Kamay Ferry Wharves

The project proposes an astonishingly large ferry berth for La Perouse. This seems to presage a further, unstated purpose, and I strenuously object to the current concept. The published planned design of the jetty, especially at La Perouse, is neither historically faithful nor rational for the current population and tourism needs. It appears to offer space for large vessels beyond the presently used small ferries of Bundeena-Cronulla, or Mackerel Beach-Palm beach for example. I feel somewhat disappointed that the project seems to mask a further aim, and would feel more positive about the project if the jetty builds were more modest and less a Trojan Horse look-alike. If the cruise ship terminal was not threatening to be built in the same area there would be less likelihood of a rejection of the project, especially if the wharf were built in a modest design. Thank you.

See attached response letter.

I strongly oppose this project due to the impact it will have on marine life and humans (swimmers, spearfishers, divers...) who enjoy the waters around the construction. As detailed in "chapter 16. Underwater noise and vibration", during construction work the pressure level of cumulative strikes is estimated at more than 192 dB (table 16-5), within 1 km from the construction site.
As detailed in table 16-3 , from 184 dB and up, a human is likely to suffer from soft tissue damage and liver haemorrhage. When it comes to marine species, less data are available, but table 16-2 shows permanent hearing loss at 155 dB, and recoverable injury at 190 dB.
Section 16.4.3 is particularly alarming, where it mentions:
-for marine life: temporary hearing loss could occur up to 2.25km.
-for humans: potential injury within 300m, and noise uncomfortably loud in the whole bay!! Are we concsiously locking away water-enthusiast from the whole bay, during these works? After weeks of ongoing lockdown due to Covid? For the benefit of who?
Overall, the mitigations described in 16.5 are very vague, 3 zones are mentioned but their is uncertainty of how far they will reach.
To conclude: I strongly oppose this project. Whilst it will benefit some visitors of the bay with convenience, it will pose inconvenience or even danger on the people who currently love spending their free time in Kamay National park or La Perouse. Moreover, the risk on marine life seems significant, with little understanding and unclear mitigation on the risk for fragile species like the weedy seadragon, potbellied seahorse, whites's seahorse, red indianfish, among others.

Please see attached submission.

Please see attached.

I object to the Kamay Ferry Wharf Project on the grounds that the project is out of keeping with present day La Perouse.
Has a traffic study already been conducted to investigate the increase in traffic to this petit postage stamp size portion of land known as La Perouse, Frenchmans Bay Reserve, The Loop Drive, Scuba Diving Schools, Ice Cream Vans, Fish & Chip shops already in residence.
The small circular loop and traffic congestion and residents of the community will not be able to cope.
Where will the visitors in cars park?
Congestion is a major problem now.
Two into One don't go.
Sincerely,
Daphne Baker.

Proposed ferry route will impact on recreational fishing locations that have always been used by local residents.
These locations are some of the only protected safe locations when fishing in Southeastly & Southern winds.
It will also impact on local sub-water structure and habitat due to the continual traffic the area would be subject to.
It will impact on safe bait gathering / catching areas.
Also, these areas were subject to the Recreational Fishing Haven put in place after the Commercial Fisherman buy-outs. If we loose this area then how will the recreational fisherman be compensated qhen the buy-out was funded by our Fishing Licence fees.

The Ferry Wharves are of interest to recreational anglers. Our members living in the Sydney Region have observed a decline in access to the waterways of Botany Bay and a reduction in the abundance of our fish species since the increases of commercial boating and shipping on Botany Bay. Many members are concerned that water management policies and practice appears to favour commercial operators at the expense of other users and the health of Botany Bay.

Accordingly, we hope this approval process considers the issue of we have raised against the bigger picture the NSW Government’s overall water management policies and practices. With this in mind, the RFA considers it important to:

• Preserve important habitat that the ferry service will impact

• Preserve safe and productive family friendly fishing spots that will be impacted by the ferry route.

