Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2 22 June 2017

Name of Applicant Rokrol Pty Ltd c/- Future Urban Group

Proposal Tourist Accommodation

Address Section 390, Cape St Albans – Kangaroo Island

DA Number: 520/L001/17

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE NO AGENDA REPORT 2- 34 Appendix 1: Development Plan Provisions ATTACHMENTS 1: APPLICATION & PLANS 35 – 111 2: PHOTOS 112 – 113 3: AGENCY COMMENTS 114 – 129 4: COUNCIL COMMENTS or TECHNICAL ADVICE 130 5: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION – Applicants Response to 131 - 134 Coast Protection Board Comments

1 Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2 22 June 2017

OVERVIEW

Application No 520/L001/17 Unique ID/KNET ID Edala Id: 1779 / Knet File: 2017/03956/01 Applicant Rockrol Pty Ltd c/- Future Urban Group Proposal Tourist Accommodation Subject Land Section 309, Hd of Dudley, Cape St. Albans (Red House Bay) Zone/Policy Area Coastal Conservation Relevant Authority Development Assessment Commission: Schedule 10 (18) – Tourism development within the Coastal Conservation Zone, Kangaroo Island. Lodgement Date 23 January 2017 Council Kangaroo Island Development Plan Consolidated 17 September 2015 Type of Development Merit Public Notification Category 2 Representations None Referral Agencies Coast Protection Board Kangaroo Island Natural Resources (DEWNR) Report Author Lee Webb, Senior Specialist (Environmental) Planner RECOMMENDATION Development Plan Consent subject to reserved matters and conditions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The proposal is to establish an ecotourism style of tourist accommodation development on a coastal rural allotment at Cape St Albans (Red House Bay) on the north-eastern coast of Dudley Peninsula - Kangaroo Island, approximately 20 kilometres north-east of Penneshaw. The proposal is in accordance with the Islands strategic direction to promote the nature-based tourism industry as a key economic driver. In addition, this type of development is encouraged within the Coastal Conservation zoning of the site.

The building has been sited and designed to be of high quality, to be ecologically sustainable and to integrate with the landscape, whilst taking advantage of the natural views. Importantly, it has been set-back from the coast a sufficient distance to minimise impacts on the coast, especially for local avifauna species of conservation significance. The most critical issue is minimising the potential effects on the threatened White-bellied Sea-Eagle and Hooded Plover populations. Suitable buffers and management frameworks would need to be established to minimise impacts on these species.

ASSESSMENT REPORT

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 Strategic Context

During 2012 and 2013, the State Government, Kangaroo Island Futures Authority (KIFA), Kangaroo Island Council and many islanders worked together to identify and unlock opportunities for Kangaroo Island's future.

A new approach was proposed for the future of the Island to address the overarching themes of opportunity, people, improved access, agriculture and tourism. This new approach was designed to re-align planning policy with the directions of KIFA to guide future development of Kangaroo Island. As a result, the Kangaroo Island Structure

2 Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2 22 June 2017

Plan, the Sustainable Futures Development Plan Amendment (DPA), and an addendum to the Kangaroo Island volume of the Planning Strategy were developed and adopted by government in February 2014. Packaging the three documents together for the first time provided a clear line of sight between the strategic issues identified by the Island community and the planning policies in the Development Plan. Of particular relevance to this application, the DPA introduced policies into the Coastal Conservation Zone that anticipate tourist accommodation where it is designed in a way that is sympathetic to its natural setting.

1.2 Development Plan Policy Summary

The subject land is located within the Coastal Conservation Zone within the Kangaroo Island Council Development Plan.

The Coastal Conservation Zone seeks to enhance and conserve the natural features of the coast including visual amenity, landforms, fauna and flora.

This desire is balanced with in the Desired Character statement through the recognition that ‘the coastal environment plays an important role in Kangaroo Island's economy and the tourist attraction provided by the coastal environment, coastal scenery and abundant wildlife is expected to see growth in visitor numbers that will need to be appropriately managed and catered for’.

The provisions of the zone provide guidance as to the appropriate siting, design and management of tourist facilities to ensure that an appropriate balance is struck between allowing tourists and visitors to appreciate the coastal environment whilst ensuring its ongoing protection. This intent is supported within the Council Wide provisions, particularly the Coastal Areas, Siting and Visibility and Tourism Development sections.

