Modification 1 - Realign development footprint

Submission re Modification Application: “Realign development footprint” – West Culburra Development
In summary, I object to proposed modifications to the West Culburra development application.
In my view, these changes are not minor, as they may undermine or remove critical protections imposed by the NSW Land and Environment Court (2021) and the Federal Environment Minister under the EPBC Act (2025).
1. Definition of “baseline”: The developer proposes to change the definition of “baseline” data, by replacing the “works” with “construction” in “baseline” data collection. This would allow early works such as clearing or pipe-laying to occur before environmental studies are complete. Baseline data MEANS before any works commence, otherwise monitoring of waterways, wetlands, and oyster farms will become unreliable and ineffective.
2. Condition A9 (lapse of consent): Currently, approval would lapse after five years unless the approved DA has commenced. The developer seeks to extend consent indefinitely if any “construction work” starts, which would bypass reasonable Council and community scrutiny of future stages and is therefore NOT acceptable.
3. Stormwater and water quality issues: The proposed stormwater management plans are based on uncalibrated modelling and outdated, incomplete rainfall data (8 years from 1965–1973, taken inland at Nowra),rather than recent coastal data. Independent experts warn the system will not cope with flood events and will lead to runoff and pollutants flowing into Curley’s Bay, Lake Wollumboola and the Crookhaven River.
New independent modelling should be commissioned using up-to-date 20-year coastal rainfall and flood data before any stormwater conditions are approved.
Conclusion: The proposed modifications should not be treated as minor. They significantly alter baseline protections, weaken expiry/timeline safeguards, and risk serious and permanent damage to near-pristine waterways and ecosystems.
I therefore request that the Department:
Reject the proposed change to the definition of “baseline.”
Retain Condition A9 requiring commencement of an approved DA.
Require independent, updated stormwater and flood modelling before approval of any water management conditions.

The project still contains too many houses. The changes are just going to make the area more of a problem. The area of Culburra beach is currently lacking suitable infrastructure and quality Road in and out of the area. The changes will make further problems for The settled area. Apparently, the aim of the project is to provide some housing for the children of the people who live in the area. The number of lower cost housing has been reduced. The problem with providing such housing is that people need to move away from the area to get Employment. The area is going to provide greater problems greater congestion and remove the village atmosphere that has been created by the locals.

To Whom It May Concern:
Submission re Modification Application: “Realign development footprint” – West Culburra Development
In summary, I object to proposed modifications to the West Culburra development application.
In my view, these changes are not minor, as they may undermine or remove critical protections imposed by the NSW Land and Environment Court (2021) and the Federal Environment Minister under the EPBC Act (2025).
1. Definition of “baseline”: The developer proposes to change the definition of “baseline” data, by replacing the “works” with “construction” in “baseline” data collection. This would allow early works such as clearing or pipe-laying to occur before environmental studies are complete. Baseline data MEANS before any works commence, otherwise monitoring of waterways, wetlands, and oyster farms will become unreliable and ineffective.
2. Condition A9 (lapse of consent): Currently, approval would lapse after five years unless the approved DA has commenced. The developer seeks to extend consent indefinitely if any “construction work” starts, which would bypass reasonable Council and community scrutiny of future stages and is therefore NOT acceptable.
3. Stormwater and water quality issues: The proposed stormwater management plans are based on uncalibrated modelling and outdated, incomplete rainfall data (8 years from 1965–1973, taken inland at Nowra),rather than recent coastal data. Independent experts warn the system will not cope with flood events and will lead to runoff and pollutants flowing into Curley’s Bay, Lake Wollumboola and the Crookhaven River.
New independent modelling should be commissioned using up-to-date 20-year coastal rainfall and flood data before any stormwater conditions are approved.
Conclusion: The proposed modifications should not be treated as minor. They significantly alter baseline protections, they weaken expiry / timeline safeguards and they risk serious and permanent damage to near pristine waterways and ecosystems.
I therefore request that the Department:
• Reject the proposed change to the definition of “baseline.”
• Retain Condition A9 requiring commencement of an approved DA.
• Require independent, updated stormwater and flood modelling before approval of any water management conditions.

I write to strongly object to the proposed modifications to the West Culburra development application.