Jade Baker
6 Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse
Kamay Ferry Wharves Application Number: SSI-10049
I have made no reportable political donations in the last 2 years

I am a resident of La Perouse, and I am objecting to the Botany Bay Ferry proposal. I object to the proposal for the following reasons;

The surrounding environment would be damaged and disturbed by: the oversized wharf (much larger and more intruding than the original wharf in the bay), the alleged 13-month construction process (noise pollution, light pollution, sedimentation and seafloor disturbed, chemical and oil spillages and turbulent water) and visitor/tourist litter.

The construction will use fencing, stockpiles and cranes. This will stop locals/residents from accessing parts of the area that they live.

Community doubt and concern about the Government’s motivation for the project. Residents are suspicious of the project as they have already rejected the Cruise Ship proposal that planned to take over the bay.

There are many endangered species in the bay that would be at risk/ in danger due to the ferry. Pollution caused by the wharf and the construction process is also a concern. Some endangered species in the area include: Bare Island anglerfish, weedy seadragons, Sydney Pygmy Pipehorses, Blue Devil Fish, Pink Soft Coral, Red-toed Anglerfish and others.


I use the beaches in the area frequently, mostly Frenchmans Bay and Yarra Bay. A ferry would bring more people -especially tourists- to our already extremely busy area. Our area already has an incredibly large amount of people flowing into the area, especially in Summer. It is difficult to get a park in your own street on a hot day. To be able to bring these people to the area, more facilities would need to be created. Transport, bus services, car parks, bathrooms and more.

Therefore, I am objecting to the Botany Bay Ferry proposal due to the severe impact it will have on the bay, the area, its inhabitants and locals. The proposal should be rejected outright.

South Sydney Amatuer Fishing Association was established in 1974 and is based at Chifley. It currenty has 215 members with 45 recreational fishing boats stored on site at its Club grounds at Chifley. Its members will be directly impacted by this propsal.
The Ferry Wharves are of interest to recreational anglers. Our fishing club members living in the area have observed a decline in access to the waterways of Botany Bay and a reduction in the abundance of our fish species since the increases of commercial boating and shipping on Botany Bay. Many members are concerned that water management policies and practice appears to favour commercial operators at the expense of other users and the health of Botany Bay.

Accordingly, we hope this approval process considers the issue of we have raised against the bigger picture the NSW Government’s overall water management policies and practices. With this in mind, SSAFA considers it important to:

• Preserve important habitat that the ferry service will impact

• Preserve safe and productive family friendly fishing spots that will be impacted by the ferry route.

The Department of Planning, Industry and Environment

To whom it concerns:

Submission re Kamay Ferry Wharves (SSI-10049)

I OBJECT TO THE KAMAY FERRY WHARVES PROPOSAL

In an increasingly built-up, overdeveloped Sydney, it has become harder to find natural areas within easy reach of inner Sydney which are relatively unspoilt to enjoy for their own sake. Although I live in the Inner West, periodically I visit La Perouse and Kurnell (in non-COVID lockdown times) as a means of escaping the density here and to explore the relatively open and unspoiled headlands, beaches and bays of the area under proposed development.
I take this opportunity to point out that the effects of human-induced climate change – more accurately global heating - are increasingly being felt by all of us. Massive incursions into our land, native vegetation and waterways mean increasing endangerment to our immediate environment – and ourselves.
This current proposal will contribute to yet more harmful emissions and environmental degradation. Having perused the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) documents, I am puzzled as to the project’s real purpose. For example, it does not address all criteria in the Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements – notably issues about the commercial wharf usage and its impacts on La Perouse. Worryingly, it minimises potential and likely impacts on the immediate environment and the local community – such as increased traffic, noise, destruction of the peaceful bays and so on.

Additionally:

Impact on the character of La Perouse

The current size and design of the La Perouse wharf would dominate the Bay, change the atmosphere of La Perouse and ruin the relative peace and tranquillity for visitors and beach users’ enjoyment.

What is the point of including a commercial wharf? Who will the patrons be? Who is behind this push?

Surely the point of visiting this area is to appreciate the scenic landscape, visit the beach, walk around the headland and so on. Another noisy, busy transport hub is NOT required in this area!

Environmental concerns
At this time of massive environmental destruction across Sydney, both on land and near or under water, I am very concerned that the proposed construction and more than 12 months of piling operations will destroy some of the threatened seagrass habitat which supports a range of complex sealife, small and large: weedy sea dragons, nudibranchs, turtles and seals for example. Water quality will certainly be greatly disturbed by sediment churn. Noise and constant disruptive construction activity will have a deleterious effect on sealife. Notable among the more threatened sea creatures found in this area is White’s Seahorse which in 2019 was listed as ‘endangered’ due to its shrinking habitat along the eastern seaboard. White’s Seahorse listed as 'endangered' (aboutregional.com.au).

Incredibly, this project’s urgers do not seem to have taken into consideration its effects on nearby heritage-listed Bare Island. Do the developers plan to “ring fence” the Island to protect it and the surrounding waters from inevitable damage?

I cannot believe the Department – and the Government generally – continues to treat the increasingly fragile environment, including in this area, as a commodity which can somehow be overridden or ignored or “offset” despite constant destructive incursions into it.

Oversized wharf

The depicted wharf dimensions at La Perouse are a massive overdevelopment for this area, being five times the size of the previous wharf and extending some 140 metres into the Bay. Why is this necessary? Why have the designers not attempted to contain the size to be within the scale of the area so as to be less intrusive on the visual landscape and having a smaller environmental impact?

Purpose/ financial viability

The current COVID crisis has already cost the NSW (and Federal) Governments billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money for a range of subsidies for those whose businesses, livelihoods and jobs have been closed down or lost. It is appropriate for the Government to extend these subsidies.

However while the Kamay Ferry project is currently costed at $17 million to improve access and increase visitor numbers to the Kamay National park in Kurnell, not included in this costing are other vital components such operational costs, ongoing maintenance and any subsidies that may be paid to a private operator of the ferry service. Yet this project is publicly funded! That is, taxpayers would yet again be liable for any (inevitable) blowouts in costs. Therefore a full and transparent costing must be provided for this entire project and revealed to the public in a timely and transparent manner.

Where is the demand for this project coming from? If the population density does not require it, who stands to really benefit from it should it proceed as indicated?

And who will provide a detailed costing of the impacts of environmental losses (sea life losses, native vegetation losses etc)?

Is this plan subterfuge for a cruise ship terminal?

Notwithstanding earlier assurances by Departmental representatives that the current ferry wharf project is not aligned to the Yarra Bay cruise ship terminal plans (which the NSW Government recently stated are “on hold”) there remain many fears held by the local community as to whether in future this area will be extended for cruise ship use.

Currently of course, the cruise ship industry is in remission but when the COVID crisis is more under control, cruise ship companies will be gearing up again. Indeed, many are currently advertising with glossy brochures – for 2022 and 2023.

Despite the appeal of cruising for many of the public, cruise ships are known to bring with them many environmental problems (among others) including the stench of diesel fumes, noise, the impacts on marine life and the impacts on local communities.

Will the Department, and the NSW Government, guarantee that the current Kamay Bay ferry wharves would not be “re-adapted” and expanded in the next few years under pressure from the cruise ship industry?

Summary

As currently configured, the business case for this project has not been fully explained or costed.

The project is overblown for the area in terms of population density and need, the scale and bulk of the proposed wharf, the expected size of the ferries, the impact on an already damaged and threatened underwater and native vegetation environment.

One of the most worrying aspects about this project from an environmental perspective is the highly likely l damage it would cause (in particular) to an already compromised area that nevertheless offers some habitat for increasingly endangered seagrasses and associated sea creatures.

The question remains: why is this project being considered when the population density does not demand it and when, as currently configured, it would be so intrusive and over-scale as to ruin the relatively tranquil area to which local people and visitors go to either ESCAPE their own built-up and noisy areas, or to appreciate their local, peaceful environment.

Recommendation:

This rationale for this project should be thoroughly revised. If it is to proceed (and I hope it will not), the bulk and scale of the wharves and roofed waiting areas must be greatly reduced in size. Revised plans and full costings MUST be circulated to the public again for further consultation and refinement.



Adrienne Shilling
9 August 2021

Tamara Baker
Kamay Ferry Wharves Application Number: SSI-10049
I have not made any reportable political donations in the past 2 years

I am a resident of La Perouse, and I object to the Kamay Botany Bay Ferry proposal. I swim, walk and use the beaches in the area on a regular basis, including Yarra Bay and Frenchman’s Bay. As I use the beach for recreational uses such as swimming, snorkelling, walking and paddling, I am concerned about the Kamay Botany Bay Ferry proposal. The ferry would make the water murky, and difficult to see the incredible wildlife.

There are many species in the bay that are endangered. Having a port, airport, factories and other major industries are putting enough stress on their populations. Noise, light, chemical and oil pollution are of major concern to the flora and fauna in the bay, and surrounding area. Sooty Oystercatchers, Weedy Seadragons, Blue Devil Fish, Bare Island Anglerfish and other endangered species are inhabitants of the bay and surrounding environment/area.

The ferry will cause extreme commercialisation, and will bring enormous amounts of tourists to the area. To facilitate these additional people, major infrastructure and facilities would need to be created. Car parks, transport, bus services, roads and other facilities are just scratching the surface of the facilities needed to be created to enable vast amounts of people to flock to the area. More taxpayer money better spent on projects that the community supports, or the COVID 19 crisis.

A 13 month construction process will disrupt residents’ daily lives with construction noise and sounds (especially if lockdown/quarantine persists, and people are working from home). These sounds will disrupt wildlife in the area, too.

Noise pollution is a dangerous problem for marine wildlife. Noise pollution can disrupt migration patterns and communication of animals that use sonar, such as dolphins. Pods of dolphins are commonly seen in the bay, and this would damage their population. There are also large populations of seals in the bay. When one species is harmed, it puts the whole ecosystem out of balance. If dolphin populations decline due to pollution and ferry construction, other species in the bay will either increase, such as the dolphin’s prey (squid, fish and crustaceans), or the dolphin’s rivals (seals, sharks, whales, predatory fish, octopus, seabirds and other).

Therefore, all of these factors alter and affect the environment, bay, community and surrounding area. I object to the Kamay Botany Bay Ferry proposal, and so do many others in our community. The ferry should be rejected immediately.

To whom it may concern as an indigenous resident of La Perouse, i strongly object to the ferry wharf project. I believe there isn't any cultural significance, it will destroy an ecosystem inhabited by endangered marine life, it is a waste of money and my generation will be paying it off for a long time.
Why hasn't anyone asked what I think? Why isn't my voice heard?

I strongly object to this project, this doesn't benefit my community.

I dive and fish in the area where the wharf is being built!
At Lapa !
The direction of the ferry coming and going isn’t good as it’s taking too large of a area turning and approach !
Have you forgot about the seahorses in the area?
Or don’t care ?
The wharf is too big !
And kids of the area are not allowed to fish off it !!!
At the Kurnell side is my squid fishing spot.
How much of the bay do you want to take from the people ?
Once you guys let the cruise ships in !!!
Yarra Bay may as well be a waste land !
It will be dead from pollution and prop wash to the sea grasses !!!!
I can’t understand why you wouldn’t take RFA
Recommend path for the
Ferry.
No doubt the whale watchers and other commercial boat will get use the wharf !
Destroying more of our fishing areas!!!
STOP THE LOCKOUT !
After this lockout !
LOCKDOWN IS OVER WE ARE ALL GOING TO VOTE YOU GUYS OUT !
Born in Maroubra !
Lived in Maroubra all my life !
My families will be remembering come next elections
Local ,State ,Federal !!!!

See correspondence attached

On behalf of the NSW Branch of the Australian National Sportfishing Association (ANSA NSW), I would like to take this opportunity to object to this project on behalf of our Sydney based fishing clubs and the impacts this project will have on the Botany Bay Recreational Fishing Haven.

ANSA NSW is the peak body for sportfishing in NSW and encompasses all the needs of the beginner as well as the experienced angler. It represents recreational sportfishers through various affiliated clubs in NSW.

Climate change, human interference and pollution have led to widespread depletion of ecosystems inside Botany Bay and we need to focus on restoring vital marine habitats, not destroying it.

