degrading or transformative impacts and any long-term impacts.

Biodiversity impacts are assessed in accordance with PSC Biodiversity Technical Specifications, some specific areas of assessment (not an exhaustive list) include:

• Amount and type of vegetation being cleared.
• Value of that vegetation as habitat for native flora and fauna.
• Whether the vegetation contains habitat trees or koala feed trees.
• Whether the vegetation contains any other traces of breeding or use by fauna such as nests, scratches, scats etc.
• Whether the vegetation forms part of a sensitive areas such as stewardship sites or other conservation lands, Landcare sites, environmentally zoned lands.
• Whether the vegetation forms part of or is adjacent to a wildlife corridor.
• The presence of priority weeds, feral animals and pathogens.

Landscape amenity impacts are assessed by suitably qualified arborists in accordance with the PSC Biodiversity Technical Specification*.

* EcoNetwork notes that the above PSC Biodiversity Technical Specification (PDF 2.6 MB) – is being reviewed as part of the current PSC Development Control Plan review with responses closing 14 July 2025.

EcoNetwork appreciates the huge list of Environmental and Biodiversity assessments that are required and is grateful to Council officers for this preparation. The Landscape amenity assessment is not detailed and does not seemingly have a community element.

The request as to the steps Council undertook in genuinely consulting with community on the design specifics was not answered, possibly as the only consultation on the design details was at the mid May ‘Have Your Say‘ which we were told was for information and not consultation, though officers did encourage consultation around the garden plants..