Dunsborough2030

12/06/2026

The Dunsborough Reference Group (DRG) met at the start of June. There were a lot of planning issues to discuss.

Dunsborough2030 is a social media communication tool that links the Dunsborough Reference Group (DRG) to the pulse of Dunsborough community sentiment on awareness on local planning issues. The DRG are normal Dunsbrarians, like you, that closely monitor planning notices that may impact upon Dunsborough and the surrounding area. Development proposals that arise from the planning and regulation pipelines from the City of Busselton - Local Government.

The Dunsborough Reference Group is associated with the Dunsborough Progress Association Inc. There are multiple contributors to the social media page(s) from the local Dunsborough community representatives in the DRG in the communication mix. The aim is to connect community voices and opinions to local planning and development proposals that affect Dunsborough.

Friday June 12th is the final day for public submissions on the Injidup/Wyadup/Yallingup sand mine proposal. Please make your submission and let your friends know that the opportunity to comment will close. There is a simple survey form to fill out.

https://yoursay.busselton.wa.gov.au/da26-0209

At the June 2026 DRG meeting the Injidup/Wyadup proposed sand mine was discussed. A key issue to the local area was identified as traffic issues on local roads that would be a problematic concern extending out into the area surrounding the proposed development.

These points from the meeting notes that follow may help you in your public submission comments.

"The Dunsborough Reference Group cannot support the development of a sand pit on Wyadup road.
The major destinations for this sand will be Dunsborough East and Lot 6 on Commonage road.
They will require sand at delivery rates that could peak at movements from this proposed sand site at 100 trucks per day, and be travelling along the most dangerous part of Caves road, the section between Wyadup and Biddle roads.
Both the City and the Main Roads WA are aware of this. To permit the mix of both high volumes of tourist traffic and high volumes industrial traffic on such a dangerous road is unconscionable.
The intersections at both Wildwood and Biddle road with Caves road are especially dangerous.
The Wildwood and Caves road intersection is acknowledged by Main Roads WA as being dangerous. Plans for its rerouting further north through lot 76 were made in 2011, but instead funding went to the Cape Naturaliste and Caves road roundabout.
The Yallingup Steiner School was recently required by Main Roads WA to commission a report on this intersection which reiterated what the Main Roads WA already knew, that it’s a dangerous intersection that needs treatment. It is a public danger for the decision makers to think to approve this development application (DA) without there first being some very costly, and substantive upgrades to this intersection.
Sand required for Lot 6 will come down Biddle road. The Biddle and Caves road intersection has a history of serious and critical accidents.
The intersection of Commonage and Biddle is also a busy intersection that the City of Busselton has acknowledged will require a roundabout.
Both these intersections will be made more dangerous by high volume industrial movements in a designated tourist corridor. The resulting situation is unacceptable.
The community acknowledge that sand is an important and common resource to support the region’s housing and related economic growth. Building and landscape sand material costs to purchase has tripled in the past 10 years. This situation, in turn, has increased its attractiveness to widespread rural landholders throughout the City of Busselton to dig out sand and profit. As such the refusal of this high conflict, single incompatible use development application (DA) on the scenic Leeuwin-Naturaliste Ridge will not jeopardise supply, and a better location from other potential can be attained."

(image: winding local tourist drive)

10/06/2026

- An intentional industrial disfigurement of a landscape of national significance: why the Injidup/Yallingup sand mine (DA26/0209) should be refused -

There are places where development must tread lightly. Then there are places where it simply does not belong. The proposed sand mine at Lot 4, 2774 Caves Road, Yallingup sits firmly in the latter category.

When assessed against the intent and provisions of State Planning Policy 6.1 (SPP 6.1) for the Leeuwin–Naturaliste Ridge, the conclusion is clear: this proposal is incompatible with the scenic rural landscape that underpins both the region’s identity and its economy.

The law, SPP 6.1, is clear in its overarching purpose being to **“conserve and enhance the special benefits arising from landscape elements”** and to **protect outstanding natural, cultural and tourism values while managing land use change**.

