Public Consultation Summary - Sembawang Engineers and

Transcription

Public Consultation
Summary
September 2012
Disclaimer
This report has been prepared by Promedia Public Relations for its client, Sembawang of Singapore - Global Project Underwriters.
Promedia has undertaken research, analysed information and prepared the report in good faith. Promedia accepts no responsibility
for decisions made or actions undertaken as a result of the contents of this report.
Executive Summary
Sembawang of Singapore - Global Project Underwriters (A
Punj Lloyd Company) has proposed a $4.9 billion mixed-use
development within the Gold Coast’s Broadwater. The proposal,
Wavebreak, includes a cruise ship terminal, superyacht berths,
marina, hotels and apartments, casino, retail and commercial
space, public parklands and flora and fauna habitat.
The mixed-use development is proposed atop future
reclaimed land west of the existing man-made Wavebreak
Island. The proposal’s cruise ship terminal component would
be located at the northern side of the existing island and a
‘Fishermen’s Wharf’-style precinct located to the south.
Findings
During a four week consultation period ending Friday 31
August, the consultation team recorded 3,101 visits to the
project website and 990 feedback responses, comprising:
•
852completedonlinefeedbackresponses
•
138phonecalls
Key findings from the online survey included:
•
76.5%ofrespondentssupportedtheWavebreak
proposal being developed
•
79.1%ofrespondentswantedtheGoldCoasttohouse
the necessary infrastructure for cruise ships
The intent of the consultation process was to determine
whether there was discernible community support for the
Wavebreak concept for Sembawang to commit to a future
application process.
•
morethanthree-quartersofrespondents‘strongly
agreed’ employment generated by Wavebreak, both in
delivery and operation, was important to the city’s wider
economy
Feedback platforms included an online survey, embedded
within the project website, and a toll-free phone line. The
website and phone line were promoted via advertisements
and media articles.
•
morethanthree-quartersofrespondentssupported
specific features of the Wavebreak proposal, including
the creation of a Fishermen’s Wharf-style precinct and
dry-access to the existing parkland and beach
Sembawang focused on a consultation process that was
open and inclusive. Statistical models of sampling - whereby
the consultation process would be restricted to selected
subsets of the population - were avoided to allow everyone
interested in the multi-use proposal, a cruise ship terminal, the
Broadwater and Wavebreak Island, to have their say.
•
significantsupportforthemarineeducationandtraining
facilities proposed within the multi-use development
Following the public launch of the project on Friday 27 July,
Sembawang encouraged the community to have its say on
the proposal.
Analysis of IP addresses recorded by feedback software
SurveyMonkey did not unearth deliberate attempts to
manipulate the consultation process.
1
Qualitative feedback
Many respondents who supported the Wavebreak multi-use
developmentprovidedqualitativecomments.Supporters
popularly indicated:
•
generalsupportfortheWavebreakproposal
•
generalsupportforcruiseshipfacilities
•
abeliefthattheproposalwouldbringbenefitsforthe
tourism industry
•
theneedtoembraceemploymentopportunities
•
thedesiretostarttheprojectassoonaspossible,and
have it ready for the Commonwealth Games
•
abeliefthatthe‘vocalminority’oftendictateddecisions
for the city
Approximately one-fifth of online respondents opposed the
Wavebreak proposal and the provision of cruise ship facilities
on the Gold Coast.
Respondents opposing the Wavebreak proposal and,
generally, cruise ship facilities for the Gold Coast, believed:
•
theproposalwouldnegativelyimpacttheenvironment
and ecology
•
WavebreakIslandwasthewrongsiteforacruiseship
terminal
•
thecostofdredgingandassociatedimpactswould
affect the city
•
theproposalwasinappropriate
•
theproposalwouldimpactonrecreationalpursuits
•
theconsultationwasbiased,deliberatelyexcluding
environmental concerns from the consultation process
Theconsultationteamreceived138phonecallsduringthe
consultation process, with 101 in support and 37 in opposition 73.2%support,whichalmostreplicatestheonlinesurveyresults.
Phone callers in support of the Wavebreak proposal referred to
it as being ‘fantastic’; believed it would enable the Gold Coast
to attract the cruise ship industry; and that it should have been
completed previously.
Phone callers in opposition criticised the potential
environmental impact of the proposal; indicated that it would
impactonrecreationalpursuits;andquestionedtheeconomic
benefits of the proposal.
2
Respondents from
neighbouring suburbs
Large numbers of respondents resided in suburbs in proximity
to the Wavebreak proposal. The top five suburbs, in terms
of participation, were Southport, Runaway Bay, Labrador,
Biggera Waters and Surfers Paradise.
The level of opposition and support for cruise ship facilities
and the Wavebreak proposal from residents in proximity to the
Wavebreak proposal was comparable to the support from the
wider sample.
Conclusion
Nine-hundred and ninety feedback responses can be
considered a credible result. The level of participation would
be considered acceptable for a major infrastructure project on
the Gold Coast. By way of comparison, if 990 respondents
were selected via statistically valid means throughout the city,
thesamplewouldberegardedwith99%certaintyasbeing
representativeofthewiderpopulationwitha±3.1%deviation,
basedonanestimatedpopulationof550,000residents.
Overall, there was discernible support from respondents
for the proposal, indicated through the online survey and
dedicated phone number.
Supporters commonly believed the proposal would heighten
the city’s tourism potential.
Opponents believed it would largely cause environmental and
ecological damage.
Therewasadequatepromotionoftheconsultationprocess
through major media outlets and the feedback platforms were
accessible to the majority of the public.
Following on from the inclusive community consultation process,
targeted stakeholder engagement activities should be considered
as part of any future progression of the proposal.
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Project background
Sembawang of Singapore - Global Project Underwriters (A
Punj Lloyd company) unveiled its proposal for the $4.9 billion
Wavebreak mixed-use development proposal on 27 July, 2012.
The proposal is multi-faceted including a cruise ship terminal,
superyacht berths, marina, hotels and apartments, casino,
retail and commercial space, public parklands and flora and
fauna habitat.
Sembawang, as the proponent, assembled a project team
including Desmond Brooks Architects, ARUP and Urban
Planning Services for the planning and design of the proposal.
The existing island was created to protect the Broadwater’s
western shore from seas created by the Gold Coast Seaway,
constructedin1986.
The proposal focuses on predominantly on future reclaimed
land to the west of the existing man-made Wavebreak Island.
The Wavebreak proposal would locate two cruise ship docks,
catering for vessels up to 300 metre in length, on the northern
side of the existing island. On the southern side of the island, a
‘Fishermen’s Wharf’-style precinct would be created. It would
also include moorings for prawn trawlers. The proposal would
also open up 37ha of parkland - currently only accessible by
watercraft - to the wider community, as well as the island’s
east facing beach.
A new bridge connecting to the intersection of Brisbane Road
would provide road access to the new proposal.
The concept of a cruise ship terminal has previously been
mooted within the Broadwater. The last major investigation, for
a cruise ship terminal being built inside the Broadwater at The
Spitwasdismissedin2006bytheStateGovernment.
1.2 Objectives of the consultation
Sembawang publicly communicated that general community
support was integral to the company progressing the
necessary plans for the Wavebreak proposal.
At the time the consultation process began, the proposal was
conceptual in nature. Planning and design had not progressed
to the level to address anticipated impacts - for instance,
environmental or traffic.
The primary objectives of the consultation process were to:
The detailed design relevant development conditions for
the proposal would be developed following the consultation
process and the public mandate sought by the proponent to
progress the proposal.
•
promoteawarenessandthespecificsoftheWavebreak
proposal
•
gatherquantitativeandqualitativeresponsesto
understand community perceptions of the immediate
area
•
findoutwhetherthecommunitywantedtheWavebreak
proposal to be developed
Secondary objectives were to determine whether the
community favoured specific components of the Wavebreak
proposal; whether they had a connection with the existing
Wavebreak Island; and whether they believed the proposal’s
economic generators - employment and direct spending were important to the wider Gold Coast economy.
3
1.3 Wavebreak proposal and the project area
Figure 1 below illustrates the proposal from an aerial perspective.
LEG
1.
BR
RO
2.
SH
CO
3.
TH
PA
4.
OU
AN
5.
MA
CE
6.
YA
7.
SU
RE
8.
CR
RE
CU
9.
CU
10.
TR
11.
PA
CA
12.
BR
LE
13.
14.
SO
NA
SW
15.
TH
16.
DIV
15
13
12
14
10
9
11
8
16
16
3
5
LEGEND
1.
6
7
LEGEND
1.
2.
5
4 6.
5.
MARINA HOTEL AND CONVENTION
CENTRE
6.
YACHT CLUB AND MARINA
7.
SUPER YACHT BASIN AND 5-STAR
RESIDENCES
8.
CRUISE TERMINAL HOTEL AND
RESIDENCES, HARBOUR MASTER,
CUSTOMS AND IMMIGRATION
1
CULTURAL CENTRES
TRAWLER BASIN
5.
CENTRE
11.
PARLAND WITH BRIDGE LINK AND
CARPARK
6.
12.
7.
RESIDENCES
BREAKERS BEACH, FISHING AND
LEISURE
13.
16
8.
RESIDENCES, HARBOUR MASTER,
14.
SOUTH STRADBROKE ISLAND
NATURE RESERVE
SWING BASIN
9.
CULTURAL CENTRES
15.
THE SPIT
OUTRIGGER BOAT CLUB, MARINA
AND RESIDENCES2
10.
TRAWLER BASIN
16.
DIVING ENTHUSIAST PRECINCT
CENTRE
11.
CARPARK
SHIP HOTEL AND CREW TRAINING
16
COLLEGE
THEMED HOTELS AND EVENTS
PARK
3
1
RESIDENCES,
HARBOUR MASTER,
CULTURAL CENTRES
10.
TRAWLER BASIN
11.
CARPARK
12.
LEISURE
13.
NATURE RESERVE
SWING BASIN
14.
AND RESIDENCES
10.
9.
4
4.
9.
12.
Figure 1: Aerial Photograph of Proposed Project Area
7.
RESIDENCES
13.
8.
PARK
AND RESIDENCES
project
UnderwriterS
1.global
BRIDGE
AND
ENTRY
ROUNDABOUT
5.
3.
4.
LEGEND
Sembawang of Singapore
4.
COLLEGE
COLLEGE
PARK
10
3.
BRIDGE AND ENTRY
ROUNDABOUT
2.
3.
12
2.
BRIDGE AND ENTRY
4 ROUNDABOUT
15
11
2
wavebreak
LEISURE
14.
NATURE RESERVE
SWING BASIN
15.
THE SPIT
16.
DIVING ENTHUSIAST PRECINCT
ENHANCING AND
PERFECTING
THE MAN MADE
OPPORTUNITY
ENH
TH
O
2.0 Consultation process
2.1 Approach
Sembawang’s proposal for Wavebreak was publicly unveiled
on Friday 27 July, 2012.
Sembawang wanted the community consultation process to
be open and inclusive. As an initial consultation, Sembawang
wanted everyone who had an interest in its multi-use
development proposal, a cruise ship terminal or the existing
Wavebreak Island and Broadwater generally, the chance to
have their say.
As per the framework created by the International Association
for Public Participation (see Table 1 below Sembawang
sought to ‘Consult’ with the wider community. Sembawang
appreciated that many people would like to have their say
on the proposal and providing accessible opportunities for
feedback was essential.
INCREASING LEVELS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
INFORM
CONSULT
INVOLVE
COLLABRATE
EMPOWER
Public participation goal
To provide the public with
balanced and objective
information to assist
them in understanding
the problem, alternatives,
oppurtunities and/or
solutions.
To otain public feedback
on analysis, alternatives
and/or decisions.
To work directly with
the public throughout
the process to ensure
that public concerns
and aspirations are
directly reflected in the
