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.

Download pdf at: http://www.saveralphsbay.org/pdf/SRBMediaRel14Jun11A.pdf

On June 21st 2010, the Tasmanian Planning Commission (TPC) delivered its final Integrated Assessment Report rejecting the Walker Corporation’s proposed canal housing estate in Ralphs Bay.  The next day, then Premier David Bartlett announced his Government’s intention to bring in a Tasmanian canal estate ban.

“Save Ralphs Bay Inc. has campaigned long and hard for this canal estate ban”, said SRB Communication Coordinator Jane MacDonald.  “SRB was formed in 2004 and a canal estate ban was one of the group’s goals right from the start.”
The Canal Estates (Prohibition) Bill 2011 amends the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPAA) to prohibit canal estate developments in Tasmania.  The Bill requires the Tasmanian Planning Commission to amend Tasmanian planning schemes accordingly, and it stipulates that a canal estate project is not eligible to be declared a Project of Regional Significance.

The Bill also amends the State Policies and Projects Act 1993 to ensure that a canal estate development proposal can never again be given Project of State Significance status in Tasmania. 
“A legislated canal estate ban will send a clear signal to developers that this type of development has no place in Tasmania”, said Jane MacDonald.

“New South Wales banned canal estates in 1997.  The southern Tasmanian municipality of Kingborough banned them in 2000.  The Victorian Coastal Strategy banned them in 2008.  The Southern Tasmanian Regional Land Use Strategy, due out next month, will ban canal estates in the south of the state.  It is high time a consistent statewide ban on this type of development was enacted, to provide clarity to Councils and certainty to communities and developers.  This is particularly significant given the predicted impacts of climate change on future sea levels and on the severity and frequency of extreme weather events.  It is time to recognize the folly of building housing subdivisions in ecologically significant coastal wetlands.”

Save Ralphs Bay Inc.

Download pdf at: http://www.saveralphsbay.org/pdf/ETmedia200511.pdf

Save Ralphs Bay Inc, Environment Tasmania, and the Environmental Defenders Office welcome the TPC findings that the DSCP was irreconcilable due to, among other issues, a lack of strategic direction, integration across all relevant management and planning regimes, consideration of climate change impacts, clear guidance for councils and developers, and the exclusion of the Precautionary Principle.

“We applaud the Tasmanian Planning Commission’s recommendation to develop a more comprehensive policy with legislative backing, and feel that this is a reflection of the community’s concerns and determination to support a strong coastal policy and planning for Tasmania.” said Dr. Thomas Moore, Environment Tasmania’s Coasts Coordinator, “Premier Giddings immediate direction to the Minister for Planning calling for a fresh way forward in what has become a seven year review of the currently active but ineffective and unenforceable 1996 State Coastal Policy (SCP) is encouraging but clearly requires new resources. The next State Budget must reflect this urgent priority.” he continued, “It is fundamental that Premier Giddings maintains a commitment to renewing the SCP and it’s urgent that she delivers within the current term of Government.” he concluded.

The TPC final report also highlighted the breadth and strength of support for a statewide ban on canal estate development, including a submission from the Hobart City Council. The Canal Estates (Prohibition) Bill 2011 is currently before Parliament and due to be debated in the coming weeks.

Download pdf at: http://www.saveralphsbay.org/pdf/SRBMedia17Mar11A.pdf

The Canal Estates (Prohibition) Bill 2011 amends the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPAA) to prohibit canal estate developments in Tasmania.  The Bill requires the Tasmanian Planning Commission to amend Tasmanian planning schemes accordingly, and it stipulates that a canal estate project is not eligible to be declared a Project of Regional Significance.

The Bill also amends the State Policies and Projects Act 1993 to ensure that a canal estate development proposal can never again be given Project of State Significance status in Tasmania. 

The Save Ralphs Bay group has campaigned long and hard to achieve this canal estate ban.  The ban follows the Planning Commission’s comprehensive integrated assessment and final rejection of Walker Corporation’s proposal to construct a canal housing estate on the footprint of the Ralphs Bay Conservation Area at Lauderdale.

“Save Ralphs Bay extends warm thanks to Cassy O’Connor MHA who campaigned as one of the ‘Ralphies’ for years before taking her seat in the Tasmanian Parliament, where she continues to lobby for better protection of Tasmania’s coastal areas”, said SRB spokeswoman Jane MacDonald.

