Modification 1 - Realign development footprint

The apparent minor amendments requested to the West Culburra Plan in fact disguise serious inadequacies with the data provided in support of the original application. The edge boundaries to the proejct have to be readjusted due to the failure to use available and correct data in the first place. It is likely given recent climate changes and water volumes that the onsite water treatment facilities will flood into the lake and the river, causing major pollution. Independent assessment showed that to be likely and with the data for the coastal belt (much wetter than Nowra) from recent years the water management and runoff pollution argument in the application needs to be totally reassessed. Also the change to the five year start up should also be unacceptable. A minor drain on the edge of the development would be sufficient to allow the project to sit in limbo forever. There should be evidence of significant commencement of the development; without it the application should lapse after five years. The application does not meet the line of minor changes but rather signifies the need for detailed reinvestigation of the critical issues which both now and in the future bedevil the project. Given the necessary changes effectively identified by the applicant, the proposal should be properly reassessed for its environmental damage implications.

I am writing to strongly object to the proposed modifications to the West Culburra proposal which the developer disingenuously describes as "minor". The developer has had ample time to fulfill the LEC Conditions of Approval in terms of water testing and they have clearly not done this properly. These are not minor modifications. If approved, they will undermine the protections required by both the NSW Land and Environment Court (2021) and the Federal Environment Minister under the EPBC Act (2025).
I wish to make the following points to support my objection:

1. In proposing to change the definition of “baseline” with regard to data collection, the developer is effectively asking to rewrite the rules to suit their schedule. It could potentially mean that early infrastructure works such as clearing or pipe-laying could occur before environmental studies are complete. It obfuscates the environmental issues at stake and contributes to an even greater lack of transparency for the community that will be most affected by this development. The "baseline" definition" MUST remain as per the original DPIE consent in order to preserve any integrity whatsoever with regard to this project, which, in my opinion, should never have been approved in the first place. This modification would render the monitoring of waterways, wetlands, oyster farms and Indigenous cultural impact reports unreliable and potentially cause irreparable damage.

2. With respect to 9 a, the developer seeks to extend consent indefinitely if any “construction work” starts. This proposed modification could potentially allow the developer to commence work before the conditions of the EPBC consent to carry out a controlled action have been met. The EPBC Act is currently under review because the existing act has been found to be inadequate in terms of protecting the environment, and with particular regard to West Culburra, the endangered species of fauna on the site. The federal Minister for the Environment has already flagged that revisions to the Act are in progress to make these environmental protections stronger. It is my view that the NSW DPIE should be working towards this same goal and rejecting any proposed modifications by developers to circumvent or weaken these protections.

3. Having read several reports by independent water engineers, it is clear that the developer's proposed storm water management plans are based on uncalibrated and outdated modelling. There is incomplete rainfall data that was taken 8 years from 1965–1973 inland at Nowra, instead of recording recent coastal data, which experts say, should be recorded over 20 years to be accurate.
My lived experience as a Culburra homeowner for 12 years also tells me that the town already has serious inadequate drainage and stormwater issues that severely impact the waterways and Curleys Bay, where the oyster farmers have been forced to suspend business regularly due to the pollution of the bay. We have already had 3 flooding events in Culburra this year alone, due to grossly inadequate drainage and stormwater infrastructure. These events have negatively impacted the roads, caused erosion around the beaches and bay and contributed to high levels of pollution in Curleys Bay and Lake Wollumboola. Homeowners have made appeals to the state Ombudsman who has responded favourably and written on their behalf to Shoalhaven Council requesting that the existing water management infrstructure be upgraded. The Council's failure to respond with systemic upgrades makes it even more imperative that the state government act in response to these regular flooding events which are predicted to occur more frequently in the future. The developer's proposed water management system for West Culburra will exacerbate this situation and inevitably lead to runoff and pollutants flowing into Curley’s Bay, Lake Wollumboola and the Crookhaven River. I urge the DPIE to reject the developer's proposed modifications and to impose more stringent water management conditions to protect both the environment and private property.

In summary, I urge the DPIE to reject the developer's proposed modifications which will undermine the environmental conditions on which the 2021 development consent was predicated by allowing the developer far too much flexibility in its interpretation of those conditions. Moreover, in light of this proposal, I request that greater monitoring be undertaken by the DPIE to ensure the developer is meeting the 2021 Conditions of Consent with regard to water management systems that are critical to human welfare and environmental and Indigenous cultural protections.
Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission.
Claire Haywood
Culburra Resident

I am objecting to this submission because these modifications to West Culburra 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.

Thank you for considering my submission.

I categorically 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) Extension of 5 year period to indefinite. How is even possible for a developer to change the standard conditions of an approval to favour themselves so much. The approval period should remain the same as it is there to prevent zombie developments.

2) Again no developer should be able to change the definition of ‘baseline’. This should be consistent across all projects and should not be changed. The amendment would allow work to commence before EPA conditions have been met, making a mockery of the whole approval process.

In summary these modifications change the whole approval process and the protections that come with it and should be rejected.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

The application is outdated and misses many important cultural and environmental factors which must be given proper attention.

Please refer attached submission

Please refer to the attached documents.

I am objecting to the developers attempting to modify conditions imposed by both the Land and Environment Court (2021) and the Federal Environment Minister under the EPBC Act (2025). This will have a negative impact on the local environment and the sensitive Lake Wollumboola which must be protected at all costs as it is an extremely important wetland.
No water management conditions should be approved until the modelling is independently reviewed using proper, local climate
and rainfall data.
It is important to note that "Baseline” must continue to mean before any works, not just before construction. This would allow the land and waterways to be disturbed before proper environmental studies are completed.
And finally, condition A9 must stay in place.

Sincerely
Lani Imhof

Good morning ,

I oppose the following modifications:

1. ‘Baseline’ must continue to mean before any works, not just ‘construction’.

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

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

Thank you.

Good Afternoon, I object to the West Culburra development plan. In particular I OPPOSE the following modifications:
• ‘Baseline’ must continue to mean before any works, not just ‘construction’.
• Condition A9 must continue to require physical commencement of an approved DA.
• No conditions relating to water management should be approved before issues with modelling are resolved by independent analysis and the use of suitable data.
Kind Regards