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 61 - 80 of 118 submissions
Sutherland Shire Historical Society
Support
WOOLOOWARE , New South Wales
Message
Sutherland Shire Historical Society supports the re-establishment of the Kamay Botany Bay ferry service between Kurnell and La Perouse. While there are tourist and accessibility advantages to this, the most important impact of this project will be to form a link between the two parts of Kamay Botany Bay National Park. This will once again re-connect the Aboriginal community of La Perouse with the southern side of the Bay, a location of immense traditional significance and one that was regularly visited even within living memory by members of the La Perouse community.
Mal Nicolson
Comment
GYMEA BAY , New South Wales
Message
As Kamay /landing Site is a Heritage listed area I do not support the removal of the Ferry shelter as a part of this project.
The Shelter area is an historic site in its own right, with Heritage background, of sound condition and easily retained within any planned activity.
It should remain as it currently is.
The rest of the project is worthwhile.
St George Scuba Club
Object
KAREELA , New South Wales
Message
Project is not needed as ferry is not needed. Parking at La Perouse is already totally full by early in the morning all fine weekends and even many weekdays in summer. Environmental impact to marine environment at Bare Island and Kurnell (Monuments dive site etc) has not even been considered in the EIS. No actual survey work appears to have been undertaken at either site. Previous work further away (Port Botany and airport) have severely impacted the fishlife at both places and they still have not recovered from the last work over 10 years ago. No comments from relevant groups and people have even been considered. There is little demand to travel from La Perouse to Kurnell via ferry and the extremely limited parking will mean few will want to do it. La Perouse already has enough attractions to not need the perceived added attraction of a ferry. In addition, permitting other commercial operators to use will mean the parking will be gone even earlier when dive and fishing charter operators use. The parking data in EIS appears to have been only done on one day and does not represent the actual situation. All in all, this is a terrible proposal and not wanted by the community or the people who regularly use the La Perouse and Kurnell precincts.
Michael McFadyen
Object
KAREELA , New South Wales
Message
I have been visiting this area since 1960 on a daily or weekly basis. I still visit at least weekly. I have been scuba diving both areas since 1988 and am recognised as one of the more knowledgeable persons about the marine environment here and have assisted in mapping the underwater environment. Project is not needed as ferry is not needed. Parking at La Perouse is already totally full by early in the morning all fine weekends and even many weekdays in summer. Environmental impact to marine environment at Bare Island and Kurnell (Monuments dive site etc) has not even been considered in the EIS. No actual survey work appears to have been undertaken at either site. Previous work further away (Port Botany and airport) have severely impacted the fishlife at both places and they still have not recovered from the last work over 10 years ago. No comments from relevant groups and people have even been considered. There is little demand to travel from La Perouse to Kurnell via ferry and the extremely limited parking will mean few will want to do it. La Perouse already has enough attractions to not need the perceived added attraction of a ferry. In addition, permitting other commercial operators to use will mean the parking will be gone even earlier when dive and fishing charter operators use. The parking data in EIS appears to have been only done on one day and does not represent the actual situation. All in all, this is a terrible proposal and not wanted by the community or the people who regularly use the La Perouse and Kurnell precincts.
Gail Galea
Object
PHILLIP BAY , New South Wales
Message
Being a local over 30 years I object to the project due to the detrimental effect it most likely will have on the ocean life in the La Perouse, Kurnell and Yarra Bay areas . The effect on traffic is an already congested area will definitely be an issue, with summer months already unbearable the added impact on traffic may contribute to loss of lives if emergency services cannot get through (highly likely to happen). The environment and the lives of the locals will be adversely effected by this project!
Deborah Richter
Object
LITTLE BAY , New South Wales
Message
Dear Director,

I object to the Kamay Ferry Wharves proposal

I am a local resident of Little w and visit La Perouse many times a week for walking, recreational swimming, attending the wonderful restaurants and for its peace and lovely outlook.

What I particularly like about La Perouse is the safe, calm water at Frenchman’s beach perfect for swimming, children, the walks around the headland, the unobscured views over Botany Bay and the natural unspoilt landscape with past and current links to our indigenous residents.
I gave many concerns with the project proceeding:-

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.