2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

Application details are contained in ATTACHMENT 1.

The application is for a low-key tourist accommodation (ecotourism style) development that takes advantage of the natural coastal views. The proposal comprises a total of four high quality designed retreats (i.e. self-catered cabins) that provide the opportunity for either families or groups of friends to stay in one, or multiple retreat buildings. Each cabin would be located on cleared land, within scattered stands of existing vegetation (refer to Figure 1).

3 Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2 22 June 2017

Figure 1: Layout Plan

The cabins would be located downslope from the crest of the coastal headland to maximise views, whilst ensuring the rooftop is below the ridgeline (refer to Figure 2).

Figure 2: Site Location 4 Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2 22 June 2017

The retreats feature similar floor plans which include the following:

 three bedrooms, each with a separate ensuite;  fully serviced kitchen and dining area;  lounge with wood fire;  outdoor terrace with BBQ facilities;  laundry facilities; and  a single carport.

All buildings will have a north-west orientation to maximise views over Antechamber Bay as well as exposure to sunlight.

Each cabin would be accessible via four newly created tracks, each stemming from the existing unsealed, compacted rubble road. The existing access track is subject to a legal right-of-way to enable maintenance of the lighthouse.

The applicant has adopted a slender design for the single storey buildings (especially with a low pitch skillion roof) and the use of natural materials (such as local stone, corrugated steel and large double-glazed windows) to help them meld into the landscape. ESD principles have been adopted for all design aspects to minimise the impact of the buildings on the environment. In addition, various energy and water efficiency measures have been integrated to minimise non-renewable resource consumption and achieve a high level of sustainability (including rooftop mounted photovoltaic cells).

The proposal is capable of providing, and has access to, all relevant service infrastructure to function and be self-sufficient. Each retreat is provided with a dedicated water supply where two 20,000L tanks will provide potable water and a fire- fighting supply (if required). Each retreat will have also have its own water recycle and waste treatment system (septic).

Elevation and floor plan layout are depicted in Figures 3 and 4.

5 Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2 22 June 2017

Figure 3: Building Elevations

Figure 4: Floor Plan

6 Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2 22 June 2017

3. SITE AND LOCALITY

3.1 Site Description

The subject land consists of one irregular shaped allotment, with a total area of 115 hectares, described as follows:

Lot No Hundred Area CT Reference

Section 309 Dudley Willoughby 5198/90

An aerial image of the subject land and locality is provided below (Figure 5), with additional site photographs contained in ATTACHMENT 2.

Figure 5: Site Plan

The land contains no built form but has been modified from its natural state due to a long history of rural use in the form of cropping and grazing. As a result the land is predominately cleared/grazed with patches of established, mature native vegetation predominately within the south west portion of the land and along the eastern boundary. A ridge line runs through the site from the southern boundary down to the northern tip, which continues through the adjoining parcel of land forming Cape St Albans. The Cape St Albans Lighthouse is located toward the head of the cape on a separate allotment. 7 Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2 22 June 2017

The land falls steeply along both sides of the ridgeline; down to Red House Bay to the north-west and more sharply to a series of coastal cliffs to the east. A coastal reserve exists between the subject land and the coastline on three sides so that the land does not have any direct frontage to the coast. The site for the tourist accommodation buildings is on sloping terrain and construction activities would require the management of run-off and erosion.

The land to the west, along Red House Bay and leading into Antechamber Bay is also located within the Coastal Conservation Zone. The land immediately to the south and south west is located within the Primary Production Zone with the Coastal Conservation Zone continuing along the coastline to the south towards Cape Willoughby.

The surrounding land is generally used for low scale grazing and cropping with patches of native vegetation and scattered houses/homesteads. The Sea Dragon Lodge is located at Pink Bay, approximately 1.5 km to the south of the site and provides luxury eco accommodation within a single large lodge (accommodating up to 8 people within three suites) and two single bedroom eco-cabins. Antechamber Bay Retreats provides two dwellings for private rental to visitors. The nearby Cape Willoughby Lighthouse provides two fully-furnished heritage-listed lighthouse keepers’ cottages as tourist accommodation.

