Tonight (Monday, Jan 24) the Kingborough Council deliberated on a Development Application from Gunns Ltd. for another coupe at Middleton. Part of the coupe falls into a new zone (under the new planning scheme) of Environmental Management.
Twenty seven people put in representations, including Your Scribe and consultant in heritage landscapes, Gwenda Sheridan.
Senior Planner Andrew Goodsell recommended the application be approved, with conditions. The fact that the DA involved an environmental zone, could be accommodated under Alternative Solution, part of the new planning scheme, he reported.
When his report to the council was published, Gwenda drew my attention that there appeared to be no mention of her cultural landscape info, nor of my info. on biological diversity, the effects of clearfelling on the carbon cycle and reference to a new report on successful selective logging. (I also included John Hayward’s story on the The Private Timber Reserves of Weegena: a Concert of Corruption, for the edification of councillors and planning staff).
When I phoned Andrew this a.m. to ask why, he did not say that my representation had been disregarded. On the other hand he inferred that the collator might have missed the points in my representation, asked what my points were, said he could not agree with them, but offered to mention at the meeting that I had raised certain matters.
Before the meeting I was contacted by two councillors who would normally be against such a development as this and warned that I should not expect too much. One observed that sometimes it is better to lose the battle in the council and win the war in the Tribunal.
On the night, Senior Planner Goodsell repeated his report to the councillors, adding that he had been chastised by one phone caller because he had forgotten to mention some info. in his report. (I did not chastise him – merely queried why my info. was not referred to in his report. When he offered to mention this at the meeting, I thanked him and accepted his offer).
When councillors began to speak, they raised a number of matters e.g. what happens if we refuse the application, will we be taken to the cleaners again as happened last time, and can we make them leave wider streamside reserves .
Then the oratory started. One Councillor said that last time Gunns were at Middleton the council promised a lot to the locals and delivered little, and besides, the skyline is very important for our tourist industry and that will be destroyed. (Applause from the full gallery of around 40 people).
Another said that the Forest Practices Plan listed visibility as a B, but in fact there is a higher category, A (no visible effect) and they should be designing the coupe for this higher standard. We need information from qualified people on how this could be achieved by using a series of smaller coupes so that logging can be safely done (from an environmental view) in an Environmental Zone, they said.
Another Councillor echoed these remarks saying he could support the DA if the new style of small coupes were used.
Another said that this DA was a test of our new scheme. If approved it will degrade the whole area.
Another said much the same, adding that this development has no benefit for our community and we should say no to it.
The Senior Planner said that the DA met our development standards and if we end up in the Tribunal, we could not argue non-compliance.
Another Councillor noted that the council had originally wanted forestry prohibited in the Environmental Management Zones, but a government department had imposed the “alternative solution” process on us.
Greg Alomes the new General Manager at Kingborough, Graduate of University of Tas., Immediate Past Convener and Trouble Shooter for the new Natural Resource Management organisation in the south of the state then said:
As well as preparing reasons to recommend the application be approved, the Senior Planner has prepared reasons to refuse the application. It is difficult for staff to always have the best information in circumstances such as these. If the council should refuse this application, I assure councillors that we would do all things necessary to secure the relevant expertise to defend its decision.
My understanding was that he was inferring that the council could end up in the Tribunal, should it refuse the application.
Councillors then further discussed the pros and cons of approval with tighter conditions.
Finally, veteran councillor Flora Fox moved (seconded by Cnclr. David Grace) that the application be refused for the reasons as drafted by the Senior Planner, that is, it contravened 9.4.1.4 (b), (iii) and (iv) of the Kingborough Planning Scheme. In discussion she noted her appreciation that the General Manager had said that we would get the best advice if any Tribunal hearing eventuated.
She also said that this would be a ground breaking move and even if the Tribunal overturned our decision, we would have done something of which we could be proud.
There was further discussion about including an additional point relating to the planning scheme.
Councillor Fox was offered the chance to close the debate, to which she said no need.
The motion was put and passed on the voices. Mayor Hazell called for a show of hands, the vote being 9 for, 3 agin. Against were Cnclrs. Smith, McGinnis and Hazell.
We were all stunned into silence!
John Maddock is a grey hair who collects Macs and Crowns and dreams of being a dairy farmer again one day.
Gay Klok
January 26, 2005 at 08:30
Copy of emails sent to Kingborough Councillors …
You may remember that our world famous garden Kibbenjelok is adjacent to the Cowen coupe, which was clearfelled and burnt in 2001.
Since the Tribunal, Gunns v Kingborough Council and in which my husband and I were called as witnesses for the Council, our property has suffered much damage from the illegal practices that have taken place on the forestry coupe.
Briefly, poison was found in our water ways, [McKays Rivulet], our dams and ornamental ponds are still being muddied and silted by the clearing and the wind damage has been quite severe. We have never had such winds as we suffer now.
At the end of last year, four of our steers went missing and three were found dead below our top dam, [100 metres from the Cowen coupe boundary] with no bullet holes or other markings on their bodies. Our steers have grazed the area up at the big dam for seventeen years and never have we experienced this kind of occurrence. The fourth has never been sighted.
