|
News and Events
|
Dry Boat Storage - the issues
John Buckingham explains the issues covered in The Glebe Society's submission
The details of this proposed development are well-known to members at this stage. The Society totally opposes this development. It is not fighting for a reduction in the size of buildings, or in operating hours, or for fewer boats. It is fighting to have a totally different use for this site. It opposes the very nature of this proposal. The introduction of an extra 370 daily boat movements in Rozelle Bay, and those movements by powerful outboard and stern driven boats, would have a catastrophic impact on the residents of Glebe, on the users of the park, on the bay itself and on the bay’s traditional users.
The Society’s submission can be viewed in full at by clicking here and the covering letter to SHFA can be read by clicking here. The submission is.summarised below.
The submission was in three parts: 1. a three page covering letter which gave us the opportunity to complain about flaws in the process and outline the Society’s preferred alternative style of development; 2. the submission proper which examined the proposed development’s particular impacts on Glebe in the context of the Development Application’s accompanying Environmental Assessment and The Glebe Society’s Bays and Foreshores Policy; and 3. The Glebe Society Incorporated’s Bays and Foreshores Policy which reveals the Society’s long-held policy on both Blackwattle Bay and Rozelle Bay.
The Covering Letter
The Submission proper The Introduction expressed our strenuous opposition to the proposal on the grounds of loss of amenity for locals, park-users and the traditional users of the bay. It referred to the on-shore buildings as being totally out of scale with the rest of the northern shore; the water-based development as being totally out of scale with the bay; the proposed presence in the bay of powerful motorboats is incompatible with the well-being of the skiffs, sculls, dragon boats, canoes and kayaks which have traditionally used the bay. It summarised problems with the bay in terms of such things as contamination and lack of flushing and pointed out the negative impact the proposed development would have on the remedial measures underway for the bay.
The inappropriateness of 24/7/365 availability was pointed out as was the 370 seat restaurant/café complex operating until midnight just 200 metres across water from a dense residential area. The Introduction made the point that there were an infinite number of specific problems with the development but stated “the real issue here is that it is the concept, the actual nature of the development, the absolute inappropriateness of the development that is the real problem.” The Water Quality section outlined in detail deficiencies in the Development Application’s Environmental Assessment in this area in particular its failure to deal with anything beyond the sediments in the immediate vicinity of this site and its failure to take a holistic approach to the local bays and their water quality. In doing so it ignores the compounding effects of adding pollutants such as diuron, xylene and toluene to already heavily stressed sediments and biota. It makes reference to earlier studies on the bays which list them among the most contaminated areas of the harbour. This section argues that rather than exacerbating the problems in this highly impacted estuarine area, regeneration of the natural marine animal and plant communities of the bays is needed.
The Planning section of our response suggested the root cause of the problem is the Master Plan itself which seems to promote this sort of noisy, out-of-scale, inappropriate development. However we did note those areas where the proposal exceeds even the ludicrously generous parameters of the Master Plan.
The main Visual Impact noted was the largest of the four buildings soaring to nearly 100 feet (28 metres) in an area entirely low-rise. The bulk of these buildings was also contrasted with the lightness and elegance of the Anzac Bridge which shares the same skyline.· Air Quality could only suffer with the introduction of petrol and diesel fumes and would be detrimental to rowers/paddlers and park users.
Noise was tackled in a broad way in the body of our submission through our concerns that the ambient level of noise that determines how much extra noise can be tolerated, is infinitely cumulative. Thus the extra noise that Glebe suffers that can be sourced to the Anzac Bridge, and the even more noise that Glebe will experience in the future should the Cross-city Tunnel draw more traffic to the Anzac Bridge, becomes the new base on which to add more noise. For the more significant part of our response in the area of noise we are indebted to Fergus Fricke who served as our honorary consultant. The thirty-five technical issues he raised on how the Environmental Assessment dealt with noise are to be found in the Appendix section of our response.
Traffic was not anticipated as a major concern for Glebe but reference was made to the possibility of the park’s new ramps and wharves being used as pick-up/drop-off points for boat passengers thus increasing the traffic and creating parking problems in certain sections of Glebe, but more importantly causing the motorboats to cross the paths of rowed and paddled craft. We suggested too that during the building phase in particular, heavy trucks might be inclined to use Glebe’s residential streets.
The Sustainable Development section was thought to be misleading in terms of the Commonwealth Government’s definition of ESD. Further we criticised the proposal for its failure to comply with best building practice in terms of ESD.
We rated the Impact on Traditional Users of the Bay as nothing short of catastrophic, giving no recognition to the heritage value of the 120-year-old rowing course and increasing the danger to rowers/paddlers exponentially. We pointed out that it is the very features of these land-locked, non-flushing, lake-like bays that make them at once so unsuitable for powerful motorboats and so ideal for rowers/paddlers.
Our conclusion found that the proposal had “...no redeemable features, largely because it is so inappropriate to this site in terms of its purpose.”
The appendices included: • Fergus Fricke’s issues with the Noise
Impact Statement;
3] The Glebe Society Incorporated’s Bays
and Foreshores Policy (revised 2003) - John Buckingham
|
 |
|