About us
Current Issues
Volunteer
Associated Groups
Newsletter
Media
Contact Us
Great Keppel Island
Tower releases Plan 3 - plenty of spin but it doesn't add up
Tower releases Plan 3 - plenty of spin but it doesn't add up
Plan 1 (July 2007) covered
most of the island in real estate, golf courses and a huge airport, and was so
ridiculous that it was rejected by the Qld Gov't at the outset.
Plan 2 (Aug 2009) was about half the size but was stil a huge threat to the natural environment and was rejected by Federal Environment Minister Garrett as being "clearly unacceptable".
Plan 3 (June 2010) has now been released and is claimed to be half the size of Plan 2. However it still involves a marina at Putney Beach and a large area of Lot 21 being put under golf course and villas.
In their publicity of Plan 3, Tower seems to adopt the tactic of the Turkish Bazaar street vendors - "Start high and let 'em beat us down" - If you start at ridiculously large number, then by the time you have reduced down to a quarter of it, everyone thinks they have a really good deal.
Tower's Plan 3 is still environmentally unacceptable but this time let them spend their money preparing an Environmental Impact Statement to prove it.
How big is it? Total confusion over areas
Problem 1 - Tower's Attachment D states that the "Total Island Based Footprint" is 99 hectares. The map below indicates that the total area is closer to 248 hectares. (This does not include area associated with the marina.)
Of this 248 ha, about 160 ha is the golf course & surrounding villas in the middle of the island, and about 88 ha including the existing resort area and airstrip is on the western side of the island. The 88 ha area consists of 50 ha on Lot 21 and 38 ha on the existing resort footprint. This means that 210 ha (160 + 50) of Lot 21 is to be alienated. We still regard this as too much. Such a development does not accord with the state government's determination on 25th November 2008 that the most appropriate use of Lot 21 be “conservation”.
Masters of spin. Tower even claim in Attachment D that the alleged 99 ha is only 0.00028% of Total World Heritage Area - so what! Why not claim that it is also ONLY 0.000057% of Qld or ONLY 0.000012% of Australia. What are they trying to prove?
Problem 2 - Tower claim that 545 ha of Lot 21 (875 ha) will be an "Environmental Protection Area" whatever that is. If a further 210 ha is developed, then that leaves120 ha unaccounted for. Where is it? Also, under what legislation is an "Environmental Protection Area" to be controlled?
Tower might dispute these actual areas, but they are notoriously poor at providing accurate maps and we have had to estimate these areas from their fairly vague artistic illustrations. Even if there is some error in our estimates, there is no way that Tower could claim that the developed areas would only total 99 ha. We are mystified as to why a company supposedly in the business of "land development" is so poor at producing proper scaleable and accurate maps that could allow cross reference to the sales pitch in their promotional material.
Proposed Marina - CCC is concerned that the marina proposed in Plan 3 by Tower Holdings has the potential to have unacceptable impacts:
1. Dredging for the deep water entrance channel of the marina will require the destruction and disturbance of shallow and sheltered seagrass areas at Putney Beach. These seagrass areas are limited in Keppel Bay. Putney Beach provides important connectivity, sanctuary, habitat and feeding areas for dugongs.
2. The expected decline in water quality and increased turbidity from daily tidal flows in and out of the marina, and the frequently required dredging of the marina, may directly impact on the long term health of adjacent local coral reefs particularly at Putney Point, Passage Rocks, Middle Island and Half Tide rocks. These are important and highly valued for a wide variety of community, tourism and commercial activities. The coral reefs at Passage Rocks, Middle Island and Half Tide Rocks also hold high and unique conservation value within Keppel Bay supporting a higher than normal concentrated population of olive sea snakes.
3. The marina will require excision of part of the Mackay/Capricorn Section of the GBR Marine Park.
4. The development places two listed marine species, dugongs and olive sea snakes, at risk.
Construction of this marina should not be permitted when a jetty would be an acceptable alternative.
Why are Tower so shy? There are 21 pdf documents on the federal government's EPBC website that have been provided by Tower as part of the referral process. Yet only one of these, the overall map, is provided on Tower's own website. The rest of their website is just the slick PR stuff. It seems strange that after spending a lot of money on consultants, Tower don't appear to have enough pride, nor maybe even enough confidence, in the work of their consultants, to want to show it off. We are left to ferret it out from the govt website ourselves. What is it that they don't want the public to know?
Some of the Attachments submitted by Tower are linked here-
Main EPBC Referral (947bk) Att A - Map (686kb) Att D - areas (38kb) Att H - Risk Analysis (1.35Mb)
Plan 2 (Aug 2009) was about half the size but was stil a huge threat to the natural environment and was rejected by Federal Environment Minister Garrett as being "clearly unacceptable".
Plan 3 (June 2010) has now been released and is claimed to be half the size of Plan 2. However it still involves a marina at Putney Beach and a large area of Lot 21 being put under golf course and villas.
In their publicity of Plan 3, Tower seems to adopt the tactic of the Turkish Bazaar street vendors - "Start high and let 'em beat us down" - If you start at ridiculously large number, then by the time you have reduced down to a quarter of it, everyone thinks they have a really good deal.
Tower's Plan 3 is still environmentally unacceptable but this time let them spend their money preparing an Environmental Impact Statement to prove it.
How big is it? Total confusion over areas
Problem 1 - Tower's Attachment D states that the "Total Island Based Footprint" is 99 hectares. The map below indicates that the total area is closer to 248 hectares. (This does not include area associated with the marina.)
