 | MEDIA RELEASE 07 August 2012 Alliance to Save Hinchinbrook Inc. Cassowary Coast Regional Council (CCRC) has made clear and strong responses to an attempt to have a new and different “Port Hinchinbrook Stage II” development proposal accepted as a mere “change” to a Development Application first lodged in 2008. In 2009, state government departments advised the CCRC that an earlier “changed” version should be refused. Nevertheless, the CCRC continued to grant the developer extensions of time to the present day, allowing the Application to remain “alive” under old legislation, the Integrated Planning Act. Otherwise, as a new Application, this battle-axe subdivision proposal would have to be assessed under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 and the FNQ 2009-2031 Regional Plan, which allow no urban development south of the present “Port Hinchinbrook”. |
In raising questions about the developer's assertion that the proposed development is only a minor change from the original marina/canal estate project, the CCRC letter of 15 June 2012 was very clear:
“the proposed development does not reflect any part of the original application
... based on the substantial changes and the totally new land use proposed (Residential Rural), it is considered that the proposed changes represent a completely new Development Application rather than a Change to an Existing Application” (15 June 2012).
“the proposed development does not reflect any part of the original application
... based on the substantial changes and the totally new land use proposed (Residential Rural), it is considered that the proposed changes represent a completely new Development Application rather than a Change to an Existing Application” (15 June 2012).
 Click photos to enlarge - Dec 2006 |  Dec 2011 |  May 2012 |
Likewise, in a further letter (24 June 2012) referring to a court judgement cited by the developer’s consultant, the CCRC criticised the consultant’s omission of a crucial statement:
“We particularly note that you failed to include the complete paragraph 59 and possibly use it out of context. We set out below extracts which correctly identify the position including our underlining which was not included as part of paragraph 59 in your correspondence. That part underlined obviously cannot give your client comfort...
“We reiterate that based upon the substantial changes and the totally different land uses what is proposed, in our view, constitutes a completely new development application rather than a change to an existing application.”
“We particularly note that you failed to include the complete paragraph 59 and possibly use it out of context. We set out below extracts which correctly identify the position including our underlining which was not included as part of paragraph 59 in your correspondence. That part underlined obviously cannot give your client comfort...
“We reiterate that based upon the substantial changes and the totally different land uses what is proposed, in our view, constitutes a completely new development application rather than a change to an existing application.”
Part of the “changed” application curiously proposes to cede Lot 170, 60 hectares now covered metres deep in dredge spoil and acid soil dumps, to Port Hinchinbrook Services Pty Ltd (PHS), the quasi-body corporate for “Port Hinchinbrook” subdivision block owners. These activities on Lot 170 have been associated with the death of much of Girramay National Park's northern vegetation.
Further, the Application states the purpose of the intended transfer of Lot 170 to PHS is to allow continued “permanent” use for disposal of “Port Hinchinbrook” dredge spoil; but fails to point out that there is almost no capacity left on Lot 170 for legal disposal of dredge spoil. Ms Moorhouse said “This is because spoil has been accumulating there for 18 years, and no satisfactory treatment or beneficial use has ever been found for it”.
“In our opinion, the intended transfer of this acid-affected block would not be a boon to PHS, but a liability” Ms Moorhouse said, noting that the dredge spoil “ponds” are required to be monitored, to prevent damage to ground water and the adjacent national park.
 Click to enlarge | Ms Moorhouse further noted that “if Williams Corp can offload this block, the company can disappear, leaving PHS block owners to deal with all the liabilities of the construction of the “Port Hinchinbrook” development; and there still won’t be anywhere to dump new dredge spoil”. The due date for public comments on the Application is 24 August 2012. See CCRC website. CONTACT: Margaret Moorhouse (Mob) 0427 724 052 email: [email protected] Left; article in Phoenix June 2012 (page 12) Stay on CCA (Cassowary Coast Alliance) website or Return to Mission Beach Cassowaries |
RSS Feed