alternatives developed
and provide feedback
on how public input
influenced the decision.
To partner with the
public in each aspect of
the decision including
the development of the
alternatives and the
indentification of the
preferred solutions.
To place final decisionmaking in the hands of the
public.
Promise to the public
We will keep you
informed.
We will keep you
informed, listen to you and
acknowledge concerns
and aspirations and
provide feedback on how
public input influenced the
decision.
We will work with you to
ensure that your concerns
and aspirations are
directly reflected in the
alternatives developed
and provide feedback
on how public input
influenced the decision.
We will look to you for
advice and innovation in
formulating solutions and
incorporate your advice
and recommendations
into the decisions to the
meximum extent possible.
We will implement what
you decide.
Workshops
Deliberative polling
Citizen advisory
committees
Consensus-building
Example techniques
Fact sheets
Website
Open houses
Public comment
Focus Group
Surveys
Public meetings
Ballots
Citizen juries
Delegated decision
Referendum
Source – International Association for Public Participation (www.iap2.org)
Table 1: IAPP Consultation Framework
5
2.2 Promotion of the project and consultation process
Sembawang chose to unveil the project on a Friday ahead of
the peak in the weekly media cycle. Media audits traditionally
highlight Saturday and Sunday as the highest circulation days
for mainstream newspapers.
A press conference unveiling the proposal was held on Friday
27 July, 2012 on the top floor of the Atrium Resort, Labrador,
overlooking the development site. The media conference
achieved significant coverage. (See Appendix)
6
Marketing and communication activities undertaken
complementary to the media conference included:
•
aprojectmediakitdistributedtoallmajorAustralian
media outlets
•
briefingswithjournalistsatmetropolitanpublications
•
afullpageadvertisementinTheGoldCoastBulletin
(1 August 2012)
•
thecreationofaprojectwebsite
(www.wavebreakisland.com)
2.3 Feedback mechanisms
Feedback to the Wavebreak proposal was encouraged via an
online survey and toll-free phone number.
The online survey was embedded project website (www.
wavebreakisland.com) enabling respondents to view the
plans - including an innovation which displayed a ‘before
and after’ simulation - and vision prior to lodging feedback.
The SurveyMonkey software program was used to record
feedback.
machine activated after hours and on weekends.
Respondentsprovidedqualitativefeedbacktotheproposal
which was logged by consultants in a spreadsheet register.
Whenpossible,consultantsalsoansweredprojectqueries
raised by respondents as part of the process. Queries of a
technical nature were referred to the proponent’s project team
which compiled a response.
The online survey allowed the community to provide
quantitativeandqualitativefeedbacktotheproposal.
In the overwhelming majority of cases, respondents clearly
outlined whether they were in favour or opposed to the
Wavebreak proposal.
Thephoneline(1300033800)wasansweredbyconsultants
during business hours on week days, with an answering
The feedback mechanisms were considered accessible ways
to provide feedback.
2.4 Project website
Sembawang established a project website www.
wavebreakisland.com to attract community feedback.
During the four week consultation period, key analytics
included:
In addition to the online survey, the project website also
included the proposal media kit, a plan (including a ‘slider’)
a selection of media clippings, follow-up media releases and
information about the proponent.
•
3,101websitevisits
•
3,649pageviews
•
anaverageof103visitsperdayduringtheconsultation
period(peakingat406)
•
52,022hits
GoogleAnalyticsindicated81percentofvisitorstotheproject
website were from Australia, followed by Singapore (14 per cent)
and Indonesia (one per cent). The remaining one per cent was
represented by respondents from a mixture of other countries.
2.5Futureconsultationactivities
Sembawang’s consultation strategy provided the wider
community with the opportunity to provide feedback to its
Wavebreak proposal.
Future project briefings and consultation with key stakeholders
and stakeholder groups are recommended if Sembawang is to
progress its concept.
7
8
3.0 Consultation findings
3.1 Quantitative responses
The consultation process enabled respondents to provide
feedbackwhichquantifiedtheirsupportoroppositiontothe
proposal through the online feedback survey and the toll-free
project phone number.
3.1.1 Online survey
3.1.1.1
Question Asked: Have you previously ever visited the existing man-made Wavebreak Island?
Number of respondents
Yes
579
No
259
Total
838
Skippedquestion
14
Determining how familiar the community was with the existing
Wavebreak Island was an important aspect of the consultation
process. Approximately seven out of ten respondents to the
questionhadpreviouslyvisitedtheexistingWavebreakIsland
which is only accessible via watercraft.
NO
YES
Figure 2
9
3.1.1.2
Question Asked: As part of the Wavebreak proposal the proponents will provide ‘dry access’ via a new bridge to
Wavebreak Island. Would you visit the 37ha parkland and beach if this linkage was created?
The proponent wanted to understand if respondents,
especially those without watercraft, would care to visit the
publicly accessible parklands and beach on Wavebreak Island.
Approximatelyeightoutoftenrespondentstothequestion
indicated they would visit the island’s parkland if a bridge
linking the island with the mainland was created.
Yes
668
No
168
Total
836
Skippedquestion
16
NO
YES
Figure 3
3.1.1.3
Question Asked: As part of the Wavebreak proposal, the proponents will provide a ‘Fishermen’s Wharf’ style precinct
where it may be possible to purchase and enjoy fresh seafood. Would you visit the Fishermen’s Wharf if it was created?
Yes
658
No
176
Total
834
Skippedquestion
18
The proponent wanted to know if its vision for a ‘Fishermen’s
Wharf’ on the southern side of the existing man-made
Wavebreak Island would be popular amongst the community.
Almosteightouttenrespondentstothequestionsaidthey
would visit the precinct.
NO
YES
Figure 4
10
3.1.1.4
Question Asked: Would you support the development of a maritime training and education facility on the Broadwater?
The proponent wanted to know if training facilities, specifically
forcareersorqualificationsinthemaritimesector,was
appealing to the community. Eighty-four per cent of
respondents supported the concept.
Yes
686
No
130
Total
816
Skippedquestion
36
NO
YES
Figure5
3.1.1.5
QuestionAsked:ThedevelopmentandconstructionofWavebreakwillgenerateapproximately18,848FullTimeEquivalent
positions. How important is employment in the construction and development industries for the Gold Coast’s economy?
Historically, the construction and development industries have been
prominent employment sectors within the Gold Coast and Queensland
economies. As a secondary objective of the consultation process, the
proponent wanted to know if the community still believed the sectors
offered flow-on benefits to the wider Gold Coast economy, and to
what level. Eighty-six per cent of respondents believed the industries
were either ‘very important’ or ‘important’ to the local economy.
Very important
628
Important
81
Uncertain
45
Unimportant
29
Completely unimportant
39
Total
822
Skippedquestion
30
COMPLETELY UNIMPORTANT
UNIMPORTANT
UNCERTAIN
IMPORTANT
VERY IMPORTANT
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Figure6
11
3.1.1.6
QuestionAsked:Wavebreakwillcreateapproximately25,665FullTimeEquivalentpositionsintourism,retail,educationand
marine industries by 2031. How important is ongoing employment opportunities for the Gold Coast community?
As a secondary objective of the consultation process, the
proponent wanted to know if the ongoing employment
opportunities created by the Wavebreak proposal, specifically
in tourism, retail, marine and marine education would appeal
to the Gold Coast’s workforce.
Very important
645
Important
77
Uncertain
35
Unimportant
23
Completely unimportant
40
Total
820
Skippedquestion
32
COMPLETELY UNIMPORTANT
UNIMPORTANT
UNCERTAIN
IMPORTANT
VERY IMPORTANT
0
Figure 7
12
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
3.1.1.7
Question Asked: Would you like to see the Wavebreak proposal developed?
Supportive
622
Opposing
171
Uncertain
20
Total
813
Skippedquestion
39
A primary objective of the consultation process was to ask
the community if they would support the development of the
Wavebreakproposal.Morethanthree-quartersofrespondents
supported the concept.
700
600
500
400
SUPPORTIVE
SUPPORTIVE
300
200
100
OPPOSING
OPPOSING
UNCERTAIN
UNCERTAIN
0
Figure 9
13
3.1.2 Phone feedback
Duringtheconsultationperiod,consultantsreceived138phonecallsregardingtheprojectfromthecommunity.The1300phone
number was advertised in a full page advertisement in The Gold Coast Bulletin and also through follow-up media articles.
The value of the phone line, where callers’ opinions were logged by consultants and registered in a spreadsheet, was in the
qualitativenatureofthefeedbackmechanism.
Overwhelmingly, respondents indicated clear support or opposition to the Wavebreak proposal, with this preference being recorded
by the consultant.
Fromthe138phonecallsreceivedbetween1Augustand31August,102wereinfavouroftheproposalwith36inopposition.
101
37
73.2% / 26.8% Whilethephonelineelicitedamuchsmallerresponse,itisinterestingtonotethesplitinsupporttoopposition-73.9%/26.1%-
almost replicates the findings of the online survey.
3.2 Qualitative responses
Boththeonlinesurveyandthephonelineofferedthecommunitytheopportunitytoprovidequalitativefeedbacktotheproposal.
As an open-ended feedback platform, responses were, as expected, diverse in explaining their support or opposition to the proposal
3.2.1 Online survey
TheonlinesurveyinvitedrespondentstoprovidecommentsabouttheWavebreakproposal.Outofatotalof852respondentswhom
commencedtheonlinesurvey,665providedqualitativestatements.
3.2.1.1 Qualitative online support for Wavebreak
Broadly grouped themes from respondents whom supported the Wavebreak proposal included:
•
•
•
abeliefthattheproposalwouldbringbenefitsforthetourismindustry
•
•
thedesiretostarttheprojectassoonaspossible,andhaveitreadyfortheCommonwealthGames
•
abeliefthatthe‘vocalminority’oftendictateddecisionsaboutthecity
14
The below table (Table 2) includes extracts of open-ended responses from respondents whom support the Wavebreak proposal. For
authenticity, spelling and grammar has not been edited.
Open-ended responses from supporters of the Wavebreak proposal
COMMON THEMES
EXTRACTS OF SAMPLE RESPONSES
General support for the
Wavebreak proposal
“About time someone is wanting to do something positive on the Gold Coast in today’s market that
has a excellent outcome. We support your project fully an trust the Gold Coast City Council & State
Government do as well.”
“Great idea. Change can be a threatening thing to some but unless the Gold Coast is willing to think
big we will be left languishing behind other tourist destinations and there will be the continuation of
patchy small projects here and there that have no overall impact on things. This marina would create
huge opportunities for the entire region so it seems a no brainer really if you want to see a dynamic and
progress region on the international map rather than a sunny piss up place for bogens and their kids.”
“The proposal put forward by Sembawang is a once in a lifetime opportunity for the Gold Coast to
capture and enhance all that it has to offer to visitors and its residents. This is the most sensible
proposal that has been put forward & I feel that if this in not approved and built then we will be going
backwards in lack of development, opportunities for investment and attracting more visitors to this
partoftheworld.Thegovernment,bothState&Federallymustbackthis100%,especiallybecause
