Kamay Ferry Wharves

Reference:
Appendix I Biodiversity Development Assessment Report of the Kamay Ferry Wharves Project. A2 Fauna Schedule
My comments
Looking through the 200+ page appendix, it is not possible to pin down the person(s) who did the Biodiversity Development Assessment Report (nsw.gov.au). My submission is about pages A6 and A7.
I wish to point out that the list of birds at La Perouse is grossly deficient.
I am not familiar with Kurnell, but I am with La Perouse. As a bird-watcher and photographer, I visit La Perouse regularly. I have been doing so for many years.
In the list, the column for La Perouse birds is mostly empty. I beg to differ. I have observed and photographed Australian Raven, Australian White Ibis, Masked Lapwing, Pied Currawong, Silver Gull, Sulphur crested cockatoo, Superb Fairy Wren.
Further, the list does not even mention the names of other birds I have observed at La Perouse. These include the Great Cormorant, Little Black Cormorant, Little Pied Cormorant, Gannet, Nankeen Kestrel, and Kelp Gull.
A quick check with eBird Australia reveals there are 72 species observed at La Perouse recently. La Perouse, Randwick, NSW, AU - eBird Hotspot The actual list could be much larger.
Conclusion
Your unnamed researcher(s) appears to have missed 63 of the 72 bird species that are residents, or frequent visitors, of La Perouse.

Action
May I request that a consultation with Birding NSW be held, before the project is approved and any building action starts.

Please accept the following as my Submission re Kamay Ferry Wharves – SSI-10049

Dear Director,

I object to the Kamay Ferry Project

The current size and design of the La Perouse wharf will see a commercial wharf dominate the bay, change the atmosphere of La Perouse and ruin visitors and beach user’s enjoyment. This appears to be a trojan horse for commercial use such as the cruise industry
The inclusion of an additional commercial wharf could have huge future commercial implications.

It fails to address the impact of storms on the infrastructure that has seen previous attempts destroyed- we are now at a time when storms will only intensify

The Environmental Impact Statement doesn’t address all the criteria in the Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements regarding identifying key issues and addressing them and, avoiding and minimising impacts on the environment and on the community. It does not address issues regarding the Commercial wharf usage and impacts this will have on La Perouse.



WHARF SIZE

The project is a massive overdevelopment. The wharf size at La Perouse is inappropriate as it will dominate the whole of the La Perouse peninsular and Frenchman’s beach. It will go 180m out across the bay and has a 40mx10m wharf head at the end (this is to replace the previous wharf that was 30m long with no wharf head). The roofed waiting area at the end of the wharf is bulky and the wharf is also much higher from the water than the old wharf. This is not just about a ferry service it is on a different scale entirely. It will be at least 7 times the size of the old wharf with allowance for massive ferries up to 40m long using it.

FRENCHMAN'S BEACH IMPACTED

There will be a huge impact on the beach and those using water craft. The wharf will tower over the beach and will ruin views from the beach over the headland and bay. It will feel like you are swimming in a semi enclosed industrial harbour not in a beautiful open bay. There will be noise from ferries and commercial vessels including revving engines, loudspeakers and vessel horns and possible pollution from oil spillage, rubbish and water clarity will be decreased from propeller jets disturbing the sea bed. Kayakers, people in small tinnies, windsurfers etc will all be affected by the wharf and the restrictions surrounding it.

UNIQUE CHARACTER OF LA PEROUSE RUINED

La Perouse headland currently has fabulous unobscured views over Botany Bay and its historic buildings are set within a scenic landscape. People can relax, picnic, go to the beach, go on walks around the headland, or enjoy water sports. It is a place to escape the hustle of the city. La Perouse will be ruined by this huge wharf and all the commercial activity it will attract. La Perouse will become a busy, noisy transport hub.

TRAFFIC AND PARKING CONSIDERATIONS

Parking and traffic congestion problems at La Perouse are already bad on weekends in the height of summer and these will become worse as a result of the ferry wharf. The additional parking being provided is only 13 extra spaces which is clearly not enough. They have stated that because there are already parking and traffic problems at La Perouse somehow that means the ferry won’t make it worse! Introducing a development such as this without appropriate traffic , parking and mass transit solutions is a recipe for disaster, including for access by emergency services.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

There will be damage to Endangered seagrass beds and the Endangered Whites seahorse that is found around the La Perouse peninsular due to the 13 month piling operations. Although they have said there will be an offset strategy this may not be enough to save the seahorse which are sensitive to change of habitat and water quality.

PURPOSE/FINANCIAL VIABILITY

The project will cost $17million to improve access and increase visitor numbers to the Kamay National park in Kurnell. We do not know how much the ongoing maintenance, or operational costs will be as the private operator ‘may be subsidised’ by the government. As it is a public project taxpayers have a right to know some of these details. The project was originally meant to commemorate the 250th anniversary of Cooks arrival in Australia, an event now over.

