Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders on the West Coast of Victoria Stage Two Report Roles/Roles and Responsibilities... · 1234 Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders on

Roles and Responsibilities ofStakeholders on the West Coastof Victoria

Stage Two Report

Surfcoast Shire and the Western CoastalBoard

PPK Environment & PPK HouseInfrastructure Pty Ltd 44 Albert Road

A Parsons BrinckerhoffCompany

South MelbourneVictoria 3205Australia

April 2001 Telephone + 61 3 9697 333376M057a - R03M057aM01102

Facsimile: + 61 3 9697 3344

ABN 80 078 004 798 NCSI Certified Quality System to ISO 9001

1234 Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders on the West Coast of Victoria – Stage Two Report

F:\76\76MJobs\76M057A (SW Vic Coastal Stakeholders)\Report\R03M057A(Ver 2).doc M01102 Page i

Contents

Page Number

Acknowledgments a

1. Introduction 1

2. The Discussions 3

2.1 Agencies Involved in Discussions 3

2.2 Content of Discussions 4

3. Discussions with Stakeholder Agencies 5

3.1 Roles and Responsibilities of Agencies 53.1.1 Overview 53.1.2 State Agencies 63.1.3 Regional Agencies 73.1.4 Local Agencies 8

3.2 Interactions Between Agencies 83.2.1 Statutory Requirements 93.2.2 Inter-agency Committee Processes 93.2.3 Internal Decision Procedures 113.2.4 Informal Arrangements 12

3.3 Impediments 133.3.1 Overlapping Planning Roles and Responsibilities 133.3.2 Unclear Management Roles and Responsibilities 163.3.3 Inter-Agency Liaison Difficulties 183.3.4 Incomplete Implementation of Plans 193.3.5 Lack of Information, Expertise and Guidelines 20

4. Conclusions 224.1.1 Roles and Responsibilities 224.1.2 Inter-agency Coordination 234.1.3 Incomplete Implementation of Plans 244.1.4 Knowledge Generation and Exchange 24

5. The Way Forward 26


Contents (continued)Page Number

F:\76\76MJobs\76M057A (SW Vic Coastal Stakeholders)\Report\R03M057A(Ver 2).doc M01102 Page ii

List of Tables

Table 5.1: Planning Schemes and the Coast 28Table 5.2: Works and Activity Approval on the Coast 29Table 5.3: Stakeholder Co-ordination 30Table 5.4: Decision-making Tools 32Table 5.5: Supporting Networking 33


F:\76\76MJobs\76M057A (SW Vic Coastal Stakeholders)\Report\R03M057A(Ver 2).doc M01102 Page a

Acknowledgments

This report has benefited significantly from discussions with a range of stakeholder representatives.They are listed in section 2 of the report. PPK Environment & Infrastructure Pty Ltd is very gratefulfor the time, knowledge, experience and honesty that they have willingly brought to this review.We trust that the review will do justice to the commitment and energy that they bring to the taskof managing the coast’s outstanding environmental, social and economic values.


F:\76\76MJobs\76M057A (SW Vic Coastal Stakeholders)\Report\R03M057A(Ver 2).doc M01102 Page 1

1. Introduction

The Western Coastal Board and Surf Coast Shire have commissioned PPK Environmentand Infrastructure to undertake a review and assessment of the roles andresponsibilities of the key stakeholders involved in coastal and marine planning andmanagement within the West Coast of Victoria. The study has received funding underthe Natural Heritage Trust from Environment Australia’s Coastal and Marine PlanningProgram (CMPP).

Numerous government and non-government agencies are trying to achieve commonoutcomes for coastal and marine planning and management on the Victorian Coast.Because of the increasing number of different stakeholders responsible for planningand management of coastal and marine areas in Victoria, such as the Victorian CoastalCouncil, Regional Coastal Boards, Department of Natural Resources and Environment,Parks Victoria, Local Government, etc, many issues have not been planned ormanaged in an integrated or consistent manner creating duplication of roles,jurisdictional confusion, and a lack of continuity in decision-making processes. Someof the identified problems that have arisen from this lack of coordination include:

n Regular changes to organisational structure (eg. division of responsibilities forcoastal and catchment issues between NRE, the Coastal Boards and the CatchmentManagement Authorities, municipal amalgamations);

n Lack of clear definition of a lead authority for coastal and marine issues;

n Overlap and dual responsibilities for administering legislation and regulations;

n A lack of clear lines of communication between stakeholders;

n A tendency for agencies to focus on their own business and issues; and

n A lack of coordination mechanisms and resources for informed decision makingand the implementation of actions.

In order to provide information to allow the Coastal and Marine Planning Programs torecommend better approaches towards integrated coastal management, PPKEnvironment and Infrastructure as part of the project, have undertaken a Two Stageinvestigation.

n Stage One involved the collation of existing information on the roles andresponsibilities of stakeholders on the Central West and South West Coasts ofVictoria. A Stage One Report was delivered in mid-November 2000; and

n Stage Two involved an assessment of the working roles of these agencies as a basisfor identifying issues and proposing future directions for more integrated coastalplanning and management.

This report presents the results of Stage 2 of the consultancy. This phase involveddiscussions with a range of representatives of coastal planning and managementagencies. These discussions aimed to elucidate how the varying roles andresponsibilities of agencies, tiers of government and non-government stakeholders



were implemented on the ground in the day to day planning and management of theCentral West and South West coast of Victoria.

This report is divided into the sections described below:

Section 2 describes the agencies involved in discussions and describes howdiscussions were undertaken.

Section 3 gives an account of the issues raised and describes the opportunities for andimpediments to co-ordinated and integrated planning and management on the south-west and central west coast of Victoria.

Section 4 draws conclusions about the effectiveness of the current institutionalarrangements for co-ordinated and integrated coastal planning and management in thetwo regions.

Section 5 provides some directions and initial suggestions of ways in which identifiedissues can be addressed.



2. The Discussions

2.1 Agencies Involved in Discussions

Agencies visited for discussions and the personnel involved are listed below. Theywere selected on the basis of their participation in the Steering Committees andReference Groups of the two regional coastal and marine planning programs. As timelimited the number of stakeholders that could be visited, a selection of agencies wasvisited from state and local government, regional agencies and committees ofmanagement. This selection was considered representative of the different agenciesand associated responsibilities and functions involved in coastal planning andmanagement. There was also a bias towards local and foreshore bodies in the CentralWest Coast Region with fewer local bodies consulted in the south-west region.

It is understood that the Coastal and Marine Planning Officers will initiate furtherdiscussions with additional agencies to follow up on the issues raised and to refineactions in section 4, where necessary, before inclusion in the Coastal Action Plans forthe two regions.

State Government Agencies

Department of Natural Resources and Environment regional and district officers

Environment Protection Authority regional office

Parks Victoria district office

Department Of Infrastructure regional office

Regional Agencies

Corangamite Catchment Management Authority

Barwon Water head office.

Local Government

City of Greater Geelong

Borough of Queenscliff

Surfcoast Shire

Colac Otway Shire

Committee of Management

Torquay Public Reserves



Consultants

Fisher Stewart Pty Ltd.

2.2 Content of Discussions

In order to obtain consistent information about the coastal planning and managementarrangements for the region, the same set of questions were asked of all agencyrepresentatives to elucidate how they went about planning for and managing the coast.Representatives were encouraged to use specific examples to demonstrate practicallythe nature of coastal planning and management in the regions and to illustrate theiranswers to the questions. Three questions were asked:

What are the roles and responsibilities of your agency on the Coast?

This question was designed to clarify the participants’ understanding of the role andresponsibility of the agency they represent. In all cases, the understanding accordedwith the legal and operational responsibilities presented for their respective agencies inthe report on Phase One of this consultancy.