The Leeuwin–Naturaliste Ridge is not an ordinary rural zone; it is a landscape of State significance, defined by its rugged ridgelines, coastal vistas, and richly textured mosaic of vegetation and agricultural land that attracts visitors from everywhere.

The mine proposal is, by contrast, unapologetically industrial. It involves approximately **453,000 cubic metres of sand extraction over five years**, across a staged excavation area, supported by internal haul roads and **up to 200 heavy truck movements per day**. Even setting aside ecological concerns, the visual implications are profound.

Extractive industries, by their nature, reshape landforms, introduce stark visual contrasts, and generate ongoing disturbance which are all fundamentally at odds with the policy’s (SPP 6.1) direction to maintain landscape character and scenic amenity.

SPP 6.1 explicitly seeks to **separate conflicting land uses** and promote compatibility across the Ridge. Tourism, rural living, and conservation depend on the preservation of visual coherence and of uninterrupted views across bushland, farmland, and coast. This means attempts at screening ugly activities are poor mitigation suggestions. An excavation pit, bunding, mobile screening equipment, and constant truck traffic do not integrate with this scenic rural setting; they dominate it. In planning terms, this is not a marginal impact. It is a land use conflict.

That conflict matters because scenic amenity is not an abstract value. Scenic amenity is the foundation of the region’s tourism economy. The Margaret River and Busselton region is positioned at a State level around its **nature-based attractions, including coastline, national park landscapes and scenic environments**. Visitors are drawn precisely by the qualities that SPP 6.1 is designed to protect: naturalness, tranquillity, and visual beauty. The neighbouring Leeuwin–Naturaliste National Park alone receives millions of visitors and is recognised as one of the most heavily visited in Western Australia.

To degrade these scenic corridors is to intentionally damage the local economic engine. A short-term extractive gain risks long-term reputational damage to a region that markets “pristine” landscapes as its core product.

Importantly, the case against the proposal is not only economic it also has human value and consequences. A growing body of peer‑reviewed research demonstrates that **exposure to natural landscapes significantly reduces depression, anxiety, and stress**, with clinically meaningful improvements following nature-based tourism experiences. More broadly, tourism in natural settings is recognised as contributing to public mental health and wellbeing at both individual and societal scales.

These findings are not incidental. They reinforce what people intuitively understand: places like Injidup are not just scenic, they are restorative. They are part of a public health landscape. Transforming such an environment into an industrial site, even as suggested, temporarily, represents a measurable loss to community wellbeing.

Ultimately, the test for the decision-makers under the clear direction of SPP 6.1 is whether a proposal enhances or degrades the defining values of the Leeuwin~Naturaliste Ridge. The sand mine fails that test. It introduces an incompatible land use, diminishes scenic rural amenity, and risks undermining both the tourism economy and the mental health benefits derived from intact natural landscapes.

In planning, not every proposal can or should be accommodated.

DA26/0209, if it gets to the Regional Development Assessment Panel decision making table, should be refused.

Public submissions to YourSay at the City of Busselton close on Friday June 12, 2026.

(image: scenic treed paddock pasture and woodland at the proposed sand mine site in Injidup)

04/06/2026

The sand mine proposal to dig a pit down to 70m contour depth on rural farmland in Injidup will be decided by a Regional Development Assessment Panel (RDAP). It is not being decided on by the Busselton City Council.

Two City of Busselton councillors will be decision makers on the 5-person panel, with the other 3 decision makers being planners from outside of the City of Busselton.

The City of Busselton's role in the planning approval of the sand mine development proposal and potential approval process is to be an advocate for good planning and for the needs and concerns of the local community who will be impacted by the proposal.

In that process the City of Busselton need to legally advertise the development proposal for 28 days (until June 12th) to receive feedback from the community and then understand their best position in the good planning and community advocacy roles that occur within the development assessment and decision making.

