Modification 1 - Realign development footprint

Submission on Modification Application: “Realign development footprint” – West Culburra Development

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The proposed stormwater management plans are based on uncalibrated modelling and outdated, incomplete rainfall data (8 years from 1965–1973, taken inland at Nowra, instead of recent coastal data).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

Thank you for considering my submission.

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.

Thank you for considering my submission.

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

1. Proposed amendment to the wording of the Statement of Commitments at 8.1, 8.2, 8.3 is not supported (page 29 of the modification report). Instead, the wording should be changed to provide for ecological restoration that ‘improves’ the current natural state’.
• In all cases it is proposed to delete the words ’ in current natural state’. Explanation is given only for the woodland lot in that ‘vegetation management works and embellishment will be required to provide a natural entry feature’; no explanation is provided for the other areas.
• Is the primary purpose of the woodland lot to provide an entry feature or to preserve rare bushland and protect and enhance biodiversity ??? Taking out the reference to the ‘current natural state’ from this sentence potentially gives scope to make significant landscape design modifications to pretty up the entrance, that bring little benefit to biodiversity.
• Recognising that the current wording may inadvertently preclude ecological restoration works that would improve the biodiversity values of these lands, it would be better to rephrase it to enable ecological restoration rather than delete the one phrase that could stop bushland being converted to a curated landscape design.

2. Increased destruction of native bushland, particularly on the western boundary should not be approved due to the cumulative loss of biodiversity that would be caused by the development. The modification increases the amount of bushland to be destroyed by approximately 7%. Designing the street layout so that remains within the already-approved development footprint would avoid the need for this added destruction, consistent with the ‘avoidance’ principle of the Biodiversity Conservation Act.
• Whilst the Act and the BDAR provide for offsetting of loss, the independent review of the Act tabled in parliament in 2023 concluded that: ‘Biodiversity is not being conserved at a bioregional or State level’, and ‘it is clear to the Review Panel that the operative provisions of the Act are incapable of supporting its objectives’ and further that: ‘environmental considerations, and especially opportunities for avoidance and minimisation of biodiversity impacts, are not considered early enough in the development assessment and approval process’.
• These concerns are evident in the modification proposal. The proposal presents no justification for the increase in bushland proposed for destruction and contains no examination of alternatives that will avoid additional biodiversity loss. Rather, it has jumped straight to ‘offset’.
• Additionally, degradative edge effects such as noise, lighting, roaming cats and dogs, and human disturbance will push back into the remaining bushland even further than the area to be cleared
3. The BDAR report states that the western boundary and foreshore reserves are high priority areas for minimisation of light pollution and includes recommended measures. If further destruction of bushland on the western boundary is approved (despite it being ecologically harmful), then the recommended light mitigation measures should be applied to this land, to reduce edge effects on the retained bushland.

I object to this modification. Mainly because it is to a zombie development application which needs to be put on hold until further environmental assessments have taken place.
The stormwater management plans in this proposal are based on out of date rainfall data taken from Nowra between 1965-1973. I have lived in the same house in Culburra Beach since 2002 and it has flooded several times, but only in the past 3 years. Rainfall has increased dramatically and the water table is now higher. Therefore places (and homes) that did not flood before flood now. Rainfall and flood data must be accurate to place and time, ie taken from Culburra's records and right up to the present day. Otherwise these new homes, built on low-lying land close to the Shoalhaven River and Lake Wollumboola, could become flood-prone and uninsurable. They also have the potential to pollute the local waterways if water management systems are based on flawed data.

It appears that the developers want to change a definition of the word 'construction', replacing it with 'works', which could potentially allow early ground works to begin before environmental impact studies are complete. This must not be allowed.

Removal of the detailed lot layout from the concept proposal seems a strange thing to do. A plan is a plan, and approval is based on details contained in that plan. To remove this significant detail suggests that the developers might not stick with the plan for lot sizes and alignments.

Please see attached letter of objection to these proposed modifications.

Good Morning
I have lived in Culburra Beach since 1973. It's natural spaces of land, estuary, lagoon,coastline and ocean are firstly First Nations heartland and were never ceded to my colonial ancestors.
So to this further proposed footprint at West Culburra. My comment is succinct. You will hear detailed foundational concerns in relation to this summary. Have you looked at this landscape from a drone? It's preservation value is extraordinary & essential for ecosystem, biodiversity, oyster farming, town character, community & visitor well-being and First Nations respect. Our already developed footprint fron the 1940s already suffers from recurring effects of climate change & severe weather events.
So I oppose the following modification to this proposal: How?
1. Firstly the term 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 pertinent to this vulnerable coastal estuarine landscape .
People bring pressure, yes we do BUT we can and must also bring knowledge and wisdom and respect. This is 2025 . The Grand Vision of Henry Halloran needs to consider his legacy through a new lens not semantic filters around loophole definitions.
The precautionary principle please.

see attached

As a Culburra Beach resident who is opposed to the West Culburra Development, I strongly oppose the proposed modification by Sealark to the current development application conditionally granted by the NSW Department of Planning.