These changes are not minor. If approved, they will undermine critical protections imposed by both the NSW Land and Environment Court (2021) and the Federal Environment Minister under the EPBC Act (2025).
1. Definition of “baseline”

The developer proposes to replace the word “works” with “construction” in the definition of “baseline” data collection.

This would allow early works such as clearing or pipe-laying to occur before environmental studies are complete.

Baseline data must remain defined as before any works commence, otherwise monitoring of waterways, wetlands, and oyster farms will be unreliable and ineffective.

2. Condition A9 (lapse of consent)

Currently, approval lapses after five years unless an approved DA has physically commenced.

The developer seeks to extend consent indefinitely if any “construction work” starts.

This change would bypass proper Council and community scrutiny of future stages and is unacceptable.

3. Stormwater and water quality issues

The proposed stormwater management plans are based on uncalibrated modelling and outdated, incomplete rainfall data (8 years from 1965–1973, taken inland at Nowra, instead of recent coastal data).

Independent experts warn the system will not cope with flood events and will lead to runoff and pollutants flowing into Curley’s Bay, Lake Wollumboola and the Crookhaven River.

New independent modelling must be commissioned using up-to-date 20-year coastal rainfall and flood data before any stormwater conditions are approved.

Conclusion

These modifications cannot be treated as minor. They materially alter the meaning of baseline protections, weaken expiry safeguards, and risk serious and irreversible damage to waterways and ecosystems.

I therefore request that the Department:

Reject the proposed change to the definition of “baseline.”
Retain Condition A9 requiring commencement of an approved DA.
Require independent, updated stormwater and flood modelling before approval of any water management conditions.

OBJECT.
1 Attached objection document.

SSD-3846-Mod-1
Sealark / SCC
Minister for planning
OBJECT

Objecting on grounds repeatedly raised since 2013 :
Environmental destruction
Endangered species habitat
Cultural Heritage
Township character
Abundance of existing stagnant empty houses in Culburra Beach
Tourism deflector: visitors will choose another area, not decimated by development.

No amount of ‘minor relocations nor reductions in the developments footprint’ will suffice.
Nulling this & all zombie DA’s is the only acceptable path forward.
Biodiversity offsets are nonsense. Do the research, the evidence is available. Stop destroying.

“Please note that if the application is approved, there is no right of a merit appeal to the NSW Land & Environment Court by an objector” – Why? Because all horrific environmental decisions made, are final & our objections mean nothing.

Submissions are simply a meritless box ticking exercise, with zero impact on the outcome (unless one is a supporter), as the outcome is already decided.

Handshakes of the past are still shadowing our future.

Work has begun. Machinery has arrived. Yet supposedly, this is not an approved development. Explain that.

The speed limit has been reduced on Culburra Road from 100km to 80km *months ago*. This is not a safety measure. The road is fine. The statistics prove Culburra Road is not a high crash zone. The decrease to our speed limit is in preparation for (the not yet approved) development. Highlighting, once again, this is a done deal. What are our submissions for?

We spend hours writing & reasoning with a useless body that shows its hand, time & time again; that they will do as they please irrespective of environmental, cultural & community consequences.

There is no return from the devastation you seek to approve (not isolated to this DA), the importance of protecting natural resources is more than evident, the tourism which appears most vital to council, is jeopardised by the very thing being approved.

Halloran himself would be disgusted with the ‘proceed at all costs’ approach being applied to push these dead DA’s through.

My questions (year after year) are not rhetorical, answer me, answer us – the community speaks loudly on this issue. Yet no genuine response is provided. Only procedural, political garble that shields you from accountability. It is insufficient.

This should not be a faceless decision; someone needs to answer for the impending destruction.

