Investigating an issue
Tandanya development - conditions
When planning approval was authorised by the Kingscote District Council of Kangaroo Island in January 1993, a list of conditions was attached requiring strict compliance by the developers, System One.
That Council also made it clear that failure to comply with any of the Conditions would result in immediate cessation of development. (Note: The South Australian Tourism Commission questions whether this is possible under the South Australian Development Act.)
A summarisation of the conditions is as follows.
1 The development has to be undertaken in accordance with the amended plans.
The access road will be 6 metres wide and 8 metres wide at the entrance.
The ring route will be at least 4 metres wide, for one-way vehicular movement only.
Parking areas will be clearly signposted.
Parking and driveways will be designed in accordance with Australian Standards.
Roads, driveways and parking areas will be of an all-weather construction.
A minimum water supply of 6.9 megalitres per year will be provided.
8 Potable water wUl comply with the Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality.
9 A routine monitoring program for water level cumulative discharge, salinity and bacteria will be developed.
Swimming-pool water quality will meet the requirements of the Public and Environmental Health Regulations.
The recycling of water and the re-use of untreated grey water will satisfy the National Health and Medical Research Australian Guidelines arid the South Australian HealthCommission Guidelines.
The flow of all stormwater run-off will be directed away from Flinders Chase National Park and will be collected and retained on the subject land.
Stormwater from roofs will be collected and used as a water supply.
14 Any ponds or lagoons will be constructed under the Health Act 1975.
15 The effluent-disposal system will, be designed
and constructed in accordance with the Health Act 1975 or the Water Resources Act 1990.
Desalination effluent will be disposed of under the Water Resources Acr 1990.
Hard refuse will be stored on site in sealed containers and will be removed regularly.
All hard-refuse collection and storage points will be screened from public view.
The power-generation facility will be adequately insulated in order to attenuate [reduce] the level: of noise emitted.
Plans depicting the materials to be used for noise-level reduction will be submitted to Council.
21a A landscaping plan will be submitted to Council.
21b Save [except for] grasses used in fawned areas, only native Kangaroo Island plant species will be incorporated in the landscaping plan.
The development will be substantially commenced within 24 months and be substantially completed within 48 months of that date.
A minimum of 22,000 litres of water will be stored On site and be reserved exclusively for firefighting purposes.
This condition covers a myriad of suggestions outlined by the Country Fire Service with reference to fire protection, management and prevention.
Figure 5.12 Newspaper summarisation (Adapted from the Islander, Kangaroo Island, 11 February 1993)
Community division
The Kingscote District Council considered the proposed development to be necessary for Kangaroo Island, and South Australia's business community and tourism industry were both strongly in favour of the development - see sections of the newspaper article in Figure 5.10 on pages 129 and 130. But although
most people, including local environmentalists, seem to agree that tourism is needed on the western side of the island, the issue has split the Kangaroo Island community. This division was first expressed at a public meeting held on 8 August 1991, which was reported in the Islander - see the article in Figure 5.13 on page 132 entitled 'Community split over Tandanya development'.
131
TOURISM
COMMUNITY SPLIT OVER TANDANYA DEVELOPMENT
From the meeting held by the KI Care Group [a local environmental group] on Thursday night the eighth of August, it became increasingly evident that the Kangaroo Island community holds strong views for and against the Tandanya development.
Following is a rundown on every topic touched on and the resolutions reached after its discussion.
· System One could not guarantee every position would be filled by local workers.
· Many farmers between Parndana and Flinders Chase would begin work tomorrow if development went ahead.
System One would not allow married couples to reside as employees at the Tandanya development.
Air KI supports the development arid would provide a better service to Islanders if the project went ahead.
Local businesses would benefit during construction.
KI needs a camping facility in order to alleviate 'uncontrolled campers'. The Tandanya development would not provide this much needed service.
Local accommodation houses should liaise with System One in order to arrange package deals involving them.
The development should be limited to Stage 1, which consists of a forty-unit motel, 44 bungalows and 32 family cabins.
It will also include an information centre, a takeaway food outlet, a souvenir shop, a general store and a fuel outlet.
Discussion was adjourned at around 10.50 p.m., at which time two resolutions were reached. The first one put forward by the KI Care Group read as follows.
That this meeting expresses dissatisfaction with the concept of a large-scale development at Tandanya, and that we request action to limit the size of the development to the first stage proposed by System One. That if the development is to proceed beyond this stage it should be with reference to an Environmental Impact Study [Statement - an 'EIS']
The second resolution, put forward by David Willson, read as follows.
Notwithstanding the practical implications of opposing the development at this stage, this meeting remains opposed in principle to any development larger than would normally be allowed in a rural zoning and believes any version of the development so far proposed should be permitted only in the vicinity of Parndana or another town.
About half the people at the meeting voted in the first resolution, and about the same amount agreed that the second was just as viable. The majority of the people at the meeting were indecisive, not voting for or against either resolution. Both resolutions will be presented to System One for consideration.
