Current News
Update - Gympie Regional Council Supports Rainbow Beach Community - April 2010
It is really wonderful to be able to report that our council has taken notice.
Last year the Council refused the Development Application from Rainbow Shores for Stage 2. The Department of Environment and Resource Management listed many environmental reason for requiring the Council to reject the DA.
Now our council has added 10 extra reasons for rejecting it. These extra reasons are based on the requirements of the town plan. Council has thus indicated that it would have rejected the DA without the intervention of DERM. This is exactly what the people of Rainbow, and the people who use Inskip, have been asking for. If you get a chance thank the councillors for listening and acting on your behalf.
The Lawlers, Rueschers, Eric Devereaux and CHIP have joined up to also raise the issues of flooding, fire, no need for the development and that it was supposed to be a resort/ecotourism area, not an alternative town to Rainbow.
Greg Wood along with Fiona, Vivien Griffith, Coastcare and the National Parks Association of Queensland have raised many issues based on the Town Plan.
Andrew Sinclair of Fraser Island Defenders Organisation raised issues based on coastal and environmental concerns.
Between us we've probably got most items covered and there will be an amount of overlapping. This will be sorted out but the great news is the council taking a lead role.
I don't wish to gloat and we haven't won yet but who was it who said, “The government has conducted numerous studies over the Rainbow Shores Stage 2 area and these scientific studies have all shown that the Development should proceed.” That's certainly not what EPA said in their Draft response or what DERM and the council say in their listing of grounds for refusal. I'm afraid Scott Elms gets carried away and his enthusiasm to support Rainbow Shores blinds him to the facts.
So now the Queensland government and the Gympie Regional Council , FIDO, CHIP, Cooloola Coastcare, National Parks Assoc Qld, S & R Ruescher, M, N & J Lawler, E Devereux, V Griffith, F Hawthorne and G Wood have all found reasons to support the rejection of Rainbow Shores' Development.
With the government and council doing the heavy lifting we are in a good position.
But we should not celebrate too soon. We want to ensure that Rainbow Shores 2 is buried never to return. This will need some concerted actions to keep and increase the pressure. We are where we are now because the people of Rainbow Beach, and others, refused to give in, refused to be sidetracked by Rainbow Shores and its employees and insisted that their voice be heard.
Thanks AllUpdate - Rainbow Shores Appeal - March 2010
Three months after Rainbow Shores lodged their appeal against the council/DERM's decision to refuse their Development Application (DA) , they wanted to rush into a Directions hearing. This hearing sets out all the dates for different stages of the hearing. The hearing was on March 12.
I represented CHIP and some other people who were co-respondents. Rainbow Shores, DERM, Main Roads, Council and Fraser Island Defenders Organisation were represented. FIDO had Andrew Sinclair who its Vice President and a barrister who is very familiar with the Planning and Environment Court so that was a great help.
Main Roads was there to ensure that they had a say if anyone wanted to have a different scheme of development or argue on traffic grounds. They didn't want to put in “traffic” as an additional reason for refusal.
Much of the timetable was varied and agreed before the actual hearing and FIDO gained an additional change at the hearing which will help us. It was agreed that Main Roads would only be involved if “traffic” matters changed.
Much of the time of the actual hearing was taken up with RS arguing that it had, essentially, complied with the need to notify everybody concerned about the application and the appeal. None of the parties supporting the rejection of the DA opposed RS's argument and the Judge Rackemann agreed and made the order setting out the plan for the matter to progress.
CHIP and the other parties opposing Rainbow Shores now have until 9th April to provide grounds additional to those already given by DERM and the council for the DA to be refused. Rainbow Shores has the opportunity to provide additional grounds why it should be approved. (so does any correspondent who wishes to support the DA but the only one is the Rainbow Beach Commerce and Tourism Association whose President, Scott Elms, is and/or was an employee of Rainbow Shores - so we don't expect much new material from there)
Now as DERM and the council have given only DERM's reasons in their initial refusal, we would expect that Council will now add the grounds where the application is clearly in breach of the council's Town Plan. This is the basis on which we would have expected the council to refuse the application even if DERM had not intervened. Of the hundreds of people who originally objected to the DA, most wanted it stopped on Town Planning grounds which are the council's responsibility.
