This document discusses the development of Carlton Bluff in Tasmania and calls for its protection as a natural heritage site. It notes that the Bluff provides scenic and recreational value for the local community and visitors. However, private development has begun to encroach on and degrade the natural landscape. The document argues that Carlton Bluff and other natural areas near towns should be publicly owned and preserved to maintain the landscape's value for lifestyle and tourism, and prevent conflicts between development, forestry and conservation of natural heritage sites. It urges the urgent and thorough evaluation of lands for protection from real estate development pressures.

1. CARLTON BLUFF
Could Be At Clifton, Seven Mile, Snug, Crescent anywhere….
The horse bolts:
A MOMENT OF SILENCE PLEASE.
A convenient, much loved icon begins to fade.
See small white box among trees top right of photo.
A great place to live. But at what cost?
Not really the builder’s fault (maybe I wish it was mine). It’s the land planning. A BLIND MAN COULD
SEE THE VALUE OF TOTAL PRESERVATION OF THIS SEAWARD FACE OF CARLTON BLUFF;
FOR THE BENEFIT OF A SEMI-WILDERNESS EMBRACE OF A JEWEL BEACH, FOR LOCAL
COMMUNITY, AND FURTHER FOR STATE AND NATIONAL AND GLOBAL ASSET.
Carlton Bluff should be publically owned.
Mount Wellington is Hobart owned and protected. A pat on our back! But a black mark for the loss of
Hunter Island and the estuary … and the causeway! (They didn’t notice at the time they squashed it.)
Towns grow bit by bit.. In early times all is country and there’s plenty more around the corner. Sometimes
delightful places are gobbled up in the frenzy
It’s terrific when built delight is not built in the wrong place. The Opera House nor any fence is on Uluru.
WE MUST PROTECT NATURAL HERITAGE EVEN IN COUNTRY LOCALES. Natural Heritage
treasures (‘values’ to some) of all sizes prevail throughout our country locales.
Pressures on them are easily overlook by fluorescent-lit administrators, overlooked even by neighbours to
these natural icons - even whilst they enjoy them.
Because;
 worthy Natural Heritage may be seen only as ‘far away’ wilderness,
 the pressures are largely only future (though quickly becoming current)
 of the settler’s tradition of private ownerships
 of presumption & misplaced trust.

2. Carlton Bluff. A sad example. Usurped by the conquering forefathers, cleared allowed to return to endemic
life and then … realty reality.
The Bluff even today wraps the users of Park-Carlton Beach in near wilderness and scenic recreational
delight. Dunes, estuary, eagles, endemic headlands, surf and sea flanked by distant natural skylines. This
is community environment asset in wonderful condition, ventilating fast-growing country urban
architectures - accessible to all Tasmanians and visitors. The poetry rolls rampant in the minds and
memories of anybody who has enjoyed the beach. Before the excess shacks, anywhere on this beach once
provided 360 degree effective ‘wilderness’ coastscape!
The Bluff had survived. A while back, from the Park Beach car park (colloquially called Mecca), one
beheld the first of the loss of this much loved aspect of the Park-Carlton environment. A speck in the eye:
at the skyline on the seaward part of the Bluff; some plantation-like trees. I suspect they breach
reasonability under the planning code.
Now a plank; from mid beach we see that first box sitting high, where an eagle might prefer. A builder’s
shed. And an unwilling seriously rhetoric tear shed. They both grow as I walk the beach to the classic
intimacy of the river. From the estuary the shed is courteously concealed behind one of the many golden
gusty casuarinas.
All private property on any Bluff can be ‘improved’ through development. Usually gradual. A few houses
only are legally permissible but there’s more. With owner indulgences; a quilting of fence, fence clearing,
road, track and power lines, infilled with varied planting, paddock, sheds, kennels, tanks, vegie patches,
clothes lines, cars, colour, sun-glinted glass and night-lights (including moving headlights): enough to
thoroughly stifle the wilderness experience.
In itself: No global disaster but No wild delight.
Most won’t realise their loss – it’s incremental between plasma screen and mac.
Response always has been hamstrung. So we have hill-face and skyline conflicts in regard to the Natural in
our city amenity, lounge windows and local strolls.
IN COUNTRY AREAS CONCERN IS DILUTED BY ATTITUDE BASED ON THE ABUNDANCE OF
THE NATURAL AT EVERY TURN. In this abundance however is a hierarchy of undocumented
treasures. Unacknowledged assets.
Carlton Beach with its bluffs is one of these.
Conflict will increase as Development, Plantation and Extraction find less room in the face of Natural
Heritage and lifestyle preferences. Forestry vs ‘Old Growth and Simple Natural Beauty’ is an example.
Natural Heritage seriously wanes in the conflicts. It is on the defence, for lack of timely evaluation, tough
critical law and public investment.
Simply put; A DEGREE OF PRIVATE LIVELIHOOD vs A DEGREE OF PUBLIC LIVELIHOOD.
Herein is an inspiring vested interest for Tasmanians;
A RESOLUTION THAT CONSERVES LOCAL-TO-TOWN NATURAL HERITAGE ADEQUATE FOR
FIRST CLASS LIFESTYLE WOULD BRING INDUSTRY AND RESIDENTIAL CONTENTMENT
AND PROBABLY PROSPERITY.
Nose to the grind stone. Crown land redistribution, acquisitions …. anything!! Which lands are worth what
- to Tasmanians in particular? This evaluation process needs to be wholistic – ecological, industrial,
cultural, township environment, tourist packaging, highway experience etc. It is urgent and encumbered by
Parliamentary theatrics.

3. There’s a huge workload in scanning and value-assessing land and land icons for freedom from real estate
pressures. It’s a big job, it’s urgent and it’s yours. It’s a pleasure of a job, but only if it’s done before
realty reality bites.