Archived page, Submission Woodman Point Regional Park Draft Management Plan 2002-2012

Submitted to the Department of CALM 29th November 2002

Introductory comment.

Recfishwest wishes to lodge this submission in response to the above draft plan. Our commentary is limited to issues associated with the public boating facility.

We are in agreement that the existing boat launching, access roading, and car and trailer parking facilities would benefit from a major refurbishment. However while we welcome the proposals we are very strongly opposed to boat users subsidising other Park users via higher than 'customary' parking charges. Noting this we wish to make a number of points as well as raise some important issues for consideration.

1. Lack of adequate consultation.

Firstly, we are very disappointed, given that there are some key issues for the boating public, that no or little effort seems to have been expended on making the proposals widely known to that section of Park users. Certainly, Recfishwest has not, as a primary stakeholder peak group, been contacted by the Department on these proposals although, ironically, we have earlier this month been notified by the Department of the opening of positions for the Park Community Advisory Committee!

We acknowledge that the proposal has been available for comment for a generous three months but that, in itself, is insufficient to engage public comment. Similarly, the advertisements placed in the West Australian and the two local papers did not specifically point to boating users of the Park as being key 'affected' parties.

At the very least, there should have been appropriate notices placed at the ramps advertising the draft plan boating proposals and inviting comment. Such passiveness does not accord with the intentions of Government as expressed in the April 2002 Premier's Statement on best practice public consultation (in Consulting Citizens - A Resource Guide, Department of Premier and Cabinet, April 2002).

However, we also acknowledge the recent verbal assurance from your regional park staff, to the effect that CALM will undertake additional consultation with our constituency should the proposals progress further. We look forward to your organisation initiating such discussions with us in due course.

2. Recfishwest user survey.

In recognition that the Department would likely not otherwise gain a representative view concerning the boating facilities proposals, Recfishwest created, and had respondents complete, a simple survey questionnaire (see attachments for methodology and results).

The questionnaire was administered to 34 respondents during the 2 1/2 hours after 9.30am on Saturday 9 November 2002. Of the 34 respondents only three claimed knowledge of the draft plan prior to interview; thus confirming the point made in 1. above. While a sample of 34 is insufficient to draw statistically valid conclusions, we are confident that the broad trends found will be replicable.

Respondents were interested in the issues posed by the survey and not one person approached for interview refused to participate. Further, 31 out of the 34 agreed to sign the questionnaire with a view to creating a submission to the consultative process. These are enclosed with this submission (as well as the three unsigned forms), for your individual acknowledgments please.

It is very clear that these facilities are extremely important to the boating public, with the nearest comparable ramps being located at East Fremantle (with its high charges and sometimes difficult to use characteristics), and Point Peron (free but located much further to the south).

This observation is supported by the Study of User Needs - Recreational Boating Facilities in WA, Department of Transport, 2002, Department of Transport, which reported in relation to relative client usage that "Woodman Point is the most frequently used public ramp (in the metropolitan area) with 25% of all yachts and powerboats having been launched from this facility in the last 12 months".

A review of questionnaire respondent's home suburbs reveals two major groupings for Woodman users: one group for 'local' area users and an equally large group drawn from suburbs to the east as far away as Armadale and Lesmurdie. There is also a clearly distinguishable smaller group of users, from suburbs 'north of the river'.

Our survey results generally accord well with those previously contained in the Study of User Needs which reported respondents as being generally satisfied with the facility as it is presently constituted and which listed similar improvement requirements.

The major results of the survey are attached at Attachment 1. Not all results are reported in the attachment, with some being referred to in the text of this submission.

3. Charging of user fees.

Recfishwest observes that the Woodman ramps are a relatively old facility that, while in need of refurbishment, has had the key benefit of being 'free' to the user. We are very appreciative of this status and would prefer, naturally, for this situation to continue. However, CALM has stated in the draft plan that it intends to charge boating facility users fees in exchange for the improvements referred to above, and that it intends also to use surpluses from these fees to support facility developments and maintenance elsewhere in the Park.

Recfishwest is not opposed to reasonable fees being levied for ongoing maintenance as well as some capital outlays, but is very strongly opposed to boat users (most of whom have no realistic alternative facilities) subsidising other Park users via higher than 'customary' parking charges, analogous to that which occurs at the East Fremantle ramps at the behest of the Town of East Fremantle.

Such practices are discriminatory and hence unfair and result in continued dissatisfaction from a significant proportion of key stakeholders. Indeed, informal responses from the group of north of the river users indicated that their main reason for using Woodman was because they refused to pay what they saw as exorbitant charges at East Fremantle.

Recfishwest notes that boat users are already subject to significant Government charges, and that in recognition of this, Government established the Recreational Boating Facilities Scheme funded at $650,000 recurrent and administered by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure.

