Cossack land owners left in the dark

THE City of Karratha wants a second crack at pursuing its ‘vision’ for Cossack after the State Government rejected a previous scheme amendment to activate the former pearling town 1500km north of Perth.
Council tonight passed two proposed amendments – No. 53 and No. 54 to introduce low impact tourism developments at Cossack town site and Jarman Island, respectively.
The WAPC rejected council’s previous amendment No. 44 due to inconsistencies with state planning policies regarding coastal and bushfire hazards, heritage conservation and services including water and sewerage (www.streetwisemedia.com.au/council-blamed-for-latest-cossack-setback).
The amendments were prepared to address those shortfalls.
Private land owners welcomed the move but told StreetWise council should not have excluded their properties from the amendment area at Cossack despite claims, “these lots have been identified as being susceptible to a number of hazards and risks relating to issues including coastal erosion and bushfire. Development of these lots could result in an increased or unacceptable risk to landowners and developers”.
The City received 12 submissions for amendment No. 53 and 10 for No. 54.
Retired medico Alan Wilson, who owns blocks on Perseverance Street, said excluding private landowners was “inherently unfair”. Mr Wilson’s family holds titles on four blocks owned between seven descendants, making them the oldest rate paying family in WA, having held the deeds since 1884. The great great grandson of William Shakespeare Hall who arrived in the North West on the 1861 Gregory expedition told StreetWise, “saying that the private land is unsuitable for development because of risks from erosion and bushfires is basically flawed and unsustainable”.
Mr Wilson said council had grossly overstated the erosion risk as the town is protected by mangroves and mud flats at the mouth of the Harding River.
Some of Cossack has been built on low lying land which has flooded in the past … some of the private land is above the 6m mark and is considered not at risk of flooding. Some of the private land has a rock base, rather than sand and hence is not susceptible to erosion. The bushfire risks are manageable (they are similar to the risks at Karratha, Roebourne and Wickham). I believe the land owners should be responsible for handling the risk and not the Shire.”
Neighbouring owners Geoff Waardenberg, Stuart and Michelle Otto and Terry Patterson also questioned the methodology of the City’s ‘Cossack Coastal Hazard Risk Management Adaptation Plan (https://bit.ly/3BRBfOd) that led to, “private lots being excluded from the unconstrained development area”.
Mr Patterson, who lives in South Fremantle, said the City’s coastal hazard plan was embarrassing because one of the private lots on Perseverance Street was higher than the existing courthouse at Cossack. “The City is pissing on our feet,” he said. “They want to resume our blocks with flawed methodology, with no proper surveys and studies.”
City officers said private landowners can prepare a separate scheme amendment or be a part of a future amendment over Cossack. A recommendation also would be made for development proposals over these lots to, “at least be considered”.
Cr Daniel Scott told council the amendments were, “a long time coming”. He added he shared private land owners’ views but their concerns should be directed to the State Government, not the City that had largely relinquished control of Cossack.
The Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development supports the proposed changes but noted the inclusion of a ‘brewery’ land use was not listed in the City’s local planning scheme: “The disposal of liquid waste from a brewery poses risk to water quality. There is also likely to be insufficient potable water available to support a brewery or similar facility.”
The City says the brewery is proposed as a ‘discretionary’ land use and a development application would need to address the provisions of the amendment.
It will now be up to the Minister and Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage to decided whether to approve or reject the City’s revised ‘vision’.
Additional stories at www.streetwisemedia.com.au.