CRUISE TERMINAL CONCERNS

When it was asked in the consultation sessions whether this had anything to do with the Cruise ship terminal it was stated that ‘The project is independent of, and separate to any development proposal for a cruise terminal’. Unfortunately, this means nothing, we know already it is not directly part of the Cruise Ship project, but what the Government don’t and won’t tell us is that it won’t be used or extended to include usage by a cruise ship terminal in the future. Sadly, it feels like the first step to the Cruise Ship Terminal project.

This project lacks transparency and public accountability and should be rejected

I am a local to the La Perouse area and have lived here for 35 years. I swim and snorkel and walk in the area and can see the negative impact this will have on the area. I strongly object to a very large Ferry wharf being built and used at La Perouse. It will destroy more of Botany Bay, it will create gridlock around both La Perouse and Kurnell, during summer La Perouse is usually packed with visitors and traffic is gridlocked. Fishing, diving, sailing and swimming will all be impacted by the ferry’s being used for 12 hours of the day. We will have even more pollution and noise in the area. Digging up Botany Bay to install the pylons will kill more of the natural habitat of the area. Transport to the La Perouse is already dismal and especially with covid which is here for many years to come, many people would want to drive to the area.
Who is making money out of this besides the Cruise industry which I believe will be the only winners, certainly the aboriginal community will not gain out of this. There is an aboriginal community at La Perouse being blindsided by this project, they will have more people invading their area. Also the Ferry’s will be going straight out over the recognised fishing grounds.
Your project is ludicrous and should be stopped immediately.

I object to the Kamay Ferry Wharves project
I like to swim & snorkel at Frenchmans beach as it has excellent visibility for swimming & snorkelling around the rocky headland & at Bare island. Lots of kayaks, small tinnies & windsurfers can safely use the area as no commercial vessels currently operate here. My response refers only to the wharf & impacts at La Perouse.

I believe the EIS fails to meet General & Key Issue Desired Performance Outcome Requirements under SEARs in multiple instances as detailed below. Text in bold shows SEARs that appear to have been met in a superficial or tokenistic way & not met in a meaningful way. Text in italics shows General (G) or Key Issue (K) & the related SEARs paragraph number which it applies.

Massive project size overdevelopment & inappropriate
The primary purpose is ‘Reinstating’ the ferry service between La Perouse & Kurnell & ‘Improving Visitor Numbers & Access’ to Kamay NP. The proposed wharf at La Perouse is over 7 times the size of previous wharf. It goes 180m out into the bay, has a huge 40mx10m wharf head at the end & will be 4m off the water. It is not clear why it needs to be built to this scale & why it would need ferries up to 40m long taking 522 people. The community has not had G2.0 Sufficient Detail for a G2.0 Clear Understanding of reasons for its size. Reasons provided are not elaborated on & do not support stated purpose. It is massively larger than wharves at Bundeena & Pittwater which provide a similar service to the one proposed.

The proposed wharf at La Perouse is not K4.2(e) Fit for Purpose as it is a huge overdevelopment for‘Reinstating’ previous ferry service; it does not K4.2(a) Fit Contextually as the immense structure dominates beach, bay & peninsular at La Perouse. Its urban design of concrete & steel is at odds with the natural environment, the historic buildings & K7.0 Heritage Significance of La Perouse headland; it does not K4.2(f) Create & Add Value to La Perouse, instead it will negatively impact and overcommercialise La Perouse; it does not K4.0 Enhance the Environment in terms of K4.3(a) Public Space or K4.3(c) Views & Vistas including those involving K7.2(c) Heritage Significance landscapes & vistas, instead it significantly detracts from the beach aspect & the historic & natural environment of La Perouse headland & does significant harm to views & vistas. Part of the charm of La Perouse is its open unobscured views over the bay. It is not therefore K4.0 Well Designed.

There is little attempt to provide a design to G2.1(j) Minimise or Avoid Impacts or to provide G2.0 Least Adverse Environmental Impacts. There was no analysis of G2.1(e) Feasible Alternatives such as a shorter wharf or G2.1(h) Different Construction Methods such as a more traditional wooden structure. The two designs presented were virtually the same. The K4.5 Provision of Visual representations from Key Locations was very limited & the representations that were presented were misleading. Photos were taken to misrepresent impact were taken when Council building works were taking place to suggest an extremely unattractive beach & were taken from extreme viewing angles to deemphasize size & unrealistically suggest minimal impact to Frenchmans beach aspect. There should have been multiple visual representations from different spots on the beach with those spots marked clearly on a map. There should have also been photos of Frenchmans beach during the summer months when the beach is packed (eg Feb 2nd when traffic study done) to truly represent usage & loss.

