Sunday, May 29, 2011

COUNCIL'S DAY USE AREA PROPOSAL PART 1

The Gold Coast City Council's proposal to develop what is known as the 'Spork property' on Springbrook Road, (as a day use area with roads, parking areas, play equipment, picnic shelters and public toilets), has been boldly promoted by Council even though there are many questions left unanswered, and other related reports that have yet to be received. The Association has annotated (in red) Council's submission to its committees for the committees' review and consideration to highlight its disquiet. It is believed that, in spite of the many matters that remain a serious concern, Council plans to approve this development tomorrow (Tuesday, 31st May 2011). It is a real worry that Council seems prepared to go ahead and spend money raised by the 'Green'/open space levy on such developments, let alone developments that have so many issues yet to be resolved.
ITEM ITEM # sustainable city future committee
springbrook conservation area day use area
PN164279/46/02(P1)          

 

1          BASIS FOR CONFIDENTIALITY

 

Not Applicable.

2            EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


Not Applicable.

3            PURPOSE OF REPORT


The purpose of this report is to provide Council with details of the development of the “Spork’s Site” within the Springbrook Conservation Area 
DETAILS OF WHAT AND FOR WHAT?

4            PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS


Council at its meeting of 28 February 2011 resolved in part G11.0228.008:

“1        That Councillors be provided with a copy of the current Draft Springbrook Visioning Plan prior to any consideration of proposed expenditure of public funds on a cable car.
2          That the future report regarding the development of the Spork property include a copy of all reports presented to Council and subsequent resolutions to date.”
THE DRAFT SPRINGBROOK VISIONING PLAN REMAINS A DRAFT: COMMENTS DUE IN 13TH JUNE 2011. DETERMINING FUTURES FOR SPRINGBROOK WHILE OTHER BROADER STUDIES ARE UNDER WAY – STUDIES THAT INCLUDE THE SPORK FUTURE POSSIBILITIES - MAKES A MOCKERY OUT OF ALL PROCESSES.
Council at a special budget meeting on 21 June 2010 provided funding and direction to progress the development of the Spork’s day use area by resolving in part GB10.0621.002:

Adopt the attached document entitled “Four Year Capital Works Program 2010-11 to 2013-14” noting that projects listed in 2010-11 are funded as part of the 2010-11 budget, whereas, projects listed in years 2011-12 to 2013-14 represent a notional capital works program and will be subject to change depending on available funding.

Council at its budget committee meeting on 13 May 2010 resolved:

It is recommended that Council resolves as follows:

1               That Council note the report.
2               That separate charges be raised in 2010/11 for the purpose of Open Space Preservation including acquisition of property and non acquisition purposes directly relevant to open space preservation and nature conservation;
3               That the amount of every Open Space Preservation separate charge for 2010/11, levied by the service of a rate notice pursuant to the Local Government Act shall be $37.00;
4               That such a charge not be subject to discount.
(CONTINUED NEXT PAGE)
OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION IS NOT OPEN SPACE DEVELOPMENT FOR ROADS, PARKING, PLAY AREAS, PICNIC AREAS AND TOILET BLOCKS.
Council at its meeting of 15 March 2010 resolved in part G10.0315.013:
(CONTINUED NEXT PAGE)




ITEM ITEM # (continued)
springbrook conservation area day use area
PN164279/46/02(P1)          

 

1         That Council notes the new timelines for the completion of the Springbrook Tourism Visioning Plan and that a report on the outcomes of the community consultation and the proposed final Springbrook Tourism Visioning Plan be presented to Council by November 2010.
2         That the CEO Dale Dickson write to DERM regarding their promise of support throughout the Springbrook Tourism Visioning Plan, in relation to providing baseline data and being cooperative throughout the project. The letter to be sent to:
·                     John Bradley, Director General, Department of Environment and Resource Management; and
·                     Jason Jacobi, Regional Manager – South East Queensland Region, Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service.
3          An update report on the outcome of the discussions above be brought back to Council by May 2010”

Council at its meeting of 26 June 2009 resolved in part G09.0626.010:

“1        “That Council supports the implementation of the community consultation process relating to the draft Springbrook Visitor Management Plan”
WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THE VISIONING PLAN?
2          “That a report on the outcomes of the community consultation and the proposed final Springbrook Visitor Management Plan be presented to Council by February 2010”
3          “That a copy of this report be conveyed by the CEO (Director EDMP) to:
John Bradley, Director General , Department of Environment and Resource Management; and
Jason Jacobi, Regional Manager - South East Region, Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service” 

Council at its meeting of 1 May 2009 resolved in part G09.0501.007:

“1        “That Council endorses the development of a draft Springbrook Visitor Management Plan based upon the draft Springbrook tourism vision presented in this report”
WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THE VISIONING PLAN?
2          “That a program of community consultation on the draft Springbrook Visitor Management Plan is undertaken as outlined in Attachment 2 of this report”
3          “That the current Springbrook Visitor Project incorporate further investigation into the opportunity for the Spork site to be developed as a new day-use park with a further report to be presented to Council by August 2009”
4          “That a report on the outcomes of the community consultation and the proposed final Springbrook Visitor Management Plan to be presented to Council by August 2009”
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION ON SPRINGBROOK IS OPEN TO BLATANT MANIPULATION THAT SEEMS TO WANT TO ACHIEVE PREDETERMINED OUTCOMES. IF PARTICULAR GROUPS AND PEOPLE CAN BE IGNORED, THEN THE (CONTINUED NEXT PAGE)
CONSULTATION CAN CREATE ITS OWN REPSONSES TO ANYTHING. IT INVOLVES THE SAME PRINCIPLE – THE SAME ATTITUDE. IT IS KNOWN THAT SOME RESIDENTS AND GROUPS HAVE REPEATEDLY NEVER BEEN ADVISED ON ANY OF COUNCIL’S INTENTIONS FOR SPRINGBROOK.
Council at its meeting of 16 February 2009 resolved in part G09.0216.010:
(CONTINUED NEXT PAGE)



ITEM ITEM # (continued)
springbrook conservation area day use area
PN164279/46/02(P1)          

 

1          “That Council adopt the final Springbrook Region Conservation Reserves Management Plan and approve the publication and release of the plan for the City’s residents and visitors”

Council at its meeting of 6 August 2007 resolved in part G07.0806.019:

1          “That Council supports the Economic Development Branch initiative to conduct the survey as part of the Springbrook Tourism Project.”
SPRINGBROOK HAS A WORLD HERITAGE LISTING. NOTHING IN THIS DOCUMENT SO FAR EVEN RECOGNISES THIS AND THE PRIME ROLE THAT THIS LISTING MUST HOLD IN ALL CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO THIS UNIQUE ENVIRONMENT. GOVERNMENT’S HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO MANAGE SPRINGBROOK APPROPRIATELY, NOT TO DEVELOP IT HOWEVER THEY MIGHT CHOOSE. THE OBLIGATION IS TO THE REST OF THE WORLD AND TO FUTURE GENERATIONS. WORLD HERITAGE IS NOT JUST A DECORATIVE LABEL FOR THE PROMOTION OF TOURISM.

5            DISCUSSION


5.1              Background

The development of the Springbrook Conservation Area (CA) “Spork’s property ” day use area was initiated by Council in the Springbrook Region Conservation Reserves Cluster Management Plan (2009). Section 4.9.3 Day Use identified:
THE TITLE ‘SPRINGBROOK REGION CONSERVATION RESERVES CLUSTER MANAGEMENT PLAN’ SAYS NOTHING ABOUT DEVELOPMENT. IF CONSERVATION MEANS ANYTHING, IT MEANS CONSERVATION.
“Consequently, there is a demonstrated need to provide additional day use facilities, possibly in the large cleared area at the southern end of Springbrook CA, previously occupied by the old Spork family house. This site is adjacent to Springbrook Road and also could provide Springbrook visitor information providing information and directions to other public and private tourist sites and facilities and function as a trail head for the eastern section of the Gold Coast Hinterland Great Walk.”

CONSEQUENT TO WHAT? HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO ANYTHING ELSE ON

