25.5.2013
A letter to Kangaroo Island Council’s CEO, Mr Andrew Boardman
Re: Article in The Islander 16.05.2013, and other matters.
My comments refer to Kangaroo Island CEO Andrew Boardman’s update on the now amended Penneshaw CWMS project which has been approved in part by the Local Government Association.
That is, the levels, CBD areas and School together with a few abutting properties. In effect a major part of the town will not be included. The actual resolution from the LGA states that “the council will need to have compelling reasons to expand the project further”.
This is effectively an acknowledgement by the LGA of many factors, which the community and councillors Liu and Walkom have been stating since the project was first proposed at least 5 years ago. Why has it taken so long for the council to understand the problems associated with this system?
Whenever asked if the council would introduce a health policy or conduct an audit of the systems being used in Penneshaw those questions have been ignored or answered “no”.
At item 10.6 of the minutes of 08.05.2013, as CEO, why did you recommend to council that, council shall not conduct an audit of sewerage systems on properties outside the LGA Committee’s approved areas, knowing it is council’s obligation and responsibility according to State Acts of Parliament administered by the Departments of Health and Environment.
This is a serious matter and I ask the above question with all sincerity and in the interests of the whole community; it behoves the CEO to answer the question in a similar manner.
It is time we had a community meeting for everyone to hear and comment on the council’s intentions, for example, where will the treatment plant be located? Suggestions of Cheopis Street and the Lane are too close to the town and there are environmental reasons such as the endangered and listed Glossy Black cockatoo which will prohibit any of the land in the Penneshaw area for their current plan.
All our requests for transparency have been ignored. The Council has a responsibility to include the community in its planning now before decisions are made, so that an independent prudential review will have respect for the communities’ views before the review, not afterwards. The community needs the facts pure and simple and that should not be difficult.
The CEO describes the topography, visitor influx periods etc., together with the cost and affordability which has been a point of contention time and time again from the community. These factors have not changed since day one although the deficit has increased.
Again I say why has it taken so long for this project to be determined? And why did those on the council who voted in favour of it take so long to see what the community saw from day one? The man-hours spent not seeing the obvious has been a drain on the finances of this council.
In my opinion the community needs a public consultation now about this amended project to give people the opportunity to air their views instead of being forced to accept the views of others.
Shirley Knight
Penneshaw
Now is not the time for another consultation to defer proper treatment of waste water from Penneshaw. Hypercritical of any expenditure, some sectors of this town are “Nimby’s” (Not in my back yard) with no understanding of the relationship between their level of opposition to the scheme or aspects of it, and the escalating expenses resulting from that opposition.
Most settlements in Western society have waste water treatment schemes – they are socially funded, their storage facilities are located with relevant buffers and the risk of “chronic failure” is about on a par with being hit by an asteroid.
Reference to the glossy-black habitat is useful in that the future feeding habitat could be increased by simply using drooping sheoak as the core species for a vegetation screen around the facility, the establishment of which could be aided via the use of recycled water from the facility. For reference there are glossy-blacks feeding consistently in trees established only 8 years ago in Cygnet River.
Please get on board and assist the Council in getting this important project implemented rather than continuing to block it.
Hi Craig,
I couldn’t help notice your comment somewhat bullied a bluffing defense, ending in resignation that you do indeed need to acknowledge community input. Stating “some sectors…no understanding of the relationship between their level of opposition to the scheme or aspects of it, and the escalating expenses resulting from that opposition”, you clearly indicate you believe local government is never wrong or guilty of creating faulty management practices.
I confess I know very little of this CWMS scheme yet i’ve experienced KIC at its terrible finest during the ‘KI Pro’ debacle. I cringe at how that all played out. How when continually warned and told the festival was a very sloppy idea KIC defended and hushed, swept concern aside with ambition. And fail.