Posted 22/5/14

Hanging Rock Action Group Fact Check Bulletins, #1 to #10

Errors, misleading statements and fact checks relating to information issued by Macedon Ranges Shire Council relating to Hanging Rock Reserve

MRRA Note:  Hanging Rock Action Group produced 10 Fact Check bulletins in 2014, sent to Council for correction.  Each identifies errors and misleading statements published by Council in pursuit of its substantial private, commercial development/investment proposals for Hanging Rock Reserve and its East Paddock.   This group astutely and accurately called Council's development proposal for Hanging Rock a "solution in search of a problem". 

Hanging Rock:  A Solution in search of a Problem  (February, 2014)

What is the problem at Hanging Rock? I don’t know!

Council made a decision on 28 August 2013 to proceed with seeking tenderers for a major Resort Development at Hanging Rock.

However despite many requests for information and clarity and the publication of Information Bulletins, at this stage, there is still no clearly defined objective for the project.

The project as approved is forecast to generate $300,000 per annum net surplus for Hanging Rock. But what is the money needed for? Where in any Council publically released document is there a defined need for specific capital works or additional ongoing works.

The much quoted, but unreleased, AECOM Hanging Rock Investment and Development Plan, seems to be completely oriented towards justifying the building of the resort and spending $8.5mill of taxpayers’ money to encourage a developer to commit to the project.

After two years work at a cost of over $100,000 nothing released from this report specifies the needs of Hanging Rock.

When asked how it was decided that $300,000 per annum was needed for Hanging Rock there is no answer apart from vague generalisations about infrastructure upgrades and conservation improvements. Well this is not good enough.

This Council has been responsible for Hanging Rock for over 20 years. If HR is in a neglected state, Council is responsible.

If they are doing their job as the Committee of Management then surely they should have an ongoing plan outlining the needs.

When Council purchased the East Paddock in 1992, a maintenance and development Plan was produced by Loder & Bayley. Reviews of progress against this Council endorsed Plan occurred in 2008 and 2011 which identified modest expenditures increases and a review of upgrading a Multipurpose Venue near the racecourse.

What has happened since 2011? We don’t know because nothing has been published.

Nowhere did the 1992 Plan or subsequent reviews ask for multi million$ upgrades of infrastructure or major maintenance upgrades.

Not only have the Councillors been poorly served by the latest report prepared by consultants, but there has been a failure of good business practice. A project should not be approved unless it has a clearly defined action plan to satisfy a clearly defined need.

A defined objective seems to be missing.

If Council is serious about proactively managing and upgrading facilities at Hanging Rock it should publish a list of proposed projects and their indicative costs and a delivery timetable so we clearly understand what needs to be funded.

What we currently have is a funding proposal with no specific objective.

Hilary Roberts

Hanging Rock Action Group

Error / Misleading Statement #1:  Hanging Rock does not make a profit – FALSE

In examining the proposal for development at Hanging Rock it became obvious that a number of facts were incorrectly stated. We have tried to point these out to Council.  Council policy is that if errors appear in documents produced by Council, such errors would be corrected at the earliest opportunity.

In the Synopsis of the Hanging Rock proposal dated 28th August, 2013 it was stated that:

“Hanging Rock is unable to financially support itself in the future based on the current model. Maintenance and operating costs are forecast to increase more rapidly than the expected revenue which is a trend which has been recorded since 2008”

Council has acknowledged in an email dated 29 October, 2013 that Hanging Rock has made profits for 9 of the past 10 years thereby rendering the above statement completely invalid and misleading, but has not yet made a public correction.

There is no trend of losses since 2008. There is a trend of profits.

NB. The amount transferred to reserve each year is the annual profit

The aims of the Hanging Rock Action Group have been consistent.

1. Have Council undertake Community Consultation

2. Distil the real issues and facts of the proposed development

3. Raise community awareness of the issues

None of the three Information Bulletins published by Council have acknowledged that Hanging Rock made profits in 9 of the 10 years up to 2013.

