July 16th 2009 Tyrell “happier” with new plans for TOT A revised masterplan, which would see the residential component of the $1 billion Townsville Ocean Terminal project moved further away from the port, is about to undergo a new round of State Government assessment. Minister for Infrastructure and Planning Stirling Hinchliffe announced yesterday that City Pacific had lodged its redesigned project plans with the Coordinator-General. Mayor of Townsville, Cr Les Tyrell, told Magnetic Times, “I’m much happier with what is being proposed.” According to Minister Hinchcliffe, "About 1900 jobs would be created during three years of project construction and approximately 50 ongoing operational jobs would be needed for the terminal. "A military and cruise ship terminal is well overdue for the region so it can reap the maximum benefits from tourists and sailors." In February, Coordinator-General Colin Jensen approved the project subject to planning and environmental recommendations being met. "The main condition was that permanent homes be at least 1km from the existing port's seaward mineral loading berths," Mr Hinchliffe said. Cr Tyrell said today, “We have always been 100 per cent behind the ocean terminal, but the earlier proposals which placed the residential component of the project in close proximity to the largest port in the North were a recipe for disaster. “While we were told we couldn't have one without the other, the council wasn’t prepared to yield on the residential issue and I’m glad we stood firm. “This latest design locates the residential developments further away from the port with additional protection measures that reduce the potential for conflict between the two." An aerial view of the proposed development "Around 80 hectares of ocean bed north of the casino could transform into a shipping terminal, residential waterfront development, marina and public foreshore park areas,” said the Minister. The Coordinator-General will now await further expert and technical reports before deciding whether to recommend approval of the project. City Pacific must also meet the requirements of a development agreement signed in 2006 and seek Federal Government approval of potential environmental impacts. The new master plan retains the ocean terminal precinct and stays within the existing development site limits. The major differences between the old plan and new design are: ·Around 80 detached houses and villas compared to 200 previously ·More than 750 apartments compared to 500 previously ·More marina berths 375 now versus 365 previously ·Two additional superyacht berths (now 12) ·Introduction of a five-star hotel with 180 rooms ·Introduction of 180 serviced apartments (three-star standard) ·Retention of 600 car parking spaces for the Townsville Entertainment Centre ·Introduction of 250 marina car parking spaces. TABCORP and City Pacific have been working on the project since mid-2006. Subject to obtaining all the necessary approvals, development is expected to commence in late 2010 with the ocean terminal operational in 2012. Coordinator-General Colin Jensen said the project could only proceed if it met conditions around its interaction with the port and its impacts on marine life, water quality and coastal hazards. Approval conditions would include: strict design requirements that cater for climate change and storm events; minimising disruption to boat users in Ross Creek; residents of the proposed development will have to agree to a port protection measures package that includes limitations on their rights to make nuisance complaints over dust, odour and noise; a range of measures designed to avoid contamination of waterways; and infrastructure agreements for roads, pavement wear, water and sewerage. Artist's impressions courtesy: Qld Dept Infrastructure & Planning To add your comment, or read those of others, see below

Tyrell “happier” with new plans for TOT

5 comments

Gordon Strachan July 15th 2009

Anybody who gets involved with City Pacific in any way shape or form IS GOING TO LOSE LOSE LOSE money. (Abridged Ed)

chasmac July 15th 2009

Pleased that MagneticTimes has stayed with this project but again disappointed that the developer CityPacific / Tabcorp and the Queensland Government have not made clear just how this construction will proceed. Specifically, it is not stated here whether the ship terminal can or will be built without all the rest. Is it all or nothing? And nothing is stated about where the millions of tonnes of breakwater rock will come from or how they will be delivered to the site. If not via the Strand or Flinders Street then by what route? Why can't Premier Bligh and the minister be 'up front' right from the start about these critical matters? Remember, this project is outside regular IPA planning regulation and outside all Queensland legal jurisdictions. It cannot be appealed in court by any one.

Wendy Tubman July 17th 2009

The undemocratic sidelining of the community (which presumably will be asked to put in for this monstrosity) does not mean - at least in my books - that we should not remonstrate strongly. (Not that I think chasmac is suggesting we should so refrain.)The people supporting this outrage must laugh themselves silly when they chat about how they are selling us 'solar city' at the same time as supporting environmental crimes (and potential disasters) such as this. Vote 'em out, I say.

Mal Hamilton July 23rd 2009

Why does the construction of public infrastructure necessitate the inclusion of dodgy real estate developments? The Sydney Opera House has no canal estate. There is no urban ghetto lurking beneath the Eiffel Tower. What gives, City Hall? And will the terminal be even long enough for the very large cruisers we see today? Who exactly are TCC and the State Government trying to fool? (Well, us of course, silly me!) Foolishly, perhaps, I propose that a floating terminal anchored in Cleveland Bay would be cheaper, easier, greener and expandable if well thought out. Sunferries would still reap their transfers bonanza, there could be shops etc, even a 'swim through' aquarium in adjunct to Reef HQ. Laugh at my simple naivete if you wish, but then explain to me how any of the current proposals make sense. Dugongs, turtles and dolphins don't vote, I guess they were already excluded from the (lack of) debate.

chasmac July 29th 2009

Let's be straight about this thing. The site (the duck pond) was 'created' by legislation about 1983 - part of the larger parcel to establish the casino and marina. Much of it has already been built on. A few years back the government entity that controls that land (Treasury in some form) auctioned off the last four or five parcels and at least two have since been developed (apartment blocks where the Quarterdeck used to be and that monstrosity near Tobruk pool). The canal estate/TOT is the last block. It was 'sold' for about $25m. Naturally, the QG will approve any plan for the site. $25m is not to be sneezed at and TCC will probably raise a few rates dollars a few decades down the track - if the site hasn't been flooded by storm surge or sea level rise. It doesn't have to be a canal or a cruise ship terminal but it can be because.....well, because it can. Don't ask which government lobbyist or ex-Labor mate or post-Fitzgerald sleazebag is connected to the sure-thing approval. In fact, don't speak at all. Anna's cops will tap your phone.