Archive for the 'Uncategorized' Category

The drivers seat

February 25th, 2010

It seems that our local editor Mr Peter Chapman knows better than our Council especially our CEO about road signs and intersections. He is not happy with our CEO now. Just lately it was our Planning and Development Dept so maybe it is the roads dept and the CEO’s turn now to receive the Peter Chapman spotlight and resulting make over! Mr Chapman didn’t attend the meeting with residents but maybe he should have.

Then he may have written that Council has already installed warning signs leading up to the intersection, painted a give way sign ahead on the road, repainted the lines at the intersection and have put the additional reflective backgrounds around the give way signs.

Apparently a local truck driver has explained that with a give way sign he can slow down, assess the traffic and if all clear continue across the interesection quickly and smoothly. If he has to stop then he uses more fuel and takes much longer to clear the intersection. Other community members want the Give Way sign to stay.

The recent fatality was extremely sad but if we are to jump into vehicles that can travel faster than the human body was designed to do we take a risk. Each and every time we travel by road we acknowledge that either ourselves or some other road user could make a mistake or act irresponsibly. Our bodies aren’t designed to cope with a sudden stop or impact. Travelling by road is more often than not safe but statistics show that our safety can never ever be guaranteed.

I can own up to one night a while ago now nearly killing myself and Graham. I was not concentrating and drove out onto the Burrum heads Rd instead of stopping where it interesects with Anson’s Rd. I was lucky as no traffic was coming. I was mortified. Am still. I know the road well as I have used it for years but still on that particular night I made a mistake. I’m still not sure why but the fact remains I did. Most of us are lucky and live to tell the tales of our near misses or do what I have done till now and never admit them for the embarassment that they are.

So while I agree that roads contribute to safety and should be designed well and maintained and upgraded the reality is that we have many ‘old’ roads built to a lower standard than would be accepted today and we need to be careful when we drive.

My heart is heavy with sadness for the lifelong burden that one young girl will have to carry. There but for the grace of God go many of us! Signs won’t stop people from making mistakes but yes they will help. I don’t want a stop sign when I’m turning left. A Give Way sign is as obvious to me as is a Stop Sign. They both require a driver to approach a crossing with caution and be ready to stop. I don’t believe a stop sign versus a give way sign is the issue.

The real issue is to take care while driving, be doubly aware on a strange unfamiliar road and never stop concentrating when driving on familiar roads either. Statistics show the majority of accidents happen near our homes.

Please tell Council if you think a road needs attention and if crossings require upgrading. While we can’t fix every problem road tomorrow, we can budget to paint lines, improve signage and install warning signs and slowly but surely upgrade our road network. Upgrading roads is expensive and we simply can’t afford to do every road now!

So take care and help us by identifying areas needing attention but also by driving carefully. Cr David Dalgleish is the appropriate Councillor to contact as he is Chair of the relevant portfolio.

Lastly for Mr Chapman just in case he doesn’t know…. The CEO does the Council bidding. In that he is the servant of Council.  His job is to see that Council and other Government policy and legislation is carried out. If you desire that our policies need changing it is the elected members that can make the changes not the CEO.

Beating Heart not new

February 23rd, 2010

A point of clarification or correction is needed in relation to the front page story (FCC 23/2/10). The $170 million dollar ‘beating heart for the Bay’ was mostly approved by the then Hervey Bay City Council in August 2007 prior to amalgamation. The development was one of the first to be approved with the eight storey height limit allowed under the current Hervey Bay Planning Scheme. The development is not ‘new’ and was never ‘a secret’ and was mentioned in the Chronicle at the time of approval I believe.

Hervey Bay City Council in fact gave the green light over 2.5 years ago. Recently the development has been extended with a further parcel of land adjoining the site at 23 Main St approved in December last year. I expect that the developers may need to seek an extension of time if they cannot commence construction within the allocated time frame allowed after gaining their approval in 2007.

