GC - Cruise ship terminal

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Gold Coast councillors vote in favour of cruise ship terminal

Controversial plans for a cruise ship terminal on the Gold Coast are pushing ahead after councillors voted in favour of pursuing the project at a special meeting on Friday afternoon.

Nine Gold Coast City councillors voted in favour of the project, following a vigorous debate, while six opposed it, after the preferred developer, ASF Consortium, revealed an independent Newspoll showed 52 per cent of Gold Coast residents supported the proposed development.

The ASF Consortium Broadwater proposal, encompasses the prime, undeveloped site The Spit, along with Wavebreak Island, includes a cruise ship terminal and entertainment precinct, resorts and hotels, residential, retail and commercial uses ...

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/gold-coast-councillors-vote-in-favour-of-cruise-ship-terminal-20140502-37ngq.html

[ozbob]

http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2014/8/26/government-heeds-message-on-gold-coast-spit

Media Statements
Deputy Premier, Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning
The Honourable Jeff Seeney
Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Government heeds message on Gold Coast Spit

Gold Coast residents and visitors will continue to enjoy access to Doug Jennings Park and state-owned land on the Southport Spit after the Queensland Government decided to rule out development of these areas as part of a possible cruise ship terminal.

Deputy Premier and the Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning Jeff Seeney said in response to community concern, the State Government had announced that vacant land north of Sea World would not be made available to the ASF Consortium as part of its application for an integrated development licence.

"In response to feedback from the public and our own MPs, I will today communicate to both the Gold Coast City Council and the proponent our clear position on this area of state land," Mr Seeney said.

"In February of this year we informed council and ASF that it was up to them to progress the proposed cruise ship terminal.

"Throughout this process the Government has repeatedly stated a number of conditions have to be met before the State could commit to the proposed project and before state land would be made available.

"These have included that state land would only be made available for development if ASF could demonstrate community support for the scale of development proposed at the Broadwater.

"The very clear message from all Gold Coast MPs is that the community does not support the development of Doug Jennings Park and wants The Spit retained as a recreational area.

"We have heard their views and have acted on them."

In April this year ASF conducted a survey of 2803 residents in relation to the proposed resort development, including a cruise ship terminal on the Broadwater.

This survey found a majority of Gold Coast residents were in favour of the project, but also highlighted a number of concerns the community has with the extent of development along The Spit.

"The key concerns from the Gold Coast residents were clear and included the environment, water access and recreational use and location of the cruise ship terminal," Mr Seeney said.

"In May, the Gold Coast City Council considered the results of this community consultation and resolved to not support the development within Doug Jennings Park and noted that any further development along The Spit, north of Sea World, had met with strong community concern.

"In response to these concerns ASF updated its concept plan to re-locate the cruise ship terminal from The Spit to Wave Break Island.

"However, its plans still propose significant development on or around The Spit."

Mr Seeney said the views of the community were important and the State Government would like to provide certainty to the proponent moving forward.

"We recognise that these areas are important to locals and our decision will ensure significant areas of public open space on The Spit can continue to be enjoyed by the community," he said.

This week regional proponents involved in the State Government's integrated resort development process, including ASF, will receive request for detailed proposal documents, which are due to be submitted to the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning later this year.

A decision on whether proponents will receive a resort licence and associated gaming licence is expected in early 2015.

[ENDS] 26 August 2014

[SurfRail]

In another 6 months the whole concept will be dropped once the focus moves to preventing the same problems on Wavebreak Island etc.

I had been ambivalent in the past but my view is now firmly against it.  The only proponents for the project point to mythical projections and the worst kind of cargo cult reasoning for why there should be a cruise ship terminal - never any actual numbers, and certainly nothing about how the effects on the Broadwater and all of the adjacent open public space can be ameliorated.

This project is dead, as it should have been left after 2006.

[techblitz]

shelved.....

http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/gold-coast/breaking-cruise-ship-terminal-dead/story-fnj94idh-1227324644066

[SurfRail]

Good. 

[ozbob]

The Gold Coast City Council has been given the green light for a cruise ship terminal on the ocean side of the Southport Spit. #7News pic.twitter.com/s5BP5hiSrk

— 7 News Queensland (@7NewsQueensland) May 16, 2017

[ozbob]

Gold Coast Bulletin --> Federal Environment Department gives green light to Gold Coast cruise terminal

THE Federal Government has ruled the Gold Coast Council's proposal for a cruise ship terminal does not require further assessment under national environment laws — as long as they take measures to protect whales, dugongs and turtles.



