Update 2012.12.20:
I am able to update this post, as the QoN which I asked at the August 2012 Council meeting was responded to at the December Meeting under Item 8.1.2 of the Minutes : (http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/20121212%20Council%20Minutes.pdf).
Update 2012.09.16:
You may be wondering why I have not provided you with an update for KIpolis on the questions which I gave notice to ask at Council’s August meeting.
The reason was that these questions will not be answered until the October ordinary meeting at the earliest (please see below which was the explanation given by the CEO or look up Item 8.1.2 of the September Minutes http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/20120912%20Council%20Minutes.pdf).
“Due to the aged nature of the issue and the suggested non-compliance of the development, Staff for both Council and the Heritage Section at Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR) have had to search archives for clarification information – with an ensuing and understandable delay.
Staff have been liaising with Mr Hamish Angus, Heritage Officer – DEWNR and at this time are unable to complete the report to fully and unequivocally answer the concerns raised by Cr Liu. It is envisaged that these may be adequately provided to the October 2012 Ordinary Council Meeting.”
On the same subject of completing the Christmas Cove project, you may also be interested in noting that my motion (please see below) to seek support of KIFA was defeated.
NOTICES OF MOTION
Item No 16.1
Report Title Notice of Motion Cr Liu – Christmas Cove
Moved Cr Liu Seconded Cr Walkom
That Council seeks the support of KI Futures Authority to formulate a proposal to fund the outstanding works on Christmas Cove.
LOST. 2 For — 3 Against
Cr Ken Liu
Kangaroo Island Council
P O Box 80, KINGSCOTE SA 5223
Ph: (08) 8553 2823 Mobile: 0428 322 005
Email: kenDOTliuATbigpondDOTcom
2012.07.27
I have given notice to ask further ‘questions on notice’ at the August Ordinary Meeting of Council (Please see below); this time is in relation to Council’s obligation to complete the northern revetment walling which was left out from the stage 1 redevelopment at Christmas Cove. The northern wall is a critical integral part of the structure which was designed to stabilize the unprotected soft glacial sediments exposed to erosion and redistribution from storm waves, resulting from the widening and deepening of the Cove’s entrance and the excavation of the basin.
I would appreciate it if you would post it on KIpolis.
Cr Ken Liu
Question on Notice
8th August 2012 Meeting of Council
Christmas Cove Redevelopment
Christmas Cove is designated as a Geological Monument of National Significance and is listed on the State Heritage Register. The basin excavation in 2003 was carried out with a permit (HAS1475 issued on 21/3/2003) under Section 29 of the Heritage Act 1993 with 9 conditions to ensure preservation and protection of this Geological Monument.
Due to funding shortfall, Council in August 2003 adopted a modified version of the project by deleting the revetment walling along the northern rim to the ‘glacial clays’ and incorporated the work in stage 2 to enable the redevelopment to go ahead. The northern wall is a critical integral part of the structure which was designed to stabilize the unprotected soft glacial sediments exposed to erosion and redistribution from storm waves, resulting from the widening and deepening of the Cove’s entrance and the excavation of the basin. The Geological Society of Australia withdrew its opposition to the redevelopment subject to 9 conditions (GSA letter dated 1/4/2003), one of which was the requirement of constructing a revetment wall along the northern side of the Cove to prevent the glacial clays from sliding into the excavation.
Although the Geological Society of Australia was concerned that part of the Geological Monument could be damaged without the northern revetment wall, Council gave assurance that this section of walling would be completed once funds became available. To minimize the risk of sediment slumping and damage to the ‘glacial clays’, it was recognized that the walling would need to be completed within 5 years. Council was advised at that time (GSA letter dated 7/1/2004) that failure to complete the walling in accordance with the proposal presented to the Geological Society of Australia (which formed a part of permit approval) could be considered as a breach of the provisions of the State Heritage Act.
Question 1:
I understood that the Geological Society of Australia wrote to Council on 6th December 2007 to seek advice as to when the agreed work (ie northern revetment wall) would be completed. What was Council’s response at that time and did Council ever consider this matter following the enquiry made by the Geological Society of Australia? If so, what was Council’s decision in relation to the completion of the northern revetment walling?
Kamngaroo Island Council Answer 1:
The Geographical Society of Australia wrote to Council on the 6th of December 2007, seeking responses to their questions over the Christmas Cove development that spanned a period of time dating back to 2003.
The letter was replied to be the then Corporate & Community Services Manager, Mr. Christopher Francis. A copy of this letter cannot be found within Council’s electronic Records System. This initial response was highlighted in further correspondence received from the Geographical Society on the 9th of May 2008.
On the 22nd of May 2008 (see attached), a response was sent to the Geographical Society by the then CEO, Ms Carmel Noon, detailing the status of works at the Christmas Cove Development, indicating that all permit works relating to the development had been complied with, other than the completion of the revetment wall extension. It was highlighted in this correspondence that the extension of the revetment wall was no longer planned, and that this circumstance was agreed to unanimously at the time. It was also highlighted in this correspondence that the permit to perform excavation works at a Registered Place was only valid for a 12 month period, and that any further works at Christmas Cove would require a positive decision of Council to undertake the works and a new permit application process to be completed.
Question 2:
Since the construction of the northern revetment walling being a permit requirement to excavate a Registered Place has not been carried out, nor has Council committed any funding to undertake the work in this year’s budget, will Council be putting itself at a great risk of being prosecuted or forced to close the unfinished marina due to the breach of conditions as stipulated in the permit?
Answer 2:
As highlighted in the correspondence of 22nd of May 2008 to the Geographical Society, there were no further works planned at the Christmas Cove site in relation to the extension of the revetment walling, and this was noted at the time as being unanimously agreed by all parties and noted in the site minutes of 4 February 2003.
Therefore, it would be considered that the risk of any ‘forced action’ requiring completion of any project works to be unlikely.
Question 3:
Did Council ever seek any funding or financial assistance from external bodies to complete the northern revetment walling after the completion of the modified stage 1 redevelopment in December 2003? If so, what was the outcome?
Answer 3:
No. It was indicated in correspondence to the Geographical Society in May 2008, that any future project works would require a positive decision of Council to reinstate any revetment walling.
Question 4:
In light of Council’s current financial position, how realist is that Council will be able to raise funds to construct the northern revetment walling within the next couple of years?
Answer 4:
The decision to fund any additional project works at Christmas Cove is at the discretion of Council, as part of its annual budget process, taking account of Council’s strategic priorities and the framework of Council’s Long-Term Financial Plan.
Question 5:
How will Council deal with the situation should the Department of Heritage issue a direction requiring Council to comply with the permit conditions forthwith?
Answer 5:
As highlighted in the correspondence of 22nd of May 2008 to the Geographical Society, there were no further works planned at the Christmas Cove site in relation to the extension of the revetment walling, and this was noted at the time as being unanimously agreed by all parties and noted in the site minutes of 4 February 2003. Therefore, it would be considered that the risk of any ‘forced action’ requiring completion of any project works to be unlikely.
Advice has been received from Mr Hamish Angus (see attached), Senior Heritage Officer from the DEWNR, that if any future works are planned, the Geographical Society has no formal role to play in the management of geological sites that have been entered in the South Australian Heritage Register or designated as being of geological significance.
*************
Cr Ken Liu
Kangaroo Island Council
P O Box 80, KINGSCOTE SA 5223
Ph: (08) 8553 2823 Mobile: 0428 322 005
Email: kenDOTliuATbigpondDOTcom
[webmaster note: those interested in the matter may request from Cr Liu the two letters mentioned in his QoNs, and the three mentioned in Council’s answers]