Opposition to Oyster Harbour Housing Development The Oyster Harbour development is a joint venture between developers Heath Development Company and the Department of Housing and Works and will be the largest single residential land construction in the Great Southern, comprised of up to 2,600 lots. The development site currently consists of 110 hectares of bushland that includes a range of habitats such as wetlands, laterite hills and a rare ecological community containing the Albany Banksia (Banksia coccinea). Seven priority flora and one declared rare flora (DRF) are also present. Furthermore, this large area of vegetation provides an important corridor between the Bayonet head foreshore reserves and the Bill Gibbs reserve providing connectivity in an already highly fragmented landscape. The importance of connectivity of vegetation is widely documented, with many agencies and conservation groups currently attempting to link reserves (DEC, Gondwana link etc). The importance of these corridors in terms of providing access for species migration etc in the face of climate change may yet prove to be unprecedented. The proposed development will result in the majority of this parcel of bush to be cleared except for a few "islands" of vegetation that will have very poor long term value for flora and fauna. Given the large availability of already cleared land in the Albany Region suitable for housing (approximately 66% is already cleared) and the high conservation values of this site, this proposed development is completely unnecessary.
Given the significance of this area and its contribution to the dwindling natural areas in the suburbs of Albany, I sign this petition to demonstrate my strong opposition to the clearing of this land.
No comments yet.join the discussion
Amy Hamilton, Australia4 years ago Comments: disappointed and angry!
Garry Mulder, Australia4 years ago Comments: Signing petitions is of very little value if the governing bodies deem the developement as "necessary". The petitions we should be signing are ones that request governing bodies to incorporate legislation requiring all remenant vegetation to be protected and that any developement that includes need for clearing should be supported with justifications. We are then fighting developement justification rather than the present situation of justifying the retention of remanent vegetation.
Lucia Quearry, Australia4 years ago Comments: Both the local council and the state planning and infrastructure bodies need to be forced to change their policies to demand restricted development in remenant bush areas-if it has to be done-in order to foster a marketing design for insistent developers which cultivates a buying public that will desire attractive, ecologically acceptable urban design. Preserve the bush not the developer.
There are no highlights yet.