“We also thank former Premier, David Bartlett, Environment Minister Brian Wightman and Planning Minister Bryan Green.  Save Ralphs Bay now calls on all three political parties to pass this Bill with tripartisan support”.

Media enquiries:
Jane MacDonald 0406 993 425
(SRB Communication Coordinator)

Download a pdf version of the newsletter. 

Download pdf at: http://www.saveralphsbay.org/pdf/SRBMedia30Mar10A.pdf

The Walker Corporation’s additional submission on the Draft Integrated Assessment Report (DIAR) for its proposed canal estate reveals the company’s bafflement and confusion.

Walker Corp. seems unable to conceive that, after reading its almost 7000 page Draft Integrated Impact Statement (DIIS), reading 547 submissions on the DIIS, Proofs of Evidence and Response Proofs and listening to submissions in daily hearings from June 17th – July 17th last year, the Tasmanian Planning Commission had heard enough when it wrote the DIAR.

As expected, Walker Corp. is demanding a second round of hearings, this time on the DIAR.

Clearly, Walker Corp.’s current desire is to put the DIAR on trial, which is ironic considering its admonitions to the community since 2004.  Where, now, is Walker Corp.’s previous insistence that all should ‘respect the assessment of the independent umpire’?

In this latest submission, 4 months after all other submissions on the DIAR, Walker Corp. says, “Walker has always stated that it would abide by the umpire’s decision however only when this decision is evidence based and free from biased external influences.”

Save Ralphs Bay Inc. (SRB) believes the Planning Commission assessment has been thorough, rigorous and comprehensive.  The TPC has demonstrated its independence and integrity in a way that all Tasmanians can be proud of. 

Walker Corp. should now be thinking about packing up its bat and ball and going home.

Still in a parallel universe

As in its previous submission and evidence to the hearings, Walker Corp. seems to believe that, if it repeats often enough its claims that the proposed development would have no adverse impacts, this will somehow become true.

For instance, it states yet again, “Evidence presented during the hearings identified no such threat which would result in serious and irreversible environmental harm such that the precautionary principle must be invoked to prevent the project from proceeding.”

And, again, “There is nothing contained in the evidence that construction of the proposed development will or is likely to have a significant impact on any species, as a whole, including the red neck stint and the spotted handfish.”

There are many who disagree, and the TPC panel has taken a range of views into account.

“Sustainability of the development has been used as one of the major reasons for refusal as highlighted in our previous submission Walker does not agree with the report’s conclusions that the proposal does not satisfy the first two objectives of the State’s Resource Management and Planning System.”

Again, the panel has spoken, and it is the body charged with making the final recommendation.

The writer of the Walker Corp. submission appears shocked that the community’s wellbeing was given weight in the draft assessment:
“It is of note that three out of the four primary reasons for refusal in the DIAR are subjective - sustainability, strategic planning and urban form. Other subjective reasons include visual impact, social and cultural impact, health impact, need for development, and construction duration…”

SRB congratulates to the TPC for taking all these matters into account.

Walker Corp. seems unable to grasp the true independence of the TPC from government, stating:
“In relation to the reference to “fair”, the Panel is not satisfied that the proposal is fair due to valued public land being used for private development and the significant level of community opposition. The sale of the subject Crown land was determined as fair when agreed to by Cabinet, a group of democratically elected representatives. The sale is governed by statute.”

In addition, Walker Corp. appears to believe that the granting of Project of State Significance status, which was necessary to allow the rigorous and comprehensive assessment of its proposal, implied a pre-assessment of the development’s sustainability:
“If the development is so unsustainable, why was it granted the status of Project of State Significance, particularly given the volume of information about the project that accompanied the request? Furthermore, why was an expensive hearing required by the Panel?”

These extraordinary questions indicate a fundamental contempt for the Tasmanian Planning Commission and the assessment process.  The Walker Corp., it seems, just does not “get” that the POSS status was considered necessary by government in order to achieve a rigorous and comprehensive assessment, and the hearings were a vital part of the assessment process.

ELEVEN of the seventeen candidates running in Franklin attended or were represented at the Save Ralphs Bay Candidates Forum in Lauderdale Hall last night.  A lively crowd of Save Ralphs Bay supporters packed the hall, standing three deep at the back.

NONE of the candidates indicated any support for the proposed Ralphs Bay canal estate.

The biggest applause of the night was heard for Nick McKim and for Ross Butler, both staunch supporters of the Save Ralphs Bay campaign.

