Sunday, May 29, 2011

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 13th 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.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.