The appeal is a new hearing. The court is going to decide, on the evidence presented to it, whether the DA should be approved or rejected. So people opposed need to gather evidence and obtain expert witnesses to convince the court of the folly of what is proposed for Inskip.
This is primarily the job of council and the government departments. DERM will support their instruction to refuse the DA on environmental grounds and council should now add the Town Planning grounds that were the focus of much of the protests from its residents.
It is nice to be on the same side as our council in this matter and we will encourage them to be very active in pursuing and supporting the rejection of the DA. People who are concerned about Rainbow Shores stage 2 could also contact councillors and the council to ask them to continue to be active.
I still think it unlikely that the matter will go to a final hearing. However we have to act on the basis that it will. This will mean that CHIP, in conference with other co-respondents opposed to the DA , will advance all the grounds that we see as being relevant to the refusal. Hopefully, council will have advanced some of the same grounds and they can then be consolidated into a final list by the parties, and if necessary, by the court.
CHIP and some other co-respondents will need to raise substantial amounts of money to be effective in this opposition. There has been a delay in this process but we now have obtained agreement where donations will be tax deductible and there will be news on this on this shortly.
The ideal solution would be for the government to buy back the lease for a small amount of money. Although the lease is worthless as the land is not suitable for development and the lease expires in 2014, it would benefit the community if the land became vacant crown land and the Rainbow Beach community and other interested parties could develop a Master Plan in the near future.
We keep hoping for a proper resolution but we must prepare for Rainbow Shores continuing to try to push for a ridiculous development.
Reg Lawler
22 March 2010
15 October 2009 - What do we do about the Appeal?
Rainbow Shores has lodged an appeal about the decision of the Gympie Regional Council to refuse the Development Application for Stage 2 on the advice of the Department of Environment and Resources. Every person who put in a valid submission on Stage 2 has received a letter saying that they may elect to join the action.
I think that it will be extremely unlikely that the Court will ever consider the matter. The Queensland government has chosen the only way to refuse the development that gives appeal rights and I anticipate that the government will buy the lease out citing environmental reasons and the wish to avoid a legal action (which they have made possible). Rainbow Shores will be given a large amount of money for a lease that is practically worthless to make the “Labor Mates” issue go away.
However I could be wrong and we need to ensure that the government and the council don't “roll over”. The council has only cited the environmental reasons as the reasons for refusal and we are all aware that there are other compelling reasons to refuse the application. By joining the appeal we can argue any other reason that we have put in our original submission.
There is no real reason why a large number of people should join the action all arguing the same points. The court is not swayed by numbers but by facts and arguments. What we need is to have people joining the action who have put submissions with unique characteristics that we can argue in court. We need to coordinate this to some extent, both to be more effective and to prevent undue complications for the court. And then we need to willing to fund the action as it continues.
The mechanics of the matter:
Submitters to the original Development Application may elect to be joined to the appeal by filling in the form and filing it, with the fee of $12.50, at the court in Brisbane within 10 business days of receiving the notification of appeal. Other parties, the council, DERM and the solicitor for the appellant, Rainbow Shores, must be informed of the election to join. (mail is OK) Once joined, people are able to withdraw from the appeal at any time.
If submitters do not do this nothing further happens but they are unable to take part in the appeal.
A useful method to help coordinate the appeal procedure is for those who wish it to appoint an agent. In many of the actions in the Planning and Environment Court the general community is represented by an agent who acts for the group. Once again any individual may withdrwa the agent's appointment or withdraw from the case at any time.
I am willing to be the agent for people who elect to be a party to the proceedings. This will enable me to lodge the election to join on behalf of those joining. We should form a working committee that will consist of those electing and others who wish to contribute ideas or in other ways. I think that most communication of this group should be by email but we can work out details later.
