MICHAEL WEARNE is a member of the Leighton Action Coalition and has been hard at work trying to protect its hinterland from over-development for years. He says there’s been some worrying noises coming from the  WA Planning Commission over the vacant industrial land behind the beach, which is in the sights of some of the state’s biggest developers.

IN 1999 the community had a massive win. 

The ‘Leighton Wave’ saw several hundred towels jubilantly flung skywards; a sea of flags signifying that in this battle with developers intent on building too close to the ocean, the people were victorious.  

Most would agree that the final built outcome at Leighton Beach is good, but there is now another threat to this extremely vulnerable stretch of coastline.

Just south of Leighton, behind Port Beach, vacant former industrial land is poised for rezoning for urban use. Notwithstanding the urgent need for more housing, covering this 16 hectare chunk of coastal land with bricks and mortar would mean selling our children – and their children, short.  

While a narrow strip of land closest to the ocean has been rezoned Parks and Recreation, community stakeholders, including Leighton Action Coalition, say this slim green buffer is grossly inadequate for the tasks it will face in coming years.

Sea-level rise

Climate change is real, and so is sea-level rise. 

What is needed behind Port Beach, which is listed as the most threatened beach in WA, is a buffer against the erosion that occurs every winter as waves consume the fragile coast. 

There are two types of buffer: man-made and natural. 

The first option entails hard engineering: seawalls, groynes and other structures that in almost every instance both in Australia and abroad, reduce amenity for beach users and just don’t work, simply moving the erosion problem up or down the coast.

The natural solution is to restore existing dunes on the foreshore and allow them to do the heavy lifting. 

But to do this they need space. 

The ribbon of reserve, which presently includes Port Beach Road, is barely enough to cope with the increasing wind and waves that batter the coast each winter. 

Immediately behind the protective dunes there must be a generous ‘green zone’ that provides space for recreation and amenities for beachgoers and for the future incursion of the sea over the next 100 years.

Now, behind the slim six-hectare strip of land zoned Parks and Recreation is the 16 hectare area zoned Urban Deferred – 4.5 times larger than the current development at Leighton. 

Building on this land could begin as soon as the deferment is lifted. 

If developers build as close to the coast as envisaged, sea-level projections show that water is likely to be lapping at doorsteps in as little as 50 years. 

And this is not taking into account the space needed for amenities and recreational space. 

This is why an adequate green recreational space is imperative. 

Leighton Action Coalition believes a reasonable setback for housing would be Bracks Street.

The government’s own requirements for coastal planning specifically state that future generations are entitled to the same level of amenity and enjoyment of our beaches as we have now. 

They gave the undertaking that four conditions must be met before the rezoning is signed off. 

The MRS Amendment 1400/41 report identifies the following criteria which are to be resolved prior to transferring the Precinct to ‘Urban’ zoning:

1. Finalisation or substantial progression of the Future of Fremantle project.

2. Confirmation of regional road and transport requirements in the locality.

3. Confirmation of coastal foreshore reserve requirements.

4. Consideration of the Fremantle Port Buffer.

To find out where are we now regarding the government’s decision on the lifting the deferment Leighton Action Coalition recently wrote to the WA Planning Commission. 

The response provided no timeline but did include this alarming statement:

‘There are no upcoming opportunities to comment on the extent of foreshore reserve.’

The letter also states that ’A considerable body of technical work informed the progress of this item through the WAPC and through both Houses of Parliament.’

Leighton Action Coalition strongly believes that these responses reveal a fundamental misinterpretation of the WAPC’s own criteria. 

Where is a proper participative and transparent process to satisfy the foreshore reserve requirements cited in criterion 3; specifically to build natural resilience to erosion and provide public amenity for a rapidly growing population. 

This work has not been carried out, to our knowledge, and certainly not to even the barest principles of public engagement and transparency.

This lack of transparency and consultation was also clearly demonstrated at a City of Fremantle council meeting in August 2025 when 12 (or 80 per cent) of the 15 submissions by the landowner/developers were marked “confidential”.

How can the public form a view of the appropriateness of any proposed development when they are kept in the dark?

In an attempt to shed some much-needed light on these issues Leighton Action Coalition replied to WAPC’s recent letter asking for clarification of the following three questions:

What expert advice has been provided regarding coastal setbacks (satisfying SPP 2.6 provisions for a 100-year planning timeframe to deal with erosion/rising sea levels and also to maintain and enhance public access and amenity)?

When will the public be provided with an opportunity to meaningfully and transparently engage in the deliberation of coastal setbacks?

We seek urgent confirmation from you that the Commission will not allow developer pressure to tempt it to override its own requirements to determine the future zoning for this land. We implore you to send a strong, clear signal to the developers and the community that the Commission will systematically and thoroughly undertake the analysis that is so necessary here – upholding the Government’s principles of public participation – unfettered by commercial pressures.

National Climate Risk Assessment by the federal government has confirmed the vulnerability of large areas of our coast, including around Fremantle. 

This is tantamount to an urgent notice to us all: we face unprecedented, accelerating impacts from climate change and this susceptible part of our coast presents both a serious obligation, and a rare and fleeting opportunity to demonstrate what good planning, grounded in the public interest, can and must deliver. 

This decision will be made in the coming months, perhaps without plans to seek public input on how much land should be set aside to respond to increasing erosion and for public recreation.

We support appropriate development and housing on the site with adequate coastal setbacks and consideration of community needs, for now and in the future.

But the community is being overlooked in this planning decision so we’re ramping up our advocacy with local members of parliament and they need to hear from you now as constituents and users of the beach.

Please visit saveleighton.org to see how you can make a difference.