LOCAL ARCHIVE - JULY 1985

LOCAL ARCHIVE - SEPTEMBER 1987

HERITAGE ROAD

Those were the days:

WORLD HERITAGE CAMPING

World Heritahge: even though Springbrook is beautiful, it must always be remembered that the World Heritage listing for Springbrook National Park relates to its unique biodiversity, not to its scenic beauty. All decisions for the future of Springbrook must be predicated on this fact. 

Independent and rigorous research is required in order to properly understand the implications of this World Heritage listing. Merely assuming that some strategies might have no or minimal impact is not good enough. It is just a guessing game.

The results of government 'visioning' in the past show the results of ad hoc development:

 THE SPRINGBROOK NATIONAL PARK CAMPING AREA.
This is one of the reasons this Association is so concerned about the latest 'visioning' plan - see separate blog. Springbrook and its visitors deserve better than this - and so does the world.

SIGNS OF THE TIMES

Beautiful Springbrook: Where do I go from here?

 And the Council wants more signs?

DRAFT SPRINGBROOK VISIONING PLAN SUBMISSION

SPRINGBROOK/WUNBURRA PROGRESS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED

P.O. BOX 258, MUDGEERABA, QLD., 4213

12^TH  JUNE 2011

GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL,

DRAFT SPRINGBROOK VISIONING PLAN,

P.O. BOX 5042,

GOLD COAST MAIL CENTRE, QLD., 9729.

email to : tourism@goldcoast.qld.gov.au

DEAR SIR,

RE: DRAFT SPRINGBROOK VISIONING PLAN

The Association has serious concerns with the Draft Visioning Plan for Springbrook. Having perused the document, it is clear that it is not based on the singular issue of prime importance: the World Heritage (WH)-listing of Springbrook National Park. This matter is of such significance that it must form the basis of every decision made for the future of this area. The WH listing is not for the promotion of the tourism potential of this scenic and picturesque place. The listing is specifically for the recognition and protection of the rich and unique biodiversity of this region’s flora and fauna that makes it, not only one of the most important places in south-east Queensland and Australia, but also a core place of consequence for the world: hence its WH listing. All authorities - Local, State and Federal - have an obligation to co-ordinate care for this region and manage it appropriately and with sensitivity.

It needs to be understood that these qualities that have attracted this WH listing do not stop at the National Park boundaries. They involve the whole ecosystem of the region including the National Park and all other land holdings in this very small but very special area. To ignore the implications of this listing would be negligent and irresponsible. The Draft Visioning Plan for Springbrook needs to be re-written once thorough, objective and independent research has been undertaken and completed in order to establish a clear understanding of all likely impacts for all possible scenarios. Without this, the Vision remains a misguided fantasy - a blind guess - that responds only to personal preconceptions, individual ambitions and private preferences. One needs to know everything about the impact of these and other possibilities on the WH characteristics - the exceptional biodiversity of the environment of this region of our country - before any plan can be put into place. Impacts cannot be just carelessly assumed to be non-existent or minimal.

Rare and endangered species - and new species - of both flora and fauna are being discovered at Springbrook to this very day. The structuring of a vision based on presumptions and ad hoc aspirations driven by predetermined objectives puts the future of WH Springbrook at risk. No one can know what the impact might be on this WH biodiversity when so little is known about the details - about the rare and endangered species and those species yet to be discovered. The precautionary principle must be applied here. These are matters that require specific knowledge and understanding in order to be able to properly interpret the implications. They are not typical Council issues that a group of Councillors can decide on without expert, objective advice. It cannot be assumed that Springbrook needs to be developed with tourist attractions and facilities just because it has some existing attractions and businesses, or merely because it is seen as a green, mountain retreat. That tourists might choose to come to Springbrook in ever-increasing numbers establishes no necessary evidence for any future directions. Thorough research must be undertaken.

Rigour is required, not just grander visions of more of the same. No one knows if even the existing circumstances at Springbrook are having a detrimental impact on its’ ecosystem. Caution is required and rigorous research, not just colourful re-interpretations of things seen at other places, at other times. Springbrook is not just a place that has to accumulate all of the types of paraphernalia seen in other tourist destinations and resorts around the world. Springbrook is not like any other place in the world. It has been listed because of this. The risk is that the very qualities that have generated this listing – biodiversity, not scenery - will be threatened by ill-considered visions based on expectations taken from other places and other experiences. One of the first matters that has to be determined in concert with all other research, is the carrying capacity of this plateau. There can be no responsible vision without real and objective information.