3.2 Locality

The site is located at Cape St Albans (Red House Bay) on the north-eastern coast of Dudley Peninsula - Kangaroo Island. The site is approximately 20 kilometres south- east of Penneshaw, the main service centre for the eastern end of the Island and the port for the SeaLink Ferry service. Access to the site is via Willoughby Road, which is predominantly unsealed. Thus, the site is readily accessible for visitors to access from the Kingscote Airport.

8 Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2 22 June 2017

Figure 6: Location Map

9 Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2 22 June 2017

4. COUNCIL COMMENTS or TECHNICAL ADVICE

Referral responses and applicant’s response to the Coast Protection Board comments are contained in ATTACHMENTS 3-5.

4.1 Kangaroo Island Council

Council advised the proposal supports the desired character for tourist accommodation within the zone and an opportunity to showcase the subject part of the Island. It considers relatively low-scale buildings would not present visual issues and the proposed colours and finishes would blend the buildings with the locality. Furthermore, strategic landscape planting (i.e. on earthen mounds and using endemic species) should be undertaken to provide a landscape buffer, particularly for views from the east and west aspects. The assessment of the application should have regard for bushfire risk requirements. An on-site wastewater system would need to be approved, prior to construction.

Council supports the proposed development.

5. STATUTORY REFERRAL BODY COMMENTS

5.1 Coast Protection Board (CPB) – Mandatory Referral (Regard)

The CPB raised concerns about the potential impact of the development on resident White-bellied Sea Eagles, a species listed as ‘Endangered’ under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972. It considered the development would reduce the productivity of a breeding pair of birds, potentially resulting in them moving to a sub-optimal breeding location. At worst, it could lead to the complete abandonment of the breeding territory. In particular, it considered the EBS Ecology Cape St Albans White-bellied Sea-Eagle Assessment report provided with the application did not propose measures to adequately mitigate the risk of such impacts.

The site also supports a population of sub-adult male Glossy Black Cockatoos that forage in remnant stands of She-oak, whilst the local beach supports Hooded Plovers. These are threatened species listed under the EPBC Act.

The CPB advised that, whilst it supports appropriate nature based tourism accommodation on the coast, it is important to protect the environmental values of Kangaroo Island, including the protection of the White-bellied Sea Eagle.

Thus, the CPB recommends that the proposed development be refused as, in addition to the impact on the White-bellied Sea Eagle, it is contrary to its policies on coastal open space, orderly development, coastal access, scenic amenity, coastal conservation and biodiversity, and tourist accommodation development in areas of high conservation value.

5.2 Natural Resources Kangaroo Island (DEWNR) – Standard Referral

No comments.

5.3 Country Fire Service – Standard Referral

No response received.

10 Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2 22 June 2017

6. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

The application was notified as a Category 2 development, as prescribed by the Development Plan zoning. Public notification was undertaken by directly contacting the one adjoining owner/occupier of the land on 6 February 2017 and no representation was received. The Australian Maritime Safety Authority, which has an interest in the land via a right-of-way to the lighthouse, was also notified and no representation was received.

‘Informal’ correspondence from three local residents was also received, which raised concerns regarding the potential impact on the local White-bellied Sea-eagle population.

11 Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2 22 June 2017

7. POLICY OVERVIEW

The subject site is within the Coastal Conservation Zone as described within the Kangaroo Island Council Development Plan - Consolidated 17 September 2017. A copy of the Zone map KI/4 is reproduced in Figure 7.

Relevant planning policies are contained in Appendix 1 and summarised below.

Figure 7 – Zoning Map

12 Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2 22 June 2017

7.1 Zone

The subject land is located within the Coastal Conservation Zone, which seeks to enhance and conserve the natural features of the coast, including visual amenity, landforms, fauna and flora.

This desire is balanced within the Desired Character statement through the recognition that ‘the coastal environment plays an important role in Kangaroo Island's economy and the tourist attraction provided by the coastal environment, coastal scenery and abundant wildlife is expected to see growth in visitor numbers that will need to be appropriately managed and catered for’.

The provisions of the zone provide guidance as to the appropriate siting, design and management of tourist facilities to ensure that an appropriate balance is struck between allowing tourists and visitors to appreciate the coastal environment, whilst ensuring its ongoing protection.

