Dangerous precedent
The recent decision of Shoalhaven City Council to bend to the wants of some “owners” of foreshore views at Collingwood, Beach, Jervis Bay raises warning signals for all coastal reserves in the Shoalhaven.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The proposal to thin understory vegetation and to reduce the height of understory vegetation to 1.5 metres means the long term destruction of that ecosystem as many plants will die due to excessive pruning. Asthe vegetation is inter-dependent, the larger species will also eventually succumb due to lack of protection of seed beds etc.
The implications of such a loss of vegetation are: loss of habitat for small birds and ground animals including echidnas; destruction of protected vegetation species such as remnant stands of Bangalay forest in some areas; reduction in the ability of the shoreline to withstand sea erosion from increasing storm events and wind blown sand from damaged areas; reduction in the general amenity for the bulk of beach and bush users who do not want to have to look at large houses right on the beachfront; a turn-off for the visitors who come to enjoy our comparatively unspoilt coastal area. Tourism is a key income earner for the area.
The Collingwood Beach proposal is a bellwether for other pressure groups who, too, would like to improve their sea views at the expense of public amenity. If it goes ahead, the damage will be multiplied across the Shoalhaven area at the expense of tourism and with potential increased costs for the protection of public and private assets against sea damage. Furthermore it is in conflict with NSW legislation on the protection of foreshore vegetation.
Let us stop this short-sighted destruction before it gets out of hand as has happened in other coastal areas over the last 70 years.
D. Davidson, Bawley Point
Boat people benefit
The Prime Minister's recent announcement of his election commitment of $790,000 for a 21-berth marina was reiterated in a letter from Ann Sudmalis.
In this letter she explained the election commitment of $790,000 was in conjunction with $400,000 from the NSW government organised by Shelley Hancock and $400,000 from the Joanna Gash controlled Shoalhaven City Council. She said "the facility will generate local growth, tourism, jobs and economic investment". She said the return of the Turnbull government will ensure the delivery of the project.
J. Willmott (Times Letters, June 24) said while the announcement was substantial to house a small number of boats, a viable harbour precinct could only be developed if there is a $10 million commitment to a breakwall extension. I agree with Mr Willmott's assessment and ask the question: Who is likely to provide the $10 million to make this proposition viable? Ann Sudmalis? Shelley Hancock? Or Joanna Gash?
In the same edition M. Nyholm raised issues of a lack of understanding and support for small business and questioned why we have such high unemployment. J. Willmott outlined the bleak future of the building industry in Ulladulla which represents 28.8 per cent of its workforce and questioned the commitment to stimulate jobs and growth.
it would seem Ms Sudmalis' commitment of $790,000 is part of overall government funding of $1.6 million which will only benefit a small number of boat owner while making a negligible contribution to jobs and growth and support for small business.
In the current economic climate there is no way this ill-conceived project can be justified and is a reflection upon all levels of government. These funds should be redirected to the only industry capable of sustainability and of supporting both small business and reducing unemployment, namely tourism.
This area has much natural beauty and unique physical features and the potential to develop and sustain a vibrant Tourist Industry capable of competing with other major tourist destinations in Australia.