Swansea project canned
A CONTROVERSIAL development in Swansea has been rejected by the Glamorgan Spring Bay Council.
The application, submitted by the owners of Milton Vineyard, proposed subdividing the land along the Tasman Highway at Swansea into four 100ha rural lots.
The balance would continue being used for the farm and Milton Vineyard and cellar door.
But representations against the development said a tree which carried a wedge-tailed eagle’s nest had been removed – something the developer strongly denies.
A spokesperson for the Department of Natural Resources said it investigated the allegations and cleared the developer of wrongdoing.
They said there was no evidence to substantiate the claim. However, the nest had been submitted to the natural values atlas, the state database on Tasmania’s natural values, but was never verified
Councillor Keith Breheny said whether or not there was a nest was “practically irrelevant”, aside from one thing.
“Whether the tree has been removed or not and I’m certainly not making any comment about that, people can say what they like, if they have proof it’s fine, if they don’t have any proof, there’s no point,” Mr Breheny said in the meeting.
“But the fact is there was a notation on the natural values atlas of a wedge-tailed eagle’s nest on this site, that would, if that is the case, preclude any development within sightline within a distance of 500m.”
A developer hoping to subdivide agricultural land has been accused of deliberately burning down a tree with an eagle’s nest in it.
In the natural values report for the development, it was noted the eastern quoll and Tasmanian devil had been sighted within 500m of the property and that it was highly likely to contain suitable nesting and denning sites.
Wedge-tailed eagles had been recorded within 5km of the proposed development area.
The report said the site did not have suitable nest trees and that there was no evidence of raptor nests or hollows for masked owls.
But representations against the development said there was one tree in particular which housed a raptor nest, which mysteriously disappeared.
Another said the proposal should be rejected, accusing the developer of disposing of the tree. The developer rejected the accusation.
“About three weeks ago it was reported to us that this nest tree had been burnt down entirely,” the community member said in their representation.
Just a single tree in isolation completely reduced to ash.”
Another representation expressed surprise the tree was not mentioned in the report.
“There seems to be blatant neglect of these natural values because a registered eagle’s nest has not been mentioned in the report,” it said.
“Even worse, I’m distressed to hear that this nest site has apparently now been entirely incinerated, in isolation of all the surrounding vegetation.
“Is this an attempt to downgrade natural values to ameliorate the subdivision process?”