To talk about these matters and to enable people to sign the election and appointment of agent, CHIP is calling a public meeting
Church of Good Shepherd Mon 19th Oct 7 pm – 8.30 pm
Reg Lawler, 120 Doyle Rd Dagun, 07 54843273, regl@bigpond.com 15 October 2009
Why did they keep it secret?
On the 16 April 2008 councillors were all given a complete map of the land to be swapped on Inskip for the Rainbow Shores Stage 2 land. They were also told that there was to be provision for 6,500 people on the swap area as asked for in Rainbow Shores Stage 2.
In September 2008 I briefed all councillors on what I knew of the land swap ( although it was less than they knew)
Throughout the Master Plan process senior officers of the council took part on the committee.
There are over 2000 pages of information about the land swap and Master Plan on the council records.
The question is not if Council knew about it but why they kept it secret. I have heard councillors argue that the movement of the centre of population from Rainbow Beach to the Inskip Peninsula was not the business of council. But the Sargeant Schultz defence will not work. (I know nothing!)
They knew and they didn't tell the people. I think that the council should explain why.
Reg Lawler 120 Doyle Rd Dagun
18 August 2009 - We have Won!
When Christine McMullen and Ann Hewitt asked me how to stop a massive development of over 75,000 people on the Inskip Peninsula we called a public meeting and formed CHIP. That was in 1988 ...
We fought off the more ridiculous of the proposals for the Mineral Deposits leases and other areas including Pelican Bay. The Goss government bought back the lease at Bullock Point and decided to buy back the Old Mill Site for the people of Rainbow Beach. A talented and committed group of people fought this development and we can't mention them all but no one will forget the contribution of the late Mac Harvey.
When Rainbow Shores bought the old Murphyores lease we fought against that development too. We got the Goss government to divide the lease into two sections with a green belt in between - the southern lease for an urban area and the northern for an eco resort.
But we completely failed to have any influence on Rainbow Shores Stage 1 when the Murphores lease was bought by Kurt Krauchi. We asked for an esplanade between the development and the beach so that the beach remained accessible to all. We asked for a further setback as some of the development is in an Erosion Prone Area. We asked that there be no six storey buildings. The Widgee Shire ignored us and we failed on all counts.
When the astounding proposal for 6,500 people on Stage 2 was made, CHIP was heartened by the vigour that the Rainbow Beach people developed in opposing the proposal. CHIP put in Freedom of Information requests to support the oppposition to the proposal. We reached a stage where the council opposed the proposal, the Qld government opposed it with a definitive study showing why it contravened the State Coastal Management Plan and Rainbow Beach opposed it. Stage 2 was dead.
When the whisper of a land swap started, CHIP lodged another series of FOI requests and established that a great deal was being proposed for Rainbow Shores. They swapped a lease of little value for a lease worth $100 - $150 million. And it was proposed that this special deal be wrapped up before there was any consultation with the normal appeal rights being taken away.
We eventually managed to get this information out to the people of Rainbow Beach. As soon as Rainbow Beach had the information, the people worked to prevent the "swap" despite continuous opposition from people purporting to be leaders in the community.
We received no help from our council ( it wasn't their problem) and little help from David Gibson ( he had to represent everyone) But CHIP and the Rainbow Beach community have seldom had assistance from the elected representatives of this area. I can recall defending a charge in the Magistrates Court when I photocopied the council minutes as the council did not allow photocopies and they prosecuted me. That cost me over $800. The exception was Mick Venardos who chaired a magnificent meeting at Rainbow Beach that overwhelmingly rejected Rainbow Shores Stage 2.
Further FOI and internet research and a tip off alerted us to the Labor mates who were involved with the Queensland government and Rainbow Shores. The Crime and Misconduct Commission refused to investigate the great Rainbow Shores deal and again refused to investigate the Labor mates when CHIP asked them.