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 or an adjunct for day trips they sell.
I can honestly say I see no benefit that outweighs the degradation of the area, the huge impact on residents and the traffic implications.
Name Withheld
Object
LA PEROUSE , New South Wales
Message
Submission re Kamay Ferry Wharves – SSI-10049
Dear Director,
I strongly object to the Kamay Ferry Wharves proposal.

I strongly object to the proposed Kamay Ferry Wharves, on the basis of environmental destruction, community impacts, traffic impacts and the lack of meaningful and direct engagement with affected landowners and residents that actually and physically live in La Perouse, our voices have not been heard.
The engagement to date has been a disgrace, your engagement team have not listened to the community, this is the directly impacted community of La Perouse – not the surrounding suburbs or people who once remember the good ol days where they would dive for pennies or someone who’s father fished off the wharf, a Direct/ Permanent and long time Resident of La Perouse.

On a number of occasions, your engagement team have advised that they have engaged with Aboriginal members of the community, the land council and families, however the direct impacted La Perouse Community have not had their voice and opinion taken into consideration, long term residents, land owners and rate payers deserve respect and their opinions taken into account as they are the ones who have and want what is best for our area and our community.

People from the La Perouse Suburb should have a say and have their voices heard as their opinions matter, not everyone belongs to the LALC or an organisation that can help you to meet your targets. Your Indigenous engagement representative was dismissive of any opinion that was in objection to the wharves, stating they knew what the community and families wanted – this is incorrect, I witnessed members of the Aboriginal community not being listened to, they may have nodded and were present in person but they didn’t listen to them, comments were made behind the backs of the residents by the team, kinship ties to La Perouse is not cause enough to be placed in a position to speak for the community.

Your motive to partner with 1 local Aboriginal business to advance your reconciliation action plan and gain headway to build this monstrosity is indigestible, how is this genuine consultation and relationship building when you are paying to hear what you want to hear and are not listening to the people who physically live in the area and will be living with the impacts of their decisions.

There is nothing genuine or meaningful about the consultation process to date.
I strongly object to the Kamay ferry wharves proposal.

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.

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, if the purpose of this construct is to connect to culture, why would Aboriginal people want to connect and build anything that represents COOK. This is Ludacris..

HUGE WHARF SIZE
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. The project is a massive overdevelopment.
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.

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.
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.

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.

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.

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 sounds like a gateway project to allow a cruise terminal and other major tourist developments.

To close, we do have a strong sense of community here at La Perouse, we aren’t getting paid to agree to these projects, there is also talk that some community members are going to benefit as they were going to be granted with boats and access to these ridiculous wharves so they can start whale watching and fishing cruises, only a small number of people will gain from this, there is little to no gain for the wider community who will have to put up with the noise, traffic, parking, lack of family beach. If you want to feel like you are economically benefitting the local Aboriginal community hand over the money, build the centre over in Kurnell, buy boats, grant access to the wharves around on Foreshore road but don’t destroy La Perouse or the beaches or the serenity of the area, we finally are in a position where we have fish and marine life coming back into the beaches. Why set out to destroy it and our pockets in the process as we and generations to come will be paying this ridiculous waste of money off.

La Perouse is a destination not an interchange, people and their families come here to enjoy the beaches, the parks the walks and the headland. People don’t go to La Perouse to go somewhere else.

I strongly object to the Kamay ferry wharves proposal.
Name Withheld
Object
KURNELL , New South Wales
Message
Department of Planning, Industry and Environment



LA PEROUSE/KURNELL FERRY WHARVES PROPOSAL – SSI-100049


I wish to make the following comments and lodge my strong objections to the subject proposal.

I would like to know why this project has proceeded to this stage. A 2016 study had shown that a ferry service across Botany Bay is not viable.

Also, why is it being stated in the many “information” being made about the proposal that the ferry service stopped after the wharves were both destroyed by a storm in 1974. The ferry service ceased in May 1965. The service for many years prior to ceasing ran only intermittently. It was never ran as a regular commuter service.

