Emu Bay Structure Plan - Kangaroo Island Council Bay... · Emu Bay Structure Plan. The report also provides ... in the Structure Plan spatial map. Amended text ... Kangaroo Island

Kangaroo Island Council

Emu Bay Structure Plan Summary of Consultation and Recommended Amendments Report December 2013

Kangaroo Island Council, Emu Bay Structure Plan, Summary of Consultation and Recommended Amendments Report,

December 2013 2

Table of Contents 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 3 2. Public Engagement ...............................................................................................3

2.1 Pre Draft Public Engagement .......................................................................... 3 2.2 Public Consultation on Draft Structure Plan .......................................................3

3. Public Submissions ............................................................................................. 4

3.1 Public Submissions .......................................................................................... 4 3.2 Review of Submissions .................................................................................... 4

4. Timeframe Report ................................................................................................ 4 5. CEO's Certification .............................................................................................. 4 6. Summary of Recommended Changes to the Amendment following Consultation ........................................................................................ 5 List of Attachments Attachment A – Summary and Response to Public Submissions Attachment B – Certificate of Approval for Submission of Structure Plan Attachment C – Copy of Public Submissions


December 2013 3

1. Introduction This Summary of Consultation and Recommended Amendments report is provided to identify matters raised during the consultation period and any recommended alterations to Emu Bay Structure Plan. The report also provides details of the consultation process undertaken by Council. This report should be read in conjunction with the consultation version of the Structure Plan. Where relevant, any new matters arising from the consultation process are contained in this report. The development of Structure Plans is not guided by legislative process under the Development Act 1993, however, Council has undertaken the process in a similar method to a Strategic Directions Report / Development Plan Amendment in order to encourage a high level of community engagement. This report reflects the consideration of all submissions made throughout the public engagement processes and the considered recommendations of Council development staff and Consultants in respect of the final draft of the Emu Bay Structure Plan.

2. Public Engagement 2.1 Pre Draft Public Engagement Engagement with general public was undertaken through four ‘drop in’ sessions, at:

Kangaroo Island Council’s Chambers in Kingscote on 19 & 20 July 2013 (3 sessions) and

At Council’s Consultants offices, Rose Park, Adelaide on 16 July 2013 (1 session), held prior to drafting of the Structure Plan in a spatial or policy context occurring. 2.2 Public Consultation Following drafting of the structure plan, Council further engaged with the general public through five further ‘drop in’ sessions held at Kangaroo Island’s major centres at:

Kangaroo Island Council’s Chambers, Kingscote 24 September 2013,

Penneshaw Town all, 25 September 2013,

Parndana Town Hall, 16 October 2013,

American River Health Clinic, 16 October 2013, and

Adelaide Hub (DPTI Venue) Peel St, Adelaide on 23 October 2013.

3. Public Submissions 3.1 Public Submissions Numerous issues were recorded through the initial public engagement process at a ‘ideas’ level, these were used in the drafting of the Structure Plan. The Draft Emu Bay Structure Plan underwent public consultation between 16 September and 11 November 2013, during which time, some twenty two submissions were received.


December 2013 4

3.2 Review of Submissions Copies of all submissions and the summary of representations and recommendations of Council development staff and Consultants in respect of the final draft of the Emu Bay Structure Plan, were provided to Council in conjunction with this report for consideration of the recommended amendments. Refer Attachment A for Summary and Response to Public Submissions.

4. CEO's Certification The consultation process has been conducted and the final version of the Emu Bay Structure Plan produced, having had specific regard to public engagement and the representations received by Council during the public consultation phase, and is hereby endorsed by the CEO's Certification of approval for submission to the Minister for Planning provided in Attachment B (Certificate of Approval for submission of Structure Plan).

6. Summary of Recommended Changes to the Amendment following Consultation

The following is a summary of the changes recommended to the Structure Plan as a result of consultation and in response to public submissions:

Inclusion of three (3) Crown Land Parcels, situated between Whittle Street and Rookery Road (Being Sections 367, 380 & 500 HP110800) revised to be included in the ‘open space/recreation’ area (delineated in green) in the Structure Plan spatial map.

Inclusion of three (3) allotments to the south side of the residential area, bounded by Bates Rd. Gap Rd. and Porter Rd. (Being Lot 1 & 2 DP58205 & Section 215 HP110800), to be incorporated into the ‘future community, residential and/or mixed use activities’ zone (delineated in orange) in the Structure Plan spatial map.

Amended text relative to the ‘open space/recreation’ area (delineated in green) in the Structure Plan spatial map, to read: ‘Retain as open space/parklands around existing residential area, with little or no built development occurring’.

Amended text relative to the closure of Adam Street in the Structure Plan spatial map, to read: Change wording within Structure Plan to read: ‘Creation of uniform extension to the residential area where un-made / un-utilised roads are closed under relevant legislation’.

Revised ‘Fast Facts’ table to reflect revised ‘future community, residential and/or mixed use activities’ zone (delineated in orange) in the Structure Plan spatial map to reflect additional residential development opportunities (calculated at 1/3 of the site area divisible to nominal 1500m² allotments and including mixed use) equalling total 29 additional allotments (Residential allotments):

- Text ‘Long –Term Proposal’ amended to read ‘Long-Term Maximum’, and; - Figure for Residential Allotments under Long Term Maximum amended

from ‘100 (including mixed use)’ to ‘129 (including mixed use)’, and; - Figure for Population under Long Term Maximum amended from ‘386’ to


December 2013 5

‘447’, and; - Footnote for population formula amended from ‘184 lots’, to ‘213 Lots’.