there is no monetary involvement to be placed on them.”
General support for
cruise ship facilities
“IhavecruisedquitealotandthinktheideaofacruiseterminalontheGoldCoastwouldbe
wonderful. There is so much to see and do in the Gold Coast area, a cruise port here would give
tourists great opportunities to experience a delightful area, and let the area benefit enormously
economically.”
“I totally support a cruise ship terminal and all that goes with it as the Gold Coast needs to attract
more visitors. It would also give more people in Queensland the opportunity to “go cruising” with
more options.”
“I have cruised to many destinations around the world and have always taken an interest in the ports
of call and the cruise terminals we have called at. Some of the smallest cities have built wonderful
cruise terminals and as a result their inbound tourism numbers have increased tenfold soley due
to an efficient and large cruise terminal to cater for all sizes of ships from the various shipping
companies that sail the seas.”
The tourism potential
the proposal provided
“We cannot compete with the big world without a major attraction - there is lots of nice beaches all
over the world to choose from. Bring it on!”
“The Proposal For The Development Of Wavebreak Island Would Be In Keeping With The Standard
Of What Holiday Visiters Expect Coming To Australia’s No.I Tourist Destination. This, Combined With
An International Berthing Facility For The Ever Increasing Fleet Of Cruise Vessels Now Passing By
The Gold Coast Would Not Only Boost The Employment Figures But Would Put Untold Millions Of
Dollars Back Into The Local Economy.”
“The position will allow visitors easy access to Surfers Paradise via bus or water taxi, beaches,
Harbourtownshopping,Movie/Dreamworld...themeparks.Daytripstothehinterland,plusrecreational
activities, such as surfing off Straddie, Jet Ski rides, diving, canoe tours... Currently the Gold Coast is in
a holding pattern, with nothing new to attract visitors. The Gold Coast has always been a tourist city and
with the growth of the Cruise Ship industry, it would be detromental for the Gold Coast not to share in
that tourist market. If we do not seize the oppurtunity, I am sure another place will.”
15
Open-ended responses from supporters of the Wavebreak proposal
COMMON THEMES
The need to embrace
employment
opportunities
“really wish the project would start ASAP the coast could really do with this construction”
“The Gold Coast needs this developement to go ahead, it needs investment to be a major tourism
destination, as the Gold Coast is not in good shape we all know this, high unemployment & high
crime rates are the result of,our poor economy.”
“The lack of employment prospects on the GC has already lead to one of our kids to move away,
and another is likely to follow soon. There are many other GC families in the same situation as us.
We urgently need projects which will stabilise, and eventually grow, the GC employment market.”
The desire to start
the project as soon
as possible, and
have it ready for the
Commonwealth Games
“The proposal is fantastic and an absolute must to go ahead. The sooner the better!”
A belief that the ‘vocal
minority’ often dictated
decisions about the city
“I believe the Gold Coast does need something of this nature to allow it to compete with other
locations world wide as well as those in Australia. Regardless of the Global downturn, developments
of this nature if well planned and executed are necessary and far more beneficial to the community
as a whole. I feel saddened that a small and very vocal minority group of people can have such a
huge effect in whether or not developments of this type actually occur. I believe many of them have
never been to the area, let alone visited the opposite shore line (The Spit) by road.”
“Please please please make this happen, what a win for the Gold Coast this would be and also an
amazing advertisement and showcase for the Commonwealth Games!”
“I visit the current wavebreak in my boat and it is a good place, however it will be even more
interesting and offer more benefits to the community with the development. The gold Coast needs
a cruise ship terminal and the associated financial benefits. This will elevate the Gold Coast in the
list of new tourist attractions and hopefully it will be completed prior to the Commonwealth Games.
With the new government and their positive outlook to tourism and development, this will be a real
benefit to every Queenslander an Australian.”
“There will always be some people who oppose any new development like this, on any grounds they
can find, however I believe that this development will benefit vastly more people than the few that will
protest. The Gold Coast needs this in order to mature and develop as a prime holiday destination.”
“As one of the” silent majority” it is now time not to be silent anymore. Too many individual vested
interests have dictated on the coast too the detriment of the community.”
Table 2: Open-ended responses from supporters of the Wavebreak proposal
16
There was a small proportion of respondents whom provided
support for the Wavebreak proposal, with specific caveats
including respect for the environment and ecology; traffic
impacts; and respecting the public amenity of the area. A
small sample of unedited responses is listed below:
•
•
•
“Developit!Justbemindfuloftheenvironment.I
frequentlyscubadiveintheseaway,wherethereis
tropical fish and and amazing marine life to be seen. This
must be protected.”
3.2.1.2
OnlinequalitativeoppositiontotheWavebreakproposal
Similar to support for the Wavebreak proposal, respondents
whom opposed the project provided a wide breadth of
reasons.
Broadly grouped themes from respondents whom opposed
the Wavebreak proposal included:
“Ithinkthisisafantasticideaanddefinitelysupportit.
TheonlyproblemIdoseeisthattheentranceisatquite
a Congested area. I truly hope Sembawang conduct
proper studies for Traffic movements in the area and
propose to the Local Council various ways to alleviate
the traffic in that area to suit this development.”
•
theimpacttheproposalwouldhaveontheenvironment
and ecology
•
theproposalwasthewrongsiteforacruiseship
terminal
•
thecostofdredgingandassociatedimpacts
“Itwillbecriticaltoensurethatthescaleofthe
development is of a scale that compliments the local
Labrador and Biggera Waters community, and that
the existing road, cycleway and walkway network is
upgraded to support the new development whilst not
impacting on the amenity of that existing community.
Plus the development must include publicly accessable
parks and beaches because there will be loss of amenity
along part of the existing Labrador foreshore. I support
the development of Wavebreak Island as the best
solution to providing a cruise ship terminal given that the
islands, and the seaway, manmade in the 1st place.”
•
general,non-specific,oppositiontotheconcept
•
concernsabouttheimpactoftheproposalon
recreational pursuits
•
claimsthattheconsultationprocesswasbiased,and
deliberately excluded environmental considerations
Table 3 includes extracts of open-ended responses from
respondents whom opposed the Wavebreak proposal. For
authenticity, spelling and grammar has not been edited.
17
Open-ended responses from opponents of the Wavebreak proposal
COMMON THEMES
The impact the
proposal would have
on the environment and
ecology
“This is an environmentally sensitive area that we as gold coasters pride on having at our doorstep. A
developmentlikethiswillundoubtedlyimpactwithsignificantfactorssuchas:-1/Theseawayishometo
anabundanceoflivingseacreaturesthatwillhavetorelocatedduetohugedestructionoftherehabitat.2/
When will the first large vessel run aground and loose a tank load of diesel or waste in our water.”
“The shallows around Wavebreak have become important habitat for fish breeding in the sea grass beds.”
“This development will result in a substantial loss of important seagrass habitats which; supports a
diversity of commercially and recreationally important juvenile fish and prawn species; migratory and
residential birds and provides food for threatened dugongs and turtle populations which reside in the
broadwater. Dredging to provide access for Cruise ships will smoother this exceptionally important
habitat type and may adversly affect both tourism and fishing industry on the Gold Coast over the
short and long term.”
The proposal was the
wrong site for a cruise
ship terminal
“The Gold Coast is over developed already. Keep the area natural. Cruise ship terminal should be off
shore as to not impact on the Broadwater.”
“It is rare in any city to have this natural resource so close to the heart of a city- Surfers Paradise.
It gives gold coast residents the beauty of an untouched beach and bushland within minutes drive
from a city of skyscrapers. When you stand on the beach on the Spit you see them in the distance
and it looks awesome but you don’t want to be standing amongst them. To distrupt this ecosystem
with more high rise and commercial precincts would be criminal.”
“Wouldn’t it be more favourable to build such a facility on the inside of South Straddie at Brown island
with an articficial isthmus providing sea access? Vehicluar traffic could then be directed by way of
bridges/tunnelsvialowerCoomeraIsland&JabiruIslandtotheOxenford-Southportarterialroadway
alleviating the current abyssmal traffic congestions around the Broadwater. Another railway station
could then be created between Helensvale & Coomera with light rail access to the Shipping Terminal.”
The cost of dredging
and associated impacts
“Whowillpayfordredging?Asat10/8/2012thedredgethatworksinBroadwaterhasbeenat
Mooloolaba for some time. At low tide there is a build up of pressure waves across southern side
(Nerang Head) this is dangerous how do you propose to stop this happening.”
“I am more concerned about the constant dredging that will be needed. The moving sediments and
turbidity that it will create will not be good for the broadwater. Dramatically widening and deepening
the Seaway will have a huge impact on tidal flows throughout the Broadwater which will eventually
result in a change to fish habitats as we know them now. Deep holes will fill with sand and other
areaswilldigoutandformdeepholes.Sandbars/bankswillprobablymoveduetoachangeintidal
flow,weed beds could possibly die off from siltation and a whole host of problems can occur or change
once they open up the Seaway. Changing the Seaway rock walls could also change the inshore
currents and sand movements along the beach which could in turn have a huge impact on the SPB.”
“I believe there will be ongoing costs to the Gold Coast rate payers in keeping the broadwater
depths to allow ships in.”
18
Open-ended responses from opponents of the Wavebreak proposal
COMMON THEMES
General opposition to
the concept
“The Gold Coast is plastic enough as it is, we don’t need a cruise ship terminal and an extra casino.
Thecoasthasabadrepofbeingtoosuperficialandwithoutitsownuniquecharacter....Ithinkwhen
people see this they will think ‘that’s the last straw’ and either boycott or not bother to visit. The Coast
is known for its integration of a liveable city into a natural landscape, PLEASE keep it that way.”
“Just Leave It Alone And Keep It Natural And Untouched The Area Is Too Small For Such A Large
Development Why Do We Have To Ruin Every Piece Of Natural Spare Space That We Have Just For
The Almighty Dollar As It Is We Have Already Ruined Parts Of Our Beautiful Gold Coast.”
“Believe it or not, Australians don’t like themed tourism facilities and artificial environments like
thepoortragicrelicsofthe1980seraofgreed,theGoldCoastbeingatragicexampleofthis
greedy developer mentality in what was a pristine environment 100 years ago. The Gold Coast will
be exposed to increasing hazards in the future, such as erosion, sea level rise and pollution, and
