Questions put to Shirley Knight by Prof. Charlie Canning, 2012.06.24, including an update and additional information.

 

1) I gather that you are resident of Penneshaw. How long have you lived there?

After spending our annual holidays at Penneshaw for a couple of years we decided to build a small holiday home and from there we decided to make Penneshaw our retirement place. We built a larger home on the seafront so that we could house our expanded families for holidays and friends for visits. This began in the mid seventies and we have been in our retirement home for 23 years.

My comments below are my opinion after making myself familiar with the issues.

 

2) How many residents are there now?

The recent census in 2011 showed the population at 276 – that is only 11 more than 2006 census – less than 1% growth pa.

 

3) In terms of the infrastructure, present size, and projected growth, is it time that Penneshaw had a waste management plant?

I believe the population and growth rate will be insufficient for Penneshaw to need a sewerage system meant for large towns because of capital cost borne by the council i.e. interest cost adding to our rates even with a subsidy from the Government.

The yearly maintenance cost starting at $562 – $600 and rising yearly will be a large impost on the community when there are alternatives.  This charge is additional to our yearly rates and will rise yearly depending on Government/SA Water charges.

Other issues are:

· The terrain of hard black rock and sand adds cost to the installation of infrastructure. The black rock to be penetrated and the sand area would more than likely need boarding up of the trenches for the pipes.

· The preferred system is recognised to be high in carbon emissions.  Study by J Foley.

· There will be a duplication of infrastructure because a majority of residents have systems which are working fine including at least 15% of residents who have up-to-date Biolytic systems.

· The preferred system costs will be millions of dollars although the Council is not informing us at this stage exactly how many.  If we asked for a hospital, more doctors and a more comprehensive school we would be told the population does not warrant such expenditure and that is exactly why we should not be spending millions on an outdated smelly poo factory so close to our town which we do not need right now.  If we do have millions to spend what would be our preference?  Would the charge for sewerage be better spent on better medical services in the form of consultation visits by doctors visiting Penneshaw more regularly and maybe transport to Kingscote for medical services, or upgrade to a more comprehensive school allowing children to attend school in Penneshaw longer. Or spend more on infrastructure for roads.

The list could be endless.   With an operating deficit of $4million dollars and with no real plan or ability to reduce it the council will simply need to restrain its spending and not put our financial status in jeopardy by bringing forward this project which currently is not necessary.  My opinion is we need an Administrator right now to tackle our financial problems and to end the impasse going on with our elected members.

 

4) Given that something responsible has to be done with the sewerage of a township once the community reaches a certain size, what would you recommend? Could you give examples of other townships of comparable size?

· The population of Penneshaw really dictates that we have a self-managed system for businesses and community. The Council has a duty of care to put into place a policy that will make the community aware of their responsibilities in relation to health and carbon gases. The benefit of that is a cleaner environment without ponds located in one of the most beautiful landscapes on Kangaroo Island, not to mention a 25foot dam wall.

A chemical analysis was not done to show that Penneshaw had a health reason to put in a deep sewer system when the council applied for funding.  The onsite systems in place right now do a very good job if they are looked after. That is where the council can come in with its policy. When old systems fail they can be replaced by more environmentally friendly systems such as ones with good filters and the solids are eaten completely by micro-organisms together with worms. We have had one such system for eight years with an annual maintenance check and we have had no odours at all and 200sq ft of our garden is being automatically watered; an annual saving of at least $200.00 for water; rising as the cost of water increases.

The annual sewerage charges have not been increased this year but if none this year they will be increased to compensate for no extra fees this year. SA water sets the sewerage charges and they have a policy to make the fees sustainable. There is no free lunch.

· Other townships of a similar size are: Port Wakefield. That project had an over run of $3,000,000; we could not afford any overruns. Port Wakefield council had a very irate community but their project had gone too far when the community found out about the problems there.

· Cowell is another council which applied and then withdrew on community dissatisfaction and cost. I believe the LGA is providing such a large amount of seeding money to get councils interested that the councils may think it is an offer too good to refuse.  Community participation is vital.

 

5) Could you give us a brief summary of the genesis of the Penneshaw Waste Management Scheme and the planning and approval process over the last three years from a Penneshaw resident’s point of view?

· When I was on the Penneshaw Progress Association Committee some six or seven years ago a committee member mentioned the American River project and asked the question: If they have a system why can’t Penneshaw?   I did not think it should have been a foregone conclusion before the community had a chance to hear about it. We were sent a letter saying that the council had approved it at the end of 2008.

· From a Penneshaw resident point of view the planning and approval process has been taken on by the council and with this present location it has been kept under wraps.   Councillors have been warned we were not to know.  This flies in the face of

Community participation. We have had 9 updates which have either been obfuscating, confusing or simply waffle. One such update talked about elephant eating chunks. When the new councillors were elected they asked for questions to be answered but it was not until 18th January 2009 that some, not all, were answered.

