- Published on
Photo: Corinella Foreshore Committee
By Catherine Watson
THE Corinella foreshore has become the battleground for a bitter dispute between those who believe the foreshore reserve should be a natural environment that provides habitat for native birds and animals and those who want a more manicured foreshore, with bay views for homeowners.
There have been heated arguments between those removing vegetation on the foreshore and others trying to stop them, and claims that the government-appointed foreshore committee has been stacked with those who prefer views over trees.
THE Corinella foreshore has become the battleground for a bitter dispute between those who believe the foreshore reserve should be a natural environment that provides habitat for native birds and animals and those who want a more manicured foreshore, with bay views for homeowners.
There have been heated arguments between those removing vegetation on the foreshore and others trying to stop them, and claims that the government-appointed foreshore committee has been stacked with those who prefer views over trees.
Like all civil wars, this one is complicated and goes back generations. There are differing versions of exactly what constitutes a “natural environment” on the foreshore. Is it what was there 30 years ago, 60 or 300? And how do you know what that looked like?
Then there’s the Spinnaker Point Estate, which borders the reserve. Those who bought into the estate paid a premium for ocean views. Over the years many have lost those expansive – and expensive – views as the vegetation has grown, either revegetated or through natural regeneration.
A landscape plan prepared by Beveridge and Williams in 2003 includes several iterations of “Maintain Views” with arrows indicating a clear sightline of the bay.
And there’s the Corinella Action Group (CAG) which wants the 30-hectare reserve returned to how it was in 2008 photographs. According to an email circulated to members in 2021, the group seeks “thicket, tillage, dead logs and trees to be removed in front of all residential areas”, thinning of the sheoaks and boobiallas and for “trees near and on the cliff edge to be removed (or cut to 300mm)” to reduce erosion.
Then there’s the Spinnaker Point Estate, which borders the reserve. Those who bought into the estate paid a premium for ocean views. Over the years many have lost those expansive – and expensive – views as the vegetation has grown, either revegetated or through natural regeneration.
A landscape plan prepared by Beveridge and Williams in 2003 includes several iterations of “Maintain Views” with arrows indicating a clear sightline of the bay.
And there’s the Corinella Action Group (CAG) which wants the 30-hectare reserve returned to how it was in 2008 photographs. According to an email circulated to members in 2021, the group seeks “thicket, tillage, dead logs and trees to be removed in front of all residential areas”, thinning of the sheoaks and boobiallas and for “trees near and on the cliff edge to be removed (or cut to 300mm)” to reduce erosion.
Meanwhile, inexpertly lopped trees and branches indicate illegal removal is occurring. There are also plenty of dead trees but it’s difficult for non-experts to tell whether these have been poisoned or it’s natural dieback. Most of the vegetation in front of the houses is continuous but some houses have a partial view and at least one has a clear vista of sea views.
Last April the Department of Environment, Energy and Climate Action (DEECA) invited the Corinella community to make submissions on a new landscape plan. Over a year later, the landscape plan has still not been released, leaving a new foreshore committee, appointed last November, in limbo.
DEECA’s selection of the committee itself is contentious with claims it has been stacked with members who prefer sea views to trees.
Supporters of former chair Barb Oates, who was not reappointed to the committee despite 20 years of revegetation work on the foreshore, have asked Bass MP Jordan Crugnale to take their concerns to the Environment Minister Ingrid Stitt.
“We don’t expect everyone on a committee to agree on all matters, but the bias is so blatant it can’t be ignored,” said John*, who asked that his real name not be used.
The work done by the foreshore committee under Barb’s leadership was recognised with several awards, including the 2015 Victorian Coastal Award for Excellence.
The secretary of the new committee, David Laing, agrees Barb put in a huge effort over many years but says the previous committee reached a point of dysfunctionality due to the sharply divergent views of members. He believes DEECA was keen to select moderates who could compromise.
David describes himself as one such. He says he enjoys bush walking and is happy to get his own sea views from the beach, but can understand the concerns of those who thought they were buying ocean views.
