Kamay Ferry Wharves

If ever you re looking for inspiration, this is the text i wrote:

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

All the fisherman will lose valuable fishing grounds. The ferries will have right of way and also disrupt the ecosystem. .The path the ferries take will need to be discussed with the fishing experts and studies into the effects on squid breeding etc. Fisherman have already lost valuable waters in the last few years . This is just inconsiderate planning where you pretend to consult and do what you want anyway, such a farce....

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.

This project is going to endangered the underwater life around kurnel and bare island
.. a ferry there is going to destroy this amazing ecosystem which was the main reason for me to move to Sydney. We should protect this area. Not increase the human presence!

I've discussed with many scuba diver and they already provided a lot of data on why is a bad idea. To avoid repeating them, i just want to conclude this message saying I'm strongly against this project and that we should take more measure to protect our beautiful ecosystem rather than adding more ferries

Dear Director,

I strongly object to the Kamay Ferry Wharves proposal.

The proposed Ferry Path, and the Ferry Proposal will significantly disrupt many recreational fishing activities in the Botany Bay Recreational Fishing Haven, which the NSW recreational fishers paid to remove all commercial fishing effort back in the early 2000's, will the NSW Government be offering any form of compensatory offsets or funding SHOULD this Development proceed?
How will such be negotiated and what type or manner of compensatory offsets may be inculded?

I am Malcolm Poole, whilst not a local resident l am a member of the South Sydney AFC and actively participate in and enjoy many recreational activities in and around the La Perouse/Botany Bay area from recreational fishing from the shore or a boat, to paddling and freediving/snorkelling activities, and advocacy around the Botany Bay Recreational Fishing Haven, and across NSW.

Through the Recreational Fishing Alliance of NSW we also educate many recreational fishers from CALD Communities about Rock Fishing Safety seeing that they gain the knowledge and skills to safely watch and learn, and then negotiate the rocky foreshores anywhere. The rocky areas around La Perouse are a particularly good teaching environment, in all weather and ocean swell conditions.

We do note that parking can be good when the weather is bad, or horrible/worst if the weather is good, as there are never and parking spaces available, meaning that the Workshop then needs to book an extra drop and pick up bus service from the Fishing Club to the Bare Island or Frenchman's Bay fishing locations.

We have to state why is this Ferry Service being investigated by this Government and potentially built! We cannot fully understand the proposal and what overall benefits it hopes to bring to both locations, on the northern and southern shores of Botany Bay, from travellers travelling in both directions. 

Just who are the possible ferry service patrons too be, what is there to see, do or travel too in close proximity on the southern shores around Kurnell, and what passengers might access if they travel from the southern shores to La Perouse and beyond into the city, with a trip taking in excess of 80mins, it will be like travelling from the Northern Beaches.

After reading through the many documents attempting to understand the most basic issues around the expenditure of NSW Tax Payer funds, one would anticipate to see a clearly justified position, showing significant public and local community benefit, and a sound financial position as would be the requirement of any normal business case, well that just does not exist.

The current size and design of the La Perouse wharf mean that it will dominate the bay, in the north and south, significantly changing the overall vista and amentity of the bay and around La Perouse forever.

The parking at present is extremely limited and without understanding the potential ferry patronage and their visitation durations, then this will further restrict parking in this popular area.

We note there only appears to be an additional 13 car parks to be added in the north, really! Thats what 26 potential ferry patrons and the dedicated ferry parking is FULL!

The inclusion of an additional commercial wharf could have huge future commercial implications and impacts on existing businesses.

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.

Overall the WHARF length and size is enormous.

The project is a total over development for this area. 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 extended out into Botany Bay some 180m, it has this oversized 40mx10m wharf head at the end. We read that the old ferry wharf was only 30m long with no wharf head, and this is supposedly replacing that wharf. 

The covered walled waiting area at the end of the wharf is bulky, the wharf height is also much higher from the water than the old wharf, presumably to deal with the oceanic conditions that this part of the Bay experiences on occassions. 

This is not just about a ferry service it is on a different scale entirely. It is at least 7 times the size of the old wharf with allowance for massive ferries up to 40m long that maybe using it.

FRENCHMAN'S BEACH WILL BE SPOILED FOREVER!
There will be a massive impact on the beach and those that use this usual quiter part of the bay, the many watercraft will be impacted, as it towers over the beach and will ruin views from the beach over the headland and south western part of the bay.

There will be noise from the ferries and commercial vessels including revving engines, loudspeakers and vessel horns and possible pollution from oil spillage, litter and rubbish and the water quality will be compromised, turbity will be increased 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 WILL BE 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, and ample parking, as a mass transit solution, will be  a recipe for disaster, including access for  emergency services, wharf and ferry maintenance, deliveries by vehicles, services, cleaning and refuse removal.

The ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS ARE MANY.
There will be damage to Endangered seagrass beds, and the Endangered White  Seahorses and Weedy Seadragons, that are found around the La Perouse peninsular during construction and the ongoing operations of the Ferries and its infrasinfrastructure. 

Although they have said there will be an offset strategy this may not be enough to save the seahorse/seadragins 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.
I look forward to reading the Submission Summary Report once it is compiled an to see how this Government will attempt to justify such.
Regards
Malcolm Poole

I object to Kamay Ferry Wharves

Please note thisaddition to my previous submission:
RE confusion and lack of transparency on wharf length - a critical element of the project.

On 10th August I lodged my submission. The following day, (on the final day of submissions) I received a call from the proponent’s representative in which I was accused of inventing a figure of 180m for the length of the wharf at La Perouse. I was put on notice that providing misinformation to people about the project was a serious offence. I was then asked where I had got the figure from and I replied it was in the EIS. The representative disputed that it was in the EIS and asked where exactly I had got it from.

I had been struck when I found the figure in the EIS that it was the only reference to wharf length in the whole 4600 page document which had seemed strange, almost as if it was being deliberately hidden, or as if all reference to length had at some stage been removed and this one had somehow slipped through. On reflection, it seems completely bizarre that there was no reference to size when the magnitude of the project is the main reason people are objecting because it is many, many times larger than the original project.

I also asked if the proponent knew the exact size of the original wharf as it was not included in the EIS and it was an important piece of information in order to compare the proposed new wharf. I was laughingly dismissed and told that there wouldn’t be any record of the old wharf size as it was 45 years ago before the internet. I responded that I would therefore have to go on hearsay from some of the older resident’s local knowledge who had informed me that the wharf was not larger than 25-30 metres long, I have therefore referred to the original wharf being 30m long to allow for error.

8 hours before submission closure I received a confusing phone call and email from the proponent’s representative informing me that I was right and it did indeed appear in the EIS that the wharf ‘would extend 180m.. from the shoreline.’ However, it was put to me that this 180m was in fact misleading and a convoluted and confusing explanation was given with dimensions that did not add up. The proponents representative unfortunately did not clarify this. So I am still not clear exactly how long the wharf is. Why has this proposal been put to the public without telling us how big it is and why is the only reference to size now claimed to be wrong or misleading?

I was also told in this email that from a ‘best guess’ of imagery the original La Perouse wharf was about 50m long. I feel more confident with the hearsay of residents who regularly used the wharf who suggested 25-30m long.

Also on the day prior to submissions closure I tried to clarify why 3 SEARs had been issued and what the changes were in the final SEARs as reference to Key Issue Design Place & Movement 4.3(c) regarding ‘Views and Vistas’ appeared to have dropped off the SEARs document. I was informed that it must have been a formatting error and it should have appeared on the SEARs. This seems an unsatisfactory omission as ‘Views and Vistas’ is an extremely important part of La Perouse both for beach goers, users of the headland and as confirmed by the abundance of wedding photography that takes place every day at La Perouse at sunset on Frenchmans beach which will be curtailed by the presence of a huge wharf.

Lastly, I wish to point out that I am extremely concerned about the thoroughness of the biodiversity study which failed to mention the fur seal colony a few km from the wharf head. The colony has existed at Molineaux Point for the past 5 years. I am also concerned about the effects on the birds from the Towra Point Nature Reserve which has International RAMSAR status. Clearly although a few km away they will be affected by increased commercial traffic. I am also concerned about the effects on the biodiversity around Bare Island which was not considered in the marine study despite being just 180m-250m South East of the wharf. Bare Island is considered by divers to be one of the best shore dives in Greater Sydney with a rocky reef wall, beautiful sponge gardens and a population of Port Jackson sharks. I cannot say authoritatively, but it seems likely there may be Endangered Cauliflower soft coral and Black rock cod as well as weedy seadragons, seahorse and pipefish and yet it was excluded from the tiny Marine study area at La Perouse when the Marine Study area at Kurnell was a huge footprint. I would like to understand why it was excluded.

To Whom It May Concern

Thank you for the opportunity to put forward our concerns about the Kamay Ferry Wharf Project.

My husband and I don’t feel that this is a project that will yield many benefits for the people of Greater Sydney, nor the residents of the local areas concerned and in fact, will cause more problems and disadvantages in terms of budgetary overkill, adverse environmental impacts for local flora and fauna during the building process and running of the ferries, and will increase traffic congestion to the area (La Perouse and Phillip Bay in particular).

In terms of environmental considerations, there are a number of endangered animal and coral and seagrass species that have their habitat in this area, that are likely to be harmed during the dredging and silt build up during the construction of the wharfs which are already 5 times the size of the previous wharf. During the 13 plus months of construction, the scuba diving and snorkelling that is popular in the area will likely need to cease due to the loss of water clarity.