Amended of text for ‘future community, residential and/or mixed use activities’ zone (delineated in orange) in the Structure Plan spatial map, to read: ‘Future community, residential and/or mixed use activities, will allow for residential allotment density of approximately 30% of the site area sensitive low profile building design and accommodate larger scale tourist accommodation development with associated onsite infrastructure within the site’.

List of Attachments Attachment A Report on each public submission received (including summary, comments and recommendation in response) Attachment B CEO’s Certificate of Approval for Submission of Structure Plan to the Minister for Planning. Attachment C Copy of Public Submissions made.

Kangaroo Island Council, Emu Bay Structure Plan, Summary of Consultation and Recommended Amendments Report, December 2013 6

Attachment A – Summary and Response to Public Submissions Report on each public submission received (including summary, comments and recommendation in response)

No. Name and Address Submission Summary Comment Council Response

1. Dr Stephen Betheras PO Box 71 Kingscote 5223

Submission seeks a reduction of the minimum allotment size of the Rural Living Area (specifically refers to the area around Lonie Lane) to 1.5 Ha rather than the proposed 2 Ha. The submission also raises some concern with the proposed rezoning of allotment 93, Bates Road (CT 5478/393) to Rural Living given the number of current vacant Rural Living blocks.

Investigations determined that allotments in the southern portion of the investigation area (surrounding Lonie Lane) were in the order of 2.4 to 3.6Ha, this combined with land ownership patterns demonstrated an ability to create many 2 into 3 allotment divisions, or realignments to facilitate an potential up to 30% increase in allotments.

The locality does not have any formal Rural Living zoned allotments – this is more so reflective of the quasi rural living use that has been established in the area under Deferred Urban zone rules.

Allotment 93 Bates Road, the land has been previously identified for consideration of revised zoning.

All Noted. No changes to proposed 2Ha land parcel threshold. Dependant on DPA considerations / outcomes the land size threshold may / may not be a non-complying trigger, thus flexibility in land size may still be achievable ‘on merit’. No Change proposed to remove allotment 93 Bates Road, the land has been previously identified for consideration of revised zoning.

2. Manfred Domhoff The submission specifically seeks a minimum allotment size of 2,500m2 for Section 214, Hundred Menzies rather than the proposed 5,000m2.

Investigations suggest that subject to an actual land division design, the land referred to in this representation could encounter watercourse setback issues for the purpose of compliance with waste water treatment and disposal systems under the SA Public Health Act

Noted – No Change to proposed 5000 – 1.0Ha land parcel threshold.


and relevant standards. The allotment in question is 1.0Ha in area and at proposed minimum 5000m² would be divisible into 2 allotments.

3. Elaine Schaefer

Raises concern in regards to the closing of Adam Street to create two Residential allotments given that there is already a number of vacant allotments and it can be used for emergency services, specifically noting its use in case of fire.

Road closure is not attended under the Development Act. This would specifically be attended to under statutory process under the Roads (Opening and Closing) Act 1991, and would be within the political jurisdiction of Council.

Should Adam Street ever be closed, the logical approach to create a uniform extension of the residential area is represented in the Structure Plan.

Change wording within Structure Plan to read: ‘Creation of uniform extension to the residential area where un-made / un-utilised roads are closed under relevant legislation’.

4. Ian Griffiths Is mostly supportive of the Structure Plan and its proposals. However, would like to see the reduction of minimum allotment size in the proposed Rural Living Zone to 1 Ha to allow for smaller manageable allotments.

See Comments for Submission #1

Allotment sizes in the 0.5 Ha – 1 Ha is already proposed in two areas. (See comments for Submission #2).

No Change to Proposed land parcel size thresholds.

5. D and S Morris The submission seeks the inclusion of their allotment (Lot 1, Porter Road, Wisanger) to be rezoned Rural Living.

Rezoning this allotment would allow for approximately 10 allotments to be created. Given the current proposed area for rezoning there is already a considerable amount of land which will become available which may result in an oversupply of land.

The subject land was not included within the area for investigation, nor in

Noted – Subject land can not be included.


the original SOI (under the Rural Living DPA, from which the Emu Bay region was removed and revisited in this Structure Plan project).

6. Harold Turner

The submission raises a number of concerns in regards to the historic campground site, recent development of the new Council camp ground and the conceptual / desired relocation / resumption of use of the historic campground.

No specific intent or desire highlighted in the submission – though it touches on the less desirable relationship between the current Council camp ground and beach, playground, amenities and open space, specifically as it is separated by the main road into the township.

Noted - No Change.

7. David Connell

In summary the submission makes a number of suggestions including:

A revision of the minimum allotment size in the proposed Rural Living Zone to 1 Ha which will allow for more options for families who cannot manage the larger 2 Ha allotments.

Caravan Park to have shower facilities – regardless of its location.

The parklands to the West of the current Residential Zone to be rezoned Residential.

Parklands to the South to remain in its current form.

The most seafront parklands to remain in its current form.

The Coastal Conservation Zone to be rezoned to Rural Living given its development potential.