In your day to day implementation of your role and responsibilities, how do youinteract with other relevant agencies with responsibility on the Coast?

This question was asked in order to understand: first, each agency’s understanding ofthe role and responsibilities of other agencies; and second, the day to day mechanismsby which agencies interacted when confronted by particular coastal planning andmanagement imperatives.

In your experience of planning and managing on the Coast, what do you see as themain impediments to a co-ordinated and integrated approach?

This question sought information from a body of people with many years’ experienceof day-to-day coastal planning and management on the difficulties they face inimplementing their agency’s role and responsibilities and on ways in which a co-ordinated and integrated approach to coastal planning and management might bebetter achieved.



3. Discussions with Stakeholder Agencies

The discussions with stakeholder representatives are summarised below on the basis ofthe three questions. The information presented below is a summary of issues raised inthe discussions with stakeholder representatives and is not the opinion of theconsultants, nor for that matter necessarily the correct situation according to legislation,regulations or organisational policies and programs. The purpose of presenting theinformation below is to illustrate the range of issues confronting people involved inday-to-day planning and on-ground management as a basis for determining directionsfor improvements.

3.1 Roles and Responsibilities of Agencies

3.1.1 Overview

All agency representatives had a clear and consistent understanding of the roles andresponsibilities of the agency that they represented, consistent with informationpresented in the phase one report of this consultancy. However, when it came tounderstanding the roles and responsibilities of other agencies, most people indicatedincomplete knowledge or confusion, with the latter predominating. The followingaccount is not of the statutory roles and responsibilities of agencies (see Phase Onereport), rather, it is an account of perceived roles and responsibilities. Theseperceptions are important in determining how agency roles and responsibilities areimplemented on a day-to-day basis.

Many agency representatives reported an incomplete understanding of the roles andresponsibilities of other agencies involved in coastal planning and management. Inaddition, they also indicated that they had an incomplete understanding of the currentand planned management activities of other agencies. All expressed a desire toenhance their understanding of the roles and responsibilities, and of the plans andactivities, of other agencies.

A number of grants programs operate in the region. Many people gleaned informationon the roles and responsibilities of different agencies on the basis of the projects theyfunded through their grants programs. As there are many overlaps in the types ofprojects funded (eg. planning and management), this contributed to confusion aboutroles and responsibilities. The “message” about roles and responsibilities that anagency’s grant programs send is an important factor in this respect.

In all instances where government agencies are involved in planning and approvingmanagement works on the coast, it was considered that there were no uniformstandards to guide decision-making or, if there were, prescriptions were too generaland open to interpretation or were not enforceable anyway. There was generalconfusion over who was responsible for setting, implementing and enforcing thesestandards.



3.1.2 State Agencies

There was frequent confusion about the role of the Environment Protection Authority.Some people thought that the Authority was just a regulatory body concerned withdischarges and noise, while others experienced the Authority as taking a more activerole in a broader range of environmental issues on the coast but indicated confusionabout the extent of their role in these issues. There was also confusion over the typesof planning permit applications that needed to be referred to the Authority.

There was some confusion over the workings of the Coastal Management Act 1995with many people asking why dual permits are required for works in foreshore areas,namely a planning permit under the planning scheme of the relevant municipality anda consent under the Act. There was a perception in some quarters that this representedthe state government taking the role of local government. There was confusion overthe precise role of the Department of Natural Resources and Environment in planningon the coast. This arose particularly on coastal crown land not managed by ParksVictoria where the Department could over-ride existing, agreed plans through theconsent process under the Coastal Management Act 1995. In addition, although theDepartment was a referral authority for local government planning permits, someindicated confusion over the Department’s role and cited examples of particular workswhere a planning permit was issued but the Department did not grant consent underthe Act. Some thought that consent under the Act was conditional on the issue of aplanning permit, while others indicated that consent (or not) under the Act could over-ride a planning permit (or none). Some thought that the Victorian Civil andAdministrative Tribunal was the final arbiter in such situations.

In addition, there was confusion over the management responsibilities of theDepartment of Natural Resources and Environment, which appeared in some places tooverlap with committees of management. There was confusion over the status of someDepartment management plans that had not been approved, although despite this theyhad been used regularly to plan management. This created confusion over the role ofthe Department in both planning and management.

There was some confusion over the role of Parks Victoria versus the Department ofNatural Resources and Environment in coastal planning and management andconfusion over the application of the Coastal Management Act to works that were partof a Parks Victoria management plan for a coastal protected area.

There was considerable confusion over the relationship between the EnvironmentConservation Council’s marine and coastal investigation and final recommendations,and other strategic plans for the coast.

There was general understanding of the role of the Department of Infrastructure,particularly in relation to the Environment Effects Act 1970. There appeared to be lessunderstanding of the Department’s role in managing the planning system. There waslittle appreciation outside the Department of the scope it has in ensuringcomplementarity and consistency between the planning schemes of adjacent localauthorities in relation to cross-boundary issues, such as the coast.



There was widespread ignorance or uncertainty over the role of the Marine Board, withsome indicating that there was a view that responsibility for infrastructure in marinewaters was something that the board and the committees of management had not yetresolved.

The significance of the Great Ocean Road in the region raised questions. In particular,the uncertain role and responsibility of VicRoads in existing plans and managementpriorities on the coast was a commonly identified area of confusion. VicRoadsdecisions about major roads affect the location and volume of traffic to parts of thecoast. There was a perception in local government and committees of managementthat they should therefore have a role in providing infrastructure for dealing withincreased traffic.

3.1.3 Regional Agencies

There was frequent confusion about the role of the Catchment ManagementAuthorities. The strategic planning role of these agencies was generally wellunderstood. However, the extent of their responsibility for on-ground management inthe coastal sections of catchments and waterways was not understood, particularly inthe case of the Catchment Management Authorities. Of particular note was confusionover the role in planning and managing water quality of the Authorities versus that ofthe Environment Protection Authority and of their role in protecting native vegetationversus that of the Department of Natural Resources and Environment.

Additional confusion arose from the fact that Catchment Management Authorities werenot legally required to be referral agencies, yet their plans were required to beconsidered in planning decisions under the policy framework of planning schemes.That their plans were approved by the Minister, giving them significant weight, addedto confusion about their role in planning decisions by local government.

There was almost universal confusion about the role of water authorities (urban andrural) with regard to coastal planning and management.

There was some confusion over the role of the Coastal Boards in planning andmanagement of the coast, particularly in the level of detail necessary in a “CoastalAction Plan” versus that in a Foreshore Management Plan, and of the role of theCoastal Boards once a Coastal Action Plan has been prepared. There was alsoconfusion about the role in approving coastal works of:

n the Department of Natural Resources and Environment (Coastal Management Act1995); and

n the Coastal Action Plan process involving committees of management, the CoastalBoards, the Victorian Coastal Council and the Minister.

There was less confusion about the planning permit process (see below), althoughthere was confusion over the relationship between a Coastal Action Plan and the localplanning scheme. If a Coastal Action Plan was an incorporated document of theplanning scheme, then any works or activities in the action plan would not need aplanning permit. They would still need a consent under the Coastal Management Act1995.



3.1.4 Local Agencies

There were significant differences in the perceived role in coastal strategic planning oflocal government and the committees of management. However, foreshoremanagement plans prepared by committees of management were not necessarilyrequired to be incorporated documents in the planning schemes of local government.

Both local councils and committees of management had on-ground management rolesdepending on whether the local authority was the designated committee ofmanagement or not. This again created confusion over where responsibility lay.