Preservation is progress.
E.Hood

I am writing in objection to the proposed modification to the West Culburra Mixed Use Subdivision Modification (SSD-3846-Mod-1)
The proponent states that the proposed changes are minor. I disagree.
Definition of Baseline. I feel that changing "works" to "construction" regarding baseline definition is not merely semantics but a ploy to undermine the determinations made by the Court and the Government.
I have seen it before with this company by just saying they have driven a peg into the ground constitutes commencement. All environmental conditions are in place for good reason and must be adhered to BEFORE any works are commenced. Otherwise, the EPBC and LEC it seems can be manipulated to suit the developer.
I have seen the same developer illegally fill wetlands with contaminated fill only to receive retrospective consent by sympathetic councillors.
Condition A9 (lapse of consent). So-called zombie developments have sat idle for years only to be given the go ahead (using old laws) by government agency on the developer's word. If nothing has been started before all conditions are met - development does not begin.
Stormwater and water quality issues. Where do I start. As part of a subcommittee on stormwater control and sewerage management with our local community forum I have found all existing stormwater and sewerage systems in Culburra Beach have failed miserably over the 50 years I have been a resident. With the lack of proper systems in place, flooding has affected many properties in our area, including my own.
I don’t believe that the stormwater controls they are proposing will stand a chance against the incredible flooding rains we have been experiencing over the past 12 months.
Sewerage overflow is commonplace in heavy rain events. This problem has been a pass-the-buck situation between agencies and nothing is resolved.
A full independent assessment is needed for the existing systems in Culburra Beach before any further development is allowed to commence.
I feel that the developer for West Culburra, Sealark (Halloran Trust) has not learnt much over the years to qualify as being sympathetic to the environment.
With sea level rise, increased storminess happening over the past few years, please take this seriously and not approve the proposed changes.

See attachment

have lived on the south coast my whole life between Callala Bay , Orient point, and now a homeowner in Culburra Beach. I am extremely concerned about the size, style and scale of the amended West Culburra development and wish to formally register my objection to the proposal. I have also been running my business in Culburra for the last 12 years. I consider myself a true local to the area.

The reasons for my objection can be summarised as follows:

The proposed development is much too big for a sensitive coastal area and does not adequately mitigate the significant loss of habitat and threats to Crookhaven River catchment. In particular, the construction of more than 300 residential housing blocks south of the existing industrial estate on Culburra Road involves clear-felling of more than 43 hectares of unburnt native bushland and cannot possibly be justified in a time of climate change and unprecedented native species extinctions — especially when the developer already owns cleared land that could be developed without destroying a valuable native habitat corridor. 


The style of the proposed development is not in keeping with the sleepy coastal vibe of Culburra Beach. In particular, the small block sizes, medium to high-density living, and lack of best-practice environmental or passive solar design principles, makes the proposal completely unsuitable to the ethos and future of the existing village. I am especially disappointed that the developer would choose to clear-fell the entire area of bushland prior to construction, when there are much more progressive approaches to residential development that retain mature trees, hollow-bearing species and green corridors. I believe that where development is necessary, construction methods that retain key native habitat in and around new homes would undoubtably make living in these areas much healthier and enjoyable for future residents. I believe the developer’s approach to clearing land and situating houses on small blocks with no consideration for views, ventilation, orientation or existing shade trees makes it grossly outdated, unsuitable and completely unsustainable. 



The consultation process with both Aboriginal stakeholders and the rest of the Culburra Beach community has been marked by a lack of transparency, inclusion and respect since the original concept plan was exhibited. The Culburra Beach Progress Association has systematically excluded and publicly bullied any opponents of the development, and refused to even listen to resident concerns, let alone authentically consult with community members. Similarly, indigenous community members have been disrespected throughout the process by not having their cultural heritage treated with the importance it deserves. The developer’s own Aboriginal heritage assessment found middens and artefacts of “significant regional importance” in the areas surrounding proposed development in the amended plans, yet no real consultation or representation of the rich indigenous history of the area has been conducted. It is unconscionable to think we would continue to show such disrespect to the traditional owners of the land in this way in 2021, given all we have supposedly learnt about the decimation of Aboriginal culture by colonialisation over the past 200 years. 

I believe my sentiments about this proposal are echoed by many other residents and community members in Culburra Beach and Callala, and urge the Land & Environment Court to uphold its decision to reject the West Culburra proposal in its entirety.

