EIS
Environmental impact studies and submissions made by, for example, member groups and other civic organisations.
We are indebted to Jan Arens, President of the Gladstone Conservation Council, for the following documents detailing the damage being done to the Great Barrier Reef, nearshore marine habitats and onshore catchments in the name of economic development. The underlying message is Queensland Government’s willingness to override environmental safeguards, to disregard the evidence of expert members of the community and a general lack of transparency of environmental assessment procedures.
Response to Coordinator-General regarding Curtis Island LNG EIS.
Briefing note of 2013 highlighting damage from marine dredging, flying in the face of UNESCO’s advice.
Presentation of 2018 to the Coordinator-General on the Gladstone Energy and Ammonia Project and other matters.
Related Images:
The proposal to develop a residential development on Hummock Hill Island follows a familiar trajectory: big talk; long delays while the proponent seeks to convince the authorities to grant permission; well-informed opposition from local conservation group – then nothing happens or the development has commenced and fails. QSN is indebted to Jan Arens, President of the Gladstone Conservation Council (GCC), for making available the Society’s submission on the development and for a contemporary (June 2025) update.
“There have been very good reasons to oppose development. Initially the Gladstone Regional Council rejected the $1.2 billion development proposal for credible reasons – concerns about its size, necessity, and infrastructure challenges—including the lack of water, sewerage, roads, and bridges. The Queensland Government stepped in to override the Council’s rejection because it saw the project as strategically significant for regional Queensland. The State Government exercised its “call-in” powers through the Coordinator-General, arguing that the project had the potential to boost tourism, create jobs, and stimulate the local economy. The government also required the developer, Eaton Place, to fund essential services on the island for 17 years.
“The Commonwealth Minister for the Environment granted approval for the development as a “controlled action” under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. This means the project was subject to so-called “strict” environmental conditions to ensure it did not negatively impact World Heritage values, threatened species, or migratory species in the area.”
A Google Maps image dated 2025 reveals no sign of development, indirectly confirming the validity of the GCC’s and the Regional Council’s critiques. As the ABC reported, the proposal has been on foot since 2005. The long delay cannot he blamed on an overbearing assessment process, but more on the inherent limitations imposed by the natural features of the site – remoteness from infrastructure, vulnerability to the elements, cost of installing services – and the sandflies! It is not surprising that a local conservation group, familiar as it is with the locality, with expert knowledge of the natural environment, has a more clear-sighted understanding of the limitations of the site than remote departments.
Submission to the proponent – January 2008, 48 pages.
Letter to federal Minister objecting – March 2011.
Letter to UNESCO.
Map.