The face of Hervey Bay is set to change dramatically if all the approved developments go ahead. There are many other significant 8 storey developments and mixed use developments already approved but not commenced. Two examples that come to mind are the redevelopment of the Beach house Hotel to 8 storeys and the site on Boat Harbour Drive diagonally opposite Bunnings. While I don’t support and haven’t ever supported wall to wall high rise alongside our foreshore I believe this Charles/Main St development will be a positive step in revitalizing the ‘beach end’ of Main St. 

FYI Details of approvals…

 513/3-051287 – Approved 15 August 2007 – Invergowrie Properties P/L – MCU- Multiple Units in Excess of Two Storeys & Shops (245 Units & Shops) & ROL – 3 Lots into 2 Lots – 16-18 & 20 Charles St Pialba and Lot 3 Charles St Pialba

513/3-051288 – Approved 15 August 2007 – Invergowrie Properties P/L – MCU- Multiple Units in Excess of Two Storeys (12), Shops, Office & Restaurants  – 9-25 Main Street Pialba

513/3-081847 – Approved 9 December 2009 – Invergowrie Properties P/L – MCU – Offices & Shops – 23 Main Street Pialba

The rapidly shrinking ‘black hole’

February 1st, 2010

FCRC

MEDIA RELEASE

01 February 2010

 Infrastructure Charges

 The Fraser Coast Regional Council is not facing a financial crisis due to a lack of infrastructure charges collected from developers.

“If there had been anything untoward in the finances the State Government would have raised it,” Fraser Coast Regional Council Mayor Mick Kruger said.

“The Council received an unqualified report from the Auditor General for its 2008/2009 financial report.

“The Council receives a financial update each month, the latest last week, on how our budget is travelling and if there are any shortfalls and their implications.”

Infrastructure charges collected from developers are used to provide trunk infrastructure to a development whether it is a high-rise development on the Esplanade, an industrial estate or a residential subdivision, Cr Kruger said.

“If the development does not go ahead then the Council does not need to provide the trunk infrastructure in the same timeframes.

“The infrastructure charges are not used to fund parks or facilities in other areas, maintenance or improvement of existing facilities; that work is budgeted for as part of the Council’s $65 million capital works program which is funded from general rates, other fees and charges and grants.” 

The infrastructure funded by developers’ contributions includes trunk infrastructure – the main roads and large pipes that connect new developments to existing services.

“If a new subdivision is created the developer is asked to contribute towards improvements to existing trunk roads that connect it to the Council’s existing road network that will carry the extra vehicles generated by the subdivision. Whilst the developers contribute towards the costs of new trunk infrastructure, the remainder of funding is sourced from loans, grants and general rates. 

“Similar contributions are made towards trunk drainage, water and sewerage which may include the upgrading of pump stations, or as has just occurred, the building of a new $30 million waste water treatment facility by Wide Bay Water at Nikenbah.”

The slowdown being experienced locally by the development industry is not a result of increased infrastructure charges but caused by the Global Financial Crisis.

“A comparison of development activity in other Queensland councils shows that they are also experiencing a similar slowdown in development activity so it is not just a Fraser Coast phenomenon.

“The development slowdown has more to do with developers’ inability to gain financing from the banks due to the Global Economic Crisis.” 

Unlike other Councils, the Fraser Coast Regional Council has also offered developers a 30% discount on infrastructure charges if their development was approved before the new charges were implemented. That discount remains in force until June 30.

Developers who gain approval now and pay all of their fees before June 30 qualify for a 25% reduction in charges. 

The slowdown is affecting all Queensland centres as borne out in the drop in building and development applications across the state. 

“One thing this Council will not be doing is asking ratepayers to pay for services that developers should be providing,” Cr Kruger said. 

At the Council meeting last week (January 27) an update of the Council’s finances showed that while the reduction in developer contributions received this financial year would result in limited expenditure on any trunk infrastructure, conversely the demand for such trunk infrastructure due to development is significantly reduced. 