Last April the Department of Environment, Energy and Climate Action (DEECA) invited the Corinella community to make submissions on a new landscape plan. Over a year later, the landscape plan has still not been released, leaving a new foreshore committee, appointed last November, in limbo.
DEECA’s selection of the committee itself is contentious with claims it has been stacked with members who prefer sea views to trees.
Supporters of former chair Barb Oates, who was not reappointed to the committee despite 20 years of revegetation work on the foreshore, have asked Bass MP Jordan Crugnale to take their concerns to the Environment Minister Ingrid Stitt.
“We don’t expect everyone on a committee to agree on all matters, but the bias is so blatant it can’t be ignored,” said John*, who asked that his real name not be used.
The work done by the foreshore committee under Barb’s leadership was recognised with several awards, including the 2015 Victorian Coastal Award for Excellence.
The secretary of the new committee, David Laing, agrees Barb put in a huge effort over many years but says the previous committee reached a point of dysfunctionality due to the sharply divergent views of members. He believes DEECA was keen to select moderates who could compromise.
David describes himself as one such. He says he enjoys bush walking and is happy to get his own sea views from the beach, but can understand the concerns of those who thought they were buying ocean views.
He says he has no expertise in vegetation or environment and he wants decisions on foreshore vegetation to be based on expert advice.
He’s not sure the sheoaks are the right tree for the foreshore. “Certainly they keep the weeds down but really nothing grows under them. I think the grass might stabilise the soil more than the trees. But I don’t really know. We need that expert opinion to tell us.”
Then there are the dead trees, especially sheoaks, along the foreshore. David says the hard-core environmentalists would argue that dead trees are habitat while many residents want them cleaned up. “So some people think it’s natural and some people think it’s ugly. But I can’t see why you couldn’t pick them off the track or mown area and throw them back into the bush to be habitat.”
He says even those who want the views have never stated they want the bush removed altogether, just to have the trees thinned and sheoaks removed from the cliff edge.
So how many trees is too many?
John agrees the Corinella foreshore was less treed and bushy in 2008. “That’s because nothing was done to protect it back then. Cattle used to graze right down to the tidal area, destroying the precious mangroves, the tea tree and melaleuca, and the salt bush that stops further erosion of the foreshore.”
He says one of the many joys of walking on the foreshore track now, after more than a decade of revegetation by a committed group of locals, is seeing echidnas, wombats, kangaroos, lizards and many bird species.
“The black cockatoos feasting on sheoak nuts are a special sight. Most residents and visitors also observe how the bush on the bay side protects them from the strong winds. Removing this bush, even in sections, would end this protection.”
John says neighbouring Queensferry provides an object lesson to the other Waterline towns. “One hundred years ago, a thriving community lived there. In fact, an esplanade extended all the way from Corinella to Grantville. Then the vegetation, including the critical mangroves, was removed and the ocean claimed Queensferry.”
Local volunteers are now growing and successfully replanting the mangroves at Queensferry. Deakin University students are also reseeding mangroves between Corinella and Grantville, though some of the newly planted mangroves have been pulled out.
John suspects it was done by people who want “a sandy beach”. “The Waterline towns don't have beaches as such. We live on a wetland in Western Port Bay, a RAMSAR-listed, internationally important area for migratory birds.”
David Laing acknowledges there is an issue with illegal removal of vegetation. “The real difficulty is to know who’s done it. There is no power to prosecute without evidence.”
Although the Corinella foreshore is Crown land, Bass Coast Council is responsible for enforcement of regulations. In February Bass Coast Council erected two large signs at Ventnor and Inverloch after vegetation was illegally removed from foreshore reserves. The massive signs block any views that might be gained by destroying trees.
He’s not sure the sheoaks are the right tree for the foreshore. “Certainly they keep the weeds down but really nothing grows under them. I think the grass might stabilise the soil more than the trees. But I don’t really know. We need that expert opinion to tell us.”
Then there are the dead trees, especially sheoaks, along the foreshore. David says the hard-core environmentalists would argue that dead trees are habitat while many residents want them cleaned up. “So some people think it’s natural and some people think it’s ugly. But I can’t see why you couldn’t pick them off the track or mown area and throw them back into the bush to be habitat.”