Publicity was all we had as neither our elected representatives or the corruption people would help or investigate. But even then we got lucky that Tony Fitzgerald raised the issue and made our publicity much more potent. And David Gibson and the LNP joined in. With Planning & Infrastructure Minister Hinchcliffe and Bligh's Chief of Staff, Kaiser, both being exposed as lobbyists for Rainbow Shores along with four other Labor staffers or ex staffers the whole thing started to stink.
Suddenly we have won!
It is now simply a matter of tidying up the leases that expire in 2014. We will remain vigilant but I can't see any development taking place on Stage 2.
And we will insist that we go back to the start for the Master Plan. The people of Rainbow Beach and the many thousands of other people with an interest must have an effective say in the future of Inskip. CHIP will continue to seek to represent the interests of the campers.
Instead of 75,000 people we will have a maximum of under 5000 which we will seek to further restrict. Instead of development all over, we will have most of Inskip as public space.
Thanks to all. Whenever something needed doing, somebody did it.
Citizens Helping Inskip Peninsula! We have helped! We have won!
Reg Lawler
18/8/09
19 May 2009 - An Answer to the Fantastic
If someone says that black is white, how can you refute it? When Mr Elms finally published his 13 points for all to read, I found it difficult to find out what he meant ( apart from the abuse). As far as I can tell, below is a response
1. If the land swap around the sewerage treatment works wasn't secret, why didn't we know about it before CHIP produced the FOI material?
2. CHIP has never claimed that there would be no public consultation. It has claimed that the plan is to have public consulation AFTER an agreement with Rainbow Shores has been reached. The community will be consulted after development is agreed on.
3. CHIP has never claimed that the deal has been done. We don't know, as it is secret. We have been trying to let people know so that the government is forced to consult the people BEFORE the deal is done. We have been trying to stop the deal being done before consultation.
4. CHIP has never claimed that Rainbow Shores has no right to develop the stage 2 lease. We have agreed that it is worthless as a lease if it was developed properly in line with practical considerations. It would not be economic to develop. The government has not done extensive studies on Stage 2. The studies referred to were in the area looked at for exchange. The three options referred to are not correct. The last option referred to as, "Accept current DA" actually says that the option is to negotiate lesser development outcome. That's what should happen.
5. Our council is being kept out. Everyone agrees. Should the council have a say in a new city of 6,500 people near the sewerage treatment works?. We think that the council and the people of the area should be involved. Others may think that they should be kept out of what is an important function - planning
6. The lease states that no compensation is payable in 2014 when it expires. We agree. The claim that the developer can, but won't, fill the land to avoid storm surge is nonsense. It is all low anyway and to fill 1 Hectare only 1 metre will need 10,000 cubic metres of fill coming from..... where?
7. The wording, "this proposed development does not have whole of government or Gympie Regional Council support" means what it says. The government and the council are against Rainbow Shores 2. The context makes this clear.
8. The amount of retail/commercial floor space proposed in Rainbow Shores Stage 2 has nothing to do with what is proposed in the Rainbow Shores Concept Plan 2008 as published by the Ratepayers' and Residents' Association. Anyway, business generally and the Rainbow Beach Residents' and Ratepayers' rejected the Stage 2 proposal.
9. The developer pays 40% and 50 % of the capital cost of headworks for water and sewerage. Who pays the rest (60% and 50%)? The ratepayer.
10. Rainbow Shores Stage 2 was stopped because the people, the council and the government were against it. There are a few minor points where the moving to a different area are better but there are many where it is worse. All CHIP is trying to do is allow the people to express a view and, we hope, stop this too.
11. Where does CHIP get its valuation? A valuation of $100 -$150 million is on FOI information from the EPA: Draft-Summary-250107.doc, an email sent on Wednesday, 24 January 2007 5.24 p.m. and associated emails. We think that the valuation is ridiculous but that is where it came from.
12. An article sent out by CHIP can also contain CHIP's opinion. We did ensure that opinion and fact were able to be identified. We haven't changed our facts or opinion.