Reticulated water to support future

There are already proposed allotment sizes of 1 Ha in the Rural Living Zone (See comments for Submissions #1 & #2)

The structure plan supports the improvement of amenities at its original site. It does not envision a caravan park to remain on the current site which is proposed a township zone.

Crown land ‘parklands to the west are identified as having critically important landscape value as the ‘unblemished’ backdrop to the residential area of Emu Bay.

Crown land ‘parklands to the south remain preserved as ‘open space / recreation’.

Coastal parklands remain ‘as is’,

All Noted – No Changes. The Structure Plan no longer speaks against introduction of reticulated water infrastructure, under the heading of ‘Infrastructure’, the Structure Plan Continues to support onsite water harvesting with rainwater tank systems – No Change Required.


development.

Jetty should be extended to accommodate a range of vessels.

retained as open ‘space / recreation’, noting that the intent is to support upgraded boating facilities (around the jetty / boat ramp area) and to support urban improvements that support public open space use and beautification – accordingly the Structure Plan represents change from existing zoning (Coastal Conservation) which is not strongly supportive of such outcomes.

Coastal Conservation zoned land to the north of Emu Bay Residential area is either held by the Crown (directly north of Whittle St) or predominantly developed further to the north. This area was not included within the area for investigation, nor in the original SOI (under the Rural Living DPA, from which the Emu Bay region was removed and revisited in this structure Planning process).

Council did not wish to specifically rule out introduction of a reticulated water scheme. Under the heading of ‘Infrastructure’, the Structure Plan Continues to support onsite water harvesting with rainwater tank systems.

The structure plan already supports the upgrading of facilities associated with jetty / boat ramp area.


8. Anne Cooper The submission raises a number of concerns which include:

In reference to Lot 11 Bates Road CT 5911/23, which is currently used for livestock with the main access to the land is via Bates Road. The submission recommends that a vegetation buffer along Bates Road be considered to reduce noise and pollution for future residents (specifically in reference to the proposed Rural Living Zone allotment 93, Bates Road).

That lot 11 Bates Road, CT 5911/23 be considered to be rezoned Rural Living given that the property has significant views over Emu Bay.

Lot 11 is a rural landholding of some 147Ha. It is effectively used for primary production, predominantly grazing.

If the allotment were considered for rezoning it would allow for up to 70 new allotments (at 2Ha each) to be created, not all areas would be suitable for development , or could be described as a contiguous or compact extension to Emu Bay’s already sprawling Deferred Urban zone or future Rural Living areas.

This area was not included within the area for investigation, nor in the original SOI (under the Rural Living DPA, from which the Emu Bay region was removed and revisited in this Structure Plan project).

Noted – No Change. Screening for Lot 93 Bates road will likely occur at the requirement of future developers / landowners.

9. Susan Armitage The submission raises some concern with the proposed rezoning of allotment 93, Bates Road (CT 5478/393) to Rural Living given the number of current vacant Rural Living blocks already and the visual impact it may have on the locality. In addition the submission raises concern in regards to the old ruins on the allotment.

The locality does not have any formal Rural Living zoned allotments – this is more so reflective of the quasi rural living use that has been established in the area under Deferred Urban zone rules.

Allotment 93 Bates Road, the land has been previously identified for consideration of revised zoning.

In terms of landscape / viewscapes, the land contained in allotment 93 Bates Road is more so a plateau, beyond the steeper hills face of the crown land

Noted – No Change.


parcels directly west of the residential area, which are of critical landscape value – the effect of development on allotment 93 Bates Road would not be consequential to the landscape backdrop to Emu Bay township particularly considering applicable building set-back criteria.

10. Tom and Fiona Fryar

While mostly supportive of the EBSP the submission raised a number of concerns including:

The inclusion of mains water to Emu Bay should not be excluded from the plan. Their concern is that mains water is a necessity in order for future development.

Disagree with the proposed closing of Adam Street to create residential allotments.


With respect to the matter of Adam Street, road closure is not attended under the Development Act. This would specifically be attended to under statutory process under the Roads (Opening and Closing) Act 1991, and would be within the political jurisdiction of Council.


Noted – The Structure Plan no longer speaks against introduction of reticulated water infrastructure, under the heading of ‘Infrastructure’, the Structure Plan Continues to support onsite water harvesting with rainwater tank systems – No Change Required. As per Council response on Submission #3 – Change wording within Structure Plan to read: ‘Creation of uniform extension to the residential area where un-made / un-utilised roads are closed under relevant legislation’.


11. Caj Amadio

The submission seeks that the structure plan should allow for greater provisions for the inclusion of tourism development and land division, identifying growth and development aligning with Local and State Government strategic planning objectives for sustainability of Kangaroo Island.

Given the nature of representations made throughout the consultation processes, that indicated a desire for emu bay to ‘stay the way it is’, the apparent drive for increasing encouraging further development is not strongly represented.

The representation rightly addresses the high level strategic planning document Paradise Girt by Sea, in highlighting the opportunities for growth in the Emu Bay area in line with strategic goals and presents compelling reasoning for growth and development opportunities in the Emu Bay Area.

The representation is a forward thinking statement of opportunities and the risk of not making provision for these opportunities, and compels Council to consider the relationship between Paradise Girt by Sea, the Emu Bay Structure Plan and future development Plan Amendments in realising these express objectives.

