Candidate's Responses re Inskip Peninsula
"Do you believe that there should be further residential development on the Inskip Peninsula?”"
Greg Wood - NO
A majority of Integrity independents elected to Council would move to develop the planning reports necessary to support a refusal under the Planning Scheme.
It appears though that the State is seeking to annul the Shores 2 lease by swapping it for freehold title over the old mill-site land. This might avoid Shores 2 but at a terrible cost to Rainbow Beach and the whole Shire.
The State is doing this as it is an easier way to avoid the development than via a direct refusal under the State Coastal Management Plan. That Act is the only planning tool that empowers an EPA concurrence refusal if no help is forthcoming from Council.
The current majority of Councillors want Shores 2 to proceed. They should not be returned on that basis, as it is indicative of the litany of decisions they make for purposes in conflict with the public interest.
Along with taking local responsibility for the Shores 2 refusal, I and the other Integrity independents would press the State to have the Mill site transferred to Council rather to the profiteering agendas of a private property developer.
This would allow the development of a consultation-based development plan that can provide an optimal balance of local development outcomes AND inject sorely needed capital into the Rainbow Beach and Shire community service and public works grid.
There is no other way to catch up on some of the huge capital shortfalls the amalgamated Council will be facing.
I will also ensure public involvement in the Inskip Recreational Master Plan. Current Councillors have already secretly moved to deny that.
Ron Owen - NO
If you may remember the weekly petitions and motions that I proposed to Council just to get a meeting for local residents on that subject. You may remember as you were sat a few seats away from me at a 'Meet the Mayor and Councillors' meeting at Rainbow Beach, that I expressed a lot of opposition to the Rainbow shores project. I will never support the proposed Mill site land swap in exchange for a development lease which should never have gone past a concept plan. I suspect that if any development went ahead on Inskip it would be followed, in a similar way to Rainbow Shores 1, with beach closures and Crown /Public land would not be available for the general public. After the Rainbow shores stage one example, no further development should be allowed at Inskip. As you are aware I have opposed the the relaxation of building heights, as I beleive the majority of local residents do not wish to have the imposition of multi level building (four floors instead of three) overlooking there properties. In the same way as a representitive, I believe the majority of the Shires residents do not wish to lose public access to a public area, an area of significant beauty.
Maree Prior - NO
Inskip Peninsula is one of the Shire’s most unique natural assets. A Shire should not support the destruction of its assets. It is one of very few beach camping areas near a surf beach in Queensland. We have taken our kids camping there and the argument is as simple as we would like to be assured our kids will be able to do the same. Camping is a year round sustainable industry (if managed well) and good for affordable family holidays, grey nomads, overseas tourists and thus the town of Rainbow Beach. Preserving Inskip Peninsula is in the public interest and in the case of a severe weather event, infrastructure repair costs would be kept lower.
I have a record of achievement in Coastal Natural Resource Management and am the only current councillor who attended the inaugural Qld Coastal Conference in Sept 07 to become up to date with Coastal Planning & Management issues.
Ian Petersen
I have been actively seeking an alternative siting for Rainbow Shores stage 2. Whilst I believe the current site has some problems, I believe it is vital for the future of Rainow Beach that the development proceeds(perhaps on a different site). Without such development, Rainbow Beach will not have sufficient population to support the community infrastructure (Centre Block etc) that residents desire and deserve.I believe that the Rainbow Shores development has been a high quality one and that organisation should be encouraged to be part of future development.
Wayne Sachs - NO
The new regional council should refuse this under the planning scheme via development of planning reports to support a refusal on this issue.
Residential development should be opposed at Inskip, as not only is it totally unsuitable for this, it should be preserved in its present form for camping and environmental protection. I am not a "greenie" as such, but believe in applying common sense in these sorts of situations.
It would be a pity if the new council did not oppose development of the peninsula - why would you want to wreck something so beautiful? Most people would know the answer to this question, and its all about the tourist dollar!
Chris Devere - NO
Development of the Inskip Peninsula has gone about as far as it should. Some more environmentally friendly toilets would spread the impact so we don’t destroy the area. We don’t need more development like on the Gold and Sunshine coasts.