whatever last remaining areas even those that were originally man made such as wavebreak island
butwhichnowprovidevaluablehabitat,arerequiredtobuildresilienceinthefaceofthesethreats.
This development is profoundly disgusting and incredibly ugly.”
Concerns about the
impact of the proposal
on recreational pursuits
“stop trying to ruin south stradbroke island surfing!!!”
“Your talking about all the jobs what will be made available what about all the jobs and small business
owners which will have to close down if this goes ahead for example scuba diving shops which use
wave break and the spit to conduct dives lessons and courses boat hire company’s will go broke
because wave break tends to be where everyone takes them for family picnics and what ever else.”
“There are a lot of people who use this island for weekend boating trips, camping, fishing..... if this
development go’s ahead they will no longer be able use this area anymore and wave break is the only
island in the southern part of the bay with protection from almost every wind direction, most of all the
north side of wave break protected from the southeast trade wind it’s hands down the best beach on
the Broadwater in south weather, so if that’s not there anymore we will have no where to go boating that
offers this type of protection from the wind and that being said you might have a fight on ya hands....”
Claims that the
consultation process
was biased, and
deliberately excluded
environmental
considerations
“Itstotalyanenvironmentalissues,notonequestionwasaskedaboutenvironmentconcerns.It
seems that there is going to be no balance between what matters the most which is the environment
against profit. Sure it would be great for this project, it actually sounds exciting BUT not as a cost in
destroying our true locals which are the marine animals.”
“Thissurveydoesn’tasktherealquestions.Weneedtoleavethebroadwateralone.Onceit
has been changed, it’s gone forever. You mention ‘no cost to the community’ , I disagree.
Development in the broadwater will affect the environment as well as the way the existing community
use a cherish the broadwater.”
“Perhaps you should include in your survey “Do you agree to the introduction of potential
contaminants which are part and parcel of any shipping industry” and “Do you think the transport
system is able to cope with the influx of tourists, residents and others involved in the Wavebreak
project?” - after all, it cannot cope at present!”
Table 3: Open-ended responses from opponents of the Wavebreak proposal
19
3.2.2 Qualitative feedback provided via phone
Therewere138phonecallsrecordedduringtheconsultation
period on the dedicated 1300 phone line.
Responses to the phone line were varied, but common
themes included:
In all cases, it was discernible whether the callers supported
or opposed the proposal.
•
theproposalwas‘fantastic’
•
generalsupportforthecruiseshipindustry
•
abeliefthatsomethingsimilarshouldbebeenbuilt
‘years ago’
•
theopportunityforconstructionjobs
In total, 101 phone callers supported the proposal while 37
were in opposition.
Unlike the online survey, respondents to the phone line did
notanswerquantifiablequestions.Instead,theyusedthe
feedback mechanism as an opportunity to express their
opinion about the Wavebreak proposal. Where possible, the
phonelineconsultantsansweredquestionscallershadabout
the proposal. Queries of a technical nature were referred to the
proponent’s project team which compiled a response.
20
Respondents whom opposed the Wavebreak proposal
commonly cited:
•
theinappropriatenessofthedevelopmentbeing
positioned in, and a ‘gross over-development’ of, the
Broadwater
•
environmentalconcerns
•
questionsabouttheeconomicbenefitoftheproposal
•
generaloppositiontotheproposal
4.0 Respondents by suburb
Respondents were invited to list the suburb or town they reside
in as part of the consultation process.
Inclusive consultation programs - those which do not focus an
on enclosed, random sample - commonly attract respondents
whom live within proximity of a proposal. This trend was evident
in the consultation program for the Wavebreak proposal.
The highest participation number in the online survey came
from respondents in close, or relatively close, proximity to the
Broadwater, including:
•
•
RunawayBay(45)
•
Labrador(42)
•
BiggeraWaters(34)
•
SurfersParadise(31)
Suburbs with 20 or more respondents included Ashmore,
Robina, Paradise Point, Carrara, Arundel, Nerang and
Helensvale.
Respondents resided as far away as Sydney.
Southport(58)
4.1 Opinions of nearby respondents
Respondents in neighbouring suburbs hold specific interest
in the Wavebreak proposal and its potential impact. Indeed,
suburbs in proximity to the proposal accounted for the highest
levels of response, on a suburb by suburb basis.
An analysis of the level of support for the Wavebreak proposal
from neighbouring suburbsis listed in Table 4 below:
SUBURB
IN SUPPORT
OPPOSITION
UNCERTAIN
Southport
69%
29.3%
1.7%
Runaway Bay
77.8%
20%
2.2%
Labrador
71.4%
26.2%
2.4%
Biggera Waters
73.5%
23.5%
2.9%
Surfers Paradise
81.5%
14.8%
3.7%
Table 4: Levels of support for the Wavebreak proposal
As seen in Table 4 above, the level of support from Southport
residents(69percent)waslessthantheoverallsupport(76.5%)
recorded for the project.
Other nearby suburbs - Runaway Bay, Labrador, Biggera Waters
and Surfers Paradise - recorded levels of support for Wavebreak
comparable to the wider response.
21
22
5.0Conclusion
Online and phone survey feedback provided during the
consultation period for Wavebreak displayed considerable
support for the proposal among respondents.
Opponents of the proposal likewise shared common
criticisms, including:
•
theproposalwouldnegativelyimpacttheenvironment
and ecology
•
WavebreakIslandwasthewrongsiteforacruiseship
terminal
•
thecostofdredgingandassociatedimpactswould
affect the city
•
theproposalwasinappropriate
Supportforcruiseshipfacilities,generally,wassimilar(79.1%).
•
theproposalwouldimpactonrecreationalpursuits
Inqualitativeterms,commonthemescouldbefoundamongst
supporters of the Wavebreak proposal, including:
•
theconsultationwasbiased,deliberatelyexcluding
environmental concerns from the consultation process
In total, 990 respondents participated in the four week
consultation period. This response rate can be considered
appropriate for a major city infrastructure proposal.
Inquantifiableterms,approximatelythreequartersofthe852
respondentstotheonline(76.5%)and138respondentstothe
phone(73.2%)feedbackplatformssupportedtheWavebreak
proposal.
•
•
•
abeliefthattheproposalwouldbringbenefitsforthe
tourism industry
•
•
thedesiretostarttheprojectassoonaspossible,and
have it ready for the Commonwealth Games
•
abeliefthatthe‘vocalminority’oftendictateddecisions
for the city
The consultation process and the Wavebreak proposal were
well promoted throughout mainstream media including a full
page advertisement; a front page article in the Gold Coast Sun
(free-weekly newspaper delivered to all households); follow-up
media articles and interviews across print and radio.
The level of participation could be considered acceptable for
a major infrastructure project. By way of comparison, if 990
respondents were selected via statistically valid means on the
GoldCoast,thesamplewouldberegardedwith99%certainty
asbeingrepresentativeofthewiderpopulationwitha±3.1%
deviation,basedonanestimatedpopulationof550,000
residents
If the proponent chose to further progress its Wavebreak
proposal, targeted stakeholder engagement is recommended
to understand the opinions of specific interest groups.
23
APPENDIX 1:
Media Kit
Press Release
27 July 2012
Singapore's largest engineering and construction
firm unveils $4.9bn vision for the Gold Coast
Gold Coast, Australia: The company responsible for some of the world’s most iconic developments,
Sembawang of Singapore - Global Project Underwriters Limited (Sembawang), today unveiled a
proposal to independently fund a $4.9 billion cruise ship, residential, marine and tourist precinct on
the Gold Coast's Broadwater.
The world-class destination, to be called Wavebreak, could be delivered ahead of the 2018
Commonwealth Games. It is proposed to accommodate two cruise ship terminals, 12 superyacht
berths, a 400 berth marina and Fisherman's Wharf-style trawler centre among its marine
infrastructure.
Tourism facilities including 1500 hotel rooms - from four to six stars - an aquarium, theatre and casino
are also proposed. The project would be one of the largest undertaken on Australia’s Eastern
Seaboard and its proponents say it would provide a substantial economic boost to the Gold Coast and
Queensland.
It will also be a thriving community providing apartments, shopping and dining facilities and 'dry'
access to Wavebreak Island's parkland and east-facing beach.
The cruise ship terminal will be located on the north end of Wavebreak Island, with the majority of the
remaining 37 hectares of man-made island protected as parkland. The majority of the development
would be established on the western side of Wavebreak Island and separated by a navigable
waterway. Tourism, marine and residential facilities will be housed on reclaimed land west of
Wavebreak Island, and accessed via a new bridge to Brisbane Road.
Economic projections indicate Wavebreak would generate approximately 19,000 positions for the
construction sector. The cruise industry alone would bring an additional 264,500 visitors to the Gold
Coast by 2018, increasing to an additional 913,000 in 2031.
Wavebreak would add to Sembawang's portfolio of signature international projects including Jumeirah
Island Villas in Dubai and the Marina Bay Sands Resort in Singapore. Wavebreak would add to
Sembawang's seaport and terminal experience, with the company previously delivering Singapore's
first centralised multi-utility facility.
Company President and CEO, Mr Ric Grosvenor, said if approved the proposed development would
be 'world-class' and heighten interest in the Gold Coast and Queensland internationally. He said the
company was finalising its plans so that it could be lodged and formally considered.
"Sembawang is pleased to unveil the initial plans for Wavebreak, which is a vision for a world-class
destination,'' said Mr Grosvenor.
"The cruise ship terminal will allow the Gold Coast and Queensland to better cater for the region's
cruise ship industry.
"But first and foremost, Wavebreak will serve the Gold Coast community. There will be a rich mix of
leisure and recreational facilities, parklands and swimming areas open to the public, helping cater for
significant population growth forecast over coming decades. “People can come and have a picnic on
the foreshore with their fish and chips or they can choose sophisticated waterfront dining. “They can
shop, they can arrive by boat and moor, they can stay for a holiday or they can stay for life in one of
the residential precincts.
"Sembawang also recognises the importance of the Broadwater to recreational boating on the Gold
Coast and is committed to improving the access, safety and navigational ease of this channel. To this
end, the design team is considering a range of options to ensure recreational boating activities can be
accommodated in a sheltered area of the Broadwater.
"The company is well-positioned to deliver Wavebreak and make a significant investment in the Gold
Coast and Queensland economies at the same time, at no cost to local or state governments. The
aim is for the eventual owners and operators of facilities to cater for ongoing costs where
appropriate.''
Mr Grosvenor said the proposed project would need to be approved by all relevant authorities
including Local , State and Federal Governments and agencies. The scope and nature of this project
means it will require dedicated State government legislation to become reality.
“It is early days as yet, but we are confident this proposal can tick all the relevant boxes,” he said.
Wavebreak is proposed to include:

a two berth cruise ship terminal (vessels up to
300m in length could access the Seaway)

a super yacht marina (12+ berths)

a marina (400 berths)

hotels (1,500 suites)

apartments

a casino

education and training facilities

public parklands (37ha)

a bridge to Brisbane Rd

an aquarium

retail space

a cultural centre

commercial space

theatre

prawn trawler moorings
The proponents are also proposing to repair damaged sections of the Seaway's southern wall and
offer new moorings for prawn trawler operators whom may be displaced by future plans for The Spit.
Mr Grosvenor said utilising the man-made Wavebreak Island for a cruise ship terminal, instead of the
nearby Spit, had always made sense.
"Indeed, the concept for a cruise ship terminal on Wavebreak Island was first originated in 1998,'' said
Mr Grosvenor. “We have had it on our list of possible projects to activate worldwide and it has
progressively risen to the top of that list. The time is now perfect to proceed.
"But reviving the concept to create a world-class, visionary project such as Wavebreak needed the
certainty and innovation of industry leaders, which is why Sembawang has brought together a team
including Desmond Brooks Architects (DBA), Urban Planning Services (UPS) and ARUP to deliver
the project.
“We have harnessed some of the best minds and talent worldwide to create something here on the
Gold Coast which will have State and national significance.”
As Master Architect for Southbank, Desmond Brooks brought his vision for Brisbane to reality and
changed the way the city relates to the river and its Parklands.
It is Desmond's and DBA’s passion for the Gold Coast (his home), that gave creation to this concept.
Desmond first brought the concept to Ric some 10 years ago - a client who shares his vision and
demands excellence in his creations.
This concept has the potential to bring the Gold Coast into the bright future it really deserves.
Timing is everything. In partnership with Ric, Sembawang and Queensland - the time is now.
For further information:
Paul Wilson, Promedia Public Relations
(ph) 07 5593 2011
(m) 0438 761 7785
(e) [email protected]
Press Release
INTERNATIONAL EXPERTS TO GUIDE PROPOSED WAVEBREAK DEVELOPMENT
The proposed $4.9 billion cruise ship, tourism, residential, marina, retail and community development
proposed by Sembawang of Singapore - Global Project Underwriters Limited, has been under consideration
since 1998.
Sembawang has assembled a team of internationally recognised and industry leading consultants and
experts to help plan the development.
It will use its internationally recognised experience in engineering, construction and development to deliver
this iconic project whilst achieving positive social, economic and environmental outcomes.
Sembawang has identified in advance the likely main points of debate regarding the proposal and has
provided solutions for each.
Some of the measures planned include:

A deep water anchorage to be provided for recreational boaties as part of the design process

Dredging to be undertaken to allow access to the cruise ship terminal.

Assuming the dredging responsibilities to allow access to the cruise ship terminal from the Gold Coast
Seaway for 300 metre vessels (38m beams and 8.5m drafts)

Repairing the damaged southern training wall in the Seaway;

Providing replacement seagrass beds for any shallow areas around Wavebreak which are disturbed;

Avoiding any disturbance to sand banks south of Wavebreak Island which have been indentified as
being of significance for migratory birds;

Providing a new home for the Gold Coast trawler fleet which is at risk of being displaced by future
development along The Spit;

Carrying out improvements on degraded areas of Wavebreak Island and creating public parklands which
connect with the currently isolated beach on its eastern boundary;

Dredging a deep water marina at the western boundary of the proposed project which is currently a
shallow sand bank that is exposed at low tide;

Ensuring the connecting bridge is of sufficient height to allow recreational and small commercial vessels
to pass underneath

Developing an appropriate property strategy which allows for the staged delivery of new product onto the
market to support its recovery and long term sustainability

Managing the visual impact of Wavebreak Island for people living on the mainland with the predominant
built form being of a human scale averaging three to seven stories with a cluster of taller elements to
create a visually legible location marker.
Company profile
Sembawang of Singapore - Global Project Underwriters Limited, is Singapore's largest engineering
and construction firm.
Founded in 1982, the company was last month granted permission to use the trading name
Sembawang of Singapore - Global Project Underwriters, by the Singapore Government.
The granting of the trading name is a great honour, and is akin to other flagship company names such
as Lloyds of London - General Project Underwriters.
Sembawang has more than 3000 global professionals based around the world in the Asia Pacific,
Middle East, South Asia, China, UK and Africa.
Sembawang is a full service company with the highest expertise in planning and design through to
construction and maintenance.
In 1997, Sembawang was the first engineering and construction company on an elite list of engineers
from various industries to be certified under the Singapore Quality Class.
Sembawang has been integral in the delivery of iconic and complex projects including:
Seaports and terminals

Singapore's First Centralised Multi-Utility Facility
Residential / mixed-use

Riffa Views (Bahrain)

Jumeirah Island Villas (Dubai)

Marina Bay Sands Integrated Resort
(Singapore)

Ella Bay Integrated Resort and Master
Planned Community (Cairns)

Sentosa Resorts World (Singapore)

75% of Singapore's LRT systems and
stations and 13% of the MRT

The German Centre for Industry and
Trade (Singapore)
Infrastructure

Kallang-Paya Lebar Expressway
(Singapore)