Information Bulletin No.3 was published on 6th November 2013, after the email of 29th October which acknowledged that their figures and conclusions in the proposal were incorrect

Surely Councillors and the Community are entitled to be told directly that a gross error was present in the document presented to Councillors for decision making on 28th August 2013.  Why doesn’t Council publish a correction as per their stated policy?

Error / Misleading Statement #2: Hanging Rock visitations have declined over 20 years – FALSE

In examining the proposal for development at Hanging Rock it became obvious that a number of facts were incorrectly stated. We have tried to point these out to Council in meetings and correspondence so that decisions can be made based on correct information.  Council policy is that if an error occurs in documents produced by Council that error would be corrected at the earliest opportunity.

#2   Visitation has declined over 20 years.  FALSE

The statement that “ visitation to Hanging Rock has decreased over 20 years “ appeared twice in the proposal presented to Council on 28 August,2013 and was repeated in the first Hanging Rock Information Bulletin issued by the Shire in September 2013.

This is wrong.

Casual visitation has increased over 20 years.

Full attendance figures for Hanging Rock Reserve were obtained from the Council under the Freedom of Information Act.  The Council data shows that over the 20 year period 1993/94 – 2012/13 visitations have an increase of 0.7% average per ann., not a decline of 1.2% as stated in the Hanging Rock Development and Investment Proposal presented to Council on 28 August 2013.

Over the last 10 years casual visitation has increased by 22%.

Casual visitors dropped abruptly in 200/01, fluctuated over the next 3 years but numbers have been steadily rising since then.

 In 2012-2013 over 71,000 visited Hanging Rock Reserve to enjoy the natural environment – the mysterious rock formations, native vegetation and animals and the broad rural vistas.

This error regarding visitation trends remains uncorrected.

But this is not the full picture.

Events visitors have been excluded from the visitation statistics in the Council documents presented to Councillors and the public.

These visitations have increased by 192% over the last 10 years, with the rate of increasing sharply over the last 3 years due to the outdoor concerts.

The aims of the Hanging Rock Action Group have been consistent.

1. Have Council undertake Community Consultation

2. Distil the real issues and facts of the proposed development

3. Raise community awareness of the issues

Surely Councillors and the Community are entitled to be told directly that a gross error regarding visitation trends was present in the document presented to Councillors for decision making on 28th August 2013 and the Information Bulletin issued in September 2013.

Why doesn’t Council publish a correction as per their stated policy?

Error / Misleading Statement #3:  “The East Paddock was originally used for grazing so has no environmental or other relevant overlays.”

 In examining the proposal for development at Hanging Rock it became obvious that a number of facts were incorrectly stated. We have tried to point these out to Council so that decisions can be made on the basis of correct information.  Council policy is that if an error occurs in documents produced by Council, that error would be corrected at the earliest opportunity.

“The East Paddock was originally used for grazing so has no environmental or other relevant overlays.”

This statement was made in MRSC Hanging Rock Information Bulletin #2 September, 2013.

But it is wrong.

The East Paddock area is affected by three overlays in the Local Planning Scheme of the Macedon Ranges.

1. Environmental Overlay [Eppalock Proclaimed Catchment]

 The Environmental overlay is relevant because Smokers Creek, part of the Campaspe waterway system, runs through Hanging Rock Reserve.

2. Vegetation Overlay [VO8 Cobaw Biolink]

The area between Cobaw State Forest and Macedon Regional Park, that includes Hanging Rock Reserve, has been designated the Cobaw Biolink by Macedon Ranges Shire Council, in a specific vegetation overlay.  The aim of this overlay is to develop a network of native vegetation that enables safe passage of wildlife between the Cobaws and Mount Macedon.

3. Significant Landscape Overlay [SLO1]

Hanging Rock is iconic to the Macedon Ranges and the significance of the landscape, as seen from Hanging Rock and the surrounding area, has been recognized repeatedly by Macedon Ranges Shire Council. Tourism is a major source of income for the Shire and 70,000 people visited Hanging Rock Reserve in 2012-2013 to simply enjoy the natural environment.

