Local residents hold grave fears for environmental damage, increased fire risk & strain on resources with minimal economic benefit.
The Lot 495 development proposal anticipates an extra 10,000 visitors per year along Moses Rock Road, with no plans for road safety & an irrevocable impact on the Cape-to-Cape track, a flawed bushfire safety plan & much more.
Moses Rock is a biodiversity hotspot with underground streams & waterways feeding into the Leeuwin Naturaliste National Park, Quinninup Falls & the Indian Ocean.
The risk for fire is massively increased with a constantly cycling guest-list of 140 people on the property at any one time, who lack any understanding or comprehension of the fire risks.
The proposed development does nothing to address these issues except for token gestures to appear considerate of them.
The proposal has not been reviewed by the Environmental Protection Authority, despite 472m of the property bordering on National Park.
The only recommendation is that this development cannot be supported.
Does the development genuinely benefit the local community, or does it serve the private interests of yet another Perth developer chasing profit at the expense of environment, setting a dangerous precedent for protected landscapes?
—
Keep Moses Rock
Wild
—
Fire Risk
Moses Rock has only one road in & out. The closest Volunteer Bushfire Brigade is resourced with only one 4WD, otherwise professional firefighter help is one hour away. The personal risk to volunteer brigades to attend a fire in this location far outweighs the minimal economic benefit.
To workaround the safe exit routes, the site’s Bushfire Management Plan has suggested the unusual tactic of using its 140-person wedding reception venue as a “bushfire refuge”, at great risk to lives. These tactics have also been applied at the contentious Smiths Beach & Gnarabup resort proposals.
Environmental Risk
The property has not been reviewed by the Environmental Protection Authority. While much of it is degraded ex-grazing land, there are still valuable pockets of remnant bush. The Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge State Planning Policy has identified Lot 495 as adding to the general character & landscape amenity of the area. It has not been surveyed for endangered species such as the Western Ringtail Possum or Carnaby’s Black Cockatoo.
Cape-to-Cape Visual Impact
472m of the Cape-to-Cape track shares a boundary line with this property. The track runs through the Leeuwin Naturaliste National Park - the most visited National Park in Western Australia. Currently one residence on Moses Rock Road, a historical farmhouse transported onto property in the 80s, is the only visible building from the Cape-to-Cape track. This proposal seeks to put 10 chalets, a wedding & events venue, a 12-person holiday home, utility sheds, campground & more on currently vacant land with maximum exposure. The Visual Impact Assessment predicts visibility up to 2km away. If approved, this would impact the Cape-to-Cape forever & set a dangerous precedent for the region.
Community
Given the Smiths Beach & Gnarabup resort proposals under review by the State Government, does the local community really need “luxury” tourism facilities at the end of every coastal road between the Capes?
Smiths Beach & Gnarabup were pre-existing “coastal nodes” (townships) whereas Moses Rock is still wild, zoned as ‘Rural Landscape’ & made up of only native bush or farmland with one home allowed per lot.
Neighbours were given a 5-week window to respond to the Development Application, the same timeframe as the general public, for a proposal that has been lodged with the State Government for 5 years.
Water Contamination
Moses Rock is a biodiversity hotspot with underground streams & waterways feeding into the Leeuwin Naturaliste National Park, Quinninup Falls & the ocean. Residents are extremely concerned about Lot 495’s sewage management & potential water pollution to the National Park & flow-on affects to marine life.
The wastewater management report states it is anticipated to avoid adverse risk to the quality of underlying groundwater. With groundwater within 2m of the surface & highly permeable soils reported in the geotechnical report, there is clear lack of evidence of this claim. The developer states the assumptions in their reports are not corroborated.
The developer claims the site will generate its own water requirements, but initial calculations find the estimates sorely lacking, particularly when their own reporting demonstrates rainfall amounts are declining and far below the amounts used in their modelling.
Legal Issues
The property developer used top planning lawyers Moharich & More to issue a legal letter to the City of Busselton in 2021. This letter is mentioned multiple times in the Development Application as the reasoning for shoe-horning 9 separate land uses on farmland zoned “Rural Landscape”. This letter is unavailable on the public record, despite making up the thrust of the proposal’s argument.
Noise Levels
The developer wants to put a 140-person wedding/events centre along the sensitive Cape to Cape track. The property is zoned “Rural Landscape”, which protects the local amenity as a farmland & residential area & NOT recognised as a coastal node (township). The modelling paid for by the developer for a desirable outcome, predicts the sound would not exceed 60dB. How would this affect native wildlife & neighbours, who currently only hear the sounds of wind & ocean? Who would vigilantly police any exceeding noise levels?
Tourism Bias
The Development Application bases most of its ‘feasibility’ on a Tourism WA document, the Cape-to-Cape Eco Accommodation Pre-Feasibility Study. This report, drafted in 2020, is hardly a pressing push for development.
The developer has cherry-picked statistics from this report, painting an inaccurate picture & concealing realities.
The study concluded that luxury accommodation along the Cape-to-Cape would require high occupancy rates to achieve a positive return on investment. Specifically, occupancy levels of 75% or higher were deemed necessary for financial viability, while lower occupancy rates could result in negative returns. It stated that these occupancy rates are not realistic in the South West region.
Several new off-trail luxury properties are already in development nearby, further reducing the feasibility of on-trail luxury options.
We believe this further shows that large-scale weddings/events is more likely the aim for the developer, rather servicing Cape-to-Cape tourism needs.
Disregard for Planning
The Perth-based property developer has completely leap-frogged the City of Busselton’s planning rules & hopes also to bend/break those of the Leeuwin Naturaliste Ridge State Planning Policy.
The proposal was lodged under the State Government’s “Part 17 Significant Development Pathyway”, which was opened during Covid to boost the State’s economic stimulus. We question the relevance of this historical planning loophole in a 2025 economy.
Dollars & (Non)sense
The “Economic Benefit Snapshot” that the Development Application relies on was written in 2021. It is based on a 14-chalet proposal, which is incorrect & therefore overplaying its impact. (The real proposal is for 10 chalets).
The $15.3m budget includes construction costs, services, consultant fees, contingencies. That budget is just not realistic in a 2025 economy. We also question how 47 full-time construction jobs would be created.
The economic modelling is based on 70% occupancy of the accommodation, which Tourism WA have said is not feasible for luxury accommodation in the South West region.
Is the developer actually just getting a profitable (unnecessary) wedding venue past planning under the guise of Cape-to-Cape accommodation?
We note in Appendices 22 and 24 support for the proposed development from Tourism WA and Margaret River Busselton Tourism Association, respectively. Their expertise lies in developing and encouraging tourism. As this is a rural property with significant bushfire risk, that is not within their domain of expertise and they are unable to comment on this or any other risk associated with the location of the property.