Views held by the opponents and supporters of the proposed Iandanya development

The development divided the community and prompted the airing of some very conflicting opin­ions among interested individuals and groups, both on the island and in the wider South Australian com­munity. The comments made by the opponents and supporters during 1993 are set out in figures 5.22 to 5.30 on this page and pages 142 and 143.

From the only Kingscote District Council councillor who opposed the development...

The decision on whether the development was to be allowed should have been put to the people - locals should have been able to vote on this issue. The Council should have had a referendum.

Figure 5.22 Comment

From Kingscote District Council's mayor ...

We have an increasing tourist trade on Kanga­roo Island. More than 80,000 visitors are com­ing to the island every year, and we are not really coping with that. By the year 2005 we are expecting double that number. The resort's benefits for the island would be the creation of jobs and the ability to control the visitors. By doing this we will be. preserving the more sen­sitive coastline areas - we will really be keep­ing the tourists under control.

An Environmental Impact Statement was suggested when the proposal was first put for­ward, but the state ministers responsible stated that they had enough information and that an EIS was not required.

When the Supplementary Development Plan for the Tandanya area was put forward, the social; economic and environmental considera­tions were dealt with at the time..

The SDP was scrutinised by the Department of Environment and Planning and they gave the proposed development the 'go ahead’. It is therefore Inappropriate for social and environmental issues to be brought up at this stage of the plan­ning process.

141 Figure 5.23 continues.

T 0 U R 1 S M

Figure 5.23 (continued)

A referendum on this issue is out of the question; there have been many public meet­ings about it. Kangaroo Island has a tourism-development policy, and before this was finalised there were also public meetings. The members of the public were able to express what they wanted for tourism on the island through those meetings. The plans for the Tandanya development have been on display, and the chance for public comment has generally been extensive.

Figure 5.23 Comment (Adapted from the original)

From Kangaroo Island's local botanist...

The proposed Tandanya development will be in the middle of tall trees - Sugar Gums. In the area there are 22 plants, 11 of which are or­chids, and of these there are five that the South Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service lists as protected plant species — they grow nowhere else in the world. They are plants of a particular geographical location. This makes them very interesting and special.

The clearing of the land in order to under­take development, such as the laying of pipes and digging of trenches for sewerage, the con­struction of buildings, plus the clearing itself, which the CFS insists must take place up to 20 metres around all buildings, means that the area will be left with one or two clumps of big trees but no small trees. There will also be a problem of soil compaction from the building operations, which will affect the remaining plants.

Figure 5.24 Comment (Adapted from the original)

From a member of Kangaroo Island's .Western Community Club

There's no point In farming sheep at the moment, so people are trying to supplement their income with anything. We just feel strongly that without this development, Kangaroo Island is going to die. It's hot what will happen to KI with the development; it's what will happen without it.

Figure 5.25 Comment (Adapted from the original)

From the Department of Environment and Planning's planning project officer ...

The government would prefer to see the Tandanya proposal go ahead rather than the proposal put by the previous owners of the land, Paradise Developments, which encompassed a motel and caravan-and-camping facilities for more than 600 people, a swimming pool and restaurants.

The Tandanya proposal is deliberately dif­ferent. It has been conceived as a 'back-to-na­ture experience' comprising cabins for couples, families and school groups, set among existing trees, plus reception and administration build-ingSj conference rooms, a bar and restaurant, and staff quarters. Rainwater will be captured, and stores and effluent will be treated on site. It will be built in stages, with an initial target of 100 beds.

■ ■

Figure 5.26 Comment (Adapted from the original)

From the president of the Kangaroo Island Tourist Association ...

Existing communities should be protected from the vacuum effect of new developments of the magnitude of Tandanya. Tourism should not be at the cost of the local community. I do fear for the bigger tourism operators on the island who have invested a lot of money. We could just lose them.

The only existing operators that would benefit from Tandanya are the ferry and air services - the two groups that don't live on KI.

I am worried that the resort could alter the low-key rural charm of Kangaroo Island.

Americans and Europeans are saying to us, 'For God's sake, don't change it.' If they develop a resort here, they [the visitors] might as well go somewhere else.

Figure 5.27 Comment (Adapted from the original)

From the president of the South Australian National Parks Association …

We seem to be unable to make planning deci­sions and stick with them. The moment money becomes available, it is sufficient to overthrow sensible and careful plans for the region.

Figure 5.28 Comment

142

INVESTIGATING AN ISSUE

From a Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union unionist.

We have written a letter to the state government asking them to stick to their existing policy and to have an Environmental Impact Study [Statement] completed for the area. We also want the government to adhere to the Conservation Act as it applies to threatened species. If they don't undertake to do these things, there will be no building by our unionists within the de­velopment area.

Figure 5.29 Comment (Adapted from the original)

From three spokespersons for a Kangaroo Island environment group ...

First person, commenting on the proposed state government changes to the Conservation Act:

Our organisation is concerned because we say, ‘Why have an Act, when some development pro­posal finds difficulty getting around it, so you change it; that's pointless.

We are fighting a rear-guard action, because at every stage that we have called for an Environmental Impact Study [Statement] it has been completely ignored.

Second person

Development should stand on its own merits,

not be manipulated through government departments. Tourism SA has jumped on the band­wagon. It's had an increase in budget, and it's empire building. Tourism SA's annual budget was increased 10 per cent for 1991-92, to $17.4 million. A $200,000 project to improve Kanga­roo Island's South. Coast Road was one of only two new tourism projects funded by the state government in 1992.

Third, person:

The site was sold at ah exorbitant profit for Paradise, and they [System One ] thought they were buying a plan with approval: That's why Tourism SA are fighting desperately to get it through.

The developers came here and bought this pup. If Tandanya has 220 beds and is occupied 50 per cent for the year, that is adding more than 30,000 visitors a year to the island. We have 90,000 visitors now and can't cope with them. In 1988, I was at Seal Bay filming the seals. We could have touched the seals; now barriers are up to protect them from the huge number of tourists.

Activity 4

In order to undertake a thorough investigation of the Tandanya issue, work through the full list of issues questions a to q as follows. Use

• the sections of text and figures 5.4 to 5.19 on pages 126 to 135

• the additional information included in Table 5.3 and figures 5.20 to 5-32 on pages 139 to 145 (for issues questions d, g, i and j).