13. The Gympie Regional Council sees the Rainbow Shores Stage 2 area as " a low density, low key, low rise, style of ecotourism resort/residential development(s) with significant retention of private and public open space " That is why the government, the council, the Rainbow Beach Residents' and Ratepayers' Association, Citizens Helping Inskip Peninsula and the people of Rainbow Beach rejected the proposal for 6,500. Does the Tourism and Commerce Association support Stage 2? Why would you support the land "swap"? It is just moving the problem a little and guaranteeing development so that we can't go to the Land and Environment Court for an impartial review of the decisions. It is a way of dodging the failure of Rainbow Shores Stage 2.
Reg Lawler, May 09
News Update May 2009
There has been a fair bit of activity but not a lot of results. The Rainbow Beach Residents' and Ratepayers' Association has called a public meeting for Tuesday May 19 at 7 p.m. at the Church of the Good Shepherd. It is very important that the people of Rainbow Beach turn up to express their views. Originally the meeting was supposed to be a meeting where both sides could put their cases under a neutral chair and then resolutions could be put to express the views of the people there.
Sandy Brosnan, President of the Association has been trying to avoid the meeting and has told me that I can't attend. I'll come along anyhow and see if the meeting wants to invite me in. I know more about the history of this case as CHIP has fought development on the Inskip Peninsula for 20 years. CHIP has provided most of the information that we have about the Master Plan. I don't understand why Sandy wants to exclude me from being available to give information. (See the letter to Rainbow Beach Residents below)
In the May issue of the Rainbow Beach News, Scott Elms calls me some nasty names. I have tried to establish what Scott's points are in his argument and have included a rebuttal of this. (See Scott's Efforts below) I am sending a copy of the News to Noel Thorne of the Department of Infrastructure and Planning so he can comment on Scott's claim that Mr Thorne supports all his points. That should be interesting.
Today (Mon 11 May) I had a discussion with David Gibson, Member for Gympie and Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Planning. He was very eager to get a valid expression of the wishes of the people of Rainbow Beach. He wants to consult the people of Rainbow Beach and establish what they want before making decisions. The Bligh government offers consulation after the major decisions are made. I gave Mr Gibson a copy of some questions that might help get community attitudes in a survey. He is going to look at organising a fair and open survey of the people of Rainbow Beach particularly on development issues. More later.
CHIP has also sent a letter to every Queensland member of Parliament (See below) We thought that the parliament should know what the government is proposing.
That's about it. Rainbow Beach people will help a lot if they come along to the meeting on the 19th. I wouldn't be surprised if Sandy tried to cancel the meeting but come along anyhow if that happens and we will have a meeting. See you on the 19th.
Reg Lawler
Summary of Master Plan (Click to download in PDF Format)
The Inskip Peninsula - Land Handout and Master Plan (Click to download in PDF Format)
Letter to Rainbow Beach Residents
Dear Rainbow Beach Resident,
I am concerned that you may lose the opportunity to effectively express a view on the land handout to Rainbow Shores and the establishment of an alternative town near the sewerage treatment plant.
If all goes to the government plan, as revealed in the Freedom of Information material obtained by CHIP, this is what will happen.
1. The government and Rainbow Shores come to an agreement on a land “swap” which will incorporate “agreed development outcomes”
2. The Draft Master Plan is published
3. Comment is sought from any interested party
4. The Draft Master Plan is amended and published as the Master Plan and that controls all development
The problem with this procedure is obvious. Once an agreement with “agreed development outcomes” is made the development is locked in. You can comment but you can't change the “development outcomes” which would be the major point that you may wish to comment on.
The Rainbow Beach Ratepayer's and Resident's Association has decided to hold a public meeting on
Tuesday May 19 at the Church of the Good Shepherd at 7 p.m. This decision was made at a meeting of the Association and re-inforced at a committee meeting and a subsequent general meeting. The idea was to allow those in favour of the land exchange and those against to put their case with a neutral chairperson. Individuals and the meeting could express their views and those views could be sent to our council and the government to try to ensure that proper consultation takes place before a decision is made.
Sandy Brosnan, President of the Association has resisted the idea of a meeting all along. She argues that we should wait for the Draft Master and then have a meeting. When she is told that it will be too late then, she makes no response.