Agree – Council should be cautious of the potential to lose the opportunity / capacity for expansion and increasing development in the Emu Bay area through dedicating all surrounding land to planning policy zones that will not be able to support, or be preserved to support future growth of the area. Council must to turn its mind to future needs and opportunities and be cognisant of the value and tremendous potential that Emu Bay represents in achieving the objectives of the Paradise Girt by Sea document. Consideration of enlarging the area to be set aside for urban / mixed use expansion is necessary, particularly in light of the localities constraints, in respect of maintaining self harvested water supplies and containing on-site effluent / waste water management systems, car parking and the


like that is integral in commercial scale tourism / tourist accommodation development.

12. Leonie Bell

The submission is a petition from 2012 which opposes the sale of community land in Emu Bay, assumedly in reference to the proposed closure of Adam Street to create two residential allotments and the potential land swap of the Caravan Park.

Road closure is not attended under the Development Act. This would specifically be attended to under statutory process under the Roads (Opening and Closing) Act 1991, and would be within the political jurisdiction of Council.


As per Council Response to submissions #3 & #10 – Change wording within Structure Plan to read: ‘Creation of uniform extension to the residential area where un-made / un-utilised roads are closed under relevant legislation’.

13.

Scott Salisbury The submission seeks that the plan focuses more on the economic development of Emu Bay through providing more opportunities for investors through tourist and residential development.

As per submission #11 the representation indicates a forward thinking approach that is more consistent with State strategic planning, though unlike #11 it does not quote the State objectives and goals, but speaks more broadly about providing greater development opportunities and encouraging investment and population growth in Kangaroo Island.

The representation compels Council to consider the potential opportunities and the risk of not making provision for these opportunities to occur through this process.

Agree – Council should be cautious of the potential to lose the opportunity / capacity for expansion and increasing development in the Emu Bay area. As per Council Response to #11 – Council must to turn its mind to future needs and opportunities and be cognisant of the value and tremendous potential that Emu Bay represents in


achieving strategic economic goals such as the objectives of the Paradise Girt by Sea document. Consideration of enlarging the area to be set aside for urban / mixed use expansion is necessary, particularly in light of the localities constraints, in respect of maintaining self harvested water supplies and containing on-site effluent / waste water management systems, car parking and the like that is integral in commercial scale tourism / tourist accommodation development.

14.

Rosalie Bell The submission is in support of the structure plan. The submission also offers the following suggestions to be included in the plan:

Reticulated water supplied to Emu Bay Supportive of a large holiday park rather than a

caravan park.


The representation is somewhat aligned with Submission #11 and #13 in respect of promoting some greater opportunity for tourism development / tourist accommodation opportunity, specifically not limiting to only a

Noted – The Structure Plan no longer speaks against introduction of reticulated water infrastructure, under the heading of ‘Infrastructure’, the Structure Plan Continues to support onsite water harvesting with rainwater tank systems


caravan park / camp ground.

Agree – As per Council Response to submissions #11 & #13 – Council should be cautious of the potential to lose the opportunity / capacity for expansion and increasing development in the Emu Bay area. Council must to turn its mind to future needs and opportunities and be cognisant of the value and tremendous potential that Emu Bay represents in achieving strategic economic goals such as the objectives of the Paradise Girt by Sea document. Consideration of enlarging the area to be set aside for urban / mixed use expansion is necessary, particularly in light of the localities constraints, in respect of maintaining self harvested water supplies and containing on-site effluent / waste water management systems, car parking and the like that is integral in commercial scale tourism /


tourist accommodation development.

15.

Tracey Winning The submission raises a number of concerns including:

No change to the rezoning of Crown Land

No development in the Coastal Conservation Zone

Against the proposed new minimum allotment size of 1 Ha where current allotment size is 2 Ha (west of Bayview Rd).

Against the proposal for development of the new rural living area with minimum of 2 Ha allotments (with approx. 12 new allotments being created – referring to Lot 93 Bates Rd).

Against the development of a small scale café/kiosk (Old camp ground site)

Further comments include:

Keep community facilities together (i.e. shelters, barbeques)

Improve amenities at the current caravan park rather than relocate it.

Supportive of the decision not to build breakwater

No expansion of the Residential Zone, given the number of vacant allotments currently

Creation of a management plan for vehicle access to the beach.

Other aspects of the draft plan are supported.

Maintenance of the current street lighting (single light near boat ramp) to enable quality night sky viewing and minimise impact on penguins

Extension of native vegetation on foreshore that also supports penguin habitation and assists in management of weeds on the foreshore and park

No changes had been contemplated for the Crown Land / Coastal Conservation zone land between Whittle St. and Rookery Rd. however subject to consideration of Submissions #16 & #17, there is compelling reason to look at desired outcomes and policy to both ensure coastal protection principles are upheld, and the land is identified for public open space / passive recreation uses, rather than ongoing lease for grazing within the inner bounds of the township.

The crown land on the coastward side of Hamilton Drive (on the seafront) is to be retained as open space, however a change of planning policy is mooted to take it from current Coastal Conservation zoning and rezoning to be more conducive to public domain and urban improvement works, i.e. Coastal Open Space zone.

Council have not made any changes to any other surrounding Coastal Conservation zone land.

