Members and supporters of Save Ralphs Bay Inc. listened to the debate on the Canal Estates (Prohibition) Bill 2011 in the Tasmanian Parliament from 12.00 midday until 6pm yesterday. 
“It was a great relief when the Canal Estates (Prohibition) Bill 2011 passed at 6pm”, said Save Ralphs Bay spokeswoman, Jane MacDonald.

Download pdf at: http://www.saveralphsbay.org/pdf/SRBMedia15Jun11A.pdf

“We greatly appreciate the leadership shown by the Labor/Green Government in taking on board the Tasmanian Planning Commission’s final report on the proposed Ralphs Bay canal estate; consulting stakeholders; drafting the ban and bringing the Bill to the Parliament.  It was gratifying to hear Labor and Green MP’s explaining the importance of coastal protection and the detrimental effects of canal estate developments. 
“Unfortunately, the Tasmanian Liberals seemed unable to distinguish between the State Coastal Policy (an important, but separate issue) and the need for a ban on canal estate developments.”

The Bill will now pass upstairs to the Legislative Council.  Save Ralphs Bay Inc. urges the Members of the Legislative Council to pass the Canal Estates (Prohibition) Bill 2011and save Tasmania’s coastlines and coastal communities from the negative impacts of future canal estate developments.

A legislated ban on canal estates is needed in Tasmania to prevent the years of negative impact, risk exposure and unexpected costs commonly associated with these developments.  A new State Coastal Policy is still some years off, but a legislated ban sends a clear signal that canal estate developments are not wanted along Tasmania’s coastline.  The canal estate prohibition proposed in the Regional Land Use Strategy for Southern Tasmania is a welcome restriction.  However, as Clarence City Council noted in its report on the Strategy, ‘It is considered that this matter should be dealt with through legislation.’
“Members of the Legislative Council need to be fully aware of the massive scale of these intrusions into coastal ecosystems”, said Jane MacDonald. 

According to Walker Corporation’s Draft Integrated Impact Statement (Executive Summary page VII) the proposed Ralphs Bay development would have involved the excavation of 2,000,000 cubic metres of material from Ralphs Bay.

“To picture this, imagine a heap of excavated material 100m high, 200m long, 100m wide.”

Canal estates take many years to construct. During construction, precious wetland ecosystems are destroyed and local residents endure years of noise, disruption, unpleasant smells and massive loss of visual amenity. According to the Walker Corporation’s Draft Integrated Impact Statement (page 332) the proposed Lauderdale Quay development would have been completed in 2028 - if all went well.

The Ralphs Bay canal estate proposal was assessed by the Planning Commission after Walker Corporation requested that the matter be dealt with as a Project of State Significance. It is highly unlikely any future developer would seek such a rigorous, comprehensive assessment option.  Instead, if canal estates are not banned, future assessments of canal estate Development Applications would be carried out by local council staff.  In remote coastal areas of Tasmania, under-resourced small councils would be unable to provide adequate assessments of all the risks associated with a multimillion dollar corporation’s canal estate proposal.  A small coastal community would struggle to muster the resources to oppose such a development.  Appeals would end up in the adversarial environment of the Resource Management and Planning Appeals Tribunal rather than in an inquisitorial Tasmanian Planning Commission assessment.  The difficulty, stress and expense of the exercise would be enormous.

After completion, canal housing estates often result in expensive long term management headaches.  Canal estate residents, local councils and state governments face significant ongoing costs for environmental monitoring and efforts to remediate worse-than-expected outcomes such as increased dredging frequency, poor water quality, nuisance algal growth, pests such as mosquitoes, loss of sand from beaches, impacts of acid sulphate soils, monosulphidic black oozes and so on.

It is already difficult to secure adequate insurance for properties in canal estate developments and other property in low lying coastal areas.  This poses major risks to individual property owners, councils, ratepayers, state governments and taxpayers, who may be asked to provide financial assistance when insurance protection fails.

Tasmanian coastal councils will be dealing with the impacts of climate change for decades to come. It would be sheer folly to leave Tasmania’s coast ‘Open For Business’ when the business concerned is canal estate development.  Coastal council staff will have their time taken up with responses to damage and loss of property as sea levels rise and areas of low lying development face beach erosion, rising water tables and the impacts of increasing severity and frequency of extreme weather events.

With the Canal estates (Prohibition) Bill 2011, the Tasmanian government has adopted a prudent approach of banning the construction of housing subdivisions in low lying coastal wetlands, instead seeking to encourage development that respects, and promotes, our fragile coastlines.  The canal estate ban can save Tasmanian coastal councils and communities from massive unnecessary impacts and expense.