It took four weeks to get a meeting after three e-mails and a couple of telephone calls, but it did happen. No doubt settling into the challenge of being the Councillor for Division 9 keeps one busy. We met with Councillor Tozer on Tuesday 12th June 2012 at 9:00am. As recorded in our meeting notes below, the Association believes that 'consultation should be
transparent, shared and assessed on informed merit, not political convenience.' With this in mind, the agenda / briefing note prepared for this meeting is published here, along with notes of the meeting compiled shortly after the consultation, and the related E-mail communicatio that was forwarded the next day.
AGENDA / BRIEFING NOTE
COUNCILLOR
TOZER,
In
our e-mail of 11th May 2012, we listed the following schedule of
items (in bold) relating to Springbrook, that required discussion. This
communication seeks to elaborate a little on these items in order to establish
something like an agenda for our meeting on Tuesday at 9:00am, and a briefing
note, for your information. The commentary is in italics. There are many items
that interlink and overlay each other. The first list sought to identify the
scope of concern. Additional dot points expand this list with related issues,
for the record. The schedule does not illustrate a hierarchy of significance or
relevance. The common thread is that matters always connect with the World
Heritage listing that has to remain the core reference for assessing futures on
Springbrook.
Matters
that are of importance include:
- the significance of
World Heritage listing for the region - (the primary
reference
for most issues at Springbrook);
The
World Heritage (WH) listing of Springbrook should be the core item in
everything to do with the region. Other countries treasure their WH
listings and work hard to maintain their essence. As we have seen with the
Barrier Reef, WH listings carry obligations as well as benefits.
Springbrook is listed because of its unique biodiversity. This is an
important matter as it covers such a broad spectrum of interests and
impacts and must never be neglected.
·
GCCC
Conservation Reserves management
·
Feral
animal control
·
Domestic
animal regulation
- the Springbrook Local
Area Plan;
The
LAP needs to reflect the WH listing and respond to its implications
rigorously.
·
GCCC
public consultation
·
Fudge
Shop/Shopping Centre
·
"Naturelink"
Cableway terminus site GCCC
- the Gold Coast City
Council Tourism Visioning Plan for Springbrook –
(the
Spork project is a part of this strategy);
The
Association has its submission on the Visioning Plan on-line: see springbrooklocale.blogspot.com
for all of the details. The Spork property development has been an
extremely contentious matter as it has used unreliable data for its
rationale and support. There really is no logic in having a new
toilet/picnic/bus/car parking area opposite one that is so underused,
located on a strip remote from most of the walks and park areas on the
mountain.
·
GCCC
Visitor Management Plan
·
Springbrook
Information Centre GCCC
·
Purlingbrook
land: "Texas" bequest to GCCC
·
Foreshadowed
Cableway project
- the modification of
Lyrebird Ridge Road - (including the current
management
plan and the roadside management for Lyrebird Ridge Road);
Lyrebird
Ridge Road is one of the few remaining unique ‘character’ roads on the
mountain. Main Roads and Council are slowly but surely ‘upgrading’ the
roads at and to Springbrook to make them all the same as any other road in
the world. Lyrebird Ridge Road should be managed differently and
carefully. See the article in springbrooklocale.blogspot.com
– A Road is not a Road.
·
Repeater
Station Road: management
·
Springbrook
Road: management
·
60-passenger
coach traffic
- the development of the
Spork property;
See
comments above. This development needs to be stopped and options reviewed.
·
Apple
Tree Park - GCCC development
·
Spork
GCCC project -associated roadwork
- the proposal for
signage at Springbrook;
Springbrook
already has far too many signs. There needs to be a considered strategy to
start rationalising the signage on the mountain so that the character of
the WH place is not turned into an even worse circus of information.
·
Springbrook
War Memorial GCCC
·
Springbrook
"Street Art" GCCC
- roadkill statistics on
Springbrook - (large vehicle/bus access and
general
speed limits);
The
roadkill statistics that are recorded are alarming, and these only
represent a portion of the kill. The primary factor in roadkill is speed,
followed by a lack of interest and care. Speed levels throughout
Springbrook need to be lowered, and varied in relation to the specific
risk/locale. There also needs to be an awareness programme to stimulate
interest and understanding in our native animals – especially in relation
to WH matters.
