Jane MacDonald - Save Ralphs Bay

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The proposal cannot be amended in any way to produce an urban design compatible with the Ralphs Bay location. I request that submission 464 be added to the list on page 164, as SRB also noted these matters, on page 19 of Part B of our submission on the DIIS (section 2.6.8). A ‘not’ appears to be missing in the second last line before the heading, “Summary of issuers addressed at the hearings” on page 164 of the DIAR. I endorse the Panel’s findings on pages 166‐169 of the DIAR concerning connectivity, distances in the development discouraging the use of public transport, the unacceptability of the 9m discretionary building height limitation, the incompatibility of the commercial buildings with the character of Lauderdale and the likely physical and social isolation of the proposed subdivision. 3.1.4 Avian ecology (section 2.2.2) 3.1.4.1 Red‐necked Stint I fully support the Panel’s conclusion that, “the importance of Lauderdale to at least the conservation status of the DEPA with respect to the Red‐necked Stint, and potentially as a drought refuge for that and other migratory shorebird species is by itself a sufficient reason for rejection of the proposed development.” It is a great relief to see the Panel’s support for the continued survival of Red‐necked Stints and other migratory shorebirds, especially considering the significant threat posed to these birds by habitat loss such as that caused by huge ‘reclamation’ projects in the Yellow Sea. It was pleasing to see that the Panel considered, “To suggest that the removal of such a large area of important shorebird habitat would not have a significant impact on the DEPA population is not, the Panel considers, an acceptable argument, particularly in view of the effect loss of incremental habitat has had on migratory shorebirds in the past.” It was also pleasing to see that, “it was not considered appropriate to cite anticipated future impacts on wader populations at Lauderdale or the wider DEPA to downgrade the potential impact of the development. The impact on migratory wader species globally, increased the importance of migration end points such as Lauderdale.” the Panel’s remarks are a marked contrast to the statements made on behalf of the Walker Corporation on November 17, including that, “it is difficult to conceive that the loss of 1% of a population of 325 000 (Red‐necked Stints) would constitute Jane MacDonald, submission on DIAR Page 4
a significant impact on the species as a whole”, and, “even if 400 (Red‐necked Stints) died, this still would not constitute an impact on the species as a whole.” The implication was clearly that such deaths were fully justified in order that the Walker Corporation could turn a profit from its intended habitat destruction. 3.1.4.2 Pied Oystercatcher I fully support the Panel’s conclusion in respect of the Pied Oystercatcher that, “there is a significant risk that at least a large part of the Lauderdale population of the species would be lost as a result of the proposed development. When combined with the international significance to the species of the site which would be lost as a result of the proposed development, the Panel considers this is to be an unacceptable result.” It is also pleasing to see the Panel’s confirmation, in its “assessment and findings” commencing on page 74, that, “the site of the proposed development at Lauderdale is nationally and internationally significant for the species.” It was reassuring to read on page 76 that, “The Panel does not, however, accept that if the species as a whole is not significantly affected, that necessarily means the environmental impact of the development in this respect is acceptable.” On page 70, three lines above “Feeding”, the reference to, “occasional long flats” may be an error, with “flights” as the intended term. On page 63, there is a reference to Representor 491. The identity of this representor appears to have been omitted from both Appendix 2 and Appendix 4. It appears that the fourth dot point on page 63 should perhaps begin with the word, “since”. References on page 74 (14 th line from bottom of page) and page 75 (10 th line from bottom) to the Pied Oystercatcher being (or not being) an “adaptive” species may need correcting to read, “adaptable.” The reference 5 lines from the bottom of page 74 to the “abductor” muscles of shellfish should probably be to, “adductor” muscles. 3.2 Additional matters militating against approval 3.2.1 Visual impact (Section 2.7.6) I fully agree that, “the visual impact of the development (in particular in its reclamation stage and to a lesser extent thereafter) would be significantly detrimental” and … “a negative factor in the overall assessment”. However, I do not agree that this factor is, “not sufficient on its own to justify rejection of the proposal”, since the visual impact has been the subject of such strong negative reactions over many years since the canal estate proposal was first put forward. I note that there is Jane MacDonald, submission on DIAR Page 5
Page 1 and 2: Jane MacDonald November 22 2009 Sub
Page 3: 3.1.2 Strategic planning generally
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?