Changi Airport Terminal 2 Extension
(Singapore)
Commercial

Junction 8 (Singapore)
APPENDIX 2:
Advertorial
ADVERTISEMENT
A $4.9 BILLION
GAME CHANGER
SEMBAWANG OF SINGAPORE IS SEEKING YOUR FEEDBACK ON ITS PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP
THE GOLD COAST’S MOST SIGNIFICANT NEW COMMUNITY AND TOURISM PROJECT IN DECADES.
Unveiled on Friday, the proposal includes the
development of a cruise ship, marina, residential,
commercial and entertainment precinct, and
community parklands and facilities, on Wavebreak
Island within the Southport Broadwater.
Sembawang of Singapore - Global Project Underwriters,
is behind some of the world’s most iconic developments
of recent years and will create a major new international
tourism hub for the Gold Coast if plans released for the
first time last week are approved and meet with strong
community support.
Sembawang has been working on the plans with local firm
Desmond Brooks Architects (DBA) for the past 15 years
and believes now is the right time to kick start the project.
Sembawang want the community to look at this closely,
to familiarise themselves with it and to embrace it. If the
response is positive Sembawang will move forward - if the
public is against it, the company will move on.
Sembawang of Singapore President and CEO Ric Grosvenor
said the community would have plenty of opportunity to
voice its opinion and concerns. “I am sure we’ll be able to
address all the issues, but this has to be a win win for all
concerned and Sembawang wants the community behind it.”
Sembawang and DBA said the world class destination, to
be called Wavebreak, would be independently funded at no
cost to the City or the State and could be delivered ahead
of the 2018 Commonwealth Games. The project would be
a ‘game-changer’ for the Gold Coast - as one of the largest
tourism developments in Queensland, it would provide a
substantial economic boost for the City and the State.
“But first and foremost, Wavebreak will serve the Gold
Coast community,” said Mr Grosvenor. “What Sembawang is
proposing is much more than a cruise ship terminal.”
......................................................................................................................
“IT IS AN INTEGRATED TOURISM AND
RESIDENTIAL DESTINATION WHERE
PEOPLE CAN LIVE, WORK, HOLIDAY,
PLAY AND ENJOY LIFE UNDER THE
QUEENSLAND SUN.”
......................................................................................................................
“The project team also recognises the importance of the
Broadwater to recreational boating on the Gold Coast
and is committed to improving the access, safety and
navigational ease of this channel.”
The cruise ship terminal will be located on the north end
of Wavebreak Island, with the majority of the remaining
37 hectares of man-made island to be totally protected as
parkland for the enjoyment of the local community and
visitors. The development will be primarily established
COMMUNITY FEEDBACK
Sembawang and its team have been heartened by
the initial feedback from the community, with four
main points of discussion emerging since the plans
were unveiled.
......................................................................................................................
WAVEBREAK ISLAND AND THE IMPACT OF HARD
INFRASTRUCTURE ON THE ISLAND AND ITS EFFECTS
ON SURROUNDING FORESHORES
The concept of the proposed project is to leave Wavebreak
Island as it is and to develop infrastructure to the west
creating virtually another island. The design will comply
with all statutory requirements which now include the long
FOR MORE INFORMATION AND TO PROVIDE
FEEDBACK CONTACT 1300 033 800
OR GO TO WAVEBREAKISLAND.COM
WAVEBREAK IS PLANNED TO INCLUDE:
..........................................................................................
A cruise ship terminal (vessels up to
300m in length could access the seaway)
..........................................................................................
A marina (400 berths)
..........................................................................................
Apartments (4,000)
..........................................................................................
Education and training facilities
..........................................................................................
A bridge to Brisbane Road
..........................................................................................
Retail space
..........................................................................................
Commercial space
..........................................................................................
Prawn trawler moorings
..........................................................................................
A super yacht marina (12+ berths)
..........................................................................................
Hotels (1,500 suites)
..........................................................................................
A casino
..........................................................................................
Parklands and beach
..........................................................................................
An aquarium
..........................................................................................
A cultural centre
..........................................................................................
Theatre
on a new island to the western side of wavebreak,
separated by a navigable waterway. Tourism, marine and
residential facilities will be housed on the reclaimed land
to the west of Wavebreak Island and accessed via a new
bridge to Brisbane Road. Mr Grosvenor said Sembawang,
having unveiled Wavebreak, will now work to finalise
its development plans so that they can be lodged and
formally considered by all relevant authorities including
local, State and Federal governments and agencies.
INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANT TEAM AT THE HELM
and icons such as Versace, Sheraton Mirage, Gold Coast
International and Sheraton Port Douglas.
A HISTORY OF SUCCESS
Sembawang is Singapore’s largest engineering and
construction firm and has been integral to delivering
some of the most iconic and complex projects on the
international stage in recent years, including Jumeirah
Island Villas in Dubai, the Marina Bay Sands Integrated
Resort in Singapore, Riffa Views in Bahrain and Singapore’s
Changi Airport Terminal 2 Extension.
Sembawang and DBA have assembled a team of
internationally recognised and industry leading
consultants and experts to help develop its visionary plans
for Wavebreak. Some members of the consultant team
include ARUP, structural designers of the Sydney Opera
House and the Beijing Olympic Games’ Bird’s Nest stadium;
and Desmond Brooks Architects, designers of resort
projects worldwide and Master Architect of Southbank
Core to Sembawang’s strategy is its firm commitment
to delivering the best products and results that fuse
the highest standards of health, safety, environment
and quality. Once community feedback is received, and
provided there is a positive response to the proposal, the
design team will work to finalise plans so they can be
lodged and formally considered by all relevant authorities.
term sea level rise. Wavebreak Island will become largely a
37 hectare public park with open access to all members of
the community.
Seaway project and Wavebreak Island, Gary Lucas, is a
member of the team. Dredging to allow cruise ships to
arrive and depart is part of the proposal and an expert
team will thoroughly assess dredging requirements.
TRAFFIC AND THE LINKAGE FROM THE MAINLAND
TO WAVEBREAK
A full transportation study will be undertaken as part of
the approvals process and issues of traffic flow where the
proposed bridge to Wavebreak meets with Brisbane Road
at Labrador will be addressed.
DREDGING REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE CRUISE SHIPS
The team behind the proposed Wavebreak development
includes international experts in the fields of engineering
and construction. The original engineer for the Gold Coast
PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF PUBLIC LANDS
Wavebreak Island will remain largely untouched.
The cruise ship terminal will be located on the northern
side of Wavebreak Island in what is now a deep water
navigation channel. The island will be upgraded into an
oasis of public parklands which will be fully accessible to
the entire community.
APPENDIX 3:
Media clippings
July 28-29, 2012 The Courier Mail
APPENDIX 4:
Website
APPENDIX 5:
Website visitation
analytics
Usage Statistics for wavebreakislandcom.ipage.com - August 2012
31/08/12 6:05 PM
Usage Statistics for wavebreakislandcom.ipage.com
Summary Period: August 2012
Generated 30-Aug-2012 22:51 EDT
[Daily Statistics] [Hourly Statistics] [URLs] [Entry] [Exit] [Sites] [Referrers] [Search] [Users] [Agents]
Monthly Statistics for August 2012
Total Hits
52022
Total Files
40307
Total Pages
4340
Total Visits
3101
Total KBytes
3386452
Total Unique Sites
2660
Total Unique URLs
53
Total Unique Referrers
154
Total Unique Usernames
1
Total Unique User Agents
89
.
Hits per Hour
Avg
Max
72
1394
Hits per Day
1734
8208