In the G4.0 Consultation process document feedback records that important aesthetics to the community were that a wharf should be ‘small’; ‘sympathetic to the area’; ‘not modern’ & ‘reflect Heritage of the area’. The design did not appear in any way to be G4.1 Informed by Consultation or to be G2.0 Iterative process suggesting the Consultation process is neither G4.0 Meaningful nor G4.0 Effective.

Commercial wharf – Usage & Impacts not included in EIS
The implications & impacts of commercial wharf usage should be extensively analysed so the proposal meets SEARs as this aspect will have the largest & most significant future impact on La Perouse & directly results from the project. The commercial wharf is included under ‘Purpose’ & ‘Objectives’ & mentioned but not clearly G3.2(c) Identified or Described & future K7.0 Operational Impacts are not G3.2(c)Identified or Quantified. Mention of commercial usage has been avoided throughout the EIS to a level that it appears it is being deliberately hidden. This goes against SEARs to present all G3.0 Key Issue Impacts to ensure issues are G3.0 Assessed Objectively & to G2.0 Provide Sufficient Detail for G2.0 Clear Understanding of the Impacts 3.2(c) including Cumulative Impacts. It is not G1.0 Transparent & G1.0 Balanced. Questions were avoided in G4.0 Consultation which doesn’t meet G2.0 Iterative Process requirements.

In 2016 Transport NSW informed the media that the proposed wharves may become part of a wider commercial ferry network to include Hayes Dock in Port Botany which is the nominated interim solution for cruise ships to berth before a permanent solution is reached. When repeatedly asked at consultation about this possible future cumulative impact of commercialisation we were told that Hayes Dock may be where the ferries are serviced or kept at night. NSW Ports has denied both. In the EIS it said ‘the project is independent of, & separate to, any other infrastructure or development proposals for Botany Bay or wider locality including the cruise terminal proposal’. We knew this, but what we wanted confirmed or denied was whether it could later be used for this purpose. This does not appear to be a G1.0 Transparent response or G3.0 Provide confidence to the public that the project is considering Key Issues impacts K10.2(a) By the operation or future G3.2(c) Cumulative impacts to ensure that it will be G3.0 Operated within acceptable levels of impact.

It was repeatedly asked if the wharf would be used for Cruise ship tenders, this question was avoided with a pretence of misunderstanding ‘The location & design of the wharves would not be able to accommodate cruise ships’. This was not G4.0 Meaningful & effective engagement it was a disrespectful response dodging the question.

Effects on community including visitors & residents not appropriately considered.
The project design does not K8.0 minimise adverse social impacts. Impacts are substantial on all recreational usage. The project does not K8.0 achieve appropriate integration with adjoining land uses as it will dominate the beach & headland. It does not consider the K8.3 & K8.5 potential disruption & restrictions on the recreational uses & users. Thousands of Sydneysiders use Frenchmans beach every day in summer & they will be hugely negatively impacted. Instead of looking from the beach across the bay or at the headland they will now look at a massive urban wharf which will semi enclose the beach. Noise from vessels & PA systems, sediment disturbance, & possible rubbish/oil spillage pollution will make it like swimming in a closed harbour environment than swimming in a delightful open bay. Issues are superficially addressed.

Table5 AppendixD shows the consultation process is flawed & hasn’t reached the largest of all community/stakeholder groups as ‘beach users’ are not represented as recreational user respondents. It would have been easy to at least inform beach users if noticeboards had been erected at the 3 access points to Frenchmans beach. Again this does not meet with requirements G4.1 for the project to be informed by consultation with special interest groups & the community.

There will be substantial rather than minimal K8.0 displacement of existing water based activities for beach users. There seems to have been little consideration given to K8.2(a) how potential environmental changes in the locality may affect the community or to recognize K8.2(e) how different groups may be disproportionately affected ie stakeholders like the kitesurfing/foilboarding as it will be impossible to get safely back to the launch beach in certain wind conditions. There is no acknowledgment of the impact or on-going safety of small watercraft, kayakers, windsurfers etc operating amidst large commercial boats. Kiteboarding, & kayaking communities do not appear to have been contacted or made aware of this project even though they are easily accessed via facebook sites/their associations.