Springbrook is ‘world class’ and is uniquely attractive; but it is the ‘world class’ quality of the ecosystem – its astonishing biodiversity – that makes it unique. It must be this issue alone that drives every decision that is made for this region. Developing roads, parking areas, tourist attractions, coffee shops, restaurants, play areas, walking tracks, themed rides and other distractions and facilities for what is assumed to be an ever-growing number of visitors has no rationale for being required at Springbrook other than this is what has been provided in other places. The matter of the legality of the funding of such facilities using the ratepayer-raised Open Space Preservation Levy funds is another matter that needs separate review. Springbrook should not become an over-decorated, crowded theme park in an effort to make it attractive for more and more tourists. This is a simplistic and crass model for any future of any place, let alone that of WH Springbrook.

The real danger here is that, five years ago, the Gold Coast City Council, at a meeting with local environmental groups, made it clear that its plan for Springbrook was to develop and promote the region for the tourist economy, irrespective of the environmental impacts. This Draft Springbrook Visioning Plan seems to be the next step to implement this strategy. Any future for Springbrook must involve all authorities with WH obligations. It is not just a Gold Coast City Council concern. It must involve the State Government because of the National Park areas, and the Federal Government for its WH responsibilities. Co-ordination is required in all aspects of this region given its WH-listed sensitivity. Having various bodies randomly envisaging futures for various parts of Springbrook is not a useful method of achieving results; neither is it a rational strategy for attaining any reasonable or sensible outcomes, even in locations where the impacts on the ecosystem are not so critical.

The Association does not plan to deconstruct and comment on the whole of this Draft Springbrook Visioning document. The strategies and principles behind the plan are the most important issues to determine. There are numerous matters that the Association would like to comment on in this Draft, but these are so varied that such a response would produce a sizeable document that would very likely never be read by Councillors. Such a specific and detailed commentary would also carry the danger of letting Council assume that the issues not commented upon might be acceptable, when in principle things could be otherwise. A detailed commentary also leaves itself open to the response that assumes that, if each point is attended to in some way, then the objection can be overcome – that the ‘problems’ could be solved. In a similar manner, our current cryptic objection can be manipulated to assume approval in part or whole. The Association’s concerns are more subtle and cohesively integral and organic than this. Springbrook’s future needs to be based on clearly documented, coherent principles and strategies developed from rigorously applied meticulous research. The complexity of the approach must be equal to, and based on the complexity of its WH characteristics. Guessing futures to be implemented is a silly, naive game with schematic outcomes based on ignorance and misunderstandings. Springbrook deserves and must have better than this – it is the WH obligation that it carries.

Managing public opinion is yet another concern here. WH cannot be addressed through public opinion or diagrammatic notions. Questionnaires have been left too open to manipulation. Propositions have been put without identifying any proportional impact. Telephone questions have been structured in an ambiguous and misleading or leading manner, encouraging simplistic and ill-considered responses. True objective research is required in order to properly gauge public opinion, just as it is essential in order to get a proper understanding of the ecosystem. Information for decision-making must be collected in a systematic, comprehensive, objective and transparent manner that can be openly reviewed, tested and assessed.

Council must reject this Draft Springbrook Visioning Plan and ensure that ecological sustainability is the sole foundation of all decisions for the development of National Parks, Council properties, roads, roadsides, open spaces, and residential, tourist, and commercial properties and facilities on the Springbrook Plateau, as demanded and required by its WH mandate. Without this, the future of these unique characteristics of this environment is in doubt. Biodiversity is not a matter to be used randomly as a themed park for tourist attraction or distraction.

YOURS FAITHFULLY,

SECRETARY

SPRINGBROOK/WUNBURRA PROGRESS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED

SUMMARY

• Springbrook’s listing as a World Heritage (WH) Area should be the basis for all decisions made on the future of Springbrook.