I don't understand why Sandy has something against me or CHIP. We have always been open and sought to co-operate. In September 08 I contacted her with information I had about the land swap and a request to speak to a meeting. Although I kept making requests it was not until I told Sandy that I would attend the March meeting and that the meeting would demand that I be given a chance to talk to them, that Sandy let me talk for 10 minutes.
I rang Sandy and asked for the documents that she read out at the last Association meeting. ( CHIP has supplied the Association with hundreds of pages of FOI information) I asked Sandy five times if she would send me a copy. She refused to reply. She also told me that I would not be allowed to address the meeting on May 19.
This is ridiculous. Rainbow Shores have kept this secret for several years. We can debate it now, before it is too late, because CHIP has put in a lot of effort and money over the last 3 years in getting information and sharing it freely. CHIP has been active in opposing development on the Inskip Peninsula for over 20 years. I know the facts and the history. Why would the Sandy cut the people off from the main source of anti- development information?
If you are concerned about the future of your town, please attend the meeting. If you want to hear the unfiltered version of the information, insist that CHIP is able to contribute.
Regards
Reg Lawler
Chairperson 8 May 09
PS I am disappointed that Scott Elms seems intent on calling me names. It would be more helpful if we could debate the facts instead of descending to personal abuse. I am very relaxed about people comparing my evidence to Scott's and if you want an answer to Scott's efforts it is on the website above.
Scott's Efforts
Scott Elms has attacked me and called me names but there is nothing productive or useful in that.
CHIP obtained all the FOI information and has been willing to share it freely to assist Rainbow Beach in understanding what is happening. Rainbow Shores and their associates have pretended that the consideration of Rainbow Shores Stage 2 is proceeding as normal.
I can give a brief reply to some of the issue that I believe Scott raised.
1. The March monthly meeting was subverted by me and not many people went and the motions passed without dissent should not have effect.
The facts were published in the Rainbow Beach News and it was advertised that the Master Plan would be the main topic. Scott was on the committee that authorised this. At the meeting Sandy asked if anyone had any objection to me speaking. Scott was there. No one objected. I don't know how many people normally attend meetings. But all were invited to attend. We needed more chairs. Sandy ensured that all view points could be expressed. Scott did not speak to disagree with anything or to add extra information. Obviously I did not vote, but Scott's concern about members and voting should have been raised with Sandy at the time instead of seeking to criticise her conduct of the meeting later. In any case there were no votes against either motion so they would have been carried if the mover and seconder are financial.
2. The pamphlet that CHIP and Friends of Rainbow published undermined the work of the Residents' and Ratepayers'
It was a very similar pamphlet supporting the “News” article and advertising the meeting.
3. The people have had no opportunity to hear the full story.
The amazing thing is that Scott sat at a meeting to discuss the issue and said nothing and then he complains about it. He and other supporters of Rainbow Shores had their chance toput a contrary view point. But what did that meeting decide? To have a public meeting as soon as possible for both sides to put their case in front of a neutral chair, the Mayor Cr Dyne. That is hardly a subversive or unbalanced decision and it was adopted without dissent. Of course Rainbow Shores should have every opportunity to put their case. But if they don't turn up for the planned meeting, does that mean that the town can't make a decision or have a say?
4. That Rainbow Shores is not in consultation with the government.
I am not sure how to answer what is obviously false and which Scott must know is false. It is a requirement of the Master Plan. The most senior public servants in Queensland were briefed for a meeting on 27 June 2008. It is in many documents. Where did the Rainbow Shores Concept Plan 2008 come from? The Association published it from FOI documents from the government. It is difficult to understand khaw Scott can make this allegation.
5. “Reg also states that the land is worth $100 million.......”
I certainly said nothing of the kind. I believe that it is worth nothing as a development of a low scale resort that could possibly get approval would be uneconomic and the lease expires in 5 years. My argument is that it is wrong to value the land at the value it may have were it approved against the wishes of the people, the council and the government. Scott is intentionally seeking to mislead the committee.