7.2 Council Wide

The intent of the zone is supported within the Council Wide provisions, particularly the Coastal Areas, Siting and Visibility and Tourism Development sections. For coastal areas, development should be compatible with the coastal environment in terms of built-form, appearance and landscaping (including the use of walls and low pitched roofs of non-reflective texture and natural earth colours). Tourism development and any associated activities should not damage or degrade any significant natural and cultural features. Tourism development should also ensure that its scale, form and location will not overwhelm, over commercialise or detract from the intrinsic natural values of the land on which it is sited or the character of its locality.

8. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

The following elements are considered to be of most relevance to the assessment of the proposal against the Development Plan. The relevant provisions of the Development Plan are provided in Appendix 1.

8.1 Land Use and Character

The proposed use of the buildings for tourist accommodation is supported and specifically listed as a desired form of development within the Coastal Conservation Zone. The Desired Character Statement for the Zone acknowledges the economic importance of the coastal landscapes of the Island in attracting visitors and seeks to provide appropriate facilities to continue to attract and accommodate tourists on the Island.

Specifically, the proposal satisfies Council Wide Tourism Development policies (i.e. Objective 7 and PDC 4) by increasing the opportunity for visitors to stay overnight and increasing the range of services, experiences and accommodation types offered in the area.

8.2 Design and Appearance

Both the Council Wide and Zone provisions provide a significant degree of guidance as to the appropriate siting, design and appearance of buildings, particularly those that are located within scenic and/or visible locations. Of particular note are the following provisions:

Coastal Conservation Zone PDC’s: 13 Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2 22 June 2017

8 Buildings or structures should be unobtrusively located, limited to a height of 6.5 metres above natural ground level, and be of such size and design, including materials and colours, to harmonise and blend naturally with the landscape and natural features of the zone. 11 Development should not prejudice the landscape quality and natural bushland of the zone. 12 Tourist accommodation should complement the natural landscape and be designed in a way that minimises impact on the natural environment.

Council Wide Siting and Visibility PDC’s:

1 Development should be sited and designed to minimise its visual impact on: (a) the natural, rural or heritage character of the area; (b) areas of high visual or scenic value, particularly rural and coastal areas; (c) views from the coast, near-shore waters, public reserves, tourist routes and walking trails; and (d) the amenity of public beaches. 3 Buildings outside of urban areas and in undulating landscapes should be sited in unobtrusive locations and in particular should be: (a) sited below the ridgeline; (b) sited within valleys or behind spurs; (c) sited in such a way as to not be visible against the skyline when viewed from public roads; and (d) set well back from public roads, particularly when the allotment is on the high side of the road. 4 Buildings and structures should be designed to minimise their visual impact in the landscape, in particular: (a) the profile of buildings should be low and the rooflines should complement the natural form of the land; (b) the mass of buildings should be minimised by variations in wall and roof lines and by floor plans which complement the contours of the land; and (c) large eaves, verandas and pergolas should be incorporated into designs so as to create shadowed areas that reduce the bulky appearance of buildings.

Tourism Development PDC’s:

9 Tourist developments located within areas of high conservation value, high indigenous cultural value, high landscape quality or significant scenic beauty should demonstrate excellence in design to minimise potential impacts or intrusion. 11 Buildings and structures to accommodate tourists and associated activities should: (a) not exceed a building height of 6.5 metres (from natural ground level); and (b) have a minimum setback of 100 metres from any of the following: (i) public roads or be no closer to a public road than existing buildings on the subject land, whichever is the lesser; (ii) adjoining allotment boundaries; (iii) the high water mark; or (iv) cliff faces

The proposed building is to be located inland near the top of the high ground that slopes down to the coast and satisfies the provisions that seek to locate buildings below ridgelines and within less obtrusive locations (i.e. being screened by existing vegetation). The coastal headland behind the cabins is a dominant feature of the land and would be considered the ridgeline. The building sites are set-back a reasonable distance from the top of the headland, whilst still maintaining good views. The applicant has outlined the design intent and development of the proposal within the application documents. The documents show that, whilst the proposed buildings will be 14 Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2 22 June 2017

visible due to their positioning, the design intent in regards to the low profile form and selection of materials/finishes seeks to reduce the visibility and potential impact of the proposal.

Overall it is considered that the proposal has achieved this intent. The separation of each building (i.e. sited on cleared ground scattered amongst remnant vegetation), the flat/skillion roof form, the use of natural coloured and non-reflective building materials all assist in blending the proposal with the surrounding landscape. Car parking and access are located at the rear and would be screened by each building and landscaping.