• Springbrook is not a city or tourist park to be ‘themed’ or promoted: it is WH-listed for it’s unique ecological significance – biodiversity, not superficial scenic qualities.
• Locals at Springbrook are still discovering rare and endangered species and new species of flora and fauna even today.
• Rigorous, detailed and transparent research should form the basis of all decisions made for Springbrook. World Heritage should not be managed by public or personal opinion. WH involves matters that cannot be subjected to standard Council processes. Specific and detailed knowledge and understanding are required.
• It is critical that the carrying capacity for Springbrook – residents and visitors – be determined prior to any further development of any plan for Springbrook. This Vision seeks to encourage and accommodate more visitors without knowing any limits or impacts.
• The future of Springbrook needs to be co-ordinated with all relevant departments and government bodies, not be randomly ad hoc, piecemeal or cavalier. Ecosystems know no boundaries or authority. Springbrook is not a village in a natural area. It is an interspersed and fragmented collection of private holdings, Council land and National Park areas.
• Open space preservation does not include the funding of the construction of roads, parking, play equipment, picnic shelters and public toilets using ratepayer monies collected through the Open Space Preservation Levy (OPSL).
• Community consultation has to be comprehensive, objective, carefully structured and thoroughly supervised to avoid leading questions, predetermined outcomes and manipulation.
• The existing facilities at Springbrook need to be reassessed in light of the proposed new research. There are too many inaccurate assumptions used for Springbrook statistics to prove ‘required’ outcomes.
•  There is a need to remove signs at Springbrook, not to add more. There are far too many now that rudely intrude into the experience of the natural environment.
• It is important that proposed strategies, outcomes and ambitions are more than ‘sexy’ words in a report. Proofs of all impacts must be transparent and relate to  detailed research. Motherhood statements must be avoided. There is no proof that this sort of visionary development will have no/minimal impact on World Heritage values.
• Springbrook is unique. Developments like the ones suggested are available throughout Gold Coast City, throughout the various States, and around the rest of the world. Springbrook is World Heritage and should not be managed/promoted as a tourist destination like everywhere else.
• Springbrook Road is critical to the experience of Springbrook. It is not a motorway and should never become a road like everywhere else. Flora and fauna need priority when considering roads and speeds.
The Vision lacks an objectively defined direction.
All proper processes and procedures for all authorities need to be complied with – with transparency and commitment to a clearly defined cause.

• The Draft Springbrook Vision Plan cannot and should not be supported in its present form.

PURLING BROOKS

If you examine the literature of the 17^th and 18^th centuries, you will find that nearly all its expressions, having reference to the country, show something of this kind: either a foolish sentimentality, or a morbid fear, both of course coupled with the most curious ignorance. You will find all its descriptive expressions at once vague and monotonous. Brooks are always ‘purling’; birds always ‘warbling’; mountains always ‘lift their horrid peaks above the clouds’; vales always ‘are lost in the shadow of gloomy woods’; a few more distinct ideas about haymaking and curds and cream, acquired in the neighbourhood of Richmond Bridge, serving to give an occasional appearance of freshness to the catalogue of the sublime and beautiful which descended from poet to poet; while a few true pieces of pastoral, like the Vicar of Wakefield, and Walton’s Angler, relieved the general waste of dullness.

John Ruskin, lectures on Architecture and painting, Routledge, London, 1854, p.p.131-132.

Is this the origin of things ‘English’ at Springbrook? Did our first settlers see this landscape only with ‘English’ eyes – or eyes for England? Or was it just the English language that dominated expressions – the culture of the times? It is interesting to note that one brook was named as ‘purling’ while others were given what are believed to be Aboriginal names from – well, it is unclear. Was there a specific local tribe? Perhaps this idyllic English vision is also the origin of the idea that Springbrook would make good dairy country too? – ‘curds and cream’ to complete the reference – when everything really was otherwise and has been proven to be so.

COUNCIL'S VISION FOR SPRINGBROOK?

SPORK SUMMARY

SPRINGBROOK CONSERVATION AREA DAY USE AREA

SUMMARY OF ANNOTATIONS

SPRINGBROOK/WUNBURRA PROGRESS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED

• Springbrook’s listing as a World Heritage Area should be the basis for all decisions made on the future of Springbrook.
• Rigourous research should form the basis of all of these decisions.

• The Springbrook Visioning Plan, that includes this proposal, has yet to have public submissions received – due 13^th June 2011.
• The future of Springbrook needs to be co-ordinated, not ad hoc or piecemeal.
• Open space preservation does not include the construction of roads, parking, play equipment, picnic shelters and public toilets.
• Community consultation was selective. Some residents and groups are repeatedly ignored and are never advised of Council’s intentions.
• The existing facilities at Apple Tree Flat are not difficult to access and are not over-used. The figures in the report are inaccurate assumptions.
•  There is a need to remove signs at Springbrook, not to add more. There are far too many now that rudely intrude into the experience of the natural environment.
• It is critical that the carrying capacity for Springbrook – residents and visitors – be determined prior to any further development of Springbrook. This development seeks to encourage and accommodate more visitors without knowing any limits.
• The report repeatedly uses words for their ‘sexy’ appearance and implications without proving any outcome will be possible or likely.
• The local community is working hard to achieve ‘nature’ outcomes in spite of Council. Council needs to be educated and encouraged to act responsibly.
• Locals at Springbrook are still discovering rare and endangered species and new species of flora and fauna even today.
• Green levy money is not meant for roads, parking lots, play equipment, picnic shelters and public toilets.
• Springbrook is not a city park: IT IS WH-LISTED FOR IT’S UNIQUE ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFANCE, NOT SUPERFICIAL SCENIC QUALITIES.
• It seems that work on this proposal has already started irrespective of community opinion.
• Only about one quarter of the residents of Springbrook have had a say on this development.
• The questionnaire has no objective controls or supervision and is open to manipulation.
• World Heritage should not be managed by public opinion.
• World Heritage does not stop at any boundary.
• Park developments like the one planned are available throughout Gold Coast City. Springbrook is World Heritage and should not be managed like everywhere else.
• The report is ambiguous on whether DERM approval has been received.
• Where are all of the studies that have apparently been done?
• Springbrook is not a village in a natural area. It is interspersed and fragmented.
• Springbrook Road is not a motorway needing development on ‘the right side of the road.’ Access to both sides of the road from both directions is simple and convenient.
• Speed should not be used to promote a development. It could make this proposal very unsafe and undesirable.
• There is no proof that this development will have no/minimal impact on World Heritage values.
• The questionnaire is loaded in that it has suggested uses and has provided no assessment of likely impact.
The report is full of contradictions and lacks objectivity.
It is a dangerous precedent to have Council ignoring its own processes and procedures.
The proposal cannot and should not be supported.