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.
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 urge the department to reject the changes proposed by the developer as follows:
- 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 strongly object to the proposed modifications to the west Culburra development application. The changes proposed if approved will undermine the critical protective measures imposed by the NSW land and Environment Court 2021 and the Federal Environment Minister under the EPBC Act 2025.
Works would be allowed to commence by the developer before environmental studies are completed using baseline data
This must be changed to before any works commence.
In relation to condition A9 approval lapses after 5 years unless an approved DA has commenced.
The change to extend consent indefinitely to if any construction work would bypass the council and community of subsequent stages.
The storm water management proposal is outdated , based on inland rainfall data - 1965-1973 , not any recent coastal data used
There is great concern raised by independent bodies that flooding with associated runoff to Curley's Bay , Lake Wollumboola and the Crookhaven River would result in drastic pollution to these waterways.
Recent independent data must be used covering the 20 year coastal rainfall, flood data prior to approval of storm water conditions.
These modifications are major and will cause nothing but detriment to waterways and fragile ecosystems . Isn't it time as a society we put the greater good of many ahead of a few with monetary interests only .

To Whom It May Concern: My submission on 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.
Regards Paul Godsell

I am writing this submission to strongly object to the proposed modifications to the West Culburra development application.

These are not minor changes. 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 22 km inland at Nowra. There is much later data available from 1993-1997 which shold be used instead of much outdated 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.

I strongly object to the proposed alterations to the Culburra West development application as they are not minor but would undermine critical protections imposed by both the NSW Land and Environment Court (2021) and the Federal Environment Minister under the EPBC Act (2025) should they be implemented.
1. The definition of baseline. Under baseline the word “construction” has been substituted for the term “works” in the definition of baseline data collection. Reliance on the term “construction” would permit activities such as pipe-laying and land clearing to proceed before the completion of the mandatory environmental studies. Baseline data must be strictly defined before any activity by the developer commences to enable accurate monitoring of waterways and wetlands.
2. Condition 9 (re lapse of consent). The status quo currently requires commencement of work related to an approved development application within five years otherwise consent lapses. The developer Sealark is seeking to obtain an indefinite extension to the project should any “construction work” be commenced. This is a major departure from council protocols and would also interfere with proper community involvement in the future.
3. Stormwater and water quality issues. The management plans for stormwater are totally irrelevant being based rainfall of another location, Nowra, and historically collected over the short period of eight years from 1965 to 1973. Contemporary rainfall and flood data of the coastal area must be relied upon and independent modelling of conditions must be based on that to prevent irreversible damage to the waterways, ecosystems and the oyster farming businesses.
In conclusion I reject any alteration to the definition of the term “baseline”, object to any changes to Condition 9 regarding commencement of works and call for up-to-date rainfall and flood data be relied upon for the formulation of all water management plans.

Subject: Objection to Proposed Modifications – West Culburra Development Application

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

These changes are not minor. If approved, they would undermine protections established by the NSW Land and Environment Court (2021) and the Federal Environment Minister under the EPBC Act (2025).

1. Definition of “baseline”
The proposal to replace works with construction in the definition of “baseline” data collection would permit clearing or pipe-laying before environmental studies are complete.
Baseline data must remain defined as conditions before any works commence to ensure reliable monitoring of waterways, wetlands, and oyster farms.

2. Condition A9 (lapse of consent)
At present, development consent lapses after five years unless an approved DA has physically commenced.
The modification would extend consent indefinitely if any construction work begins, bypassing proper Council and community oversight of future stages. This is unacceptable.

3. Stormwater and water quality
The stormwater management plan is based on uncalibrated modelling and outdated rainfall data (1965–1973, inland Nowra, instead of recent coastal records).
Independent experts warn the system will fail during flood events, causing runoff and pollutants to enter Curley’s Bay, Lake Wollumboola, and the Crookhaven River.
Independent modelling using at least 20 years of up-to-date coastal rainfall and flood data must be undertaken before approval of any stormwater conditions.

Conclusion
These modifications materially alter baseline protections, weaken consent expiry safeguards, and pose serious risks 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 within five years.

Require updated, independent stormwater and flood modelling before any water management conditions are approved.

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.

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

'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

See attachment

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.

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.