DEAR Martin, General manager and Mayor,
In your response to our public queries you make an important assertion “A development of the magnitude proposed will provide considerable economic benefit to the North of the State and the Tamar Valley in particular”.
The problem that we have and the fundamental reason for our questions, is that there is no evidence whatever for this assertion. Political promises are not evidence. The mill proposal is still in its infancy, and the public and local businesses have no idea of the possible impacts that such a mill may have on any, or all, of the following:
Air quality and its possible degradation with impacts on tourism operators and fine wine & foods producers, excessive infrastructure costs, damage to industry in Tamar Valley by massive increases in log traffic deaths and injuries created by log truck traffic increases, competitive water use reducing water available to agriculture and other industries, fishing grounds changes and damage due to effluents, insufficient timber available to supply pulp mill, whole needs timber and forest conservation requirements being damaged, price for timber as pulp may prove too low for our timber in the future if oil prices continue to rise.
As a result of these unknowns, it is not possible to predict the economic impacts of any possible pulp mill. These kinds of concerns are genuine concerns for local residents, whether they know it yet or not. When Council supports a proposal it is not an unreasonable expectation that such concerns will have been addressed.
Gunns seems to require a guarantee of access to State timber for 30 years to justify the mill. It is entirely possible that Gunns could sell any such guarantee to another operator thereby invalidating your second assertion that “Gunns Ltd is a local company and Council in the past has been supportive of local firms and initiatives”.
Your third point that “Encouragement and support for the project, at that stage may have enhanced the region’s chance of securing the site for the project” only makes sense if the project, in fact, turns out to be ‘good’ for the region. But there is no evidence whatever for this, the terms and conditions for any mill have yet to be agreed, meanwhile the public has no effective voice since our Council has thrown its support behind the proponent.
Public disquiet
We understand desires to increase the attractiveness of the area to investment. But compare the time and effort taken for Council to support the proposed pulp mill and the time and effort taken to consider the relatively unpolluting and harmless C.H.Smith proposal.
The Council could easily have welcomed the mill in concept but left open endorsement or total support until public disquiet was set to rest. That the public’s only independent voice, their local Council, should rush to support a proposition that could leave our timber under the control of Asian woodcutters, and a mill that could also be controlled by overseas interests is highly suspect and raises suspicions of the Council’s real commitment to serving the public and questions about their real ‘interests’.
It all comes back to the same question that we asked before in a different form…
“Does the Council believe that the residents and businesses that it represents, deserve open and rigorous examination of complex and potentially harmful proposals BEFORE Council supports them, and does that population merit impartial representation and a coherent voice from their Council?”
I will copy your, and this, letter to others who have expressed an interest. I would appreciate a reply to our last question as I do not believe that your letter has adequately addressed the issues that we raised.
I am happy to raise it in the public forum of Council if that is your preference.
Sincerely,
Mike Bolan
The Council’s response (with link to the original questions):
The council and the mill