On opening of the Captain Cook Bridge across the Georges River in 1965 made it so much easier and convenient to drive from one side of the Bay to the other if one wanted to. (that also made a ferry service redundant). It also opened up easy access to both La Perouse and Kurnell from different parts of greater Sydney. The road trip now only takes thirty or so minutes. In peak times maybe up to forty-five minutes. (who made up the time of ninety minutes? maybe if a car/truck is broken down somewhere). Both La Perouse and Kurnell are easily accessible to all people all over Sydney.

Why would a dedicated express tourist bus take two hours to travel from La Perouse to Kurnell? This would be a better experience to reach the destination given onboard information on the places around Botany Bay. Obviously not much thought went into alternatives to a ferry service, or to different sites for wharves.

The time for a ferry to cross Botany Bay is stated to be twenty minutes. It doesn’t take into account that a family has to walk to the ferry wharf from their car. At La Perouse, on weekends, parking is very limited. Visitors to the area park all the way up Anzac Parade to Canara Avenue. A good thirty-minute walk with the family. Then they will spend time waiting for the ferry, then wait to board and depart. Then, dependant on weather conditions, twenty minutes to cross. Then, after disembarking, a ten-minute walk to the museum and NP&WS café. (the intended destination by the Kamay 2020 project). As in the past, the ferry may not be able to operate due to weather/sea conditions or break down. Visitors would have to look for alternate transport for the return journey, or wait, maybe three days.

As the Park will be made the point of focus for visitors, the NP&WS café will be where business may be focussed. Businesses (cafes and takeaway) at Kurnell will not attract any more customers than perhaps now, they even may lose some patronage.

Botany Bay has some sixty kilometres of shoreline. Forty percent of that is hard surface. Around seventy five percent of this is man-made, ie revetment, break walls, groynes etc. With so much development on the shoreline, the natural environment has suffered and changed. Adding more hard structures such as the proposed wharves will only add to the decline in the natural environment left in the Bay. This is not a way of protecting country and the heritage value of Botany Bay.

Seagrass communities are a very important component of Botany Bay’s environment. In the area there are communities of Posidonia australis, Zostera capicornia and Halophilia australis. These are threatened communities. Seagrass communities off Silver Beach in recent years alone have been damaged destroyed with construction of the desalinated water pipeline and the 132Kv.Kurnell/La Perouse electricity cable project. Construction of the wharves will have a very negative affect, both physically destroying and smothering due to increase sediment turbidity. Ferries and boats using the wharves (if built) will cause gouging on the sea bed that will negatively affect and destroy the seagrass communities. The disturbance caused by ferries/boats at the wharf at Kurnell will disturb the tributyltin in sediments in this area. Many shellfish are taken for consumption from the area. The disturbed tributyltin will be absorbed by the shellfish and when consumed has severe health implications.

NP&WS has shown hypocrisy in this proposal. It objected to the 132Kv electricity cable being routed through the cables original pathway because of the disturbance to the park. The old pathway led to an area of seabed that would not have affected seaggrass communities. The cable was then routed through the seagrass beds off Silver Beach. After a number of years the seagrass communities have not recovered yet. With this proposal, NP&WS support the disturbance of the Park with the laying of electricity cables as well as the a length time of disturbance of may terrestrial fauna and flora as well as the ongoing destruction of seagrass communities.

Visually, due to the enormous size and length of the wharves will block the views of the predominately natural landscape of Kurnell from La Perouse and visa versa. Why plan for such oversized structures to use Sydney Harbour type ferries that will over power the landscape and not utilize more “boutique” style watercraft? Now the uninterrupted views provide an important area of visual interest away from the largely industrial areas.

The Gweagal people lived on the southern side of Botany Bay. They were the custodians of the land. The Gadigal people inhabited the northern side of the Bay and north as far north as Sydney Harbour. When Lt. James Cook and is expedition attempted to come ashore Gweagal men warned them not to land on their land. These men would have done the same to any other clan including the Gadigal people from coming to their land. (there would be doubt whether they would cross the ocean waters near Botany Bay heads). Now there is a narrative that there is a traditional connection of those that live on the northern shore with the land on the south. How can this be? In the late fifties, early sixties, many families from the La Perouse area did visit Kurnell to have a picnic and undertake activities associated with a day visit. It was a family outing. Does this make every outing a tradition?