COUNCIL'S DAY USE AREA PROPOSAL PART 2

12            COORDINATION & CONSULTATION

Name and/or Title of the Stakeholder Consulted	Directorate or Organisation	Is the Stakeholder Satisfied With Content of Report and Recommendations (Yes/No) (comment as appropriate)
Director	Community Services	Yes
Manager Parks & Recreational Services	Community Services	Yes(CONTINUED NEXT PAGE)
Coordinator Natural Areas	Community Services	Yes
Executive Coordinator Finances	City Governance	Yes
Heritage Team Leader	PE&T	Yes
Program Management Coordinator	PE&T	Yes
Senior Environmental Planner	PE&T	Yes
Supervisor - OPW	PE&T	Yes
Town Planner	PE&T	Yes
Executive Coordinator IDG	Engineering Services	Yes
Program Coordinator - Roads	Engineering Services	Yes
Executive Coordinator Urban Design	Engineering Services	Yes

WHY WOULD ANYONE IN COUNCIL DISAGREE WHEN IT IS COUNCIL that SEEMS TO BE PUSHING THIS THROUGH - EVEN THROUGH BARRIERS THAT IT HAS CREATED: ITS VISIONING PLAN/CARRYING CAPACITY STUDY. NO ONE IN COUNCIL CAN SAY THAT ANYTHING FOR SPORKS IS SUPPORTED  BY THE VISIONING PLAN/CARRYING CAPACITY STUDY – BUT THE COMMUNITY IS GETTING USED TO OUTCOMES BEING APPROVED PRIOR TO ANY COMMUNITY INPUT OR THOROUGH RESEARCH.

THE COMMUNITY IS GETTING VERY SICK OF THIS APPROACH TOO.

(CONTINUED NEXT PAGE)

ITEM ITEM # (continued)

springbrook conservation area day use area

PN164279/46/02(P1)          

 

Indigenous Cultural Heritage Officer	Legal Services	Yes
Executive Coordinator Construction Services	Engineering Services	Yes
Executive Coordinator Technical Services	Engineering Services	Yes
Coordinator Economic Development (Industry)	EDMP	Yes

Given the importance and profile of Springbrook to the Gold Coast community, the Springbrook community has been engaged and made aware of the development of this project. The outcomes of the consultation are summarised in attachment one of this report.

THIS IS NOT CORRECT.

ONLY SELECTED PORTIONS OF THE SPRINGBROOK COMMUNITY SEEM TO BE EVER CONSULTED.

ADVICE THAT ALL RESIDENTS WERE ADVISED ON THIS (AND OTHER) GCCC DEVELOPEMNTS IS SIMPLY WRONG – WRONG.

COUNCIL (THROUGH ITS REPRESENTATIVES) APPEARS TO DELIBERATELY ISOLATE GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS IT FEELS MIGHT HAVE CONTRARY VIEWS.

13            STAKEHOLDER IMPACTS

There are multiple stakeholders involved with an interest in this project. As mentioned consultation with the community with regard to the project has indicated that not withstanding some concerns , it is well supported.

‘WELL SUPPORTED’ BY THOSE SELECTED TO COMMENT ON IT, SO IT SEEMS.

The approvals required for this project have involved liaison with a number of government departments.