Permits have been refused for housing in the East Paddock, and that land was eventually purchased to prevent inappropriate development and protect the scenic vistas. Power to the Reserve was installed underground for the same reason.  Planning permission for a telecommunications tower on the hill immediately to the north-east was refused to protect the views (Council Officers quoted the same overlays as the basis for refusing approval of the tower).

The Macedon Range and Hanging Rock sit at the centre of the Shire. These sites are the geographic and symbolic heart of the region. The Shire logo is not only a reflection of the  geography, it is a reflection of the priority the community gives to the protection and enhancement of the natural environment.  

The aims of the Hanging Rock Action Group have been consistent.

1. Have Council undertake Community Consultation

2. Distil the real issues and facts of the proposed development

3. Raise community awareness of the issues

No correction has been made of this significantly misleading statement.

Surely Councillors and the Community are entitled to be told directly that a gross error was present in the Hanging Rock Information Bulletin #2 issued in September 2013.

Why doesn’t Council publish a correction as per their stated policy?

Error / Misleading Statement  #4: Location of the proposed development

In examining the proposal for development at Hanging Rock it became obvious that a number of facts were incorrectly stated. We have tried to point these out to Council so that decisions can be made on the basis of correct information.  Council policy is that if an error occurs in documents produced by Council, that error would be corrected at the earliest opportunity

It was stated in September 2013 MRSC  Hanging Rock Information Bulletin #2 that the proposed private development only affects the East Paddock of the Hanging Rock precinct.

“Will the development be located in the Hanging Rock Crown Reserve?

   No, the private investment identified in the Master Plan is all in the Council owned East Paddock over 800m away”

The answer gives incorrect information and is disingenuous as it does not address the general question of development that was posed.

The Master Plan [page 64 Council Meeting 28 August 2013] clearly shows development on the Crown land portion of the reserve and at least part of this would be undertaken by private interests.

Development items shown are a ‘Nature Adventure facility', new buggy/shared trails, viewing/yoga/meditation areas on the Rock itself, ‘improved viewing areas’ in the native Grasslands central to the racecourse and two proposed multi-use buildings (supporting racing activities) on the Western side of the racecourse.

On 18th October,2013 two Council Officers and the CEO of the Macedon Ranges Shire received an Email asking “Who then is planning to implement the ‘Nature Adventure Facility’, buggy/shared trails and proposed areas for yoga and meditation classes that are clearly shown as being in the Crown Reserve” (if this is not private development). No response has been given to date.

Whilst the Shire itself might be planning to implement a number of the items shown on the Crown land portion of the reserve, such as the additional trails and platforms, others would involve private investment.

Council documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act indicate that three private companies [including ‘Go Ape’ and ‘Trees Adventure’] have expressed interest in establishing a ‘nature adventure facility’ at Hanging rock Reserve (shown in the Master Plan in South-west corner of the Reserve) and in October 2011 a group from the Shire visited a ‘Trees Adventure’ site in Belgrave. This area is part of the ‘sensitive conservation areas’ at Hanging Rock Reserve and is home to a group of Greater Gliders – a species listed on the DEPI Advisory List for Threatened Vertebrate Fauna 2013 [Victoria].

The aims of the Hanging Rock Action Group have been consistent.

1. Have Council undertake Community Consultation

2. Distil the real issues and facts of the proposed development

3. Raise community awareness of the issues

This misleading statement has been pointed out to Council but to date no acknowledgement has been made and no correction has been provided to Councillors or the community.

Surely Councillors and the Community are entitled to be told directly that a the statement in the Hanging Rock Information Bulletin No.2 in September 2013 was grossly misleading.  Why doesn’t Council publish a correction as per their stated policy?

Error / Misleading Statement  #5: Forecast Results for Hanging Rock were completely distorted

In examining the proposal for development at Hanging Rock it became obvious that a number of facts were incorrectly stated. We have tried to point these out to Council so that decisions can be made on the basis of correct information.  Council policy is that if an error occurs in documents produced by Council, that error would be corrected at the earliest opportunity.

In the proposal put to Council on 28 August 2013 a graph was attached purporting to be sourced from the Hanging Rock Business Plan 2011. This graph is attached.