Files per Day
1343
7019
Pages per Day
144
569
Visits per Day
KBytes per Day
103
406
112882
598117
Hits by Response Code
Code 200 - OK
Code 206 - Partial Content
Code 302 - Found
Code 304 - Not Modified
40307
466
116
7702
Code 403 - Forbidden
1
Code 404 - Not Found
3424
Code 416 - Requested Range Not Satisfiable
2
Code 500 - Internal Server Error
4
http://wavebreakislandcom.ipage.com/stats/usage_201208.html
Page 1 of 10
31/08/12 6:05 PM
Daily Statistics for August 2012
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Hits
3159
3743
1258
794
1012
2118
6617
8208
3419
2541
1400
1591
1828
970
670
666
637
564
19
1091
21
960
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
727
2511
1987
499
393
424
696
547
424
6.07%
7.20%
2.42%
1.53%
1.95%
4.07%
12.72%
15.78%
6.57%
4.88%
2.69%
3.06%
3.51%
1.86%
1.29%
1.28%
1.22%
1.08%
2.10%
1.40%
1.85%
4.83%
3.82%
0.96%
0.76%
0.82%
1.34%
1.05%
0.82%
Files
2598
2673
984
637
817
1011
5399
7019
2821
2009
1132
1393
1507
769
579
555
552
402
712
619
661
1958
805
396
272
310
553
421
304
6.45%
6.63%
2.44%
1.58%
2.03%
2.51%
13.39%
17.41%
7.00%
4.98%
2.81%
3.46%
3.74%
1.91%
1.44%
1.38%
1.37%
1.00%
1.77%
1.54%
1.64%
4.86%
2.00%
0.98%
0.67%
0.77%
1.37%
1.04%
0.75%
Pages
464
439
112
79
90
176
454
569
247
174
106
118
131
81
55
54
55
50
77
70
76
184
165
47
35
38
61
44
39
10.69%
10.12%
2.58%
1.82%
2.07%
4.06%
10.46%
13.11%
5.69%
4.01%
2.44%
2.72%
3.02%
1.87%
1.27%
1.24%
1.27%
1.15%
1.77%
1.61%
1.75%
4.24%
3.80%
1.08%
0.81%
0.88%
1.41%
1.01%
0.90%
Visits
378
272
91
65
65
85
364
406
193
147
84
106
106
68
42
42
36
39
58
55
45
67
61
33
27
27
44
31
30
12.19%
8.77%
2.93%
2.10%
2.10%
2.74%
11.74%
13.09%
6.22%
4.74%
2.71%
3.42%
3.42%
2.19%
1.35%
1.35%
1.16%
1.26%
1.87%
1.77%
1.45%
2.16%
1.97%
1.06%
0.87%
0.87%
1.42%
1.00%
0.97%
Sites
350
297
121
82
114
113
384
463
231
164
109
138
121
88
69
64
71
63
91
123
82
120
102
58
71
68
68
47
48
13.16%
11.17%
4.55%
3.08%
4.29%
4.25%
14.44%
17.41%
8.68%
6.17%
4.10%
5.19%
4.55%
3.31%
2.59%
2.41%
2.67%
2.37%
3.42%
4.62%
3.08%
4.51%
3.83%
2.18%
2.67%
2.56%
2.56%
1.77%
1.80%
KBytes
144116
165315
63970
42361
54884
76396
322645
485742
220598
141321
75639
83195
83354
53820
43491
36814
47261
27797
52839
48211
102859
598117
117823
52186
37292
30521
34470
81079
19471
4.26%
4.88%
1.89%
1.25%
1.62%
2.26%
9.53%
14.34%
6.51%
4.17%
2.23%
2.46%
2.46%
1.59%
1.28%
1.09%
1.40%
0.82%
1.56%
1.42%
3.04%
17.66%
3.48%
1.54%
1.10%
0.90%
1.02%
2.39%
0.57%
Page 2 of 10
30
568
439
1.09%
31/08/12 6:05 PM
1.09%
50
38
1.15%
60
1.23%
2.26%
42866
1.27%
Hourly Statistics for August 2012
Hour
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Hits
Avg
Total
116
3503
118
3565
131
3932
112
3362
96
2901
120
3617
88
2662
55
1655
43
1298
47
1417
10
33
1004
12
6
201
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
11
345
10
312
8
261
22
675
33
1006
64
1942
93
2811
98
2953
98
2957
105
3177
96
2889
119
3577
6.73%
6.85%
7.56%
6.46%
5.58%
6.95%
5.12%
3.18%
2.50%
2.72%
1.93%
95
103
86
70
85
68
44
31
30
21
9
4
0.39%
8
0.60%
1.30%
1.93%
3.73%
5.40%
5.68%
5.68%
6.11%
5.55%
6.88%
Total
87
0.66%
0.50%
Files
Avg
6
16
25
52
76
84
82
83
77
88
2624
2874
3092
2589
2113
2569
2050
1349
944
927
641
292
135
265
193
509
772
1588
2287
2547
2475
2499
2317
2656
Avg
7.67%
9 270
11 331
9 293
6.42%
7 213
5.24%
8 267
6.37%
6 208
5.09%
4 129
3.35%
2.34%
2.30%
Total
9 280
6.51%
7.13%
Pages
3
94
3
90
0
21
11 344
1.59%
0.72%
0.33%
0.66%
0.48%
1.26%
1.92%
3.94%
5.67%
6.32%
6.14%
6.20%
5.75%
6.59%
1
0
1
1
2
34
25
31
51
79
4 138
7 214
7 227
7 221
8 245
7 239
9 296
6.45%
6.22%
7.63%
6.75%
4.91%
6.15%
4.79%
2.97%
2.17%
7.93%
2.07%
0.78%
0.48%
0.58%
0.71%
1.18%
1.82%
3.18%
4.93%
5.23%
5.09%
5.65%
5.51%
6.82%
Avg
6226
6686
10588
10619
5767
9512
4887
3412
2541
2426
1973
709
239
720
382
1045
1633
3510
5977
5396
5728
8478
5565
8862
KBytes
Total
186777
200580
317636
318555
173016
285374
146623
102359
76243
72769
59201
21276
7162
21605
11462
31336
48975
105288
179316
161885
171845
254347
166956
265867
5.52%
5.92%
9.38%
9.41%
5.11%
8.43%
4.33%
3.02%
2.25%
2.15%
1.75%
0.63%
0.21%
0.64%
0.34%
0.93%
1.45%
3.11%
5.30%
4.78%
5.07%
7.51%
4.93%
7.85%
Top 31 of 53 Total URLs
#
1
2
3
4
5
Hits
4058
2971
2374
2361
2358
KBytes
7.80%
5.71%
4.56%
4.54%
4.53%
15142
3399
70543
5889
18955
URL
0.45%
0.10%
2.08%
0.17%
0.56%
/
/files/main_style.css
/jquery.min.js
/jquery.beforeafter.js
/jquery-ui.min.js
Page 3 of 10
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
494
431
353
230
198
176
117
116
86
72
66
65
36
25
17
17
8
8
8
8
5
4
3
2
1
1
0.95%
0.83%
0.68%
0.44%
0.38%
0.34%
0.22%
0.22%
0.17%
0.14%
0.13%
0.12%
0.07%
0.05%
0.03%
0.03%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
31/08/12 6:05 PM
19901
28247
12402
7649
74
283201
574238
56458
4580
42196
57
86518
24
1504
7
32
17
6
64
22
10
36916
1
35990
279
1
0.59%
0.83%
0.37%
0.23%
0.00%
8.36%
16.96%
1.67%
0.14%
1.25%
0.00%
2.55%
0.00%
0.04%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.09%
0.00%
1.06%
0.01%
0.00%
/PDF/001.pdf
/PDF/004.pdf
/PDF/002.pdf
/PDF/003.pdf
/robots.txt
/WMV/001.wma
/WMV/004.wmv
/WMV/005.wma
/PDF/006.pdf
/WMV/003.wma
/tes.htm
/WMV/002.wma
/sitemap.xml
/PDF/005.pdf
/crossdomain.xml
/index2.htm
/js/jquery-ui.min.js
/js/jquery.beforeafter.js
/js/jquery.min.js
/test.htm
/backup_index.html
/WMV/004(xvid).avi
/favicon.ico
/2012_TVC.swf
/PDF/007.pdf
/googleanalytics.txt
Top 30 of 53 Total URLs By KBytes
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Hits
117
176
65
2374
116
72
4
2
431
494
2358
4058
353
230
2361
86
2971
25
1
198
8
66
KBytes
0.22%
574238
0.34%
283201
0.12%
86518
4.56%
0.22%
0.14%
0.01%
0.00%
0.83%
0.95%
4.53%
7.80%
0.68%
0.44%
4.54%
0.17%
5.71%
0.05%
0.00%
0.38%
0.02%
0.13%
70543
56458
42196
36916
35990
28247
19901
18955
15142
12402
7649
5889
4580
3399
1504
279
74
64
57
URL
16.96%
/WMV/004.wmv
8.36%
/WMV/001.wma
2.55%
/WMV/002.wma
2.08%
1.67%
1.25%
1.09%
1.06%
0.83%
0.59%
0.56%
0.45%
0.37%
0.23%
0.17%
0.14%
0.10%
0.04%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
/jquery.min.js
/WMV/005.wma
/WMV/003.wma
/WMV/004(xvid).avi
/2012_TVC.swf
/PDF/004.pdf
/PDF/001.pdf
/jquery-ui.min.js
/
/PDF/002.pdf
/PDF/003.pdf
/jquery.beforeafter.js
/PDF/006.pdf
/files/main_style.css
/PDF/005.pdf
/PDF/007.pdf
/robots.txt
/js/jquery.min.js
/tes.htm
Page 4 of 10
31/08/12 6:05 PM
23
17
0.03%
32
0.00%
/index2.htm
24
36
0.07%
24
0.00%
/sitemap.xml
25
8
26
8
27
30
0.00%
6
0.02%
1
0.00%
7
0.03%
8
0.00%
10
0.01%
17
29
0.00%
17
0.02%
5
28
22
0.02%
0.00%
1
0.00%
0.00%
/test.htm
/js/jquery-ui.min.js
/backup_index.html
/crossdomain.xml
/js/jquery.beforeafter.js
/googleanalytics.txt
Top 4 of 4 Total Entry Pages
#
Hits
1
4058
2
66
3
17
4
8
Visits
7.80%
0.13%
0.03%
0.02%
3087
4
URL
99.81%
0.13%
1
0.03%
1
0.03%
/
/tes.htm
/index2.htm
/test.htm
Top 4 of 4 Total Exit Pages
#
Hits
1
4058
2
66
3
17
4
8
Visits
7.80%
0.13%
0.03%
0.02%
3054
32
URL
98.87%
1.04%
2
0.06%
1
0.03%
/
/tes.htm
/index2.htm
/test.htm
Top 50 of 2660 Total Sites
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Hits
7212
635
598
445
406
373
364
304
234
217
199
192
189
181
178
171
169
165
147
143
136
136
130
126
Files
13.86%
1.22%
1.15%
0.86%
0.78%
0.72%
0.70%
0.58%
0.45%
0.42%
0.38%
0.37%
0.36%
0.35%
0.34%
0.33%
0.32%
0.32%
0.28%
0.27%
0.26%
0.26%
0.25%
0.24%
3922
351
83
360
329
159
219
192
208
120
167
104
110
178
34
142
49
137
138
126
77
74
126
116
KBytes
9.73%
0.87%
0.21%
0.89%
0.82%
0.39%
0.54%
0.48%
0.52%
0.30%
0.41%
0.26%
0.27%
0.44%
0.08%
0.35%
0.12%
0.34%
0.34%
0.31%
0.19%
0.18%
0.31%
0.29%
755655
15871
3494
34659
27349
27629
10791
9226
12671
5844
9314
4971
2902
8803
928
15011
4315
10457
9723
8683
4810
4801
8367
7045
Visits
22.31%
0.47%
0.10%
1.02%
0.81%
0.82%
0.32%
0.27%
0.37%
0.17%
0.28%
0.15%
0.09%
0.26%
0.03%
0.44%
0.13%
0.31%
0.29%
0.26%
0.14%
0.14%
0.25%
0.21%
86
69
5
13
11
20
35
13
13
10
7
10
40
7
18
14
11
8
7
4
7
2
4
6
2.77%
2.23%
0.16%
0.42%
0.35%
0.64%
1.13%
0.42%
0.42%
0.32%
0.23%
0.32%
1.29%
0.23%
0.58%
0.45%
0.35%
0.26%
0.23%
0.13%
0.23%
0.06%
0.13%
0.19%
Hostname
203.116.81.162
123.211.130.173
202.156.10.253
203.80.14.180
210.5.172.115
203.120.126.188
124.171.221.218
202.156.11.235
132.234.251.230
60.228.84.147
121.50.211.35
203.144.15.77
203.3.64.1
121.50.202.206
202.173.161.115
202.177.218.43
165.228.99.209
122.105.116.146
203.6.69.2
131.242.135.253
110.174.248.193
202.156.11.11
203.42.46.70
203.80.10.114
Page 5 of 10
25
125
27
118
26
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
121
118
113
112
112
111
110
92
91
89
88
87
86
85
84
83
82
81
81
80
80
78
78
77
0.24%
0.23%
0.23%
0.23%
0.22%
0.22%
0.22%
0.21%
0.21%
0.18%
0.17%
0.17%
0.17%
0.17%
0.17%
0.16%
0.16%
0.16%
81
32
74
86
36
80
80
54
88
72
69
89
70
70
79
54
67
76
0.16%
76
0.16%
46
0.16%
0.15%
0.15%
0.15%
0.15%
0.15%
70
75
72
33
63
75
0.20%
0.08%
0.18%
0.21%
0.09%
0.20%
0.20%
0.13%
0.22%
0.18%
0.17%
0.22%
0.17%
0.17%
0.20%
0.13%
0.17%
0.19%
31/08/12 6:05 PM
43458
1276
3624
8169
3419
1469
1467
30244
7810
3604
14186
6800
3529
3419
18081
14421
3537
3937
1.28%
0.04%
0.11%
0.24%
0.10%
0.04%
0.04%
0.89%
0.23%
0.11%
0.42%
0.20%
0.10%
0.10%
0.53%
0.43%
0.10%
0.12%
8
1
7
5
1
10
8
4
6
5
4
29
4
3
2
4
6
4
0.26%
0.03%
0.23%
0.16%
0.03%
0.32%
0.26%
0.13%
0.19%
0.16%
0.13%
0.94%
0.13%
0.10%
0.06%
0.13%
0.19%
0.13%
124.188.214.54
202.156.10.9
101.167.6.229
60.226.34.10
202.156.10.10
184.154.132.90
69.175.118.170
124.186.221.155
