Shire of Augusta-Margaret River planners say resort decision missing key information

Shire planners have said there were too many missing details for them to make a firm recommendation about the proposed Westin Margaret River Resort & Spa and its associated village development. Last month, senior staffers outlined how a second access road to Prevelly and strident concerns about bushfire safety would inform the submission put through for the council to consider as the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River’s official verdict. But that view, considered by members this week, was merely consultation because the final decision would be made by WAPC’s State Development Assessment Unit alone since the Luke Saraceni-led project was considered to have State tourism relevance under legislation hurried through during the early stages of the pandemic. Planners said they were “not able to make a definitive recommendation on the proposal at the present time”. Factors informing that position included the still-pending Environmental Protection Authority public review of the locality, clear advice from the State Government about whether it requires — and will fund — a second access road to the coast, and conclusion of work undertaken by the Water Corporation about the Gnarabup wastewater treatment capacity and whether it would extend the network towards Margaret River. Outcomes from the latest State Government design review panel meeting with the proponents also remained unknown. But planners made clear fine details around the developer’s application needed closer scrutiny. These points included the height maximum of the main resort building, the proposed overclearing of native vegetation on Shire reserves, the “demonstration of best-practice sustainable design and management in line with the Shire’s objective of becoming an accredited eco-tourism destination” and significant shortfalls in parking, worsened by the great number of unrestricted length of stay dwellings in the application which were de facto private homes. Planners also sought more detail on staged construction of the village development and its new commercial centre, the potential privatisation of land earmarked for public open space, and how traffic management would function during and after the construction period. In a nod to the concerns of protest group Preserve Gnarabup, planners also sought reassurances “that the geotechnical characteristics of the land will provide a sound base upon which to build without impacting upon subterranean fauna and having regard to future coastal processes”. A council-endorsed rezoning bid for the Saraceni properties would also be held off until the outcomes of the EPA review were known.