There was a generally widespread, consistent understanding of the role of localgovernment in coastal planning, through the planning schemes on both freehold andcrown land. However, there was some confusion over who was responsible formonitoring and enforcing planning controls and planning permit conditions in coastalregions. There was a widespread view that this was the responsibility of localgovernment but consensus that resources for this were not generally available.

The requirement for a planning permit for works undertaken on behalf of the publicland manager also caused confusion. Works approved by the relevant state Ministerwere exempt from a planning permit, whereas other works by the same agencies were.The guidelines for the types of works and approval processes in this situation appearnot to be clear to all people.

3.2 Interactions Between Agencies

Coastal planning and management requires co-ordination and consultation betweenthe different levels of government and between agencies. In achieving improvementsin coastal planning and management outcomes, each agency has a role to play.

Management activities and changes to land use have been occurring on the centralwest and south west coasts of Victoria in spite of the confusion described above aboutthe roles and responsibilities of agencies. The purpose of the second question was toelucidate how agencies implemented their roles and responsibilities throughinteractions with other agencies. The resulting discussions with agency representativesprovided an excellent insight into how the often overlapping roles and responsibilitiesof agencies at a particular place or for a certain issue are resolved. They also provideduseful information on particular issues where it was most difficult to resolve theseproblems. The results of discussions have provided directions for improving thearrangements for coastal planning and management in the region.

The results of the discussions with regard to inter-agency interactions indicated thatthere were four general ways in which consultation and potential co-ordinationoccurred. These were:

n Statutory requirements;

n Inter-agency committee processes;

n Internal decision procedures; and



n Informal arrangements.

The results of discussions are considered below, together with conclusions about theiradvantages and disadvantages and the consequences for improving current coastalplanning and management arrangements.

3.2.1 Statutory Requirements

Statutory requirements are inter-agency consultation arrangements required by lawgoverning the process by which planning and management decisions are made. Suchrequirements result in unambiguous arrangements for inter-agency consultation (eg.referral process for planning permits under Section 55 of the Planning andEnvironment Act 1989).

The inter-agency referral process required for planning permits contrasts with theprocess for consents under the Coastal Management Act 1995 which is perceived bymany as a unilateral process (run by the Department of Natural Resources andEnvironment) not involving inter-agency consultation and, at times, producingoutcomes that conflict with either planning permit decisions or strategic planningdocuments. In many instances, this problem has been overcome through informalarrangements (see section 3.2.4). These perceptions stem from incompleteunderstanding in some quarters of the separate purpose of the Coastal ManagementAct consent, namely the landholder’s (the Crown) approval for works and activities.The Planning and Environment Act 1987 specifically refers to the relationship betweenthe planning permit and the consent.

Discussions indicated that there was general compliance with referral arrangements forplanning permits, however, the appropriateness and usefulness of the response varied.This problem can be overcome by referral agencies developing consistent guidelinesfor responses to referrals, consistent with strategic planning directions and providingguidance to staff for particular types of development.

3.2.2 Inter-agency Committee Processes

Inter-agency committee processes involve regular, formal meetings of the seniormanagement of a number of agencies (or their representatives). There are two types ofcommittee processes:

n Legislated committees; and

n Customary or Ad-hoc committees.

Legislated Committees

Legislated committees involve very senior management participation and havelegislative status. The principal examples in the region include:

n The Western Coastal Board;

n The Central Coastal Board;

n The Corangamite Catchment Management Authority;



n The Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority;

n The Environment Conservation Council; and

n Committees of Management.

The purpose of all but the last of these committees is strategic planning. Along withthe Committees of Management, the Catchment Management Authorities havemanagement functions as well.

These committees generally include executive level management from each agencyrepresented, as well as a varying number of appointed professional members andcommunity representatives. Because the recommended decisions of these committeesbecome decisions of government once approved by the Minister, agencies are boundby their decisions.

These committees therefore present an excellent opportunity for co-ordination ofplanning and management activities between regional agencies and for an integratedapproach to coastal planning. Their legislated status, the involvement of executivemanagement and the involvement of the community in many cases, makes them theideal forum for regional planning, a role generally favoured for these organisations bythe people interviewed.

However, people reported that in many instances, the general nature of manyrecommendations in the strategic plans of these committees makes it difficult todetermine how such plans should be implemented. This, combined with confusionabout the precise responsibilities of the regional planning agencies for on-groundmanagement (see section 3.1.3), made it difficult for some agencies to translatestrategic plans to on-ground actions.

Discussion indicated that, with regard to their coastal responsibilities, the CoastalBoards and Catchment Management Authorities needed to ensure other agencies wereaware of their role. They also needed to ensure that their strategic plans include toolsthat facilitated implementation (e.g. proposed planning scheme amendments,guidelines and information requirements for decision-making that incorporate strategicdirections, and education and information materials on its plans for relevant agencyofficers). Such tools also have the advantage of ensuring that the plans are notdeveloped in isolation from current decision-making procedures.

The Committees of Management were seen as having the advantages of providingcommunity input to and ownership of coastal management and of bringing a level ofcommunity accountability to coastal management. The general view was that they dida good job at what they were resourced to do.

However, a recent review of crown land management on the coast revealed problemswith the smaller committees of management, particularly where they had little scopefor raising revenue and, therefore, quite limited funds. In addition, many were foundto lack the expertise in coastal management issues required to perform their roleeffectively.

Committees of Management also bore the brunt of community criticism of coastalmanagement actions and at times, the Department of Natural Resources and



Environment, the Coastal Board, the Victorian Coastal Council and the Minister havebecome involved in decision-making on day-to-day management matters as a result ofthis.

Discussion indicated that there was a need to implement the recommendations of thereview of crown land management on the coast to give committees of management thefinancial and human resources they needed to be most effective.

Customary or Ad-hoc Committees

Customary committees have no legal status but are arranged on the basis of precedentor by agreement. Their purpose is to facilitate consideration of the full implications ofdecisions under all relevant laws, policies and agency requirements before they aremade (eg. consultative committees established for the preparation and review ofEnvironment Effects Statements). Participating agencies generally agree to follow therecommendations of these committees, although they are not in any way bound to doso unless the Minister accepts their recommendations (eg. in the case of consultativecommittees for the preparation of Environment Effects Statements).

Often, these committees do not have management representation from the agenciesinvolved. Consequently, the decisions of these committees are not always endorsedby participating agencies.

Importantly, these committees can provide a powerful means of coordinating andintegrating coastal planning and management. The disadvantage with this arrangementis that it is not formally required and therefore happens inconsistently and not alwayssuccessfully.

Discussion indicated that there was a need to identify the circumstances andarrangements for forming such committees, and to develop draft terms of reference forthem to ensure that regional and broader coastal issues and planning directions wereconsidered in their deliberations. The Western Coastal Board was considered on anumber of occasions to be the best agency to lead such processes.

3.2.3 Internal Decision Procedures

Internal decision procedures refer to formal processes adopted within a particularagency to make a decision on a coastal planning or management matter. For thecurrent analysis, they refer to procedures that require inter-agency liaison beforedecisions are made (eg. Parks Victoria management plan reference groups or theenvironment advisory committee of a local council). Membership can be formal or ex-officio, with agency representatives often having ex-officio membership, particularly oncommittees with a community consultation objective. The agency involved is notbound to accept the recommendations of such groups, however, generally they do so.

These inter-agency forums provide an excellent means of achieving co-ordinationbetween agencies on coastal planning and management matters to be decided by aparticular lead agency. However, members are not always drawn from all relevantagencies, so liaison can be incomplete. As these arrangements are not legallyrequired, it can be difficult getting agency representatives to attend, a common



problem with all committee-style processes in the region due to both distance and staffconstraints.