- the carrying capacity
of Springbrook - (protection of World Heritage
values);
There
is a direct relationship between population and environmental impact. A
careful study is needed in order to determine what the carrying capacity
of Springbrook is before its WH characteristics (and water supply) are
compromised, and action taken appropriately.
- Springbrook as the
primary source of the Gold Coast water supply;
It
is forgotten that Springbrook is a major part of the water catchment area
for the Gold Coast, even though the formally declared water catchment area
excludes Springbrook. All matters concerning Springbrook need to recognise
this, given the importance that adequate quality water supply is gaining
in our world. In parallel with this is the issue of water extraction. This
needs careful review as very little is known about the impact of this
business. In other countries, such extraction processes have seen streams
and rivers dry up for the first time in recorded history. There is local
evidence that creek flows are being changed. The original approval
required the extraction company to undertake research. This has never been
done, but it should be.
- the
social and environmental significance and history of The Settlement;
The Settlement is the site of the first settlement
at Springbrook. It was developed as a tourist park but failed. A golf course
proposal was formulated and challenged in court, but later ‘fell over.’ The
Settlement was purchased by the government and made National Park. It was an
important buyback as it links significant portions of the existing National
Park, helping to establish a more cohesive whole out of this very fragmented
area. Arguments for any re-instatement of ‘community/public’ sports facility of
portion of this land have no historical basis. It has never been so. The
integrity of the National Park should be maintained.
NOTE:
The references to springbrooklocale.blogspot.com
relates to the Association’s blog. The Association published a newsletter for
many years as the Springbrook Local. The blog is an electronic version of this
and is being added to continually. The easiest way to access this is to click
the link or to ‘google’ springbrooklocale
Old copies of the Local are being scanned onto this site to give public
access to this archive.
Spence
Jamieson
SPRINGBROOK/WUNBURRA
PROGRESS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED
(SWPAI)
9
JUNE 2012
ADDITIONAL
DETAILS ON THE HISTORY OF THE SETTLEMENT / PROPOSED GOLF COURSE / NEW NATIONAL
PARK: FOR GENERAL INFORMATION
The
first E-mail emphasised the importance of knowing the history of Springbrook.
The following synopsis outlines the sequence of events around the proposed golf
course development that was planned for The Settlement property. This was a
critical event for the mountain, but is only one small portion of the whole
story that needs to be understood in context if the WH region of Springbrook is
going to be properly and effectively managed.
- Originally a dairy
farm/rural property – sold to developer 1978;
- ‘Historical Village’
tourist development;
- Cricket pitch developed
as added attraction to historical village complex - very few matches were
ever played;
- Village failed as
attraction and buildings deteriorated;
- Property sold to
developer 1989 - there was no community objection to this sale or to the
loss of the cricket pitch: it was clearly known and accepted that this
site was never public property;
- Developer applied for
18-hole golf course - Albert Shire approved golf course;
- SWPAI challenged
approval in the Environment Court 1989 - 90 - appeal lost, the developer
failed financially and left country;
- SWPAI convinced State
Government to purchase property to add to National Park area;
- Some locals and
government bureaucrats attempted to have property designated a ‘Recreation
Facility’ under Regional Open Space - after a 5-year delay, the property
was gazetted as National Park;
- Government conceded
oval area to be used for public recreation – this is rarely used.
It
was publicly revealed after Albert Shire Council (now GCCC) approval, that in
addition to 18-hole golf course, practice fairways, restaurant, shops,
clubhouse, swimming pool facility, and night driving ranges, it was the
developer’s intention to apply for further approvals for 640 condominiums, an
international hotel complex, a health resort, and heliport. The developer
denied that this was planned prior to approval being granted.
Springbrook has a history of inappropriate
developments being proposed, and frequently approved, in spite of objections
and their quality. There are many of these approvals that have never been acted
upon. They are often seen as a way of adding value to a property or to prop up
a failing business that is then put up for sale - as a way of getting out of
Springbrook - even though the argument for development is always based on ‘the
good of Springbrook,’ ‘what Springbrook needs,’ when it is frequently what the
seller/developer needs to make money. It is for this reason that all
developments require careful review and rigorous assessment. WH values must
remain the primary reference for everything on Springbrook.
