Jan Barham, Broken Head
Mr Saul’s comments last week regarding his Linnaeus ecotourism development included reference to ‘protesters’, but a more apt descriptor is ‘protectors’. He states ‘the quantum of this development onsite will actually be reduced’, I believe this is a misrepresentation.
The proposal to double the number and location of structures and associated infrastructure, including vegetation removal, roads and paths belies this statement.
The works would create greater fragmentation and disturbance and therefore expand the impact on biodiversity, as will increased numbers of people on site. His reference to houses is incorrect, they are accommodation units associated with the approved education facility.
Historically, there’s been a lack of compliance focus on this site by Council.
I raised numerous examples in my Formal Complaint, as have past submissions. Council resolved last May to conduct a compliance audit of the site.
The outcome hasn’t been reported yet, but should be done prior to consideration of any further development proposals as the current application relies on past approvals as well as the secretive zone change.
In short, this proposal creates further impacts on a site of ecological and cultural significance.
The proposal doesn’t adequately address the values and impacts that could result from the change of use and development intensification, whether it’s called a resort or a retreat.