 

6) I gather from your Letters to the Editor and your posts on the Internet, that there has been a lack of transparency concerning the site of the proposed plant. Why all the secrecy on the part of the Council? After all, it is not a missile silo that we are talking about.

Your questions about secrecy should be directed to the council. As Ratepayers we are left to speculate. Does it mean they have something to hide which the community will not like? Do they have the mistaken view that their life would be easier if they do not tell us the unsavoury bits?

 

7) You have asked that Council “Display the final plan at [the] Penneshaw Community Business Centre for public viewing and comments on completion of the design”. Seems reasonable enough. Why did Council refuse?

Once again the council should answer that in relation to the resolutions noted here. Resolution as proposed and carried at item 14.9.2 and 14.9.3 at the February 2011 council meeting and again in April 2011 at item 14.6 which stated the completed designs were to be displayed in Penneshaw Business Centre for viewing and comment.  That seems clear to me so why not do it.

They  “approved the designs” which implies they must be complete. Are they enjoying the power of the word NO?

 

8) Your letters also make clear your dissatisfaction with “the fundamental change in the location of the ponds and treatment plant”. I want to make sure that I understand this correctly: An Environmental Impact Statement was prepared for Location X. Later, Council decided on Location Y. When you asked whether Council had prepared a new environmental impact for Location Y, you were told that they hadn’t. Does this mean that they are preparing one now?

We were not given an Environmental Impact Statement for the original location.  My question was to enquire whether or not the council had completed an Environmental Impact Statement for the new location.  The reason being that this new location is problematic due to issues such as the degradation of a significant landscape; it could be at odds with the Penneshaw Development Plan in which it is concerned not to spoil significant landscapes; it mentions: “rural land surrounding the township which create an important visual backdrop of the town” in particular, the installation of a smelly pond and treatment plant; including a 25ft high dam wall over an area of about 10 acres.  This development will be a blot on the landscape.  Having answered no to the question I believe the council should have taken it as a prompt for council to begin the EIS process with relevant authorities.

 

9) You went on to ask whether Council would display the new Environmental Impact Statement “on the Council website for all ratepayers to see”. The answer was “No”. Again, why all the secrecy?

Once again a good question but one can only speculate as I mentioned before. They are very good at waffling and not getting the question or ignoring the core of the question. That is very frustrating but could it be deliberate?

 

10) You also spoke of Section 48(5) of the Local Government Act 1999 which stipulates that “Council considers the appointment of an independent person to undertake a prudential report”. “Considers” sounds vague to me. Is this something Council is required to do? 

I believe the reference relates to the obligation of the council to engage an independent person to carry out a full Prudential Review.  I believe “independent” implies an expert who is unrelated to the project in a true arms length manner. However, “considers” in that context I believe means that the councillors make a decision on which person it might be.

 

11) What happens next?

The community must view the plans now for comment – as resolved there should be a consultation after viewing the plans. There are processes such as council considering the comments from the community and when the full prudential review is complete it too should be displayed and commented on by the community.  If not the council is not showing any respect for the community or practicing transparency.

 

12) At what point does the plan go out for bid – I think you call it “tendered”? Who is eligible to bid on such a project? Is there any transparency allowed in this area?

That is also a question for the council.

 

13) Finally, I would like to hear your suggestions about an ideal location for a waste management plant – if you think that one is necessary – that will not adversely affect the tourist town of Penneshaw or be an undue burden on the ratepayers.

Please refer to my answer above about onsite self-management at question 4.

 

7th July 2012:

· Further developments have taken place since the radio interview of 24th June 2012:

I visited the location of the poo pond and found that it was more than a beautiful landscape of Penneshaw – Within two minutes I saw 12 or more of our rare and endangered species of national significance fly out of a tree on the site; it is the Glossy-black red-tailed cockatoo and there is evidence that they use that location as one of their feeding areas.

· I believe this fact will have an impact on whether or not the project goes ahead but when will the Council tell us?  They know the Glossy-blacks are there on their chosen site and so far I have not heard from the Council about any concerns they have except that the council thinks the birds will not be affected.

· Evidenced by the SALE FESTIVAL in August last year at the Adelaide Wine Centre where KI Artists exhibited their excellent talents by using the Glossy-Black Cockatoo as one of the major themes of the Exhibition.  By so doing showed the community’s respect to our rare and endangered bird and I do hope the Kangaroo Island Council will also, equally, respect it by not installing a full sewerage system in its habitat.

 

NOTE:
There is a PETITION to sign for the right of the public to access Council’s plans