That…Authorised by Glenn Tozer, 28 Friarbird Cres, Bonogin for Glenn Tozer (candidate)Oceanside Cruise Ship Terminal not feasible as “port ‘o call” (transit port); a clarification. It reveals cruise ship operators, "raised a number of significant concerns with the proposed design" which includes a jetty that would jut hundreds of metres into the Pacific.The operators pointed out the facility would be in the open ocean and ships would be exposed to ocean waves. "The unredacted report obtained by Four Corners also questioned whether the cruise ship terminal was viable.
The council report by PwC indicates a transit port would not be economically feasible or recommended 3. "It's a mighty big ocean and it has very powerful waves. When will Victoria's death count stop rising? Gold Coast mayor TOM TATE explains the offshore oceanside cruise terminal option. "A plan submitted to the Federal Environment Department included provision for up to 150 cruise ships to visit the terminal every year.The terminal would sit on about six hectares of public land on The Spit.One of the Gold Coast's most prominent developers, Norm Rix, slammed the proposal as one of the Mayor's "ambitious plans". The clear bias and deliberate omission of critical facts is unforgivable - less than a week out from an election. "I think the public should have the capacity to fully evaluate the information that's been provided. However, based on the information A However, for clarity and to meet the implied obligations of the letter the OIA sent to me, I can confirm the council report by PwC considered by Council in May 2017 does makes favourable recommendations about economic feasibility of a home port over a 30 year period, coming at a significant net cost to Council over that period in all but one published model, and relying on the servicing of more ships than the publicly available and non-confidential EPBC submission references (Reasonable questions posed to me by members of the public include; “Why did Council’s EPBC submission note 150 ships per annum in March 2017, and then the PwC report in May 2017, both overseen by the same Council department, address feasibility models exceeding that?” and “Could it be that the PwC report scope was changed so that feasibility could be made more favourable?” and “Was the objective of the PwC report a favourable economic feasibility recommendation, or rather was the PwC report seeking a prudent assessment of project risk and economic variables, compared to alternatives?” I do not know the answers to these questions.It is also my personal view that these above statements adequately clarify, in the public interest, my statements relating to an unfeasible The PwC report suggests a home port may be economically feasible despite these components omitted, not costed, or (in my view) insufficiently explored. Or perhaps you already live in the area but want to save money on cruise parking so that you can put that cash toward your trip. "Engineering-wise, it's very safe," Councillor Tate said. "It butts onto the oceans itself, and if you're looking for a tourist attraction, well that would be the first cyclone that comes along and washes the cruise ship onto the middle of Main Beach," he said.A number of Gold Coast councillors have also come out against the project. "Councillor Young said it was unfair the public had not seen the unredacted report. In General / Comments. interest to follow their implied request and clarify my position. Accordingly, the The appalling front cover and article in today's Gold Coast Bulletin has the newspaper sinking to a new low. complaint about my conduct as a Councillor, claiming that I had misled the provided in the OIA correspondence to me, I am of the view it is in the public Cruise ships using the Gold Coast's proposed $450 million oceanside terminal could "be pushed to shore" by strong winds and waves, according to a … That the proposed cruise ship terminal has a $500 million price tag 2. Cruise ships using the Gold Coast's proposed $450 million oceanside terminal could "be pushed to shore" by strong winds and waves, according to a section of an official report which has been withheld from the public.This warning — and other critical findings — have been blacked out in the publicly released Gold Coast City Council report into the terminal, which cost ratepayers $865,000.But Four Corners has obtained the unredacted feasibility study, which also questioned whether cruise ship companies and private investors would be prepared to use the Gold Coast terminal.
How long to wait for a COVID-19 test result?
Accordingly, I have been voting against further ratepayers funds being allocated to this project.You can read the full report to Council, including the PwC report, with redacted components Some of these ideas that would be a better collective use of incoming prospective commercial investment of comparable magnitude, or public investment by council or the state government, include but may not be limited to;The combined economic and social impact of a suitable collection of these at the magnitude of investment proposed for the OCST would exceed the benefit outlined in the PwC report, when the risks and reasonable constraints are considered, in my personal view.Thank you for telling the truth about this subject.Your email address will not be published.
However, the berths in major cruise terminals are quite limited. That economic consultants are advising the city against a transit port at the Spit For the purpose of this clarification the following is submitted; on 15 March 2017 the City of Gold Coast made a submission pursuant to the EPBC Act, which is publicly available. The public would be aware, based on recent reports from the Office of the Independent Assessor (OIA), that a significant Recently a person made a public when making statements that were ultimately published in Brisbane’s "The risk would be the highest as the ship was preparing to dock, as the speed would be reduced and the ship would be beam on to the prevailing wind. "The best thing is that it'll create further jobs for the next generation. attributed to me, were;1.