Islanders dispute claim that Council acted in Island's interests

Dear Editor,

Many Islanders will remember the wildfire that swept through the Tandanya area in 1958 caused by lightning strike. The Lands .Department (the South Australian government department) diverted all its then considerable resources of bulldozers, heavy equipment and men, to doze a massive fire break well ahead of the fire's path, to stop it. The area is a fire trap.

Merle Downing, Kingscote

Figure 5.17 The 'letter to the editor' claiming that the Tandanya area is afire trap (Extracted from the Islander, Kangaroo Island, 25 February 1992)

plant species. Most people who had anything to do with the proposal believed that the developers could not adequately meet both requirements. As a result, the state government considered changing the Con­servation Act in order to allow the development to go ahead.

As far as the Kingscote District Council was con­cerned, the proposal was clear cut: the development should have gone ahead. For a development proposal of this size, an Environmental Impact Statement is usually required. In the case of the Tandanya devel­opment, however, the state government did not insist on one, nor did the Kingscote District Council intend for one to be prepared.

Who is involved in the issue?

What alternatives decisions can be made?

At a January 1993 meeting of the Kingscote District Council, when discussing the proposal the mayor asked the councillors to consider only the develop­ment's planning aspects, not its social, economic and environmental implications.

Many of the island's permanent residents, par­ticularly those at the eastern end, were critical of the proposal. They viewed it as either being located on an incorrect site or as being too big or not helping to solve the island's unemployment problems. They were

134

INVESTIGATING AN ISSUE

also very critical of the way in which the whole issue was handled, particularly by the Council and the state government. Some Islanders pointed out that they were not given the opportunity to vote on the issue and that contrary to what is often stated, the island's economy does not benefit from the hosting of tour­ists, because the tourists bring all their food and other holiday requirements from the mainland.

A polling of opinions

On the federal election day of 13 March 1993, the Tandanya Working Party informally asked the island's residents for their opinions on the issue as they left the polling stations. The result was 470 for the Tandanya development and 1279 against it - almost three to one against. Other people pointed out that the Tandanya proposal went outside the guidelines set out in the 1991 Kangaroo Island Tourism Policy document - see the maps in figures 5.7 and 5.8 on page 128. They stated that the Tandanya develop­ment could not be considered to be a 'low-impact nature-retreat node' as referred to in the extract in Figure 5.9 on page 129 entitled 'Cape Borda (Area 8)'.

Submissions and a petition

Public opinion on and interest in the issue was very strong, and many groups and individuals made sub­missions to the government about the Tourist Accom­modation (Tandanya) Zone Supplementary Development Plan - see the notice in Figure 5-18 and Table 5-2 on pages 136 to 138. A petition highlighting opposition to the proposal also illustrated the high level of interest in the issue - see Figure 5.19-

PLANNING ACT 1982

Tourist Accommodation (Tandanya) Zone Sup­plementary Development Plan— Draft for Pub­lic Exhibition

Notice is hereby given that pursuant to section 41 (2)(i) of the Planning Act 1982, as amended, a draft Supplementary Development Plan has been prepared to amend the Develop­ment Plan as it affects the district council of Kingscote.

The Supplementary Development Plan enti­tled Tourist Accommodation (Tandanya) Zone will amend the Development Plan as follows: Rezone allotment 1 of section 14, hundred of McDonald, C. T. 4272/809, from 'General Farm­ing' to 'Tourist Accommodation (Tandanya). Zone are stated the policies of the Tourist Accommoda­tion (Tandanya) Zone are stated in the draft Supplementary Development Plan.

Copies of the Supplementary' Development Plan and Statement pursuant to section 41(1) of the Act will be available for public inspec­tion from Thursday, 5 September 1991 until Friday, 1 November 1991, during usual office hours at the council' office, Dauncey Street, Kingscote, and the Department of Environment and Planning, 55 Grenfell Street, Adelaide. Cop­ies of the draft Supplementary plan are avail­able for purchase at the council office for a fee of $5.