ANSA NSW considers it t important to:

•Preserve important habitat that the ferry service will impact

•Preserve safe and productive family friendly fishing spots that will be impacted by the ferry route.

I strongly oppose this project due to the impact it will have on marine life and humans (swimmers, spearfishers, divers...) who enjoy the waters around the construction. As detailed in "chapter 16. Underwater noise and vibration", during construction work the pressure level of cumulative strikes is estimated at more than 192 dB (table 16-5), within 1 km from the construction site.
As detailed in table 16-3 , from 184 dB and up, a human is likely to suffer from soft tissue damage and liver haemorrhage. When it comes to marine species, less data are available, but table 16-2 shows permanent hearing loss at 155 dB, and recoverable injury at 190 dB.
Section 16.4.3 is particularly alarming, where it mentions:
-for marine life: temporary hearing loss could occur up to 2.25km.
-for humans: potential injury within 300m, and noise uncomfortably loud in the whole bay!! Are we consciously locking away water-enthusiast from the whole bay, during these works? After weeks of ongoing lockdown due to Covid? For the benefit of who?
Overall, the mitigations described in 16.5 are very vague, 3 zones are mentioned but their is uncertainty of how far they will reach.
To conclude: I strongly oppose this project. Whilst it will benefit some visitors of the bay with convenience, it will pose inconvenience or even danger on the people who currently love spending their free time in Kamay National park or La Perouse. Moreover, the risk on marine life seems significant, with little understanding and unclear mitigation on the risk for fragile species like the weedy seadragon, potbellied seahorse, whites's seahorse, red indianfish, among others.

I object to the Kamay Ferry Wharves project

I love to go to Frenchman Bay beach in summer to sunbake and swim and during the winter to walk. It is one of the most popular Eastern suburbs beaches because families and people who aren’t strong swimmers can swim safely here. Saturdays and Sundays in summer it is packed. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people come.

When the first leaflet came out I thought the ferry wharf was going to be small and the ferries looked really cute but now I’ve found out it is going to be really big with huge ferries that will really affect the beach and ruin it. I love the rocky point and how you can see out across the bay from everywhere in La Perouse and it is terrible to take this away. Don’t all the thousands of people visiting here and enjoying the beach matter. Surely, places where people go to enjoy the outdoors, enjoy the beach and have fun should matter and Government should care about people.

People are saying that in the government proposal document it says that they are building the wharf at La Perouse so big because it can take more than one ferry or boat and that it is not just for the ferries it is part of a plan for much more, a plan to ruin the bay so that a few people can get more money. We just don’t want it. I’m against this and I’m against the cruise ships because Yarra Bay should belong to the people.

See attached submission

I strongly oppose this project due to the impact it will have on marine life and humans (swimmers, spearfishers, divers...) who enjoy the waters around the construction. As detailed in "chapter 16. Underwater noise and vibration", during construction work the pressure level of cumulative strikes is estimated at more than 192 dB (table 16-5), within 1 km from the construction site.
As detailed in table 16-3 , from 184 dB and up, a human is likely to suffer from soft tissue damage and liver haemorrhage. When it comes to marine species, less data are available, but table 16-2 shows permanent hearing loss at 155 dB, and recoverable injury at 190 dB.
Section 16.4.3 is particularly alarming, where it mentions:
-for marine life: temporary hearing loss could occur up to 2.25km.
-for humans: potential injury within 300m, and noise uncomfortably loud in the whole bay!! Are we concsiously locking away water-enthusiast from the whole bay, during these works? After weeks of ongoing lockdown due to Covid? For the benefit of who?
Overall, the mitigations described in 16.5 are very vague, 3 zones are mentioned but their is uncertainty of how far they will reach.
To conclude: I strongly oppose this project. Whilst it will benefit some visitors of the bay with convenience, it will pose inconvenience or even danger on the people who currently love spending their free time in Kamay National park or La Perouse. Moreover, the risk on marine life seems significant, with little understanding and unclear mitigation on the risk for fragile species like the weedy seadragon, potbellied seahorse, whites's seahorse, red indianfish, among others.