Minister Lara Giddings spoke of the government’s support of the independent planning process, but showed no liking for the canal estate proposal.  “My natural inclination is, I’m not sure canal estates fit in well in Tasmania.” Minister Giddings supported a parliamentary enquiry into a canal estate ban, by the Joint House Committee on Environment, Resources and Development.

Nick McKim’s response was, “Personally, I don’t need a parliamentary committee to tell me that I don’t want to see a single canal estate in our beautiful state.  The Tasmanian Greens have always, and proudly, stood shoulder to shoulder with this community, who have worked so hard, at such cost in time and money.  I still have a Save Ralphs Bay sticker on my car and I’m looking forward to the day when I can take a big fat texta and add the letter ‘d’ to the word ‘Save’”.

Mr. McKim reminded the crowd that, “This obscene proposal is still not dead”.  He pointed out that the Tasmanian Greens have released a comprehensive Coastal Protection Policy and called repeatedly for the release of the State Coastal Policy.  The government started a review of the State Coastal Policy in 2004, and the final policy has not been released.

Vanessa Goodwin MLC spoke on behalf of Will Hodgman, who was unable to attend.  Speaking personally, Ms. Goodwin said, “I am not a fan, and am unlikely to ever be a fan of this development.” Speaking of her childhood in Acton and horse riding in the Ralphs Bay area, Ms. Goodwin said, “It’s beautiful – and windy.  I’m not sure I’d like to live there!” Ms. Goodwin said, “The Liberals have consistently raised concerns about the social, environmental and community impacts of this development, and ramifications for Clarence City Council and Clarence ratepayers, if it doesn’t go according to plan.  The Liberals support the independent Planning Commission and support sensible development – but not at any cost, not development which has deleterious consequences for the community and the environment.”

Speaking about the Tasmanian Planning Commission’s Draft Integrated Assessment Report (DIAR), released last October, Ms. Goodwin said it was a comprehensive, evidence-based report.  “I can’t tell you how delighted I was when I heard the Draft Recommendation, and I was even more delighted when I read it and saw how unequivocal it was.”

Ross Butler MHA said, “This is a simple matter.  I’m sick and tired of hearing the word, ‘process’.  This is about principle, not process.  The very concept of this development is abhorrent.  When the ex-senator (Graham Richardson) came to see the Premiers of the time, they should have said, ‘Graham, get back in the taxi’.  This should never got to this stage.”

To great applause, Mr. Butler stated, “If I get re-elected, there will be someone sitting on the cross benches if the wrong decision gets made.”

Speaking after Mr. Butler, Liberal Tony Mulder warmed to the same theme, saying, “Would Tony Mulder cross the floor if my party was dumb enough to make the wrong decision?  Yes, I would.”

Socialist Alliance candidate Jenny Forward spoke of her love of the area, especially, “that first glimpse of the water as you drive into Lauderdale, the light on the sandflats and the mountain in the distance.  The social and environmental impacts (of the proposed development) far outweigh any benefits.  Public land should not be privatised in the interest of private profit.”

Adam Burling (Tasmanian Greens) said, “None of us should be here tonight, if the government was doing its job – this obscene development wouldn’t have got this far.  If it can happen here (at Ralphs Bay) where can it not happen?”

David O’Byrne (Labor) said, “My gut read is – I don’t like canal estates.  I think they’re ugly.  On the independent assessment process, Mr. O’Byrne said, “I absolutely support resourcing communities to fight big corporations.”

Jacquie Petrusma (Liberal) was, “very well aware of the beauty and majesty of Ralphs Bay.” She was concerned about the environmental, community and economic impacts of the proposal.

Jillian Law (Liberal) spoke of her personal experience of living in a Queensland canal estate for many years and said, “I would never recommend it to anyone.”

Wendy Heatley (Greens) advocated community-led development, saying, “I want development that protects our community life, our natural environment, our birdlife.  Ralphs Bay is symptomatic of long-standing governance problems in Tasmania.  We need principles-based planning, values-based government with respect and integrity, taking the needs of future generations into account.  Ralphs Bay is a Conservation Area and should be kept that way. Legislation should be used to enact the will of the people, not to defeat it.”

Click here to read Candidates’ responses to Save Ralphs Bay questionnaire: http://srb.pmhclients.com/index.php/common/questionnaire2/.

The forum ended with a chorus of “Happy Birthday to you” to mark Save Ralphs Bay’s 6th anniversary (and Labor candidate David O’Byrne’s birthday).

Media enquiries:
Jane MacDonald 0406 993 425 (SRB Communication Coordinator)