The actual graph in the Hanging Rock Business Plan 2011 is also attached.

There is no resemblance between the two graphs.

The original graph shows that income is forecast to basically breakeven against expenses for the 10 years from 2010/11 to 2020/21. If the Concert estimates are included, the forecast is for surpluses every year.  Link

The graph given to Councillors as a significant input to the Hanging Rock Development and Investment proposal on 28 August,2013 shows that losses are forecast from 2013 onwards to 2020.   Link

What has happened?

Why were Councillors not told that the graph being used to support the Development Proposal had been significantly changed without any explanation?

Somehow the graph has been completely reversed when being transcribed from the Business Plan to the Investment proposal. What should have been a simple copy from one document to the next has been changed to present Councillors with a completely opposite set of numbers to those appearing in the Hanging Rock Business Plan 2011.

There is no explanation for the reversal and no supporting data for the change.

The error was only identified after the Business Plan 2011 was obtained under a Freedom of Information request.

The aims of the Hanging Rock Action Group have been consistent.

1. Have Council undertake Community Consultation

2. Distil the real issues and facts of the proposed development

3. Raise community awareness of the issues

This error has been pointed out to Council but to date no acknowledgement of the error has been made and no correction has been provided to Councillors or the community.

Surely Councillors and the Community are entitled to be told directly that a gross error was present in the Hanging Rock Investment Proposal put to Council on 28 August 2013.

Why doesn’t Council publish a correction as per their stated policy?

Error / Misleading Statement #6: The Hanging Rock development proposal responds to the MRSC Natural Environment Strategy

In examining the proposal for development at Hanging Rock it became obvious that a number of facts were incorrectly stated. We have tried to point these out to Council so that decisions can be made on the basis of correct information. Council policy is that if an error occurs in documents produced by Council, that error would be corrected at the earliest opportunity.

Hanging Rock Information Bulletin #3, published 6 November 2013, poses the following Question and Answer in support of the Hanging Rock Development & Investment Plan (HRDIP)

Q: How does this concept respond to the MRSC Natural Environment Strategy?

A: The Macedon Ranges Natural Environment Strategy (NES) articulates a sustainable economic development approach to protection and enhancement of the Shires environmental assets. The NES specifically addresses Hanging Rock and recognizes that the primary management task is to balance biodiversity conservation and tourist visitation. It also references the 1993 management plan and purchase of the adjacent farm land with an aim to 'help reduce the concentration of visitor numbers on the natural areas of the Reserve and thereby help reduce the impact of (sic) the biodiversity of the site.”

Wrong.

The NES advocates very strongly for ecological sustainability.  'A sustainable economic development approach ' is not mentioned in this document, nor is ‘the notion …that economic sustainability can drive positive environmental outcomes’.

The summary on pages 4-6 of the NES outlines nine environmental themes.

An “ecologically sustainable economy" is articulated in one theme – discussion includes the importance of the quality of the local environment to many small businesses, 'green accreditation' and 'facilitating economic development in the Shire that is consistent with the principles of ecological sustainability'.

The NES specifically discusses Hanging Rock on p126. The need to balance biodiversity conservation and tourist visitation was a key goal in developing the 1993 management plan and it was deemed possible, with the purchase of the East Paddock, by relocating activity away from 'the sensitive areas of the reserve'.

BUT the HRDIP actually increases the footprint of activity in the Crown land (Nature Focused Adventure facility, buggy trails, platforms) and results in the 'loss' of East Paddock land that might have been used for relocation of activities away from the sensitive areas at the base of the Rock.

Regional Development Australia funding has been obtained for a range of works, including:

• Two visitor shelters, with permanent toilets and BBQs in the north-east corner of the east Paddock.  This is  the same area subsequently proposed for the conference centre, restaurant and accommodation development!  

•  A Five Mile Creek habitat area on the Southern side of the land. Creek-side apartments and a day spa are proposed for this area in the HRDIP - so how can this area be used to relocate existing activities away from the base of the  Rock?

How does giving over such a large area of the East Paddock to private enterprise result in “a more integrated and resilient reserve”??