Interestingly, approximately 50% of respondents to our questionnaire stated that they 'would not mind' such subsidisation but this needs to be juxtaposed against the overwhelming number of responses to the effect that fees should not exceed $4 for 'all day' parking. The remaining 50% were mostly strongly opposed to subsidisation with a smaller proportion stating 'prefer not'.

"These findings are strongly correlated with the Study of User Needs which reported 27% of respondents stating 'nil' as reasonable payment for public ramp fees, with 41% supporting a fee of $3-5 and 30% supporting $1-2. (see attachment 1, question 7 for our detailed results this question.")

Recfishwest's firm view is that the Woodman ramps fees, if imposed, should not exceed $4 and must be contingent on major improvements taking place, including provision of extra ramps (see attachment for respondent's views on desirable facilities). Anecdotally, a number of the skippers of smaller, dinghy, craft stated that they had little spare cash and expressed concern at the prospect of any charges being levied. Whatever the final outcome, a system of reporting must be implemented to ensure transparency of accounting with incomes and expenditures being available for public scrutiny.

4. Alternative sources of funding

We are also of the view that alternative sources of funding for upgrades should be sought prior to striking fees. For instance, we are aware that the proposed marina development at Catherine Point is dependent, in part, on the proponent making available significant monies to compensate marine users for potential loss of amenity. Such funds, should they materialise, could offset some potential charges at Woodman Point.

Similarly, it is possible that funds could also be sourced from the Recreational Boating Facilities Scheme for some of the intended or user desired improvements; particularly for extra ramps or ramp upgrades. A precedent for this has been set via earlier approved CALM requests for RBFS funding at Canal Rocks and Matilda Bay.

Finally, re this point, Recfishwest is absolutely opposed, in the context of boat licensing referred to above, to having CALM 'double dip' through 'revenue raising initiatives' such as promoted in the draft plan; particularly if it hasn't been able to achieve user/stakeholder consensus. It is our view that, in light of the superficial consultancy undertaken through this draft plan that CALM has not yet begun to build a suitable consensus.

5. Plan statements re 'demand'.

The draft plan states that..."the site is currently not capable of meeting the large demand". Recfishwest firmly refutes this. A principal reason that there is a large demand for this site, apart from its location, is precisely (setting aside the number of ramps) that it can and does, regularly and easily, accommodate the demand. The other key reason being that the facilities are currently free of fees.

This is clearly shown from the questionnaire which asked respondents if they had ever experienced problems in finding a trailer parking space. Only four respondents claimed 'yes' to this question but anecdotally reported that it was a very rare experience. Assuming that the average respondent had had five years of experience in using Woodman Point (a conservative assumption) and extrapolating from the average numbers of 'launch and retrieves' reported per year, this respondent group of 34 individuals would have used the facilities well in excess of 2000 times during the five year period. Against this absolute usage, the reported rate of experiencing difficulties is trivial.

Moreover, a number of respondents, while complaining about the degraded hardstand and roading, nevertheless noted that, nearly always, the users responsibly 'sort out' a parking structure all by themselves which would closely approximate that which would be arrive at by proper bay marking.

We note that the draft plan does not address whether the current number of ramps is insufficient. However the number of ramps was nominated as one of the main areas in which improvements could be sought. Not one respondent when asked to nominate options other than those listed at question 11 nominated problems with the amount of parking available.

6. Interdepartmental cooperation.

We recognise that the ramps per se fall under the purview of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure. However, it makes no sense to separate refurbishment of the non-ramp infrastructure from that of the ramps themselves.

Accordingly, Recfishwest requests CALM to liaise with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (as well as with key stakeholders) with a view to obtaining a holistic approach to these facilities in the event that the draft plan proposals progress further.

Conclusion.

Recfishwest takes very seriously its role in helping to facilitate reasonable access to marine and riverine environments for our constituents, including the issue of associated fees and charges. We will not hesitate to actively campaign for as long as it may take to ensure that arrangements made by Government on their behalf are fair and transparent.

To this end we look forward to an outcome at Woodman Point that provides, either free as at present or at a fair price, dependent on sources of funding accessed, considerable enhancement to the existing launch and parking environment.

Please do not hesitate to contact me to discuss these issues further.

Attachment 1 - User Survey Methodology and Results

1. Methodology

The survey instrument is attached as Attachment 2

Respondents were surveyed by two Recfishwest Board members over the 2-½ hours from 9.30 am on Saturday 9 November 2002.

Respondents were selected by simply noting the closest available 'skipper' who was in the process of de-rigging or re-rigging their boat. Only skippers were interviewed.

No attempt was made to 'filter' respondents to fit any pre-determined survey group.

All potential respondents that were approached agreed to participate.

Respondents were then taken through the survey instrument in numerical question order.

2. Results

Only frequencies are reported here. No attempt has been made to cross-tabulate responses, as cell counts are likely to be too low to be useful. Not all results are reported here; however some not reported are referred to in the text. For further data please refer to the questionnaires associated with this submission.

