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)