He says even those who want the views have never stated they want the bush removed altogether, just to have the trees thinned and sheoaks removed from the cliff edge.
So how many trees is too many?
John agrees the Corinella foreshore was less treed and bushy in 2008. “That’s because nothing was done to protect it back then. Cattle used to graze right down to the tidal area, destroying the precious mangroves, the tea tree and melaleuca, and the salt bush that stops further erosion of the foreshore.”
He says one of the many joys of walking on the foreshore track now, after more than a decade of revegetation by a committed group of locals, is seeing echidnas, wombats, kangaroos, lizards and many bird species.
“The black cockatoos feasting on sheoak nuts are a special sight. Most residents and visitors also observe how the bush on the bay side protects them from the strong winds. Removing this bush, even in sections, would end this protection.”
John says neighbouring Queensferry provides an object lesson to the other Waterline towns. “One hundred years ago, a thriving community lived there. In fact, an esplanade extended all the way from Corinella to Grantville. Then the vegetation, including the critical mangroves, was removed and the ocean claimed Queensferry.”
Local volunteers are now growing and successfully replanting the mangroves at Queensferry. Deakin University students are also reseeding mangroves between Corinella and Grantville, though some of the newly planted mangroves have been pulled out.
John suspects it was done by people who want “a sandy beach”. “The Waterline towns don't have beaches as such. We live on a wetland in Western Port Bay, a RAMSAR-listed, internationally important area for migratory birds.”
David Laing acknowledges there is an issue with illegal removal of vegetation. “The real difficulty is to know who’s done it. There is no power to prosecute without evidence.”
Although the Corinella foreshore is Crown land, Bass Coast Council is responsible for enforcement of regulations. In February Bass Coast Council erected two large signs at Ventnor and Inverloch after vegetation was illegally removed from foreshore reserves. The massive signs block any views that might be gained by destroying trees.
David says the committee is not keen on that drastic response in Corinella, fearing it might actually encourage vandalism and would certainly detract from scenic views for everyone, not just the guilty.
A council spokesperson said the council had received and investigated reports of vegetation removal in recent years but no reports were currently under investigation.
The foreshore committee has undertaken to hold a public meeting once the foreshore landscape plan is released.
The Post asked DEECA how many people nominated for the foreshore committee, who selected the committee members, what the selection criteria were but did not receive a response by deadline.
* Such is the animosity over the issue that John asked that his name be withheld. Comments on this report are welcome but, given past experience, they will be moderated. Please stick to the issues. Personal abuse will not be tolerated. Comments may be edited for clarity or length.
A council spokesperson said the council had received and investigated reports of vegetation removal in recent years but no reports were currently under investigation.
The foreshore committee has undertaken to hold a public meeting once the foreshore landscape plan is released.
The Post asked DEECA how many people nominated for the foreshore committee, who selected the committee members, what the selection criteria were but did not receive a response by deadline.
* Such is the animosity over the issue that John asked that his name be withheld. Comments on this report are welcome but, given past experience, they will be moderated. Please stick to the issues. Personal abuse will not be tolerated. Comments may be edited for clarity or length.
The Corinella Foreshore Committee responds:
As the Chair of the Corinella Foreshore Committee (CoM) I feel it is incumbent on me to respond on behalf of the CoM to the recent correspondence relating to the CoM and a forthcoming Landscape Plan which is designed to guide management of that foreshore.
It is generally acknowledged that the local community wishes to preserve the natural beauty and rich habitat of the foreshore. There is, however, disagreement about how this should be best achieved in the setting of vegetation growth and death, replanting, and the maintenance of amenity with respect to sea views and fire risk. There are differing views in the community about how this is best achieved and this needs to be addressed in a rational, non-confrontational way to find a reasonable compromise within the community. There have been allegations of harassment and accusations of selective, advantageous clearing by some on both sides of the debate which has created conflict that needs to be tempered.