Traffic & Parking impacts
K10.2.0 Efficiency of the transport system (inc parking) managed to minimise impacts. Parking & traffic concerns are being insufficiently addressed/managed. Feasability study said 86 new parking bays needed at La but EIS says only 13 which seems inadequate & no explanation has been provided why this has dropped. K10.2 land-based & maritime-based assessments .. of traffic impacts, inc a)traffic generated by the operation of the project b)volume & type of vessels inc commercial expected to use infrastructure on weekdays, weekends & public holidays c)hours of operation d)car parking Studies for traffic & parking at La Perouse were conducted on Sunday 2nd February, one of the busiest days of the year, a hot Sunday in summer. Inevitably, traffic & parking was at its peak usage resulting in parking & traffic issues being observed. The study then absolves the proponent of responsibility claiming legacy parking & traffic issues which the project would not resolve or add to. Clearly any additional need would create extra pressure on the system during these times & at other times so it is irresponsible & dishonest to avoid responsibility for traffic or parking issues & provide just 13 new bays. There is an admission that traffic may be frustrating for users but responsibility for any additional traffic is absolved by implying there will be no additional traffic and people will merely perceive residual impacts

The comments are to ensure the project fulfills expectations and long-term active transport needs. Conditions may need to be set to achieve good outcomes
I strongly support the reinstatement of pedestrian and bicycle ferry service between La Perouse and Kurnell. This link means much better walking and cycling access to the Kurnell Peninsula and the Cronulla area as well as round-trip rides around Botany Bay.
Transport for New South Wales will need to ensure that all ferries and wharves are designed to accommodate family bicycles, trishaws, and other large cargo type bicycles so that all cyclists (including families) can take advantage of the new ferry service.
The Trishaw mentioned are an e-bike type BIKEast serves under the Cycling Without Age Australia Program (see link below my signature and attachment).
The NSW Government and Randwick Council need to work together to expedite the implementation of the proposed Anzac Cycleway from Maroubra to La Perouse to ensure access to the ferry for all type of bike riders.
I am very much looking forward to the integration of this new ferry service within a connected active transport network throughout the eastern suburbs and around Botany Bay.
Kind regards-
Adrian Boss
BIKEast's:
Coordinator Projects;
Community Captain CWAA Sydney Chapter; and
Riders Leader
0407 005 574
====================
W: http://www.bikeast.org.au/
CWAA - Sydney Program: https://www.bikeast.org.au/cwa/

This project is a poor attempt to create a useless tourist trap. If is aimed as preliminary support to the Governments expected implementation of the Yarra Bay Cruise Ship Terminal. Pre Covid outbreak, the Government expected the terminal to be well into planning stage. Any shipping development in Yarra Bay will be environmentally destructive. I do not support this project.

1. I have read the EIS and have grave concerns for the flora and fauna in the vicinity of the area. There appears to be a belief that the many species listed in the report are only found outside the construction zone. It seems strange to me that creatures move around the Bay but only outside the construction zone.
2. I note that seagrass is mentioned in the report. There is virtually none left in the bay as a direct result of damage done by the construction and use of the port facilities. The NSW Government should be protecting the small areas left and considering how it can be re-established.
3. I imagine local levels of support for this project are low. I don't believe this proposal emanated from the local community. I also find all the rhetoric around benefits for the local Aboriginal community to be spurious at best. I think if anyone at Transport for NSW actually took the time to engage with the local Aboriginal community you would find that the primary concern is for the preservation of what is left of the traditional fishing grounds.
4. Those of us who live in this area already suffer due to significant traffic congestion problems on sunny days. There is only one road in and out of the loop. On a nice day traffic is frequently backed up to Foreshore Road. As a resident I am unable to pull out of my road to leave the area. We cannot sustain any increase in traffic movements in the area.
5. Again, parking is a nightmare. There are a large number of visitors accessing the coastal walk, Bare Island and local restaurants and there is already insufficient parking. Roads are packed, people are driving round and round looking for parking, often obstructing the road and then leaving cars across driveways or anywhere else they can. We cannot cope with any more people. To propose a project like this with an additional 13 parking spaces is a joke. Also more parking is NOT the answer. We locals are sick of the Bay being built all over. Can we please just be left with some open space to walk on.
6. The proposed wharves are oversized and ugly. They will further disfigure what is left of this beautiful area.
7. This is the most colossal and unjustifiable waste of public (tax payers) money. I don't believe there are a significant number of tourists who would use this service. In addition the idea that people in Kurnell would use the ferry to commute is laughable. Transport for NSW can't even provide those of us who live in the area with a decent bus service. Most of buses are being cancelled at the end of 2021 so how are people going to get from the ferry to the CBD? On top of which how can this possibly be quicker than people in Kurnell travelling to their nearest railway station? Why not spend the money on something that actually benefits this local community which has some of the poorest public transport options in Sydney.

Makes no sense. Less than 3000 residents in Kurnell. The Caltex Oil refinery is now closed. Economic stupidity.