The Structure Plan continues to contemplate Rural living zoning for Lot 93 Bates Road and the allotments west of Bayview Road to allow 2Ha. and 1Ha minimum allotment size thresholds

All Noted – Also in consideration of Submissions #16 & #17 – Delineation of the ‘extended green zone’ between Whittle St. and Rookery Road as Desirable conversion to Public open space / parklands surrounding residential area with little to no built development – Inclusion of this text to the notes applying to the remainder of the peripheral crown land reserve area. No Change to Crown Land or Coastal Conservation zoned areas policy. No Change to inclusion of allotment 93 Bates Rd. or policy pertaining to Bayview Rd. allotments. No Change to matters pertaining to reinvigorating use of the historic camp ground site and infrastructure


area, using methods that do not impact on local native species.

respectively, potentially resulting (as quoted) in up to 12 new allotments from Lot 93 (west of Bates Rd) and an increase of up to 5 allotments in the area fronting Bayview Road (only 5 out of 8 allotments will be divisible).

The concept of development of small scale kiosk nearby or associated with the historic camp ground site and its potential revitalisation as a camp ground, is retained, we feel that this is not dissimilar to the historic arrangements and compliments peoples use of the public open space, beach, day visitor facilities (BBQ shelters, tables, play equipment etc) without detriment to the amenity of the locality.

The submission mis interprets the conceptual Future Community, residential and / or mixed use activities referred to for the vacant land parcel (highlighted orange) laying west of Hawthorne Ave. and north of Bates Rd. may entail small scale community facilities, commercial business activity and / or residential land uses, such is the nature of mixed use zones.

The submission queries the intent of the concept to relocate amenities and infrastructure to the historic camp ground site rather than continue to add

associated therewith. In respect of Adam Street matter – Noted – As Per Council Response to submissions #3 & #10 – Change wording within Structure Plan to read: ‘Creation of uniform extension to the residential area where un-made / un-utilised roads are closed under relevant legislation’. No changes or inclusions in respect of Beach Access – Restricting vehicle access on Emu Bay Beach (Gazetted Road) is not specifically within the jurisdiction of the Structure Plan or the Development Legislation. The closure or changing of the extent of the beach useable by vehicles must be considered by Council and controlled under the Roads (Opening and Closing) Act 1991. The Structure Plan supports environmental improvements (along with public use domain


to the current Council caravan / camp site – There has been a strong and sustained public opinion that regaining the use of the historic camp ground site on the coastward side of the main road into Emu Bay provides a safer and more appealing site for the intended use. Council maintains willingness to investigate means to achieve the resumed use of the former camp site.

The representor indicates support for the closure of Adam Street and conversion to residential allotments, but not for further expansion of the residential area.

Proposal to restrict or limit vehicle access along the full extent of the beach (limiting access to a selected area) is not specifically within the jurisdiction of the Structure Plan or the Development Legislation, as the beach is gazetted as a public road. The closure or changing of the extent of the beach useable by vehicles must be considered by Council and controlled under the Roads (Opening and Closing) Act 1991.

Statements made in the submission regarding improvement and re-vegetation / stabilising of the coastal edge of the foreshore is equally supported in the contemplated planning policy change to Coastal Open

and urban Improvements) in the coastal public open space areas.


Space type zoning.

16.

Erin Morrison The submission was made on behalf of the Emu Bay Progress Association:

The proposed township zone over the existing

caravan park should remain as a tourist zone

Support the upgraded boating facilities

including the construction of the breakwater

Concern was raised regarding swapping parcels

of land

The green zone should be extended from the

corner of Whittle and Rookery roads down to

the cadastral line.

The area identified as Township zone would facilitate a more diverse range of development opportunities, including tourist accommodation. The existing caravan park / camp facilities will enjoy existing land use rights regardless, and if potential to reinvigorate use of the historic camp ground site is realised the cessation of use at the current Council caravan park site would then require the planning policy to be applied to any further development of that land.

Boating facilities and infrastructure supported in Structure Plan with revised policy to coastal reserve area.

The representations statement in respect of extending the green ‘open space / recreation’ area towards the coastline between Whittle Street and Rookery Road into the area shaded blue as ‘Coastal’ (Coastal Conservation zone) would require changing of the Planning Policy zoning, and would have negligible effect, though potentially weakening the policy objectives for conservation and preservation of the coastal environment. The land is comprised of three Crown Land parcels the same as the ‘open space / recreation land’, and is currently leased by the Crown for

All Noted – Delineation of the ‘extended green zone’ between Whittle St. and Rookery Road as Desirable conversion to Public open space / parklands surrounding residential area with little to no built development – Inclusion of this text to the notes applying to the remainder of the peripheral crown land reserve area. Maintaining or establishing consistency of the desired character of the locality which makes it so attractive for residents and visitors alike are crucially important and should be closely considered in any DPA informed by this Structure Plan – specific notations about desired character should be included in the Structure Plan to this effect.


grazing purposes. It would effectively be maintained as open space, but land would likely continue to be managed through leased grazing. Inclusion in the Structure Plan could encourage Planning zone policy that facilitates both public open space / passive recreation uses (which could not be accommodated whilst leased for grazing) as well as contemplate a high level of coastal protection and minimal / no built development. Removing grazing from the inner bounds of the township is likely to be a highly acceptable result for residents and for the benefit of tourism experiences also. This would not prejudice animal keeping or hobby scale grazing on the larger allotments proposed peripheral to the township.