122.152.140.65
118.208.88.33
60.226.163.87
157.56.95.143
203.11.225.5
116.50.58.180
58.185.222.122
175.107.177.11
165.69.13.114
60.226.36.98
0.19%
3931
0.12%
1
0.03%
124.148.30.123
0.11%
2554
0.08%
6
0.19%
203.144.8.72
0.17%
0.19%
0.18%
0.08%
0.16%
0.19%
3682
3954
4703
1909
6923
3521
0.11%
0.12%
0.14%
0.06%
0.20%
0.10%
5
2
4
2
5
4
0.16%
0.06%
0.13%
0.06%
0.16%
0.13%
203.9.185.243
202.44.190.153
203.41.101.254
110.143.100.144
203.174.24.1
123.211.122.135
Top 30 of 2660 Total Sites By KBytes
#
Hits
1
7212
3
445
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
125
111
373
406
40
86
635
171
85
22
91
26
43
60
234
21
364
165
41
50
Files
13.86%
0.24%
0.86%
0.21%
0.72%
0.78%
0.08%
0.17%
1.22%
0.33%
0.16%
0.04%
0.17%
0.05%
0.08%
0.12%
0.45%
0.04%
0.70%
0.32%
0.08%
0.10%
3922
81
360
54
159
329
22
79
351
142
54
21
69
6
24
23
208
20
219
137
38
44
KBytes
9.73%
0.20%
0.89%
0.13%
0.39%
0.82%
0.05%
0.20%
0.87%
0.35%
0.13%
0.05%
0.17%
0.01%
0.06%
0.06%
0.52%
0.05%
0.54%
0.34%
0.09%
0.11%
755655
43458
34659
30244
27629
27349
18958
18081
15871
15011
14421
14205
14186
14090
13272
13246
12671
11179
10791
10457
10130
9864
Visits
22.31%
1.28%
1.02%
0.89%
0.82%
0.81%
0.56%
0.53%
0.47%
0.44%
0.43%
0.42%
0.42%
0.42%
0.39%
0.39%
0.37%
0.33%
0.32%
0.31%
0.30%
0.29%
86
8
13
4
20
11
2
2
69
14
4
1
4
1
1
3
13
1
35
8
3
2
2.77%
0.26%
0.42%
0.13%
0.64%
0.35%
0.06%
0.06%
2.23%
0.45%
0.13%
0.03%
0.13%
0.03%
0.03%
0.10%
0.42%
0.03%
1.13%
0.26%
0.10%
0.06%
Hostname
203.116.81.162
124.188.214.54
203.80.14.180
124.186.221.155
203.120.126.188
210.5.172.115
27.253.112.183
58.185.222.122
123.211.130.173
202.177.218.43
175.107.177.11
124.189.27.3
60.226.163.87
58.169.77.131
210.49.206.247
122.106.96.2
132.234.251.230
111.93.67.98
124.171.221.218
122.105.116.146
149.135.147.109
125.7.33.97
Page 6 of 10
23
147
25
199
27
39
24
26
28
29
30
52
37
304
22
181
0.28%
0.10%
0.38%
138
29
0.58%
0.04%
0.35%
0.07%
167
0.41%
36
0.07%
0.07%
0.34%
0.09%
38
0.09%
192
0.48%
21
0.05%
178
0.44%
31/08/12 6:05 PM
9723
9342
9314
9306
9277
9226
8987
8803
0.29%
0.28%
0.28%
0.27%
0.27%
0.27%
0.27%
0.26%
7
3
7
2
2
13
1
7
0.23%
0.10%
0.23%
0.06%
0.06%
0.42%
0.03%
0.23%
203.6.69.2
58.106.56.61
121.50.211.35
60.226.34.45
122.105.120.186
202.156.11.235
58.173.235.35
121.50.202.206
Top 93 of 154 Total Referrers
#
Hits
1 8976
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
562
319
189
67
39
37
36
36
26
21
12
12
10
9
7
5
5
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
17.25%
1.08%
0.61%
0.36%
0.13%
0.07%
0.07%
0.07%
0.07%
0.05%
0.04%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Referrer
- (Direct Request)
Google
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php
http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2012/08/08/436256_gold-coast-news.html
http://www.mygc.com.au/article/news/local-newsroom/37324-have-your-say-on-wavebreak-development.php
http://www.facebook.com/
http://m.facebook.com/l.php
Yahoo!
http://www.facebook.com/l.php
http://www.goldcoastcruiseterminal.com/forum/showthread.php
http://www.goldcoastcruiseshipterminal.com/forum/showthread.php
http://www.brisbanefishing.com.au/71-general-chat/432138-wavebreak-island-development-proposal
https://www.facebook.com/
http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2012/08/02/435515_gold-coast-news.html
http://www.mygc.com.au//article/news/local-newsroom/37324-have-your-say-on-wavebreak-development.php
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Discussion-on-controversial-new-development-3977719.S.145753548
http://www.bing.com/search
http://www.goldcoastcruiseterminal.com.au/
http://ozcruising.s4.bizhat.com/viewtopic.php
http://208.114.116.50:2111/usg/NdxICC.htm
http://by159w.bay159.mail.live.com/mail/InboxLight.aspx
http://by167w.bay167.mail.live.com/default.aspx
http://search.conduit.com/Results.aspx
http://search.mywebsearch.com/mywebsearch/GGmain.jhtml
http://sn117w.snt117.mail.live.com/mail/InboxLight.aspx
http://www.facebook.com/home.php
http://www.goldcoastcruiseshipterminal.com/forum/content.php
http://www.search-results.com/web
http://127.0.0.1:1886/StartPage/index.html
http://basic.messaging.bigpond.com/basic/message.do
http://bl157w.blu157.mail.live.com/mail/InboxLight.aspx
http://isearch.avg.com/search
http://link.smartscreen.live.com/info/
http://messaging.bigpond.com/inbox.do
http://s.nsdsvc.com/App/DddWrapper.swf
http://sn131w.snt131.mail.live.com/default.aspx
Page 7 of 10
41
2
0.00%
http://www.dogpile.com/search/web
42
2
0.00%
http://www.goldcoastcruiseterminal.com/forum/content.php
44
2
43
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.00%
0.00%
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/newreply.php
http://www2.inbox.com/search/results.aspx
0.00%
Ask Jeeves
0.00%
http://192.168.35.48:15871/cgi-bin/blockOptions.cgi
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
31/08/12 6:05 PM
http://bl146w.blu146.mail.live.com/default.aspx
http://bl156w.blu156.mail.live.com/m/messages.m/
http://by158w.bay158.mail.live.com/default.aspx
http://co102w.col102.mail.live.com/mail/InboxLight.aspx
http://co123w.col123.mail.live.com/default.aspx
http://du103w.dub103.mail.live.com/default.aspx
http://m.facebook.com/
http://mygc.com.au/article/news/local-newsroom/37324-have-your-say-on-wavebreak-development.php
http://search.babylon.com/
http://search.incredibar.com/
http://sn115w.snt115.mail.live.com/m/messages.m/
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search
http://webmail.optuszoo.com.au/message.html
http://webmail.sembawangenc.com/mail/abdulmajeed.nsf/38d46bf5e8f08834852564b500129b2c/432e008a806ff0e748257a5400338fff
http://webmail.sembawangenc.com/mail/dhanasek.nsf/(
http://webmail.sembawangenc.com/mail/gurungramond.nsf/(
http://webmail.sembawangenc.com/mail/phuacw.nsf/(
http://webmail.sembawangenc.com/mail/sumhw.nsf/(
http://www.diigo.com/user/pblakez
0.00%
http://www.facebook.com/groups/pacificadmin/402813779782604/
0.00%
http://www.feedly.com/home
Page 8 of 10
92
1
0.00%
http://www.sensis.com.au/search.do
93
1
0.00%
http://yoliyoliyoli.chatango.com/
31/08/12 6:05 PM
Top 30 of 32 Total Search Strings
#
Hits
1
Search String
256
2
71.91%
42
3
11.80%
7
4
1.97%
7
5
1.97%
4
6
1.12%
3
7
0.84%
2
8
0.56%
2
9
0.56%
2
10
0.56%
2
11
0.56%
2
12
0.56%
2
13
0.56%
2
14
0.56%
2
15
0.56%
2
16
0.56%
2
17
0.56%
2
18
0.56%
1
19
0.28%
1
20
0.28%
1
21
0.28%
1
22
0.28%
1
23
0.28%
1
24
0.28%
1
25
0.28%
1
26
0.28%
1
27
0.28%
1
28
0.28%
1
29
0.28%
1
30
0.28%
1
0.28%
wavebreakisland.com
www.wavebreakisland.com
wavebreak island
wavebreak island.com
wave break island
sembawang wavebreak
http://wavebreakisland.com/
http://www.wavebreakisland.com
sembawang to develop wavebreak
sembawang wavebreak proposal
wavebreak island gold coast
wavebreak island sembawang
wavebreakisland. com
wavebreakisland.com.
wavebreakislnd.com
www wavebreakisland.com
www.wavebreakisland
http//www.wavebreakisland.com
http://wavebreakisland.com
sambawag wave break island
sembawang survey wavebreak island
sembawang wave break
sembawang wavebreak island
wave break island.com
wavebreak
wavebreak island news
wavebreakislan
wavebreakisland com
wavebreakisland.om
ww.wavebreakisland.com
Top 1 of 1 Total Usernames
#
1
Hits
2
Files
0.00%
2
KBytes
0.00%
5
0.00%
Visits
1
0.03%
Username
wavebreakislandcom
Top 30 of 89 Total User Agents
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
Hits
22878
22878
12208
10891
2582
905
User Agent
43.98%
43.98%
23.47%
20.94%
4.96%
1.74%
Mozilla/5.0
Netscape 6 compatible
MSIE 8.0
MSIE 9.0
MSIE 7.0
Netscape 4 (or compatible)
Page 9 of 10
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
902
610
528
319
210
127
87
70
59
59
47
47
38
32
31
29
23
21
16
12
12
10
9
9
1.73%
1.17%
1.01%
0.61%
0.40%
0.24%
0.17%
0.13%
0.11%
0.11%
0.09%
0.09%
0.07%
0.06%
0.06%
0.06%
0.04%
0.04%
0.03%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
31/08/12 6:05 PM
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible;)
MSIE 6.0
facebookexternalhit/1.0 (+http://www.facebook.com/externalhit
SiteLockSpider [en] (WinNT; I ;Nav)
Googlebot/2.1
msnbot/2.0b (+http://search.msn.com/msnbot.htm)
NSPlayer/12.00.7601.17514 WMFSDK/12.00.7601.17514
YandexBot/3.0
Opera
Opera/9.8
NSPlayer/11.0.5721.5275 WMFSDK/11.0
bingbot/2.0
MSIE 10.0
Baiduspider/2.0
Google Desktop/5.9
MobileSafari/7534.48.3 CFNetwork/548.1.4 Darwin/11.0.0
Googlebot-Image/1.0
facebookplatform/1.0 (+http://developers.facebook.com)
AndroidDownloadManager
BlackBerry9300/5.0.0.846 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDCMSIE 5.0
AppleCoreMedia/1.0.0.11E53 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_7
NSPlayer/12.00.7600.16385 WMFSDK/12.00.7600.16385
facebookexternalhit/1.1 (+http://www.facebook.com/externalhit
Generated by Webalizer Version 2.01
Page 10 of 10

Public Consultation Summary - Sembawang Engineers and

Transcription

Similar documents

cruising - Royal Caribbean Incentives

3_Adventure Playground.indd

Parent Access to the - Collier County Public Schools

youth participation in national agenda through new media

Alaska CRUISE - Mark Trammell Quartet

Spring 2016 - Bank of Springfield

HSW GmbH

- Sembawang Town Council

Cumberland Harbour is a natural paradise.

2015 Wedding Show - Mission Point Resort

Logging in to the System Please go to the following URL to begin