I live partly in Sydney and study in Canberra. When I am in Sydney I love to hang out with friends at the beach in Frenchman’s bay at La Perouse. It is the best calm water beach in Sydney and hugely popular all the year round but particularly in summer when it is extremely crowded. It is really scenic and good for its views and loved by everyone and whenever I am there people are getting their wedding pics taken on the beach and on the headland with the view of the bay behind.

SIZE. -The size of the Kamay Ferry Wharf project looks like it will really affect the beach and ruin it, 180m is a huge length for a wharf and I see there is also a giant L shaped structure at the end for multiple berths. Instead of a view of the rocky headland and views across to Kurnell and Sans Souci we will have to look at an enormous wharf. I am worried about noise and pollution effects of all the ferries and other tourist boats using the wharf.

OVERDEVELOPMENT - I am worried about the increased commercialisation and overdevelopment of La Perouse this wharf and its commercial berths will bring which will spoil the place. Everyone knows how beautiful La Perouse is but it is beautiful and has always been because it is an escape from the city and it looks like it will become a busy between transport spot.

PARKING & TRAFFIC - The ferry service and other commercial boats will make parking much harder. Thirteen extra parking spaces seems no way enough to cope with people wanting to go on the ferry.

CRUISE SHIPS – I support the Save Yarra Bay movement and I am worried that although it is denied that there is any connection with the proposed cruise ship terminal it doesn’t seem to make sense without some huge commercial purpose behind it. The old ferry service by all accounts wasn’t financially viable at the end and that was when people had cars so it seems unlikely it will be viable now. If it is going to be viable then I don’t understand why the Government is offering to subsidise an operator.

BIODIVERSITY LOSS – I am concerned about the 13 months of construction with sediment disturbance and turbidity that will impact diving at Bare Island and which will disturb and affect the fauna and flora. I don’t understand why the marine study did not take in the area around Bare Island when it was identified as an area of extreme biodiversity when it was being considered and rejected as a place for the wharf to be situated. There is going to be destruction of the Endangered seagrass Posidonia Australis which is also the prime habitat for the Endangered White’s seahorse (the Sydney Seahorse) which is seen around Bare Island along with Weedy seadragon, nudibranch, turtles and numerous other species.

I object to the Kamay Ferry Wharves proposal

I live at La Perouse and Frenchman’s beach is my local beach where I like to swim and snorkel. I also like to kayak around the headland and I like to windsurf on the bay.

What I particularly like about Frenchman’s bay is that it has pristine clean water for swimming and there is great snorkelling at the end of the beach and round to the headland to Bare island. There is also a large open, flat area of water to safely windsurf or kitesurf on when it is windy and a place to kayak round to Bare island when it is not windy. Most of the time although small water craft use the area there are no commercial boats that use this area close to the beach.

Swimming at the beach- I am worried about the size of the wharf and because of the distance the wharf goes out into the bay swimming at Frenchman’s beach will be spoilt. Instead of a view of the rocky headland and bay we will have to look at an enormous wharf, it will feel like we are swimming in an enclosure. I am also concerned about the engine noise, noise from the PA system announcing arrivals and departures and revving engine noise. Thousands of people from all over Sydney use this beach, it is packed in summer and it will ruin their recreation and leisure space.

Snorkelling around the Headland -I am concerned about snorkelling around the headland as constant ferry and commercial boats stir up sediment and destroy seagrass and disturb fish and other fauna. Also, I have seen in the harbour there is always a constant film of oil and rubbish in the water as boats seem to often leak diesel and people’s plastic rubbish endlessly blows off wharves and boats.

Windsurfing and kitesurfing - I am concerned that our community of windsurfers, kitesurfers and foil boarders will no longer be able to use the area because the wharf goes out so far and has a massive wharf head at the end. People will no longer be able to safely come back into the beach as depending on where the wind comes from you need to come in at an angle and the wharf and restricted areas will prevent boarders being able to do this. Also where the wharf is situated is exactly where the best bit of flat safe windsurfing can be done, protected by the headland and there is easy access to the beach and parking.

Kayaking - I am also concerned that when I kayak there will be restricted space around the wharf head and safety will be compromised for small craft as whatever you do you will be mixing commercial vessels and small recreational craft and also waves from boats arriving and departing.

Commercialisation - I am particularly concerned about the increased commercialisation and overdevelopment of La Perouse which is spoiling the place and I don’t understand why the recreational area of thousands of Sydney people is being taken away in order to allow single companies to profit.

Parking and Traffic - I am also concerned about parking and traffic congestion which do not seem to be being addressed even though the ferry service and other commercial wharf will increase these problems. 13 extra parking spaces would seem to be a serious misassessment.

