PRELIMINARY COMMENTS
on the study by Clouston
Associates
SPRINGBROOK NATIONAL PARK
FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR
SPRINGBROOK GATEWAY
TOURIST INFROMATION
FINAL REPORT
2 JULY 2013
Following the making of a
few comments after a quick perusal of the Clouston document, one realises the
need to take a closer look at this report; but time makes demands otherwise. So
the preliminary review is published as a set of observations to be reassessed
later. The comments below should all be read in this context of an initial
schematic assessment. ‘Appears to be’ needs to be read as a preamble to each
item until a further re-examination has been undertaken. It is suggested that
this quick overview gives much the same attention to matters as does the report
itself.
'World Heritage' gets a
mention in the first two paragraphs of the first section of the report and then
seems to be forgotten after one other introductory mention in the next section.
There appears to be no substantial analysis of World Heritage impacts on place
and proposals.
There is nothing about the
experience of the roads that lead to Springbrook that are the important
introduction to Springbrook, an integral part of it as an experience of place
and location. One notices that photographs of the heritage timber bridges have
been used to decorate the study. Indeed, one is on the front cover! This inclusion makes this point self-evident.
The whole study appears to
be based on the irrational preconception that there is a ‘village area’ and a
‘national park area’ at Springbrook, as the Town Plan defines it, rather than
being an assessment based on any real experience and understanding of this
beautiful scattered place. This seems to suggest that the study is more about
itself, its structure, and its theoretical processes and analyses, rather than
anything to do with the natural sense, wonder and experience of this unique
World Heritage region: see comment on marking entrances; and discussion on GAM
matrix weighting system – as if numbers can prove anything that one did not
know or could not experience.
Stakeholder participation is
tourist/business based. Was National Parks involved?
‘Springbrook
village is the main service centre for the mountain.’ - Where is this
phantom 'village' that is spoken about throughout the report as if it held any
identity?
‘Springbrook
LAP’ – Where is the detail discussion on and analysis of
World Heritage obligations?
‘Important VIC requirements as suggested by the
operators:
– Toilets
– Turnaround facility
– Readable map of the area
• Other VIC requirements as suggested by the
operators:
– Located on the left hand side of the road
– Safe interaction with Springbrook Road
– Capture traffic entering from all inbound roads
(Pine Creek Road &
Springbrook Road)’
This schedule taken from the report is all about tourists, not place and
the maintenance of its World Heritage quality.
If these items are to be properly assessed, the facts need to be
quantified and analysed.
How many visitors?
How frequently?
How many toilets?
Is a centre needed?
What kind of centre?
What character; size; functions?
What accommodation?
How dispose of waste?
How much parking?
How much turn around?
What vehicles and in what numbers?
Is anyone suggesting an unreadable map?
What qualities make a map readable?
Where? How? From a car? As a pedestrian? For vision impaired?
Signs for those with disabilities?
Way finding for all?
Surely any good design would provide to good safe traffic movements,
just as any map might be readable?
There is an almost inevitable sense
of ‘motherhood’ notations here being used to give 'substance' to the report.
‘There is also a block of land behind this site where
a house has been demolished
which could be considered for development. The current
tenure of this block is
unknown. The WMS is State-owned as part of an
easement.’
Why is the tenure unknown? Could not the GCCC have easily checked and
advised on this after all of its involvement in this study? The comment
suggests a frivolous level of analysis, a general commentary on matters rather
than any quality research.
The regional map of the
National Park zones is interesting as, at this small scale, the extreme
sprawling fragmentation of the park areas is clearly highlighted – but this
does not raise any comment in the report! Yet there is the odd statement about
the ‘entry’ to the national park area, as if there was one cohesive area with
one identifiable approach.
‘The owner is aware of this project and is supportive
in principle for the possible
inclusion of a VIC within his property. He is aware of
this project and is keen to
speak with the consultants about the possibilities on
the site and how they might
fit in with his plans.’
Fudge Shop - Why has there
been no discussion with the owner - not even a chat? It would appear to be a
simple enough involvement. The study gives the appearance of having very little
in-depth quality research. In places it starts reading like a general
what-if/if-only commentary drawn from the ‘top of the head’ and structured into
selected sections to give the appearance of a thoroughly 'researched' report.
‘The Old School House site contains a timber building
that is used as a Parks
Information Centre. It is closed on weekends.’
This is an astonishing admission but not a surprise! National Parks must
hang its head in shame. But it is no different to the ‘information centre’ at
Burleigh Heads that was moved from the main highway location at Tallebudgera
Creek to the back blocks of David Fleay’s reserve, on a dead-end road, a
location poorly marked and nearly invisible to all but those who make the
effort to find it, or those that stumble upon it by accident.
In what way has National Parks been involved in this study?
Has it been consulted in this report?
Have any World Heritage representatives been consulted?
Has anyone with expertise in flora and fauna been involved?
Have questions been asked about endangered species?
Have any soil reports been undertaken/researched?
Any water quality/flows been reviewed?
Has there been any fire analysis/study?
Springbrook is a subtle,
sensitive and variable region that needs thorough research rather than general
assumptions that suppose it to be like other areas, if it is to be properly
understood.
‘Existing power, water and sewer systems in place.’
