Embedded Files
Was Oxley Really the Clear Winner?
Did the Original Ocean Pool Site Selection Really Support Oxley Beach?
The original Port Macquarie Ocean Pool Committee site selection compared ten locations across six beaches and ranked Oxley Beach North first. However, a review of the published assessment indicates that several assumptions underpinning that ranking have since changed, while other important planning, environmental, cultural and accessibility considerations were either underweighted or not fully assessed.
This review does not argue that another site should automatically replace Oxley Beach. Instead, it asks whether Oxley would still rank first if assessed using current planning information, environmental evidence and contemporary accessibility standards.
1. How Oxley Ranked First
Oxley Beach North achieved the highest weighted score (6.56), leading the second-ranked site by only 0.55 points. The assessment relied on weighted criteria and desktop assumptions, including Traditional Owner support, rankings for non-existent amenities, lifeguard services (which are not available) and existing planning assumptions.
2. What Has Changed Since the Original Assessment
• Traditional Owner support is now contested.
• Birpai LALC has withdrawn previous support.
• Native Title and an Aboriginal Land Claim remain unresolved.
• Updated coastal hazard and climate information is available.
• Statutory biodiversity assessment is now required.
• Contemporary universal access expectations extend beyond construction of a compliant ramp.
3. Do the Individual Scores Match the Evidence?
Existing amenities: Oxley scored 5.5 despite no existing toilets, showers, change rooms or pool-supporting facilities at the proposed site.
Accessibility: The original assessment considered whether a compliant path could be constructed. Modern practice assesses the whole journey, including travel distance, gradients, parking, crossings and user effort.
Parking: The original assessment did not fully consider cumulative demand, accessible transport, shared paths or the current parking concept.
Construction: The assessment focused largely on access for construction rather than whole-of-life resilience, coastal hazards, maintenance and operational costs.
Planning: Oxley's C2 Environmental Conservation zoning required an LEP amendment, while several alternative sites were already RE1 Public Recreation.
Ecology: Desktop screening has since been supplemented by requirements for detailed biodiversity assessment.
4. Traditional Owner Assumptions
Traditional Owner support was one of the most influential assumptions in the original matrix. Oxley received 10/10 while most other sites received 3/10. Given Oxley's lead was only 0.55 points, this assumption materially influenced the ranking. Since then, support has become contested, Birpai LALC has withdrawn previous support, and Native Title and an Aboriginal Land Claim remain unresolved. These changes warrant reassessment using current information.
5. What Was Not Adequately Assessed
Whole-of-life costs and maintenance; ownership and operational responsibilities; climate resilience and coastal hazards; universal access across the whole journey; cumulative parking demand; updated biodiversity information; and current Aboriginal consultation requirements.
Conclusion
The original matrix remains a useful historical assessment, but it should not be treated as conclusive evidence that Oxley remains the preferred location. Given the narrow ranking margin and the significant changes in planning, environmental and cultural information since 2022–2023, an independent reassessment using contemporary evidence would provide greater confidence in the final site selection.
See our Public Documentation page under the Port Macquarie Tidal Pool Committee (PMTPC) section for:
* Appendix D - Site Selection Matrix - Tidal Pool
Fact Check
Page updated
Report abuse