14                TIMING

Timing	Activity
May- December 2011	Completion of Visioning Plan
January-February 2012	DERM approval and Main Road approval
May-August 2012	Construction  entry and car park etc
July 2012-Dec 2012	Install toilet facility and park furniture

 THE PLAN IS IN PLACE EVEN BEFORE ANY VISIONING PLAN IS RECEIVED OR FORMALISED.

IT IS ALWAYS HAPPENING LIKE THIS.

IT SEEMS TO BE ALL SHOW – SHADOWS AND DECEPTIONS: ILLUSIONS TO KEEP THE MASSES DISTRACTED WHILE THE WORK GOES ON?

SOME COMMUNITY MEMBERS HAVE PREDICTED THAT THE RECENT ROADWORKS WERE ALL PART OF THE BEGINNING OF THIS PROJECT – AND THEY LOKK TO BE RIGHT. COUNCIL SEEMS TO HAVE NO INTEREST IN WORLD HERITAGE OR COMMUNITY INPUT.

LIKEWISE, DMR SEEMS TO HAVE NO INTEREST IN WH VALUES.

(CONTINUED NEXT PAGE)

The project will be delayed until May as a consequence of Special Budget committees cash flow allocation (13/5/11).

THERE IS NOTHING OTHER THAN BUDGETS THAT WILL STOP THIS PROJECT? THIS SEEMS TO CONFIRM EVERYTHING WE HAVE FEARED.

Should the Visioning Plan be delayed a report would be brought back to Council in December to determine the delivery of the Sporks day use area in early 2012.

THIS LOOKS LIKE A COUNCIL DOING EXACTLY AS IT WANTS – IT DOES THIS BEST OF ALL?

15            CONCLUSION

The rainforests of the Springbrook National Park are of global significance through their inclusion in the Gondwana Rainforests of Australia (GRA) World Heritage Area. Accordingly, Springbrook village and its surrounds form an important backdrop to the world heritage area, and are one of the Gold Coast’s most valuable natural assets.

FIRST MENTION OF WORLD HERITAGE! – AT LAST – LAST THING TO CONSIDER!

SPRINGBROOK IS NOT A VILLAGE IN ANY TRUE SENSE OF THE WORD. ‘VILLAGE’ IS BEING USED HERE TO TRY TO CREATE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL/VCOMMERCIAL AREAS AND THE ‘NATURAL’ WORLD HERITAGE AREAS. THIS DOES NOT EXIST. SPRINGBROOK IS A SET OF INTERSPERSED FRAGMENTS. WORLD HERITAGE NEEDS TO BE CAREFULLY MANAGED HERE IN CONSULATATION WITH THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS.

GCCC ACTIVITY SEEMS TO HAVE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED WORLD HERITAGE VALUES ARE NOT A CONSIDERATION IN ANY OF ITS AMBITIONS FOR SPRINGBROOK.

The Springbrook Conservation Area day use area will be an important natural area park, offering residents and visitors a unique and important opportunity to strengthen connections with nature and an understanding of conservation through a nature based recreational

experience. Springbrook offers one of the best locations to capture a large audience of residents and visitors to the Gold Coast and promote key environmental education messages that will help to facilitate a community that supports the decisions, actions and investment by Council in nature conservation. An active, involved and aware community has a heightened appreciation of the value and services provided by nature conservation.

COME TO SPRINGBROOK ‘TO STRENGTHEN CONNECTIONS’ TO PLAY EQUIPMENT, PICNIC SHELTERS AND TOILET BLOCKS?   – THIS IS NOT NATURE.

WHY SEEK TO CAPTURE A LARGE AUDIENCE AND SHOW NO INTEREST IN NUMBERS, CARRYING CAPACITY, IMPACTS AND WORLD HERITAGE PROTECTION?

THIS LOOKS LOKE HUMBUG. THERE IS AN ACTIVE AND VERY AWARE COMMUNITY AT SPRINGBROOK THAT IS BEING IGNORED BY COUNCIL.

(CONTINUED NEXT PAGE)

ITEM ITEM # (continued)

springbrook conservation area day use area

PN164279/46/02(P1)          

 

The day use area is in response to over-crowding of sensitive state-owned and managed World Heritage areas and providing an ideally accessible visitor stop-over node to obtain way-finding information and environmental education information at the start of the Plateau.

THERE IS NO PROOF FOR OVER-CROWDING – SEE ABOVE. HOW IS THIS PROPOSAL ‘IDEAL’? SPRINGBROOK IS ALREADY OVER-SIGNED – SEE ABOVE.

It will offer locals and visitors low-key high quality picnic facilities and an environmental themed playground. The project has been endorsed by the majority of those Springbrook residents. The new park will alleviate the existing unsustainable pressures on Council’s amenities.

