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