The previous CoM was unable to agree on a path forward, so the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA – formerly DELWP) commissioned an independent party to create a Landscape Plan to guide the management of the foreshore and has worked with them on various incarnations of the Plan. DEECA released a draft for public comment and received substantial feedback, which was relatively balanced between those who most valued the retention of vegetation, and those who most valued sea views in this coastal township. Protection of the native fauna remains a priority for all. It is anticipated that the Plan will be finalised and released relatively soon.
Criticism of the composition of the recently appointed CoM and some implications that the CoM has been “stacked” by people intent on wholesale clearing of trees and destroying the habitat is both unfair and untrue. The current committee, appointed by DEECA presumably in accordance with government guidelines, is composed of people with a wide range of skills and expertise who have a genuine interest in trying to balance “the environmental, social, cultural and economic values” across the precincts, in accordance with DEECA guidelines.
We hope that the community will support the CoM and DEECA in implementing what we expect will be a well-considered and balanced Landscape Plan.
Sincerely,
Dr John Lippmann OAM
As the Chair of the Corinella Foreshore Committee (CoM) I feel it is incumbent on me to respond on behalf of the CoM to the recent correspondence relating to the CoM and a forthcoming Landscape Plan which is designed to guide management of that foreshore.
It is generally acknowledged that the local community wishes to preserve the natural beauty and rich habitat of the foreshore. There is, however, disagreement about how this should be best achieved in the setting of vegetation growth and death, replanting, and the maintenance of amenity with respect to sea views and fire risk. There are differing views in the community about how this is best achieved and this needs to be addressed in a rational, non-confrontational way to find a reasonable compromise within the community. There have been allegations of harassment and accusations of selective, advantageous clearing by some on both sides of the debate which has created conflict that needs to be tempered.
The previous CoM was unable to agree on a path forward, so the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA – formerly DELWP) commissioned an independent party to create a Landscape Plan to guide the management of the foreshore and has worked with them on various incarnations of the Plan. DEECA released a draft for public comment and received substantial feedback, which was relatively balanced between those who most valued the retention of vegetation, and those who most valued sea views in this coastal township. Protection of the native fauna remains a priority for all. It is anticipated that the Plan will be finalised and released relatively soon.
Criticism of the composition of the recently appointed CoM and some implications that the CoM has been “stacked” by people intent on wholesale clearing of trees and destroying the habitat is both unfair and untrue. The current committee, appointed by DEECA presumably in accordance with government guidelines, is composed of people with a wide range of skills and expertise who have a genuine interest in trying to balance “the environmental, social, cultural and economic values” across the precincts, in accordance with DEECA guidelines.
We hope that the community will support the CoM and DEECA in implementing what we expect will be a well-considered and balanced Landscape Plan.
Sincerely,
Dr John Lippmann OAM
Comments are closed.
been there since the time of Bunurong
Hands orf faraway bureaucrats, t’is THEIR wombat and bird habitat
Long Time We Do Belong
For those who want views, of treeless ground and public loos
perhaps relocate to a high rise in St Kilda
great views of the ocean, without ever tripping over
a wretched avian or marsupial interloper
There is also their warped logic they seem to have, that reveg plants who require protection should not be there.
Or the ones who constantly complain about further redevelopment from the "chinese"and then you are witness to them knocking down a single magnificent sheoak along the foreshore. The person doing this "claims" he has permission from council and then quickly gather up the wood in his Ute for his cash in hand wood fire business.
These thriving, struggling and replanted trees do not have a hope.
We also need to be mindful of where and how our winter wood is sourced. The internet is innudated with local shonky wood dealers, so think carefully about your sources for winter wood.
Mother nature is the ‘expert’, and long ago she determined the ‘type of vegetation’ best suited to the cliff-tops. Our role and responsibility is to preserve this as much as possible given the challenges of climate change, the wholesale clearing of the land for farming, and more recently land subdivision.
All that is left is an untouched foreshore, for no other reason than it was not suited for such purposes. Why would anyone want to ruin what serendipity has bestowed upon us?
