While the new bridge video looks terrific the launch today confirms a few concerns held. The veil of secrecy created by the council around this bridge created by gagging the new committee with confidentiality agreements means that we do not know who is on the committee because that too is a secret. We do know the Mayor is on the committee and rolls out her "experts" every meeting to ensure the general manager and directors are present. Even the group photo they had taken was pulled because it revealed who the members were with one specifically saying she did not want to be identified. The Bay Post today let the cat out of the bag showing one of the members at the official launch. So who are the others and why can't the community know who they are? The launch today also revealed some interesting things. First we learnt that the foreshore committee is bound to focus on a small area of the foreshore in the brown shaded area (in the graphic below)
What you have there is trees and park benches. So it appears that the Foreshore Committee are there for landscaping opinion. It is understood that Council are very clear that they are in control of any decisions made about any new infrastructure (including benches and bubblers) added to the foreshore because they have to take ownership of it and then maintain it. So irrespective as to what the Committee might suggest the bottom line is that it has to be agreed to by Council. With that in mind it makes a mockery of having the committee at all as they are superfluous to any decision made unless it is the decision of Council. Initially the community was encouraged when they heard about the committee thinking they might have the whole foreshore in their brief including the Merinda wharf, the town toilets, the bus parking, park furnitures, public art and traffic flow and boatramps. Disillusioned by the constraints placed on the Foreshore committee and the fact that they are gagged it is understandable that there is building frustration in the community as it is revealed that the foreshore committee is looking to be the same "token gesture" made in the name of community consultation when Council established the dysfunctional Mackay Park Sunset Committee. Of considerable interest though in the revelation of the scope of focus of the Batemans Bay Foreshore Committee is the T Wharf owned by Public Works and from the diagram within the scope of interest of the committee. It was understood that this wharf was to be removed and replaced however rumours abound that it has been given a new lease on life having considerable funds recently spent on it. Whilst it is considered a public wharf it rarely performs that function for vessels and with recent licence changes it is understood that the wharf is now used primarily by a single operator. Of concern in the Foreshore Committee is the possibility that there may be members of the committee who have a conflict of interest regarding any development of the wharf such as the ideas of a restaurant on the pier, floating pontoons to encourage a greater diversity of public use and even the adaptation/expansion of the wharf that might negate the need for the current second poor quality town public wharf that accommodates the tourist ferry. The Batemans Bay Foreshore Committee are off the hook when it comes to CBD traffic. Initially it was considered that members of the committee might ask the "Elephant in the Room" question around the consequences to removing the off ramp from the new bridge to Clyde Street plays has a major role in driving positive economy to the CBD. It has been widely discussed in the articles on the Beagle that limiting all access to the CBD via North Street would see many tourists drive by Batemans Bay. For those who do turn in to the CBD the next realisation would be that it was little more than a cul-de-sac that would require them to exit by the same route - and this included buses, delivery trucks, semitrailers and anyone planning on launching a boat. Now it is very clear that all traffic matters and the subsequent failures, if any, of poor traffic management and its social and financial consequences rests squarely on Council's shoulders, especially having been given considerable opinion by the community that there are serious concerns held and that to date, Council has failed to either advise or appease the business chamber or affected businesses that they have faith in their representations to RMS at the design stage. Disappointingly the newly revealed bridge plans do not show an off ramp from Vesper Street to Clyde Street West that would enable a part solution to the anticipated traffic woes and might encourage visitors to visit rather than drive through. The bridge design looks terrific and those responsible for the design, the funding and the fruition are all to be commended. The above observations of are not nit-picking - simply calling out remaining reservations that still have time to be ironed out if only the community are truely engaged in an open transparent way. Knowing who is responsible for what helps.