The HRDIP will NOT result in an environmentally more resilient Reserve. This would be achieved by increasing the area of native vegetation, its complexity and its connections to other substantive remnant vegetation. Development proposed for sensitive areas of vegetation – the remnant Woodlands, the Grasslands, and the riparian zone of Five Mile Creek – will reduce the resilience of these areas. There will also be a loss of opportunities to buffer the existing reserve, revegetation areas and roadside remnant, as well as less area available for passive recreation.

The MRSC Natural Environment Strategy was NOT a reference document for the preparation of the HRDIP.

The aims of the Hanging Rock Action Group have been consistent.

1. Have Council undertake Community Consultation

2. Distil the real issues and facts of the proposed development

3. Raise community awareness of the issues

This error has been pointed out to Council but to date no acknowledgement of the error has been made and no correction has been provided to Councillors or the community.

This misleading error confusing ‘economic development’ with 'Ecological sustainability’ has been pointed out to Council but to date no acknowledgement of the error has been made and no correction has been provided to Councillors or the community.

Surely Councillors and the Community are entitled to be told directly that a gross error was present in the Hanging Rock Information Bulletin #3 published on 6 November, 2013 does not reflect Council Strategy.  Why doesn’t Council publish a correction as per their stated policy?

Hanging Rock 'Fact' Check #7:   Surface area of development

In examining the proposal for development at HR a number of facts were incorrectly stated. We have tried to point these out to you so that Council can make decisions made on the basis of correct information.  Stated Council policy is that if an error occurs in documents produced by Council, the error will be corrected at the earliest opportunity

In the HRDIP presented to Council on 28/8/2013 and repeated in information Bulletin #1 it was stated that,

“The area to be leased is under 7% of the total 82.2ha.” 

This is close to the truth – the area to be leased is just OVER 7% of the total 82.2 ha of Hanging Rock Reserve – but disingenuous.

Elsewhere Council documents attempt to separate the East Paddock from HRR e.g. “ the HR Reserve is Crown land managed by MRSC in conjunction with a Council owned piece of land adjacent known as the ‘East Paddock’  in 1st paragraph of HRDIP synopsis as presented to MRSC on 28/8/13.

The East Paddock is public land purchased, using entry fees to the Rock, to prevent inappropriate development and take the pressure of tourist activities off the adjacent Crown land.

The area proposed for leasing to a private developer is 26% of the area of the East Paddock.

At least another 25% is marked for “permanent car parking (permeable surface, well vegetated)”

This would mean a 26% reduction in the land available for enhancement of conservation values of the reserve, public use and passive recreational pursuits (area leased) and another 25% given over to permanent car parking with the limitations on habitat value that that entails.

The aims of the Hanging Rock Action Group have been consistent.

1. Have Council undertake Community Consultation

2. Distil the real issues and facts of the proposed development

3. Raise community awareness of the issues

This error has been pointed out to Council but to date no acknowledgement of the error has been made and no correction has been provided to Councillors or the community.

Surely Councillors and the Community are entitled to be told directly that an error was present in the Hanging Rock Investment Proposal put to Council on 28 August 2013 and repeated in HR Information Bulletin #1.  Why doesn’t Council publish a correction as per their stated policy?

Hanging Rock 'Fact' Check #8: Community consultation re Hanging Rock

In examining the proposal for development at Hanging Rock a number of facts were incorrectly stated. We have tried to point these out to you so that Council can make decisions made on the basis of correct information.  Stated Council policy is that if an error occurs in documents produced by Council, the error will be corrected at the earliest opportunity

In the Hanging Rock Investment proposal presented to Council on 28/8/2013 and repeated in information Bulletin #1 it was stated that,

“Each part of the process since 1993 had been developed and scoped in partnership with the Hanging Rock Development & Advisory Committee (HRDAC)..” [Bulletin #1] 

“The (Community Consultation) framework was followed in that Council made a decision in line with the direction pursued by the HRDAC – a representative group – and with other adopted strategies of the Council.” [Bulletin #2]

Sept 2011 Advisory Committee minutes note “AECOM commissioned to produce the HRDIP” (Hanging Rock Development & Investment Plan), “Kylie and Rod advised (HRDAC) that extensive consultation with all users, community and committee members was to be undertaken”

FALSE, FALSE, FALSE – no community consultation occurred in relation to the Master Plan presented to Council on  August 28th, 2013.