‘THE MAJORITY’ – NO THIS HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN OR PROVED, ESPECIALLY WITH THE SEEMINGLY ‘SELECTIVE’ PUBLIC CONSULTATION – SEE ABOVE.

The impacts to the environment have been carefully investigated and minimised.

BUT IMPACTS COULD STILL BE MAXIMISED – THESE ARE MERELY WORDS. THERE IS NOTHING TO QUANTIFY SUCH A CLAIM.

WHO CONDUCTED THESE INVESTIGATIONS?

16            RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that Council resolves as follows:

1          That as per Special Budget committee 13/5/11 the project commence in 11-12 allowing the Visioning Plan to be completed and that a report be brought back to Council in December if the Visioning Plan is not completed at that time.

2          WHY? WHY NOT COMPLETE THINGS PROPERLY?

3          That Council note that the development of the Spork’s day use area is in response to an established existing need ie. where existing facilities are currently over-utilised, and that the absence of a detailed carrying capacity study does not require this development to be put on hold.

THE EXISTING FACILITIES ARE NOT OVER-UTILISED – SEE ABOVE

CARRYING CAPACITY IS CRITICAL AND HAS TO BE DETERMINED WITH OBJECTIVE REDSEARCH.

IT IS IRRESPONSIBLE – HYPOCRITICAL - OF COUNCIL TO CALL FOR A STUDY OF NUMBERS AND THEN TO SEEK TO PASS A MOTION TO IGNORE THEM.

Author:	Authorised by:
Sharon Connell	Colette McCool
Natural Areas Management Officer	Director Community Services
12 May 2011	12 May 2011
TRACKS REF: 30878795

(CONTINUED NEXT PAGE)

Attachment 1

REPORT ON SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED ON THE SPRINGBROOK CONSERVATION AREA DAY USE AREA

Community consultation process

Community consultation on the Springbrook Conservation Area day use area concept occurred between December 2010 and January 2011.

SEE ABOVE

The Divisional Councillor was consulted regarding the consultation process for this proposed park development at Springbrook.

Notices were placed at the two most popularly frequented sites by residents in Springbrook – the grocery store and the transfer station. Letters were sent to all Springbrook residents and businesses and an information day was held.

IS THIS PROCESS ADVISING ALL RESIDENTS? HOW? SOME FOLK CHOOSE NOT TO GO TO THE SHOP, WHILE OTHERS MANAGE THEIR WASTE IN THEIR OWN CHOSEN MANNER. IF THE TOILETS ARE SO WELL USED, WHY NOT PUT NOTICES UP IN THESE FACILITIES?

THIS SEEMS TO CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE THAT GCCC HAS A CONTEMPT FOR  PUBLIC OPINION.

WHERE ELSE ARE FORMAL, LEGAL, LOCAL GOVERNMENT NOTICES TO DO WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENTS PRIOVIDED AT A PUBLIC DUMP?

The purpose of the consultation was to invite input from all local residents and business stakeholders on the need, location, character and scale of the day use area.

SELECTIVE INPUT – SEE ABOVE

Submissions received

THIS SEEMS NOT TO HAVE INVOLVED A MANAGED OR OBJECTIVE PROCESS – IT APPEARS OPEN TO MANIPULATION – SEE ABOVE. IT IS HIGHLY LIKELY THAT, WITH COUNCIL SO KEEN TO GO AHEAD IN ITS OWN WAY, WITH ITS OWN AMBITIONS, AND OWN PLANS – ALL BEFORE ANY OBJECTIVE RESEARCH CAN BE PREPARED - THAT THIS RESEARCH HAS BEEN ‘ORGANISED’ TO GIVE THE ‘RIGHT’ OUTCOME. THIS CAN NEVER BE PROVED OR DISPROVED – THIS SITUATION IS A GRAVE CONCERN.  THERE MUST BE TRANSPARENCY.

A total of 138 submissions were received during the period and represented a mix of residents, businesses, community and environment groups along with the Department of Environment Resource Management.

Summary of submissions and Council responses

THE PERCENTAGE GAMES TAKE OVER ONCE THE FIGURES HAVE BEEN – ‘MANIPULATED’?

72% of respondents endorsed the concept and a further 19% supported it in principle if their concerns were addressed while 19% opposed the proposal.

Level of Support for project	% (number of respondents)
I support the project	72.4% (n=100)
I support the project in principle with some concerns that are capable of being addressed	13.7 (n=19)
I do not support the project	13.7 (n=19)
TOTAL  (CONTINUED NEXT PAGE)	138 (100%)

WHO DESIGNED THE QUESTIONNAIRE? IT LOOKS ‘LOADED’?