B.C. Hurst,

Chief Executive Officer

Figure 5.18 Notice (Extracted from the South Australian Government Gazette, 5 September 1991)

PETITION

On the Honourable the Members of the House

of Assembly

We feel that a community consensus has to be reached on Kangaroo Island to the effect that large tourist resorts be kept to the existing town pre­cincts, and so we express dissatisfaction with the concept of large-scale development at Tandanya as envisaged by the present owners, comprising an administration building, three restaurants and bars, 160 self-contained cabins for accommodating^: 480 persons, two managers" residences, a forty-unit staff-accommodation building, recreational facilities, plus related infrastructure.

We believe that the scale of the project is inap­propriate to its location and that this would seri­ously compromise the. pristine environment of its locality and the natural heritage of Kangaroo Is­land.

Your petitioners therefore pray that your Hon­ourable House will take action to ensure that the " Tandanya proposal adjacent to Flinders Chase Na­tional Park be limited iriorder to permit only small-scale, low-density development or be moved to an appropriate location.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Figure 5.19 The petition to the South Australian Parliament (Extracted from the original)

135

TOURISM

T able 5-2 Eight examples of submissions made on the Tourist Accommodation (Tandanya) Zone following public exhibition of the proposal (See note to table on page 138 before reading the table.)

The submission's author

A summary of the submission

Comments made by the Kingscote District Council's planning consultants

1 A private person 1 Support SDP [Supplementary Development Plan], aware that there is limited accommodation available on the western side of Kangaroo Island [Kl], and believe there is a clear case for more accommodation on the western side.

2. The Tandanya development will create permanent employment and will improve the island's economy.

3. Believe the proposed development scheme is superior to the previously approved scheme.

4. Suggest the zone be referred to as a Tourist Development Zone' to allow Council to consider applications for other tourist-infrastructure developments such as interpretive centres.

1 Confirmed by Kl Tourism Strategy Plan.

2 Agree.

3. Noted.

4. Given that the proposed Regulation 38 amendment refers to a Tourist Accommodation Zone, the SDP zone name should be the same.

3. The Engineering and Water Supply Department

4. Private persons

7 Tourism South Australia

0251

1 No objections to the SDP. Comment made that it is Council's responsibility to set minimui standards for private water-supply and effluent disposal schemes.

1 The SDP does not limit the size of any development within the zone.

2. Request that any development of the site be subject to an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) addressing the following: • Waste management • Water supply • Bushfire protection • Electricity supply • Impact on flora and fauna • Effect on nearby attractions • Impact on local community

3. Oppose the SDP because it has not properly addressed the impact of a large-scale development in the area.

1 Support the SDP because it reflects policies and principles contained in the Kl Tourism Policy and SA Tourism Plan 1991-93. The Kl Tourism Policy has been derived from a program of consultation with the community, local government and relevant government agencies. The objectives and principles of development control contained in the SDP are consistent with the desired character of Kl, as identified in the Tourism Policy. It was identified in the Policy that provision be made for one low-impact nature-retreat-holiday-village node outside of the Flinders Chase National Park in this area to alleviate the necessity for rushed daytrips.

be

1 Noted. Any development application lodged wil required to have an appropriate potable water-supply and effluent-disposal scheme.

1. Noted. It is possible that a maximum number of people to be accommodated within the zone at any one time will be imposed within the SDP. (The maximum number that the Supreme Court approval scheme enables was a capacity of 610 persons to be accommodated on site.)

2. Only the Minister for Planning has the power to request an EIS for particular developments. The SDPwill set the principles on which a development will be assessed. The SDP zones land as suitable, in land-use terms, for the site. Details of impacts for a specific proposal will be dealt with at the application stage.

3. Refer to 3.1 above.

1 Noted. Points raised are consistent with the SDP.

136

INVESTIGATING AN

ISSUE

The submission's author

A summary of the submission

Comments made by the Kingscote District Council's planning consultants

K angaroo Island Ecoaction

23 The Conservation Council of South (Mrs J. Rose, Vice-President)

101 The St Agnes Bushwalking and Natural Historic Club

2 It would be more appropriate if the zone was called a Tourist Development Zone'.

1. Oppose the SDP; it does not place a size limit on development.

2. There are no conditions that ensure that the development proceeds with minimal environmental disturbance.

3 Suggest an EIS be prepared in order to establish suitable size of development and to address water supply, waste management, bushfire protection, electricity supply, effect on natural attractions and impact on flora and fauna. Oppose the SDP unless these conditions are met.

