Coastal Social Conflicts: How Can They Be Resolved?
When coastal land-use planning decisions are decided in environmental law courts, does that mean planning and management processes have failed to achieve intended outcomes? Our “adversarial” legal system places significant constraints on the way evidence is presented to, and evaluated by, the court. That is not to say there are times when court decisions are necessitated. However, cost and procedural factors can inhibit external parties in a dispute to a fair and equitable hearing. This includes the provision of scientific knowledge. Such courts cannot undertake their own inquiries in contrast to those jurisdictions where the so-called “inquisitional” approach is used.
Robert Thompson from the University of Rhode Island in 2007 identified a number of “cultural models” in the context of shoreline conflict. He noted that an indicator of the problematic nature of coastal property was the highly disproportionate number of cases that came before the US Supreme Court dealing with property rights. Over the years, NSW has experienced its fair share of cases – including one quite recently involving a proposed seawall at Entrance North on the Central Coast. I have also written about beaches as “contested spaces” using examples from different countries where conflicts generated legal judgments exposing somewhat entrenched positions by protagonists fighting for certain “rights”.
Private versus public rights is one expression of different conflicting positions that emerges when a development or action is undertaken which threatens what proponents stand for. To protect a beach for public use versus a demand to protect a beachfront asset from being lost to the sea, often presents coastal managers with a “wicked problem” for which there are no easy solutions. The very nature of shoreline dynamics informs us of hazards to which any structure which intersects the fluctuation zone of the beach is at risk. Landowners working within what they see as their legally defined boundaries may take steps to armour their property. They could have done so legally with permission from local councils. However, around Australia we have many examples of illegal structures being dumped at the rear of eroding beaches with adverse consequences to members of the public and adjoining lands. And thus commence battles to “save our beach”.
Coastal living is a shared experience. It is more than the intersection of different types of private and public ownership. Many varied expectations are involved – not just in the immediate area, but in society at large given our national passion for the coast. As population continues to grow, there will be further pressure on use of coastal resources to change coastal conditions to benefit a particular interest. There is no silver bullet mechanism to provide a “right” answer that satisfies all parties.
Community groups emerge to challenge those who want to block passage along foreshores where seawalls at times leads to loss of beach, creates obstacles that can cause harm, or removes natural ecosystems. However, even within these groups there can be tensions. Those who want to revegetate areas with trees and shrubs can be confronted with groups whose prime concern is to view the sea (both the waves and far distance – no wind turbines). There are those with expectations that beaches be kept clean and hence regularly scraped; those who vehemently oppose anti-social behaviour to the point of limiting numbers at certain times; and those who (despite big limitations on insurability of property) want to invest in and redevelop lands close to the foreshore as possible. Local councils under the guise of progress may encourage development and reap increased rate income, conflicting with the expectations of community groups.
State governments in Australia have taken various steps to address wicked problems of coastal planning and management. It is no easy task as many of the principles of planning, such as those embedded in having property defined and registered under Torrens Title, are challenged by shoreline dynamics. As elsewhere in the world, these “fixed” boundaries can be swallowed by an encroaching sea now and into the future. NSW coastal legislation recognised the “inherently ambulatory and dynamic nature of the shoreline” that may result in loss of coastal land to the sea (including estuaries and other arms of the sea) (Coastal Management Act, 2016, s3 (g)). However, when it came to the Entrance North case, the court found that protecting existing property outweighed broader coastal interests given that no practical alternative existed. This situation arose as the properties were constructed within what the Act now defines as the “beach fluctuation zone” by a local council many years prior to the 2016 legislation.
Social conflict in coastal areas in all likelihood will continue and perhaps get worse. Our coastal futures are beset with enhanced uncertainties given ongoing and projected impacts of climate change. Here coastal scientists and engineers have roles that go beyond servicing individual clients – whether they be local councils, asset managers or property developers. It is not just a matter of addressing physical risk, but also to help mitigate conflict through various ways of communication and support. Our legal systems must be robust enough to encompass the nature of coastal science and ensure that new and emerging knowledge is incorporated into the decision-making process. Obviously there will be levels of dissatisfaction with decisions, but a knowledge framework that is consistently applied is clearly needed. One can dream of a federal framework that would guide state and local governments. But right now it is the responsibility of state governments to design mechanisms for the incorporation of both place-based and general knowledge in decision-making.
At this point I see a more inquisitorial role for those entities tasked with decision-making. Experience on planning panels and in the courts suggests the need for independent “experts” informed of both science and policy who can ensure that consequences of human intervention in dynamic coastal settings are fully understood. Implications of sea-level rise, extreme events and warmer oceans and estuaries cannot be ignored. Yet under certain circumstances built structures will proceed in places that do intersect with these changing physical forces. However, proposals for coastal protection works – whether they be seawalls etc., or involve sand nourishment – must involve a level of assessment by science-informed “experts”. That may be through a regional/local planning model as in NSW, or some other mechanism. Consistent, informed delivery of outcomes should demonstrate how an understanding of coastal dynamics now and into the future will play out at any given location. Similarly court mediation and deliberation could involve independent “expert” advice. This would permit courts to reach conclusions based on inputs beyond that presented by adversarial parties.
As we move forward to serious investments in climate change adaptation in coastal areas, there is little doubt that science inputs will be involved. In the meantime, in order to avoid “death by a thousand cuts”, there is an opportunity for state governments to adjust their planning and judicial processes to ensure social conflicts are fairly and transparently understood in the light of best available knowledge in assessing coastal developments in vulnerable areas.
Bruce Thom
Words by Prof Bruce Thom. Please respect the author’s thoughts and reference appropriately: (c) ACS, 2026. For correspondence about this blog post please email admin@australiancoastalsociety.org.au
#299