The maximum height of the building would be below the maximum height of 6.5 metres specified within Coastal Conservation Zone (i.e. PDC 8) and for Tourism Development (i.e. PDC 11). The building would be below the highest ridgeline of the headland and would not detract from the rural and coastal landscape.

The proposal achieves the setback distance of 100 metres from public roads, adjoining allotments, high water mark and cliff faces as sought for Tourism Development (i.e. PDC 11). The size of the subject land and the surrounding land parcels is such that the available views of the proposal will all be distant and predominately from the coast and along the North Coast Road to Boxing Bay. When viewed from these locations the building is likely to be seen within the broader context of the surrounding area and as a part of the coastal panorama rather than a noticeable or discordant element. Views from the beach would be obscured by the low cliff. The surrounding area appears to have a relatively low visitation rate, primarily due to the surrounding roads being unsealed and generally servicing only the adjoining rural properties. Whilst Boxing Bay is accessible to the public, no major tourist routes or destinations are located within the locality.

On balance whilst it is recognised that the proposed building will be visible within the landscape, it is considered that the design, siting and proposed landscaping/revegetation are such that the extent of the visibility is considered to be low impact and acceptable.

8.3 Hazards/Risks

Fire Risk

The subject site is identified as a “Medium Bushfire Risk Area” and the proposed buildings are setback a substantial distance (greater than 20 metres) from any significant clusters of Narrow Leaf Mallee that exist on the site. Native vegetation surrounding each retreat comprises low shrubland.

Each retreat is provided with two 20,000L rainwater tanks which will include sufficient water for fire-fighting (if required). The proposal is not expected to create, or be affected by existing or future hazards due to the low-impact of the building design on the natural landscape and the setbacks provided from areas with the potential to be hazardous. Access to the retreat will be provided for vehicles, including emergency vehicles, via an all-weather rubble road.

Waste Management

Each retreat will have its own water recycle and waste treatment system (septic). The retreat’s effluent disposal system will also be setback greater than 100 metres so as to not impact on the intertidal zone.

15 Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2 22 June 2017

The retreats will also contain a ‘three waste stream’ system (general, recycling and green) which will be the responsibility of guests, and the cleaning staff who will clean the retreats after each stay. Waste will be disposed/recycled off-site.

Soil Erosion and Drainage

The location of the development also ensures that the existing natural drainage systems are not obstructed, ensuring the natural environments around these natural flows are maintained. The driveway, access track and parking area will not necessitate earthworks as the material used will be gravel and rubble and it will follow the natural topography of the land. A ‘Soil Erosion and Drainage Management Plan (SEDMP)’ is proposed to be developed in accordance with the 'Code of Practice for the building and construction industry' to prevent soil sediment and pollutants leaving the site during development.

8.4 Environmental Impacts

Coastal Conservation Zone (i.e. PDC 6) notes that ‘development should be designed and sited to be compatible with the conservation and enhancement of the coastal environment and scenic beauty of the zone’. Council Wide Coastal Areas policies (i.e. PDC’s 2 and 3) also seek the protection of the marine and onshore coastal environment, with development to be located away from delicate or environmentally-sensitive coastal features (such as sand dunes, cliff-tops, wetlands or substantially intact strata of native vegetation).

The siting of the proposal and access is such that it is considered to achieve the intent of the above provisions and that of the Desired Character Statement, which notes a preference for tourism development to be located within cleared areas where environmental improvements can be achieved. There would be no removal of significant areas of native vegetation and landscaping/revegetation would use locally endemic species to increase local habitat.

The development of the proposal would have the benefit of removing existing weeds (especially boxthorn) and grazing from the site, which will support regeneration and the objectives of the proposed landscaping. The landscape approach aims to:

 Revegetate with indigenous species only.  Use plantings grown from a local seed source from either the subject site or surrounds.  Protect new plant species where required to ensure an appropriate period of establishment.  Provide sacrificial/beneficial planting, such as Acacia sp. and Pultenaea sp. which will add nitrogen to the soil, giving more opportunity for more fragile species to grow.  Strengthen existing habitat planting, such as the central stands of Allocasuarina verticillata, providing more opportunity for feeding and nesting birds.  Enhance the individual tracks to each retreat with landscaping.