No Other Changes.

17.

Cherie and Lana Tyley

The submission refers to and supports the comments provided by the Emu Bay Progress Association (see item number 16). Further to this the submission raises a number of concerns:

Opposes development in the Coastal Conservation Zone

Opposes a land swap of the Caravan Park sites Suggests that the Rural Living Zone have firm

policies regarding the keeping of animals. The submission is supportive of:

The upgrade to boating facilities and would like

No changes had been contemplated for the Crown Land / Coastal Conservation zone land between Whittle St. and Rookery Rd. however subject to consideration of Submissions #16 & #17, there is compelling reason to look at desired outcomes and policy to both ensure coastal protection principles are upheld, and the land is identified for public open space / passive recreation uses, rather than ongoing lease for grazing within the inner bounds of the

All Noted – Delineation of the ‘extended green zone’ between Whittle St. and Rookery Road as Desirable conversion to Public open space / parklands surrounding residential area with little to no built development – Inclusion of this text to the notes applying to the remainder of the


to see the inclusion of a breakwater Would like to see an expansion of the parklands

to Rookery Road Improvement of the stormwater management

system.

township. The crown land on the coastward side

of Hamilton Drive (on the seafront) is to be retained as open space, however a change of planning policy is mooted to take it from current Coastal Conservation zoning and rezoning to be more conducive to public domain and urban improvement works, i.e. Coastal Open Space zone.

The submission opposes the intent of the Structure Plan intent to investigate relocation of camp / caravan park facilities and infrastructure to the historic camp ground site – There has been a strong and sustained public opinion that regaining the use of the historic camp ground site on the coastward side of the main road into Emu Bay provides a safer and more appealing site for the intended use. Council maintains willingness to investigate means to achieve the resumed use of the former camp site.

The policies for Rural Living zone animal keeping is a valid concern, particularly with respect to the smaller titles that could be created between 5000m² to 2.0 Ha, which would not be conducive to most forms of hobby / recreational animal keeping, such as livestock, horses etc. These kinds of hobby /

peripheral crown land reserve area. Maintaining or establishing consistency of the desired character of the locality which makes it so attractive for residents and visitors alike are crucially important and should be closely considered in any DPA informed by this Structure Plan – specific notations about desired character should be included in the Structure Plan to this effect. No Other Changes.


recreational animal keeping can present real potential for adverse impacts on the high level of amenity desired in the Rural Living environment. Keeping of horses and livestock at hobby scale on allotments under 2.0 Ha is not supported by the Planning SA Guidelines for Horse and animal keeping.

Boating facilities and infrastructure supported in Structure Plan with revised policy to coastal reserve area.

The representations statement in respect of extending the parklands ‘open space / recreation’ area towards the coastline between Whittle Street and Rookery Road into the area shaded blue as ‘Coastal’ (Coastal Conservation zone) would have negligible effect, though potentially weakening the policy objectives for conservation and preservation of the coastal environment. The land is comprised of three Crown Land parcels the same as the ‘open space / recreation land’, and is currently leased by the Crown for grazing purposes. It would effectively be maintained as open space, but land would likely continue to be managed through leased grazing. Inclusion in the Structure Plan could encourage Planning zone policy that facilitates


both public open space / passive recreation uses (which could not be accommodated whilst leased for grazing) as well as contemplate a high level of coastal protection and minimal / no built development. Removing grazing from the inner bounds of the township is likely to be a highly acceptable result for residents and for the benefit of tourism experiences also. This would not prejudice animal keeping or hobby scale grazing on the larger allotments proposed peripheral to the township.

18.

G and D Morris The submission raises a number of concerns and possibilities including:

The extension of the residential zone above Maxwell Tce and up to Bayview Road given the views.

Against the sale of Adam Street The land on the Western side of Hawthorn Ave

is not suitable for residential development given the vegetation that exists on the site.

Crown land ‘parklands to the west (between Maxwell St and Bayview Rd.) are identified as having critically important landscape value as the ‘unblemished’ backdrop to the residential area of Emu Bay. Notwithstanding the excellent views available from this land, division and development of the land is not supported by the Structure Plan.

With respect to the matter of Adam Street, road closure is not attended under the Development Act. This would specifically be attended to under statutory process under the Roads (Opening and Closing) Act 1991, and would be within the political jurisdiction of Council.

All Noted – No Changes.



Land on the western side of Maxwell Street (highlighted orange for ‘future community, residential and / or mixed use activities’) contains practically no vegetation – We believe the representor is referring to land further west on the corner of Bayview and Bates Roads, not the land referred to in the Structure Plan.

19.

William and Wendy Zealand

The submission seeks for their allotment (Sections 208 and 210, Emu Bay) to be included in the Rural Living Zone.

The allotments are sized at 3.6 Ha and 1.6 Ha respectively. Rezoning the allotments would not permit in creation of additional allotments at 2.0Ha, nor would Allotment 210 specifically result in any additional allotments at the smaller size of 1.0Ha. Given the more coastal nature of the land – particularly the northern aspect, which is elevated and desirable for development to achieve panoramic coastal / natural bushland views, the proliferation of development and establishment of smaller allotments could be prejudicial to the more sensitive environment.

