Northern Beaches Council could lose iconic lagoon as Lands Department conduct investigation

AN INVESTIGATION is underway over the future of Dee Why Lagoon after the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council lodged a claim.

Dee Why Lagoon may be taken from the council’s control.

• $4m childcare development set to replace homes
• ‘How a tick bite left me like a zombie’

DEE WHY Lagoon could be taken from the Northern Beaches Council’s control under a land claim lodged by the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council.

The council received notification that the Lands Department was investigating a claim for the valuable parcel of land, lodged in 2003.

Northern Beaches Council has voted to fight land claim by the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council.

Some have expressed concern that the land could be built on with the one-page claim form providing no details of the proposed uses or management of the land.

Last year the land council attempted to subdivide claimed bushland in Belrose to allow for 156 homes, which Liberal Cr Rory Amon said was concerning.

PODCAST: ‘HOW A TICK BITE ERASED TWO YEARS OF MY LIFE’

“We have no idea what the land council proposes to do with this (Dee Why) land, nor has any reason been provided as to why this land should be privatised in to the hands of the local Aboriginal land council,” he said.

“Given the enormous value of the Dee Why Lagoon precinct to the community, the claim … to privatise this community land is offensive.”

Rory Amon said privatising community was “offensive”. Picture: Adam Yip/ Manly Daily

The council was unable to put a land value on the 4.2sq km site.

The average land size in Dee Why is 555 sqm, with a median price of $1.795 million, with the suburb’s houses seeing a 94.7 per cent five-year growth, meaning the land could be valued at more than $14 million.

At last Tuesday’s meeting, councillors voted to fight the claim, resolving to write to the Lands Department arguing the area had been “lawfully used and occupied since at least 1964 for environmental protection and public recreation purposes”.

It will argue the land is needed for “essential public purposes” such as environmental management, flood management, and recreation.

MLALC chief executive officer Nathan Moran said: “We have been part of a formal process to resolve the land claims that are not resolved.

Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council chief executive officer Nathan Moran said the land would be preserved as is.

“We are undertaking a pilot to address these unresolved land claims for the entire area (northern beaches) of which there are over 1000.”

He dismissed claims that the land council would wish to develop on the land.

“It is a horses for courses model,” he said. “We don’t use vital environmental lands for industrial uses and we won’t use industrial for environmental purposes.

“If the claim was granted it would be about adding to and continuing the lagoon, the natural environment being maintained and to rehabilitate it and provide more sustenance.”

IN OTHER NEWS

He pointed to the land council’s claim on Moon Rock, near Belrose, that led to fears of development, which he said were quashed when he moved to “protect it in perpetuity”.

“If we were given areas of high ecological value, that is what we would want it for.”

Mr Moran also moved to point out the difference between Native Title and the Land Rights Act.

Native Title requires a connection to the land, whereas the Land Rights Act means vacant Crown Land can be claimed as recompense for the loss of NSW.