Sincerely,
Anna Smallwood

Objection to West Culburra Mixed Use Subdivision Modification - SSD-3846-Mod-1
My submission is for the Department not to allow undermining of the Land and Environment Court (LEC) and Government decision but to uphold the law.
The proposed changes to this subdivision may seem minor on paper, however I believe that the developer is seeking a way to circumvent the protections put in place by the LEC (2021) by playing with words like "works" and "construction" as defined in baseline data collection.
Baseline data must be collected before any works/construction is started for it be at all useful in protecting the environment, threatened species and fragile ecosystems.
The health of Lake Wollumboola, a part of Jervis Bay National Park and a wetland of national importance, the Crookhaven Estuary and Curleys Bay oyster and fisheries industries are dependent on the proper processes that have already been determined by law. Any modification to give the developer an opening to skirt around will undermine the intent of the determinations of both the LEC and the EPBC Act.
With regard to condition A9 lapse of consent, I consider that the developer must not be allowed to dictate to the Government once the determination has been made. If the developer can’t commence the subdivision within the current five year term then they must resubmit and adhere to rules. The government must stick to its legally explicit position or risk setting an unhealthy precedence.
With regard to stormwater basin layouts and sizes my first concern is that old climate data from 1965 – 1973 was used when more recent and relevant rainfall data from 1993 – 1997 was available but not used by the developer. Another concern is that the flood basins will never be enough to contain the amount of flooding rain we have endured this year, therefore polluting waterways such as Lake Wollumboola, an ICOLL and mostly closed to the sea. Oyster beds will be contaminated and as a consequence, the livelihoods of oyster growers and fishers will be impacted. Increase in sea levels and storm surges, all indicative of climate change will guarantee failure of these systems because they are not designed using the most up to date climate data. A third concern is that maintenance of these stormwater ponds will be handed over to Shoalhaven Council who is in enormous debt and cannot maintain current assets.
I ask that the Department:
• Reject the proposed change to the definition of baseline
• Keep Condition A9 regarding commencement of approved subdivision
• Require from the developer an independent review of the stormwater management system to meet today’s standards using today’s data.

My family having lived in Culburra for over 20 years is seriously concerned because the proposed stormwater management plans are based on uncalibrated modelling and outdated, incomplete rainfall data (8 years from 1965–1973, taken inland at Nowra, instead of recent coastal data).
I have followed current reputable reporting by experts who warn the system will not cope with flood events and will lead to runoff and pollutants flowing into Curley’s Bay, Lake Wollumboola and the Crookhaven River.
This proposal must not go ahead until new independent modelling is commissioned using up to date 20-year coastal rainfall and flood data before any stormwater conditions are approved. These modifications cannot be treated as minor. They materially alter the meaning of baseline protections, weaken expiry safeguards, and risk serious and irreversible damage to waterways and ecosystems.
These modifications cannot be treated as insignificant. They materially alter the meaning of baseline protections, weaken expiry safeguards, and risk serious and irreversible damage to waterways and ecosystems. In a time of radical climate change they will render Culburra unsustainable and eventually unliveable. It should be a huge ‘No’ to the development all together.

Sealark's application to modify the LEC's consent goes beyond realigning the development footprint. Objection is made to requested changes to environmental protection measures set out in the LEC's conditions. These conditions were carefully crafted to protect the sensitive coastal environment of the development site. The application also needs to be considered in light of the conditions attached to the Federal Minister's approval granted in May this year under the EPBC Act so that the two approvals do not conflict or provide uncertainty. The full submission is attached as a separate document.

The proponent, Sealark Pty Ltd, has described the modifications as “minor” but I strongly disagree with this characterisation based on expert advice sought from engineers, lawyers and planning professionals consulted in the consideration of the modification documents.
My concerns are described in the document attached, and I note it is important to consider these against a background of long-running objection from the majority of residents and ratepayers in the Culburra Beach community, as well as Sealark’s ongoing failure to adequately and genuinely consult with the community on this major development proposal.

'Baseline' must continue to mean before any works, not just 'construction'

Condition A9 must continue to require physical commencement of an approved DA

No condition relating to water management should be approved before issues with modelling are resolved by independent analysis and the use of suitable data

Please register my objection to this application to realign the development footprint for West Culburra - SSD-3846-Mod-1.

On the broader scale, I am deeply concerned about this proposed development as a whole – as I have pointed out at each level of public exhibition, the plans to decimate many, many hectares of natural forest make no sense in this day and age. This type of colonial-style, slash-and-burn mentality is outdated for today’s society. It makes no sense from an environmental perspective, no sense from a living environment perspective, no sense from a cultural heritage perspective, and absolutely no sense from a climate change perspective. In addition, the plans to develop in this area on the outskirts of the small coastal village of Culburra Beach are against the Illawarra-Shoalhaven Regional Plan and the South Coast Regional Strategy before that. It beggars belief that this plan for development is still pushing its way through and it is irresponsible of the government to be allowing it.