The Council separately accounts for the provision of trunk infrastructure and is continually reviewing the impact of development on its assets and the financial implications are reviewed and reported to Council on a monthly basis in the finance report. 

The net capital expenditure YTD totals $22.3 million or 48% of YTD budget projection of $47.8 million however an additional $11.8 million has been committed on capital projects bringing the total to 73% of YTD budget.  

These commitments include all of the expenditure recently allocated for the Main Street upgrade.

Projects underspent include:

  • $4.2 million in Information Technology projects – the majority of which are now being undertaken;
  • $12.5 million in Water and Sewerage Infrastructure – which will be reviewed and undertaken by Wide Bay Water;

 In addition the following major projects are in the planning stages, in progress or nearing completion:

 PCYC Third Court – $1.283 million

  • Animal Refuge – $0.72 million
  • CBD Beautification Project – $3.6 million
  • Pavement Resurfacing – $3.5 million
  • Strategic Land Use Plan – $1.5 million
  • Pedestrian Bridge Bruce Highway – $1.4 million

 ENDS

Black hole… I don’t think so.

January 30th, 2010

The question I have to ask myself, after reading the Saturday Chronicle  (30-1-2010), is – ‘Has the Chronicle joined forces with our local development industry players to influence Councillors?’ After reading yesterday’s latest attack on Council it appears so. Since Christmas we have read story after story after front page headline lamenting the so called ‘facts’ that Council is stopping or holding back development in our beautiful region. In fact we have read whole page articles and editorials by Mr Peter Chapman attacking our Director of Planning and Development Services Mr David King and his hard working staff and Council as a whole. After reading the Saturday editorial and front page story the only conclusion I can make is that Mr Chapman wants Council to get rid of some, or possibly all, of our hard working planning staff!

 Council is not sending developers packing. Many developments have stalled in Hervey Bay because of the financial situation and due to a lack of demand not because of anything Council has or hasn’t done. Developing land anywhere within the Fraser Coast or in the rest of Queensland, is a complicated process. It is complicated due to the Legislation, by way of Acts and associated Planning Schemes, that were created long before the current Fraser Coast Regional Council came into being. There are many impediments within the Planning Schemes which hinder development. For instance we have bushfire layers, sewerage smell zones, natural area overlays and airport noise zones to mention just a few requirements. Even sheds are now caught up in Planning Schemes because Councillors of the day tried to make shed building on vacant land difficult to stop people residing in sheds! If you want to build a shed on vacant land I have news for you. It is expensive and complicated. On top of Planning Scheme requirements we have State and Federal requirements. The list of requirements seems to grow longer with every passing year. So if you have a permit to build an aquaculture farm from the State Government you still have to apply, pay fees and meet the requirements within the applicable Council Planning Scheme.

 Hervey Bay also has had to implement infrastructure charges in line with State Government requirements. The charges are not a Council invention but a State Government requirement! These charges are used to develop ‘trunk’ infrastructure which is primarily arterial roads and drains. When Council introduced the charges it consulted extensively with the development industry and it also agreed to reduce charges for any ‘shovel ready’ development. This reduction in charges has impacted on our budget projections and helped create the so called Chronicle ‘black hole’ but the fee reductions were done to assist the development and construction industry. It seems Council is damned if we do and damned if we don’t.

