|
EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST IN ULLADULLA HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT |
| The Ulladulla & Districts Community Forum submitted the following comments to the Department of Lands when the original proposal was exhibited in July 2006: The Ulladulla community has experienced a recent swath of proposals and development applications in our CBD and harbour area. As a result of this there has been a lot of momentum in the community to get involved and influence how our town will look in the future; the Ulladulla and Districts Community Forum grew as a result of this momentum. Therefore the Ulladulla and Districts Community Forum would like to present its concerns regarding The Ulladulla Harbour Concept Plan presented by your department. As the Ulladulla and Districts Community Forum appreciates, the Ulladulla Harbour and CBD are in need of some major upgrades and improvements such as safety, aesthetics, amenity and general maintenance. Such improvements were addressed in the Shoalhaven City Council Draft Master Plan 2004, and will enhance the potential for tourism and other businesses in the area. However, the community is concerned that the Department of Lands has intervened in the process and suggested that the Master Plan doesn’t address the potential for growth. The fact that a certain amount of infrastructure and development is physically and logistically feasible doesn’t mean it is appropriate or desirable from a socioeconomic perspective. Your solution in the Ulladulla Harbour Concept Plan seems to suggest that maximum development and investment return is what should drive development in the Harbour area; however this is not a socio-economically acceptable approach. The fact that the Department of Lands has spent a lot of tax payer money on actual design and infrastructure feasibility studies before any socio-economic study has been undertaken is surprising. A feasibility study cannot achieve the most feasible solution with half the equation missing. The value of development in a region is not the
sum of
dollar returns to investors. A more logical approach would be to first find out
what the most
desirable outcome is for society as a whole; then undertake a feasibility study
on the most
socio-economically desirable ones.
We are also concerned that the approach of imposing a model used elsewhere in
NSW is
not conducive to the unique cultural atmosphere that exists in the various
coastal harbour
towns in NSW. The diversity of cultural atmosphere in different harbour towns
provides
variation in tourism opportunities and may enhance the viability of towns as
tourist
destinations. Your proposal suggests that coastal towns in NSW should each
strive for the
same solutions and outcomes from development. The invitation for input from the
community to “refine” an expensive and detailed concept plan already in
existence does not
provide much scope for fundamental changes if that is what the community
desires.
This Ulladulla community includes many skilled individuals and business people
with a
rich history in the area. It is this community force with local knowledge and
appreciation
that should drive appropriate development in the region and not a state level
body. We
appreciate that NSW Departments are required to regulate and provide assistance
in such
issues, but the Ulladulla Harbour Concept Plan goes beyond that simply because
it doesn’t
consider the community. The fact that the Department of Lands considers the
community
not capable of understanding the “commercial viability of concepts” and uses
that as an
excuse for not attempting a socio-economic study is condescending and
unprofessional. We
might suggest that the Department has a false perception of socio-economically
viable
development concepts in the region. 7.1.3.3., 7.1.7.3, 7.1.7.4. We have been informed that there are currently 17 boats on a waiting list for mooring space in the harbour. The region isn’t obliged to provide berths just because there is potential for that many boats to come to the harbour. A “demand driven” approach may not provide the best outcome if you create boat traffic jams in peak periods, with deserted facilities in slow periods. How does the Department of Lands justify is proposed 200+ berths and 100 dry stacking berths and berthing duplications in a small harbour without any environmental impact or socio-economic study? 7.1.1.1., 7.1.1.2, 7.1.3.1, 7.1.4., 7.1.7.1 The attitude that the Department can physically alter the natural features of the Harbour to suit a desire for development of large marina is concerning. Such approaches have proved costly in many areas when the engineering solutions have failed or created secondary problems. An attitude of working with the existing resources and within their limits is more acceptable from an environmental, aesthetical and socially acceptable perspective. How does the Department justify this approach? - 7.1.3.6. The community has demonstrated its concerns regarding breaches of the SCC height code in Development Control Plan 56. What would the height of “30 luxury apartments” opposite Rotary Park be? 7.1.9.1. The community is concerned that coastal towns are becoming
inaccessible to the
general public because they are focussed on attracting “higher end, affluent
tourists” in
“luxury style accommodation”. This approach is not conducive to an inclusive
society and
enhances segregation. The local community is diverse and welcomes a diverse
range of
tourists, The existing caravan park provides a service to a sector of the
general public that
would otherwise be excluded from the increasing cost of private waterfront
accommodation. These tourists would still be providing business to the area and
the
facilities in the caravan park should be maintained to a high standard and
create income
from the land. Although termed “Eco-resort, we would like to know how much more
ecologically friendly the proposed resort would be compared to a well maintained
caravan
park?
- We would like the community consultation process to be real rather than just a
fulfilment
|