Question 2 are you aware of the draft plan proposals for the boat launch and carpark facilities?

Yes 3 (9%)
No 31 (91%)

Question 3 - About how many times a year would you launch your boat at Woodman?

Less than 5 6 - 10 11 - 20 More than 20
3 (9%) 10 (29%) 12 (35%) 9 (26%)

Question 5 - Do you mainly launch your boat to go: fishing, other recreational, or both equally?

Fishing 23 (68%)
Other recreational 3 (9%)
Both equally 8 (23%)

Question 6 - Are you generally happy with the current public boating and parking facilities here or would you like to see the sorts of improvements that CALM intends?

Happy with current state of affairs 12 (35%)
Prefer to see facilities improved 22 (65%)

Question 7 - Trailer parking fees for all day parking at Hillarys $4.40, at East Fremantle $7.70, at Point Peron - free. In their draft Plan, CALM has indicated that they intend to charge fees in exchange for improvements. If CALM does make major improvements would you be prepared, for whole day parking to pay:

Nothing -
leave as is $2 $4 $6 $8 More than $8
13 (38%) 5 (15%) 12 (35%) 3 (9%) 1 (3%) 0

Question 8 - CALM has also stated that a proportion of the revenues raised from any trailer parking fees will be used for maintaining and upgrading the facilities in the rest of the park, such as cycleways and picnic areas. Would you approve of any of the fees you pay (say, up to a third) being used to subsidise other park users

Wouldn't mind 18 (53%)
Prefer not 4 (12%)
Strongly oppose 12 (35%)

Question 11 - Setting aside all of the previous questions for the moment, what do you think would be the two best things that could be done to improve the facilities here for the boating public? (respondents were allowed to nominate up to two alternatives each).

1. bitumen on the lower carpark and drives 9
2. bitumen on the main carpark 8
3. more ramps 10
4. regular carpark security patrols 7
5. washdown facilities 18
6. other 6
(Note - when asking this question respondents had explained to them that option 1 include re-bituminising and lane marking).

Attachment 2 - User Survey

Executive Director Department of CALM PO Box 1535 FREMANTLE WA 6959

Dear Sir/Madam

Woodman Point Regional Park Draft Management Plan 2002-2002

Could you please accept this document as my submission to the request for comment on the above draft plan.

(signature)

Thank you

Name (print)......................................................
Address...........................................................
Date November 2002

Questionnaire

1. Are you the skipper of this boat Yes/No (if not - terminate interview)

The Department of Conservation and Land Management have recently released a draft management plan for the Woodman Point Regional Park - all the public and private boat ramps, parking areas and facilities are within the Park. Recfishwest is going to put in a submission - to help us would you mind if I asked you some questions.

As part of their proposals for the public areas CALM intend to: upgrade the carparks and launch area to provide bitumen, lane and carpark markings, and possibly other improvements such as washdown facilities. They are not proposing to increase the number of ramps.

2. Firstly, are you aware of the draft plan proposals for the boat launch and carpark facilities? Yes/No

2b. If 'yes', how were you aware...........................................................

3. About how many times a year would you launch your boat at Woodman?
5 or less, 6 - 10, 11-20, more than 20

4. Have you ever had difficulty/s finding a parking spot at these ramps for your car and trailer? YesNo (if yes - what circumstances)
...........................................................

5. Do you mainly launch your boat to go- Fishing, Other recreational, Both equally?

6. Are you generally happy with the current public boating and parking facilities here or would you like to see the sorts of improvements that CALM intends?

Happy with current state of affairs,
Prefer to see facilities improved.

7. Trailer parking fees for all day parking at Hillaries are $4.40, at East Fremantle $7.70, at Point Peron - free. In their draft Plan, CALM have indicated that they intend to charge fees in exchange for improvements. If CALM does make major improvements would you be prepared, for whole day parking to pay:

Would not be prepared to pay at all-would prefer to leave facilities as they are;
Would be prepared to pay about: $2, $4, $6, $8, more?

8. CALM has also stated that a proportion of the revenues raised from any trailer parking fees will be used for maintaining and upgrading the facilities in the rest of the park, such as cycleways and picnic areas. Would you approve of any of the fees you pay (say, up to a third) being used to subsidise other park users?

Wouldn't mind, Prefer not, Strongly oppose

9. Could I please ask, what is your home suburb....................................................

10. What was your main destination on the water today...............................................

11. Setting aside all of the previous questions for the moment, what do you think would be the two best things that could be done to improve the facilities here for the boating public?

bitumen on the lower carpark and drives
bitumen on the main carpark
more ramps
regular carpark security patrols
washdown facilities
other (specify)............................

12. Would you like to make any other comment regarding the questions I have asked or on the public boating facilities generally?

Recfishwest can send this questionnaire to CALM as your submission to the public review process. If you would like us to do this, please fill in the details on the face sheet and sign as shown. Thank you.



This page last updated on 30 December 2003.