We reported our loss to the Kingborough Council who suggested we have the dam water tested. At our own expense we sent a sample to the University Laboratory. “No reportable amounts of poison” was found. Our health has deteriorated hugely over the last five years and I blame the worry and extra work has been caused by the fight to save our living conditions at Middleton.
It has cost us a considerable amount of money, especially the costs involved in the Tribunal. We could have claimed cost from the Council but made a considered decision not to, based on trust that the council would ensue that the conditions, so hard fought for at the Tribunal, would be adhered to. I now think that the Council has not warranted that trust.
In the past months we have had extra expenses [lawyer and property assessor] in our appeal against private forestry permit being granted to the areas that were illegally cleared and the Forestry Practices Board’s conditions broken in the Cowen coupe. Our property has definitely been devalued.
Our property also borders Risby Rd.
We all know that this smaller coupe is only the beginning of the future plans to ruin the ambience and beauty that attracted us to the Middleton area.
We both feel that we cannot endure more unfair damage to our gardens and native flora and fauna which has, so unfairly, ruined our Middleton adventure.
Over the seventeen years our garden has been opened to hundreds of Australian gardeners and overseas visitors. These people have brought interest to the district and support to local businesses, e.g. many stop to have lunch at Woodbridge and used the local shop. We are very close to packing our bags …
Regards,
Gay and Kees Klok
Christopher Purcell
January 29, 2005 at 06:03
What a silly piece of fogyism and political scaremongering in ‘Blast for forestry rejection’, (The Mercury, pg 25 27th January, 2005) by the Mayor whose own family company benefited from the last lot of forestry at Middleton. To say that an appeal to the Resource Management Planning Appeals Tribunal would cost $30,000-$50,000 is false and misleading. The Mayor should correct his statement publicly, because as he doesn’t make clear, these costs will only be borne by Council and therefore ratepayers IF and WHEN Council looses any such appeal.
As Mayor, Cr. Hazell should know and understand his own Council’s Planning Scheme. For him to publicly say that, “Those who had natural forest on their properties were entitled to harvest every 25 or 40 years or soâ€, is blatantly false as such activity is subject to Council Approval, especially this particular application as the proposed forestry coupe is in an Environmental Management Zone where forestry is Discretionary rather than Permitted. I recommend that the Mayor spend some time reading his own Planning Scheme.
How does the Mayor know how the Councillors were going to vote? Did he ask them? Is not this democracy in action Mayor, that the Councillors listened to reasoned PUBLIC debate and then made up their OWN minds which way to vote? Are you implying Mayor Hazell, that you feel your Councillors are weak because they supposedly changed their minds?
Yes, Mayor Hazell, the ratepayers of Kingborough will remember at election time who is truly, openly and honestly working for them and the future of their local area and who is not.
Christopher Purcell
January 29, 2005 at 06:10
Please don’t go Gay and Kees.
It would be such a shame, although I do know the stress that you both have been placed under from this forestry next to your beautiful property and garden, and therefore I would understand your decision.
This is bullying in the extreme that one particular company can place so much pressure on so many Tasmanian people.
Perhaps it is the people of Tasmania who should be taking out suits against Gunss Ltd, not the other way round!
Long live Kibbenjelok!
Stuart Young
January 29, 2005 at 06:13
Mayor Don Hazell’s reported disappointment (The Mercury 27 January) at his Council’s decision to reject an application for forestry at Middleton by Gunns Ltd. implies, to me, that this man has a desire to set ratepayers against ratepayers as well as against the nine Councillors who voted against the application.
Using the cost of a (possible) appeal as his reason for voting in favour of the clear felling of 47 ha of land within an Environmental Management Zone, Mayor Hazell said most ratepayers would query why their rates should fund an appeal.
Perhaps, Mayor Hazell, most ratepayers would prefer to challenge developers who appeal Council decisions rather than allow them to bully their way through the ridgelines of the Channel making Kingborough very far from perfect.
Very few residents of Kingborough will benefit from this clear felling operation. No doubt, however, Hazell Bros will continue to be among Gunns’ major contractors for clearing, roadworks and windrowing, as was the case on Gunns’ existing forestry operation in Middleton.
Furthermore, Mayor Hazell, how many ratepayers do you think have questioned why their rates were used to send you, Mrs Hazell and others to Holland, while the council has stated that it does not have the funds to employ an enforcement officer to police conditions it imposes on developers such as Gunns?
Scared of having to admit to cases of non-compliance, perhaps?
Pat Hess
January 29, 2005 at 13:45
Aaaah that makes it clearer, thanks Stuart … when I first read John Maddock’s letter I had a distinct feeling that Mayor Hazell had a vested interest in Gunns by his vote.
In fact, in view of his interests, he really shouldnt have been ALLOWED to vote. (what a laugh).
Gawd you Tasmanians are really getting screwed!
Onyas Kingborough Council .. I hope the ratepayers support you in a very real way. But of course, you will have the employees of Hazell Bros whining … because they will be told there will be no work … and then that sets the workers against the people who love and care for their environment.
God someone prove me wrong!!! (please)