The department's Assessments and Governance Branch assistant secretary James Barker decided the plans, which outline a base port servicing a terminal built on 6ha of public land on the Spit, was not a controlled action under Federal laws.

Gold Coast City Council submitted the plans for a base port including refuelling and migration facilities for referral by the department in March.

The department's Assessments and Governance Branch assistant secretary James Barker decided the plans, which outline a base port servicing a terminal built on 6ha of public land on the Spit, was not a controlled action under Federal laws. Pic supplied. . Picture supplied

There were 57 public submissions made on it.

Mayor Tom Tate has called a media conference to discuss the decision this afternoon.

The department ruled listed marine species must be protected from noise created by pile driving activities for construction of the terminal, with trained staff required to watch the site for 30 minutes prior to work to ensure no animals are present.

Workers must also use a "soft start" for construction, with intensity of construction building up over 10 minutes as staff continue to watch for animals.

The council is yet to produce a business case or funding for the $70 million proposal, which must still gain approvals from the State Government.

The 6ha site of the proposal, Philip Park on the Spit, was included in a public consultation by the State, with results expected by next week.

[ozbob]

Gold Coast Bulletin --> Higher cost for cruise ship terminal revealed by Gold Coast Mayor Tom Tate

THE proposed Gold Coast cruise ship terminal could cost up to $450 million, according to a feasibility report into the tourism project.

Just last week estimates for the facility were at a comparatively low $100 million.

Prior figures for the terminal saw the cost of low as $70 million.

The higher potential cost was yesterday revealed by Mayor Tom Tate, who said the the final bill would be between $170 and $450 million.

The feasibility study was discussed for almost two hours behind closed doors in the council's Economic Development and Major Projects committee before a recommendation was voted in unanimously.

Cr Tate said ratepayers would not pay a cent for the terminal.

"The main thing Gold Coasters should look at is that ... funding is not going to come out of ratepayers' pockets," he said.

"The funding will come out of private enterprise."

Mudgeeraba's Glenn Tozer was the sole councillor to vote against the terminal when it was last before a full council meeting.

"If a commercially funded cruise ship terminal of this scale is proposed, the question is what are they going to get for their money," he said.

It was also revealed the terminal could still be a home port, despite Cr Tate's previous assertion the facility would only be used as a port of call.

"The Council notes the business case for the Ocean-side Cruise Ship Terminal feasibility study and acknowledges the cost ratio range of 3 to 3.9 associated with a home port," the resolution said.

No mention was made of a port-of-call, which would see ships staying for only a few hours instead of overnight.

A home port would include the provision of fuelling and passenger disembarkment facilities.

The council will now compile an initial advice statement to send to the state government in the next month.

The statement officially notifies the state government of the project and is a precursor to conducting an environmental impact study.

It is understood the environmental impact study will take about 18 months to complete before the state government can consider whether to approve the project.

The cruise ship feasibility study will be voted on in a full council meeting on Tuesday.

[ozbob]

Gold Coast Bulletin --> Gold Coast cruise ship terminal to progress to next stage after council gives green light

THE proposed Gold Coast cruise ship terminal will go to the next stage and provide more information to the state government about the potential project.

Councillors Glenn Tozer, William Owen-Jones, Peter Young and Daphne McDonald voted against approving the terminal to go ahead.

The terminal is estimated to cost up to $450 million and will be funded entirely by money from the private sector.

The council will now provide an initial advice statement to the state government which triggers the approval process.

A business case and environmental impact study will need to be completed as a part of that process.

The environmental study is expected to take about 18 months to complete.

Mayor Tom Tate said a cruise ship terminal would help diversify the tourism industry and also help future proof the economy.

"We could have something that we could be proud of," Cr Tate said.

Councillor Peter Young opposed going ahead with exploring the cruise ship terminal.

He said he was not convinced with the financial assumptions made in the feasibility report by Price Waterhouse Cooper.

"I am very concerned about the reliability of the assumptions made," he said.

Cr Young said by his calculation it could also take a maximum of 12.5 hours to get 3000 passengers off a cruise ship but based on the number of vehicles available it would about four hours.

[ozbob]

Gold Coast Bulletin --> Gold Coast mayor Tom Tate hopes cruise terminal will help attract more tourists from Hong Kong

[ozbob]

Gold Coast Bulletin --> Breakwater Group pushes new Gold Coast cruise ship terminal plan at The Spit

AN AMBITIOUS $4.4 billion plan for a cruise ship terminal and development of The Spit has been dusted off and resubmitted to State Government.