SPRINGBROOK – AND TO WORLD HERITATGE? WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THE
VISIONING PLAN?
The purpose of this Management Plan is to determine how the reserves in the Springbrook region are to be managed for the next 10 years. The plan recommended  the development of the new day use area based on the following issues:”
  • existing recreational facilities in the Springbrook area are over-crowded in peak periods
  • THIS NEEDS TO BE SHOWN WITH RIGOUROUS RESEARCH NOT JUST HERESAY.
  • the well used visitor facilities at Apple Tree park are located on the outbound side of the road for inbound traffic (ie. tourist buses and visitors are crossing over traffic coming from the opposite direction) on a section of the road with limited vision and which is notorious for excessive speeding;
(CONTINUED NEXT PAGE)
  •  
  • IT IS ABSURD TO USE THIS ARGUMENT WHERE THIS EXISTING REST AREA ON A NARROW ROAD HAS BEEN DEVELOPED AS A DRIVE-IN ROUNDABOUT WITH AMPLE PARKING SPACES AND FACILITIES. WHY SHOULD THE CLAIMED BREACHING OF SPEED LIMITS BE USED AS THE ARGUMENT TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT? TRAFFIC SPEED AND NUMBERS DO NOT SEEM TO BE OF ANY CONCERN ELSEWHERE IN GOLD COAST CITY AND STIMULATE NO COUNCIL ACTION OTHER THAN NEGLECT.
  • there is limited car parking in the very small Apple Tree Park (six car spaces) and the significant ecological values of the surrounding forest make it undesirable to encourage expansion;
  • SPRINGBROOK’S WORLD HERITAGE LISTING MAKES IT UNSUITABLE FOR AD HOC DEVLEOPMENT.
  • with between 1000 and 2400 visits per week, the toilet facilities at Apple Tree Park are operating beyond capacity (for several years), are being pumped out to handle loads and will require the treatment system to be replaced if a suitable alternative is not provided. These toilets are heavily used due to their location at the start of the mountain which is used by tourist buses.
  • THE FUGURES ARE NONSENSE. 1000 PER WEEK IS 6 EVERY HOUR, 24 HOURS A DAY, EVERY DAY; 2400 PER WEEK IS OVER 14 EVERY HOUR, 24 HOURS A DAY, EVERY DAY. IF A 9-5 DAY IS USED, THEN THE FIGURES BECOME: 18 PER HOUR AND 43 PER HOUR RESPECTIVELY. THIS AREA IS NOT OVERUSED.  18 PER HOUR IS HARDLY OVERUSED (ON BASIS OF 50/50 M/F, THIS MEANS ONE TOLIET AREA IS USED EVERY SIX-AND-A-HALF MINUTES (THIS IS VERY UNLIKELY); 43 PER HOUR IS A NONSENSE CLAIM – THIS WOULD MEAN ONE USE EVERY THREE MINUTES! PUBLIC TOILETS IN THE CENTRE OF BRISBANE DO NOT GET THIS USE. EVEN A FOOL COULD SEE THAT THE TOILETS ARE NOT BEING USED BY SUCH NUMBERS.) THE CLAIM FOR OVERUSE IS FALSE – A FABRICATION?
  • visitor way-finding and tourist locality information signage is inadequate in Springbrook and should be located at the start of the Plateau;
  • THIS IS A FARCE. SPRINGBROOK IS LITTERED WITH SIGNAGE. IT HAS FAR TOO MANY SIGNS ALREADY – HUNDREDS. THERE SHOULD BE A PLAN TO REMOVE SIGNS IN THIS WORLD HERITAGE AREA.
  •  THE ONLY SIGN THAT IS NEVER REVEALED IS THE WORLD HERITAHE SIGN AND SYMBOL.

The day use area is proposed to be located in a historically heavily disturbed, cleared area which has a footprint of 0.3ha in the 217ha conservation area. The site has good access, located at the start of the Plateau on the entering
(CONTINUED NEXT PAGE)



ITEM ITEM # (continued)
springbrook conservation area day use area
PN164279/46/02(P1)          

 

Springbrook  side of the road and is the only Council owned land that could be used to cater and manage future increased visitor use over the next 10 years.
WHAT IS THE OPTIMUM NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / VISITORS THAT THIS WORLD HERITAGE REGION CAN TAKE WITHOUT CREATING PROBLEMS FOR THE WORLD HERITAGE VALUES?
Community consultation for the Management Plan involved a community meeting on site in 2008. This indicated clear endorsement for the site. Public submissions were invited to which a total of eleven were received. A community consultation report summarising public submissions to the Draft Management Plan was presented to Council in February 2009.
IT SEEMS THAT COMMUNITY CONSULTATION ON SPRINGBROOK IS BEING MANIPULATED – SEE BEFORE.
Six submissions supported or made no comment about the day use area. Two submissions (jointly representing the views of four community and environment groups) and one resident opposed the proposal on the grounds –
  • any new recreational infrastructure in conservation areas contradicted the goals of the management plan; and
  • infrastructure should be restricted to already developed areas such as Apple Tree Park and all cleared or degraded areas should be rehabilitated,
WHAT ARE THESE TWO JOINT SUBMISISONS? WHO? WHAT FOUR GROUPS? HOW MANY INDIVIDUALS ARE REPRESENTED BY THESE GROUPS ? WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF THIS STATEMENT?
In response to those points, it is worth noting that new infrastructure in conservation areas does not contradict the goals of the management plan. The objective of the management plan is to sustainably manage existing nature based use, by focussing recreational activity in specific areas that have the capacity to accommodate it whilst limiting access to higher value conservation areas. This is particularly critical as a response to provide for future growth in demand as SEQ’s population increases.
‘SUSTAINABLY MANAGE’ ARE WORDS ONLY THAT DO NOT SUSTAINABLY MANAGE ANYTHING, NOT CAR PARKS, ROADS, PLAY AREAS, PICNIC AREAS OR PUBLIC TOILETS. WHY RELY ON OLD DOCUMENTS WHEN NEW VISIONING PLANS ARE BEING PREPARED?
As a means of off-setting the impacts of the development, it is relevant to note that 10ha of primarily weed effected land has been rehabilitated in the conservation area including surrounding the “Sporks property” day use area.. Further off-set planting of 295 native species will be incorporated into the landscaping planned for the site.
‘WEED EFFECTED’ ARE DISPARAGING WORDS ONLY AND CREATE NO NEED FOR DEVELOPMENT. PLANTING 295 NATIVE SPECIES IS VERY LIKELY TO BE COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE, EVEN IF IT WERE CARRIED OUT. OTHER COUNCIL PROMISES ON OTHER DEVELOPMENTS HAVE PROMISED THE WORLD, BUT THESE ARE NEVER FOLLOWED THROUGH OR CHECKED YEARS LATER WHEN THINGS HAVE DIED OR ARE REMOVED. WORLD HERITAGE MANAGEMENT MUST BE BETTER THAN ANY BOASTED QUANTITY.
A key role of the proposed development will be the provision of nature based recreational infrastructure, which has an important value in maintaining public support for Council’s conservation activities, consistent with the Nature Conservation Strategy (NCS) in educating the community about the value of conservation reserves. Strategic Outcome 2 of the NCS
identifies:   (CONTINUED NEXT PAGE)