An untouched foreshore makes this part of our region very special. The fabulous coastal banksia (which we allow to naturally die before our eyes), and the equally wonderful she-oaks. Have you ever been under a she-oak plantation when a storm is brewing and the wind is blowing? The sound is pure magic, like no other experience.They support a vast array of bird species, including my all time favourite, the black cockatoo. Beneath they buffer our last remaining wombats from an unforgiving world, many of them already unwell, having been stressed by development, unleashed dogs, and mange. They feel justifiably less, not more ‘vulnerable’ and ‘enclosed’ in a she-oak plantation. For them, it is much more than just in the mind.
The she-oak are also sacred trees to the Boon wurrung. ‘They are associated with the power of Boon wurrung men and it is remembered that when early colonists cut down She-oak trees, Boon wurrung men would feel unhealthy’.(https://www.hobsonsbay.vic.gov.au – the-message tree)
Those who favour the bulldozer should instead stick to viewing stations. They strike the appropriate balance between the voyeurs and the preservationists. Moreover, a more immersive experience is only a few downward steps away.
It is especially sad that "John" is using a pseudenom because he is threatened, like our local flora and fauna. I would be have been happy to do a biodiversity map of the area, but the online tool kit has been revamped and I do not have the skills to complete it. Could we get Dr Brendan Casey or one of the other save westernport woodland members to do this? It is an extremely useful tool which mapping the flora and fauna back to the 1800s. Thank you Catherine for being a intelligent and informed voice gor this vulnerable area.
Sounds like something William the Conquer would say. Trees and oceans cant co-exist? It can only be one or the other? That’s rather like saying there should be no fish in the ocean, or no clouds unless it rains. Trees are the frame which make oceans all the more beautiful, and oceans are all the more beautiful by being framed by trees. They are soul mates. The birds and wildlife are a bonus.
There’s foreground, middle distance and long distance. Pretend you are an inquisitive child wishing to explore this concept . Enter a she-oak (or coastal banksia) plantation. Start at your boots and restrict your gaze to the surrounding metre or two. Its also a great view. Keep moving. Expand this to middle distance when you are ready. Every once in a while pop into a viewing station for a view of the ocean. Maybe go build a sand castle on the beach. Immerse yourself. Its a far more complete experience than passively gazing towards the horizon like a brass statue for hours on end.
This is the only home we have.
Sheaokes are dominant in Wilsons Prom , granite rock face ( EVC states >70%) and when dominant Casuarina’s reduce other native species, reported by conservation ecologists in Victoria and NSW.
Beware of information from Nursery’s as they just want to sell plants…
Inconveniently, it seems, the she-oaks exist where they do, whether or not they have been exhaustively mapped. If anything it means they are rare, and rare things should be preserved. Right?
To suggest they are dispensable because they are not mapped is the ecological equivalent of the Terra Nullias argument. Or subsequently, they (first nation people) are 'not on the census, therefore they don't exist'. Come to think of it, there are a heap of parallels between first nation people and our she-oaks.
You can be certain their existence there has been hundreds if not thousands of years, primarily because they have adapted to the conditions (nutrient-poor soil on cliff tops) better than any other native species. I daresay as well as any ground-hugging shrubbery DELWP dreams up as a horizontal replacement.
But of course, the proposition is to bulldoze the she-oak, principally to provide a select minority of local residents a better view of the ocean from their upstairs hot tub. Not introduce a better adapted species. This has nothing to do with superior ecological or environmental solutions. I daresay more to do with elevating property prices of the select few, or simply a lack of appreciation for the intrinsic beauty and ecological value of she-oaks (and coastal banksia).
Unless the right to an ocean view is legally on one's property title (no, that does not include what the selling agent hand-on-heart promised you when you bought the place) cliff-hugging Corinella residents do not have any more right to uninterrupted ocean view than you or me. Take note DELWP, if you want to contribute in a positive manner, then exclude the proposition the tree-line has to be lowered dramatically simply to provide the close-proximity minority a beaut bedroom view of the ocean.
The thin strip of Corinella foreshore can not and will not be BULLDOZED!! a
All discussion, material made public, as well feedback from DECCA has NEVER mentioned this terminology.