Of this 248 ha, about 160 ha is the golf course & surrounding villas in the middle of the island, and about 88 ha including the existing resort area and airstrip is on the western side of the island. The 88 ha area consists of 50 ha on Lot 21 and 38 ha on the existing resort footprint. This means that 210 ha (160 + 50) of Lot 21 is to be alienated. We still regard this as too much. Such a development does not accord with the state government's determination on 25th November 2008 that the most appropriate use of Lot 21 be “conservation”.
Masters of spin. Tower even claim in Attachment D that the alleged 99 ha is only 0.00028% of Total World Heritage Area - so what! Why not claim that it is also ONLY 0.000057% of Qld or ONLY 0.000012% of Australia. What are they trying to prove?
Problem 2 - Tower claim that 545 ha of Lot 21 (875 ha) will be an "Environmental Protection Area" whatever that is. If a further 210 ha is developed, then that leaves120 ha unaccounted for. Where is it? Also, under what legislation is an "Environmental Protection Area" to be controlled?
Tower might dispute these actual areas, but they are notoriously poor at providing accurate maps and we have had to estimate these areas from their fairly vague artistic illustrations. Even if there is some error in our estimates, there is no way that Tower could claim that the developed areas would only total 99 ha. We are mystified as to why a company supposedly in the business of "land development" is so poor at producing proper scaleable and accurate maps that could allow cross reference to the sales pitch in their promotional material.
Proposed Marina - CCC is concerned that the marina proposed in Plan 3 by Tower Holdings has the potential to have unacceptable impacts:
1. Dredging for the deep water entrance channel of the marina will require the destruction and disturbance of shallow and sheltered seagrass areas at Putney Beach. These seagrass areas are limited in Keppel Bay. Putney Beach provides important connectivity, sanctuary, habitat and feeding areas for dugongs.
2. The expected decline in water quality and increased turbidity from daily tidal flows in and out of the marina, and the frequently required dredging of the marina, may directly impact on the long term health of adjacent local coral reefs particularly at Putney Point, Passage Rocks, Middle Island and Half Tide rocks. These are important and highly valued for a wide variety of community, tourism and commercial activities. The coral reefs at Passage Rocks, Middle Island and Half Tide Rocks also hold high and unique conservation value within Keppel Bay supporting a higher than normal concentrated population of olive sea snakes.
3. The marina will require excision of part of the Mackay/Capricorn Section of the GBR Marine Park.
4. The development places two listed marine species, dugongs and olive sea snakes, at risk.
Construction of this marina should not be permitted when a jetty would be an acceptable alternative.
Why are Tower so shy? There are 21 pdf documents on the federal government's EPBC website that have been provided by Tower as part of the referral process. Yet only one of these, the overall map, is provided on Tower's own website. The rest of their website is just the slick PR stuff. It seems strange that after spending a lot of money on consultants, Tower don't appear to have enough pride, nor maybe even enough confidence, in the work of their consultants, to want to show it off. We are left to ferret it out from the govt website ourselves. What is it that they don't want the public to know?
Some of the Attachments submitted by Tower are linked here-
Main EPBC Referral (947bk) Att A - Map (686kb) Att D - areas (38kb) Att H - Risk Analysis (1.35Mb)
Capricorn Conservation Council's position -
1. CCC opposes the development of Lot 21 (875 ha) for villas. The current lease of Lot 21 is for recreation purposes, not real estate.
2. CCC opposes the building of a marina at Putney Beach due to the damage that this could cause to the marine environment in the vicinity including fringing coral reefs.
3. CCC supports the re-development of the resort on the site of the existing resort where an area of 38 hectares is available (including the airstrip)
read more >>> GKI Background >>
Meanwhile: In addition CCC urges the Queensland Government to enforce existing lease conditions so that lessees who do not properly manage their land are penalised, especially when it involves environmental mismanagement. Lessees should not be granted lease extensions unless they have demonstrated appropriate management of their leases. At present there is a weed and feral goat problem and Tower appear incapable of doing anything to manage the area properly.
Here is CCC's EPBC submission for Plan 3 > (coming soon)
Read more from our EPBC submission to Plan 2 >
Impacts on the Great Barrier Reef
Cultural heritage
Migratory Species
Threatened Ecosystems
Threatened Species
Environmental History
Qld Coastal Management Plan
or download our whole submission to the EPBC (pdf 2.5mb)
Read comments from on-line petition >>>
1. CCC opposes the development of Lot 21 (875 ha) for villas. The current lease of Lot 21 is for recreation purposes, not real estate.
2. CCC opposes the building of a marina at Putney Beach due to the damage that this could cause to the marine environment in the vicinity including fringing coral reefs.
3. CCC supports the re-development of the resort on the site of the existing resort where an area of 38 hectares is available (including the airstrip)
read more >>> GKI Background >>
Meanwhile: In addition CCC urges the Queensland Government to enforce existing lease conditions so that lessees who do not properly manage their land are penalised, especially when it involves environmental mismanagement. Lessees should not be granted lease extensions unless they have demonstrated appropriate management of their leases. At present there is a weed and feral goat problem and Tower appear incapable of doing anything to manage the area properly.
Here is CCC's EPBC submission for Plan 3 > (coming soon)
Read more from our EPBC submission to Plan 2 >
Impacts on the Great Barrier Reef
Cultural heritage
Migratory Species
Threatened Ecosystems
Threatened Species
Environmental History
Qld Coastal Management Plan
or download our whole submission to the EPBC (pdf 2.5mb)
Read comments from on-line petition >>>
Read what our local elected representatives think of Tower's Plan 2