How did an upgrade to existing marine facilities
end up in a major expansion of development
end up in a major expansion of development
CLUMP POINT PORT!
The key points re Clump Point development are that;
· What is being proposed is a totally different (new) development from what is claimed by the State government to have had extensive public consultation and be only slightly different from what has already been approved, and
· The conservation sector does not support/endorse this project
· There is objection that the consultation process was inadequate and highly flawed
· There are issues with the change in scope of the project (see comparison left)
· There was a lack of notification of the EPBC referral
· Consultation focused only on Mission Beach locals when there are issues are relating to a WHA
Call for action:
· TMR to conduct independent investigation of the process prior to moving forward with the project.
The original proposals had state and federal government approval and were awaiting assessment from GBRMPA before Mr Lynham visited Mission Beach, met only with vested interests and marina supporters then completely abandoned the original plans and refused any discussion to include the existing Perry Harvey Jetty in the NEW development plan.
The current development proposal was determined by the (dodgy) Lynham Reference Group process that was claimed to be the ‘scoping study’ and ‘public consultation’. The process gave a false account of meetings and arrived at a predetermined outcome in the ‘advice to the Minister ' (Lynham) document.
Background/supporting information can be found on
Save Clump Point facebook
Plans for a marina at Clump Point are being fast tracked using a questionable 'community consultation' process
WHO IS THE MINISTER LISTENING TO?
The Minister has said he will only listen to the views of the Mission Beach people
in deciding the final Clump Point development plan
We are told we cannot distribute the latest plans!
(link to each document in column on right)
Why is it a secret?
Anything that has an impact on a World Heritage Area
is of legitimate interest to every Australian
The Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, Hon Mr Anthony Lynham visited Mission Beach In January 2016 and met with select members of the community. Shortly after his visit, it was announced that plans for the Mission Beach Safe Boating Infrastructure project, including final work on the Perry Harvey Jetty, were to be abandoned and that the major development be focused entirely at the Clump Point boat ramp.
In May, a selection of community members were invited to attend an 'Information Session'. ". . . deliberations over the mixture of who could and who couldn't attend took some time to negotiate" (see list here)
Discussion at the meeting was steered by a State government appointed facilitator to establish a list of desirable features for a large (up to 200 metre) rock wall extension at the boat ramp based on a design developed by Mission Beach Boating Association (MBBA) (below).
No consideration was given to the option adopted by the conservation community that included Clump Point jetty (now Perry Harvey jetty) as an important part of the marine infrastructure upgrade at Mission Beach.
There was no opportunity within the structure of the meeting for the jetty to be included as one of the 'desirable' features
Any discussion or requests to include the jetty was aggressively opposed by some of the attendees and denied by the facilitator until toward the end of the meeting and was not recorded as a 'desirable' feature of the upgrade.
The outcome notes demonstrate how the highly irregular informal public consultation process to receive community feedback, at this and all subsequent meetings has been weighted in favour of marina supporters and skewed toward a predetermined outcome.
Bob Katter, who was very vocal at the meeting, was noted as saying that "a large scale marina was not envisaged" despite his continued public call for a 100 boat marina and is lobbying on behalf of the marina supporters.
Why was there a vote taken when the majority of those invited supported a marina?
There are three main points CCA were consistent in asking for and that were totally ignored during the reference group process.
Development proposal documents
Click on icons below