WALKER CORP.’S ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION HAS LANDED March 30, 2010

WALKER CORP.’S ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION HAS LANDED March 30, 2010

Download pdf at: www.saveralphsbay.org/pdf/SRBMedia30Mar10.pdf

The Walker Corporation’s additional submission on the Draft Integrated Assessment Report (DIAR) for its proposed canal estate reveals the company’s bafflement and confusion.

Walker Corp. seems unable to conceive that, after reading its almost 7000 page Draft Integrated Impact Statement (DIIS), reading 547 submissions on the DIIS, Proofs of Evidence and Response Proofs and listening to submissions in daily hearings from June 17th – July 17th last year, the Tasmanian Planning Commission had heard enough when it wrote the DIAR.

As expected, Walker Corp. is demanding a second round of hearings, this time on the DIAR.

Clearly, Walker Corp.’s current desire is to put the DIAR on trial, which is ironic considering its admonitions to the community since 2004. Where, now, is Walker Corp.’s previous insistence that all should ‘respect the assessment of the independent umpire’?

In this latest submission, 4 months after all other submissions on the DIAR, Walker Corp. says, “Walker has always stated that it would abide by the umpire’s decision however only when this decision is evidence based and free from biased external influences.”

Save Ralphs Bay Inc. (SRB) believes the Planning Commission assessment has been thorough, rigorous and comprehensive. The TPC has demonstrated its
independence and integrity in a way that all Tasmanians can be proud of.

Walker Corp. should now be thinking about packing up its bat and ball and going home.

Still in a parallel universe

As in its previous submission and evidence to the hearings, Walker Corp.
seems to believe that, if it repeats often enough its claims that the proposed development would have no adverse impacts, this will somehow become true.

For instance, it states yet again, “Evidence presented during the hearings identified no such threat which would result in serious and irreversible environmental harm such that the precautionary principle must be invoked to
prevent the project from proceeding.”

And, again, “There is nothing contained in the evidence that construction of the proposed development will or is likely to have a significant impact on any species, as a whole, including the red neck stint and the spotted handfish.”

There are many who disagree, and the TPC panel has taken a range of views into account.

“Sustainability of the development has been used as one of the major reasons for refusal as highlighted in our previous submission Walker does not agree with the report’s conclusions that the proposal does not satisfy the first two objectives of the State’s Resource Management and Planning System.”

Again, the panel has spoken, and it is the body charged with making the final recommendation.

The writer of the Walker Corp. submission appears shocked that the community’s wellbeing was given weight in the draft assessment:
“It is of note that three out of the four primary reasons for refusal in the DIAR are subjective – sustainability, strategic planning and urban form.
Other subjective reasons include visual impact, social and cultural impact, health impact, need for development, and construction duration…”

SRB congratulates to the TPC for taking all these matters into account.

Walker Corp. seems unable to grasp the true independence of the TPC from government, stating:
“In relation to the reference to “fair”, the Panel is not satisfied that the proposal is fair due to valued public land being used for private development and the significant level of community opposition. The sale of the subject Crown land was determined as fair when agreed to by Cabinet, a group of democratically elected representatives. The sale is governed by statute.”

In addition, Walker Corp. appears to believe that the granting of Project of State Significance status, which was necessary to allow the rigorous and comprehensive assessment of its proposal, implied a pre-assessment of the development’s sustainability:
“If the development is so unsustainable, why was it granted the status of Project of State Significance, particularly given the volume of information about the project that accompanied the request? Furthermore, why was an expensive hearing required by the Panel?”

These extraordinary questions indicate a fundamental contempt for the Tasmanian Planning Commission and the assessment process. The Walker Corp., it seems, just does not “get” that the POSS status was considered necessary by government in order to achieve a rigorous and comprehensive assessment, and the hearings were a vital part of the assessment process.

— Save Ralphs Bay Inc. : www.SaveRalphsBay.org —
Jane MacDonald