 Infrastructure charges are not used anywhere else but on core trunk infrastructure. Let me explain. Main Street in Hervey Bay takes traffic from many outlaying areas into the centre of Hervey Bay. For this reason the road is identified as a ‘trunk’ road. Originally this road was built and designed to cope with a limited number of cars. As the city grows more and more traffic needs to use this road. I think it is fair and reasonable that a developer who is creating new houses and new ‘traffic’ that will use Main Street, contributes a reasonable amount to the upgrade of this arterial road. This is in fact happening now with charges collected from developers being used to upgrade this road. If, instead of developer contributions we expect rate payers themselves to pay for these works then rates (or taxes) would need to be raised. Regardless of who has to pay for upgrading our roads etc someone in deed does. The funds to upgrade trunk infrastructure due to increasing population growth, have to come from someone’s purse. If the development doesn’t occur we don’t need to upgrade the infrastructure and hence we don’t need to spend money. This is perfectly logical to me so why doesn’t the Chronicle explain it so that readers can understand it? In other words there is no black hole! If  development doesn’t occur we don’t need the infrastructure upgraded and so life goes on as usual. Normal maintenance and upkeep of our infrastructure is not what infrastructure charges are used for. Upgrades and maintenance do come from general rates, fees and charges and grants and subsidies etc.

 Now to explain what Council staff do. Council planning staff, under the leadership of Mr David King, assess development applications and make recommendations. They assess an application against the relevant Planning Scheme as that is their job. Council staff cannot and must not assess a development application to arrive at an outcome that the Mayor or Councillors desire. If Councillors want development to occur then they must collectively ensure that the Planning Scheme encourages development to happen. Councillors can’t simply ask the staff to ‘make it so’. If we do direct staff in this manner we are, in my opinion, acting outside our responsibilities. The vast majority of applications that Council processes are dealt with by staff and are approved by staff. Take a look at the Council web site and you can see for yourself the number of applications in and the number out each and every month and you can see how many are refused. The refusals amount to less than 4 a month on average. December 2009 for example saw 62 applications approved and 4 refused! http://www.frasercoast.qld.gov.au/services/town%20planning%20applications%20and%20decisions.shtml

 For complex larger developments the recommendations of staff are reported to Council and Councillors make the final decision to approve or refuse a development. Recently a residential development in Hughes Road, Hervey Bay, was deferred by Council. The Mayor then met with the developer’s representatives and with Council staff and changed conditions were applied to the development. The Councillors approved the development in this changed form. In the Saturday Chronicle on page 7, we read about a successful development to provide housing for RV owners in Maryborough. This development was also a challenge for Council as it was difficult to ‘make it fit’ into the current Planning Scheme but make it fit we did and the development is approved. In other words many developments have been approved throughout the region.

 So I am left to wonder what personal agenda the Chronicle editor has which requires him to publish story after story criticising Council and in particular our planning staff. It should be remembered that if our planning staff, in particular senior staff, decide to leave us or if Council decides to dispense with their services, then it is a very expensive and costly exercise to replace them. A cost that would be borne by our community. Our planning staff work in an extremely difficult environment. I would not be a planner for love or money. Planning staff have to constantly deal with some developers and consultants hell bent on getting what they want now, right now and then they also have to respond to intense questioning by Councillors! Most developers want to make their profit and move on to their next profit making project. This is all well and good if their developments comply with the rules. But frequently applications or enquiries to develop land do not meet Planning Scheme requirements. Developers have in the past in Hervey Bay and Maryborough speculated or gambled by buying land not zoned for residential development. The usual tactic is to buy rural farming land cheaply and then apply to develop it. If Council says sorry but no you are not allowed to develop this land somehow the Chronicle blames Council for ‘making developers leave in droves’. I have sat in Council meeting after Council meeting and read countless reports recommending approval for developments that I don’t believe comply with our rules but none the less are recommended for approval. This is because planning staff continually try their very best to find ways to make developments work within the framework of a set of rules not of their making. Let’s not forget that these rules were approved by us, the Councillors.