The main potential for impact would result from the use of the site and the human presence/interaction with a number of protected fauna species. Whilst there is an overall desire within the Development Plan to locate development away from the coast and the more sensitive areas of natural habitat, there is also an acknowledgement that the predominate tourist experience that is sought by visitors to the Island is that of the coastal environment and the natural setting that this entails. As such a balance is sought within the Plan, particularly within the Desired Character Statement for the 16 Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2 22 June 2017

Zone, between the conservation of the natural elements that attract visitors (and underpins the Islands economy) and the facilities that seek to showcase these elements. It is considered that, by locating the proposed buildings within cleared areas of the site away from the coast, the proposal achieves this balance.

Coastal Avifauna Species

The most significant environmental impact is considered to be the potential effects on local coastal avifauna species of conservation significance, primarily the White-bellied Sea-Eagle and to a lesser degree the Glossy Black-Cockatoo and Hooded Plover. Construction of the buildings would cause short-term disturbance (especially noise, movement and traffic), whilst the retreats would introduce a new feature to the landscape and associated long-term disturbance from visitor activity, especially for the Sea-Eagle (i.e. a perceived threat).

The White-bellied Sea-Eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster) is listed as ‘Endangered’ under the SA National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (NPW Act) and nests and feeds along rocky coastal headlands. The Glossy Black-Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami halmaturinus) is listed as ‘Endangered’ under both the NPW Act and the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and feeds on Drooping Sheoak woodlands. The Hooded Plover (Thinornis rubricollis rubricollis) is listed as ‘Vulnerable’ under both the NPW Act and the EPBC Act and nests along sandy beaches.

The habitat of these species on the subject land currently experiences low-moderate levels of human disturbance, primarily from farming operations (i.e. grazing and property maintenance activities) and occasional access to the lighthouse. The nearby beach and headland are generally not accessible to the public.

The Coast Protection Board advised that the coastal headland, cliff and beach landforms at the site are important features of this coastal area, with particularly high environmental values. Most importantly, the proposed development is within close proximity to a known, active Sea-Eagle nest and guard roost locations.

White-bellied Sea-Eagle

South Australia has a small and relatively isolated White-bellied Sea-Eagle breeding population, with the majority (79%) of the current population found on offshore islands, including Kangaroo Island (~20% of the breeding population). It is likely that the declines found in mainland habitats has followed increased human activity and corresponding levels of disturbance at nesting sites (i.e. from residential and tourism developments in rural coastal areas and recreation). Protecting the species from further disturbance and population decline is becoming increasingly crucial due to development pressures and coastal access in remote locations. Subdivision of grazing properties into smaller holdings with part-time or permanently occupied housing has substantially increased the level of human disturbance and impacts.

The species is sensitive to human disturbance (including the construction and occupation of buildings and associated human activities). This is exacerbated when it occurs above the level of the nest, which is more threatening than from below. In addition, during nesting the male bird occupies strategically located guard roost sites near the nest and will warn the female bird if a potential threat is present. If the male bird is disturbed, the female will usually leave the nest until the threat is gone.

A common method for reducing or preventing disturbance is to determine a buffer distance from the nest where human activity is excluded. Coast Protection Board policy recommends a minimum buffer of 2000 metres as a precautionary measure for this 17 Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2 22 June 2017

species. [It should be noted the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources is currently finalising Guidelines for the protection of breeding habitats of Endangered White-bellied Sea-Eagle and Osprey on Kangaroo Island that prescribes the Coast Protection Board’s 2000 metre buffer requirement for the White-bellied Sea- Eagle].

The closest cabin site is approximately 600 metres from the nest and the closest roost site, with the furthest site approximately 1000 metres away.

Location of nest and guard roost sites.

Whilst the proposal doesn’t meet the prescribed buffer distance, there is no direct line of sight to the cabins, as the nest is located on the opposite side of the headland (and half way down the cliff face) and views would be blocked by the landform and relatively tall remnant vegetation along the top of the cliff. This is also compensated for to a reasonable degree by the cabins being located at a lower elevation than the roost sites (i.e. 10-15 metres below the level of the top of the headland). In addition, the birds have an elevated vantage point in the landscape from the roost sites for monitoring any potential threats to the nest. One key roost site is also located on the lighthouse, which is located 1000 metres from the closest cabin. These factors are critical for minimising the risk of disturbance and potentially increasing the probability the birds could adapt to a new form of human presence over time.

