Do not make Badderam a political football

WHILE the media slanging match over the Badderam Eco Luxe Resort and Spa development may be entertaining, we must look at why this clash has occurred.

PROPOSED: An architect's drawing of the proposed Badderam Eco Luxe Resort and Spa. Picture: Contributed

ALTHOUGH the current media slanging match over the Badderam Eco Luxe Resort and Spa development may be entertaining, it is important to look at the background of why this clash has occurred.

The core question remains: is this a worthwhile project and will it be a template to move our development along in a positive direction.

If it is, we should stop making it a political football and our local facilitators should get to work facilitating to get it off the board and on to the ground.

Whether the details are exactly right or the people as perfect as they should be is all irrelevant. The details can be worked out and the people are less important than their vision.

We need 50 eco resorts. This should be the first and establish the way forward for all that follow.

If our local government does not devote the necessary time and resources to facilitate this getting done, they are simply not getting even close to doing their job.

Essentially, Heidi Meyer and Kim Carrol designed a concept, and it is important to see it as that. It is not just a string of building across an escarpment.

FOUNDER: Badderam creative director and founder Heidi Meyer. Picture: Contributed

Let's be clear that there were many obstacles for them. Most, if not all, of the rest of us won't have done it. There were technical problems building on some very unstable ground; concerns from the community about this instability, traffic and aesthetics; political manoeuvring and lack of vision within the ranks; difficulties finding finance for the initial project ... and I'm sure hundreds of other day to day ones

The concept was to create a development that looked forward to what tourism will be in the future, not backwards to what it used to be and is totally inappropriate for our region.

The five-star hotel is yesterday's paradigm, unsuitable for the direction the Coast should take and incompatible with the market we should be aiming to capture.

Well-salaried young active people find a tower of rooms not to their liking. They want an open environment where their room integrates with its surrounds and interaction with their neighbours is easy. They want to be out of the door and out on the track, not wheeling their bike through a lobby.

Baby Boomers, same as the young actives, want to be out and about to be pebbled and hot-stoned and reiki-ed on pleasant decks overlooking beautiful natural vistas.

So the eco resort was designed to cater to just this future huge market.

So that's the concept. It isn't just a building placed in a landscape. It is designing an economically valuable development both into the environment, the social fabric of its location and the general lifestyle philosophy of the locals.

As well, it is a forward-looking enterprise that foresees tourism developing in a way in which we can preserve what is best in what we have.

Unfortunately, this clashes profoundly with the old-school conventional hotel Gold Coast development entrenched within the council.

My personal position is that no building adds to the natural environment, except perhaps the Opera House and a vertical farm/parking station on Brisbane Rd, Mooloolaba, should the council get the vision to build it.

Some will say that's anti-development, but it isn't really. I know construction is inevitable. We should just be very careful about it and fit it in with where we are.

We should concentrate on designing a best lifestyle for us, then fit the buildings in.

So, what about the clash of words. Straight off the bat, let's say there is nothing wrong with a constituent, developer or anyone else meeting with councillors or council staff. However, there should be no secrecy about it and what is discussed should be available as public record or even published on the website.

Contrary to the position some councillors adopt, they are our facilitators. They are there to carry our wishes to the council executive or staff. These are either fitted into what is possible or we are told it won't happen for whatever reason.

That Heidi Meyer met with a selected number of staff and councillors does in no way reflect upon their not being able to unbiasly vote on any application she later submits.

To maintain such a position is close to making the council unworkable. If someone stops a councillor in the street and says, "I'm thinking of building a 90m tower on the block” and shows him a photo, must the councillor excuse himself from any vote on this matter?

But think of this, and I believe this happens frequently, someone seeks a meeting with some councillors and says "what would you think if I proposed this”. Now often why the question is asked is to see if there is an outright refusal, like "We won't even consider that because...”

Almost any reasonable person knows they are never going to get an approval or even an indication that something might be approved. But if you are going to spend $50,000 on a submission, it's good to know it will at least be considered.

But by one group taking exception to this meeting, they are attempting to wedge those who did attend into the position of damned by the media and community if they vote for any change Heidi wants. This should be ignored and a reasonable approach adopted that the meeting would have no influence on any future vote.

So, what was it Heidi asked for? Well, contrary to some impressions which may have been given, it wasn't for inclusion of any more buildings within the existing eco resort.

Part of what was queried about was, what if an adjoining property, which already had an approval to build 46 units, owned by third party, was purchased, could the boundary be erased between it and the eco resort so it becomes one big block?

Why this was asked was that the block's infrastructure could be shared and rationalised.

But there is a downside for the developers in that they can never re-separate the two parts to, say, sell off one. So, it's sort of yin-yan and really not something the community should be concerned about other than to ensure the infrastructure is properly re-designed.

So, in the end what we have is an integration of two already granted approvals. Not a great ask. There is an advantage to the developer, so what?

But that those who should facilitate this chose to make it a battle ground of wedge politics says little for their interest in proper development for the Coast.