So at the risk of annoying you Mr Chapman may I respectfully ask why you are so cranky with Council when most development applications are approved and the ones that aren’t approved are knocked back for very sound reasons? Do you Mr Chapman, want Council to ignore its own Planning Schemes? Do you think you can pressure the Mayor and Councillors into getting rid of our highly skilled planning staff? Do you think that Councillors will respond to the pressure you are applying to them for fear of receiving negative press in the future? I have personally suffered negative press on more than one occasion after simply speaking out as I am doing now. I realise Peter that your paper relies heavily on the property industry for your income but is this reason enough to portray Council so negatively? Maybe sensationalist reporting does improve your circulation and thereby make you look successful. If so I am disappointed in my community. You have told me that Hervey Bay has a very low readership compared to Maryborough. Well the people I speak to in Hervey Bay these days, are telling me they will not buy a paper that plasters rubbish and sensationalist negative stories all over its front page and they don’t appreciate the negative journalism. I sincerely hope that your newspaper is not run simply as a business more concerned with making money than truthfully informing and inspiring a community within which you have chosen to reside.

Fraser Coast people tell me that they do not want development gone wild. Our residents live here because it is a beautiful, relaxed happy place to live. Hervey Bay residents don’t want Hervey Bay spoiled by ad hoc multi unit and high rise development anywhere near their foreshore. They don’t want a concrete coast. Maryborough people tell me they want to see their city retain its unique character and grow its population by encouraging development in appropriate well serviced locations. They do not want to see their beautiful and proud city ‘die’. Outlying townspeople tell me that they want to retain their schools and attract more people to their areas without compromising their rural based quality of life. What we need is a local newspaper that is assisting this process not hindering it by placing so much pressure on Council that our planning staff leave us.

This region is a beautiful place to live. Council staff are working as hard as they can to ensure a professional delivery of service. They have implemented PD Online and are continually trying to improve their level of service. How do we expect staff to function well and enjoy living here when their families have to cope with continual public criticism of their performance? If I was looking at applying for a job here one look at the local paper would see me turn on my heel and look elsewhere. We have never been able to attract enough planners to our region due to a nation wide shortage and I’m afraid the excellent ones we have now will turn tail and run.

So Peter, please realise we are doing our very best to help our community develop sensibly and efficiently. We must work within the rules and I would appreciate your involvement and assistance in changing our rules and improving them via our Fraser Coast 2031 process. Let’s all work together to make the Fraser Coast a happy place to live.

Australia Day road trip

January 26th, 2010

Blue skies and snags were the order of the day. Great to be able to share the day with the wonderful residents of and visitors to Burrum Heads, Howard, River Heads and Hervey Bay. It was inspirational as always to see everyone rolling up their sleeves to help out with the tea and coffee and BBQ and to relax with a cuppa and a light beer with which I cooled off at River Heads.

I hope you all enjoyed the day and took time to remember how lucky we are to live here in our tiny corner of the greatest country on earth.

Our flag flies high at Burrum Heads

Our flag flies high at Burrum Heads

 

The flag delivered via horseback at Howard

The flag delivered via horseback at HowardSpeech time at Howard

Speech time at Howard

Speech time at Howard

The week that was

January 17th, 2010

Dear Peter, How was your week? Mine was pretty frustrating I’m sad to say. Frustrating because your newspaper seems to be rapidly heading down the path of sensationalism and pro development. Any development anywhere it seems… want to build a fish factory in a RAMSAR wetland well just go right ahead. You’re concerned that there are strict environmental protection requirements and Planning Scheme rules? Oh ‘don’t you worry about that’ we are the Fraser Coast and we want any development anywhere so we can boost our economy and grow this newspaper circulation!

Now I might be exaggerating but is this what residents of our community want? I hope not because I certainly don’t. While I do want to see our region grow larger and build a sustainable economic base so there is choice in employment and plenty of sporting and cultural activities I do want development managed so that roads can cope and not become gridlocked. I want development properly designed and located and regulated. I want strong environmental protection and I want developers to provide a good quality product and adhere to the rules. If the rules are problematic come and talk to Councillors so that we can change the rules (where we have the power to do so) as reasonable rules are everybodys goal I believe.