NATURE-BASED INFRASTRUCTURE – AGAIN, MERELY WORDS THAT DO NOTHING FOR WORLD HERITAGE.
“It is essential that the community supports nature conservation, either through direct involvement in action or through the support of decisions, actions and investment by Council and others. An active, involved and aware community has a heightened appreciation of the value and services provided by nature conservation. This appreciation assists with connecting the  community to a sense of place, fostering a stronger local identity, contributing to a healthy lifestyle and improved quality of life”.
THIS IS GOBBLEDYGOOK. THE COMMUNITY IS HAVING A SAY AND IS SEEKING BETTER OUTCOMES THAN THE COUNCIL – WORLD HERITAGE INTEGRITY - BUT IT IS BEING IGNORED IN FAVOUR OF SOME COUNCILLORS’ PREFERENCES.
“Opportunities to strengthen connections with nature and the understanding of conservation through recreational opportunities should be pursued”.
THIS COULD BE SUPPORTED BUT NOT IN THE WAY COUNCIL PROPOSES. THE GREAT DANGER IS THAT MEANINGLESS WORDS AND PHRASES ARE USED IN A TEXT TO ‘SEX IT UP’.
The Final Management Plan adopted by Council in February 2009 “recommended the most appropriate use for this day use area site would be determined by the investigation of the local and visitor recreational demands undertaken in 2008 as part of the preparation for the Springbrook Visitor Management (VMP) Plan” (now called the Springbrook Visioning Plan).

THE DEVELOPMENT AREA IS ALREADY DESCRIBED AS  ‘THIS DAY USE AREA.’ WHO DECIDED THIS? THE UNRESOLVED VISIONING PLAN - ‘NOW CALLED THE SPRINGBROOK VISIONING PLAN’ - SUBMISSIONS FOR WHICH ARE DUE IN ON 13TH JUNE 20110? WHY USE IT AND IGNORE IT?
(CONTINUED NEXT PAGE)


ITEM ITEM # (continued)
springbrook conservation area day use area
PN164279/46/02(P1)          

 

The draft Springbrook Visioning Plan endorsed the day use area as the only suitable Council owned land on Springbrook ideal for low key day use as follows:
THIS IS THE COUNCIL USING A PLAN THAT IS CURRENTLY OPEN FOR COMMENT TO SUPPORT A PRECONCEIVED OUTCOME – FARCICAL. IT IS MUCH LIKE ALL PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON SPRINGBROOK: WHAT LOOKS LIKE MANIPULATED NONSENSE TO ACHIEVE COUNCIL’S PREDETERMINED AMBITIONS.
The ‘Spork’ lands  are strategically located in terms of potential recreation use, given the easy access to Springbrook Road that is afforded. 

The site provides opportunities for the creation of an open forest based recreation – in contrast with the mainly closed forest recreation areas of the Springbrook Plateau. It enjoys the same higher altitude climate of the other recreation areas on the Plateau but is more open and sunny than many of the other sites.