HAS AN OBJECTIVE, INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS BEEN MADE OF THIS PROCESS?

GCCC ADVISES THAT THE SPRINGBROOK POPULATION IS 500-600, YET IT SEEKS ENDORSEMENT OF ITS INTENTIONS FROM 138 (NOT ALL RESIDENTS?) RESPONSES TO WHAT COULD PROBABLY BE A ‘MANIPULATED’ PROCESS. DOES THIS REALLY DEMONSTRATE COMMUNITY AGREEMENT? IS COUNCIL REALLY HAPPY WITH LESS THAN ONLY 23%-28% OF THE POPULATION HAVING A SAY? THIS IS AN ABSURD VISION OF DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES.

Respondents (n=100) were asked to explain why they supported the project. The majority of respondents explained they supported the project due to the additional facilities (picnic areas and toilets), playground and open space it will provide.

THE FOLLOWING IS LIKE A ‘DORTHORY DIX’ LIST OF RESPONSES: A D.I.Y. SET OF RESPONSES? WHO KNOWS?

NOTE THAT POSSIBLE RESPONSE OPTIONS WERE ALREADY LISTED AND NO POSSIBLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ITEMISED TO ASSIST THOSE RESPONSES. IT SEEMS THAT BLIND GUESSING AND AUTO-SUGGESTION ARE INVOLVED HERE.

“It provides additional facilities  and takes pressure off the overcrowded National Parks”

“I support the project because it offers a park and a playground for the people of Springbrook”

“It looks fabulous – good design – about time we had something done here we can all use. Plus it will impress the overseas visitors – so we don’t look like a third world country.

“The provision of public open space with amenities is in short supply at Springbrook”.

“We need extra picnic and toilet facilities for visitors and a better playground for children. The two swings and slide at Centenary Park are not enough for local children”.

The second most commonly stated reason for endorsement of the day use area concept was that it offered information for visitors to the mountain and educated locals and visitors about the environment which was located on the right side of the road (n=22). The other key themes respondents cited were the benefit it provided to families and the community (both locals and visitors), the fact it was a low impact and low key development in a degraded area and it took pressure off National Parks which was much needed.

WHAT INFORMATION; WHAT EDUCATION? THIS LOOKS LIKE A FARCE AS SO-CALLED ‘SUPPORT’ IS BEING GIVEN TO NOTHING OTHER THAN A FEW WORDS ‘ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE ROAD’!! WILL LOCAL FAMILIES REALLY WANT TO GO TO THIS PLACE WHEN THERE ARE MANY OTHER MORE ATTRACTIVE PLACES – RIGHT SIDE OF THE ROAD OR NOT? WHO WANTS ROADSIDE RECREATION ANYHOW – ESPECIALLY ON SUCH AN APPARENTLY DANGEROUS, SPEEDY ROAD? THIS APPEARS TO BE NONSENSE WHEN IT IS REALLY NOT A DIFFICULT TASK TO TURN INTO THE EXISTING FACILITIES THAT ARE NOT OVER-USED. THE WORDS REMAIN OF INTEREST – ‘SOFT AND TOUCHY’ – SEEMINGLY TO GET THE DESIRED OUTCOME: FAMILIES; COMMUNITY; LOW KEY; DEGRADED; ETC. WHO CAN REJECT THESE AS WORTHLESS INTENTIONS? DO THEY DISGUISE OTHER AMBITIONS?  (CONTINUED NEXT PAGE)

IS ‘SOFT AND TOUCHY’ GCCC’S LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF PUBLIC INTELLIGENCE, THINKING THAT SUCH DIVERSIONARY TECHNIQUES MIGHT WORK ?

“It will benefit locals and visitors alike – a family oriented concept”.

 “The provision of information and family friendly facilities”. (CONTINUED NEXT PAGE)

Access for the public and local families without destroying wildlife and fauna and having to park on the side of the road (as happens in overcrowded National Parks)

THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT DESTROY WILFLIFE AND FAUNA. THESE ARE JUST MORE WORDS.

THE WILDCARE YEARLY REPORTS DOCUMENT THAT THERE HAVE BEEN OVER 400 WILDLIFE ROAD FATALITIES DURING THE LAST 2 YEARS AT SPRINGBROOK. THESE WERE REPORTED INCIDENTS - MOST ARE NOT REPORTED. THIS LEAVES A SERIOUS BLACK HOLE – YET ANOTHER ONE -  IN COUNCIL’S POSITION. THIS ASTONISHING STATISTIC SEEMS TO GENERATE NO CONCERN WITHIN COUNCIL.

The provision of alternative recreation to the National Park – takes the pressure off the existing picnic areas and toilet facilities.