The recent front page headlines screaming about job losses etc in relation to the Centro project were sensationalism at its best. Leda have been negotiating with Council for too long a time I agree, but to print a story saying that approved conditions were ‘new conditions’ was erroneous. The mobility corridor was agreed to early on and is in lieu of the development providing a footpath as every developer these days is required to provide. The million dollar public art component can be used for paving, landscaping, seating and signage etc. All the things I expect in a modern shopping centre. But wait we now find out that the only hiccup is infrastructure charges and the fact that Leda didn’t ‘understand’ the wording!

So we are supposed to believe that a company about to invest in a 100million dollar development doesn’t understand the terms of its approval? If this was truthfully the case then maybe they need to change their advisers. But if it is truthfully the case and I am the first to admit that infrastructure charges have been changing during their application process, then why did Leda not simply ring the Mayor? Why did you Peter, receive the call not the Mayor? Why did the Chronicle relentlessly persecute Mr David King, Director of Development Services, for merely doing his job? Mr King is directed by Council to apply the current policies of Council. If Leda had asked Mr David King to alter these policies and he said no then Mr King was simply doing what he is paid to do. Leda if it was unhappy with this decision should have directly contacted the Mayor and the CEO who could then inform and debate the issue with Councillors. I have not voted on the Centro application myself due to the fact that I part own a business there, but I believe Council is supportive of the project as has been demonstrated by the development approval given against Planning Scheme recommendations. I also believe appropriate infrastructure charges should be levied on any development without exception.

I hope you understand Peter, that Mr King is an honest hard working Council employee. While he is performing his duties in line with Council policy, he is often going to be actively disliked and criticised by some members of the development and construction industry. This is par for the course in an industry which does contain some people whose only care in the world is getting the biggest bang for their buck and the only language they speak is the one with multiple dollar signs. To some members of the development and construction industry profit is more important than truth, honesty, delivering a high quality product and playing within the rules!

I do expect some property related business people to dislike Mr David King. If everyone loved and never criticised or complained about any Director of Development Services as a Councillor, I’d be more than a little bit worried. The biggest game in town is development and I honestly don’t know how Mr King and his team of planning staff work in the environment in which they have to. They don’t make the rules but they have to follow them. I believe they deserve thanks not criticism as they work under difficult conditions and provide the best service possible. It is very difficult whenever they and/or Council refuse a development to read headlines in the Chronicle criticising us for doing our job! One might ask is the Chronicle so dependent on development industry income through advertising revenue such as the property guide and through increased circulation etc, that it is not willing to be objective?

Peter could you encourage and advise business people and developers wanting to set up business here to please speak to your elected members sooner rather than later. Councillors have the power to adapt rules to better suit purposes but we cannot get involved in negotiations once a development application is being assessed. Councillors are in breach of all sorts of obligations if they become involved during the processing of applications as political influence must not be a part this process. Councillors do need to know what hurdles are facing investors so the sooner we know of problems prior to application stage the better. Council staff cannot alter ‘the rules’ but Councillors have discretion and can do so if we believe that bending the rules has merit and can be justified.

Maybe Peter the Chronicle, while retaining its role as a Council watchdog, could focus on promoting the region as a great place to invest in, rather than highlighting negative aspects of our community and of Council. Maybe we would all feel a bit more positive and happier and new people would be attracted here. After all we are the happiest region in Australia so we must be doing something right!

Growing pains!

January 14th, 2010

Our Council is still using the previous Council Planning Schemes to assess development applications. Throughout the region there is land earmarked for development and zoned appropriately and much rural land that is not zoned for development. The Della Vista development was a proposed development for rural zoned land at Granville. This land has not been earmarked for development as supporting infrastructure such as sewerage and roads, not forgetting that future growth in Granville will bring forward the need to widen the Granville bridge, is not easily provided. It has been common practice in the past for developers to buy up rural land which is cheap to purchase and then apply to Council to permit development on this land. Under IPA anyone could apply to develop land anywhere for anything as there were no prohibitions like there used to be in previous legislation. This state of affairs led to developments being approved in the past that are now an expensive dilemma to maintain. I receive constant complaints about drainage and road problems from residents in such areas. I have also experienced many, many times developers crying poor to Council and promising ‘jobs, jobs and more jobs and cheap housing’ etc if Council approves their development. On gaining approval the property is placed straight on the market and the developer walks away with a handsome profit. Many of these developments have not been constructed.