On a more specific level, with this application to make modifications to the concept plan, I believe there are a number of serious issues.

The management of water runoff has been central to the conditional approvals received from the Land and Environment Court and DCCEEW under the EPBC Act. Yet I have seen no independent verification that the applicant’s proposed solutions will actually be successful. In fact, the only qualified independent assessment I have seen of the developer’s modelling, via a submission to the LEC in 2021, shows solid evidence that the planning behind the modelling is flawed.

What will be the consequences of building an entirely new housing estate, at sea level in an environmentally sensitive area, if the water treatment and management processes fail? Is the government prepared to take responsibility in this scenario, given it will be the government that is left with the problem?

A case in point is the question of projected flood planning levels. Reading the applicant's information provided in Appendix L of the modification – Addendum to the Flood Impact Assessment – it states that the flood planning levels used are those based on 2011 data: “flood planning levels for the subject site are currently based on the 2011 study”. Close to 15 years ago. My understanding is that a new flood planning certificate was provided by Council in March 2023, in which levels are a metre higher than those used in the planning and modelling. Given that this application exists because the applicant needs to realign the development footprint based on new data, the modelling must at the same time be re-examined using the 2023 projected flood planning levels.

I am also concerned by the modification requests in Appendix C - Proposed Amendments to Consent. Firstly, what do amendments to the conditions of consent posed by two levels of government approval processes have to do with realigning the development footprint? And secondly, how can it be legal to allow a developer to change the conditions of consent? These conditions were imposed for the purpose of safeguarding the environment and ensuring a legitimate development process. These conditions are not open to discussion by the applicant, to be changed as they require.

For example, the definition of baseline data is important and has been defined in the consent. It is not acceptable for the applicant to request changing ‘works’ to ‘construction’ to better meet their needs.

Similarly, the consent conditions require an ‘Environmental Auditor’ to monitor progress. It is unacceptable to change this to an ‘Environmental Representative’, no doubt to better enable the applicant to cherry-pick their assessor.

In my opinion, many of the proposed modifications in this application threaten the integrity of environmental protections and public safety. I urge the Department to reject the application, uphold the original consent conditions and fully examine the entire water management modelling for the proposed development before it is too late.

Hi there, I feel very compelled to make a submission.

I am challenged by the requested edit - the word “works” with “construction” in the definition of “baseline” data collection. I am just so worried that this would enable work such as clearing or pipe-laying occurs before responsible environmental studies are complete, resulting in irreversible consequences for environmental sustainability.

I therefore request that the Department:

1. Reject the proposed change to the definition of “baseline.”

2. Retain Condition A9 requiring commencement of an approved DA.

3. Require independent, updated stormwater and flood modelling before approval of any water management conditions.

Regards.

The biodiversity development assessment reports (BDAR’s) lodged with this proposal are
majorly non-compliant with their legislative requirements. There are numerous failures to
meet the minimum requirements set out in the Biodiversity Assessment Method Order 2020
(BAM). Of foundational relevance, is a series of non-compliances within ELA 2025 with subsections
4.3.3(2.(d)), 4.3.3(4.(b)), 4.3.4(1.) of the BAM. These issues relate to minimum surveying
requirements.

The methodology which is legislatively prescribed within the BAM Chapter 4, is of
particular influence to the reliability of the rest of the biodiversity assessment. Due to the key point at
which the methodology was not followed, these non-compliances profoundly undermine the
quality of the information produced throughout ELA 2025. In consequence, information
which needs to be considered in a complete form has been provided incomplete; regarding threatened
species which potentially occur on-site, and key details involving impact avoidance,
mitigation and offsetting.

Due to the non-compliances, these BDARs are inadequate for the legislative purposes pursuant
to the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 s 6.7 & s 6.12.

In other words, the proponent has not supplied the appropriate documentation, (a valid
BDAR), which is necessarily required for a lawful evaluation of this proposal's environmental
impacts. In consequence, consent must be refused for this application.

I hope the information provided in my detailed attachment will assist your assessment of these
matters.

