	Nelly Bay – Magnetic Island

Home Background Chronology Key Issues Engineering Report Legal Advice Magnetic Harbour 1998 Nelly Bay Proposal 1995 Magnetic Quay 1989 Magnetic Keys 1986 Win-Win Alternative EIA Process Public SEIS Responses State SEIS Response Federal SEIS Response Public FEIS Responses Nelly Bay Photographs Corporate Information State Marine Park Great Barrier Reef Region Photo: Brahminy Kite © Ian Montgomery www.birdway.com.au	Key Issues 1. The Safe Harbour A 20% longer ferry trip from Townsville = increased ferry fares. In windy and/or flood conditions big boats such as the ferries and tourist vessels find accessing the 30 metre channel difficult. The ferry pontoons are located in a potentially dangerous position just at the harbour entrance. During southerly storms, the tie-up area experiences up to 0.7 m waves. In windy conditions, during the prevailing southeasterlies, the waves in Nelly Bay are side-on, and the ferry trip is uncomfortable. 2. Environmental Destruction and Legal Issues Dredging of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park to provide spoil for the construction of a privately owned canal estate development in the adjacent State Marine Park is not an activity that complies with the relevant Great Barrier Reef Marine Park zoning. Reclamation of the State Marine Park for the purpose of constructing a canal estate residential/tourism development does not comply with the relevant State Marine Park General Use "A" zoning. A majority vote in parliament is required by the State Marine Park Act, when excising a significant area of State Marine Park. However the State Government maintained that this was unnecessary in Nelly Bay. 3. Pollution Canal estates are one of the most polluting forms of development, so much so that this type of residential development has been banned in New South Wales. However, the Queensland Government was not only the proponent for this proposal, it also approved its location within the Townsville-Whitsunday State Marine Park, which is located in the World Heritage-listed Great Barrier Reef Region. The canal and harbour waterways, the two public beaches within the development, the adjacent Nelly Bay beach, and the fringing reef outside the development will be forever polluted by anti-fouling and boat sewage; by fertilisers, pesticides, and stormwater runoff associated with the canal estate development; by petrol and oil associated with the refueling pontoon and bilge waste from the boats; and by sewage if the pump station malfunctions. The canal and harbour waterways, the two public beaches within the development, the adjacent Nelly Bay beach and the fringing reef outside the development are already contaminated by the island's sewage treatment plant, which is located very near to Gustav Creek. This creek flows into the development's main harbour. Degradation of the Nelly Bay coastal environment is already occurring. 4. Expense The ongoing costs to the community are high, involving maintenance of water quality, canals, beaches, breakwalls and revetment walls. In the future, additional sewage treatment facilities, road maintenance and additional school and hospital facilities will be necessary. 5. Design Flaws The development is sited in a flood-prone, storm surge zone, at the mouth of Gustav Creek. Gustav Creek, which empties into the harbour basin, floods heavily during the wet season and poses a threat to the residences, pontoons, boats and infrastructure. The beaches inside the main breakwall, the revetment walls and the pontoons will need repairing after each wet season. When the creek floods, the blocks of reclaimed land and revetment walls are likely to suffer some degree of subsidence. The entrance to the harbour will be difficult to access in winds from the south and southeast over 20 knots. 6. Related Issues The questionable role of government facilitating development processes for super profit to developers. The questionable means by which a "preferred developer" can become entitled to $6M of government money after an Expressions of Interest period has finished and the other applicants are not allowed to re-tender. .................................................... Home \| Contact Us \| Resources \| Sitemap Nelly-Bay.com © 2006. All Rights Reserved – Nelly Bay Key Issues

Key Issues

1. The Safe Harbour

A 20% longer ferry trip from Townsville = increased ferry fares.

In windy and/or flood conditions big boats such as the ferries and tourist vessels find accessing the 30 metre channel difficult.

The ferry pontoons are located in a potentially dangerous position just at the harbour entrance. During southerly storms, the tie-up area experiences up to 0.7 m waves.

In windy conditions, during the prevailing southeasterlies, the waves in Nelly Bay are side-on, and the ferry trip is uncomfortable.

2. Environmental Destruction and Legal Issues

Dredging of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park to provide spoil for the construction of a privately owned canal estate development in the adjacent State Marine Park is not an activity that complies with the relevant Great Barrier Reef Marine Park zoning.

Reclamation of the State Marine Park for the purpose of constructing a canal estate residential/tourism development does not comply with the relevant State Marine Park General Use "A" zoning.

A majority vote in parliament is required by the State Marine Park Act, when excising a significant area of State Marine Park. However the State Government maintained that this was unnecessary in Nelly Bay.

3. Pollution

Canal estates are one of the most polluting forms of development, so much so that this type of residential development has been banned in New South Wales.

However, the Queensland Government was not only the proponent for this proposal, it also approved its location within the Townsville-Whitsunday State Marine Park, which is located in the World Heritage-listed Great Barrier Reef Region.

The canal and harbour waterways, the two public beaches within the development, the adjacent Nelly Bay beach, and the fringing reef outside the development will be forever polluted by anti-fouling and boat sewage; by fertilisers, pesticides, and stormwater runoff associated with the canal estate development; by petrol and oil associated with the refueling pontoon and bilge waste from the boats; and by sewage if the pump station malfunctions.

The canal and harbour waterways, the two public beaches within the development, the adjacent Nelly Bay beach and the fringing reef outside the development are already contaminated by the island's sewage treatment plant, which is located very near to Gustav Creek. This creek flows into the development's main harbour.

Degradation of the Nelly Bay coastal environment is already occurring.

4. Expense

The ongoing costs to the community are high, involving maintenance of water quality, canals, beaches, breakwalls and revetment walls. In the future, additional sewage treatment facilities, road maintenance and additional school and hospital facilities will be necessary.

5. Design Flaws

The development is sited in a flood-prone, storm surge zone, at the mouth of Gustav Creek. Gustav Creek, which empties into the harbour basin, floods heavily during the wet season and poses a threat to the residences, pontoons, boats and infrastructure.

The beaches inside the main breakwall, the revetment walls and the pontoons will need repairing after each wet season. When the creek floods, the blocks of reclaimed land and revetment walls are likely to suffer some degree of subsidence.

The entrance to the harbour will be difficult to access in winds from the south and southeast over 20 knots.

6. Related Issues

The questionable role of government facilitating development processes for super profit to developers.

The questionable means by which a "preferred developer" can become entitled to $6M of government money after an Expressions of Interest period has finished and the other applicants are not allowed to re-tender.