The land between the nest/roosts and the proposed retreats is largely open grassland (with scattered patches of shrubland) that is traversed by an access track and a single wire powerline (i.e. to service the lighthouse).

18 Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2 22 June 2017

View looking SW – nest to the left and retreats to the right

This area could be established as a buffer zone that could be enhanced using revegetation to provide a visual screen/barrier along the eastern property boundary. Additional landscaping around the development could also be used for improved screening of the buildings and associated activities. This could potentially provide a physical barrier to access to the top of the headland. Revegetation would also provide habitat and biodiversity benefits. Visitor access and activities would need to be managed (combined with visitor education on the sensitivity of the wildlife), especially to avoid disturbance during the breeding season (May-December). Construction would need to be scheduled to avoid this period.

Whilst the nest site would have a lower level of vulnerability (i.e. due to being in an inaccessible location and screened by vegetation), the guard roost locations are the most susceptible sites to being affected. The greatest risk from disturbance is that the breeding success of the birds would be compromised (i.e. eggs/chicks being abandoned or periodically left exposed to the weather or predation) or the nest is abandoned and a breeding pair lost to the population (i.e. worst case scenario).

If the breeding pair is disturbed to such an extent that the active nest is threatened with abandonment, a sub-optimal nest site within the birds territory (i.e. that has been used in the past) may possibly be used as an alternative (potentially until the birds become accustomed to the new development and return). Alternatively, the nest may become occupied by another breeding pair, although this is uncertain as the species is highly territorial and this may take an extended period of time to occur (if at all). The ability of the species to adapt to new disturbance factors (whether resident birds or new breeding pairs) and maintain a viable breeding population is unknown.

Hooded Plover

The Hooded Plover is found along the sandy beach, feeding along the shoreline and nesting within the dunes at top of the beach. The main threats to the species are from human disturbance (i.e. when birds may temporarily vacate the nest, leaving the eggs/chicks vulnerable to predation) and loss of eggs/chicks due to dogs or vehicles. The species is generally less sensitive to disturbance and won’t abandon nesting sites or be completely displaced from preferred habitat.

The Hooded Plover would not be disturbed by the development itself, but potentially by the associated recreational activities of visitors (especially greater use of the nearby beach). Visitor access and activities would need to be managed during the breeding

19 Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2 22 June 2017

season (August-March). This could include the identification of any nest site and the erection of temporary barriers and signage.

Glossy Black-Cockatoo

Large old eucalypts that provide nesting habitat for the species (such as Sugar Gum, Blue Gum, and Manna Gum species that occur mainly along creeks and river systems) are not present on the site. Whilst the site does supports Drooping Sheoak woodland, this is restricted to small degraded patches that would provide a limited food source for the species. Critical feeding habitat stretches along the coast from Penneshaw to the Chapman River and does not extend to the eastern end of the Island.

Thus, there may be some minor disturbance to any feeding birds, mainly near the western most cabin which is near Sheoak habitat. However, the species is generally less sensitive to human activities.

Impact Mitigation

The application proposes the following measures to minimise disturbance to the White- bellied Sea-Eagle:

 Plant and establish vegetation along the cliff top to act as a screen to the stretch of coastline below.  Undertaking civil and structural works outside of the most sensitive period within the breeding season (i.e. May to July).  Undertaking only internal works to the retreat buildings such as painting etc. during the breeding season (i.e. May to December).  Utilising the existing access track and any new tracks to be situated as far away as is possible from the known nest and guard roosts.  Guests would be keep away from the cliff edge for safety reasons and be informed that sea-eagles are known to the area. This will not extend to providing details around nest location or guard roosts as this may encourage interest and/or undesirable access to view the nest or guard roosts more closely.

However, the Coast Protection Board considered that disturbance could not be avoided and the measures would be difficult to implement or enforce. In particular, there is no information on how visitors would be managed (e.g. formalised walking trails, fencing/signage etc. to prevent access to sensitive locations etc.) nor details about how landscaping/revegetation would be undertaken.