1. Opposed to the rezoning; supportive of the submission submitted by the Nature Australia Conservation Society of South Australia and the general thrust of the submission from Dr Brian Goble and Associates.

2. A medium or large tourist centre near Flinders Chase National Park would greatly increase the number of visitors to the park, which could be seriously damaging.

3. The development will involve severe alteration to the natural ecosystem and will lead to native-species loss within the site and its immediate surroundings.

4. A large-scale tourist resort is not a suitable land use anywhere on Kl.

5. No plan is included to protect and financially assist national parks and conservation reserves.

6. No study undertaken of the impact of road sealing on the number of animals killed by speeding vehicles on the roads. Urge strict speed restrictions be imposed.

7. Water is a serious concern and does not appear to have been adequately addressed. Drawing large amounts of water from bores could affect the water table.

8. Believe the site, with the exception of the already cleared area, should be called 'Conservation Area/Zone'.

1 Concerned at proposed rezoning and object to these changes. Flinders Chase is one of the last wilderness areas remaining in SA. To allow a large tourist development at the gate of the park will seriously endanger much of the wilderness

2 Refer to 1.4 above.

1. Refer to 3.1 above.

1. The National Parks and Wildlife Service confirms management, not numbers, as the key issue. Opportunity for increased business within towns. Opportunity for tourism management arises from development on western side of Kl.

2. Refer to 3.2 above. Size would be restrained by water supply. These matters would be addressed in an application.

1 Noted.

2. Opportunity for better management exists with NPWS [National Parks and Wildlife Service] co­operation.

3. Some vegetation loss within the Tourist Accommodation Zone expected.

4. The SDP does not propose a development; it sets the control framework.

5. Not the role of the SDP

6. Roads will continue to be used irrespective of the SDP.

7 The SDP is not a proposal. An application will have to address adequate water provision.

8 Current wording.agreed with at the Department of Environment and Planning [DEP] and is considered appropriate.

1 SDP, not change by itself. A development on the site will permit better management and control of visitors.

Table 5-2 continues.

137

TOURISM

T able 5-2 (continued)

The submission's author

A summary of the submission

Comments made by the Kingscote District Council's planning consultants

102 The National Parks and Wildlife Service [NPWS]

2. Concerns relate to site vegetation, water supply, waste disposal and electricity.

3. Western side of Kl is not suitable for any type of large development, particularly not (or the wilderness-lodge concept, which does not appear to cater for people on limited budgets or for campers.

4. A levy per visitor should be built into the development in order to fund the underfunded national parks and conservation parks.

1. Flinders Chase National Park is experiencing increased patronage anyway, and the Tandanya proposal may provide a further increase. It is not the visitor numbers that cause an impact but the management measures that are taken in order to cope with increased numbers.

2. User-pays policies ensure that necessary services are provided for increased visiter numbers. 'More visitors' equates with 'better services'.

3. Level of local employment within the parks is related to visitor-included revenue.

4. NPWS has long recognised the need for improved accommodation facilities on the western side of Kl. Rocky River is considered to be superior in terms of location, but given lack of action there, Tandanya could provide an alternative and the two sites complement each other rather than compete. This would also limit scale of development at both locations.

2 The SOP provides control principles; a future

development proposal has to comply with them.

3 The SDP is not a development proposal.

4 Not able to implement this in an SDP.

1 Noted.

2. Noted. The SDP has no control over park revenues.

3. Noted.

4 Noted; supportive comment.

N ote to table. During 1991, in order to prepare the way for a possible tourist development in Kangaroo Island's Tandanya area, a Supplementary Development Plan (an SDP) was prepared. This was done in order to change the existing development plan affecting the Kingscote District Council (Shire) area. The proposed Tandanya tourist development was located in the Kingscote District Council area. By the lime the allowable period for submissions from interested individuals, organisations and groups had expired - 5 p.m. on Friday, 1 November 1991,102 responses had been received. Of these, 71 were against the changes to the SDP and 31 for them.

Activity 3

Refer to Table 5.2 on pages 136 and 13~ and this page and answer questions a to d as fol­lows.