There is very limited open picnic areas at Springbrook. It is envisaged that the Spork property provides opportunities for small scale open play areas, play equipment and picnic nodes which facilitate small groups, individuals and family use.
USE FOR CONSERVATION? PLAY EQUIPMENT, PICNIC NODES? WORLD HERITAGE INTENTIONS ARE NEVER MENTIONED – NOR ARE CONSERVATION IDEALS.
Council at its meeting of 1 May 2009 endorsed the draft Visioning Plan be taken to the next phase of community consultation to commence 21 May 2011.
COMMENTS DUE IN 13TH JUNE 2011 – SEE ABOVE
The draft Visioning Plan states that management actions for day use areas and points of interest will be confirmed after determination of carrying capacities for the ecosystem and infrastructure for the plateau (as well as each conservation area).
AFTER CARRYING CAPACITY DETERMINED! – COUNCIL NEEDS TO PUT EVERYTHING ON HOLD
It is contended that any day use area does not need to be delayed until both the Visioning Plan and the recommendation of a carrying capacity consultancy is completed in those cases where it can be demonstrated there is an existing need for new infrastructure.  
WHY? THESE ARE CORE ISSUES. WHY ASK FOR COMMENTS ON A VISIONING PLAN THAT IS MEANINGLESS? WHY IGONRE CARRYING CAPACITY? THIS LOOKS LIKE COUNCIL DOING JUST WHAT IT WANTS, IGNORING TRUE PUBLIC INPUT.
It is acknowledged  that a carrying capacity study is important to manage the impacts of a city-wide branding campaign for tourism in Springbrook, it is not considered to be relevant in the development of a low key day use area which has its own in-built visitation control system by way of the twelve car park spaces provided.

CONSIDER THE STUPIDITY OF THE ARGUMENT HERE: GCCC WANTS TO USE THE OVERUSE OF PARTS OF SPRINGBROOK AS AN ARGUMENT TO JUSTIFY THIS DEVELOPMENT – TO FREE UP PRESSURE ON NATIONAL PARKS.  HOWEVER IT IS NOT CONCERNED ABOUT CARRYING CAPACITIES – OVERUSE – AND ITS IMPLICATIONS WHEN CONSIDERING THIS ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT – (THAT SEEKS TO ENCOURAGE MORE VISITORS) - AND WORLD HERITAGE FUTURES ! IT SEEMS IRRATIONAL.
(CONTINUED NEXT PAGE)



On this basis it is proposed that  the day use area proceed after the Visioning Plan is adopted and not be delayed by several years for a carrying capacity study to be delivered.
JUST CONVENIENT IGNORANCE? – THIS LOOKS LIKE AN ARGUMENT TO ALLOW COUNCIL TO DO WHAT COUNCIL WANTS IRRESPECTIVE OF ANYTHING.
IT IS A CONVENIENT STRATEGY TO AVOID RESTRICTIONS OR CHANGES (OR A STOP) TO THIS DEVELOPMENT AS ENVISAGED, SHOULD FUTURE PLANNING/VISION STUDIES DEMONSTRATE THAT IT IS UNSUITABLE.
The development of the “Spork property” will create for Council a major natural area day use park for locals, residents of the Gold Coast and tourists based upon the numbers of visitors that travel up to Springbrook to gain an environmental education awareness experience. It will offer high quality and low key picnic facilities, a visitor information and orientation shelter and toilet block.
A MAJOR NATURAL, EDUCATION EXPERIENCE OF ROADS, PLAY EQUIPMENT, SIGNS, AND PUBLIC TOILETS – THIS IS BECOMING MORE AND MORE FARCICAL.
With no environmental education centre on the Gold Coast, the Spork’s site would be the one natural area park where Council can communicate environmental education messages to a large tourist base and residents. The playground will also have a strong environmental theme.
SO NOW IT IS A MAJOR EDUCATIONAL CENTRE AS WELL AS A FOREST AND NATURAL EXPERIENCE FOR LARGE TOURIST NUMBERS – ALL WHEN THERE IS NO NEED TO KNOW NUMBERS OR CARRYING CAPACITIES. WHAT ARE THE TOURIST VISITATION NUMBERS? THIS IS SIMPLY DESTROYING THE THINGS LOVED THE MOST – COME AND SEE SPRINGBROOK ‘BUGGERED UP!’
The park furniture to be installed has the lowest embodied energy that could be achieved based upon extensive research by Council and The University of NSW. The furniture received the ClimateSmart award in 2009 from the State Government.
‘LOWEST EMBODIED’ IS A STATISTIC THAT IS A RED HERRING. IT DOES NOT JUSTIFY PARK FURNITURE IN ANY WORLD HERITAGE AREA: COMPARE THIS STRATEGY WITH, SAY, A ‘SIX STAR’ PIG STY!
IS THE ADJACENT ‘OVER USED’ PARK AREA POLLUTED BY THIS SAME CLIMATE-SMART FURNITURE?
(CONTINUED NEXT PAGE)



ITEM ITEM # (continued)
springbrook conservation area day use area
PN164279/46/02(P1)          

 