Information for people coming to the mountain where they can stop on the right side of the road on the way up.

IS EVERYTHING TO BE DUPLICATED ON EACH SIDE OF THE RAOD? THIS IS NOT THE M1 RUNNING THROUGH BRITAIN THAT NEEDS SERVICE FACILITIES ON EITHER SIDE OF THE MOTORWAY BECAUSE IT IS MANY KILOMETRES BEFORE ONE CAN TURN OFF. THIS IS WORLD HERITAGE SPRINGBROOK.

Support for project
Themes	Number of respondents
Facilities, playground, open space and improving presentation of Springbrook	44
Educating people about the environment, providing information at the start of the mountain to visitors as to where to go (sites and businesses)	22
Low impact/low key/on a degraded piece of land	12
Reduced pressure on National Parks	12

14% (n=19) of respondents indicated they supported the project in principle if there concerns were to be addressed. The major themes of respondents concerns were there should be an information/interpretative kiosk/centre located in the day use area and that a playground be built in the park.

THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT THIS IS NECESSARY OTHER THAN IN THE QUESTION. THE PROCESS SEEMS TO BE FLAWED. JUST WHAT RESPONSES MIGHT HAVE BEEN GIVEN IF A BROADER SCOPE OF OPPORTUNITIES HAD BEEN OUTLINED AS SUGGESTIONS IN THE QUESTIONS? DOES THIS MEAN THAT EVERYTHING A POLULACE WANTS IS DESIRABLE?

Support for project if concerns addressed
Themes	Number of respondents
An Information/interpretative kiosk/centre be located in day use area	6
Ensure that a playground is located in the day use area	5
No trees be removed	2
Design/character be changed   (CONTINUED NEXT PAGE)	1

AN INTERPRETATIVE KIOSK?? DOES ANYONE REALLY KNOW WHAT THIS IS?

WHY DOES COUNCIL SEEM TO SEEK TO IGNORE ANY REAL CO-OPERATION WITH NATIONAL PARKS TO ENSURE AN OUTCOME FOR WORLD HERITAGE RATHER THAN FOR COUNCIL?

“As yet no interpretative kiosk or similar. Some play equipment for children.”

14% (n=19) of respondents indicated they did not support the project. Respondents objections related to land being left for conservation purposes only.

Do not support for project
Themes	Number of respondents
Land used for conservation only	5
Installing interpretative art/use of sandstone	4
Impact/removal of trees	3
Scale/spend of money	2
A bushfire area	1

NOW WE HAVE ‘INTERPRETATIVE’ ART – WHAT IS THIS? ‘ART’ LIKE THAT AT THE WAR MEMORIAL? WHY?

“It is land bought for conservation. It should be protected from development, not developed!”

SUMMARY

THIS SUBMISISON SEEMS TO BE FILLED WITH CONTRADICTIONS AND USELESS WORDS. IT APPEARS TO LACK ANY OBJECTIVITY AND SEEMS TO BE BASED ON PRESUMPTIONS RATHER THAN ANY ONJECTIVE RESEARCH. IT SEEMS TO OFFER NOTHING OTHER THAN INNUENDO THAT COULD ALLOW ANY COUNCIL TO APPROVE ANY DEVELOPMENT ON THE SPORK PROPERTY. IT GIVES THE IMPRESSION OF COUNCIL MANUPILATING OUTCOMES, IGNORING ITS OWN PROCESSES AND SETTING ITS OWN RULES, JUST TO GET WHAT IT WANTS TO BE DONE. THE COMMUNITY SEEMS TO BE PLAYED WITH FOR COUNCIL’S BENEFIT.

BY SPENDING MONEY RAISED AS A GREEN LEVY FOR THE PRESERVATION OF OPEN SPACE ON PROJECTS IN A WORLD HERITAGE AREA IN THIS MANNER – FOR ROADS, PARKING SPACES, PLAY EQUIPMENT, PICNIC SHELTERS AND TOILET BLOCKS: ALL ON WHAT LOOK LIKE DODGY PREMISES, APPARENTLY WITHOUT ANY OBJECTIVE RESEARCH (AND EVEN WITH IT!!) – COUNCIL SEEMS TO SHOW A DISREGARD EVEN FOR COMMUNITY GOODWILL THAT HAS LET COUNCIL COLLECT FUNDS FOR THE FUTURE OF OPEN AREAS – NOT THEIR DEVELOPMENT. SPRINGBROOK IS NOT A CITY PARK – IT IS A WORLD HERITAGE NATIONAL PARK WITH OBLIGATIONS TO THE REGIONAL COMMUNITY AND TO THE COMMUNITY OF THE WORLD.

(END)