Questions

a For the eight sample submissions, identify the type of person or group making the submission, for example 'Government de­partment'.

b List the submissions for the proposal and those against it, in two separate lists.

c By selecting each submission's key words and phrases, identify its main points.

d i Compare the conditions set by the

Kingscote District Council's planning consultants with the key words and phrases you have identified in question c: are the conditions generally helpful?

ii

If the conditions are helpful, state why they are, and if they are not, state why they are not.

The situation now

One of the many groups interested in the issue was the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Un­ion, which threatened to place a 'green ban' on the Tandanya development. The obstacles faced by the South Australian state government over the proposed development have been described as a minefield of

138

INVESTIGATING AN ISSUE

Year

e nvironmental concerns that are practically insur­mountable. System One. the Japanese development company that proposed the project, was to have it completed and operating by 1997. At the time of writing (1995) this seemed highly unlikely, with the site being sold to an Australian developer.

Additional information

The following table and figures provide additional information about the Tandanya issue and should be read and referred to before you undertake Activity 4 on page 143. The information is listed as follows.

●Table 5.3, the history of the development, on this

page and page 140

●Figure 5.20, the notice stating the KI Care Group's

objective and aims, on page 140

●Figure 5.21, the project architect's 'letter to the

editor', on pages 140 and 141

●Figures 5.22 to 5.30, the comments made by the

development's opponents and supporters, on

pages 141 to 143

●Figure 5.31, the aerial photograph of the proposed

development's site, on page 144

●Figure 5.32, the topographic map extract of the

area, on page 145

Table 5.3 The history of the Tandanya development

Year

A ction

1 988

Paradise Developments' plan was released, based on 46 hectares of land it had purchased at Tandanya.

15 December 1988 The Kingscote District Council gave the plan an affirmative vote.

21 December 1989 The South Australian Planning Appeals Tribunal upheld an appeal against the development.

12 June 1990 The appeal was overturned on points of law.

27 February 1991 System One Co. Ltd purchased the land, including Paradise Developments' land, and planning approval.

April 1991 Release of Kangaroo Island Tourism Policy

by Kangaroo Island Tourism Working Party (a committee of local residents and representatives of local council, state government, the tourism industry and conservation groups). The study for the policy was carried out by PPK Planning.

8 August 1991 A public meeting organised by the K! Care Group revealed that the Kangaroo Island

Action

c ommunity held very strong views about the Tandanya development.

5 September 1991 The Kingscote District Council released a Supplementary Development Plan (an SDP) compiled by its planning consultants, for the purpose of changing the zone from a 'General Farming Zone' to a 'Tourist Accommodation Zone'. (Local environmentalists claim that the zone had been incorrectly called a 'General Farming Zone' and was more correctly a 'Native Vegetation (Conservation) Zone'.)

October 1991 The South Australian Department of

Environment and Planning indicated that System One would not be proceeding with Paradise Developments' planning approval.

1 November 1991 Kingscote District Council received 102 submissions about the fact that the SDP was intended to change the existing development plan for the district-council area in order to accommodate the proposed Tandanya development.

1992 A petition about the proposed Tandanya

development was circulated in the South Australian community.

June 1992 The Tandanya Working Party of the KI Care

Group called for the State Minister for Environment and Planning to order the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (an EIS) on the vegetation clearance necessitated for the Tourist Accommodation (Tandanya) Zone.

December 1992 A Country Fire Service (CFS) report

submitted to the Kingscote District Council stated, 'The proposed development is an area of extreme fire hazard. The roads are flanked by dense scrub and unsuitable as escape routes from bushfires. No nearby area is suitable for fire refuge.'

13 January 1993 The Kingscote District Council gave

preliminary planning approval to the 267-bed tourist resort, to be constructed adjacent to Flinders Chase National Park, on the western side of the island. Planning approval was subjected to the meeting of twenty-four conditions.

Table 5.3 continues.

T 0 U R 1 S M

Table 5-3 (continued)

Y ear

A ction

13 March 1993 The Tandanya Working Party conducted an informal poll on the island on federal election day. Almost three to one, respondents were against the project.

Early 1993 The Kingscote District Council approached

the state government to change the regulations within the Native Vegetation Act 1991 in order to permit the vegetation clearance at Tandanya that the Country Fire Service had recommended.