Discussion indicated that such arrangements for coastal planning and management willbe improved through more consistent internal procedures within and betweenagencies to ensure inter-agency liaison. There was a need to identify thecircumstances related to an agency’s roles and responsibilities for which inter-agencyliaison was required and the agencies involved. There was also a need to adopt aconsistent set of internal guidelines for the procedure for inter-agency liaison related toparticular planning and management roles and responsibilities.

3.2.4 Informal Arrangements

Informal arrangements are any means by which inter-agency liaison occurs in relationto a particular plan or activity, other than those described above. Many day-to-daydecisions are taken by agencies based on such informal liaison. These arrangementsoperate through an informal network of local contacts between individual officers andcommunity representatives. They are based on personal and professional relationshipsand are often the only way to achieve a quick consensus between stakeholders that isthen forwarded to respective agency management for decision. They rely on therelevant officers involved being well aware of their agency’s roles and responsibilitiesand of its internal decision-making procedures. It also requires trust between theindividuals involved.

Informal inter-agency liaison almost always occurs before any formal decision-makingprocedures or committee activity begins on a particular planning or management issue.

Informal arrangements have been a quick and efficient way of achieving consensusamong agencies and they have ensured that in situations where the liaison has notbeen formalised, coastal planning and management has still proceeded. However,such arrangements are fragile, having been based on particular individuals, theirknowledge and relationships. Thus, at any time, if an agency representative has left anorganisation, there has been a period of delay in implementing coastal managementactivities.

Although the organisations involved in coastal planning and management may be seenas silos, in reality, the barriers between them break down on-the-ground in manyinstances to achieve a coastal planning or management outcome. The conclusion fromdiscussions is that under the current coastal planning and management arrangements,informal arrangements are fundamentally important to co-ordinated coastal planningand management. They enable coastal planning and management to occur in spite ofwidespread confusion over roles and responsibilities. The result appears to be thatdifferent agencies take on slightly different roles and responsibilities depending onwhich part of the coast and which informal arrangements are in place.

Informal arrangements thus present a paradox. On the one hand, they lie outside anysystem of organisational control, yet at the same time they facilitate the implementationof the roles and responsibilities of each agency. In this respect, informal arrangementsare the “oil” that lubricates the formal decision-making “engine”.



Any moves to improve the current system of coastal planning and management needsto acknowledge and support the important function of informal inter-agency liaison.Improvements to this aspect of coastal planning and management will thereforeinvolve non-regulatory changes, such as education and training, information andimproving networking opportunities.

3.3 Impediments

Co-ordinated and integrated coastal planning and management involves broadagreement among stakeholders (agencies and non-government groups) on the strategicdirections of coastal planning, agreement on the priority values to be protected,agreement on the key issues affecting these values and decision-making in line withthis agreed framework. Current coastal planning and management arrangementsinvolve a range of agencies and stakeholder groups, identified in the Phase One reportof this consultancy.

The purpose of the final question to agency representatives was to identify thedifficulties they face in implementing their agency’s role and responsibilities on thecoast and, directly or indirectly, on ways in which a co-ordinated and integratedapproach to coastal planning and management might be better achieved. The resultsof these discussions are summarised below.

Impediments were identified in a number of areas, including:

n Overlapping coastal planning roles and responsibilities;

n Unclear management roles and responsibilities;

n Inter-agency liaison difficulties;

n Incomplete implementation of plans; and

n Lack of information, expertise and guidelines for decision-making on coastalplanning and management matters.

These are considered below. Directions for addressing the identified problems areidentified in section 5 of this report.

3.3.1 Overlapping Planning Roles and Responsibilities

A number of issues are considered separately below, including:

n Permits and consents for coastal activities and works; and

n Status of strategic plans.

Permits and Consents

Discussions indicated that there was not always integration of the two approvalprocesses currently operating in parallel on the coast (ie. the local planning permit andthe Coastal Management Act consent). Examples were cited of a planning permit



being issued for works or activities, in accordance with a full referral process torelevant agencies, all of whom had agreed with the issue of a planning permit, only tofind soon afterwards that a Coastal Management Act consent was not granted. Thisillustrates the difficulties for local Councils in interpreting the provisions of the PublicResource and Conservation Zone that covered most crown foreshores versus theprovisions used in the issue of a Coastal Management Act consent.

It should be stressed that this did not occur universally. However, the examples citedfrom a number of locations had a number of implications, namely:

n It slowed the implementation of plans;

n It overrode actions recommended in strategic plans, thereby negating the strategicplanning process;

n It over-rode the often extensive community and agency consultation upon whichthe planned action was based, thereby undermining common community andagency ownership of the plans themselves; and

n The unpredictability of a dual permit/consent being granted raised questions aboutthe basis for permit/consent decisions, in particular about the guidelines fordecisions and the transparency of the process.

It is encouraging that these problems have been identified by the relevant agencies andan interdepartmental Committee has been established to review integration of consentsunder the two Acts. The mechanisms exist in both the Coastal Management Act 1995and the Planning and Environment Act 1987 for a streamlined process, and the reviewof “in practice” integration is likely to assist all parties in solving some of theseproblems.

Status of Strategic and Management Plans

A common issue of concern was the overlap in planning roles and the status of theresulting plans. Planning on the coast currently occurs through a number of avenues.These are listed below.

n Victorian Coastal Strategy;

n Environment Conservation Council Marine, Estuarine and Coastal Investigationand Final Recommendations;

n Coastal Action Plans;

n Foreshore Management Plans;

n Regional Catchment Strategies;

n Parks Victoria Management Plans; and

n Local Government Planning Schemes (specifically the strategic land use plans thatdetermine the location and boundaries of zones.



A brief review of the relevant plans reveals:

n The Victorian Coastal Strategy refers extensively to existing state governmentstrategies on general issues (eg. economic development, biodiversity conservation,etc);

n The Environment Conservation Council’s Recommendations focus on the statusunder a range of state Acts of coastal waters, the intertidal area and coastal land;

n Coastal Action Plans refer extensively to the implementation of actions in existingforeshore management plans and planning schemes, as well as the strategies froma range of state and regional agencies (eg. Biodiversity Strategy; RegionalCatchment Strategies);

n Foreshore Management Plans can but don’t always refer to local planningschemes, while they can refer selectively to relevant state and regional strategies;

n Regional Catchment Strategies rarely refer specifically to coastal issues but doencompass state strategies (eg. Nutrient Strategy, Biodiversity Strategy, WeedStrategy);

n Park Management Plans refer to state strategies and plans but rarely encompasslinkages to plans covering adjacent coastal areas or to planning schemes; and

n Planning Schemes refer to state and regional strategies, through the State PlanningPolicy Framework as well as having a Local Planning Policy Framework and aMunicipal Strategic Statement that vary in the weight they give to state andregional coastal and planning priorities.

The foregoing illustrates the lack of integration between agencies in the strategicplanning process.