Karen Berry
Whilst I assume the question refers to the Rainbow Shores 2 project; I will answer as if you are asking about ALL residential development on the Inskip Peninsula.
Firstly, residents must be consulted prior to any major property development in any area of the entire new Gympie region. If residents are against a particular development, a compromise should be sought. If this is not possible, the development should not go ahead. If a compromise can be reached — and the development meets all planning and amenity laws including the protection of flora and fauna, and the general ecology of the area at all stages of construction, as well as equitable infrastructure contributions — then it should be permitted to go ahead to allow for the growth of the region.
Secondly, existing residential development (Rainbow Shores 1) must be allowed to be completed since all permissions have already been granted and cannot therefore be rescinded without massive compensation costs for the Gympie Regional Council viz: the ratepayers.
Thirdly, Rainbow Shores 2 is, I believe, against the wishes of the residents. This is due to the massive influx of people it would cause, the extremely inadequate sewerage infrastructure and the fact it is against the Coastal Management Plan, amongst many other issues. It should not be allowed to go ahead without major changes being made and approval given from residents, Council and the State Government. It is apparent from discussions that no amount of compromise will result in an agreement of this proposal by the residents.
Graham Engeman - NO
Low cost natural camping areas close to the beach (or other natural attractions) are in very short supply and Inskip Point has been a mecca for generations of locals and tourists seeking a low key family orientated venue. Further develoipment will allow fewer people to enjoy this attraction as evidenced by the cost and limited availability at areas such as the Sunshine Coast.
Rae Gate - NO
I do not support further residential development on the Inskip Peninsula.
If the majority of people at Rainbow Beach were in support of further Development then I would bow to their judgement but would want to know very sound reasons for this purpose.
The current use of the area by campers and environmental protection makes good sense. It will be too late to fix this once development begins.
David Hetherington - NO
Definitely no further development
Bruce Cavanough - NO
ie except the area already approved for development. The area must be kept for the people ie camping & the environment.
Rod Klein
My answer to this is a straight forward ‘NO'. I have looked at the background of this question and see no point in rewriting the pages. There is sufficient evidence on the website and previous research to come to this conclusion. This is an area which can do without further residential development, for a variety of reasons
Peter Cantrel - Yes – with Qualification
With the State Government’s recently announced intention to review land uses on Inskip Peninsula it seems that there is a reluctance by the State Government to agree to Rainbow Shores’ application for Stage 2 in its present form. I believe that there is an opportunity for development to be consolidated nearer to Rainbow Beach township by way of a land swap which makes better planning and environmental sense. The bottom line is, in my view, that the final decision regarding what, if any, development is allowed, will be a matter of negotiation between Rainbow Shores and the State Government.
Geoff Walden - Definitely not
- Residential development on such low lying land never did make much sense to me even prior to the focus on climate change that has become much more evident of late. And with the possibility of rising sea levels, who knows what the future holds.
- Economically, I would have thought that the Peninsula was of more value to the community left in something approaching its present state rather than its being developed for an upmarket clientèle. Environmentally, that certainly is the case.
- I think it is important that all Australians have access to all of the beach rather than portions of it being cut off by development.
- Developers need to be encouraged by councils, governments and the community to think creatively about how and where they build. It is easy to position a development right alongside the beach. Why not work a little harder and come up with a plan for something just as exciting but which is in a less conspicuous place.
Ron Dyne - Unable to answer
I have not had the opportunity to be briefed on this important issue. At first glance, I am of the opinion that there should not be additional development of a fragile area. I would need to be briefed and read appropriate documentation on both sides of the argument before I can establish a position. After the election and assuming my election as Mayor, I would seek a meeting of all concerned to discuss the issue.
Mac Alcorn
I am unable to answer the question as I am not in possession of all the facts to so so. My only knowledge of the issue is the articles in Wednesday's & Friday's Gympie times. I do not have any details or understanding of all the issues, and would consider the proposal may lie more in the duerestriction of state government, and the developers legal rights may need to be considered.