Let us also not forget that many of the restrictions placed on development are State Government required restrictions. For example if you want to build something that will mean more traffic flowing onto a State controlled road the conditions placed upon you will often run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars to meet.

 Retail development is another story. Although I personally believe we need more land, especially in Hervey Bay, for retail growth all our Planning Schemes currently limit the square metres of floor space allowed for retail development in any urban area. Planning Schemes are designed to try and protect existing retail development by limiting opportunities for new shopping centres etc. I don’t agree with these restrictions but they are the rules that Council has to operate under. Both Hervey Bay and Maryborough have already reached the limits for larger scale retail development as designated in our existing Planning Schemes. Recently Council has approved expansions to both Centro in Hervey Bay and the Souvlis development in Maryborough amongst other approvals in spite of the restrictions within our respective schemes.

  Council does not hinder business nor development it merely wants to abide by the rules. I don’t believe in development being allowed just because someone wants to turn a profit. How would you like a panel beater spray painter setting up shop next door to your place? I am pleased that our Council development staff led by the very able Mr David King, continue to recommend developers look elsewhere when their plans don’t stack up against our Planning Schemes. If a developer decides to pursue a development when it is clearly in breech of the Planning Scheme recommendations then staff and Councillors should be refusing the application. I also believe that these very same Council staff together with Councillors bend over backwards to facilitate development whenever it is possible to do so. I am glad that this Council has strong leaders who don’t cave into developers demands and I certainly don’t want our Council to follow the path down which Wollongong Council did!

 The current Centro development is a case in point. I don’t vote on this development as I part own a business within the centre so feel able to comment. While the Hervey Bay City Council did take a long time to bring this application to Council none of the conditions currently being disputed are ‘new’. In fact Council recently approved the earlier opening of the centre overturning the initial decision. As previously mentioned the current Planning Scheme does not believe there is a ‘need’ for more retail space in Hervey Bay since the development of Pialba Place and other approved yet not built, retail developments. So in fact Council, in my opinion, is doing its best to give permission for this development.

Land development is the most critical issue for our region as we go forward. I do want to live within a city within a region that puts business and residential development in the right places and designs development to ensure we continue to have a free flowing road network. I didn’t choose to live here to end up in a grid locked city where travelling from one end of the city to the other takes as long as driving in Brisbane does!

 In conclusion. We are now rapidly approaching the time for a new Planning Scheme. We will have a Regional Plan and a new regional Council facilitated Planning Scheme. Instead of complaining about the restrictions that we have now can I ask that you all put your thinking caps on and get involved in deciding what we want and where. I hope to grow older in a region that is sensibly planned with good quality residential and commercial development appropriately serviced by good quality infrastructure.

Dingoes and grids

January 11th, 2010

I spent Sunday at Eurong. The main grid to Eurong is full of sand and has been full of sand, I am told, for over 2 months. How can it be that the State Government closes two camp grounds just before the holidays due to ‘dangerous dingo behaviour’ but at the very same time facilitates all these dingoes to happily wander in and out of Eurong township?

Eurong locals tell me that there are dingoes currently within the township. Funny how there has been no negtive interactions with these dogs and I really hope that these dingoes are not now euthanised simply for being in the wrong place!

Why has the State Government invested hundreds and thousands of our dollars into building dingo fences but did not provide their very hard working rangers with the necessary equipment and resources to adequately maintain the fences and associated grids?

I’m also told this morning that the grid at Happy Valley has been minus its solar panel so is that grid electrified? I am sure the grid at Eurong isn’t as we walked back and forth on top of the wires on Sunday without getting zapped!