Cost particularly in a time of COVID - I am dismayed that the Government would be spending $17million on such a project at a time when small businesses are hurting and need a boost. It appears that big business is given the dollars at the expense of small business. Also, it was meant to be part of commemorating the 250th anniversary of Cook’s landing in Kurnell in 2020 but this event has passed so spending no longer seems justified.

Cruise Ship terminal - I am concerned that there may be an undisclosed agenda for this wharf to service the Cruise Ship industry as it does not seem viable otherwise. It appears that Sydney people and their recreational space is not important when it comes to commercialisation.

Objection to the Kamay Ferry Wharves project

I enjoy swimming, snorkelling and kayaking in the calm, protected waters around Frenchmans bay at La Perouse. I have major concerns regarding:
• The physical impact of the wharf on beach and headland visitors.
• The increased commercial marine traffic and the effect on small watercraft users.
• The impact on parking and traffic at La Perouse.
• The high ongoing cost of maintaining such a large structure.

Concern of overdevelopment in terms of size.
Unlike the small, traditional, low impact wharves at Cronulla and Bundeena, or the wharves at The Basin, Church Point or Bobbin Head in Pittwater, the wharf at La Perouse seems a massive overdevelopment. It will be 180m long with a huge wharf head at the end. The original ferry wharf at La Perouse was a fraction of the size and therefore had minimum impact on La Perouse. The scale of this new wharf will significantly impact La Perouse and does not seem justified for its purpose of reinstating a ferry service to Kurnell.

Concern over multiple large berths.
In addition to the visual impact the wharf I have concerns about the significant increase in commercial vessels using the area. The proposal mentions there will be multiple berths, both a 40m berth and a 20m berth allowing potentially very large vessels to use it, or multiple smaller commercial vessels at the same time. Currently, La Perouse does not have commercial vessels using the calm, protected waters of Frenchmans bay which makes it perfect to be enjoyed and used by small recreational craft such as kayaks, paddleboarders, small tinnies, windsurfers, kitesurfers and sailing dinghies. I am concerned about the restrictions/safety of these craft being able to operate in this area. Frenchmans beach has always been a perfect launch spot for small watercraft as it is close to the road/parking and easy to carry gear to the beach, The wharf and commercial traffic will detrimentally affect or curtail this recreational usage.

Concern over effect on beach users
I am concerned about the effect on people going to Frenchmans beach to enjoy the beach. Currently it is an open bay with clear water a safe and pleasant swimming area which is packed in summer by families with small children and those who are not strong swimmers. The wharf will dominate the beach visually and so completely change the ambience as you won’t be able to see the headland or open bay aspect and the commercial vessels will create noise pollution with their revving engines and loudspeaker noise as well as create a certain amount of pollution from rubbish blown off ferries and the inevitable small diesel oil/spills. I am also concerned about the impacts of vessel operation and the disturbance of sediment leading to loss of water clarity for snorkelling and diving around the headland and at Bare island and the impact on the rich aquatic environment in this area.

Parking and traffic at La Perouse
La Perouse is a popular destination all the year round but particularly in summer. I am concerned that parking and traffic problems that are extreme in the height of summer will be worsened and at other times of the year this ferry service will create problems. The issue of parking and traffic does not seem to have been adequately addressed.

Concern over cost
$17million plus ongoing maintenance costs seems a lot of money to be spending to reinstate a ferry service that was not commercially viable when it ceased to operate in the early 1970’s. I understand that a private operator may also be subsidised which seems strange.

Your planning another ridiculous development that will seriously effect both local residents & those that visit the area for recreational purposes apart from the unsightly image on an historic sight there is not the infrastructure to support its feasibility this area is already gridlocked without further congestion

Dear Director,

My name is Beau Fletcher. I am a resident of Matraville and i visit La Perouse frequently and have done so for many years. I love the unique beauty of the area. I love that the area has West facing beaches and bays, a rarity in the Eastern Suburbs. I love the stunning sunset views over Frenchmans Bay, another beautiful and unique aspect of the area to the Eastern suburbs. I'm concerned about many of the recent development proposals in the area like Meritons over-development proposal of Little Bay, the cruise terminal proposal for Yarra Bay and particularly the proposal for the La Perouse ferry wharf. Needless to say, all of which will absolutely destroy the natural beauty that residents and visitors alike love about the area. Beaches and Bays are an extremely rare comodity and I'm confused why such a short-sighted project like this would even be considered, being that the wharf (and the cruise terminal, if that disgraceful monstrosity ever eventuates) would basically be built over a swimming/snorkeling/fishing/recreational area. An area cherished and used by past, present and hopefully many future generations. Not to mention the disregard for the objections of local indigenous communities and residents. There are obvious health and safety implications, one of those being that people will, of course, continue to use the area to swim and snorkel should the project(s) go ahead. And then there is the noise pollution, and the detrimental affects to the area's unique marine life.

