Gunns v. Kingborough Council, Day 3.
Wednesday 1 June 2005
In late 2004, Gunns Ltd lodged a Development Application with Kingborough Council to log privately owned land adjacent to land it logged in 2002 (some of it illegally) near Middleton.
The Kingborough Council rejected the application.
Gunns Ltd has appealed that decision in the Resource Management and Planning Appeals Tribunal. The appeal is being heard before Catherine Nicholson, Barry McNeil, and Chair Pitt.
The day appeared to end badly for the Council with Mr McElwaine, for Gunns Ltd, successfully having large chunks of the evidence of the Council’s first witness excluded or demoted to “submission” status.
The day began with forestry consultant Bernard Walker using a Power Point presentation on the “before” and “after” effects of the proposed logging, using computer generated images.
He was followed by Bruce Chetwynd, Senior Landscape Planner, Forest Practices Board. Mr Chetwynd explained further about the generation and use of images to show the likely effects of logging on the two proposed coupes.
In answer to a question from a resident joined with the Council he explained that the Forestry Tasmania publication “A Manual for Forest Landscape Management” was aimed more at the needs of the casual observer of logging rather than the needs of residents. The manual has prescriptions for vehicle movements but not boat movements or aircraft movements.
In answer to questions from Mr McNeil he said that the clearing will appear subordinate to the landscape pattern of the regional landscape as a whole. The Forest Practices Board is working towards definition of landscape character assessment as has been undertaken in England and Scotland. This system allows feedback from communities.
There was extended discussion on a proposal from Mr McNeil that reserves of trees be left on the southern coupe to reduce the visual impact of the logging as seen from the south. Mr Chetwynd said that there would be little change as a result of leaving the strips of trees unlogged and it would also complicate the logging process.
So that the Tribunal could consider all the evidence relating to visual images of the proposed logging, the first witness for the Council was brought on before all the Gunns Ltd. witnesses had given evidence.
He is Mr Dennis Williamson, Director of Scenic Spectrums Pty Ltd in Victoria and a consultant in landscape design issues.
Before any questions were asked on the witness’s Proof of Evidence, counsel for Gunns Ltd. Mr. McElwaine, objected to much of the evidence tendered by Mr Williamson.
Paragraph by paragraph, page by page, Mr. McElwaine challenged much of Mr Williamson’s Proof.
He argued that despite the witness being a graduate geographer with postgraduate landscape architectural qualifications, experience working with the US Forest Service and in the forest industry in a number of Australian states he was not a technical forester and thus not qualified.
Mr Pitt ruled in favour of Mr. McElwaine on many occasions but accepted some of Mr Williamson’s Proof as belonging to the category of “submission” rather than “expert witness”.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Gunns Ltd. v. Kingborough Council, Day 4
Thursday 2 June 2005
Gunns Ltd, the largest hardwood timber company in Australia, is appealing a decision of Kingborough Council to refuse a Development Application to road and log private land in the south of Tasmania.
The only witness for the whole day was Victorian based geographer and landscape planner Dennis Williamson, who introduced a computer based visual management system to Australia and supplied some of the photographs used in a Forestry Tasmania manual published in 1990.
The day was a clear example of the adversarial system at work with some wins by both sides. Mr Williamson had a win when it was revealed that the Kingborough Planning Scheme 2000 was amended 4 months ago in relation to the definition of environmental values, yet the amendments do not appear in the document on the Council’s website and are not widely known or available.
On the other hand, Mr. McElwaine, insisting on “yes” or “no” answers was able to show that the witness had not visited the site of the proposed coupes and was not familiar with the land use history of the area of the lower Channel near the proposed coupes.
At one stage, a resident not joined with the Council interjected from the public gallery when Mr Williamson was being very closely questioned about whether or not an adjacent coupe, clearfelled in 2002 was now not easily seen.
The Chairman called for quiet, but refused Mr. McElwaine’s request for ejection of the interjector.
Almost all of the day was taken up with Mr Williamson showing photographs of the proposed coupes taken from a number of positions along the Channel mainland and from Bruny Island, comparing them with computer generated images offered in evidence by Gunns Ltd and being cross examined on his conclusions.
He rated the changes in the views created by the proposed coupes as “inevident”, “apparent” or “dominant”, according to his analysis of the landscape, defending his conclusions under very close questioning by Mr McElwaine.
In answer to Mr Armstrong, he said that an “inevident” alteration to the landscape would be very low impact in size, scale and texture and would tend to not look out of place. The character was retained along with natural shapes as viewed by most viewers.
An “apparent” alteration would be visually apparent and noted as an alteration to the landscape but partially retain its character. It would not be visually dominant.
A “dominant” alteration would be visually dominant, would draw attention to itself and would not fit in due its form, line, colour and texture.
The hearing continues tomorrow, the last day set aside by the Tribunal.
John Maddock, Citizen Reporter.
Days 1 & 2: Click here
