You are here

Clarence City Council Should Reclaim Kangaroo Bay

Dr Rosalie Woodruff MP

Dr Rosalie Woodruff MP  -  Thursday, 8 October 2020

Tags: Kangaroo Bay, Public Land, Coordinator-General, Crown Land

Rosalie Woodruff MP | Greens Member for Franklin

The Kangaroo Bay development has been dodgy from the outset. Despite community outrage, this public foreshore has been traded away under secretive agreements brokered by the Office of the Coordinator General. 

It’s been three years since the project’s approval, yet no substantial work has been commenced by the developer. What’s left for residents is a massive dirt eyesore on prime waterfront property on the beautiful Eastern Shore. 

Shandong Chambroad Petrochemicals want an extension of two years to the building commencement, but there’s no prospect or guarantee they’ll ever go ahead with an educational hospitality facility. The pandemic, which they’re claiming has caused construction delays, has ensured the business case behind the development is seriously in question. 

This development has already strayed far from what was put to the community at its inception. There’s no guarantee the Tasmanian-run hospitality training school the community were told would be built two years ago can now ever be established. 

Clarence City Council should commence a buy-back process to reclaim Kangaroo Bay for public use, instead of committing to an unspecified private development. 

The community are rightly furious about this deeply contentious proposal and the secretive negotiations between the Chinese investors, the Coordinator-General, and the Clarence City Council Mayor. 

Clarence City Council can’t keep ignoring the people they claim to represent. 

There should be no special consideration for Clarence City Council’s vote on such a contentious private development. A request for individual councillors to be able to vote electronically at a council meeting was rejected earlier during the COVID period, however, the option to vote from home is being enabled for the first time for this controversial vote.

It is concerning that remote voting for pro-development councillors is being enabled for a single proposal. If the Director of Local Government has given advice about remote voting for individual councillors being now acceptable, that should apply to all councils for all decisions.