Kangaroo Bay community concerns being ignored

ANNE GEARD: IT is difficult to understand Mayor Doug Chipman’s confusion about why the community he represents is angry and upset about the development approved for Kangaroo Bay.

Kangaroo Bay, as seen from Bellerive.

IT is difficult to understand Mayor Doug Chipman’s confusion about why the community he represents is angry and upset about the development approved for Kangaroo Bay, expressed in the community meeting on the June 4.

He was there. He heard why.

Far from being used as a political issue, it is the Greens standing up for and representing the community when no one else would.

To abide by laws and legislation is good, however in this instance using them to hide behind and not acknowledge the flawed process in this development is not. The mayor and council have lost the community’s trust.

Clarence Council has a 20-page Community Participation policy, where it purports to communicate on proposed developments with key stakeholders.

Kangaroo Bay has a special section because it was expected any development here would be contentious, given the proximity to a residential area.

However, in this instance, for over 15 months, while the State Government, Clarence Council staff, aldermen and developers, Shandong Chambroad talked, no one said anything to this community.

In fact, it appears they deliberately deceived us by only ever showing in the media the one hotel building on the ferry wharf site with no mention ever being made of a second building along Cambridge Road.

As a community group, Kangaroo Bay Voice set out to inform everyone we could about the entire development passed by Clarence Council on January 23 by 10 aldermen, with Richard James against and James Walker absent.

This community consultation was a task the council should have undertaken, because this development is so far from the design concept the community had been expecting for this area and what was shown on council’s own website, the Kangaroo Bay Urban Design Strategy Concept Plan.

This represents the community’s understanding and expectations of what was to be developed in this area to make it a focal point for the city and community.

The ferry wharf was to be redeveloped to provide a public transport function, the foreshore was to be an open and continuous public space with walking and seating areas, with accommodation, cafes, and restaurants with cultural and marine activities.

This community is not against development, indeed we are looking forward to it.

The skate park, sports field, walking and bike paths and playground are wonderful and are well used by all the community. An area so special in so many people’s eyes deserves an equally special development.

Although there are several other buildings of similar height in the village, they are not close by or well suited to a ‘village feel’ and hence can’t be considered a favourable measure by which to conform.

In the planning application the Cambridge Road building was described as a “buffer, barrier and screen”.

To whom? Everyone except those in the building.

It shows a lack of respect to the rest of the community and is hardly cognisant of its location and visual importance.

Indeed it is three times bigger than what the concept plan considered acceptable.

Why does Alderman Chipman think people who don’t live in an area don’t care or have a right to voice an opinion about its iconic uniqueness, or want to maintain that for now and future generations? Hasn’t he realised what a jewel he is the custodian of overseeing and preserving for the future?

Tasmania doesn’t need to be like everywhere else — people visit here because we are not like everywhere else.

Ald Chipman also heard why there were no appeals lodged. That decision was the result of legal advice from several separate sources about the perceived pro-development approach of the Appeals Tribunal, the fact only professionals like lawyers, engineers, consultants and planners can appear, which costs thousands, and taking on an $8 billion company was too big a risk — especially if costs were awarded against the appellants.

The sale of Crown Land became an issue as everyone was of the assumption public land could and should only be used for the benefit of the whole community, not for a company to profit from.

The original proposal stated it was to be a TasTAFE hospitality school so this would be of benefit to the community, however any mention of TAFE now being involved seems to have changed and it appears the school may be private and fee paying, just with TAFE accreditation, so not as readily available to locals as first envisaged by the community.

Why does Ald Chipman appear to not want to listen to community concerns?

Are we wrong to expect our elected aldermen and mayor to serve our best interests first?

The community cannot understand how this development will be good for, or improve, our quality of life.

The community is now asking, considering the developers have first preference for developing the rest of available land in Kangaroo Bay, for full community consultation for this area and any other major developments like Rosny Hill, before any other inappropriate developments are approved.

Anne Geard is a resident and one of the community representatives for Kangaroo Bay Voice.