September 12 1999

The Office of Planning
Department of Infrastructure
PO Box 576
Geelong Vic. 3220


Amendment R243
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme


I wish to lodge an objection to Amendment R243 to permit the development of a Watersports Complex on the Belmont Common on behalf of the Barwon Biodiversity Watch.

Background:
I am objecting from the perspective of a teacher of Science and Environmental Science, a former rower, a parent of two rowers, a kayak paddler and instructor, a runner, a conservationist and a member of the Australian Society for Limnology. I am also a member of the Geelong Community Forum, Barwon Biodiversity Watch and Friends of Bannockburn Bush.

Prior to moving to Geelong, I worked for the Latrobe Valley Water and Sewerage Board in Traralgon on the microbiology of water supplies and conducted a chemical and biological survey of the East Gippsland rivers and estuaries under contract to the Environment Protection Authority.

Rationale.
The CoGG has a role and responsibility to provide for the welfare of the Geelong community. This is clearly a complex task and one where the occasional mistake, must be not so much accepted, as tolerated. In catering for a diverse range of interests within the community it is only human nature that the decision makers should favour those with whom they have the most contact and dealing and those that have a pecuniary interest in developments that COULD bring financial rewards to the area. Unfortunately this human failing does not mean that the decisions made will necessarily be correct. The current Minister for planning has conceded to me that planning mistakes have been made, for example over the felling of the Bannockburn Yellow gums.

When were we wrong?
A quick review of the history of conflict between developers and conservation groups in Victoria soon makes it clear that there is no case where the conservation movement has made a major stand and got it wrong. Conversely there are numerous occasions where a project has been fast-tracked to the long term detriment of the community and the environment. I believe that this is another such project.

Tragedy of the Commons
Garret Hardin, speaking at an early workshop on the environment made the point that when a resource is shared between many (such as a grazing common) it is in everyone's best interest to cheat. The cheater (grazing more stock), receives a large positive benefit but only a tiny negative penalty. Of course, if all users follow suit, the common is soon destroyed. It is my opinion that the proponents of the watersports complex are attempting to "cheat" or have others cheat for them.
The Belmont Common should remain as it is, or a referendum should be held, to establish the wishes of the majority of ratepayers.
That the CoGG has failed to conduct such a referendum despite several clear requests confirms the view that the process is unfair. It is even more unfair when large sums of ratepayers money are spent in a blatant attempt to change peoples' minds. No attempt was made to represent both sides of the case.
This is further confirmation of the cheating process and the paternalistic attitude of the council.

Respect for the consultants and local naturalists expert opinions.
The Sinclair Knight Mertz consultants on the proposal and the Geelong Field Naturalist Club would have to be respected as experts in their particular fields. The Council is usually happy to accept their advice, enlist their support or use them to stage Environmental Expos. Why then do they have trouble listening when the advice is contrary to their proposal?

There are also several other grounds for objection:

1. Environmental
a. Worldwide, it has been recognised that changes to major river systems often create ecological disasters. Our own Snowy river and the Mississippi in USA are just two examples where large projects have caused serious problems that will be expensive to fix, given that a solution is possible.
The banks and base of the Barwon River are highly erodible. It is also subject to massive flooding. The SKM report warns of erosion problems and flow shifts.

There is too great a risk that the planned channel will be unstable and require expensive maintenance or have to be abandoned. Who would bear this cost?

b. The Barwon is already subject to toxic blooms of cyanophytes or blue green algae. This group which contain special nodules, can fix their own nitrogen which is often limiting in rivers and form a run-away bloom, out competing the less harmful green algae and swamping herbivorous predators.

Proposed changes to the river will enhance the conditions for algal blooms by providing a shallow, warm lagoon with low flushing rates. How much money has been allocated to addressing this problem?

c. Habitat disruption during and post construction. Major disruptions to habitat will occur during any construction phase. What action will be been taken to allow local fauna to survive the 25 years or so it will require for replanted flora to achieve the original habitat condition? Homeless birds and mammals cannot wait in limbo while the trees grow. Barwon Water learned this lesson too late at Bannockburn and are now spending thousands of dollars installing nest boxes.

d. Disturbing the anoxic and toxic sediments of the old tip site is of serious concern to the EPA (pers com). The soil sediment conditions below the common are very much unknown. At the very least there will be acid sulphate conditions as well as unknown levels of hazardous materials from Geelong's earlier industries.
What guarantee can be given that no toxic material can place the benthic fauna of Lake Connewarre and the Barwon Heads estuary at risk? The mulloway fishermen will not be happy to see their monster trophies floating belly up!

2. Sporting
a. There is no clear evidence of the cost benefit of the facility to Australian sport.
Schools and rowing clubs would be in favour of the proposal because they are benefiting from the Tragedy of the Commons principle. They get to use it, while others contribute to the cost.

b. Geelong, Victorian and Australian rowers have done very well without such a complex in the past. We have performed well under difficult conditions because we have had to adapt to existing facilities rather than have everything easy. Facilities which require extra skills such as good coxing are an advantage during stiff competition.

c. It is my belief that the proposal is being pushed not so much to provide opportunities for our young athletes, which we all want but to provide customers for Geelong's service and accommodation industry. Our athletes, like our own children will continue to do well, with or without the Complex.

d. We already have too many unused rowing facilities. What lessons can be learned from the state of Carrum and Nagambie? Establish a sound user base and cost structure before proceeding. Has this been done for Geelong? It is my belief that too much wishful thinking is involved and that the Geelong community would be exposed to an unacceptable financial risk.

e. Most of Geelong's canoe and kayak paddlers do not require a boring, controlled environment for their sport. It is much more pleasant to train within the banks of a natural river than beside rock lined groynes. The white water paddlers like myself will stay up around Buckleys falls among the rapids. A plan to install a white water or slalom course, would provide much more fun for many more people at much less cost. But this group lacks the financial connections of the rowers.

3. Planning.
a. The blatant mis-planning of the whole project is a disgrace to modern local government but unfortunately par for the course in Victoria. The council should have investigated more thoroughly, the viability and cost of the project. It should not be acting desperately in the 11th hour to force the community into accepting a proposal on such tenuous terms.

4. Financial.
a. CoGG Have shown exceptional financial indiscretion in allowing the project to proceed so far without a sound balance projection. There is too much speculation with ratepayers money by those that hope to profit.

I am very much in favour of providing sporting and recreational facilities for the community but I believe that in this case we would be taking a backwards step. far more could be done for far less, given proper community consultation.

Yours sincerely



Stuart McCallum