Kind Regards
Samuel Cooper

Objection to Modification Application SSD-3846-Mod-1 – Realign Development Footprint (West Culburra Development)
As a resident of Culburra Beach I object to the proposed modifications to the West Culburra development. While described as minor, several changes affect existing EPBC Act and LEC consents. These conditions were established to protect the environment and ensure legal compliance, so any modification should be carefully assessed.
Key issues includes a proposal to alter the definition of baseline data which allows pre construction work to begin which threatens endangered species and fragile ecosystems.
Altering condition A9 only allows the developer to rewrite conditions of consent against all checks and accountability.
Altering stormwater basin layouts and sizes is problematic in light of previous independent assessments which highlighted concerns with water management strategies, modelling methods, and data reliability. Unresolved questions remain about the revised stormwater solution’s effectiveness, and further review by qualified coastal engineers using updated local data is strongly advised before approval.
Given increasing environmental pressures and climate change, it is crucial that decision-makers thoroughly review these proposals, especially those affecting water management.
Yours sincerely
Ned Cooper Waters-Wills

I am writing regarding the proposed changes to the West Culburra development application, which involve significant modifications to existing protections for local waterways and ecosystems.
My objection is that:
• Water management conditions should only be approved after independent modelling using current coastal data is completed. Current stormwater proposals rely on outdated and uncalibrated information, potentially affecting runoff and water quality in Curley’s Bay, Lake Wollumboola, and the Crookhaven River.
• The term ‘baseline’ should refer to conditions before any works commence, not only prior to ‘construction’. Changing this definition would permit early works without a comprehensive environmental assessment. Accurate monitoring depends on collecting data before any activities begin.
• Allowing indefinite extensions to Condition A9 allows the developer to bypass council checks and community oversight.
Accordingly, I request that the Department; does not allow the redefinition of “baseline”; Keep Condition A9 as it is and make sure independent, updated stormwater and flood modelling is done before approving any water management conditions.
Sincerely,
Greg Waters
Resident, Culburra Beach.

Submission Regarding Modification Application: “Realign Development Footprint” – West Culburra Development
I express my objection to the proposed modifications to the West Culburra development application.
These proposed modifications should not be considered minor. They significantly alter baseline protection measures, diminish expiration safeguards, and pose a risk of serious, potentially irreversible harm to local waterways and ecosystems. This would undermine essential protections established by both the NSW Land and Environment Court (2021) and the Federal Environment Minister under the EPBC Act (2025).
Specifically, I OPPOSE the following modifications:
• ‘Baseline’ must continue to mean before any works, not just ‘construction’.
The developer seeks to substitute the term “works” with “construction” in defining “baseline” data collection. This adjustment would permit early works, such as land clearing or pipe-laying, prior to the completion of environmental assessments. It is imperative that “baseline” continues to refer to data collected before any works commence, to ensure accurate monitoring of waterways, wetlands, and oyster farms.
• Condition A9 must continue to require physical commencement of an approved DA.
At present, approval lapses after five years unless physical commencement of an approved DA occurs. The proposal to extend consent indefinitely upon initiation of any “construction work” would circumvent appropriate Council and community oversight for subsequent stages. This amendment is not acceptable.
• Stormwater and Water Quality Concerns
Current proposals for stormwater management rely on uncalibrated modelling and outdated rainfall data (eight years from 1965–1973, sourced inland at Nowra instead of using recent coastal records). Independent expert advice indicates that the existing system may be inadequate for managing flood events, likely resulting in runoff and pollutants entering Curley’s Bay, Lake Wollumboola, and the Crookhaven River. No conditions relating to water management should be approved before issues with modelling are resolved by independent analysis and the use of suitable data. Our community already struggles with these issues.
Therefore, I request that the Department:
• Reject the proposed redefinition of “baseline.”
• Maintain Condition A9, which requires commencement of an approved DA.
• Mandate independent, updated stormwater and flood modelling before approval of any water management conditions.
Although these changes are presented as minor tweaks by the developer, they are in fact major shifts that could weaken important protections and put our local waterways and ecosystems at risk—undoing vital safeguards set by the NSW Land and Environment Court (2021) and the Federal Environment Minister under the EPBC Act (2025).
Sincerely
Patrice Wills
Resident of Culburra Beach

see attached