The toilet block system will contain water efficient fittings and toilets, waterless urinal and produce A+ effluent that will be suitable for reuse when anticipated reuse regulations commence.
JUST WORDS – PROVE IT. SHOW NUMBERS, USAGES, SYSTEM DETAILS, ANALYSIS, CALCULATIONS – THIS IS JUST MORE AND MORE WORDS THAT MEAN NOTHING WHEN REAL IMPACTS AND OUTCOMES NEED TO BE UNDERSTOOD.
To enable a concept to be formulated for public comment a budget was sought in 2010. The budget for the day use area was endorsed on 21 June 2010 via the adopted 4 year capital works program as part of the 2010/ 2011 budget process and funded from the OSPL reserve. Council at its budget committee meeting of 13 May 2010 endorsed ‘the development of ‘Spork Family Park’ as a part of the Open Space Preservation Levy report.
SEE SPRINGBROOK PUBLIC CONSULTATAION BEFORE.
WHY IS GREEN SPACE MONEY BEING USED FOR ROADS, PARKING AREAS, PLAY EQUIPMENT, PICNIC SHELTERS AND PUBLIC TOILETS?
A draft concept was prepared and carefully designed to have minimal impact by confining development to disturbed areas. There is an existing flat and cleared linear track across the length of the conservation area (approximately 19m wide and 2km long) which has traditionally served as a cleared firebreak, and will be retained in that
role into the future. The need to retain this firebreak function will preclude this area from future large scale regeneration works.
AGAIN WORDS – ‘CAREFULLY DESIGNED/MINIMAL IMPACT’ - DO NOT ACHIEVE THESE OUTCOMES BY THEIR BEING STATED OR WRITTEN.
THIS TRAIL AREA WILL VERY LIKELY BE USED TO ENLARGE THIS PROBLEMATICAL PROPOSAL.
The localised road widening to access the day use area will have minimal impact to the environment with careful design  achieving the least impact to vegetation. Only two native trees of a 40cm diameter or greater would be required to be removed in the road reserve and no trees of a diameter greater than 10cm in the day use area. Flora and fauna surveying has been undertaken by local experts and the concept design was prepared based upon the recommendations. All trees and shrubs removed will be offset by between 3 and 5 of the same species being replanted in the Springbrook and Numinbah Conservation Areas. Tree Ferns will be relocated on the site. 10 hectares of the Conservation Area have been rehabilitated by officers, commencing two years ago and already the biodiversity of the site has noticeably improved.
ROAD WIDENING HAS ALREADY WIPED OUT ENDANGERED SPECIES – WORDS ARE DANGEROUS THINGS IN THE HANDS OF THIS COUNCIL. PREVIOIUS COUNCIL PROMISES ON PLANTING MULTIPLE PLANTS FOR ONES REMOVED HAVE PROVEN TO BE FALSE. IT CAN BE SEEN AS A WAY TO SHUT PEOPLE UP.
WHAT LOCAL FLORA FAUNA EXPERTS?
WHAT RESEARCH HAS BEEN DONE?
IS THE ARGUMENT TO DESTROY WORLD HERITAGE CONTEXT JUST TO LOOK AFTER ANOTHER? THIS IS SILLY.
Public consultation for the concept for the day use area occurred between December 2010 and January 2011. A report on the community consultation is attached (see attachment one).
PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON SPRINGBROOK BY GCCC SEEMS A FARCE – SELECTIVE ‘CONSULTATION’ WITH CAREFULLY SELECTED RESIDENTS KNOWN TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL SEEMS TO BE USED TO ACHIEVE PREDETERMINED OUTCOMES.
(CONTINUED NEXT PAGE)

138 community and business members responded in writing and DERM responded verbally. 86% (n=119) of respondents endorsed the concept including DERM or supported it in principle if their concerns were addressed.
THIS IS SLOPPY RESEARCH THAT CAN BE TOO EASILY FABRICATED.
WHAT DID DERM PRESENT? VERBALLY? IN WRITING?
WHAT IF THE ‘CONCERNS’ DO NOT SUIT WORLD HERITAGE AREAS?

The overwhelming majority of respondents explained they supported the project due to the additional facilities (picnic areas and toilets), playground and open space it will provide.
OVERWHELMING! WORLD HERITAGE SHOULD NOT BE MANAGED BY ‘SO-CALLED’ POPULAR OPINION – ESPECIALLY ‘OPINION’ THAT IS NOT SUBJECTED TO ANY CONTROLS OR OBJECTIVE SUPERVISION.

