Tale of two attenuators
I read with great interest the comments of Howard Glenn on the wave attenuator to be built in Twofold Bay. I have no doubt that he would have given deep consideration to the facts presented to him but I believe there are some points he may not have taken into account.
The way I see the situation is as follows:
We have an urgent need for protection for the vessels using the two jetties in Snug Cove during periods of heavy seas.
We have the possibility of only one wave attenuator. We are faced with two options for the positioning of the wave attenuator.
The one being considered by Andrew Constance puts the wave attenuator in a position where it will protect the existing two Snug Cove jetties.
This will give immediate protection for all vessels now tying up at these jetties and avoid the constant requirement for some of them and any visiting boats to need to move over to the other safer anchorages at either Boydtown beach or Edrom area during heavy seas or in a strong south-west wind. Damage to vessels here in these conditions is common requiring much repair work and inconvenience, with the ongoing effect on marine insurance for not only the damaged vessels, but all moored vessels.
The attenuator in this position will also provide protection for the operators of the slipway when slipping and launching vessels and also for the launching ramp in the area which experiences surge during moderate conditions.
These benefits will be in place immediately on completion of the attenuator. Improved conditions here will encourage visiting vessel owners to moor with better access to the shops and services of the town instead of mooring in the other areas and often departing without the benefits to themselves and the town of replenishing their supplies. They will also encourage those vessels travelling through to call in instead of bypassing the town altogether.
The phased completion of the marina can then be carried out without delay, but with the knowledge that we have got some way on the road to improvement.
The second option is to build the attenuator to protect Cattle Bay.
The immediate benefits to the boating public appear to be less than zero in my mind as they have removed those benefits above and provided no others. Even if allowed by the owners, the Cattle Bay wharf is entirely unsuitable for smaller vessels. I seem to recall the necessity to replace this badly damaged wharf (as well as other buildings), was given as one of the reasons for the cannery closure.
Certainly there may be benefits to the owners of the Cattle Bay site, but that does nothing to resolve the immediate problems for existing boat users and these problems are urgent.
There are many questions which need answering.
If this option went ahead what protection could be given to the current Snug Cove users? How long will it take for the Cattle Bay Marina to be developed?
Does the existing owner have the finance available to complete the project? If not this attenuator would make it easier to raise the finance – or to sell the site.
The developers suggest a benefit of, I believe, 300 jobs for the area, but when? They could take the first step along this route by creating one job by hiring a person to clean up the existing eyesore and then keep it clean. They could also render the jetty safe for people to fish from. They claim to be considering the community but we see no sign of community pride. All plans submitted for the development seem to be outside of the guidelines, which makes it appear that it is council delaying the project – but is it?
We have already seen approval for one marina delay the improvements at Quarantine Bay and then not happen. Could the same thing happen here?
To me the way ahead for the port development is clear.