| NNNN BAD DEVELOPERS NNNN | |||||||||||||
|
EXPOSING DEVELOPERS WHO FAIL TO APPRECIATE AND RESPECT COMMUNITY, ENVIRONMENT AND SPIRIT OF THE LAND |
|||||||||||||
Letter from Friends of the Earth Melbourne to Environment Australia
10/11/05 Chris Murphy, Department of Environment and Heritage EPBC Act
GPO Box 757 Canberra, 2601
Dear Chris,
RE: Recent phone conversation concerning FoE member and concerns about Henley Golf Course.
Phase One to Phase Two Constructions.
The following questions/concerns we raise are due to our belief that concession allowed to the developer re: the EMP constitute an additional risk over and above the risk that already existed to the listed species. Given that the Precautionary Principle has been disregarded for this entire project, why have these further concessions been made?
Given DEH’s original EMP re: the construction of the Henley golf course to be done in three phases to supposedly minimise damage to the listed species in the event of a flood, why has the Department now agreed to this major concession allowed to the developers?
Re: starting phase two works well in advance of the completion and stabilisation of Phase One works. Which state agencies were consulted re: the full suite of concessions given to the developers? Please include names of agency officials and full details of matters discussed.
Levees
We understand that no levees will be required for Phase Two works and presumably Phase Three works. A state agency official who was apparently consulted with your agency states that the advice he gave your department included concerns that the river bank may not take the weight of the levees and therefore he advised your agency that he felt the levees weren’t necessary. Additionally we are advised that due to the amount of disturbance along the riverbank to create the levees would create a hazard for the river.
Why didn’t your department realise this at the time of compiling your original EMP for this project or at any time since? If a flood comes without any levee protection, how can you guarantee the safety of the listed species from the input of sand and soil from this development into the Yarra River, particularly given that your department refused community requests for an EES process which would have included baseline studies in advance of any approvals?
Short of having the relevant documentation we are informed that variations have been made to original stipulations regarding releases of construction water to the Yarra, from water not being allowed to be released to the Yarra, unless water quality meets or exceeds that of the current ambient condition of the Yarra at that time. We are told that with the revised EMP water can now be released from the site provided it matches the ‘background turbidity’ levels of the Yarra. Exactly, what does this new term ‘background turbidity’ mean in relation to the original term as mentioned above. What does this mean in relation to water quality released from the site?
Apparently you are hesitant to release the revised EMP without FoI and or permission from the proponents. We believe that you should not have to get permission from the proponents whom if asked from our experience, will decline our request. Considering the public had full access to the original EMP and your agency has decided to make significant amendments and conditions to the original EMP, why do we seemingly have to abide by a new process forced on us at the whim of the developers via your agency? Why should this leave the community totally in the dark?
We have been told in the past by DEH staff that the EPBC Act is in a process of constant evolution and strives to interact better with members of the community by ‘ironing out flaws’ as time goes by, how do these apparent hurdles to getting access to this information, equate with DEH’s desire to ‘improve the act’, which it is stated cannot work without input from the public. Does the EPBC Act give your agency staff the ability to impede a reasonable request for information in the public interest as public due process should allow?
We remain unimpressed that details of chemical regimes employed at the golf course still remain confidential as this information ought to be in the public domain, considering that the public is exposed to the Yarra River through recreational activities. Have any of the chemicals at Henley been tested in regards to their toxicity to the EPBC listed species? If not, why is the company allowed to use these chemicals on a floodplain environment? Where does the precautionary principle, emphasised under the EPBC Act, relate to chemical use and EPBC listed species?
You have indicated that considering you refused to let us speak personally with you delegated officer who made the decision to roll out these concessions to the developers and you have subsequently advised us to put our questions in writing, saying that the response time would be no longer than a week, we look forward to you living up to your promise by answering this letter comprehensively within the timeframe promised.
Yours sincerely, Cam Walker Friends of the Earth Melbourne
November 25, 2005: The company has started on Phase Two of the golf course, which includes the construction of the highly risky 7th and 9th holes. The company is desperate to close off contractual agreements with the golf course construction firm by February 2006. A large portion of this area is also likely to be gouged up and joined to Lake E, the exisiting lake in this photograph. Developers are supposed to start on Phase Two only after Phase One has been completed. All Phase One activities were contained by the main levee 'Global Sediment Bund', however the highly risky Phase Two operations are outside the Global Sediment Bund, meaning much higher risk of turbid construction water entering Yarra River in the event of heavy rain or flooding.
25/11/05: Note piles and sand and sediment. Ready to wash into Yarra in the event of flood?
25/11/05: Construction of Lake begins within 20 metres of the Yarra River. Lake excavation currently is about 2metres in depth.
25/11/05: Excavation and its proximity to Yarra River - which located where red dot is.
25/11/05: Closer view of Lake construction and its close proximity to the Yarra River.
25/11/05: Huge volumes of sand are required for laying out the 7th, 9th and 10th holes.
25/11/05: The golf course behind the Global Sediment Bund (main levee). No levee contains works for the 7th, 9th and 10th holes, leaving the Yarra even more exposed to risk associated with flooding.
25/11/05: Lake Excavation taking place behind Lake E, which is an existing natural wetland.
25/11/05: Massive pile of sand used as a base for fairways and greens.
25/1105: Close up of start of Lake excavation, already about two metres deep.
25/1105: Close up of start of Lake excavation, already about two metres deep.
November 15, 2005: The company has started on Phase Two of the golf course, which includes the construction of the highly risky 7th and 9th holes. The company is desperate to close off contractual agreements with the golf course construction firm by February 2006. A large portion of this area is also likely to be gouged up and joined to Lake E, the exisiting lake in this photograph. Developers are supposed to start on Phase Two only after Phase One has been completed. All Phase One activities were contained by the main levee 'Global Sediment Bund', however the highly risky Phase Two operations are outside the Global Sediment Bund, meaning much higher risk of turbid construction water entering Yarra River in the event of heavy rain or flooding. Yarra River is located where the row of trees are located on the far right of screen.
November 13: Pesticides used right on the river bank at this location. It was also evident that large amounts of water had been washed into the river at this location. Noone will state what pesticides Yarra Valley Golf Pty Ltd ar using or their toxicity to Macquarie Perch and Australian Grayling. It is interesting to note that even when the golf course is finally built, the issue of pesticide runoff into the Yarra River during heavy rainfall and flood events will remain with the golf course.
Early November 2005: Construction activity within the Global Sediment Bund in Phase One. One can tell that Phase One is obviously not complete so why has the company been allowed to move into Phase Two contructions? Why have Environment Australia, the EPA and Nillumbik Shire allowed this to occur?
Early November 2005: Piles of soil ready to wash into the Yarra River in works associated with the construction of the 7th and 9th holes and the construction of another Lake. These piles of soil lie outside the Global Sediment Bund.
Early November 2005: Recent bulldozing of land that will be the 10th hole. This lies west of the western gully, which still is a high erosion hazard.
Early November 2005: Phase One constructions
Early November 2005: Phase Two constructions within metres of the Yarra River.