Counselling the Council…
To the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors,
to protect and restore foreshore and waterway resources where they have significance at all levels in the open space hierarchy
to protect foreshore and waterways which contribute to ecosystem protection, stability and enhancement
to ensure compliance with state, national and international conservation agreements and covenants
to provide opportunities for residents and visitors to appreciate the foreshore and waterway assets
to contribute to scenic and amenity qualities
to provide opportunities for educational and scientific study and research
to provide resources for a wide array of recreational activities including swimming, fishing, sailing, boating, rowing, sunbathing, picnicking/ socialising, walking, nature study, photography and sightseeing
to provide linkages between open spaces areas, and to surrounding residential land and other community services
to provide opportunities for a range of economic benefits to be achieved through the commercial use of the resources for tourism, boating, shipping and fishing
to support other open space categories, which are able to collocate with, waterway and lake open space (e.g. Linear and Linkage, Conservation and Heritage, Landscape and Amenity, and Utilities and Services open spaces).
ROS 1.5 Ensure residential areas, open spaces and other community destinations are well connected with a network of high quality walking and cycling routes
The foreshore of Spring Bay is within the Open Space Zone. On the eastern side of Spring Bay and to either side of the site, the foreshore is not known to be used and there is no provision of paths for access. On the western side access to, and use of, the foreshore is more common given the nearby residential use, although the level of infrastructure is minimal. A foreshore walkway is required as part of the Solis development.
Beyond Spring Bay the Open Space Zone is applied to foreshore areas where public use is common and where it is supported by paths, play equipment, seating, signage & other infrastructure. The use of the Open Space Zone on the east side of Spring Bay subject to the rezoning appears to be by exception. Undeveloped foreshore areas in other areas of the planning scheme are within the Environmental Management Zone. This is important in the context of aquaculture having a discretionary approval process pathway within the Environmental Management Zone.
The Triabunna / Orford Structure Plan highlighted improvements to trails but not in the vicinity of the land affected by this request.
The current Light Industrial Zone provides a break in the foreshore and any potential trail development along Spring Bay. It is considered that the request will have negligible effect on the current situation…”
I suggest the fact that the foreshore is ‘not known to be used and there is no provision of paths for access.’ is an astonishing view.
I suggest that on a strong seabreeze summer’s day, any or all of the councillors and Mayor might like to acquaint themselves with the beach and with the shoreline. It is not unusual to see a boat anchored at the area in question with a dive pennant displayed. It is also not unusual to see fishing dinghies fishing the calmer waters in front of the beach.
The same happens in Okehampton Bay on nor’easter days. It is well known that kayakers, swimmers, picnickers, boaters and fishermen use both locations.
There are any number of small coves, beaches and bays in Spring Bay, Prosser Bay and lining the Mercury Passage for which there is no shore access and yet the vast numbers of boat owners on the east coast make regular use of these areas for ‘swimming, fishing, sailing, boating, rowing, sunbathing, picnicking/socialising, walking etc.’. Council appears to have forgotten that there are few anchorages out of an easterly or seabreeze and that a vast number of boat owners use all the bays and waterways in question.
Thank you Prue, for spending so much time putting that together. I just get so angry every time I sit down to write a reasoned position on the issue.
The additional issue that intrigues me is why Council is seemingly so dismissive of Graeme Wood’s proposal, where real significant money has already been spent on the redevelopment of the Mill site in a manner completely consistent with the ongoing development of the East Coast as an environmental haven for Australia and the word.
Steve, I think we are all aghast at the lack of transparency and the way democracy has been ignored. ‘The will of the people’ means nothing to government at all levels. This of course is not unique to Tassie. It’s happened across the world and people are realising too late. We have their experiences to call on and as I say, it’s so easy to google the issues. I am astounded at our State (and federal) government’s ignorance. As for Council – nothing they do surprises me.
Well done Prue! Another outstanding piece of writing stating very clearly all the wrong things that the GSBC and Tassal are doing to upset many Tasmanias. When will they listen to our plea and understand just how important it is to not make another environmental mistake!!!!!
They won’t listen – there is an end game in all of this. Else why would Tassal be wanting to build such huge infrastructure. The end game is Mercury Passage and points north. They’ve never been transparent with anything they have done so why would they be so now? They say they have no plans to move further afield but would you ever believe Mark Ryan? I wouldn’t. For example, they’ve bought into the fish meal plant and they’ve bought a desalination barge, so worst case scenario is that they can still service the pens and the fish without any worries.
The only shining light in all of this, is that by 2050, according to official science on sea-rise, all their shore-based infrastructure will be underwater… and there are maps to prove it. Can we laugh now? Or then?
Well done Prue and perfectly written.
Thanks so much, Geoff. I need you to take my BP – I’m steaming!
Well Done Prue, great work . The sad fact of the matter is, most of the councillors elected to represent there costal community are not costal people, but people that have come to town during the forestry hay days and now find them selves trapped here. They should pack up and move back inland and allow a costal community to be run by costal people. It’s a real shame they didn’t fight harder for the silent majority as you mentioned. You will also fine that those making the most noise to support lease 236 are those that have lost the most after guns left town or have the most to gain by destroying our back yard.
Please keep up the fight, we need everyone on board for this and you are making a positive difference.
As mentioned, I think it’s sad that those in favour of Tassal bastardising the coast are those that are living in the semi-industrial past with the chip mill. They cannot understand that the reason forestry failed was 2-fold – Gunns own inadequacies and lack of transparency (and who does that remind us of?) and that global markets for pulp had plummeted. They forget that as in the days of pulp wood when many parts of the world were contributing chips to the pulp market (not just little old Tassie) , so we are just piddling fry in the salmon game and far behind the 8-ball in terms of developments and science, although Tassal would have us all believe otherwise.
I would ask them if they remember what happened to the region when the Alginates over-fished and failed? And whilst they certainly remember the woodchip disaster failing (through oversupply and undermanagement), I ask them – what will they do when the region is ruined with environmental disasters and even tourism has given up. They need to think that far ahead. Short term fixes are just that. Have some vision, Tassal supporters!!!!
Like many others, my family have up to 5 generations history on the coast (with my grandfather helping set up the Orford Progress Association and my grandmother likewise with the CWA). But many of my friends have been in the region since the 1800’s. Their ancestors are those that built the region – set it up for future generations to enjoy. We are told that those who support Tassal are those who built the region but truly, if you look back through a wonderful book called The History of Spring Bay – the district fathers were Salmons, Castles, Raspins and Cottons, amongst others. They are families that are still in the region and have vested interests in the socio-economic outcomes within the region.
I’m so proud of people like yourself who are unafraid to speak out and have no fear, I will keep blogging as often as time allows me. In addition, I’m positive that Marine Protection Tasmania and some of the incredibly few supportive politicians aren’t going anywhere anytime soon, as well.
Thank you for taking the significant time to write your blog. Interestingly it appears much of what you have spoken of is what I said at the last Council meeting after hours of research. Unfortunately what I said was to no avail in respect to the majority decision of Council.
I too will be very disappointed if the area in question is rezoned.
Thank you, Debbie for voting the way you did.
You have the honesty that we as ratepayers wish to see on Council. This is so much wider than a few short-term jobs. The ramifications are so widespread and the east coast will be ruined. Brand Tasmania will be weakened and all the work put in by niche industries building not just tourist experiences, but excellent quality Tasmanian produce will be destroyed.
The lack of vision on Council, the backward steps to the old pseudo-industrial days comes as no surprise. It’s no wonder the majority of the southeast rate-paying base has no confidence in council.