NOTES
OF MEETING AT MUDGEERABA OFFICE, TUESDAY 12TH JUNE 2012
Cr.
Tozer,
Thanks
for the chance to meet with you this morning. It was a welcome change for both
of us.
We
have attached an electronic copy of the document handed to you, for your
convenience. This expands the list of items originally scheduled in our first
communication to become somewhat like a checklist.
Today’s
meeting was a time to get to know each other, as well as an occasion to raise
some general matters of concern, and to get an understanding of your proposals
and strategies for managing this important part of Queensland.
You
sought to find out from us what our vision for Springbrook might be.
We
noted that in order to give a specific, comprehensive response to this matter,
an informed understanding of all of the issues in general and in detail is
required. We explained that our emphasis would always be the World Heritage
(WH) listing of Springbrook and its implications. We noted that it was critical
to know that this WH listing is for the preservation of the unique biodiversity
of the region, not for any picturesque reason that might appear attractive to
tourists. This needs to be understood beyond the naming of it, as it has deep
and meaningful repercussions. ‘World Heritage values’ very easily becomes a
pointless, cliché phrase like ‘eco-whatever’ because of its careless over-use.
An awareness of its quality and depth has to become part of one’s sensibilities
if its’ true value is to be appreciated and its integrity preserved. We noted
that this awareness should be passed on to visitors/tourists.
In
much the same manner, that special quality of Springbrook has to be felt if it
is to be maintained. An aesthetic/emotional quality is involved here along with
a determined commitment - one that can see, for example, how completely
inappropriate the new concrete stairs and pavement at the Best of All parking
lot are – (let alone the process by which these were achieved). One could cite
many more examples. This matter is not really a difference of opinion that has
to be endured. This perception - that these matters are merely personal whims -
only perpetuates the disagreements.
Working
with WH as a core reference/guide does mean that certain activities and
developments should never occur on Springbrook. It does also mean that the
impact of population and visitation numbers needs to be understood, and that
these may have to be limited in order to maintain the WH listing.
We
quickly went through the numbered items on our agenda/briefing paper and
itemised our response to each matter as a broad guide to indicate to you how we
might approach matters at Springbrook.
For
the record these responses are scheduled here:
- the significance of World Heritage
listing for the region - (the primary
reference for most
issues at Springbrook);
This must be the core
reference for all decisions on Springbrook.
- the Springbrook Local Area Plan;
A new LAP needs to be
formulated to replace the existing one that has been assembled from the
old ASC Development Control Plan and modified repeatedly without any
public consultation. The basis must be the maintenance of the integrity of
the WH values.
- the Gold Coast City Council Tourism
Visioning Plan for Springbrook –
(the Spork project
is a part of this strategy);
The Association’s submission is on-line.
Tourism is not the reason for WH listing.
- the modification of Lyrebird Ridge
Road - (including the current
management plan and
the roadside management for Lyrebird Ridge Road);
All roads at
Springbrook need to be carefully maintained to relate to their unique
context rather than being upgraded to ‘world-class’ or GCCC suburban
standards.
- the development of the Spork
property;
This proposal needs
to be scrapped as there is an existing under-used facility opposite. The Association
agrees with you that as a general principle, tourist ‘attractions’ should
provide adequate facilities for their visitors.
- the proposal for signage at
Springbrook;
There is too much
ill-considered signage on Springbrook, with approximately 100 signs just
between Wunburra and the Fudge Shop. Signage needs careful culling and
should reflect WH qualities. The WH listing of Springbrook needs to be
accurately explained and subtly emphasised.
- roadkill statistics on Springbrook -
(large vehicle/bus access and
general speed
limits);
Speed limits need to be
reduced generally and specifically for various contexts. The principle should
be that vehicle speeds should be modified instead of allowing for any typical
standard limits to apply. Springbrook is not ‘elsewhere.’ Neither GCCC, nor
DMR, nor NP keep statistics on roadkill. SWPAI submitted records from Wildcare
to the State Government last year indicating that in excess of 400 fauna
deaths/injuries occurred on Springbrook in the previous 14 months. These were
only the incidents voluntarily reported to Wildcare. Most kills/injuries go
unreported.
- the carrying capacity of Springbrook
- (protection of World Heritage
values);
Making decisions without
knowing the impacts of population/visitation numbers can only give uninformed
outcomes, like those that neglect WH values.