Now, more pointedly, an “experience of arriving” by boat will only reinforce the perceived history of “invasion” of the land.

As with any development, parking has to be made available “on site”. In this regard, substantial parking has to be provided within the national park and should not be imposed on to communities in their local streets.

This proposal will only facilitate the creation of an expensive amusement ride and the destruction of the natural environment in another section of Botany Bay. Socially, the funds allocated by the Federal and State governments would be better spent to provide housing for many Indigenous families and not for a few to relive their childhood memories. A ferry service will undoubtedly have tax payer subsidies to operate. Both to start up and then ongoing. Is this reasonable?

With global warming, the use of fossil fuels is to be replaced. Ferries are run on large amounts of diesel fuel. Is this appropriate development?
Name Withheld
Object
LA PEROUSE , New South Wales
Message
Dear Director,

I strongly object to the KAMAY Ferry Wharf proposal for Kamay Botany Bay. I am a long time resident of La Perouse (40 years+) and enjoy the beautiful area with my family and friends.

My main concerns are as follows:

La Perouse is a 'destination'. People come here for the natural beauty. A ferry wharf would essentially negatively transform La Perouse into a transit zone. This would be detrimental to the environment and the community. The same can be said for Kurnell.

The natural environment of Kamay Botany Bay has already taken a massive beating with overdevelopment especially the port and airport. Even the Foreshore Road has seen a significant reduction in the bay and damage that cannot be repaired. The continued and growing operations of the port are of serious environmental concern. The addition of a ferry service would be cumulative to the environmental damage. This being air pollution, water pollution, noise pollution and light pollution. Not to forget the serious and irreversible damage caused by construction of the wharves.

The proposed wharf at La Perouse is massive. It would be eyesore that would look awful to begin with and dominate the natural beauty with manmade arrogance. The excess is unbelievable. There is a perfectly good boat ramp and jetty at Botany on Foreshore Road that could be used for all of the supposed benefits.

The ferry project is a serious and unjustifiable waste of taxpayer money. It can be likened to the Sydney monorail. Would Sydney be planning on bring that white elephant back as well? I hope not.

The money set aside to complete this financially unfeasible project should be reallocated to either pay down the huge COVID debt, or improve our health and or education system. These are significantly more important matters. Who is going to foot the bill for the ongoing running and maintenance of the facilities? again the taxpayer? We cannot afford to waste money in this way.

Frenchmans Beach is used by families including thousands of children nearly every day of the year and increasingly at or over capacity every summer. The addition of ferries and tour boats would see extra pollution and rough conditions washing up onto the beach. Small children cannot and should not have to endure rough conditions created by these larger boats.

It would be disappointing to see a eyesore built to service only a few and benefit even less. There was no ferry before Captain Cook arrived. There are many ways to get from one side of the bay to the other without the need for further environmental damage or waste of money.

As mentioned, I strongly object to this proposal and look forward to the project being withdrawn.
Ramy Raymond
Object
LITTLE BAY , New South Wales
Message
Dear Director,

I object to the Kamay Ferry Wharves proposal.
I live locally in little bay and visit Laperouse often. Like many locals we walk our kids, dogs, ride our bikes, go fishing & swim at the beach.

There is alot of history, marine life, and a unique character to laperouse. It's the perfect completion of the eastern coast from Watson's Bay.

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.

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.

Thank you for the opportunity to have my say.
Ramy.
Christina Dawson
Object
MATRAVILLE , New South Wales
Message
Dear Director,

I object to the Kamay Ferry Wharves proposal

I am a local resident who walks, swims at and enjoys La Perouse all week long, year around with my husband and 4 kids.

What I particularly like about La Perouse is the calm water at Frenchman’s beach and the walks around the headland.

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.

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.
Name Withheld
Object
COOGEE , New South Wales
Message
To whom it may concern,

I am writing this letter to object to the proposal of a ferry service between La Perouse and Kurnell.

The area of La Perouse is at present heavily congested during weekends, public holidays and school holidays. There is insufficient parking to cope with the increase in visitors to La Perouse. Adding the ferry service will make it worse.

Frenchman’s beach (location of the wharf build) is a very popular spot for beach goers, nippers, swimmers and board sports (wind surfing, stand up paddle boarding, wing foiling, sailing etc…).
This particular area is a rare sheltered and protected area from the ocean swell and it should be left to the public to enjoy. The proposal includes constructing a large wharf and an exclusion zone at the south end of Frenchman’s beach.

In addition, it’s a very popular spot for people who launch from the beach when they practice wing foiling. Please note that this is currently the fastest growing water sport in history.
Wing foiling is mostly banned along all ocean beaches along the eastern suburbs so users are already heavily constrained by the possible locations to practice the sport. This spot must be saved.

Botany bay is a very important place in the history of Australia and should be left as it is. It has already been severely hindered by the constructions of the airport, port botany, Kurnell refinery. The local residents are still fighting to save Yarra bay from the cruise terminal proposal.

Kind regards,
Tom Murphy
Name Withheld
Object
SYDNEY , New South Wales
Message
The wharf will ruin one of the few spots for wing foiling and kiting. As these sports are banned in all the eastern suburb beaches and all of Sydney Harbour.
Also, the car parks and roads around La Perouse are already chaotic enough without a ferry wharf adding to the congestion.
Name Withheld
Object
LA PEROUSE , New South Wales
Message
See attached for my submission of objection to the Kamay Ferry Wharves project
I like to swim & snorkel at Frenchmans beach as it has excellent 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 percei
Attachments
Gail Alexandrou
Object
GREENHILLS BEACH , New South Wales
Message
I object to this project on the grounds of the following:

1. The impact to the environment of our waterways to fish etc
2. Noise pollution within the surrounding suburban area of Kurnell, Greenhills Beach and Cronulla
3. Degraded quality of air given the Sydney Water Treatment plant is nearby on Captain Cook Drive, Cronulla.
4. Increased traffic of which this side of Greenhills Beach and Kurnell are already conjested
5. Devaluation of residential properties
Name Withheld
Object
CRONULLA , New South Wales
Message
I object to the proposal on several grounds, however for simplicity, will only note two issues, as follows:
1) Increasing visitor numbers at both sections of the NP as facilitated by the ferries will add unreasonable pressure to already overburdened natural habitats and add to their degradation and loss of natural ecosystems and habitat.