Furthermore, respondents cited the concept offered information for visitors to the mountain and educated locals and visitors about the environment and which was located on the right side of the road. The other key themes respondents cited were the benefit it provided to families and the community (both locals and visitors), the fact it was a low impact and low key development in a degraded area and it took pressure off National Parks which was much needed:
ARE THE LOCALS SO DUMB? LOCALS ARE, TO THIS VERY DAY, DISCOVERING RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES AND NEW SPECIES, BUT COUNCIL DOES NOT GIVE A HOOT. COUNCIL NEEDS EDUCATING.
IF LOCALS WANT A RACING TRACK OR A PIG FARM – SIX STAR OR OTHERWISE - WOULD COUNCIL GIVE THEM ONE?
THE GUIDING PRINCIPLE MUST BE WORLD HERITAGE PROTECTION ONLY.
(CONTINUED NEXT PAGE)



ITEM ITEM # (continued)
springbrook conservation area day use area
PN164279/46/02(P1)          

 

I support the project because it offers a park and a playground for the families of Springbrook.

The provision of information and family friendly facilities.

Access for the public and local families without destroying wildlife and fauna and having to park on the side of the road (as happens in overcrowded National Parks).
THIS ASSUMES THAT WORLD HERITAGE STOPS AT A BOUNDARY AND THAT THOSE VISITNIG SPRINGBROOK FOR ITS ‘NATURAL QUALITIES’ WILL BE INTERESTED IN COUNCIL PLAY EQUIPMENT, PICNIC GROUNDS AND FAMILY-FRIENDLY FACILITIES (TOILET BLOCKS?) THAT ARE ALL AVAILABLE THROUGHOUT THE REMAINDER OF THE GOLD COAST REGION.
WHY MAKE THIS WORLD HERITAGE AREA JUST LIKE EVERYWHERE ELSE IN GOLD COAST CITY?
The most common improvement people wanted addressed were that a playground be installed and an information kiosk. 14% (n=19) opposed the proposal stating any new recreational infrastructure in conservation areas contradicted the goals of the management plan.
SEE ABOVE – GIVING PEOPLE WHAT THEY THINK THEY WANT IS NO WAY TO MANAGE SUCH A SPECIAL WORLD HERITAGE AREA.
IF PEOPLE ARE SUPPLIED WITH ACCURATE INFORMATION ON ADVERSE IMPACTS ON WORLD HERITAGE VALUES, IT IS BELIEVED THAT MOST WILL REJECT THE PROPOSAL. THIS, WHAT CAN BE SEEN AS THE MANIPULATIVE GCCC PROCESS HAS NOT PRESENTED ANY RESEARCH SHOWING THAT IMPACTS WILL OCCUR AND/OR THAT WORLD HERITAGE VALUES WILL BE DEPLETED OR PROTECTED.  WHY ?
As noted earlier, the day use area concept does not contradict the objectives of the management plan. The goals of the management plan are to sustainably manage existing nature based use, by focussing recreational activity in specific areas that
SEE ABOVE – WHY WILL THIS NOT INCREASE THE IMPACT ON OTHER AREAS TOO?
have the capacity to accommodate it whilst limiting access to higher value conservation areas.


6            aLIGNMENT TO BOLD FUTuRE VISION, CORPORATE PLAN, OPERATIONAL PLAN


Bold Future Key Focus Area 2 A city loved for its green, gold and blue
A CITY LOVED FOR ITS PLAY EQUIPMENT, PICNIC SHELTERS AND TOILET BLOCKS?
This report directly aligns with the Corporate Plan’s Outcomes:

Outcome 2.1  - Parks and open green spaces are safe, connected and accessible for all members of the community
THIS IS NOT A CITY PARK – IT IS A WORLD HERITAGE LISTED AREA.
What we will do to achieve this
2.1.1 Establish a network of interconnected greenways, parklands and walkable neighbourhoods across the city that encourage people of all ages and abilities to use the open space for recreation and environmentally friendly modes of travel such as walking
and cycling (CONTINUED NEXT PAGE)


2.1.2 Increase the community’s visitation and participation in the city’s parks and gardens by maintaining and enhancing standards and facilities
2.1.5 Transform the city through the sustainable management of Council’s natural parkland areas and through an extensive greening and street planting program

Outcome 2.2
Biodiversity is protected
What we will do to achieve this
2.2.1            Continue to plan for the conservation of the city’s natural environment
2.2.4            Increase external partnerships to conserve the city’s biodiversity and protect wildlife and vegetation on private and public land
2.2.6        Encourage community appreciation of and participation in the protection of the natural environment through education and awareness-raising activity
THIS IS NOT A CITY PARK – IT IS A WORLD HERITAGE LISTED AREA.
2.2.7         
ITEM ITEM # (continued)
springbrook conservation area day use area
PN164279/46/02(P1)          

 

Outcome 2.3
Wildlife corridors are well managed and connected
What we will do to achieve this
2.3.3 Plan and manage the city’s conservation network to protect the city’s biodiversity and help mitigate the risks of climate change
THESE ARE JUST WORDS THAT SOMEONE THINKS NEED TO BE USED. PREVIOUS ATTEMPTS TO GET COUNCIL TO PRESERVE WILDLIFE HABITAT AND CORRIDORS USUALLY GET IGNORED.
WHY IS IT IMPORTANT NOW? JUST USEFUL WORDS TO HAVE?