6. Consultation will come later after the draft Master Plan is published.
This is true. Rainbow Beach residents and businesses will be most affected by placing a commercial and residential centre on Inskip which will be much larger than the original town. One would hope that they would be consulted at first, not as an afterthought after the needs of Rainbow Shores and the government are satisfied. It is planned to consult Rainbow Beach after the draft Master Plan. But a very real problem comes as “A draft Master Plan suitable for public notification can be completed almost immediately following agreement between the State and Rainbow Shores on the proposed land swap and future development outcomes for the land swap areas.” Briefing for Director General , Premier and Cabinet. 27 June 2008. It is planned to give “consultation” after decisions are made.
7. That the words about Rainbow Shores 2, “ This proposed development outcome does not have whole-of-Government or Gympie Regional Council support” really means that some of government support it.
In the same document whenever the words “whole- of- government” appear they mean the government. Scott's enterpetation is nonsensical and pretty desperate as is his allegation that all the studies from the government show RS2 was OK. The actual studies in the FOI document refer to studies on the land to be swapped for RS2 not the RS2 land. I have never said that Rainbow Shores have no right to develop on the current lease area. I have said that the development must be suitable which , I believe, would be uneconomic. There is so much distortion that I can't answer it all but the pattern is evident.
8. Scott says that the Briefing Note to the Minister for Environment (27/1/2005) sets out three options:
• Don't support current DA (pay compensation)
• provide alternative site
• Accept current DA
The first two points are a fair summary but I will quote, in full, the third so you can see how Scott is distorting the FOI information.
“3. Accept that development of the land is likely, and work with the applicant to produce an effective development outcome for the site that addresses the short and long term infrastructure and environmental concerns. This may result in a lesser density development rather than no form of development at all.” (My bold lettering)
Scott says that the paragraph above means “Accept current DA”
I am not really sure what Scott is objecting to. Is it the meeting where each side puts its case or the objection to the lack of consultation (he previously endorsed this objection)
But it is a great pity that he feels the need to abuse people who disagree with him.
Reg Lawler
Letter to Members of Queensland Parliament
Dear
I am writing to you about the Bligh government's proposal to “give” land to a Swiss developer on a low erodable peninsula of sand just South of Fraser Island.
There are three matters of concern.
1. That there is a proposal to develop a residential population of over 6000 people on the Inskip Peninsula. The Queensland government has calculated the erosion using a sea level rise of 300mm and a planning period of 50 years. Most states are using sea level rises of 800 to 1000 mm and a 100 year planning period.
2. The proposal involves a gift of $100 -$150 million to the developer. On Inskip the Bjelke- Petersen government gave 30 year development leases in 1984. The Goss government bought some back and Rainbow Shores bought a lease that had two parts: an urban and a resort area, separated by a green belt. Development was approved for the urban section and is in progress (4,200 people) The developer proposed an urban development for the resort area with over 6000 people. Instead of refusing this development and insisting on a plan suitable for the purpose of a resort, the government has offered alternative land (with identical problems) for 6000 people.
The have valued the original lease, and its replacement at $100- $150 million. Actually it would be uneconomic to develop a resort. The lease expires in 2014 and it contains a clause that provides that no compensation is liable after expiry. This makes the original lease worthless yet the Swiss developer gets a fortune in exchange.
3. It is proposed to “do the deal” with the developer and then ask the people most affected, the people of the area and the Gympie Regional Council what they think. The “agreed development” outcomes that the government reaches before the public consultation about a Draft Master Plan will mean that the Queensland people are liable for massive compensation if the “Draft” is substantially changed. Consultation is a farce.
In my younger days I was deeply involved with the Labor Party. I thought that it had principles. I suppose we all become disillusioned but I find it amazing that the Bligh government is proposing to allow a city on erodable sand as a multimillion dollar gift to a foreign developer without consulting the people.
For more information and reasons please check the website above or contact me.
And please help to stop this.
Yours Sincerely
Reg Lawler
Chairperson
10 May 09