The Coast-based Breakwater Group are having a second crack at getting traction for a proposal which controversially includes developing The Spit north of Sea World.

Anywhere north of the theme park was declared off-limits by Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk late last year.

A similar Breakwater plan was submitted as a market-led proposal in 2015 and was immediately denied entry to the market-led process by Labor.

But in a letter with the project brief, submitted this week, Breakwater Group boss Craig Perry said politicians should allow the public to consider the merits of the proposal.

Mr Perry said Mayor Tom Tate's pro terminal election mandate had encouraged them to have another go.

"If the government is sincere in building sustainable infrastructure, creating jobs, an income stream and social benefits, it should read and objectively consider the Breakwater Group proposal."

It has four cruise ship berths in a sheltered harbour north of SeaWorld, super yacht marina, ferry terminal and 175 land development sites to be sold off to third-party developers.

Breakwater Group has proposed a five-storey height limit. A tunnel from The Spit to Wavebreak Island with a new bridge across the Broadwater to Labrador, would ease Main Beach traffic congestion.

The Breakwater Group's cruise ship terminal and superyachts berths and land development plan for The Spit, linking to Wavebreak Island via underwater tunnel and then with a new bridge across the Broadwater to Brisbane Road, Labrador.

[ozbob]

Gold Coast Bulletin --> Cruise ship congestion solution: light rail through Main Beach

A RADICAL new light rail plan has been put forward as the solution to gridlock that could be created at Main Beach by a proposed oceanside cruise ship terminal.

A consultant's report to the State Government reveals the main intersection leading into Sea World Drive exceeds capacity on busy weekend days "during the warmer months", leading to concern that traffic to the terminal could cause gridlock.

Council has put forward modelling that argues that an additional lane on Sundale Bridge and upgrade of the Gold Coast Highway-Waterways Drive intersection could accommodate 2300 vehicles an hour.

But the report suggests light rail would be needed, proposing a single track be built to minimise impact on the area.

"The Spit master plan consultant team has proposed an alternative light rail arrangement which could reduce the impact of the subject site," the report said.

"It is proposed that a single track only be provided on The Spit except at stations and at the southern end of The Spit. This will require further detailed analysis during the next stages of the master planning process."

The council maintains in its business case that an upgrade could handle a 2500-passenger cruise ship drop-off, but consultants have looked at a much bigger terminal to handle 4000 tourists on larger ships.

Hinterland-based councillor Glenn Tozer, who opposes the terminal and does not believe it would be commercially feasible, has raised concerns that ratepayers would have to pay for the infrastructure upgrades.

In February Mayor Tom Tate promised ratepayers they would not tip in one cent for the building of his planned oceanside terminal.

But Cr Tozer said: "Either the Government funds it or the commercial sector funds it. If the Government is the funding source for the required funding solution, then other priority transport projects in the city will be deferred in favour of it."

He said if the future proponent of a terminal was to build the upgraded roads or light rail, residents should be told how it would "profit" from the project on ratepayer and taxpayer-owned land.

But Cr Tate told the Bulletin: "The city undertook light rail consultation in that area several years ago.

"Since then, the State-driven Spit master plan has involved widespread community consultation on every aspect of The Spit – from traffic to indigenous recognition, building heights and the desires of community groups.

"It is premature to comment on proposed traffic solutions, including light rail, until the minister and this council have signed off on the final master plan.''

Main Beach Association spokesman David Hutley said an overwhelming majority of residents in a council survey had opposed a $200 million light rail spur through the suburb.

"It was amazing how they again want to go through Main Beach. Going through Tedder Avenue was ridiculous," Mr Hutley said.

"The main concern was the noise, and the dirt and the dust would dramatically affect the value of properties. Main Beach is quite a rich area. It has got a lot of money to fight this sort of thing.

"I don't think we will ever see it through Main Beach. How are they going to move that number of people (off the ships) into light rail. I worked out it would take 70 buses and taxis."

[SurfRail]

So much stupid it hurts.

[achiruel]

Is there any realistic option for a future light rail spur to the Spit? Could it branch of just north of Surfers Paradise north and go via Main Beach Pde & Seaworld Drive?

The problem being of course what do you do when the racing cars come to town?  :conf

[SurfRail]

The thinking was just that (Main Beach would be the junction stop).  The reality is there are much better uses for the outlay than The Spit.