As this decision making is a state level RDAP process on a major development proposal on the Leeuwin~Naturaliste Ridge, the key planning law that overrules all other regulations and local planning is the Leeuwin~Naturaliste Ridge Statement of Planning Policy (SPP 6.1).

All the decision-makers on the Regional Development Assessment Panel (RDAP) must be in full knowledge and abide by this law in any decision they make on the sand mine development proposal.

-- below is some detail to consider about the development proposal and the primary planning law SPP 6.1 in this case --

Regarding DA26/0209 – Proposed Sand Extraction at Lot 4, 2774 Caves Road, Yallingup

The proposed Indjidup/Caves Road/ Wyadup Road sand mine must be assessed against the guiding principles of State Planning Policy 6.1 (Leeuwin–Naturaliste Ridge), which exists precisely to manage development pressure in one of Western Australia’s most environmentally and culturally significant landscapes.

When measured against SPP 6.1’s core objectives:

+ Conservation of landscape
+ Protection of environmental values
+ Compatibility of land uses, and
+ Support for a sustainable regional economy

The proposal is found to be fundamentally inconsistent, and should be refused.

SPP 6.1 emphasises the need to “conserve and enhance the special benefits arising from landscape elements” and to “respect and conserve its outstanding natural and environmental values.”

The Leeuwin–Naturaliste Ridge is not simply a convenient resource location; it is a region of recognised scenic, ecological, and recreational importance. The siting of an extractive industry on a ridge-top location directly undermines these objectives. Ridge environments are highly visible and sensitive, and disturbance through excavation, vegetation removal and ongoing operations risks long-term alteration of landscape character. Even relatively modest clearing—such as the native vegetation removal proposed for this development—contributes to fragmentation of ecological systems that SPP 6.1 seeks to protect.

Beyond landscape impacts, the environmental risks associated with sand mining are well documented and directly relevant to this site. Sand extraction can disrupt hydrological systems, lowering groundwater levels and degrading water quality through sedimentation and chemical contamination. In a ridge setting connected to coastal aquifers and sensitive ecosystems, these risks are amplified. Dust generation and noise from ongoing extraction activities are additional concerns, with demonstrated impacts on air quality and nearby amenity. Such impacts are inconsistent with SPP 6.1’s requirement to manage land use change in a way that preserves environmental integrity and community wellbeing.

The proposal also raises serious concerns regarding land use compatibility. SPP 6.1 explicitly promotes “a mix of compatible land uses while separating conflicting land uses” and supports a “robust, diverse and sustainable economy” rooted in the region’s strengths. The Yallingup–Injidup area is globally recognised for tourism, nature-based recreation, and lifestyle values. The nearby Injidup Beach precinct and the Cape to Cape Track are iconic assets that depend on the very landscape qualities the policy is designed to protect. Introducing an industrial operation characterised by heavy machinery, truck haulage, dust, and noise is plainly incompatible with these uses. Mining activity has been shown to damage rural scenery and diminish tourism value, undermining local economies that depend on environmental quality.

Traffic impacts further illustrate this incompatibility. The application contemplates multiple truck movements per day along local roads. Caves Road, a scenic and winding tourist route integral to the Cape region experience, already faces safety pressures, with more than 80 crashes recorded over five years in one period. Adding substantial heavy vehicle traffic to this network would exacerbate safety risks, diminish visitor experience, and further conflict with the road’s recognised role as a tourism asset. SPP 6.1’s strategic approach to land use implicitly discourages developments that impose such conflicts on key regional infrastructure.

Finally, the question of rehabilitation must be weighed cautiously. While extractive proposals routinely include rehabilitation plans, the evidence shows that restoration of sand-mined landscapes can be difficult, slow, and sometimes incomplete, with ecosystems taking extended periods—or failing altogether—to recover. In the context of a region defined by its landscape integrity and biodiversity, uncertain long-term outcomes are inconsistent with the precautionary approach embedded in SPP 6.1.