Although most agency representatives indicated that they were consulted during thepreparation of most plans, they also commonly expressed confusion over which plansshould be implemented and how differences between plans might be resolved.Discussions indicated that this appears to arise from a number of factors, describedbelow:

n Confusion exists over the role of strategic planning versus management planning,and how one relates to the other. This may reflect differing perceptions withinand between agencies of their roles and responsibilities, which itself may reflectthe inconsistencies described above.

n Some plans had been prepared to draft stage but had not been approved, whichlead to confusion over whether actions should be implemented or not. Someagency representatives were unaware of the avenues through which plans couldbe approved and these indeed vary due to the considerable overlap.

n Some agency representatives were unaware that plans had not been approved (eg.some foreshore management plans). Even when they were aware of this theywere implementing all or part of them anyway (and seeking permits and consentsfor each action with unpredictable outcomes). This was due to the lack of analternative, defensible framework for allocating resources to coastal managementthat was acceptable to the wider community, as well as the day to day imperative



of solving urgent coastal management problems. (This factor again highlights theissues of community and agency ownership of strategic plans and delays indealing with coastal management problems);

n Coastal management was often being funded (from regional, state,Commonwealth and private sources) on the basis that the funded action was in astrategic plan. Whether this plan was approved was often not considered in theallocation of that funding, with projects being assessed based on their meritswithin the funding program guidelines. In the eyes of agencies and the widercommunity, successful project funding was often interpreted as endorsement ofthe plan that included the project, further confusing perceptions of the status of theplan.

n Much funding is allocated for the basic requirements of on-going management.Confusion existed over what this constituted in the light of various plans and itwas often interpreted as being part of a plan. This may arise due to the abundanceof plans and their perceived role in setting priorities for resource allocation.

The situation described above indirectly has resulted in uncoordinated coastalplanning and management that has not necessarily lead to the most cost-effectiveallocation of resources to priority coastal problems. Some examples of areas where thecurrent planning arrangements cause community angst and/or environmental risk areprovided below. This list is not intended to be exhaustive and further analysis wouldno doubt bring to light other areas where similar problems arise:

n The Queenscliff area (long-standing lack of direction in resolving potentialconflicts between high social and environmental values and increased demand forboating infrastructure);

n The Torquay foreshore (lack of coordination between foreshore planning andadjacent urban planning and development arising from misalignment of planningobjectives);

n The Lorne foreshore (perceived misalignment between community values,planning intentions and adjacent coastal development); and

n The Fitzroy River area between Port Fairy and Portland (misalignment betweenplanning objectives on adjacent coastal segments of Portland Bay).

3.3.2 Unclear Management Roles and Responsibilities

From discussions, it was clear that the confusion about roles and responsibilities formanagement actions was resulting in a lack of coordination between agencies inallocating resources to coastal management problems (see examples described below).The lack of clarity is most comprehensively documented in section 3.1. Although thiswas not universal, particular issues highlight where the lack of clarity is most pressing.The issues include:

n Estuary management;

n Stormwater management; and

n Intertidal zone management.



These are considered separately below:

Estuary Management

There is real confusion over the respective roles and responsibilities of all agencies inthe management of estuaries. This is particularly evident in relation to estuary openingwhen upstream freehold land starts to flood and community pressure mounts for theestuary to be opened. For example, the Department of Natural Resources andEnvironment owns the bed and banks of estuaries and has responsibility for fisheries,vegetation and wildlife. The Catchment Management Authorities undertake thestrategic planning of waterways, in particular planning for the bed and banks ofwaterways, including estuaries. The coastal committees of management undertake anyestuary works, such as summer opening. The water authorities issue licences for waterextraction and for works in waterways, both of which can affect estuarine ecology.Instances were cited of the committee of management opening an estuary and of thewater authority opening an estuary.

In this context, moves to develop a Coastal Action Plan for estuaries will assist inresolving overlaps and gaps in responsibility.

Stormwater Management

Similar confusion was indicated over which agency has responsibility for stormwatermanagement. It is generated in catchments with drainage systems under the control ofthe local council, but enters the coastal crown reserve where committees ofmanagement have responsibility. The Catchment Management Authorities also have arole in stormwater management through their responsibility for waterway management.Local Councils must meet State Environment Planning Policy (Waters of Victoria)requirements with regard to stormwater, although there is confusion over who isresponsible for meeting these requirements. VicRoads manages the Great Ocean Roadwhich runs close to the coast in many places and generates runoff into local councildrains and to foreshore reserves managed by committees of management.

Currently there is no lead agency for the management of stormwater in coastal areas.However, the Environment Protection Authority is administering the StormwaterInitiative of the state government, leading to perceptions that the Authority is takingresponsibility for this issue.

The Intertidal Zone

A number of agencies are involved in planning and management in the intertidal zone.The Marine Board (boating and boating infrastructure), Victorian Coastal Council(strategic planning), Environment Conservation Council (strategic planning),Environment Protection Authority (water quality) and Department of Natural Resourcesand Environment (owner, fisheries, wildlife, reserves) all have a role. Localgovernment planning schemes cover a varying distance from the shoreline (eg.Borough of Queenscliffe, 500m below the high water mark; Surfcoast Shire, 600mbelow the low water mark). Committees of management have responsibilities over avarying part of the intertidal zone, sometimes extending to 200m below high watermark (often not all of the intertidal zone in a particular area).



There were conflicting perceptions among coastal planners and mangers of therespective roles of these agencies in the planning and on-ground management of theintertidal area. For this part of the coast, the confusion appeared to be greater than forother issues, with the consequence that there was almost no coordination.Furthermore, to initiate a planning or management action involving the relevantagencies was considered extremely difficult due to the lack of clarity in roles andresponsibilities. This appears to have lead to a lack of priority being given to theproper management of the considerable social and environmental values of this uniquezone.

3.3.3 Inter-Agency Liaison Difficulties

Section 3.2 reviewed the ways in which different agencies liaised to achieve co-ordination and integration in coastal planning and management. Four mechanisms forliaison were identified.

There was general consensus that statutory processes for inter-agency liaison workedwell, however, there were some specific concerns, described below.

In the case of planning permits, the range of referral agencies to which particularmunicipalities forwarded referrals varied, with some municipalities referring everythingto everyone and others being more selective. This was thought to reflect differences inreferral protocols between different municipalities and in the understanding of relevantissues by the individual municipal planning officers managing the referral process.Although not considered a significant impediment to inter-agency liaison andcoordination, the “shotgun” approach to referrals was considered inefficient.

A significant difficulty experienced by local government planners engaged in thereferral process was the varying complexity of referral agency responses to planningpermit applications. In come cases, agencies provided very clear advice, includingdraft planning permit conditions for discussion with proponents. Others gave verygeneric responses, based on broad policies or principles, which planners not expert inthe particular issue found difficult to apply in considering a planning permitapplication. The varying content and relevance of referral agency input to theplanning permit approvals process lead to difficulty in incorporating strategic andpolicy directions of referral agencies into planning decisions.

Inter agency committee processes were generally considered to work well in principle.Achieving a coordinated approach in practice however, was more difficult in somecases. Firstly, the membership of legislated committees did not always represent thekey agency and community stakeholders. Furthermore, there was a perception amongthose with a good understanding of coastal issues that members did not always havesufficient knowledge to provide authoritative and appropriate directions. Critically, thewidespread confusion over roles and responsibilities on the coast lead to some issuesnot being dealt with adequately due to the difficulty of agreeing on or identifying alead agency to implement decisions on particular issues.

The internal decision procedures of some agencies did not require inter-agency liaison.There were no guidelines on the need for such liaison and on the most appropriatemechanisms. The inconsistency with which particular agencies liaised with other



agencies over decisions resulted in management being taken in isolation and onoccasions without regard to wider coastal planning directions. This often resulted inmoney being spent planning and designing management activities and works, only tohave them overturned in the planning permit and/or Coastal Management Act consentprocesses. This was an inefficient use of resources.

Informal processes were a very significant and valued means of inter agencycoordination in coastal planning and management decisions. However, they reliedheavily on the knowledge and networks of particular individuals, which wasconsidered risky. Liaison could cease on important issues once those individualschanged jobs and moved out of the region.