7            Funding AND RESOURCING REQUIREMENTS


Budget/Funding Considerations

Council in a meeting on 21 June 2010 endorsed a budget for the day use area for 10-11 and gave direction to officers for future years  via the adopted 4 year capital works program adopted in the 10-11 budget process to be derived from the OSPL reserve. Further, Council at its budget committee meeting of 13 May 2010 endorsed budget for ‘the development of ‘Spork Family Park’ as a part of the Open Space Preservation Levy report.

Year
Budget

2010-11
$80,000
Design
2011-12
$908,000
Construction of Stage 1:

Widening of Springbrook Road


2012-13
$978,100
Car park, earthworks, pathways and retaining walls

(CONTINUED NEXT PAGE)

Construction of toilet facilities .

Construction of  picnic facilities and information shelter


Future work pending Council approval and budget

2013 -14
$100,000
Playground
Not defined
$200,000
Possible extension of car park and day use area pending demand

WHY ARE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS COLLECTED AS A GREEN LEVY BEING USED FOR ROADS, PARKING SPACES, PLAY EQUIPMENT, TOILETS, ETC.?

8          RISK MANAGEMENT


Not Applicable.
WHAT – NO RISK?
WHAT ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT?
WORLD HERITAGE?
(CONTINUED NEXT PAGE)



ITEM ITEM # (continued)
springbrook conservation area day use area
PN164279/46/02(P1)          

 

9            STATUTORY MATTERS


The development of the Springbrook Day Use Area is consistent with Council’s Planning Scheme and the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-31.
AND THE VISIONING PLAN IS NOT YET COMMENTED ON OR ENDORSED?

THERE IS LARGE PUBLIC OPPOSITION TO THE VISIONING PLAN. IT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED USING MUCH THE SAME DUPLICITOUS METHOLOGY THAT SEEMS LATENT IN THIS PROJECT .



The day use area development proposal is to meet legislative requirements under the GCCC Planning Scheme, Nature Conservation Act (Qld), Cultural Heritage Act (Qld) and Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (Federal).
SHOW HOW – JUST WORDS AGAIN, AGAIN AND AGAIN
The DERM approval is ready to be submitted pending a second and final flora and fauna study which cannot be undertaken until the project is shovel ready to commence to ensure the study captures the seasonal variation in flora and fauna present.
WHERE ARE THESE STUDIES?
PREVIOUS COMMENT SAID THAT DERM APPROVAL HAD BEEN RECEIVED?
WHAT HAS BEEN RECEIVED? WHAT HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED?
SEASONAL VARIAITON – PROVE ALL OF THIS.

‘SHOVEL READY’ – IS IT? IT SEEMS SO. THERE SEEMS TO BE EVERY INDICATION THAT THIS PROJECT WILL BE APPORVED NO MATTER WHAT.

Main Roads approvals are also required for the access from the road into the day use area and part of the day use area built in the road reserve. The application has been submitted and feedback received requiring minor changes indicating the project will be approved pending approval obtained from DERM for tree clearing.
WHAT IS GOING ON? HAS DMR CARRIED OUT ANY PUBLIC NOTIFICATION?

10            COUNCIL POLICIES


Not Applicable.
NO POLICIES ON WORLD HERITAGE MANAGEMENT? ARE YOU SURE? NO POLICIES ON WORLD HERITAGE MANAGEMENT? THIS IS ALARMING AND IRRESPONSIBLE.


11            DELEGATIONS


Not Applicable.

12            COORDINATION & CONSULTATION


Name and/or Title of the Stakeholder Consulted
Directorate or Organisation
Is the Stakeholder Satisfied With Content of Report and Recommendations (Yes/No) (comment as appropriate)
Director
Community Services
Yes
Manager Parks & Recreational Services
Community Services
Yes(CONTINUED NEXT PAGE)

Coordinator Natural Areas
Community Services
Yes
Executive Coordinator Finances
City Governance
Yes
Heritage Team Leader
PE&T
Yes
Program Management Coordinator
PE&T
Yes
Senior Environmental Planner
PE&T
Yes
Supervisor - OPW
PE&T
Yes
Town Planner
PE&T
Yes
Executive Coordinator IDG
Engineering Services
Yes
Program Coordinator - Roads
Engineering Services
Yes
Executive Coordinator Urban Design
Engineering Services
Yes

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.