May 1993 Union 'green bans' were placed on the

proposed Tandanya development. The Building Trades Federation; the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, and the Maritime Union, all refused to work on or for the site until the state government initiated an EIS.

June 1993 The Nature Conservation Society of South

Australia spoke out in favour of unions bans and the need for the state government to prepare an EIS.

1994 System One executives became more

aware of the proposed site's unique flora and potential fire hazard. The Country Fire Service, the Department of Environment and Planning and members of the conservation movement continually emphasised the fire-hazard aspect because of the development's adjacency to the eastern edge of Flinders Chase National Park.

1994-95 The state government apparently considered

alternatives to the Tandanya development, for example • encouraging System One to develop a site further from Flinders Chase that is less fire prone and has no unique flora • undertaking a smaller development itself at Rocky River within Flinders Chase that would permit more careful control of tourism.

1995-96 The Tandanya site is sold to an Australian

developer who plans to turn the site into a nature retreat.

1996 The Kangaroo Island Tourism Policy is no

longer the South Australian Government's tourism plan for Kangaroo Island, it is superseded by the Sustainable Development Strategy.

From the KI Care Group…

Group objective

To preserve and protect our natural heritage

Group aims

1. To bring to the public's attention informa­tion about proposed developments and their impact on Kangaroo Island.

2. To promote developments that are compat­ible with our objective

3. To oppose developments that are not com­patible with our objective

Figure 5.20 Notice: the KI Care Group's objective and aims (Adapted from the original)

Dear Editor,

I write as the architect for the, proposed Tandanya development.

The System One company purchased the land and planning approval from Paradise Developments Pty Ltd for a tourism-related development that included cabin- and dormitory-style accommodation, camping facilities and an upgraded stores - and - fuel outlet. That scheme accommodated 600 persons plus management staff.

The new owners have questioned the suit­ability of the sitings and style of the original development. It is the intent of the new owners to develop a 'resort' that will accommo­date approximately 480 persons in individual-cabins, designed in a manner that most suits the physical constraints of the site . . .

Cost of the development

The increase in budget estimate from $13 mil­lion to $35 million does not reflect a propor­tional increase in guest numbers. The most recent estimate has been based on fewer people than is allowed under the existing approval.

Degradation of the national park

The System One company is intending to pro­vide interpretive facilities in the resort in order to explain the park's role to guests… System One is in consultation with various branches of the Department of Environment and Planning in order to ensure that the adjoining habitats are protected.

Numbers of people

… 480 persons would be accommodated ori

the site in-cabin-style accommodation. It is not

140

INVESTIGATING AN ISSUE

intended to provide camping or caravan facili­ties in the development, because those facilities are often the most difficult to manage and to maintain in an attractive condition.

Waste disposal

Liquid waste will be treated onsite, and the treated effluent water will possibly be used for irrigation purposes. Several sites are being con­sidered for the effluent-settlement ponds, but the most favoured is an area on adjacent farm­land that has been used as a gravel pit and has little natural value.

It is intended that solid waste be carted away from the site and disposed of in one of the ex­isting approved town rubbish dumps.

Water supply

Studies into the water supply have not been finalised, but initial investigations indicate that the major water supply (70 to 80 per cent) will be from rainwater caught and stored onsite.

Investigations of surrounding properties in­dicate that ample bore water is available to sup­plement the rainwater, although some desalination treatment may be necessary.

Population shift

There is a clearly defined and existing heed for accommodation on the western side of the is­land. Projections show that growth in the num­bers of people visiting the island is expected to continue …

It is important that new facilities be pro­vided to cater for the expected growth in visi­tors and that existing facilities be upgraded in order to meet the, visitors' expectations.

As well as a permanent workforce of 50 people, the development will benefit tour op­erators, local food suppliers, transport compa­nies and a whole range of interrelated industries on the island.

The project's success lies in the island peo­ple's acceptance and support and in belief in the mutual benefits that will flow from the project.

David P. Dawson,

Architect for Nelson Dawson & Associates Pty

Ltd

Figure 5.21 The project architect's 'letter to the editor' (Adapted from the Islander, Kangaroo Island, 8 August 1991)