In sum, the proposed sand mine conflicts with the fundamental intent of State Planning Policy 6.1. It threatens landscape values, environmental systems, tourism assets, and community amenity, while introducing incompatible industrial activity into a region explicitly planned for conservation and sustainable development. On balance, and in accordance with the policy’s objectives, the application should be refused.

(Image: the scenic rural pastured paddock with significant paddock trees at the site of the proposed sand mine.)

31/05/2026

Recently in the ‘Geographe Gazette’. Public health concerns highlighted.
https://geographegazette.com.au/yallingup-sand-mine-consultation/

29/05/2026

Community newspaper report about interconnected development proposals across the Dunsborough surrounding area.

15/05/2026

This is important for Dunsborough. Dunsborough Reference Group Dunsborough Progress Association Inc.

𝐒𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐖𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐉𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰 𝐏𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐥 - 𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭

The City of Busselton, City of Bunbury, Shire of Augusta Margaret River and Shire of Capel are calling for expressions of interest for panel members for the South West Joint Design Review Panel.

The expression of interest invites experienced professionals in the fields of architecture, urban design, landscape architecture, heritage, sustainability and environmental design, town planning and arts and culture to consider this opportunity to be part of a pool of design review members.

The South West Joint Design Review Panel will provide design advice on particular development applications at the discretion of each of the participating local government authorities.

For more information on design review, the expression of interest and to submit your application please visit the City’s website 👉 https://www.busselton.wa.gov.au/plan-and-build/south-west-joint-design-review-panel.aspx

The expression of interest closes at 5:00pm 29 May 2026.

15/05/2026

City of Bust-elton? Boom and Bust cycles are stressful and cause wear and tear on the social fabric of country towns.

Is building a ‘standard’ 5 bedroom, 3 bathroom, 2 kitchen (indoor and outdoor), open plan living area, gym, cinema room, with an outdoor fire pit and swimming pool the normal way to accommodate a local community? Or is it investment building for tapping in to the cash flow of the lucrative short-term holiday accommodation market? Do the home and house designs differ?

Maybe building with a smaller footprint but retaining natural light, natural vegetation outlook, and green spaces would serve the grown community in the long term?

What is your grassroots landscape and building design solution for the local resident community of Dunsborough?

14/05/2026

Industry. Sand Extraction. A sand mine proposed for Caves Road property and affecting Wyadup Road, which is the coast access road to Wyadup Bay, Injinup/Injidup Bay, and Cape Clairault. An area of important scenic beauty with narrow, winding country roads.

https://yoursay.busselton.wa.gov.au/da26-0209

Submissions close Friday 12th June 2026.

(The project will be determined by the WA State Government by a Development Assessment Panel (DAP).)

The proposal includes the following:

9.14ha of sand extraction area
Approximately 453,000m3 of sand to be extracted from the sand pit over 5 years
0.25Ha of native vegetation clearing.
The proposed haulage along internal gravel road, before exiting on to Wyadup Road and travelling east to Caves Road.
A maximum 200 truck haulage movements per day (10 trucks entering and exiting the site per hour).

Initial community discussion (link is available for Dunsborough online community page members) :
https://www.facebook.com/groups/DunsboroughNBS/posts/26413082458393505

11/05/2026

A great house design article that demonstrates home living that conserves tree canopy and modifies planning laws to meet lifestyle needs and conservation of the suburban or natural landscape.

We constantly hear of simplistic ideas of housing density increases by creating high rise buildings in Dunsborough. Otherwise we, if you are against high rise development for any of many reasons, are faced with urban sprawl, and a moonscape suburban desert to replace our current natural or rural visual amenity.

Now we have a third option. A different creative future path that on its own is a viable option suited to growing Dunsborough without sacrificing nature, but also shows that there are potentially many future ways to grow the town without losing the sense of place.

https://www.domain.com.au/living/house-a-scarborough-1488813/

10/05/2026

Does Dunsborough become an investment property ghost town outside of holiday season?

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1E5kqw7ah9/

Australia's regional housing crisis is decades in the making, the head of a research institute says. So can the federal budget fix it?