- Springbrook as the primary source of
the Gold Coast water supply;
The rigorous
restrictions that apply to developments in water catchment areas should
logically be applied to Springbrook. Springbrook plays a major role in the
catchment of Gold Coast City water with all runoff entering either Hinze Dam or
Little Nerang Dam.
- the social and environmental
significance and history of The Settlement;
The general history of
matters on Springbrook is critical to any real understanding of attitudes and
opinions.
Honing
in on particular details of ‘solutions’ or ‘visions’ is not useful at this
stage as it distracts from the general thrust of the intent. These can all be
identified and debated once the general principle for a management strategy has
been established.
You
noted that your first thirty days will be dedicated to ‘fact–finding.’ This is
the same position that we hold. Decisions on Springbrook need to be based on
facts: objective facts. There is a diversity of opinion on many matters at
Springbrook. This makes the collecting of ‘visions’ problematical if these are
to become the basis of choice for future outcomes. We acknowledge that there is
no easy answer, because the quality of the facts/research then becomes the
point to be challenged; but this is always more transparent than personal
ambitions are.
As
was noted at the meeting, the danger with ‘opinion’ or ‘personal visions’ is
that a commitment by GCCC to WH values may mean sacrifices that some people may
not be willing to entertain for various reasons. WH values are not negotiable.
Compromise can only put the WH listing at risk. If GCCC has no commitment to,
or statutory provisions to ensure WH protection, then the WH listing becomes something
of a cynical charade used only to attract tourists.
On
your desire for tourists to spend more – up from $6.00 to $12.00 per head – the
history of businesses on the mountain needs to be understood, as the general
history does too. There have been ‘quality’ businesses started at Springbrook,
but the circumstance of the region is that visitations are irregular and
unpredictable. This means that good starts with exciting futures get
progressively watered down - sometimes literally with soup – generating a
souring of the reputation that means even fewer visitations, that then continue
to decline further as the efforts to improve profitability by trimming are
repeated, until the business either closes, gets leased to another punter for a
re-start, or is sold on if a buyer can be found willing to pay the price being
asked. We have no solution to offer for this circumstance. We just wish to note
it. It does appear to mean that Springbrook requires a special type of business
model if a business is to succeed. Paying careful attention to WH values in all
impacts would only seem to offer a significant advantage for any business.
Indeed, this could be said of everything on Springbrook.
It
has been recorded that a ‘lack of public consultation’ was one of the matters
that prompted your decision to stand for office. It is refreshing to have some
consultation after being starved of it for so long. Consultation should be
transparent, shared and assessed on informed merit, not political convenience.
We
look forward to maintaining contact with you so that discussions can continue
in the hope that outcomes for WH Springbrook can be improved.
Spence
Jamieson
Ken
O’Shea
12
June 2012
POSTSCRIPT E-MAIL
On item 7 - Roadkill at Springbrook, Councillor Tozer expressed doubt aobut the possibility of being able to set a 20kph speed limit - a speed that was mentioned as a general example in our discussions. He asked for proof that such a speed limit could be implemented. The following E-mail was sent the day after the meeting.
Cr. Tozer,
Following our discussion on speed limits at Springbrook at our meeting
yesterday, you asked me to indicate to you where a speed limit of 20kph
was in place.
Rather than drive around searching one out, I have looked up the
Internet. The paragraph below has been taken from an ARRB Transport
Research report on road speed limits.
I think it makes my point very clear.
It really comes down to having a concern for wildlife and the political
will to act.
Spence Jamieson
Speed zones are speed limits based on engineering assessments of road,
traffic and land-use characteristics. They are established for
particular lengths of road, particular defined areas and/or for
particular times of day for which the prevailing general limit is not
appropriate. Speed zones of 10km/h, 20km/h, 30km/h, 40km/h, 50km/h,
60km/h, 70km/h, 80km/h, 90km/h, 100km/h, 110km/h are in use in Australia.
Research Report. ARR 298. Higher open road speed limit: an objective
assessment. Deborah Donald. Peter Cairney. ARRB Transport. Research
Ltd., p.4.
.
View photos from OUR PLACE the World Heritage collection
Australia
If you have been to Gondwana Rainforests of Australia recently, please give us feedback through our partner TripAdvisor 
