Skip to main content

State Significant Infrastructure

Determination

Kamay Ferry Wharves

Randwick City

Current Status: Determination

Interact with the stages for their names

  1. SEARs
  2. Prepare EIS
  3. Exhibition
  4. Collate Submissions
  5. Response to Submissions
  6. Assessment
  7. Recommendation
  8. Determination

New Ferry Wharves at La Perouse and Kurnell

Attachments & Resources

Notice of Exhibition (1)

Application (1)

SEARs (3)

EIS (60)

Response to Submissions (10)

Additional Information (5)

Determination (3)

Approved Documents

Management Plans and Strategies (12)

Notifications (1)

Other Documents (9)

Note: Only documents approved by the Department after November 2019 will be published above. Any documents approved before this time can be viewed on the Applicant's website.

Complaints

Want to lodge a compliance complaint about this project?

Make a Complaint

Enforcements

There are no enforcements for this project.

Inspections

16/06/2023

Note: Only enforcements and inspections undertaken by the Department from March 2020 will be shown above.

Submissions

Filters
Showing 21 - 40 of 118 submissions
Kevin Morrison
Comment
MAROUBRA , New South Wales
Message
I have attached a file that contains all my comments.
Attachments
BIKEast
Support
RANDWICK , New South Wales
Message
BIKEast support the provision of biking and walking connections across Botany Bay in this project. Comments provided in attached letter.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
MAROUBRA , New South Wales
Message
Submission re Kamay Ferry Wharves – SSI-10049
Dear Director,
I am a resident of Maroubra and enjoy cycling to La Perouse for exercise and to enjoy the open expanse and beauty of the surrounding area. But it is not my personal loss, arising from your project, that motivates me to write to you.
Having read the EIS on the impact of this project, I find your conclusion that the environmental and heritage damage will be minimal, somewhat Orwellian. Moreover, your EIS does not take into account the impact of climate change moving forward. And neither do the mitigating measures that you propose.
Indeed, you are proposing – with clear sighted understanding – to damage the terrestrial and marine environment and the heritage of the area, knowing that you there are no solutions, just inadequate mitigating measures.
I object for the reasons made abundantly clear in the EIS. These are:
1. The “unavoidable” destruction of indigenous archaeological sites and heritage for which there is no solution other than attempted mitigation.
2. Destruction of non-indigenous heritage and history which again, cannot be avoided and only ameliorated.
3. Underwater heritage will be damaged by the construction process. Again, this can’t be avoided and can only be ameliorated.
4. Marine biodiversity will be unavoidably destroyed with only ameliorating measures available. Also the noise from the construction will affect marine life and will have “unknown” effects on archaeological heritage both underwater and on land.
5. Terrestrial biodiversity will be permanently destroyed with no ameliorating project available.
6. Traffic and transport congestion will be permanently exacerbated with no possibilities for ameliorating the problem.
I also object because it is a monumental waste of taxpayer money.
The feasibility study by NSW Transport and mega consultancy, ARUP, states clearly that government financial assistance will be required to facilitate the establishment of a ferry service between La Perouse and Kurnell, of which the capital cost alone is estimated at $17m. In addition, there is also the cost of establishing related infrastructure eg.
ticketing booths, toilet amenities and waiting areas for passengers, which have not been
quantified. On top of this is the cost of unquantified subsidies to the operator of the service, paid for by the taxpayer.
And yet, the feasibility study makes clear that any business operating this service will be confronted with frequent operational interruptions borne of rough waters and unpredictable swell.
Moreover, any business attempting to operate in this environment will encounter growing unpredictability as we move deeper into climate change. Yet the feasibility study is silent on this matter.
The feasibility study also anticipates that large tourism operators like Bass and Flinders Cruises and Captain Cook Cruises will set up in Botany Bay. Yet the study ignores the impact of the increased road and traffic congestion on the local residents.
As a publicly funded leader in our state bureaucracy you are obligated to fullfil the requirements of the National Parks and Wildlife Act which stipulates that your agency is obliged to conserve the natural environment and cultural heritage. Everything in your proposal runs counter to this legal obligation.
Furthermore, you are asking taxpayers to subsidise commercial operations in public spaces with very little economic benefit to the wider community and at a great cost to are massively depleted environment.
I wonder, when will you and your agency start taking seriously the impact of climate change and the pressing need to conserve what remains of our increasingly distressed environments? The cost of this project ought to be directed to building a more resilient environment so that our children have some chance of surviving the future.
Sincerely,
Attachments
Anna Harvey
Comment
CROYDON , New South Wales
Message
Please support cycling as a legitimate form of transport for commuters, school children, people with a disability, parents, etc.

