Huon Valley Guessing Games
Cargo-cultism — from time immemorial a chronic tribal condition found mostly in what are termed undeveloped or developing regions, and a misled faith still doggedly persistent in the Huon Valley — will almost certainly again bubble to the surface when council meets on Wednesday evening in Huonville.
The likely trigger for a CC outbreak this time is agenda item 16.001/15. It is titled thus:
Section 43A combined planning scheme amendment and development application-
Ordinance amendment:
To incorporate a specified departure into Schedule 8.8 into the Esperance Planning Scheme 1989 to allow for part of land referenced as PID 1542899 to be used for the purposes of a transport depot
Development application:
Transport depot (marine bulk loading facility including access road) on part of land referenced as PID 1542899 with road access via 5647 and 5649 Huon Highway, Waterloo to the Huon Highway.
Simply put, the people’s nine elected representatives (councillors) will be voting on whether or not to support the idea of a bulk-loading facility at Surges Point, Waterloo Bay (which might or might not have customers supplying woodchips etc), to transport cargoes on 100-metre barges to a point downriver (where, one day perhaps, there may be moored an ocean-going vessel that might or might not have customers in some distant ports that might want woodchips or some other product at present not available from the region).
The agenda recommendation reads, inter alia, that “two hundred and two (202) statutory representations were received” and that “council considers the representations received to be of insufficient merit to warrant refusal of the draft amendment”. Earlier in the staff report (page 55), under ‘Background’, it says: “. . . a total of 203 representations were received . . . 15 were in support of the proposal and 188 were opposed . . .”
The report then says that “a copy of each representation is provided in Attachment C”. Well, each is, sort of. After tracking down Attachment C, one finds a coloured link that reads: “Due to the size, files [representations] can be accessed by clicking here”. Click! Wait! Then up come 203 separate files, not just one long read comprising the 203 submissions! Yet again I find myself frustrated and appalled at the dysfunctionality of my council’s website — http://www.huonvalley.tas.gov.au — when I am trying to search for specific detail.
Word has it that council is likely to split 6-3 in favour of granting engineer Dennis Bewsher the right to establish (through his company, Telopea Pty Ltd) the aforementioned “transport depot” facility even though he has yet to offer anything that even remotely resembles a business plan that provides anything evenly remotely suggesting that such a venture has anything that even remotely resembles viable economic legs (or barges, or boats, or cargoes) for his vision — or that he has backers to finance what he sees as a roughly $10 million venture.
In fact, the whole Surges Point project is shrouded in a mystery of doubt and make-believe that transcends anything I ever remember affecting those legion sufferers of cargo-cultism in tribal groups stretching through the Melanesian islands from New Guinea, to the Solomons, to New Caledonia, to Vanuatu, to the Fiji islands.
Our over-generous State Government would be only too ready to hand out yet more public millions …
And should it go ahead and fail, no doubt our ever-generous State Government (whichever its colour) would be only too ready to hand out yet more public millions of dollars in subsidies, just as it has done over years for the eternally loss-making Forestry Tasmania.
Huon Valley Council’s management, by recommending approval of the Bewsher application, seems to see nothing wrong in encouraging another bout of cargo-cultism in the valley. And, as if to ensure the cargo-cultists are not dissuaded from their support for yet another fantastic vision — yet another illusory “economic saviour of the valley” — council staff have compiled and presented a massive sludge of largely impenetrable documentation to justify its supportive recommendation.
Here are the basic statistics on documentation: Item 16.001/15 occupies more than 40 pages of the council’s agenda; attachments relating to 16.001/15 comprise about 80 pages. And the latter does not include easily-accessible copies of the 203 representations council received on the issue, 188 of which (including mine, though I have yet to be able to find it in a sub-link to the attachments that council offers) are opposed to the Bewsher vision.
I have not yet abandoned hope that a couple of what I see as the development-at-any-cost six-strong sometime ‘Heart of the Huon’ bloc will appreciate the pie-in-the-sky-ness of the Bewsher vision, and decide to “cross the floor” and reject the staff recommendation. But my underlying pessimism tells me that council, despite obviously overwhelming public opposition, will put its imprimatur on a project that its creator says is designed to underpin what most see as a non-viable industry (woodchipping) and other, not-yet-identified/revealed/imagined industries that would stir the valley from its economic malaise.
Happily, the fate of the Bewsher project does not lie in the hands of Huon Valley Council. The ultimate umpire is the Tasmanian Planning Commission. Once the valley’s council has chosen its position, the TPC, sometime soon I imagine, will assess all aspects of the proposal and judge its merits.
My hope is that the commission will then come up with an independent, objective judgement. I would prefer, of course, that it does nothing silly like offering anything that resembles hope to the Huon Valley’s cargo-cultists.
Few would mind seeing the Bewsher development go ahead — but only if it didn’t threaten serious damage to the Huon’s health (especially the river bed) when subjected to regular disturbance caused by the immensely powerful tugboat props required to move the barges; if it didn’t present a serious threat to adjacent and opposite rural real estate values (including mine); if it didn’t threaten potentially serious danger to the environment of, and traffic on, the river should one of the proposed 100-metre barges break loose in a storm; if it didn’t cause harm to already existing industries such as fish-farming, lobster, oyster and mussel; if the project offered serious promise of a decent economic return without impinging on the commercial viability of so many other valley ventures; if . . .
Maybe, should appropriate research into all these and other factors be done, council and the TPC would be in a much better position to make a judgement. Until then, what’s the hurry? Why not put the decision on hold? Or at least until we know just where the State Government stands in regard to this puzzling proposal. — Bob Hawkins
• John Hawkins, in Comments: … With his magnificent concept in mind I have decided to put in a planning application for a very fast train from Deloraine to Chudleigh with an underground branch sub- line to service the proposed epicentre at Chudleigh North. I will require little or no local funding, I am willing to donate the station to the village in the interests of putting Chudleigh in the forefront of development here in Tasmania. The Federal Government, who need the votes of the 12 Tasmanian Senators, can buy them by funding this short length of Mag Lev track in the interests of tourism. The cost will be minimal when compared with the political benefits of being able to pass their dud legislation through the Senate. …
• Martin Hawes, in Comments: Interesting that you were unable to find any trace of your submission on the council website. I can’t see any sign of mine either, submitted by email on Nov 14. Perhaps some submissions have been mislaid? If so this would be a corruption of due process, particularly since submissions are also to be considered by the Planning Commission. Is anyone else having trouble spotting their submission? The link is: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0Bz5Xzg9his-zNk9xdmhlS2dVUDg&usp=drive_web
• Bob Hawkins, in Comments: After last night’s split decision (4-4) by council not to approve its staff recommendation relating to the proposal for a barge-serviced “marine bulk loading facility” at Surges Point, Waterloo Bay, it took ABC radio until 8.30am today to end its talk of applicant Dennis Bewsher considering his appeal options. What the ABC seemed to have missed earlier was that no appeal is available (or necessary) in response to this council decision. As I understand it, council’s debate last night was no more than a step along the way towards a Tasmanian Planning Commission (TPC) hearing at which it will decide whether or not to allow the “planning scheme amendment” (PSA) that would allow Bewsher’s company, Telopea Pty Ltd, to construct such a facility on leased crown land. (The TPC has set the hearing for February 17, 18 and 19, commencing at 10am, on Level 3, 144 Macquarie St, Hobart).