Please don't sell off what remains of the natural beauty of the area for the sake of an industry that offers very little benefit to the local economy, residents and visitors.

Preserving the natural beauty of the area is a much more sustainable and valuable decision for the future.

I am a volunteer with the Kamay Botany Bay NP. These are my own comments and I am not writing on behalf of the "Busy Bees" group of volunteers.
The area is known as Botany Bay for a good reason - it is where Banks first recorded and collected Australian flora - which suggests, to me anyway, that visitors arriving at the Kamay wharf should not experience such a profusion of exotic plants, or weeds as we volunteers call them. I accept that some "heritage" plantings such as the Norfolk Island Pines should remain but the area adjacent to the proposed ferry is infested with very competitive exotics - NPWS can supply a full list - which, put bluntly, are tolerated by NPWS. This is unacceptable and leaves NPWS open to ridicule should visitors have even a basic grasp of Australian v foreign flora. I can see visitors wondering "Where are we now? South Africa or South America?"
NPWS should be given the resources to rectify their problem.

Long overdue from 1974
A valuable facility for the Community and the local area.

I support the reinstatement of pedestrian and bicycle ferry service between La Perouse and Kurnell, but the safety and comfort of bicyclists in the area may be impacted.
I ask that Transport for New South Wales and Randwick Council work together to expedite the implementation of the Anzac Bikeway from Kingsford to La Perouse to ensure access to the ferry for all cyclists.
I also ask that Transport for New South Wales ensure that all ferries and wharves are designed to accommodate family bicycles, trishaws, and other large bicycles so that all cyclists (including families) can take advantage of the new ferry service.
I look forward to the integration of this new ferry service within a connected active transport network throughout the Eastern Suburbs.
As a retiree, I look forward to using the ferry with my bicycle. It is a shame that there is no intermediate stop proposed, say at Brighton Le Sands or Captain Cook Bridge.

Sutherland Shire Council interim submission

I don’t think the project should proceed for the following reason
1 Given the current economic stress this is a poor use of taxpayer funds
2 This is unlikely to be an economically viable project and will require ongoing tax payer funding
3 The La Perouse side is very exposed and will make the jetty area dangerous in strong westerly winds. It will mean intermittent cancellation of services
4 Parking is already at capacity and adding 13 spaces will do little to relieve the current problems of access for residents to their homes. Our streets are regularly in gridlock and our driveways blocked by illegal parking.
5 No assurance has been given that this facility will not be used as part of the planned cruise terminal at Yarra Bay a project strongly apposed by locals, council and local members.
6 Local public transport is being cut back which will likely increase the prospect of this being a “white elephant” project.
7 It is unlikely to be a viable commute across the bay particularly given the likely cancellations due to weather. There are no longer any moored boats at La Perouse due to dangers weather. Of the last three permanently moored boats two broke moorings at least once and ended up on the beach. Over the years many boats have been destroyed at La Perouse due to weather.
Revisit the circumstances of the jetty that was previously destroyed at La Perouse. Their is no fundamental change in this plan. Short of building yet another break wall this project is dangerous.

Submission re: Kamay Ferry Wharves – SSI-10049

Dear Director,

I object to the Kamay Ferry Wharves proposal.

My name is Filippo and a I am a Botany local who regularly visit La Perouse with my family for swimming, walking, snorkelling, fishing, playing with my kids and to enjoy the views.

What I particularly like about La Perouse isthe safe, calm water at Frenchman’s beach, the walks around the headland, the unobscured views over Botany Bay and the natural unspoilt landscape. I also like the atmosphere and the environment as they are and which cannot accommodate more tourists then currently on a busy day.

The current size and design of the La Perouse wharf mean that it will dominate the bay, change the atmosphere of La Perouse and ruin visitors and beach user’s enjoyment. The inclusion of an additional commercial wharf could have huge future commercial implications.

The Environmental Impact Statement doesn’t address all the criteria in the Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements regarding identifying key issues and addressing them and, avoiding and minimising impacts on the environment and on the community. It does not address issues regarding the Commercial wharf usage and impacts this will have on La Perouse.

I strongly object to the Kamay ferry wharves proposal for the following reasons.

HUGE WHARF SIZE

The project is a massive overdevelopment. The wharf size at La Perouse is inappropriate as it will dominate the whole of the La Perouse peninsular and Frenchman’s beach. It will go 180m out across the bay and has a 40mx10m wharf head at the end (this is to replace the previous wharf that was 30m long with no wharf head). The roofed waiting area at the end of the wharf is bulky and the wharf is also much higher from the water than the old wharf. This is not just about a ferry service it is on a different scale entirely. It will be at least 7 times the size of the old wharf with allowance for massive ferries up to 40m long using it.

