Shire of Augusta-Margaret River planners note ‘ambiguity’ in Gnarabup resort application specifics

The proposed resort at Gnarabup is set to reignite debate around a second access road for the Prevelly area after a Shire assessment outlined planners’ serious concerns around aspects of the Luke Saraceni-led development application. Shire of Augusta-Margaret River planners briefed councillors last week on their impending review of the State Development Assessment Unit bid which is likely to come before the council on March 23. Sustainable development and infrastructure director Nick Logan told the council it would have to take a position on whether a second access road was desired or if “shelter in place” would be supported. Senior Shire planning officer Don Bothwell outlined inconsistencies around bushfire management, parking, and density across the project. While the resort application itself occupied a smaller footprint than previous versions, the resort was more dense, and there was “ambiguity” around the earmarked 70 per cent public open space. “It seems a little bit private, for the resort, or whether it will be a community space,” he said. “We certainly don’t want it to be gated or anything like that.” Extensive clearing of existing vegetation and substantial proposed excavation works also needed closer scrutiny, he said. Under questioning from councillors, Mr Bothwell confirmed access tracks, firebreaks, and a proposed signature lookout were predominantly on Shire-vested reserves. But the greatest concerns were outlined in comparing the “variations” Saracen Property Group were relying on to meet car-parking requirements, and to achieve the necessary Bushfire Attack Level 19 rating. Protest group Preserve Gnarabup has already arced up about the developer using land it doesn’t own to meet bushfire requirements, and Mr Bothwell acknowledged questions around who would maintain developer-built infrastructure needed greater clarity. “That’s not our standard procedure,” Mr Bothwell said. The resort also relied on using its function centre as a shelter in case of bushfire, with capacity to include Gnarabup residents. The comparison of required compared to proposed parking reflected community concerns the resort, once built, would put untenable pressure on local beaches and access for residents. The resort application included just 133 parking spots, compared to 327 recommended under the scheme. “There’s a shortfall of 194 car bays which is certainly significant,” Mr Bothwell said. The de facto village development continued the under supply, with a 120-lot shortfall despite plans for street parking on Ocean View Drive and extending the adjacent public carpark. Mr Bothwell also said the proportion of “unrestricted length of stay” dwellings in the village proposal were double that permitted under the Shire’s Local Planning Strategy, though the State Development Assessment Unit had powers to override it. “There is certainly a lot of unrestricted length of stay proposed,” he said. “That’s a significant variation there and we have to think about the impact of ULS because they’ll be using the coast more.” And the village would introduce potentially dozens of extra residents to Gnarabup, but the developers had not included a mandated caretaker’s residence to oversee the proposed short-stay villas and apartments. Mr Bothwell noted “it is ambiguous how the village will be managed”. Additionally, the resort structure, lighting, and effects on viewpoints all needed closer scrutiny, with the highest point measuring at 8.25m compared to the 7m height limit allowed under Shire laws. Although the developers proposed community benefits through public open space, access to the resort restaurant, and extra street parking, planners found so far there was “no clear definition between proposed public spaces and the resort”. Early assessment also cast doubt on any sustainability components in the development apart from a proposed 65-100kW solar array on the centre’s roof. “Most (sustainability) measures are framed as ‘aspirations’ not clear commitments,” the planners noted. The “significant excavation” required also needed to be considered in regards to the headland’s underground limestone karst system.