Wunburra - What capacity sewer is needed? Can this be supported? What is
the waste problem that has to be accommodated? What car parking? There are no
specific briefing numbers for anyone to be able to assess possible likely
outcomes with any reliability.
How can anything be assessed if nothing is known?
One can never assume
anything on Springbrook.
No comment has been made
about the existing pedestrian problems at Wunburra that become a dangerous
surprise to all motorists arriving on the plateau.
‘Best practice signage’ says
nothing on the existing uncontrolled mess of signage on the mountain. It is as
though the report fears any critical comment on GCCC or Government practices.
It appears to be a political decision not to comment on anything that might be
controversial as the mess of signage is self-evident, ‘in your face.’ The signs
include over-decorated tanks and halls, numerous aggregations of directional
signs, an ad hoc selection of private signs, and an array of National Park
signs scattered right across the mountain.
The study on signs seems to
ignore the fact that there are far too many messy signs now; that these need to
be drastically culled. There is no point in adding ‘designer’ signage to any
signage shambles.
Far too many of these
studies have been written and read for ones like this to be taken seriously.
This study appears schematically articulated to the formula and carries few
surprises.
It gathers an almost random
collection and selection of facts and figures and observations, and puts them in
an order that is supposed to look like comprehensive, studied and impressive
research when it is little more an array of some general annotations, reviews,
wish-lists and possibilities, completed with a numbers game.
The traffic statistics are
difficult to interpret as they use traffic jargon references.
One calculation, if matters
have been understood correctly, shows 198 vehicles on an average day; 250 on
the weekend. Is this so?
Why can these figures not
all be made more clear and decipherable for easy comprehension? Complexity and
confusion do not make for grand and meaningful science.
These statistics seem to
confirm the nonsense of numbers previously quoted for Apple Tree Flat. The
question is: what are the numbers – anywhere? If numbers are no known, how can
even the need for a visitors’ centre be established, let alone its specific
requirements and impacts?
PRELIMINARY SUMMARY
The study looks like a
schematic theoretical analysis of general observations finalised with a numbers
game seeking to scientifically and rationally ‘prove’ a considered outcome from
a report that treats matters superficially. World Heritage must be the core
reference for everything on Springbrook. In-depth factual analyses must also be
undertaken on all aspects of this study rather than having conclusions
developed from some diagrammatic scattering of arrows and lines, some remarks
on precincts, and a few comments on parking areas and sewer connection
distances.
The study needs to be based
on the real experience and thorough research, and a detailed understanding of
the facts of the place, not mere observational assumptions, theories, previous
reports and maybes. Past errors should be corrected, not confirmed and
continued. They need to be challenged, just as existing issues need to be
properly exposed, not politely ignored. There are some pretty, pretty good
images in the study but nothing that shows an intimate sensitivity to place and
an understanding of its genus loci. This surely must become the core reference
for any outcome at Springbrook. A visitor centre, if there is to be one, must
become an integral part of the qualities of place if it is to be more than an
entertainment centre or a political solution.
The study is silent on
obvious matters like existing signage, and says nothing of the historical
memories, like the iconic ‘Craft Corner’ map shelter structure that was a
traditional landmark for Springbrook that was readable – but it was demolished.
History needs to be understood and enriched if the future is not going to
repeat past errors or erase quality outcomes irrationally.
Neither does the study talk
much about character and its demands: how the character of Springbrook is
eclectic, changeable – randomly adjusting to the specific location, its
geology, flora, fauna and its past.
The study energises itself
around the grids of numbers at its conclusion, but it is vague on the real
numbers of visitors, cars, absorption rates, water pollution, native
vegetation, native flora, etc. – all impacts that need intimate review and
resolution prior to the making of any decision. Indeed, all frameworks for this
report that have been assumed need to be carefully reassessed in order to do
away with subtle assumptions and simple preconceptions that can mislead
It is a ‘visual’ study that
seems to concentrate on broad assessments of place and data by observation
rather than the use of any qualitative research, critical analysis and in-depth
review.
It is suggested that it
would be dangerous to make decisions on this document without a commitment to
much more detailed and factual research. That the Wunburra site might have
‘won’ when the comment on its exposure to fire is left hanging, seemingly
forgotten as an aside, seems to suggest a looseness in this study – a
diagrammatic lightness of interest in real impacts and rigorous outcomes.
Springbrook cannot be
developed in such an ad hoc and hopeful manner. It needs an intimate and
comprehensive understanding of all issues in all detail prior to the making of
any decision, or else it will always be less than it needs to be. World
Heritage places an obligation on everyone to act responsibly with these places,
with care and caution. Development is not really a popularity contest, a
feel-good outcome, a business decision, or a mathematical calculation. It must
knowingly enrich place and its circumstance in every way.
P.S.
Even so shortly after completing this broad review, other questions arise:
What is the current status of the LAP?
An area of car park has been mentioned. What numbers have been assumed?
On what basis? How many visitors do these figures presuppose? On what frequency?
Sewer connections are spoken about when Springbrook is not sewered.
The comment on Springbrook souvenirs shows a lack of understanding of history. It has more to do with the quirks of present circumstances than anything else.
28th April 2014
On a visitors' centre for Springbrook, see: http://springbrooklocale.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/tourist-attractions.html
The argument is that such a centre will be best located well away from Springbrook.
