Report comment

In Flinders Chase SA on “Construction of tourism...” at Sandy Creek, Flinders Chase National Park, Kangaroo Island, SA:

Tim Kelly commented

1. The clearance as identified is not plausible and is not consistent with requirements for fire preparedness and access for fire vehicles anywhere else in the state.

2. The proposals in bushfire risk locations that could only be assessed as extreme with poor communications, poor access and no possibility for staff or occupants to reach safer places, could not be made safe even with a dramatic increase in fire asset zones, buffer zones and access roads.

3. The proposal if approved could either:
• Trigger a statewide challenge of development approval conditions which demand extensively greater clearance, vehicle access and turning points, additional asset [protection zones or.
• Lead to the subsequent further clearance of much larger areas of native vegetation at Flinders Chase for achieving the minimum standard for fire vehicle access and turning, greater asset protection zones around the developments and all access roads, with additional bushfire buffer zone at Sandy Creek.

4. AWC as the proponent , the land owner being Department of Environment and Water on behalf of South Australians and the authorising Native Vegetation Council, do not actually have the authority to confine the clearance to 1.715 hectares. Further clearance may occur for a variety of reasons and will be approved or exempt from approval as incidental to an approved development, including:
• Fire access roads, bridges and turning points in accordance with the mandatory requirements of the Ministers Code of Practice for undertaking Development in fire prone areas.
• The Kangaroo Island Bushfire Management Committee (made up of a range of government and non-government nominees) may require additional asset protection and/or a bushfire buffer zone (at Sandy Creek) and along access roads and/or burning for kilometres around both development sites, access tracks and existing roads.
• There is no authority to confine prescription burning for ecological/environmental objectives only, and it is probable that within a short time, there will be additional burning in the area for reducing risks to life and property. This will further erode the wilderness value of the park.
• At any time, the CFS can authorise large fuel reduction burns for non-environmental life and property protection needs at the sites and at the staging areas and near access roads and tracks, caused by these developments.

5. To be consistent with the Park Management Plan and the Government People in Parks Strategy, these developments should be built in locations that are already cleared such as at camping grounds and existing settled infrastructure sites, away from unspoiled wilderness.

To see more detail, the Planning Authority/SCAP is welcome to read my full submission on the proposed native vegetation clearance, provided to the Native Vegetation Council.
Kind regards
Tim Kelly

delivered to the planning authority

This form is for reporting comments that should be removed. Reasons can include that the comment is spam, abusive, unlawful or harassing — in other words, where people are going out of their way to cause harm. Please explain clearly why you think the comment should be removed.

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts