South Beach/ Crazy Waves under threat

> 10 years ago
Reply
Register to post, see what you've read, and subscribe to topics.
sinker
sinker
WA
255 posts
WA, 255 posts
17 Jan 2008 11:54pm
There's a proposal to 'develop' South Fremantle harbours.

The red line shows where the new harbour and boat sheds/stackers would be built:



No more winter kiting at crazies if this one goes ahead, 5 story boat stackers would cause a huge windshadow ...

Guess the sandbar which causes the Crazy waves will be affected too...

On a brighter note, those of us with floating gin palaces won't have so far to drive to our toys which is good right?.....

Register your comments before the end of the month at:

savefreobeaches.com

Please help
1likeBJ
1likeBJ
WA
152 posts
WA, 152 posts
18 Jan 2008 10:26am
sinker, I understand where you're coming from mate, but I'm all for this development. At the moment, there just isn't enough space for boats in Perth. And by boats I mean sailing yachts. In 10-15 years time, fuel prices will be so expensive that the "Floating Gin Palace" will be a thing of the past. Too bad to all the punters that bought 60 foot appendage extensions that take 300L to get to Rotto and back...

For the 3 actual development proposals goto:
http://www.dpi.wa.gov.au/imarine/15112.asp

You will note that the proposals don't exactly fill up the area you have marked.

The initial development (parts 7 and 9 on the proposal sketches) is critical for the hosting of the 2011 World Sailing Championships.

I agree with you on the wind shadow (Plan 2 is best from my PoV - stacker closer to original shoreline) and the spit at Crazy Waves, but the seaward end of the spit will still probably get wind and maybe even get shallower from the extra seawalls holding sand in that area.

I'd suggest that rather than just voting against this, people voice their view directly to the DPI and request that should the development go ahead, the stacker be placed as far in as possible and that the harbour not be extended too far out. People (esp govt departments) respond much better to constructive criticism rather than blunt rejection.
sinker
sinker
WA
255 posts
WA, 255 posts
18 Jan 2008 6:52pm
Hi,

I agree and have no problem with intelligent development which benefits the majority.

However I get the feeling that, as with the Coogee 'development', public assets are being annexed and eroded for the benefit of very few.

I think that the harbour should be enlarged to satisfy the demand for yacht pens, but I don't see why we have to enclose dog beach and risk screwing up crazy waves in the process.

The protesters against Port Coogee only asked that the beach be left for the public, not that the development be stopped in any other way, but they were utterly ignored.

Its about greed. If it was just about parking boats there wouldn't be a problem.
Please Register, or first...
Topics Subscribe Reply

Return To Classic site 😭
Or... let us know if a problem, so we can tweak! 😅