There has been no significant consideration of the heritage listed Bare Island that is in the area.

Traffic congestion in La Perouse, Phillip Bay and Little Bay is already not manageable during peak periods where by emergency vehicles are not able to access our suburbs at those times. When our local council beautified “The Loop” several years ago, something like 75 parking spaces disappeared. There is a suggestion that 13 spaces could be added as part of this project. To us, that is, in a word, laughable.... sadly!

We hope that the good members of the government will reconsider this proposal and at very least, consider reducing the size of the wharf, to accommodate the precious plant and animal life at a time when our Great Barrier Reef is in jeopardy. We surely can not purposefully cause environmental marine life and habitat degradation if at all possible in our own back yards.

Thank you for the time to consider our concerns.

Ms Jean-Ann Jones and Mr Stephen Mackenzie

Please see attached

SUBMISSION Kamay Wharves Application Number-SSI-10049
Subject: Kamay Wharfs Ferry Project EIS Update 1 July 2021
I OBJECT to the proposal as specified in your EIS report
The additional parking requirements specified by your project for the proposed Ferry wharves
specified at La Perouse are grossly underestimated and will result in chaotic scenes and significant
delays and disruptions and complaints from local residents as drivers search for spaces.
Your EIS contains Chapter 12 Traffic and Transport PagelZ-2 and states the following...
Parking surveys were conducted on Sunday 2 Feb 2020 at LA Perouse. This day was chosen to
represent a typical busy day during the summer months. Social distancing was in place due to
Covld 19 and may have affected the number of visitors at both locations (La Perouse and Kurnell)
It is considered the choice of date and the fact that Covid 19 was active, greatly skewed the results.
The average max temperature during Sundays in Feb 2020 was approx. 26 degreesC whereas in
January 2020 it was 34degreesC. Also school holidays (and additional cars)were all but finished in
Feb 2020. Obviously Hotter days bring more cars and Covidl9 Less.eg Apart from social distancing
were the many restaurants in the area open on that day?
Local residents could confirm the parking on most weekends in this area during Summer is chaotic.
Vehicles are parked in all available marked parking spaces plus in all surrounding streets
restricting/blocking resident access and queues form all the way back along to Anzac Parade /
Bunnerong road to the cemetery, around the Aboriginal Mission, Yarra sailing club, Yarra streets,
Grose street. Reservoir st etc.
Your report includes some rearrangement of existing parking spaces and 13 new spaces?. The ferry
can carry 250? Passengers which could equate to approx. 60? Vehicles per trip. How many trips per
day?
It is clearly apparent that additional spaces are necessary.
If visitors can't get easy parking, the site will get a bad reputation and prospective passengers will
decline resulting in the tourist attraction being a failure.
You also suggest people will catch public transport to and from LaPerouse.or ride a bike.thereby
reducing the need for extra parking .It is considered that is unlikely given the past history of public
transport to the area.
Although it is considered the proposed project concept would benefit the community it requires a
review of parking resources to ensure it is a successful investment for NSW.
Would you please reconsider your design.

Statement: My partner and I and our extended family are residents of Little Bay NSW which is located near to La Perouse and the proposed Kamay Ferry Wharf. I object to the manner in which this EIS has been prepared with little regard to existing residents amenity and erosion of intrinsic value of open and natural space, views and landscapes at Frenchman’s Beach, Cape Banks, La Perouse, and in the Kamay Park itself on the headland peninsula. I also serve as a volunteer in local associations, committees and heritage preservation bodies to ensure our shared environment and cultural history are maintained and improved.
Reasons: Increased visitation and the related vehicle traffic polluting impacts due to people movements to and from the proposed wharves is largely unquantified in the EIS. The existing access routes by car, public transport and tourist buses is choked every weekend in summer for whole days, and this extends to long weekends as well. The placement of the wharf at the end of the Anzac Road and Bunnerong Road access routes will lead to further gridlock for local residents and visitors alike. The existing toilet and sanitation facilities as well as waste collection points are inadequate already for most pf the peak visitation periods, and the assumption in the EIS that Randwick Council has responsibility does not address or resolve what is planned as outlined in the EIS. I believe much more work with research needs to be completed on traffic and people impacts prior to proceeding this any proposed development. Commitments and costing for land based infrastructure improvements is also needed to be included in the economic environmental cost/benefit analysis, prior to the any decision to progress this EIS or a development plan.
Declaration: I and my partner have not made political donations of nay kind in the past 2 years.
Please confirm receipt of this email submission.

Heritage NSW comments for Aboriginal cultural heritage matters attached.

Please see attached comments

Submission made by Marie and Patrick Curran.

Please see attched Council submission and Council resolution from 240821.

See attachment