Figure 5.13 Newspaper article (Extracted from the Islander, Kangaroo Island, 15 August 1991)
Written objections
Although the project had many features, outlined in the planning and design documents, that most people would appreciate, many written objections were made to the Kingscote District Council about it. People, such as the members of the KI Care Group, who objected to the resort - or tiie 'bushland village', as the developers called it - were concerned about the potential problems of waste water and effluent, lack of water supply, the extra visitor pressure placed on the national park, loss of vegetation and habitat, and the possibility that it would steal the business of existing tourism operators. They were also concerned
that the resort's profits would go offshore, back to the parent company in Japan.
A major concern often expressed by both Island and mainland environmental groups was for the local environment - see the photograph in Figure 5.14 on page 133- The concern was for what would be left of the bushland and the unique plants and animals once the clearing and development actually began. The KI Care Group's Tandanya Working Party wrote a letter to the state government's Native Vegetation Council about this issue as well as about clearance for fire management - see Figure 5-15 on page 133- The State Minister for Environment and Planning then wrote in reply - see Figure 5.16 on pages 133 and 134.
132
INVESTIGATING AN ISSUE
Trish Mooney
C/- Post Office
Kingscote SA 5223
25 June 1992
Chairman
Native Vegetation Council GPO Box 667 Adelaide SA 5000
Dear Sir,
. . . We would like to make the following points. This is a heavily vegetated site on the southeastern boundary of Flinders Chase National Park, in the path of prevailing north-westerly winds, and is therefore extremely vulnerable to bushfire.
We believe that the vegetation clearance necessitated by the Kangaroo Island Bushfire Protection Plan is not covered by exemptions under the regulations of the Native Vegetation Act 1991: and will therefore require specific permission from the Native Vegetation Council.
With reference to the enclosed letter from the Minister for Environment and Planning, we totally reject the notion that the conservation value of the tall-timber (Sugar Gum) habitat is lower than that of the banksia-heath habitat. Both these habitats will be seriously affected by the proposed development.
• The tall-timber habitat has a dense understorey rather than 'little understorey' as stated.
• It will not be possible to 'retain the bulk of the tree canopy'. In fact, only a few Sugar Gums are likely to be left standing at completion of the project. It is inappropriate to build under or near Sugar Gums because
they are very prone to dropping large limbs
according to any variation in air temperature.
● Far from being "well away' from the park boundary, the proposed development directly abuts it.
We do not accept that the proposed site 'is capable, in environmental terms, of sustaining such a use'. We can only conclude that the Minister and her advisers have no familiarity with this site.
We ask that the Native Vegetation Council intervene in this matter by
1 advising the Kingscote District Council that this development contravenes the Native Vegetation Act 1991 and should therefore not, be approved,
2 advising the Minister for Environment and Planning that this development contravenes
3
the Native Vegetation Act 1991,
and further advising the Minister for Environment and Planning that the vegetation clearance necessitated by this development can, be exempted only under the regulations of this Act by the preparation of an Environmental Impact Study [Statement], during the course of which the advice of the Native Vegetation Council is sought, pursuant to section 27 of the Act.
Yours sincerely,
Trish Mooney
For Tandanya Working-Party,"
KT Care Group
Figure 5.15 The letter from the KI Care Group to the state government's Native Vegetation Council (Adapted from the original)
Treasury Building
144 King William Street
Adelaide
13 July 1992
Ms Trish. Mooney KINGSCOTE KI 5223
Dear. Ms Mooney,
Thank you for your letter oh behalf of the Kangaroo Island Care. Group in relation to the future of the Tourist Accommodation Zone, at Tandanya.
Figure 5.l6 continues.
133
TOURISM
Figure 5.16 (continued)
Principles of the Tourist Accommodation Zone require any Development Application to be accompanied by a fife-management plan which has regard to preserving life and property in the locality in the event of wildfire. This principle does hot require mandatory clearance but rather requires a developer to employ a suite of measures to mitigate the effects of wildfire at the site. The Zone also contains, policies designed to retain the tree canopy in the developable area and absolutely protects from clearance the area of High Natural Value adjoining the park. Other principles for the Zone address the issues of water supply and waste disposal in a way that should ensure mat development does not lead to high-impact external effects.
It is considered that Council's initiative in putting in place policies for the Zone will en sure the rational and orderly development of tourist infrastructure in the. area with minimal undesirable impacts.
In this context, any future development proposal which largely complies with the policies for the Zone would hot justify the imposition of an Environmental Impact Statement. However, if any non-complying proposal is lodged with Council, the need for an EIS will be reviewed, depending on the degree to which such a proposal is at variance with the policies for the Zone.
Yours sincerely,
Susan Lenehan,
Minister for Environment and Planning
Figure 5.16 The letter from the Minister for Environment and Planning to the KI Care Group (Adapted from the original)
The area was also of major interest to the country fire service (CFS), which described the Tandanya development as an extreme fire hazard. The CFS therefore agitated for the development to go ahead only after strict requirements had been met, for example clearance of bushland up to 75 metres from some parts of the development - see the letter to the editor' in Figure 5.17.
Changing the rules
The developers had a difficult task in balancing the CFS's requirements for the bushland and meeting the Conservation Act requirements for protection of rare