FRENCHMAN'S BEACH SPOILED

There will be a huge impact on the beach and those using water craft. The wharf will tower over the beach and will ruin views from the beach over the headland and bay. It will feel like you are swimming in a semi enclosed industrial harbour not in a beautiful open bay. There will be noise from ferries and commercial vessels including revving engines, loudspeakers and vessel horns and possible pollution from oil spillage, rubbish and water clarity will be decreased from propeller jets disturbing the sea bed. Kayakers, people in small tinnies, windsurfers etc will all be affected by the wharf and the restrictions surrounding it.

UNIQUE CHARACTER OF LA PEROUSE RUINED

La Perouse headland currently has fabulous unobscured views over Botany Bay and its historic buildings are set within a scenic landscape. People can relax, picnic, go to the beach, go on walks around the headland, or enjoy water sports. It is a place to escape the hustle of the city. La Perouse will be ruined by this huge wharf and all the commercial activity it will attract. La Perouse will become a busy, noisy transport hub.

TRAFFIC AND PARKING CONSIDERATIONS

Parking and traffic congestion problems at La Perouse are already bad on weekends in the height of summer and these will become worse as a result of the ferry wharf. The additional parking being provided is only 13 extra spaces which is clearly not enough. They have stated that because there are already parking and traffic problems at La Perouse somehow that means the ferry won’t make it worse! Introducing a development such as this without appropriate traffic , parking and mass transit solutions is a recipe for disaster, including for access by emergency services. To further explains this, La Perouse is a nightmare to access on weekends, very long queues, no parking, too many people on the beach. A ferry service will make this a lot worse.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

There will be damage to Endangered seagrass beds and the Endangered Whites seahorse that is found around the La Perouse peninsular due to the 13 month piling operations. Although they have said there will be an offset strategy this may not be enough to save the seahorse which are sensitive to change of habitat and water quality.

PURPOSE/FINANCIAL VIABILITY

The project will cost $17million to improve access and increase visitor numbers to the Kamay National park in Kurnell. We do not know how much the ongoing maintenance, or operational costs will be as the private operator ‘may be subsidised’ by the government. As it is a public project taxpayers have a right to know some of these details. The project was originally meant to commemorate the 250th anniversary of Cooks arrival in Australia, an event now over.

CRUISE TERMINAL CONCERNS

When it was asked in the consultation sessions whether this had anything to do with the Cruise ship terminal it was stated that ‘The project is independent of, and separate to any development proposal for a cruise terminal’. Unfortunately, this means nothing, we know already it is not directly part of the Cruise Ship project, but what the Government don’t and won’t tell us is that it won’t be used or extended to include usage by a cruise ship terminal in the future. Sadly, it feels like the first step to the Cruise Ship Terminal project.

And finally, the demand for this huge project has not been assessed. There will be ongoing costs for a service which will be primarily used on weekends, making this an huge costs exercise and a waste of money.

I strongly oppose this project.

Thanks

The Kamay Ferry Wharf project will have a negative effect on the local local residents and environment in the La Perouse and Kurnell areas of Boatany Bay
1. The project is lacking in details and vague on who will be allowed access to the wharves
2. The environmental damage to Frenchman's Bay from the boat wash will degrade the beach area and the beach will be unusable to the locals and day trippers
3.The size of the exclusion zones in the bay will impact the swimmers, scuba divers, snorkelers, sailors and fishers in the bay
4. There is a lack of parking facilities in the La Perouse and Kurnell sides of the bay - 13 additional parking spaces on the La Perouse side is totally inadequate for the size of the vessels planning to use the wharves
5. There is no details of the facilities needed to service the wharves e.g. toileting and ticketing facilities these utilities and building are not stated clearly and will have visual and impact on the area and further reduce the public access to land in the area
6. Lack of public transport to the vicinities of the wharves - nearest bus service at La Perouse is 300 metres away this is not user freely for those who are disabled or elderly
7. There will be and impact on the local environments aquatic life - seals are now living in the bay and the underwater sea life will be impacted by the large vessels
8. There is no long term planned jobs for the local indigenous population
9. Serious traffic congestion will occur regularly as both wharves locations are built on peninsulas with only one road in and one road out
10. More pollution from the extra people using the areas will be generated - additional costs onto councils and ratepayers - no mention of the ferry operators paying for cleaning services such as rubbish removal
11. Local parking will be impacted for beach users on both sides of the bay forcing out residences and day trippers
12. No benefit to the local communities only external people will benefit or profit from this project - local job will no be permanent or full time
13. What about the needs to service these ferries and cruisers etc - refueling and servicing facilities will be need which are not in the development application