3.3.4 Incomplete Implementation of Plans

During discussions, it became apparent that strategic plans and management plansdeveloped through extensive and formalised consultation between agencies and withthe wider community were not being fully implemented. Discussion with agencyrepresentatives identified the incomplete implementation of plans that were consideredsound as one of the greatest impediments to integrated and coordinated coastalplanning and management.

In addition to the obvious funding issues, a number of other factors contributed to this,including:

n The generality of the strategies and plans;

n Lack of commitment and of a clearly identified lead agency to drive planning andimplementation; and

n Lack of a monitoring and reporting mechanism in plans.

These are considered below.

The Generality of Plans

A number of plans were considered by planners and managers questioned to be toogeneral in their recommendations to guide implementation. This arose from a lack ofguidelines in the plan on how to implement its directions in coastal planning andmanagement decision-making. The Victorian Coastal Strategy and the VictorianBiodiversity Strategy were frequently cited as examples in this instance.

This appeared to arise through insufficient review of and consideration of the availablemechanisms for implementation during the preparation of the plans (eg. BiodiversityStrategy) and/or from the lack of recommendations relevant to these implementationmechanisms (eg. Biodiversity and Coastal Strategies). Many people expressed a desirefor implementation “tools” such as suggested changes and additions to municipalstrategic statements and planning policy frameworks, specific overlay provisions anddecision guidelines, and locally relevant guidelines and standards consistent with thedirections of the plans. In summary, there appeared to be no clear link between thedirections of some plans and the mechanisms for implementation.



General plans also assume much knowledge on the part of planners and managerswhose role it is to implement the plans. Often, this knowledge is not readily available.

The planning scheme reviews underway in both regions as part of the current Coastaland Marine Planning Program are a significant step towards facilitating implementationat local government level as they will identify where planning schemes need to beamended to align their policy directions, zone and overlay provision, and decisionguidelines with strategic plans.

Commitment and Lead Agencies

Discussions revealed that there was concern about the level of commitment toparticular plans. The lack of commitment was partly related to the uncertain status ofmany plans. However, the lack of a clearly identified lead agency for some plans alsomeant that they languished. The discussion about monitoring and reporting below isalso relevant in this regard.

Many people identified the lack of a lead agency with the resources and expertise tolead the implementation of plans as a significant impediment to better coastal planningand management. Without a lead agency, the co-ordination and commitment neededto fully implement a plan did not occur and resource allocation decisions continued tobe made by agencies in isolation.

Monitoring and Reporting

Many plans were considered to lack a mechanism for monitoring implementation and,critically, no identified lines of reporting progress (successes and difficulties) inimplementation. This was particularly the case for plans with no clearly identified leadagency. The momentum and commitment for the plan generated by the communityand agency consultation phase (and the sense of broad ownership) was considered toquickly dissipate after a plan was completed.

Often, implementation depended on a few key officers in different agencies and theinformal decision-making processes described in section 3.2. Once those officersmoved on, there was no mechanism for monitoring implementation of a plan and itmoved quickly from the desk to the library shelf.

3.3.5 Lack of Information, Expertise and Guidelines

Many agency representatives highlighted three related matters that can broadly bedefined as knowledge exchange. Many coastal planners and managers felt isolatedfrom key knowledge about a range of matters relevant to coastal planning andmanagement. Particular areas of knowledge that they required to perform their rolesand responsibilities effectively were:

n Knowledge of the roles and responsibilities of other planning and managementagencies with jurisdiction in coastal areas (see section 3.1 for elaboration);

n Knowledge of planning and management priorities at a regional, state and nationalscale, based on technically defensible analyses of environmental, social andeconomic values and risks; and



n Knowledge of how to incorporate these priorities into day to day agency decision-making.

Many of the day-to-day consequences of this lack of knowledge are described in thepreceding sections of this report. To summarise, the problems were described as:

n Limited access to relevant expertise on coastal issues;

n Little information available in a useable form that documents planning andmanagement priorities; and

n No clear guidelines on how to implement coastal planning and managementactivities and on how to make decisions on planning and management that affectsthe coast.

Notwithstanding this, there are key officers in many agencies with excellent knowledgeof these matters which is one of the reasons why the informal decision-makingprocesses are universally valued. However, the limitations and risks of informalarrangements have been described earlier. If one or two officers leave the region thenan enormous amount of knowledge (of both technical and regulatory matters, as wellas personal networks) can go with them.



4. Conclusions

This section of the report presents conclusions from the foregoing review of theimplementation of stakeholder roles and responsibilities. The conclusions arepresented to address the following key issues:

n Roles and responsibilities for coastal planning and management;

n Inter-agency coordination in coastal planning and management; and

n Knowledge generation and exchange.

These conclusions relate to the working roles and responsibilities of agencies. Thereview has focussed on the problems with the current arrangements for coastalplanning and management. This is because the questions asked of agencyrepresentatives were designed to identify problems as a basis for identifying futuresolutions. During the course of discussions, many positive features were identified inthe current arrangements for coastal planning and management. These are consideredin section 5 and they form the basis for future improvements to coastal planning andmanagement outcomes.

4.1.1 Roles and Responsibilities

The working roles and responsibilities of agencies were not different from their “onpaper” roles and responsibilities, described in the Stage One report of this consultancy.However, a number of common experiences emerged during discussions that highlightboth the difficulties being experienced by agencies in implementing their roles andresponsibilities, and broader perceptions about the effectiveness of coastal planningand management.

n All agency representatives consulted accurately described the roles andresponsibilities of their own agency, including the statutory basis and mechanismsfor doing this.

n All agency representatives indicated an incomplete understanding of the roles andresponsibilities of other agencies with jurisdiction on the coast.

n Not unrelated to this incomplete understanding, there was a perceived lack ofalignment between the agency representing the crown owner of the land(Department of Natural Resources and Environment) and other agenciesresponsible for planning and managing the coast (eg. Regional Coastal Boards,Local Government and Foreshore Committees of Management). This resulted inmixed messages about the strategic directions for planning and management of thecoast and, consequently, a lack of clear guidance for decision-making on thecoast.

n In practice, there were significant overlaps in the strategic planning roles andresponsibilities of agencies on the coast, a finding consistent with the Stage Onereview of “on paper” roles and responsibilities. This created considerableconfusion about:



< The planning process;

< The status and currency of strategic and management plans;

< The lead agencies for implementing plans; and

< Responsibilities for implementing activities and works in plans.

n A range of agencies undertakes coastal management activities and works. Thenature of on-ground works undertaken by agencies varies depending on the settingand the types of works involved. There was considerable confusion about whoshould be doing what, resulting in many urgent issues not being addressed; and

n There are more funding programs for coastal management works than there areagencies. The types of projects that an agency funds are often perceived at thatagency taking responsibility for a particular coastal management issue. Thiscontributes to confusion about the roles and responsibilities of agencies.

