Submission on supplementary information

to the environmental impact statement-

Shute Harbour Marina Resort

Submissions close 5pm Monday April 29, 2013!

Name: / Email:
Organisation
(if applicable): / Tel:
Address:

The EIS and SEIS which have been prepared for the Shute Harbour Marina Resort proposal do not adequately address the many economic, social or environmental impacts that the approval of this proposal would have. The proponents have not fulfilled the requirements of their Terms of Reference and the ‘integrated, master-planned facility’ being heavily promoted would not be built by the proponent.

The SHMR proposal, therefore, should not be permitted to proceed:

ALL COMMUNITY RISK. NO COMMUNITY BENEFIT

The SEIS list of Project Objectives includes:

“To provide a world class integrated marina and tourism facility…’

“to provide a balanced, master planned marina resort environment.”

The SEIS includes a Concept Development Masterplan, a Development Model and a proposed SHMR Development Code all of which confirm that this proposal would not be ‘integrated’ or ‘master-planned’ by the proponent, as claimed, but, after reclamation of the World Heritage seabed, would be on-sold to several unspecified, third party developers, as freehold land to use more or less as they see fit.

It is clear that the sole intention of the proposed SHMR Development Code is to over-ride any provisions of the Whitsunday Planning Code that may get in the way of the proponents achieving their third party sell-on strategies; regardless of what the site then becomes, or may become in the future.

In light of the above facts and prevailing economic conditions, the economic benefits claimed for this project are not credible. Instead it is far more likely that this proposal would join the significant list of the region’s failed major projects and, once again, cost the Whitsunday community dearly in social and economic terms. Following is significant evidence to support this contention:

• Failed marinas. Several residential/marina complexes have gone into receivership in Queensland over the past few years. There are two in our Whitsunday mainland area alone. The Port of Airlie and Abel Point.

• Port of Airlie. Cost to community. Ten years ago the Port of Airlie developer promised the community, among other things, a major resort in exchange for the loss of their precious Coconut Grove environment. Ten years later the developer, Meridien, is in receivership, the project has cost our council and therefore our community many thousands of dollars, the area is a vast, unsightly, unused paddock and the community is still waiting with no resolution in sight.

•Abel Point bargain basement sale. The nearby Abel Point marina, which Meridien bought for around $75million, was sold recently for some $28million. A write down of nearly $50million.

And yet the Shute Harbour proponent would have us believe their unfunded $252 million (or more) project is financially viable!

• Failure at Funnel Bay. A major $500million “integrated resort” and residential development over 25 hectares was commenced around 2007 at Funnel Bay between Airlie Beach and Shute Harbour. In 2009 the developer went into administration, leaving yet another unsightly, unfinished, unoccupied precinct. The frequently used public access of the past, to the public beach and foreshore, has for several years been rendered virtually impossible. Although the land has finally been on-sold (having been on the market for over three years), it remains desolate and there appears to be no sign of anything happening in the location any time soon.

• Developer bail-out. Since Cyclone Yasi devastated Port Hinchinbrook and its marina and left many boats destroyed or damaged the location has been in a state of major disrepair and now the private owners are demanding that the state government bail them out.

• Insurance and legal liabilities relating to climate events and storm surge – particularly in these cyclone prone, waterfront areas – become more complex and perilous by the day. Strata title insurance in North Queensland seems, even now, to be virtually impossible to achieve and appears to have a deeply troubled future.

• Council Levies. The Whitsunday Regional Council has voted six to one against the SHMR proposal lease being renewed. They, more than anyone and through bitter experience, are acutely aware of the cost to the community of these commercially impractical and inappropriate schemes. They have a current debt of around $20 million. Ratepayers are about to be subject to a levy of $140 per annum.

This community does not need to be exposed to even more financial risk so that a private developer can indulge in a waterfront land grab at Shute Harbour.

Other issues evident from review of the SEIS are; no proof of need, questionable social benefits, environmental concerns, the negative impact to values of a World Heritage area anda lack of accuracy in many of the proponents claims.

The Shute Harbour proponents’ Supplementary EIS is a deeply unsatisfactory document. A fair assessment would be that it is indefensible.

Signature: / …………………………………………………………………………………….
(A submission by more than one person must be signed by each submitter.)