The subject land parcels were not included within the area for investigation, nor in the original SOI (under the Rural Living DPA, from which

Noted – No Change.


the Emu Bay region was removed and revisited in this Structure Plan project).

20.

Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR)

DEWNR raises no objection or concern to the proposal.

No issues to address. Noted.

21.

Paul McMahon The submission is supportive of the protection of Primary Production land, however would like consideration of their allotment (CT5692/414) to be considered for rezoning to allow for the dwellings to be located on separate titles. Reasons for inclusion include:

The allotment is surrounded by rural living/lifestyle properties (nil are full time farming)

The shape of the property lends itself to subdividing the proposed corner allotment

Both dwellings have a road frontage

Subdividing will not limit farming activity

The subject land was not included within the area for investigation, and is some distance from the investigation area (also located further south of the emu bay area than the land mentioned in submission #5. The land was not identified in the original SOI (under the Rural Living DPA, from which the Emu Bay region was removed and revisited in this Structure Plan project).

Noted – No Change

22.

Branford Planning and Design

The submission has been made on behalf of the Amadio Family and while generally in support of the plan the submission raises a number of suggestions including:

The area immediately South of the existing Emu Bay Settlement (bounded by Gap Road to the East, Porter Road to the South, Bates Road and existing environmental lands to the North, and a Western boundary parallel with the adjacent Bayview Road corridor) be rezoned allowing for Tourist and Residential development (refer to attachment map in the Branford Planning and

The area subject to this representation (and that of Branford Planning’s submission) identifies 3 land parcels that are located to the south of the Emu Bay township.

The land is well served by road frontages, and would be readily accessible.

The land is visible on the main road approach from Kingscote, and exhibits moderate to gently rolling topography,

Agree – Council should be cautious of the potential to lose the opportunity / capacity for expansion and increasing development in the Emu Bay area. As per Council Response to #11 & #13– Council must to turn its mind to future needs and


Design submission).

Economic expansion of the township through appropriate low scale residential and tourism development.

The submission seeks that the area motioned above would be suited to:

Appropriate low scale (1 – 2 storeys), environmentally and aesthetically sensitive development.

Residential subdivision that is consistent with that provided between Hamilton Drive and Hawthorn Avenue, and the proposed community, residential and/or mixed-use activities between Buick Street and Bates Road.

Residential subdivision that would be designed to integrate with and enhance existing township infrastructure.

Development that would provide extensive, appropriate sustainable landscape treatments that would enhance the immediate area and township.

but otherwise does not contribute greatly to the landscape value of the broader township when viewed from Emu Bay beach, allotments in much of the surrounding proposed Rural Living areas or land adjacent to the far eastern end of Emu Bay (which enjoy broad panoramic views across the township and onward to the nearby north coast headlands).

The extension of the township to the south represents an orderly opportunity for development in an area with least influence over the majority of the township residential and Rural Living areas.

It is considered that a mixed use / township type zone here, as an extension of the southern parts of the township marked ‘future community, residential and/or mixed use activities’ (highlighted orange) or the Township zone area (current Council caravan / camp ground area) could be highly feasible for economic development. Large land areas available would be able to cater for a more substantial scale of development whilst supporting onsite waste treatment and disposal, substantial water capture and holding capacity and car parking that would be required for such development, but

opportunities and be cognisant of the value and tremendous potential that Emu Bay represents in achieving strategic economic goals such as the objectives of the Paradise Girt by Sea document. Consideration of enlarging the area to be set aside for urban / mixed use expansion is necessary, particularly in light of the localities constraints, in respect of maintaining self harvested water supplies and containing on-site effluent / waste water management systems, car parking and the like that is integral in commercial scale tourism / tourist accommodation development. Once the ‘door is closed’ on setting aside areas for impending / future development need, by insensible / uninformed zoning of land out of future uses, it will not be regained.


would not be catered for as easily by the smaller allotments in the township.

The submission refers generally to Emu Bay’s relative close proximity from Kingscote conveniences (potential ferry service mooted) and Kangaroo Island Airport, making it very readily accessible for tourism opportunities (subject to development) and highlights the potential for Emu Bay to capitalise on that close proximity and the inherent attractiveness as a tourism destination which could be considered as being under represented currently.

Emu buy does unequivocally offer exceptional tourism opportunities, including access to one of Kangaroo Island’s recognised safest swimming beaches, with the advantage of the township being practically ‘beachside’. Opportunities exist for many other facets of tourism to benefit, including shore / jetty based and charter fishing , aquatic sightseeing, snorkelling and dive charters, potential for recreational water sports to be offered in the area, great wildlife opportunities exist with its small penguin colony on the coast and wallabies & kangaroos present in the surrounding parklands of the town, offering natural wildlife encounters to visitors, and leisure activities, open

Matters of built form, scale and density of development are of paramount importance with respect to maintaining consistency of the desired character of the locality which makes it so attractive for residents and visitors alike. These elements should be closely considered in any DPA informed by this Structure Plan – Specific notations about desired character should be included in the Structure Plan to this effect to ensure the desired characteristics are represented.


space and playgrounds also affording all-round family tourism experiences.

The area identified would cater for future development opportunities, including (as detailed in the submission), tourism development in pursuance of Paradise Girt by Sea objectives and potential residential expansion that could cater for general population growth and support increased economic opportunities, staffing for tourism development or supporting business’ for instance.