4.1.2 Inter-agency Coordination

The achievement of coordinated and integrated coastal planning and managementdepends on appropriate co-ordination between agencies. This coordination isachieved in a number of ways.

n Statutory processes require certain agencies to develop plans, undertakemanagement works and make decisions in a way that ensures co-ordinationbetween agencies. These are generally considered to be effective.

n There were significant differences in the local policy framework of planningschemes in the different municipalities that reflected a lack of perception of oragreement on coastal planning priorities.

n There was both a perceived and an in-practice misalignment between theoutcomes of planning permit applications on the crown foreshore and consentunder the Coastal Management Act. This probably stemmed from ignorance ofthe purposes of the two processes as well as inadequate guidelines on the format,content and assessment criteria for an application for Coastal Management Actconsent. These issues have been recognised and are being dealt with though aninterdepartmental Committee established to review the integration of consentsunder the two Acts. The mechanisms exist in both the Coastal Management Act1995 and the Planning and Environment Act 1987 for a streamlined process, andthe review of “in practice” integration is likely to assist all parties in solving someof these problems.

n Statutory boards and committees are another means by which coordinationbetween stakeholders can occur. They depend on appropriate, seniorrepresentation from agencies to be most effective but in many cases representationof relevant stakeholders is incomplete. They also depend on adequate expertiseon coastal issues, which is sometimes lacking.

n Ad hoc or customary committees are established to coordinate decision-makingbetween stakeholders on particular issues, areas or projects. These committeessometimes lack adequate expertise and often have terms of reference with anarrow focus that does not include wider, strategic coastal planning and



management directions. They can also lack senior agency representation,resulting in decisions not being endorsed by all agencies.

n Internal agency decision-making procedures sometimes include mechanisms forinter-agency coordination but again can lack expertise or adequate consultationwith stakeholders. Internal guidelines on the decisions for which suchcoordination needs to happen and the mechanisms of coordination to be used arerare. In addition, there is no guarantee that broader strategic coastal planning andmanagement issues will be considered.

n The most valued means of inter-agency co-ordination were informal arrangementsthat involved discussions between local or regional officers. The risk with sucharrangements is that if key officers leave the region, then their knowledge andnetworks are lost or that the management of one or a number of agencies decidedagainst an approach that integrates the concerns of each agency and wider coastalplanning and management directions.

4.1.3 Incomplete Implementation of Plans

Many strategic and management plans have been prepared for areas or issues coveringthe region (see Stage One report). Agency representative identified a number of issuesraised by the incomplete implementation of these plans.

n The most widespread and obvious impediment to plan implementation was a lackof funding for activities and works;

n The initial commitment and momentum for solving coastal problems oftendissipated once a plan was completed if it was not implemented. Thisundermined broader community faith in both coastal planning and managementarrangements, and in the agencies charged with protecting the values of the coast;

n Some plans were too general and lacked implementation mechanisms. Theperception was that they had been prepared without considering availableimplementation mechanisms;

n Many plans lacked a lead agency or lead agency commitment to theirimplementation; and

n Plans generally lacked implementation monitoring and reporting arrangements.This was considered to be related also to the lack of a lead agency.

4.1.4 Knowledge Generation and Exchange

In addition to the difficulties described above, one of the most significant impedimentsof effective coastal planning and management was the lack of information, expertiseand guidelines for coastal planners and managers.

Many agency representatives expressed concern that they did not have access toadequate knowledge of the values and threats on the region’s coast. In particular, theknowledge described below was considered important in promoting good coastalplanning and management decisions.



n Knowledge of the roles and responsibilities of other planning and managementagencies with jurisdiction in coastal areas;

n Knowledge of planning and management priorities at a regional, state and nationalscale, based on technically defensible analyses of environmental, social andeconomic values and risks; and

n Knowledge of how to incorporate these priorities into day to day agency decision-making.



5. The Way Forward

The foregoing review of the working roles and responsibilities has revealed that:

n there is considerable overlap and some gaps in responsibilities for coastal planningand management in the region;

n mechanisms for coordination and integration between agencies vary significantly;and

n there is an urgent need for knowledge in a range of areas to inform coastalplanning and management decisions.

This review has deliberately avoided recommending a completely reformed coastalplanning and management regime involving new agencies and legislation as this isunlikely to be practical. Instead it deliberately focuses on areas where existingplanning and management processes, involving the current agencies, legislation andprocedures can be strengthened to achieve a more coordinated and integratedapproach to coastal planning and management.

The findings of this review presented in the preceding sections of this report havefocussed on problems. However, the current arrangements also have their strengthsand it on these that the future directions should build. Some of the main strengths onwhich to build are described below.

n The Victorian Planning Provisions govern the use and development of land, aswell as development in the intertidal and near shore waters of the coastal zone.The provisions are an excellent framework for integrating coastal planningimperatives, and local government strategic planning and development control;

n The passage of the Coastal Management Act 1995 recognised the unique nature ofthe coast and its specific planning and management needs by establishingstructures and a process whereby transparent, accountable and integrated coastalplanning can occur. The perceived difficulty lies in implementing consents underthe Act for activities and works (perceived to be less transparent and accountable);

n There are arrangements in place through the Catchment Management Authoritiesfor integrating catchment-wide concerns into decision-making;

n Funding for natural resource planning and management, through a range ofgovernment and non-government sources, is growing and coastal planning andmanagement stand to benefit from this. Indeed, this trend makes even greater theneed to allocate resources more cost-effectively;

n The various stakeholder groups involved in coastal planning and managementcollectively possess an impressive range of expertise on and experience in coastalplanning and management;

n There is an active network of informal contacts among agency staff and the widercommunity that is regularly brought into play in response to coastal planning andmanagement issues; and



n There is a very active network of community-based groups providing significant“in kind” and financial support to coastal and related catchment improvementactivities.

A series of directions are provided on the following pages that respond to the problemsidentified in this review. These directions can be considered in the development andimplementation of the two regional Coastal Action Plans. The directions relate to theissues listed below:

n Planning Schemes and the coast;

n Works and activity approval on the coast;

n Stakeholder co-ordination;

n Decision-making tools; and

n Supporting networks.

A lead agency for the directions has not been identified. There was a widespread viewamong agency representatives consulted that the Coastal Boards are the mostappropriate agency to lead and facilitate strategic level directions such as thosepresented here. It is recommended that the CMPP Steering Group work through thedraft directions and allocate responsibility for particular actions to agenciesparticipating in the program and identify an appropriate lead agency to carry theprogram forward.

It is also recommended that the CMPP Steering Group identify a mechanism by whichthe implementation of these directions can be monitored and establish appropriatereporting arrangements for this.



Table 5.1: Planning Schemes and the Coast

ISSUE RESPONSE ACTION

Inconsistency between municipalitiesin the weight given to integratedcoastal planning issues

Provide consistency of approach across municipalboundaries in Municipal Strategic Statements and LocalPlanning Policy Frameworks

Develop consistent policy directions for the region’s coast in consultationwith Local Councils

Facilitate the preparation and exhibition of planning scheme amendmentsthat incorporate this consistent approach

Advocate for the inclusion of this consistent local policy in the forthcomingreview of planning schemes

Inadequacy of the Public Resource andConservation Zone in guiding Councilplanning decisions

Provide a better decision-making framework inplanning schemes that recognises the unique features ofcoastal planing, particularly the need for an integratedapproach

Investigate the requirement for a new Zone in the Victorian PlanningProvisions for guiding land use on the coast.

Advocate for the inclusion of this new Zone in the forthcoming review ofplanning schemes.

Inconsistent planning objectives ofLocal Planning Schemes and ForeshoreManagement Plans

Give priority to the preparation of regional and localCoastal Action Plans.

Establish policy and administrative links betweenplanning schemes, foreshore management plans andCoastal Action Plans

When Coastal Action Plans are prepared, the municipal strategic land useplans of adjacent coastal land should also be reviewed

Review the planning policy frameworks of planning schemes to recogniseCoastal Action Plan and Foreshore Management Plan objectives.

Review Foreshore Management Plans to ensure that they are consistent withCoastal Action Plans and the municipal planning scheme.

Ensure that new foreshore management plans are prepared consistent withthe relevant Coastal Action Plans.

Inconsistency between municipalitiesin overlay provisions and associateddecision guidelines for coastal areas.

Establish consistency between coastal municipalities inthe region in the provisions and decision guidelines forcoastal overlays for environmental significance,landscape significance, heritage and vegetationprotection.

Review overlay provisions and associated decision guidelines for theirappropriateness to the coastal environment and for regional consistency.