Between September 2011 and December 2012 there were no HRDAC meetings.

There was no discussion of Investment proposal at Advisory Committee meetings on 10/12/12 and 26/3/13 (KL absent)

At HRDAC meeting 23 July,2013 KL made a  presentation on HRDIP background and aims – the 'Master Plan' not shown and no discussion occurred. [The PowerPoint presentation included fig 3.7 from HRDIP – in Ordinary Council Meeting notes 28/8/13 p52-  shows land ownership only and has all other detail washed out]

The 'Master Plan' was first shown to community members of HRDAC as part of a presentation on 27/8/2013  – 24 hours prior to Ordinary Council Meeting at which it was voted on.

PS: The AECOM presentation to the HRDAC was obtained under FOI in March 2014 – with 15 of 22 pages blanked out, deemed confidential - yet these were the basis of the information given to the Advisory Committee and supposedly were used in dissemination of information to their respective community groups.

The community was not listed as a stakeholder in the consultant brief prepared by MRSC in September 2011 and obtained under FOI, that was the basis for the HRDIP.

The community was listed under 'challenges' !!

The aims of the Hanging Rock Action Group have been consistent.

1. Have Council undertake Community Consultation

2. Distil the real issues and facts of the proposed development

3. Raise community awareness of the issues

Although Council has now agreed to a form of community consultation the misleading statements put into the public domain have to date not been  acknowledged. Nor has any correction has been provided to Councillors or the community.

Surely Councillors and the Community are entitled to be told directly that misleading information  was present in the Hanging Rock Investment Proposal put to Council on 28 August 2013 and repeated in HR Information Bulletin #1.  Why doesn’t Council publish a correction as per their stated policy?

Hanging Rock 'Fact' Check #9:  ...that this has been a continuum since 1993

In examining the proposal for development at Hanging Rock a number of facts were incorrectly stated. We have tried to point these out to you so that Council can make decisions based on correct information.  Stated Council policy is that if an error occurs in documents produced by Council, the error will be corrected at the earliest opportunity

In the Hanging Rock Information Bulletin #1 in September 2013 it was stated that,

“each part of the process since 1993 has been developed and scoped in partnership with the HRDAC.” (Hanging Rock Advisory Committee)  FALSE

The first mention of possible development in the East Paddock only appeared in HRDAC minutes in 2010.

A large scale development, as proposed in the Hanging Rock Development & Investment Plan (HRDIP), was never discussed.

This scale of development appears to date from 2010 and a 'gap' identified in accommodation (MR Accommodation Opportunities Study May 2010). It represents a HUGE shift in the way council funds community assets and a leap away from "low impact, low visibility” possibilities being considered previously.

The 1993 Loder & Bayley Management Plan goals, objectives and priority ranking strongly advocate for environmental conservation. The only mention of accommodation at Hanging Rock was of 'possible low level camping' in part of the East Paddock.

The 2008 review of the 1993 Management Plan deemed it “still appropriate for the present time with only some very minor adjustments.”

In the Hanging Rock Business Plan 2011 review of the 1993 Management plan, the aim of the 'East Paddock Master plan / Development was “to formulate a master plan for the development and revegetation of the east paddock considering its role for events, future entry and potential for low impact commercial venture e.g. up market eco-lodges”. It had a costing estimate of $5,000. The AECOM plan (commissioned in 2011) cost ~ $115,000 – quite a jump in scale!

Examination of HRDAC minutes shows:

• In the period 2005 - 2009 any discussion of development related to a 'low impact multi-purpose venue' in the position of existing racing club buildings. 

• The East Paddock was first mentioned in February 2010 in regards a feasibility study “that would look at the viability of development of the multi-purpose venue and some form of environmentally friendly, sustainable development in the East Paddock”.

The aims of the Hanging Rock Action Group have been consistent.