Please ensure the wharves and ferries are all family bicycle-friendly, and can accomodate cargo bikes and e-bikes and trikes.

Please also expedite the installation of a safe cycling route along Anzac Pde to La Perouse to make the Ferry wharf accessible by bicycle, and remove the need for private vehicles.

Cycling is an extremely low emissions form of transport that can be implemented equitably now, without the need to purchase expensive electric private vehicles. NSW can lower emissions now by implementing the right infrastructure rather than waiting for the costs of batteries in cars to fall.

We need safe infrastructure to allow the modal share of cycling to climb.
Name Withheld
Object
2035, MAROUBRA , New South Wales
Message
Regarding The Kamay Ferry Plans
I have been visiting Kamay Botany park for many years. I have joined a Citizen science project to record the plants, animal and bird life in the area. What I find is that a minuscule number of species remain from what was here before.
I understand that the Ferry plans will see the destruction of the rocky platform, where several species of bird species rest. I am shocked that this project will see the further decline of the plants and creatures already on the endangered list. To dismiss them as not being 'threatened' or to say the impact is negligible, or even offer an inferior offset is morally reprehensible. Once gone, no apology will bring them back or compensate for their demise. Surely, we are familiar with this kind of development where nature pays the ultimate price and the authorities shrug off the guilt.
The La Perouse area receives large numbers of people already. In fact, the parking is already insufficient and very often we, residents of the area, cannot find a spot. To facilitate more traffic is surely undesirable, particularly as more people means natural habitat and birds and animals will be impacted.
Why must nature always suffer and pay the price? Why should generations to come be deprived of seeing birds like the Cormorants and Gannets dive to fish? the Sooty Oyster-catchers dig for molluscs? Seals sun themselves on the rocks? Cormorants dry their wings in the sun ... and so much more?

Please stop the project. If the millions that this project will cost is available, why not spend it on saving this precious little bit of habitat, by weeding, getting rid of ferals etc. instead of spending the money to destroy it?
Name Withheld
Support
SOUTH COOGEE , New South Wales
Message
Great idea, please put a ferry across Botany Bay, much needed.
Please ensure that the ferry can take bikes, this would make a great bicycle route cycling around the Bay and being able to return to the start.

PS Your web form doesn't work with a Mac using Safari - comes up totally blank!
Name Withheld
Object
SOUTH COOGEE , New South Wales
Message
I object the project because of its major impacts on the environment and the community:
• there will be an impact on the White’s Seahorse (Sydney Seahorse) that is an Endangered species, as well as weedy sea dragons, nudibranchs, turtles and seals etc.
• the construction process will destroy some of the Threatened seagrass habitat that the Seahorse lives on which is very sensitive &will probably not return-confirmed in the EIS study.
• there will be a loss of water clarity during the 13 months of construction which will affect diving and may affect the fauna and flora of the area around Bare Island as it is only 300m from the wharf.
• the size of wharf is an overdevelopment. It is 5 times the size of the previous wharf and goes out 140m into the bay plus it has a huge wharf head. A smaller wharf would be more appropriate and have a smaller environmental impact.
• there will be an increase in large commercial vessels as well as the ferries operating and this will effect wildlife.
• the sediment stirred up from 13 months of construction and piling will result in a loss of water quality and clarity which will affect the recreational use of the bay
• it is a misuse of $17million tax payer money to reinstate a 40 year old ferry service in order to get more people visiting Captain Cook’s landing place at Kurnell (that is the stated objective)
• it will increase traffic congestion and parking issues at La Perouse -they claim it won’t
• it will have effects on nearby heritage listed Bare island which they don’t seem to have really considered when it is only 300m away
Name Withheld
Object
PHILLIP BAY , New South Wales
Message
During summer the roads are grid locked and there is no parking.
There are 13 parking spaces allocated to this ferry which is a joke. There is not the local infrastructure to handle the current number of visitors. We certainly don't need a poorly planned and thought out project to add to the chaos during the summer.
mary richard
Object
MAROUBRA , New South Wales
Message
Dear Director,

I object to the Kamay Ferry Wharves proposal

This is my OBJECTION Submission re Kamay Ferry Wharves – SSI-10049

I am a resident of Randwick Municipality and live some 15 minutes' drive away from La Perouse and my children and grandchildren live only a 10-minute walk away.

My husband and I like to take a drive to La Perouse to sit and watch the sea and various boats & leisure craft etc, take a short walk around this historical area both Australian and French (his heritage).

Due to my husband being disabled, it is perfect for him to relax, enjoy a coffee and a bite to eat, count the planes (a passion of his) due to the open view of the flight paths from this position, while I can enjoy exploring the many walks, we have been gifted with in this area.

It is wonderful to immerse ourselves in the peaceful atmosphere of this unique and still natural and unspoilt landscape and waterway, which holds such possibilities for us both.

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

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 bay 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.

The 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.

Concern this is part of a larger plan for a cruise ship terminal
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.

Mrs Mary Richard
Maroubra 2035
Warren Salomon
Support
BONDI JUNCTION , New South Wales
Message
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 support the project and the comments made in BIKEast's submission to the project proposal.
I recommend 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 further recommend 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 look forward to the integration of this new ferry service within a connected active transport network throughout the Eastern Suburbs.
Mark Worthington
Support
BONDI JUNCTION , New South Wales
Message
I support the reinstatement of a ferry service between La Perouse and Kurnell, but the safety and comfort of bicyclists in the area may be impacted. However, I also ask that:
- Transport for NSW and Randwick City Council work together to expedite the implementation of a high standard bike route linking La Perouse with Maroubra Junction and Kingsford - to ensure access to the ferry for all cyclists.
- Transport for NSW ensure that all ferries and wharves are designed to accommodate a range of 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.
Name Withheld
Support
SOUTH COOGEE , New South Wales
Message
I support the project.
It is important to accommodate a significant user group: people with bicycles.
We need Transport for New South Wales and Randwick Council to work together to immediately start the design and then construction of the Anzac Bikeway from Kingsford to La Perouse to ensure access to the ferry for all cyclists.
I request that Transport for New South Wales ensure that all ferries and wharves are designed to accommodate family bicycles, cargo bikes, and other large bicycles so that all cyclists can use the new ferry service.

Bicycle parking should be installed at the wharf, that is well-spaced, secure and in a high visibility location close to the berth.
James Hope
Support
COOGEE , New South Wales
Message
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 also ask that Transport for New South Wales provide sufficient numbers of high-quality bike racks, protected from the elements, to encourage people to ride to the ferry stop and park their bikes safely and securely at the ferry stop before getting on the ferry, thus reducing traffic generated by the ferry.

I look forward to the integration of this new ferry service within a connected active transport network throughout the Eastern Suburbs.
NSW Ports
Comment
BOTANY , New South Wales
Message
Please see NSW Ports submission attached
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
NEWTOWN , New South Wales
Message
Dear Sir/Madam

I wish to object to the proposal on the following grounds:

Botany Bay has already been subject to significant modifications due to the expansion of Port Botany and the airport runways. Kamay Bay remains the only area on the North side of Botany that has escaped these major developments. More specifically the cumulative impact including the locality of the jetties will result in a direct impact to seagrass habitats of approximately 21,270m2 through construction and operation of the project, taking into account direct impacts and indirect impacts associate with shading and scour from ferry wash. These impacts include approximately 682m2 of Posidonia australis seagrass meadow which corresponds to the same area of impact associated with White’s Seahorse and habitat for Black Rockcod (Epinephelus daemelii). These and other impacts to the aquatic environment are clearly unacceptable by any measure.

I many people including myself regularly use the area for surf boat and ski paddling, as it is free from boat traffic and the associated wakes from craft. Introducing ferries will destroy this recreational amenity. It will also mean that paddlers cannot hug the safety of the shore, and you will be forced to travel out and around the ferry wharf and into the path of the ferrys. This is not even mentioned in the EIS.

The traffic analysis makes no mention that La Perouse is one of the busiest routes for groups of cyclists in the whole of Sydney. Early mornings often see hundreds of cyclists traveling down Anzac Parade and around the loop at La Perouse. This is becuase the route has little through traffic and no traffic lights to impede exercise. One lesson from the Covid lockdowns has been a greater appreciation of safe locations for exercise, and this project would reduce the amenity of this area and introduce significant safety risks both during construction and ongoing additional traffic.

For all of the above impacts, there is no evidence that the Ferry will have sufficient demand to justify the considerable costs of the construction and operation of the ferries. So the significant community impacts are certainly not justified on economic grounds.

For these reasons the project should be rejected in its entirety.
Regards
Terry Daly
Name Withheld
Object
LA PEROUSE , New South Wales
Message
I strongly object to the Kamay Ferry Wharves project

I live at La Perouse and I like to swim and snorkel at Frenchman’s beach I also like to walk around the headland and kayak in the protected waters around the headland.

Frenchman’s bay and beach has become a prized recreational area in Sydney. People have always come here to enjoy fresh open space, historic setting and fabulous views and swimming. Literally thousands come every day in summer to enjoy the calm clean waters of Frenchman’s bay. This huge wharf structure with multiple commercial berths is an overdevelopment.

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 the community and environment at La Perouse.


Major points for objection are

1. Inappropriateness of scale – the proposal is for a wharf at La Perouse that is 180m long with a massive 40x10m wharf head. The wharf will stand 4m above the water. The old wharf it is ‘reinstating’ was just 30m long with no wharf head. The new scale is not justified as the prime purpose is meant to be replacing a ferry service. The old ferry took 25 passengers, this new design has facility for 40m long ferries that take over 520 people. This appears an overdevelopment.

2. Inappropriateness of adopting an urban design - This modern ‘urban’ design is not sensitive to the surrounding area and using materials such as concrete and metal in the open natural landscape setting of La Perouse is in direct contrast to the old historic buildings on the headland. It is not fit for purpose, doesn’t fit contextually and does not enhance the landscape. Instead, it detracts markedly from the atmosphere at La Perouse. It is not good design. A traditional style low impact wharf like the one at Bundeena or the ones used in multiple places in Pittwater would be more appropriate to the setting and declared purpose.

3. Lack of consideration of the huge adverse negative impact on La Perouse – the proposal will have major adverse social impacts at La Perouse on recreational usage. Beach goers will have their beach experience destroyed by the presence of a dominating wharf, they will have their view from the beach taken away, they will have noise impacts from vessel engines and PA systems and will be impacted from water pollution from rubbish and vessel fuel spills and loss of water clarity from sediment disturbance from the sea bed. These impacts have not been appropriately considered or minimised in any way. There is no acknowledgment of the impact or on-going safety of small watercraft, kayakers, windsurfers etc operating amidst large commercial boats. There is no acknowledgement of the displacement of these water sport activities and the project did not appear to be informed by many of the special interest groups affected. eg there was no notification board at La Perouse for regular beach visitors to inform them of what is to take place and no contact with windsurfing, foilboarding, diving and kayaking communities. The project will also have major adverse impacts on the La Perouse headland including views and vistas as well as destroying Heritage landscape and vistas.

4. Dubious purpose - the operation of the project doesn’t appear to be commercially viable and there is not sufficient detail for clear understanding of why it is so important. $17 million is a lot of money to spend on the stated primary purpose to ‘reinstate’ a ferry terminal to increase access and visitor numbers to Kamay National Park to celebrate Captain Cooks landing place on the 250th anniversary of his arrival. There did not seem to be appropriate modelling of visitor numbers expected or modelling of commercial viability. There is mention that a private operator may be subsidised but not mention of how much or for how long. Clearly it is unusual to proceed with such a project without clear purpose. A hidden purpose appears to be commercialisation of the bay through the inclusion of multiple berths but there is very little information on what commercial operations are to entail and how these may affect the community regarding noise, night time activity etc. Clearly building wharves to take vessels of 40m long able to take 520 passengers means that there is clearly a larger future purposes for this wharf that is not discussed. This indicates and extreme lack of transparency with the project. It was asked if Cruise ship tenders would be allowed to use the wharf but this question although repeatedly asked by the community never received a reply. The community was instead deliberately given a ridiculous reply that Cruise ships were too big to use the wharf. They were also told that this project was not part of the Cruise ship project which the public know already. The reply given was deliberately obscure and did not rule out a planned usage to benefit a Cruise ships terminal in the future.

5. Lack of transparency and information about ongoing maintenance costs or modelling for operational costs. There is mention that a private operator may be subsidised but no mention of how much. Ongoing maintenance costs are not detailed.

6. Lack of transparency about who is paying for it – the project has been announced multiple times as part of multiple projects from different departments. April 2018 announced by the NSW Minister for Environment and Heritage as part of a $50million Federal/NSW join budget to commemorate Captain Cook; October 2020 announced by the Minister Andrew Constance as being part of $205millionTransport NSW maritime cash splash; and also documented in the EIS as being part of $17million project being funded by NSW Parks and Wildlife but in another place in the EIS it is listed as being a project funded by the Australian and NSW Governments.

7. Misleading presentation of project (1) Combining the National Parks and referring to them as ‘Botany Kamay National Park’ repeatedly implies that the project benefits apply for La Perouse equally to Kurnell when by its own admission the project is designed to service and benefit Kamay National Park in Kurnell and La Perouse is included to service and facilitate the Kamay Kurnell project. The negative effects on La Perouse are being ignored, superficially addressed and then discounted. (2) Repeatedly referring to the project to being a reinstatement of a pre existing ferry service again misleadingly minimises perception of what it actually is, the project is 7 times the size of the previous wharf, it can take ferries of with over 520 passengers with facility for more commercialisation beyond the ferry service due to a second berth. The pre existing ferry service ran from 1890’s to 1974 to service needs when people neither owned nor had access to cars for recreational or work purposes so it is misleading to imply it is merely a replacement of this service. (3). It is misleading to claim the new wharf needs to be its current size in order to withstand weather as the old wharf was destroyed in a storm. It was destroyed in a storm by a large barge nearby breaking loose and smashing into the wharf not due to design issues.

8. Environmental impacts the loss of Endangered seagrass, Posidonia australis that provides habitat for the Endangered White’s seahorse is of great concern. The Whites seahorse is extremely sensitive to habitat loss and water turbidity and it is extremely concerning that it might be lost. Mitigation measures are disappointing as is the fact that the Marine study area only went 180m from La Perouse and ignores the rich area of marine diversity around Bare Island which is about 250m away from the wharf head and so highly likely to be affected by construction sediment plumes.

9. Parking and traffic concerns these are being insufficiently addressed. Initially 86 new spots were identified as being needed at La Perouse in the feasibility study. Suddenly, this number dropped to 13 in the EIS. This clearly seems inadequate but was dismissed as it is claimed that as there are legacy parking and traffic issues already and it was claimed the ferry wharf would not resolve or add to adverse impacts. The study to justify this issue was done at the absolute peak usage of La Perouse on a Sunday in the height of summer when you would expect extreme parking and traffic issues. There are parking and traffic issues at La Perouse at seasonal times but clearly any additional need would create extra pressure on the system during these times and at other times. Although there is admission that traffic may be frustrating for users it is dismissed as different people perceive impacts in different ways, and therefore may perceive residual impacts during operation of the project.

This process has been a travesty. It has not provided enough detail about many issues of significant importance/concern/impact. It has not addressed many issues honestly and transparently and there remain considerable concerns about the true purpose of the wharf. There is no discussion of private operator viability/costings, commercial wharf usage in the future etc.
Peter Strong
Object
ARNCLIFFE , New South Wales
Message
Dear Director,



I object to the Kamay Ferry Wharves proposal



I am Peter Strong, I live in the Bay area and with my family enjoy visiting La Perouse and enjoying the beach and bush areas.
What I particularly like about La Perouse is its village atmosphere, indigenous presence and natural unspoilt landscape
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 bay 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.

The 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.

Concern this is part of a larger plan for a cruise ship terminal

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.
All the best, Peter Strong
Ruth Griffiths
Object
LITTLE BAY , New South Wales
Message
attached
Attachments
La Perouse Against Commercialisation
Object
LA PEROUSE , New South Wales
Message
La Perouse against Commercialisation

Submission re Kamay Ferry Wharves – SSI-10049

We strongly object to the Kamay Ferry Wharves proposal

La Perouse Against Commercialisation Group is an informal group of visitors and local community who enjoy the environment and calm beaches and the unique unspoilt non commercial atmosphere of La Perouse. They are united in not wanting a Ferry wharf, not wanting a Cruise Ship terminal and not wanting excessive commercialisation in a place that for the last 100 years has been a place people come to escape from the city. They are concerned about La Perouse being overcommercialised.

Inappropriate size, scale and design. There are concerns about the huge size and scale of the proposed ferry wharf at La Perouse, it appears to be a massive overdevelopment and does not fit its declared purpose of just replacing a ferry service between La Perouse and Kurnell. The previous wharf was a fraction of the size. It is unclear why it needs to go 180m out into the bay and have a 40m x 10m wharfhead at the end. It is unclear why it needs to cater to ferries that are up to 40m long and take 522 passengers. The deliberate choice of an ‘urban’ design in concrete and steel with roofed waiting area at the sea end is completely at odds with the historic buildings at La Perouse and the existing open natural, scenic landscape and ‘escape from the city’ character that La Perouse is famous for. A small and more traditional design such as the wharves at Pittwater and Cronulla that fits in with, rather than contrasts with the environment would be more appropriate. The proposed design will dominate the bay, and negatively impact visitors, residents and beach lovers enjoyment of the area plus it will ruin views from the headland .

Need, purpose and viability. The project purpose is to increase access and visitor numbers to Kurnell. The construction and operation of ferry wharves seems an extremely expensive solution for stated need when there is currently perfectly reasonable road access to Kurnell. It will cost $17 million to build it, extra to maintain it and then a commercial operator will be subsidised to run it. None of these costings seem sufficiently justified. The low cost alternative of a dedicated bus service was quickly rejected and is not appropriately explored. A dedicated bus service compares favourably both in terms of value for money and minimal impact on the environment at Kurnell and La Perouse. It would be a 40 minute journey. There would be no infrastructure construction or maintenance costs and much lower operations costs than a ferry

There seems little solid justification for the project unless there are significant commercialisation plans that are not being talked about. According to the requirements of SEARs the process is meant to be open, balanced and transparent and provide enough information that people can understand clearly why the project is being done. The inclusion of commercial berths and the commercialisation aspect is barely touched upon. These are where the future impacts to the environment and community would be and they should be addressed in a full and meaningful way in the EIS. Operators such as Jet boats and night time party boats would all be possibilities but are not mentioned or impacts considered.

Fears of link to Cruise Ship terminal The EIS declares that the project is ‘independent of, and separate to any other infrastructure or development proposals for Botany Bay including the Cruise Ship terminal’. We already knew this as the Cruise Ship terminal has not been mentioned in any of the EIS documents. But the questions the community wished to be answered and reassured about was whether it could/or would be used by Cruise ship tenders in the future, or whether the ferry service could/would be expanded to include Hayes Dock to serve the Cruise ship industry. This question was avoided and we were given no reassurance on this matter. Indeed the opposite was the case and this valid concern appeared to be deliberately misunderstood and trivialised whenever this question was asked. The community was told ‘the location and design of the wharves would not be able to accommodate cruise ships’. This was at no time asked and it shows the level of disregard that the government holds for the consultative process and meaningful engagement with the public. It confirmed community fears on this matter and was a disappointing confirmation of lack of transparency in this project.

Negative Social impacts There will be significant social and recreational impacts due to the size of the project. The project fails to acknowledge or try to understand the importance of these impacts so it then fails to address them or consider ways to avoid, minimise or offset these impacts. The wharf will dominate the beach and cut off views of coastal headland and bay from the beach turning the beach into a harbour like swimming experience. People will be subjected to noise from commercial and ferry activity including revving engines, loudspeakers and vessel horns and possible additional pollution from oil spillage, rubbish and disturbed water clarity from propeller jets. The recreational area used extensively by kayaks, people in small tinnies, windsurfers etc will all be compromised by the wharf, the restrictions surrounding it and the commercial activity it will attract. There will also be a huge negative impact on visitors wanting to enjoy walks and picnics around the headland and concerns that if commercialisation of the bay results such as use by Cruise ship tenders then La Perouse will become a busy ferry/bus transport hub.


Traffic and parking considerations. Parking and traffic congestion problems resulting from the ferry service are being dismissed and have either not been addressed, or are completely unrealistic. Initially 86 new parking spots were identified as being needed at La Perouse in the feasibility study. Suddenly, this number dropped to 13 in the EIS. This clearly seems inadequate. It is claimed in the EIS that because there are parking and traffic issues already at La Perouse (which is true during peak weekends in summer) the ferry wharf ‘would not resolve or add to adverse impacts’. The parking study to justify this conclusion was deliberately done on a Sunday in the height of summer (Feb 2nd) when you would expect extreme parking and traffic issues.

Environmental concerns

There is community concern over the damage to seagrass beds particularly the Endangered Posidonia australis, these seagrasses help reduce erosion and improve water quality as well as support aquatic life in the bay. The Endangered Whites seahorse that is found around the La Perouse peninsular is frequently found in the Posidonia australis seagrass and will be affected due to decreased and fragmented foraging habitat and due to the fact it is particularly sensitive to sediment and habitat change which will certainly impact on it due to the 13 month piling operations disturbing sediment and causing turbidity and loss of water clarity. The report acknowledges that there would be impacts on the seagrass which would be mitigated by implementing a marine biodiversity offset strategy however, the impacts on the Endangered Whites sea horse do not seem to have been adequately addressed. The marine study area does not appear to include the rich aquatic area around Bare Island that starts about 200m away from the wharf and is where the Whites sea horse could be expected to be.
Mark Baker
Object
LA PEROUSE , New South Wales
Message
I object to The Kamay Ferry Wharf/ Commercial Marina proposal for the following reasons;
The proposal amounts to a gross, unnecessary and unwanted overdevelopment in a historically,environmentally, culturally important setting that is beloved of and belongs to ALL Australians, it should be treated with real care, it is not a business opportunity for government and commercial enterprises.
There will be 13 months of construction (aka destruction) with lots of pile driving as the wharf is going out 140m out into Frenchman’s bay with a 40x10m wharf head at the end, so a big project that will naturally have BIG environmental impacts.
• there will be an impact on the White’s Seahorse (Sydney Seahorse) that is an Endangered species, as well as weedy sea dragons, nudibranchs, turtles and seals etc.
• the construction process will destroy some of the Threatened seagrass habitat that the Seahorse lives on which is very sensitive &will probably not return-confirmed in the EIS study.
• there will be a loss of water clarity during the 13 months of construction which will affect diving and may affect the fauna and flora of the area around Bare Island as it is only 300m from the wharf.
• the size of wharf is an overdevelopment. It is 5 times the size of the previous wharf and goes out 140m into the bay plus it has a huge wharf head. A smaller wharf would be more appropriate and have a smaller environmental impact.
• there will be an increase in large commercial vessels as well as the ferries operating and this will effect wildlife.
• the sediment stirred up from 13 months of construction and piling will result in a loss of water quality and clarity which will affect the recreational use of the bay
• it is a misuse of $17million tax payer money to reinstate a 40 year old ferry service in order to get more people visiting Captain Cook’s landing place at Kurnell (that is the stated objective)
• it will increase traffic congestion and parking issues at La Perouse -they claim it won’t
• it will have effects on nearby heritage listed Bare island which they don’t seem to have really considered when it is only 300m away. This proposal does not stand up to scrutiny and should be rejected outright.

Pagination

Project Details

Application Number
SSI-10049
EPBC ID Number
2020/8825
Assessment Type
State Significant Infrastructure
Development Type
Water transport facilities (including ports)
Local Government Areas
Randwick City
Decision
Approved
Determination Date
Decider
Minister

Contact Planner

Name
Fadi Shakir