Jane MacDonald - Save Ralphs Bay

More documents

Recommendations

Info

I believe there is a price to be paid in future for the frequently unpleasant atmosphere of the Hearings, in the intimidating setting of the Federal Court. At least one individual who presented valuable evidence in the Hearings remains adamant this is not an experience ever to be repeated. Some individuals who chose not to present evidence at the Hearings are now more convinced than ever that this is a course of action to be avoided. This does not bode well for the future of public participation in assessments of major planning decisions, and yet this case is also a clear demonstration of the importance of public participation in bringing to light important evidence germane to such decision making. It is my sincerely held belief that the RPDC/TPC’s clear preference for Hearings to be informal, inquisitorial and as constructive as possible should be vigorously upheld in future, to encourage and support public participation. The DIAR has made it clear that members of the community are not alone in rejecting the Walker Corporation’s destructive proposal, and it will be interesting to see whether that Corporation’s employees are about thank the TPC courteously for its thorough assessment of the proposal, and accept the decision of the “independent umpire”. 2. Overall comments on the DIAR I believe the DIAR to be generally comprehensive, thorough and rigorous in its reporting and assessment of the matters raised in submissions and in the Hearings. The final IAR will be a landmark document, of benefit in future decision making and study, and it is to be anticipated that some alterations will be made to the draft report in order to make the final IAR the very best document it can be. 3. Comments on the draft recommendations 3.1 Considerations which overwhelmingly outweigh any economic benefits 3.1.1 Sustainability of the development (Section 2.7.4 of the draft Report) I fully support the Panel’s conclusion that, “the Lauderdale Quay proposal cannot be characterised as ‘sustainable development’” and that it does not satisfy the first two objectives of the State’s Resource Management or the second principle of the Tasmanian State Coastal Policy 1996: ‘the coast shall be used and developed in a sustainable manner’. I support the Panel’s view that, “the construction of a residential estate on the tidal flats of Ralphs Bay is an inherently unsustainable approach to satisfying demand for residential land”, and that, “The existence of demand for waterfront properties with or without berthing facilities is not seen as sufficient justification for engaging in an unsustainable practice such as that proposed.” I thank the Panel for adhering to the definition of the Precautionary Principle as stated in the State Coastal Policy, rather the definition advocated by Mr. Gunson on July 17 th . Jane MacDonald, submission on DIAR Page 2
3.1.2 Strategic planning generally (Section 2.7.1) I fully support the Panel’s conclusion that, “the Lauderdale Quay proposal is not wholly consistent with the objectives of the Resource Management and Planning System.” The proposal is certainly inconsistent with objective (a) of the RMPS, “… the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity”. Increasingly, climate change and sea level rise threats to Australia’s coasts are being understood to be significant threats to ecological processes and genetic diversity. For instance, it is pleasing to see in the Draft NSW Coastal Planning Guideline: Adapting to sea level rise (2009; currently open for comment), the following: “PRINCIPLE 5 – Minimise the exposure to coastal risks from proposed development in coastal areas 7. Coastal ecosystems are protected from development impacts” An ecosystem protection approach maintains ecological processes, biodiversity and genetic diversity, even where the natural values are not yet fully described or understood. It was pleasing to see the Panel’s support for representors who objected to the unfairness of using valued public land for private development, as this has been a considerable cause of angst in the community. I suggest a correction needs to be made on page 145, where it is stated, “Regarding the oft‐cited fact that canal developments are banned in other States, the Panel notes that no such ban exists in Tasmania and concludes that such bans are not directly relevant to this proposal which must be assessed on its own merits.” The municipality of Kingborough banned canal estates in 2000 as mentioned on pages 2 and 10 of Part B of the Save Ralphs Bay Inc. submission on the DIIS. ““Kingborough Planning Scheme 2000 5.2.1.8 Canal Estates: Canal estates are not permitted.” It was for this reason that Save Ralphs Bay Inc. lodged a Draft Planning Directive with the RPDC in 2006, to ban canal estate development in Tasmania, consistent with the Kingborough ban. The draft planning directive raised the need for a consistent approach to assessing canal estate development in Tasmania. 3.1.3 Urban form (section 2.7.5) I fully support the Panel’s findings that, “the proposed development would be a major and unacceptable intervention into Ralphs Bay. It would be an intervention which would only be acceptable if warranted by overwhelming and clearly demonstrated benefits arising from the proposed project: the Panels’ finding is that the project would not produce such benefits.” Jane MacDonald, submission on DIAR Page 3
Page 1: Jane MacDonald November 22 2009 Sub
Page 5 and 6: a significant impact on the species
Page 7 and 8: I believe that the visual impact of
Page 9 and 10: I fully concur with the Panel’s c
Page 11 and 12: Table 4.19 Statistical review of me
Page 13 and 14: “development” might travel to t
Page 15 and 16: Australia have been weather related
Page 17: Based on the evidence presented, I

Jane MacDonald - Save Ralphs Bay

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?