Prepare though agreement between all relevant parties, a core set of overlayprovisions (which may be added to by municipalities) for each of therelevant overlays in the Victorian Planning Provisions.

Facilitate the preparation and exhibition of planning scheme amendmentsthat incorporate these consistent overlay provisions and decision guidelines.

Advocate for the inclusion of these consistent overlap provisions anddecision guidelines in the forthcoming review of planning schemes.



Table 5.2: Works and Activity Approval on the Coast


Lack of alignment between the Councilplanning permit assessment and approvalprocess and the Coastal ManagementAct assessment and consent process.

Ensure that administrative guidelines for assessment ofapplications for permits and consents produce a co-ordinated decision from this dual approval/consentregime.

Prepare administrative guidelines through agreement between all parties thatcoordinate the two approval/consent processes.

Ensure that this process integrates Coastal Action Plans where these havebeen approved.

Include any relevant aspects of these guidelines in appropriate decisionguidelines of planning schemes.

Lack of understanding of the purpose ofCoastal Management Act consent

Ensure that all relevant agencies and proponentsunderstand the purpose and intent of the CoastalManagement Act consent

Prepare and distribute information materials on the purpose and intent of theCoastal Management Act consent.

Lack of guidelines on the format andcontent of Coastal Management Actconsent applications

Ensure a consistent standard and content for CoastalManagement Act consent applications

Prepare a proforma of a Coastal Management Act consent application for useby Councils, Committees of Management and other proponents of coastalworks and activities.

Perceived lack of transparency in theCoastal Management Act consentprocess.

Ensure that all relevant stakeholders are informed of theassessment procedure for Coastal Management Actconsent applications and of the criteria used forassessing applications

Develop and distribute information materials on the Coastal ManagementAct consent application assessment procedure.

Distribute the criteria used in the assessment of Coastal Management Actconsent applications.



Table 5.3: Stakeholder Co-ordination

ISSUE RESPONSE ACTIONS

Duplication in the planning roles andresponsibilities of agencies on the coast.

Resolve differences and agree on the lead agencies forstrategic planning and management planning indifferent areas and for different purposes on the coast.

Negotiate a memorandum of understanding between all relevantstakeholders in the region that agrees on the roles and responsibilities ofeach agency involved in planning on the coast and which reflects thestatutory responsibilities of each agency.

Ensure that this agreement integrates and agrees on lead agencies forstrategic planning and management planning.

Implement future coastal planning within the terms of this agreement (seebelow).

Confusion over stakeholder roles andresponsibilities on the coast

Ensure relevant officers in all stakeholder bodiesunderstand the roles and responsibilities of relevantagencies based on the outcomes of the foregoingactions.

Prepare and disseminate a guide to the roles and responsibilities of allagencies on the coast.

Develop and implement induction programs for new statutory committeemembers that improve their understanding of the roles and responsibilities ofagencies on the coast.

In consultation with an appropriate training body, develop an accreditedtraining program for state and local government officers on the roles andresponsibilities of coastal planning and management agencies.

Implement these training programs urgently across all coastal planning andmanagement agencies.

Ensure that funding for activities is directed through the agency with statutoryresponsibility for the activity (see below).

Establish a regional web site that includes information on stakeholder rolesand responsibilities, including links to all relevant legislation, agency web-sites and agency policies.

Lack of integration of planning Ensure that plans in different areas and for differentpurposes are developed in an integrated manner

Negotiate a Memorandum of Agreement between all relevant state and localagencies on an inter-agency consultation forum for reviewing draft regionaland local strategic and management plans (including planning schemes)before they are approved.

Determine and formalise the working relationship between the RegionalCoastal Boards and the Victorian Coastal Council, in line with the CoastalManagement Act. This forum might be a working group of the RegionalCoastal Boards

Ensure very high-level management representation on this forum.

Develop guidelines for the preparation of regional and local plans on thecoast that incorporates this review mechanism.



ISSUE RESPONSE ACTIONS

Ensure that future plans are prepared in accordance with these guidelines.

Guidelines for customary or ad-hoccommittees are lacking

Develop a more coordinated consultation mechanismand clear guidelines on the establishment of ad-hocstakeholder committees for particular planningexercises or management implementation.

Review the range of recent and current ad-hoc committees and workinggroups to identify the common requirements underlying their formation.

Identify the planning and management purposes for which such committeesare of benefit.

Develop guidelines on the appropriate stakeholders to be represented on ad-hoc committees established for particular purposes.

Develop guidelines for preparing the Terms of Reference for ad-hoccommittees for particular purposes.

Ensure these guidelines are developed through consultation and agreementwith all relevant coastal planning and management agencies in the region.

Disseminate these guidelines to all agency planning and managementpersonnel.

Conflicting priorities in the allocation ofresources.

Ensure that resources are allocated in accordance withapproved strategic and management plans.

Negotiate a Memorandum of Agreement between all relevant state and localagencies on an inter-agency consultation forum to agree on funding prioritiesfor coastal planning and management works based on agreed plans andpriorities. This forum might be a regional working group of the RegionalCoastal Boards.

Ensure very high level management representation on this forum.

Fund activities in accordance with agreed priorities.

Channel funding through participating agencies with clear statutoryresponsibility for the activity in order to minimise confusion over roles andresponsibilities.



Table 5.4: Decision-making Tools


Lack of expertise on coastal planning andmanagement issues.

Ensure that all relevant agency officers have readyaccess to knowledge of coastal planning andmanagement issues.

Develop a guide to assist agency officers in decision-making related tocoastal planning and management issues.

Develop and implement induction programs for new statutory committeemembers that improve their understanding of coastal planning andmanagement issues.

In consultation with an appropriate training body, develop an accreditedcoastal planning and management training program, linked to the earliertraining recommendation.

Develop decision guidelines for coastal planners and managers tailored totheir particular statutory responsibilities and identifying the roles of otheragencies as well as their own.

Develop a targeted training program for local government planning staff toimprove their understanding of coastal planning and management issues.

Develop specific decision support tools targeted at coastal managers, localgovernment planners and statutory committee members that includeschecklists and spreadsheets covering a range of planning and managementdecisions.

Establish a regional web site that includes downloadable decision supporttools related to coastal planning and management.

Lack of information on coastal valuesand risks.

Ensure information is available on coastal values andrisks in a form interpreted for use in particular planningand management functions of agency personnel.

Develop a regional GIS incorporating information on the values of and risksto the region’s coastal and marine environment.

Ensure that this GIS incorporates not just raw data but targeted interpretationof these data that informs a range of decision-making requirements.

Make the GIS accessible through the regional web site.



Table 5.5: Supporting Networking


The importance of informal processesin decision-making

Facilitate day-to day networking among coastalplanners and managers in the region

Establish a register of personnel (updated regularly), their roles and responsibilitiesand their areas of specialist knowledge.

Establish a register of technical experts on all coastal planning and managementissues.

Update these registers regularly.

Make these registers available on the regional web site.

The need for sharing knowledge andexperience in coastal planning andmanagement

Establish mechanisms for the exchange ofknowledge on a range of coastal planning andmanagement issues.

Establish twice-yearly informal forums for the sharing of knowledge on coastalplanning and management issues in the region.

Consider establishing forums that cross professional boundaries to enable plannersand managers to appreciate the context of their work.

Establish regular forums for:

committees of management;

local government planners;

state planning officers; and

coastal managers.

Establish an annual regional coastal planning and management conference.

Make the proceedings of such forums available on a regional coastal web site.

Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders on the West Coast of Victoria Stage Two Report Roles/Roles and Responsibilities... · 1234 Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders on

Documents