The following QoN exchange between Cr Walkom and Council’s CEO brings to light issues that should be of the highest interest to Penneshaw residents — actually, to all Kangaroo Island residents and real estate owners.

As far as Penneshaw goes, it is quite clear that its cachet as a small coastal village is threatened by plans for development and for even more ferry tourism trafic. In addition, the significant development that is likely to occur in Penneshaw, as a result of the trebling of residential densities with the planned advent of the CWMS scheme, confirms that major change is looming for this little town.
Down the track, it’s the whole island that shall see its present nature changed if government, Sealink-related and Council plans are implemented. Full public consultation is obviously needed on this fundamental matter for island residents and real-estate owners.
— Webmaster

 

Cr Walkom – Questions on Notice 8 August 2012

Answers by Andrew C Boardman, Kangaroo Island Council CEO

 

A. Sealink Terminal Penneshaw:

Council has expressed significant interest and indeed concern, at the current traffic issues that have developed, and continue to develop, associated with all passenger and freight ferry services to the island occurring through the small wharf landing area of Penneshaw.

With the stated SA govt objective of doubling tourists to this island, there will be a significant exacerbation of these traffic, pedestrian and heavy freight issues in this very restricted area.

1. With the recent development approval of the new Passenger terminal have these above issues been fully addressed?

2.            If yes, has the identified solution:

a.            been advised to and approved by this Council?

b.            been referred for public consultation?

c.            been designed, costed and funded?

 

Answer A1:

The Development Assessment Panel considered the Development Application put before it by SeaLink for a new Passenger Terminal and northern car park area, and issued Development Plan Consent (subject to one ‘reserved matter’ and a series of conditions) in July 2012 – in its statutory role under the Development Act.
The application plans also highlighted a potential long term proposal to upgrade the marshalling, parking and vehicle/pedestrian movements to the west of the new Terminal – but the application itself was for the Passenger Terminal and northern car park area.
Final Development Approval is still pending the issuing of Building Rules approval and satisfaction of the ‘reserved matter’ by SeaLink which related to a query about the architectural design.
Separate to the Development Act process, the Minister (through the Department for Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI)) needs to finalise terms with SeaLink relating to the development over land owned by the Minister, being Lot 2 (for the new Terminal Building and proposed turning bay and associated infrastructure to the north of the new terminal). Council have also been in conversation with DPTI with regards to the need for landlord improvements in the area that lies immediately in front of the Terminal / car park area, known as Lot 89 (Council lease this land area from DPTI). These discussions do not impact SeaLink financially.
Through the application process DPTI has been heavily involved in the assessment process both as the referral agency under the Development Act (providing advice to the DAP) and on behalf of the Minister, DPTI (as the land owner).
Although the proposal provided for improved facilities and associated infrastructure, the proposal details did not specifically outline a strategy to cater for a doubling of tourism numbers for Kangaroo Island. We note recent information that the KIFA target is to double tourism ‘expenditure’ (rather than tourism numbers) and a range of strategies are being considered by KIFA. Strategies to increase expenditure should include all transport options, and other associated initiatives.
The SeaLink Development Application addresses those issues that apply to its development and the points at which the development interact with the adjoining lots. An independent Traffic Management Study was required to be submitted addressing these areas and this has been completed and formed part of the Development Application Process.
DPTI, as landowner of Lot 89 and the body responsible for the State roads, has taken responsibility for the design and specification of the works required in the Lot 89 area immediately in front of the Terminal Area (comprising Terminal itself and the adjacent bus / car turning circle / pick up / drop off point situation to the North on the foot of the seawall area). These designs are nearing completion and preliminary costing are being established by DPTI. Whilst the majority of the work is in this area, the designs do incorporate a whole of Penneshaw approach in terms of rationalising pavement, junctions, kerb and gutter, allocation / demarcation of car parking and traffic flow needs.

 

Answer A2a:

The designs have been discussed with Asset Services Staff and with the local hauliers who operate in the area immediately in front of the loading area. The designs have not been placed in front of Council at this time and given the DPTI ownership of the roads and Lot 89 area, Council approval as such is not required.
However it is likely that once fine-tuning is complete a set of plans will be provided to Council for information.

 

Answer A2b:

No – other than discussion with key heavy goods vehicle users there has not been public consultation at this stage as design fine-tuning is still in progress.

 

Answer A2c:

As advised, designs are nearing completion and It is understood that elements are being costed now. DPTI Officers have indicated that work on Lot 89 and main roads will be funded through normal DPTI budget processes.

 

3.            In the approval process for the new terminal, is it a requirement that a professional short term and long term traffic study be effected and approved by Council prior to development occurring?

 

Answer A3:

The Development Plan Consent clearly conditioned that portions of the development are located on land owned by the Minister and that necessary land owner consents must be granted for the use of the land – SeaLink is fully aware of such.
DPTI also required a condition stating that the proposed methods of traffic management contained in the Traffic Management Plan Report (TTM), relating to driveways and parking areas shall be established prior to the approved use commencing and maintained at all times to the satisfaction of Council and DPTI.
The following notes were also placed on the Development Plan Consent through the Development Assessment Panel:
Notes:

1.            DPTI believes that the proposal from SeaLink for the operation of the new Northern Car park will complement any potential long term proposal to upgrade the marshalling, parking and vehicle/pedestrian movements to the west of the new Terminal. DPTI will continue to work with Council to develop a proposal for upgrading the land to the west of the new terminal, including Lot 89. When a scheme is developed and costed, DPTI will pursue funding for the scheme under its normal annual budget process.

2.            In assessing this application the Panel note that they have taken into account the interface between new terminal and the land area to the west of the Development (being Lot 89) as is normal in the application process and have also taken a holistic approach to the possible impact this Development may have with regards to vehicle and pedestrian access on the adjacent land of Lot 89 and the traffic flow that the Development will generate through the township of Penneshaw. Under existing conditions there is an accepted need for improvement in traffic management to ensure safe separation of people and vehicles, parking etc in both the immediate area of Lot 89 and the subsequent flow through Penneshaw and the Panel note the DPTI statement that they recognise this need and are committed to finalising design work and then seeking funding for the required works via their normal budgeting processes.

 

4.            In the approval process, did Council retain any rights to review and approve traffic management for this development?

 

Answer A4:

As above.

 

B. Sealink Terminal Building:

This building should be a significant entry statement for Kangaroo Island, not only visually but in terms of its clean green image. Has Council sought to ensure that this development will be a significant statement in terms of energy efficiency and carbon neutrality with respect to construction, operation and maintenance of the facility above and beyond statutory guidelines and current best practice?

 

Answer B:

No, the Council was not party to the design aspect of the building, as it was an application developed and lodged by SeaLink.
Council’s role is to assess the application (in its statutory role) under the Development Act. The Development Assessment Panel was satisfied with the general design in terms of:
•            Assessment of the design and siting by the Coast Protection Board relevant to hazards, coastal flooding and erosion and marine impact
•            DEWNR KI raising no objection
•            Waste water disposal addressed to the satisfaction of Council’s EHO
•            Stormwater disposal and reuse
The proposal must also pass the Building Code of Australia in terms of energy efficiency requirements through the Building Rules Assessment.