WHY say it?? maybe to add colour to the comment which had little basis of BioDiversity.
If they were proposing to replace all the dead and dying she-oaks with more she-oaks (and other native species) , it would be a different matter. But my take on this (please correct me if I am wrong) is the intention to remove tall trees (she-oaks) to reduce the tree-line so that close proximity residents get a clear view of the ocean.
To achieve this they will need to bulldoze, chop, chain-saw, poison (take your pick) the she-oak, and replace them with waist high native shrubbery.
I suggest they instead preserve the she-oak and complement them with native shrubbery, if they so please.
As for biodiversity, please read my previous comment.
If we look closer to the foreshore in-front of the north end of Palmer st there is a clearance. Is this what your calling Vandelism? In front of whose house?
The views of foreshore from this corner house if you visit, are manicured from the pine branches above and less trees. Of note, the vista is “Blue space” good for wellness yet the rest of western foreshore has been planted out with thousands of trees, These Citizens are less fortunate to see Blue and feel depressed for a coastal village.
Photos were not possible to upload on your platform to add support, go for a walk or take your boat, see yourselves the Pine trees are missing and the ones left are perfectly trimmed.
Diseased? is it true !!!
"We will remember them."
Hitler’s lebensraum was the catalyst for WWII. That is, the ideological principle for Nazism which justified upending the status quo and invading Poland and the rest of Europe.
We want to preserve the status quo (she-oaks) and you want to upend it. So, in relation to your metaphor, who do you think is the instigator here and who is the defender?
Because we disagree with you, we are motivated by the desire to control you? Not at all, we want to conserve something we regard as precious, notwithstanding we wish you would share our values.
This is a democracy. It is not a decision which should be restricted solely to those who gain some personal benefit from it, or happen to agree with you. It should a decision made by all those who enjoy the she-oak plantations, and this extends well beyond those living in close proximity to the foreshore, and even beyond Corinella itself. It is a collective/regional asset, not your private domain. As for DELWP, how they allowed themselves to be sucked into this situation is beyond my understanding.
I am too busy enjoying nature and the trees. Go on, give it a try, trees and nature really aren't that scary.
Thanks for getting to the nub of the problem. Money !
You probably need the advice of a good lawyer, particularly if you have been given written assurances by council back when you bought the property (most unlikely).
I daresay your property is worth more with an ocean view, but this has to be weighed against the loss of amenity (and value) for the wildlife, and the rest of us who much prefer the trees to remain. The way they have for centuries. Its your self-interest vs the greater good, not your entitlement vs the greater good.
You dont ‘own’ the view from your property, least of all in perpetuity, unless it is on your title (most unlikely). No matter what the real estate agent told you when you bought it. In general, I cant prevent my downside neighbour putting in a building or tree which blocks my 2005 view of whatever takes my fancy, unless there is a caveat on their property. The same applies to you. The vista might not change, but circumstances do. Particularly when it comes to trees (they grow and block views).
If you want to guarantee your ocean view you need to also own the land the trees are standing on, and then get a permit to doze them. But it belongs to all of us, so you dont have any legal right, unless you can convince the authorities. I dont expect any authority will find in your favour in these circumstances, but you are free to try. Just as we are free to object. I expect it would be an extremely inappropriate use of the land, and set a terrible precedent.
I also expect your rates are proportionate to the value of your property without a view. That is, if you sold it today. If the speculators think there is future prospect of ocean views, they may value your property higher, but this also means your property has a higher (albeit more nebulous) sale value. You could put this speculation to bed by abandoning your quest. It may stabilise your rates, if this is your primary concern.
Maybe we should of killed all those kangaroos,Just saying that this particular local was very lucky that i kept my cool and walked away.So in closing anyone who wants to cut down these magnificent trees is nothing but a environmental terrorist .
Seems like a good time to end the conversation.
Thank you to all who participated. I was going to edit some of the defamatory ones but it seems everyone was giving as good as they got.
I guess the much delayed foreshore landscape plan will tell us the department's view.