Fight to save green behind city’s gold
THE Gold Coast has just tipped above 600,000 residents. Councillors were told the news at their meeting this week. How is this impacting on maintaining the green behind the gold?
In late November last year councillors went into a closed session to discuss a report on vegetation cover mapping.
The report, which has since become available, reveals the city’s corporate plan aims for 51 per cent native vegetation cover across the city.
Consultancy firm Ecosure found the measured vegetation cover to be 50.22 per cent or 64,950ha. It also found that less than half of that amount could be considered our better native trees.
Between 2005 and 2015, the city lost 45 per cent more vegetation than between 2005 and 2013, despite big increases in regrowth vegetation.
“The city is losing more vegetation than it is gaining,” the report warned.
Twice last week – for the global tourism hub launch and the Rosies charity stair climb – I gazed out from the Gold Coast’s best viewpoint, at Skypoint on the Q1, first north and then west.
To the north is The Spit, which will be preserved, and immediately west is the council’s headquarters, the racing precinct and Black Swan Lake, a portion of which will be saved.
Further west to the hinterland, the green is arguably more beautiful than the postcard gold. But is 51 per cent native vegetation coverage a realistic target?
Councillors say the city is obtaining more private land than before during planning application negotiations with developers.
It works this way. A quarry site owner, for example, will seek a change of use for townhouses, and the council in return secures several hectares of land around a hinterland creek.
Ratepayers pay an open space preservation levy but much of it is being used to manage this sort of land, removing the weeds.
Many residents are vocal about stopping new developments in their suburbs, but they want to maintain their right to remove trees on their property. This is a complex political landscape.
Two disturbing trends are emerging.
“Firstly, there’s been no land of high conservative value purchased since 2012. The acquisitions is where developers have had to dedicate land,” a council insider says.
More troubling, the open space preservation is not just being used to stop weeds but pay wages and other management fees, the council insider adds.
The second concern is where developments have an impact on protected corridors – these are areas largely making up the 51 per cent of native vegetation cover. Consider the projected population figures from Treasury. In 2041 the Coast is expected to have 943,686 residents, second to Brisbane with 1,551,149.
The council takes its lead from the State Government on southeast Queensland planning, which means the city must accommodate an extra 14,670 people annually for the next 25 years.
We know the council is about to buy up koala habitat from private owners. But more bits and pieces of the bushland will be lost to other development approvals.
“The 51 per cent native vegetation cover even with the growth in Pimpama can be achieved, as long as you don’t encroach on the boundary that leads to the protection,” the council insider says.
“But the native vegetation cover is far worse than what councillors have been given to date in these reports. We are losing the green behind the gold.”
The battles of The Spit and Black Swan Lake have dominated the city’s environmental war. Some say both have used up much oxygen, to the detriment of other significant green issues.
The next environmental conversation has to be about our own backyards – how many trees we want to keep and are willing to pay for to preserve the city’s unique natural lifestyle.