23.

General summarised comments from the open days.

Comments made in relation to the Caravan Park:

Moving the caravan park is a shameful waste of money. The Federal Government has just given the council 1000's of dollars to build a Caravan Park.

No swapping caravan sites

Must relocate caravan park to original site

Purchase back the original park.

Support shifting caravan park, support kiosk Proposal

Swap caravan park to lower side at no further cost to ratepayers.

Comments made in relation to Land Division and Zoning:

Proposals for subdivision in Emu Bay adversely affect the character of the area - like the small community rural feel.

Clearly there is broad community and public view about the caravan park / camp ground situation – many visitors who had experienced the historic caravan park / camp ground felt that a very good public park arrangement had been lost, similarly people whom have experienced the new Council site feel that its separation from recreation facilities, the beach and amenities creates risk for children crossing the road, and create a far less desirable situation. Such opinions have been voiced to council, and through the media since the Early 2000’s when it became apparent that there was a risk that the park was at jeopardy of being closed and re-developed.

All Noted – All matters regarded in detail within the ‘Comments’ and ‘Council Response’ sections above.


Ensure right of way access to adjacent rural property. I.e. Provide access to the farm land to the west (refer to large block proposed for new rural living into 12 allotments on structure plan)

Ensure that good and relevant policies relating to animal keeping will apply to proposed Rural Living allotments.

Proposed development on west - new Rural Living area blocks historic ruin - early in Emu Bay history - potentially blocks views to hills.

Oppose rezoning of land to west of Emu Bay to Rural Living. Object to increase in density and altering rural character.

Comments relating to Beach Access:

Leave beach access unrestricted but put in place 20kmh speed limit.

Get cars off beach past creek

Must retain full beach access

No vehicles past creek. Must be policed.

Retain beach access.

General Comments:

The council needs to recognise Emu Bay's unique charm and increased development is incompatible. Currently a small community with old fashioned charm.

Totally against selling community land

We have a strong community through community spirit - we don't need a community

hall, kiosk etc.

Some resistance to changing the caravan park / camp ground arrangement appears to be predicated upon cost / economy of doing so.

The matter of whether or not the concept is ever realised will ultimately rest with Council as a political and financial decision to make, and it is clear that it has positive and negative community perceptions.

Division / re-zoning and development considerations must be carefully considered in any DPA process that results from or would be influenced by this Structure Plan. As mentioned previously in this report, the Structure Plan requires some notation as to the desired character that is to be achieved, to ensure that such characteristics are pursued by provisions being defined in the amendments to the Development Plan.

Animal keeping is discussed and regards annotations to the areas supporting smaller Rural Living allotments (under 2.0 Ha) to ensure a high level of amenity is maintained.

Elements of character, visibility / proliferation of development are discussed specific to the different areas / provisions elsewhere in this report.

Beach access addressed – restriction /


change of access arrangements fall under other legislation.

Recognition of the unique characteristics of the Emu Bay area is regarded in many aspects throughout the submissions received, both in a preservation context and also in a promotional context. The common theme is that the character should not be jeopardised. It is also apparent that the character can be preserved whilst offering new development, social and economic growth and providing opportunities to grow and benefit Kangaroo Island’s industry , population and economy. This is strongly reflected when the Structure Plan, and the submissions are considered against Paradise Girt by Sea, which must, as a high level planning strategy, be given regard, as it provides a social and economic direction for Kangaroo Island.

Kangaroo Island Council, Emu Bay Structure Plan, Summary of Consultation and Recommended Amendments

Report, December 2013 31

Attachment B – Certificate of Approval for submission of Structure Plan Certificate of chief executive officer that the final version of the Structure Plan is suitable for submission to the Minister for Planning for approval. I Andrew Boardman, as Chief Executive Officer of the Kangaroo Island Council, certify, in relation to the proposed Emu Bay Structure Plan referred to in the report accompanying this certificate:-

(a) that the Council has produced the Structure Plan having provided substantial opportunity for, and having had regard to, public submissions regarding the structure of, and vision for the future of the region.

(b) That the Structure Plan, in its final version has been produced with regard to

according the Planning Strategy, on the basis that each relevant provision of the Planning Strategy that relates to the policy reflected in the Structure Plan has been specifically identified and an explanation setting out the reason or reasons for the recommendations have been included in the report of the Council; and

(ii) has been produced with regard to the other parts of the existing Development

Plan (being those parts not affected by the amendment or amendments) with a view to guiding future Development Plan Amendments affecting or including the region represented in the Structure Plan; and

(iii) has been produced with regard to its interface with the policies in the

Development Plan(s) for adjoining areas; and (iv) that the following person or persons have provided professional advice to the

Council in the preparation of the Structure Plan, and hold prescribed qualifications under Regulation 86(3) – Grazio Maiorano FPIA, David Altmann MPIA, CPP and Aaron Wilksch MPIA.

Andrew Boardman Chief Executive Officer Date…………………….:

Kangaroo Island Council, Emu Bay Structure Plan, Summary of Consultation and Recommended Amendments

Report, December 2013 32

Attachment C – Copy of Public Submissions.

Documents

Emu Bay Structure Plan - Kangaroo Island Council Bay... · Emu Bay Structure Plan. The report also provides ... in the Structure Plan spatial map. Amended text ... Kangaroo Island