![]() |
Ron Clarke's (Gold Coast Mayor) PerspectiveAlthough we are seeing a progress in town planning towards a preference for developments which satisfy economic, environmental and social considerations, as it stands now I don't believe the legislative acts fully cover these issues at a local or a state level. Case in point, the proposed cruise ship terminal. There is a strong case for massive economic growth for the City should the terminal go ahead. The opportunities will be very diverse and any line of reasoning the state government makes for a proposed terminal based on economics alone, will be difficult to argue. The question here is: is the economic boost of the cruise terminal worth the costs borne by the environment and the impact on our residents? Let's explore that. Environmentally speaking, the results from the environmental impact statement will bear immense weight on the public perception of the proposed terminal. This report alone will no doubt be the most scrutinized report by all residents, for or against the proposed terminal. In fact, it is imperative that this report is heavily scrutinized. The Broadwater, the Spit and South Stradbroke Island are clearly of great value to the City and destroying these natural assets is simply out of the question. We can only hope that the EIS will comprehensively explore all the relevant issues. From a social perspective, I have serious concerns that the state government is not completely taking into account the desired outcomes expressed by the residents of Gold Coast City. Lack of community consultation serves only to breed distrust between the government and the people. If the state government doesn't pause to consider the public view, then it will cost them seats at the next election and set the scene for ongoing social unrest. Naturally, this is not a desired outcome for anyone. Finding the delicate balance between promoting economy, protecting the environment and building better communities is difficult at the best of times, not least for Council when local government is being left out of the planning process for a major development in their own area. So where to now? Let's give it due consideration when we have all the facts.
Answers to SOSA's questions regarding Broadwater Plans promoted in local papers[NOTE SOSA's questions are in a darker colour] 29 October 2010 Dear Mr Gration The Broadwater Thank-you for taking the time to contact my office. Reference is made to your email dated Saturday 16 October 2010 posing a series of questions from the Save Our Spit Alliance regarding a recent newspaper article. I welcome the interest from the Save Our Spit Alliance at this early stage in a potential master planning process for the Broadwater and offer my responses to your queries as follows: 1. GCCC has already committed $700,000 of rate payer's funds toward a study and to develop the Broadwater along the lines of the development plans proposed by Rob Mundle. Is this correct and if so, by what process and under which provisos were these funds committed or pledged? Council at its meeting 17 September 2010 resolved to: "An allocation of $700,000, representing 50% of the estimated costs to undertake the development of a Master Plan for the Broadwater Waterway Precinct, with the expenditure of funds being subject to the confirmation of an equivalent State Government contribution." 2. GCCC has "endorsed" the Development; Is this statement correct and if so, when and by what method was this approval given? Council has not endorsed any development. The Mundle Vision has provided the catalyst to re-engage with the Queensland Government and the community on what is clearly a necessary planning initiative for the Gold Coast. Now is an appropriate time to undertake these discussions following the Queensland Government's Gold Coast Marine Development Project at the Spit which I am sure you would appreciate have been a long and challenging process for all involved. 3. You have personally committed to seek an additional $700,000 from the State Government; Is this correct? Council has sought project governance assistance including funding to develop a sustainable Broadwater master plan. 4. You are quote, a "big fan" of the proposal, are "right behind it" and wish to see the development progressed to "the point of no return" before 2012. Is this correct and what are your reasons for this position? I support the Mundle Vision from the perspective of advocating the need for a clear plan for the Broadwater that addresses both the waterway and adjoining land areas. Only when there is clear vision and plan for the Broadwater, that is universally accepted by a majority of the community, can ad-hoc initiatives/development be avoided in and adjacent to the Broadwater. I would like to see an agreed and practical plan in place before 2012. It will take the resources and funding support of the Queensland Government and the strong engagement of the community to be achieved. I have requested that the Queensland Government at least match Council's commitment to support the preparation of a sustainable Broadwater master plan. The plan must represent what is socially acceptable, environmentally responsible and economically feasible. Endorsement from both Council and the Queensland Government will be sought as history demonstrates the need for consensus and agreed priorities for implementation 5. If correctly reported your support for Mundle is in direct contradiction of current GCCC Policy and Resolution G03.0808.010, Gold Coast Harbour Study Report 22, Amendments (moved Cr Rickard, seconded Cr Crichlow) in the minutes of Council Meeting 288 on 8 August 2003, which includes the policy statement: ‘q) Wave Break Island be maintained and enhanced as resources are available with commercial development precluded...' Is it appropriate for a GCCC Mayor to advocate a project which is in contravention of current GCCC Policy? As suggested by SOSA above, a review of previous decisions, work and reports as part of the master planning process is required. This information needs to be balanced with community expectations, which maybe different from that of the past, with the range of issues and demands likely to have grown more complex and difficult to manage. 6. Are you aware that Mundle's proposals subvert the appropriate mechanisms and processes set out by the Queensland State Government with its recent call for tenders for the commercial use of two parcels of fore-shore land on the west-side of the Spit between the southern Seaworld car-park and the Versace Hotel; and land south of Mariner's Cove to the Southport Yacht Club? My views and support of a process to provide a master plan for the Broadwater are provided in questions 2 and 4. 7. It was agreed by all current Spit and Broadwater stake-holders that the two areas mentioned above would be set aside by the State Government for commercial development following the State Government's announcement on 19th August 2006 that ‘the cruise terminal component' of the (Notional) Gold Coast Marine Development project had been dropped and would ‘not be re-visited.' What are your thoughts on the potential undermining of this decision by Mundle's proposal? My views and support of a process to provide a master plan for the Broadwater are provided in questions 2 and 4. 8. Have you read the independent Environmental Impact Study (EIS) commissioned by the State Government regarding the (Notional) Gold Coast Marine Development Project which concludes that on Environmental and Economic grounds a cruise ship terminal and related infrastructure on The Spit and Broadwater should not be pursued? I am aware of the EIS undertaken for the (Notional) Gold Coast Marine Development Project and its outcomes. I trust the above provides my position on this matter. There is no doubt in my mind that SOSA will be passionate and engaged if a master planning process is to be undertaken. What I ask is that SOSA supports Council's view that a sustainable master plan is necessary for the Broadwater and adjoining land areas such that the community can be confident about its future. The Mundle Vision includes elements that may be controversial to some and welcoming ideas to others. It represents ideas generated from one part of the community and with the support of the Gold Coast Bulletin has piqued community interest (including that of SOSA) which is necessary if meaningful consultation is to be achieved during preparation of the master plan. SOSA clearly has much to offer to this process. I look forward to working with SOSA and seeing the ideas generated by your members. Best wishes Ron Clarke MBE MAYOR |
![]() |
home
| sponsors | volunteers | contact us | downloads | links |
Website Donated By www.GoldCoastLogin.com.au SEO Gold Coast web marketing and development |