Portarlington stakeholders defen $30m harbour project

Andrew Mathieson
CONCERNED stakeholders have defended Portarlington’s safe harbour project after residents slammed proposed expansion of the development.
Portarlington safe harbour committee secretary Bob Gibb said claims the project would encroach on occupied parkland were “rubbish”.
“There’s no threat to anything at this stage,” he said.
“It was indicated the fire brigade and the bowling club would be under threat – that’s not true.”
Mr Gibb believed the safe harbour project was “the greatest thing to happen to Portarlington in the past 100 years”.
He said residents would have an opportunity to have input on the harbour’s design.
Mr Gibb also responded to residents’ claims that a meeting a fortnight ago failed to engage the public and had dismissed their objections.
“There’s nothing set in concrete at this stage at all – that’s something we’ve got to get across,” Mr Gibb said.
Parks Victoria community consultation facilitator Elaine Carbines dismissed fears of excessive development.
“First of all, there may be no development – there is nothing to say there will be any at all,” she said.
“They’re the sort of options we’re still looking at, so I don’t want people to feel threatened at all by this project.
“It will be an inclusive, consultative project with no predetermined outcome.”
Mrs Carbines said she had earmarked only smallscale development at the harbour.
Parks Victoria is aiming to create a harbour of about 100 berths to service the mussel industry and recreation boaters.
Mrs Carbines said the project could also consider a ferry service.
“It will very much be in keeping with the village atmosphere and dynamics of what Portarlington is already like,” she said.
Several Portarlington residents told the Independent last week they had been shut out of the project in favour of commercial stakeholders with pecuniary interests.
They said Parks Victoria wanted to expand the harbour along busy Newcombe and Fisher streets and onto Stewart Grove.
The proposal had differed from an option that was initially preferred, the residents said.
Preliminary costings estimated the project could have a price tag of up to $30 million.