It is time that our State Government removed this unworkable infrastructure and spoke to world renowned animal behavioursits such as Dr Temple Grandin and our local Adam O’Neill to develop a sensible management strategy for our dingoes. The one that they are using now simply does not work!

Eurong grid with Norma and Geoff

Eurong grid with Norma and Geoff

 

Eurong grid full of sand

Eurong grid full of sand

Apparently I’m possibly racist!

January 4th, 2010

Interesting debate on another local blog re my comments that went to air re Fraser Island driving and accidents last night on Ch 9 news.

http://www.facebook.com//video/video.php?v=106646312681721#/video/video.php?v=106646312681721&ref=mf

I made mention that International visitors, who don’t have an Australian licence, should possibly undergo a driving test, education or other application process before being “let loose on Fraser Island”.  Keeping in mind that the comments that go to air on any TV news story are usually one sentence or remark taken out of a longer winded response to a question I can see why someone might take issue with what I said but racism… I don’t think so.

To explain further. Many people live on Fraser Island or own property there. Many locals or interstate visitors frequently visit the island in their own vehicles. These people should not, in my mind, be made to comply with any restrictions at all that limit their access to the island.

However almost every single business owner with interests on the island itself that I have spoken to all say the same thing to me. Backpackers cause problems. Even some business owners that profit from backpackers speak negatively about backpacker behaviour. So maybe this is ‘backpacker prejudice’? My opinion is straight forward. That visitors to Fraser Island, predominantly young International visitors, should not be given easy access to a 4wd full of luggage and passengers. How to bring about tighter restrictions to this group of travellers in order to keep them safe, is not racist is it? Yes it is generalising and for that I apologise but aren’t all our laws made in the same way? What is best for the majority of people? Not all laws suit all the people all the time to my mind.

So I apologise if people did think my comment was racist it was not intended to be and I don’t believe I am prejudiced against any group of people regardless of anything about them. I tend to make my judgements about people solely on their behaviour. I do however generalise at times and I honestly believe that young backpackers are a problem group on Fraser Island under the current regime. The challenge is how to best cater for them so that we can continue to benefit from their visitation to our lovely region and to ensure that they have a healthy and safe time while they are here. I don’t want to see backpackers restricted from visiting Fraser Island I probably want to see their visitation better managed though. I welcome any and all suggestions.

Reality Check

December 29th, 2009

Last night we travelled into town and had a wonderful dinner before queuing up, paying our money and receiving a black pair of spectacles each. Yes we decided to go and see Avatar. The movie started at 8.40pm and I was surprised to find a long line of people ready to experience a night at the movies. It is a long time since we have shared a theatre so full.

But from the moment we were asked to put on our spectacles until the credits rolled there was not a cough, a comment or a distracting noise for the entire 180 mins. This movie is a masterpiece and I highly recommend it. Without spoiling it for you the plot is not a complex one and involves a common theme revolving around a fight to preserve ‘home’. Avatar is gripping because the special effects are so special that we are literally transported to an alien world. A world so beautiful that I wish it was real! I won’t say more but I am sure you will be impressed if you go to see it. Do experience it in 3d as I can’t imagine it being as impressive in ordinary 2d.

One of my presents for Xmas was the latest Dean Koontz release called ‘Breathless’. I always enjoy the latest Koontz but this story grabbed me from the start and is one of those easily read impossible to put down stories. I enjoy authors who successfully combine science or history etc with their fiction writing and Koontz does so smoothly and quietly as the end of his story nears. Koontz actually questions Darwin’s theory of evolution in such a way that I will now have to go and do some research about earth history.

 As always a beautifully written story that left me uplifted and feeling very glad that I share this planet with gifted talented people who can both entertain me but educate me and give me cause to think!

I hope that you are enjoying the rain and that you are getting a chance to recharge those batteries. I also hope the retailers who work very hard at this time of year are doing well.

« Prev - Next »