From the articles I have read the proposal is to swap developers existing land for land in a different location My personal opinion would be that the point must be retained for one of the few great aussie traditions, camping and this pristine part of Australian beach be available for use by all Australians, not just the affluent.
Being part of a national park the environmental protection of the area would need careful attention, and it is my opinion that the greater portion should remain an area to be accessed by the general public under a controlled environment Whilst I am not against planed residential development at Rainbow beach it would need to confirm to guidelines to ensure the long term adequaticy of all services and environmental issues.
Jeff Lambert
My answer to question 1 is based on the presumption that the reference to Inskip Peninsular refers to that body of land north of the already established Rainbow Shores 1 development.
- If so my answer is NO.
- If not my answer is NO with Qualification.
I have long been interested in deposition and erosion cycles of the east coast from the Kempsey Basin to the Hervey Bay coastal recess. In spite of erosion during strong seas and accretion during calmer seas, the east coast is aggregately on an erosion cycle.
The Inskip sand accumulations will be vulnerable to predicted storms of more violent nature and frequency (with resultant tidal surges) than in the past, as well as sea level rise and more particularly, to a combination of both.
For the above reasons alone, infrastructure should be low key and of minimal expense to the taxpayer/ratepayer. Camping interspersed with ecological reserves provides for low cost infrastructure yet significant amenity for camping and outdoor loving families.
Robyn Johnston
I certainly believe more land for residential purposes should be allocated by State Government, but this should take place on the western side of Rainbow Beach. More land at Inskip Point should be made available and managed to expand upon existing camping and recreation facilities
Graeme Moore
Inskip development; yes with qualifications- the bulk of Inskip should be left as public and camping areas.
George Groth
In response to your email regarding Inskip Point, I am opposed to further Residential Development of Inskip Peninsula. I would like to see the Council win back its rights ot Inskip Peninsula from the State Government.
Donna Reardon - NO
I don’t believe that there should be further residential development on the Inskip Peninsula.
I understand with any small community due to growth and prosperity there comes the issue of infrastructure and potential development sites.
Consultation with the residences would be highly recommended even to the point of representation on as advisory panel. Also I don’t think it is the issue is about development (more residential) but rather the position that they have chosen, let’s get lateral and find a less obtrusive position.
Inskip should be keep for a well managed camping area where families can Afford the serenity and seclusion. Besides the fact who wouldn’t want to come and spend time in an area with it’s natural beauty of the beach, colorful sand dunes, rich in sea life, with a life style to total relaxation because: “Nothing Compares to Nature”.
Peter McIntosh
I have talked to the residents at Rainbow Beach and they are concerned about further development on the Inskip Peninsula. I would need to seek further advice but I would be inclined against further development.
Terry Clark - NO
Not at all. The way that climate change is going it would be courting disaster.
Shane Jocumsen - NO
If our group of Integrity candidates are successful, we will ask for planning reports for a refusal under the Planning Scheme. I believe we should also have consultation with the residents of Rainbow Beach, the new Council and Town Planning to identify the needs/desires of residents and businesses.
Alan Dray - NO
Inskip is for nature and enjoyment of nature. There is a need for more space for campers. I’ve felt overcrowded when I should have been enjoying natural surroundings.
George Cotter - NO
It is good to have an area where people can go to camp without great expense. There are plenty of areas that are developed and this area should be mainly for camping
Michael O’Neil
Should there be further development on Inskip point? -- I agree with your viewpoint that a low lying sandy peninsular is unsuitable for residential development. But as I am not fully informed; I'd have to say NO (with qualifications). I'm led to believe that there is no consideration of the impact of Global warming on Council planning decisions, and this seems strange to me. All development has to be sustainable -- and if erosion and higher sea levels have a possible impact, then no residential development should be approved.
Tony Perrett - No
I haven’t read any argument that convinces me that Inskip Point should be developed. Of course, as an elected representative you must listen and consider all views and opinions. Natural camping areas by the ocean are not widely available and should be protected. Camping in this area has served the region well and should continue.