LETTER TO THE EDITOR

"Do you support restoring vehicle access to Radical Bay?”

"Vehicle access" to Radical Bay can mean two different things. For those that like the convenience and passive indulgence of driving their own car, or a hire car to a recognised, historically popular tourism site, this proposal seems like a no-brainer. Why wouldn't you support the notion, especially if the state government is going to pay for it? But in the particular case of Radical Bay and the current private track or driveway leading to it from the Forts carpark, what used to be the case in the old days doesn't apply any more. No longer can you drive your car across the privately owned freehold land that occupies the whole of the bay. No longer can you park your car on the beachfront (or on the actual beach in some cases!) to have your picnic, take your photos or explore Nature in the raw. Any project to re-open the track can only lead to an official carpark at the back of the bay, hundreds of metres from the beach. All visitors, no matter how capable, will have to walk to the beach along a 5m wide boardwalk - which is  formally gazetted but has never been built. Mr Baillie's project does not address this connection problem and therefore fails the pub test on giving people - including the elderly, disabled, kiddies and some over-fifties apparently, legal public access to the Radical Bay foreshore and beach from the roadway into the place.

There is another possible meaning for asking public opinion about a vaguely ambiguous state funding proposal. For many years the owners of the 7 acres of freehold land have floated and then abandoned numerous plans for development of ever more expansive and exclusive tourism projects. In the 1970s owner Bob Wake obtained leases for about 20 acres of land on the steep hills around the bay in the hope of developing Noosa-style units up and down the slopes - he even built a sealed roadway up the slope towards Horseshoe Bay which is still visible today. In the mid-1980s subsequent owners officially closed the gazetted road leading from the back of the bay through the middle, connecting public access to the fronting Esplanade. This closure had the effect of consolidating the five blocks of land into one continuous parcel forcing public access to a narrow pathway surveyed around the eastern side of the bay to the very end of the beach. This arrangement suited the last purchasers of the Radical land because they had visions of an exclusive Sea Temple resort with blocks of 5-storey apartments and a dozen sprawling mansions lined along the beachfront. The general public, regardless of how they arrived at Radical Bay, could only get to the beach if they walked around the outside of the otherwise gated enclave. This arrangement was complicated for the potential developer by the planning requirements of Townsville City Council - before anything else could be built, the access track would have to be upgraded and constructed to a standard acceptable to the state and ultimately gazetted as a formal road which could then be handed over to TCC (ratepayers) for maintenance and upkeep. The owners, though granted local, state and even federal government approval for the resort, baulked at the requirement to build the road (and bury all the infrastructure in it) and ultimately scrapped the entire plan. Later they scrapped plans for a 24-lot residential subdivision for the same reason, publicly stating that they thought it was unfair to have to build the road without government support. Which is what brings us to the current situation.

If the second meaning of Mr Baillie's 're-opening' plan means anything at all it is that the state government is prepared to build, for free, the access road to Radical Bay that the owners need to capitalise on their 25 years+ investment. The 'road' does not have to serve the public interest, it just has to reach the private resort site. And be built to a standard that meets the state's requirements for gazettal as a proper legal Road Reserve. That way, any new development proposal for Radical Bay will not be hamstrung by an expensive road making requirement. The aspiration for an exclusive gated community almost entirely excluding gawking tourists will have been realised. And in an irony that is not lost on me, the Townsville public will have asked for it if they vote in favour of reopening the road.

Radical Bay and Magnetic Island in general, does not need an excluding garish Gold Coast-style resort or the environmentally damaging and disfiguring access road which is required to service it. The bay will not be enhanced by a snooty Junipers-style Soul residential high rise or an exclusive ultra-high rise such as proposed by President Trump on the Gold Coast - even as a tourist promotion for the 2032 Olympic Games. Far more cost-effective and Nature friendly proposals should be entertained before going down this disastrous path.

I wonder if the local member has consulted the Mayor and divisional councillor about this proposal and the fairly likely consequence that ratepayers will be lumbered with management, maintenance and upkeep of a Radical Bay Road regardless of the exorbitant cost and miniscule contribution in the form of rates and charges?

My vote is 'no' and I won't be persuaded otherwise.

Regards

Charlie McColl

Nelly Bay