2) I believe that this proposal is a thinly disguised "thin edge of the wedge" for the development of a cruise liner terminal at Little Bay.
Charles Abela
Object
La Perouse , New South Wales
Message
As a resident of La Perouse for over 50 years I am fully knowledgeable of the ferry that used to be. As a passenger ferry between La Perouse and Kurnell it was only of marginal use because the crossing entailed exposure to a long stretch of ocean swells and waves and strong tidal currents. The ferry therefore was highly susceptible to weather which often prevented it from operating at all or often taking visitors across to Kurnell in calm morning conditions and then not able to bring them back because of wind increase. As there were no buses at Kurnell this meant a long walk to the train at Cronulla or in some cases to Rockdale if the ferry could manage to transport them to Sans Souci. The real use of the ferry was to transport the crews of the tankers which moored in the middle of the Bay before Port Botany was built and to transport food and spare parts to the tankers. If the ferry was not used to service the tankers then its use as a crossing to Kurnell would have ceased because it would not be economically viable due to its weather dependent unpredictable use.
I strongly object to the ferry wharf proposal at La Perouse because:
It cannot be economically justified because:
• its use for a regular commuter ferry is impossible because of the frequent adverse weather conditions
• its use as a means of conveying visitors to either Kurnell or La Perouse would be marginal because weather conditions often change making the crossing either impossible, stranding the visitors or making the users seasick as often happened in previous times because of the exposure of the crossing to the ocean.
• Where is the business case that takes into account the above factors and justifies the use of taxpayers’ money which could be used on much better benefit to the general community?
Additionally:
• the demand for use of the three beaches at La Perouse makes find a parking spot after about 9 am on a warm weekend day is impossible.
• Last summer Council had to put into effect road closures as the traffic of hopeful beachgoers was causing gridlock in the locality
• Adding more parking spaces in the hope of serving the ferry would be useless because the spaces would immediately be filled up by beachgoers.
• More parking spaces would make the historic, heritage and environmentally valuable village of La Perouse look more like a giant car park than it already does.
• The traffic at La Perouse on a warm day is such that cars enter into the suburb then go around the Loop then exit the suburb to go to other beaches. This happens from about 9 in the morning to frequently 5 in the afternoon subjecting the suburb to car fumes, car noise and from some of the cars extremely annoying hoon type noise. People hoping to use the ferry would increase this type of adverse impact on the suburb even though it would be highly unlikely they would find a parking spot.
There is strong widespread community doubt as to the real motivation of the Government to fund this economically unjustifiable project. This doubt is underpinned by the fact that the ferry proposal initially was made public in concert with a proposal for huge residential and commercial development at Kurnell which included hotels and at the same time proposals for a cruise ship terminal at Yarra Bay. The community rightly feels it is being duped.
La Perouse United Mens Aboriginal Corporation
Support
MYSTERY BAY , New South Wales
Message
On behalf of the La Perouse United Mens Aboriginal Corporation as Director Chairman I Paul Brown would like to state that our organisation is in support of the Kamay Ferry Wharves Project. Our Corporation believes we have a great opportunity to be a part of this project that has the potential to benefit the economy, natural environment of community, our connection to land and sea country and the health and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal People of our Community.
Our organisation has been respectfully and appropriately consulted with regarding the Kamay Ferry Wharves Project, thanks to the ARUP organisation and Marcia Ella-Duncan. Our organisation also believes we have a great opportunity to be a part of this project that aligns with our objectives that aims to benefit the health and wellbeing of our members and their community. Hopefully the application will be successful, and we look forward to the possibilities of working with all those involved in this project.
As discussed in the consultation of this project our organisation believes there are opportunities associated with the construction and operations of the proposed new ferry wharves at La Perouse and Kurnell that could be greatly beneficial to our organisation and our community. We believe that the wharves have the possibility to create economic growth in our community for existing and new retail commercial businesses. Opportunities for cultural awareness and tours, jobs in construction and operation for local Aboriginal people, opportunity for the ferries and /or the wharves to be owned/ operated by an Aboriginal enterprise, and representation of the La Perouse Aboriginal community and culture at the wharves. Increased opportunities for cultural and recreational fishing and diving.
Our organisation believes the environmental impact statement process has been appropriately conducted addressing our concerns. We have ambitions of being respectfully involved in the wharves design features, Aboriginal heritage sites and the PACHCI and RAP’s, potential impacts to unknown Aboriginal, Non-Aboriginal and underwater heritage, heritage management, unexpected heritage finds procedure, heritage awareness inductions, Archaeological supervision, Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Reports, Biodiversity Marine Work Skills and Employment Strategy.
Regards Paul Brown Director Chairman
La Perouse United Mens Aboriginal Corporation
Scubaholics Social Club
Object
ASHFIELD , New South Wales
Message
Dear Kamay Ferry Wharf Project Committee,
We have grave concerns for the welfare of local scuba divers and the tenuous environment, flora and fauna regarding the importance of the following for our community, as there is:
1. Already no parking at La Perouse
2. No demand from the public for a ferry
3. Potential damage to the marine environment from works and (future) ferries at both places - especially the endangered Weedy Sea Dragon located at both proposed ferry sites
4. A lack of proper research into marine environment
5. Lack of research into current parking situation
6. Scuba diver and swimming safety concerns - from an already established large community of divers
One would hope that concerns for a potential fatality would allow common sense to prevail in your decision making process.
Regards
Russ
Jessica Gough
Object
WEST RYDE , New South Wales
Message
Dear Kamay Ferry Wharf Project Committee,
We have grave concerns for the welfare of local scuba divers, recreational users and the critical environment, flora and fauna regarding the importance of the following for our community, as there is:
1. Already no parking at La Perouse
2. No demand from public for a ferry
3. Potential damage to the marine environment from works and (future) ferries at both places - especially the endangered Weedy Sea Dragon located at both proposed ferry sites
4. A lack of proper research into the marine environment
5. There is Lack of research into current parking situation
6. Scuba diver and swimming safety concerns - from an already established large community.
One would hope that concerns for a potential fatality would allow common sense to prevail in your decision making process.
Regards

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