1. Have Council undertake Community Consultation

2. Distil the real issues and facts of the proposed development

3. Raise community awareness of the issues

This gross exaggeration of the facts has been pointed out to Council but to date no acknowledgement has been made and no correction has been provided to Councillors or the community.

Surely Councillors and the Community are entitled to be told directly that this statement as presented in the Hanging Rock Information Bulletin #1 was incorrect.

Why doesn’t Council publish a correction as per their stated policy?

Hanging Rock Fact Check #10:  the reason for purchase of the East Paddock

In examining the proposal for development at Hanging Rock a number of facts were incorrectly stated. We have tried to point these out to you so that Council can make decisions made on the basis of correct information.  Stated Council policy is that if an error occurs in documents produced by Council, the error will be corrected at the earliest opportunity.

In the Hanging Rock Investment proposal presented to Council on 28/8/2013 it was stated that,

“the East Paddock was originally purchased with a long term vision of minimising vehicle and pedestrian traffic on the more sensitive areas of the Reserve, to enhancing (sic) Hanging Rock, to assist in providing for a sustainable facility in the longer term for all users and inhabitants and for possible generation of additional income to support ongoing maintenance, upgrades and improvements.”

In Information Bulletin #2, it was repeated that the purchase was undertaken “to remove pressure from the environmentally significant areas within the Reserve and to allow for additional income sources such as events, picnicking and accommodation.”

This statement is both false and misleading.

FALSE because the generation of income was NOT a consideration in the purchase of this land.

MISLEADING because it fails to state that the primary reason for purchase was the protection of peace and beauty of the natural features of the reserve by preventing inappropriate development .

The purchase was clearly undertaken to protect the Rock from the impact of inappropriate development within the views of and from the Rock, enhance conservation values and take pressure off the area at the base of the Rock.

Documents obtained from the Council through a Freedom of Information request (listed below) repeatedly state the desire to protect the natural features of the reserve and prevent inappropriate development that would spoil the vista to the east.

e.g. “to preserve and protect the natural surrounds of Hanging Rock”, “to prevent inappropriate development”, “to maintain the natural integrity”, “to preserve the Eastern vista”,” to ensure that development similar to that on the western boundary will not occur.”

There is no mention of needing or desiring to generate additional income for the Hanging Rock Reserve.

Submission by Shire to the Premier, RJ Hamer 1978 “for the Preservation and Protection of Hanging Rock Recreation Reserve”   which recommended the purchase of all lots to the east and west in order to offer more permanent protection to the natural features of the reserve.  “It is essential that any management initiatives that aim at alleviating these difficulties (with respect to car parking, conditions of rock access, visitor facilities) must be carried out within the context of the essentially natural beauty of the location. The reserve should not become regimented and commercialised: the primary management objective is to ensure that people can enjoy the peace and beauty of the natural features of the reserve”

Letter: Shire to owners / residents on adjacent land 1978  “the Committee of management believes that for long term protection to be afforded to the Reserve, it is necessary to stop development pressures on the Reserve boundaries.”

Other reference materials consistently supporting the above statements include:  

 Committee of Management meeting minutes June 1978 

•   Letter: funding applications from the Shire to the National Estate Program in the 1980's

•   Letter: MRSC to previous owners of the East Paddock refusing a Planning Permit 1987 

•   Letters: Shire to Sir Rod Carnegie and Hon. J. Cain requesting them to act as patrons of a public appeal.

•  1989 Notice of preparation of a supplementary loan for purchase of the land October 1989

The aims of the Hanging Rock Action Group have been consistent.

1. Have Council undertake Community Consultation

2. Distil the real issues and facts of the proposed development

3. Raise community awareness of the issues

The misleading statements put into the public domain have to date not been acknowledged. Nor are we aware that any correction has been provided to Councillors or the community.

Surely Councillors and the Community are entitled to be told directly that misleading information was present in the Hanging Rock Investment Proposal put to Council on 28 August 2013 and repeated in Hanging Rock Information Bulletin #2.  Why doesn’t Council publish a correction as per their stated policy?