Letters to the editor
The article in the Byron News (Dec 2) deserves comment.
The developer, Harvey Norman, purchased the site with the development consent and attached conditions.
Cr Barham's reported comments make it clear that she does not approve of the development at all, including the consent conditions relating to effluent disposal.
Harvey Norman have had continuous dialogue with council engineering and town planning staff and it's own highly-qualified consultants to modify the consent conditions relating to effluent disposal to transport the tertiary-
treated effluent to the golf course rather than disseminate it through sprinkler systems on the site of recognised wetlands the developer is trying to protect within the terms of the approval.
In light of these discussions Harvey Norman has sought and received from the golf club permission to upgrade the club's pumping and irrigation systems to ensure additional capacity is available to cater for its needs as well as the pre-existing effluent disposal arrangement between the club and the council which sees some 500,000 litres of effluent disposed of by the council on the golf course daily.
Clearly the upgrade will advantage the council (community) more than the developer as the amount of effluent supplied to the course by the Tallow Creek STP is about 10 times that proposed by the resort at the maximum capacity.
Notwithstanding the many meetings, discussions, the expenditure, the clearly expressed desire of the developer to work with the council to find a more suitable, environmentally acceptable method of disposing of it's effluent, it is evident that council is not interested in anything except the strict requirements that the developer adhere to the consent conditions - however unsuitable in their own eyes, and will refuse to allow occupancy of the otherwise completed resort until this has been done.
It will then presumably entertain a sepa- rate development application from the developer to change that particular consent condition to allow the effluent to be piped to the golf course on terms and conditions which may well be determined by the Land and Environment Court at the developer's and community's further expense.
Is this the sort of treatment this community thinks is fair and reasonable in the circumstances?
Is this good corporate governance on the council's part?
President, Byron Bay Golf Club Ltd
Tired and angry
Great news that B.R.A.C.E (Bay Residents Against Community Erosion) is being formed to support residents as they battle the 'holiday' (ie. party) letting in the Bay. We know they come to party, does anyone come to holiday anymore?
The claim by Byron Tourism chair, Grant Hawkins, that only four calls were made to the Hotline over the weekend (don't the other days count?) is very misleading.
If you ring the Hotline, as I did, no details are passed on of your complaint unless the residence is 'on the list'. Hardly a true reflection of the problem Grant.
Byron Bay's party-town reputation is trashing all aspects of our environment. It amazes me that groups of people, of all ages - not just schoolies - feel they can destroy the peace of this beautiful place.
I wonder if they would enjoy regular all-night inconsideration next to their residence.
More amazing to me is how absent owners can do this to their neighbours. It is community erosion indeed.
I know that residents are tired and angry enough to take this issue on and insist that the relevant section of the Environmental Protection Act be adhered to.
Great to see Byron Bay referred to as the Bay - what a nostalgia trip that is! I'm sure that there will be some interesting developments ahead now that the residents have a voice.
Good onya Sonya.
Looking for truth
For those of us who have merely looked for a little truth and integrity in the Marine Park debate Ken Thurlow's latest letter to this paper (Dec. 2) is really demoralising. In response to another read- er's comments Ken claims that his copy of the Marine Park Act states that the objects of the Act are 'to conserve marine diversity and to provide for ecologically sustainable use of fish including recreational and commercial fishing'.
The actual Objects read as follows:
(a) To conserve marine biological diversity and marine habitats by declaring and providing for the management of a comprehensive system of marine park.
(b) To maintain ecological processes in the park.
(c) Where consistent with the preceding objects.
(i) to provide for ecologically sustainable use of fish and marine vegetation in marine parks, and
(ii) to provide opportunities for public appreciation, understanding and enjoyment of marine parks.
The point if this is to show that Ken's cut and paste version reads quite differently to the actual document, but I will let readers interpret it as they wish.
For my money it seems to say that in a NSW marine park all activities are subordinate to the conservation objects.
If Ken had the gall to try to dupe people with something so easily disproved you womder how many of those 5000 fishing submissions were bought with misinformation and half-truths.
Tourism Representative, Cape Byron Marine Park Advisory Committee
Well, well, well.
There are Davidson Plum trees on the site of the proposed Yelgun truck stop and it is interesting to note the different attitude by the RTA to the total removal of those trees and the partial removal of the Davidson Plum trees that were the major reason for not accepting the Ocean Shores community preferred route for the highway upgrade.
In the instance of the Yelgun truck stop the RTA now finds 'the removal of Davidson Plums in area 1 and 2 would not have a significant effect under the TSC Act.'
Could it be that because the RTA already owns the land that the trees are not as rare and endangered as the ones that had to be protected at all costs in the community preferred route that would have seen the partial loss of the same trees from a very large population.
It is also interesting to note that the RTA will now provide protected turning lanes for the B-Doubles to enter and exit the truck stop onto or from the Old Pacific Highway but has steadfastly refused to provide protected turning lanes for the residents exiting or entering the Ocean Shores estate on the same road.
I wouldn't mind betting the RTA will even slow the local Ocean Shores traffic down to accommodate the giant trucks entering or leaving the truck stop that will now have to cross the paths of the Ocean Shores residents who will still have to use the old highway.
A reduction in speed is something else the RTA has refused to do for the safety of the Ocean Shores residents.
Clearly trucks are considered by the RTA to be a rare and endangered species worthy of protection while the residents of Ocean Shores and some Davidson Plum trees are not.