It is considered that, whilst the proposed buffer treatment would not entirely exclude human activity, it is sufficient to minimise disturbance to a reasonable extent. In addition, the nest site is located down a cliff on the opposite side of the headland, so that there is a substantial physical barrier from the retreat sites (and no direct line of sight). Importantly, the buildings are located below the level of the closest guard roost sites, which is a critical factor in reducing the level of threat for breeding pairs. In addition, landscaping and revegetation would further mitigate this threat by providing screening and reducing the amount of cleared, open land between the site and the nest.

Visitors are likely to be attracted to the beach and headland (especially the lighthouse), so would need to be discouraged from disturbing nest and roost sites through physical and behavioural means. The control of visitor activities would be problematic and would require on-going, active management and education (especially by a manager/caretaker) that would need to extend to the adjoining coastal reserve and beach.

20 Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2 22 June 2017

Additional mitigation measures that should be adopted include:

a) The erection of the proposed fence along the eastern side of the existing access track, which would extend northward to the property boundary. The fence should then extend westward, across the track and towards the coast. A locked gate should be erected over the track. This measure would restrict vehicle and pedestrian access to the cliff (and nest/roost site) and the lighthouse. b) The establishment of formal walking trails to the beach and lighthouse to direct access to the natural features of the site whilst avoiding sensitive environmental areas. c) Restricted access to the beach during the Hooded Plover breeding season between August and March. d) Information be provided to all visitors to the subject land regarding important flora and fauna, including the White-bellied Sea Eagle, Glossy Black-Cockatoo and Hooded Plover, including how impacts on them can be minimised. e) More extensive landscape planting and revegetation than that proposed, so as to adequately screen the development, establish an adequate buffer and provide greater biodiversity, together with a timeframe and a management regime (including monitoring). f) Pest animal and weed control management regime. g) Monitoring program to identify any impacts on the White-bellied Sea Eagle, Glossy Black-Cockatoo and Hooded Plover.

These mitigation measures would need to be detailed in a Management Plan and a Landscaping and Revegetation Plan for the site. The control of impacts during construction would need to be detailed in a Construction Management Plan.

Overall, it is considered that the proposal achieves a sufficient balance between utilising the natural environment and beauty of the locality for tourist purposes (including the economic and promotional benefits to Kangaroo Island) and protecting the most sensitive values of the locality.

9. CONCLUSION

The proposed tourist accommodation facility would provide a land use that is desired within the Coastal Conservation Zone and one that is found in various forms within the broader locality. The proposed facility seeks to benefit from the beauty and attraction of the surrounding coastal and rural environment and in doing so seeks to balance the protection of this unique environment with the increase in tourism sought within the Development Plan.

A level of caution is always required when considering the impact of a proposal upon the natural environment, even more so when threatened species are involved. The desire of the applicant to ensure that the unique fauna of the area is adequately protected and managed is noted and supported. The reserved matters and conditions recommended below seek to re-enforce and formalise this commitment.

On balance the proposal is considered to display a sufficient level of compliance with the relevant provisions to warrant Development Plan Consent.

10. RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Development Assessment Commission:

1) RESOLVE that the proposed development is NOT seriously at variance with the policies in the Development Plan.

21 Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2 22 June 2017

2) RESOLVE to grant Development Plan Consent to the proposal by Alexander Brown Architects for the construction of a tourist accommodation facility at Lot 2, North Cape Road (Hundred of Menzies) on Kangaroo Island subject to the following reserved matters and conditions of consent.

Reserved Matters:

Pursuant to Section 33(3) of the Development Act 1993, the following matters should be reserved for further assessment, to the satisfaction of the Development Assessment Commission prior to the granting of Development Approval:

 Management Plan confirming the ongoing management and operation of the facility (including fencing, signage, controlling the movement of guests, provision of educational/interpretive materials for guests, undertaking maintenance works etc.) so as to minimise the impact upon sensitive avifauna and habitat within the locality.

The Plan shall incorporate, but not be limited to:

a) Fencing to control visitor access and to protect environmentally sensitive areas. b) Formalised access paths for pedestrians. c) Restriction of building and construction activity to outside the breeding season of the Sea-Eagle from May to December. d) Restriction of vehicle access to the current road and the proposed new access track. e) Restrictions on visitor and resident access on the property and from the subject land to the headland/cliff to the east of the site during the breeding season of the White-bellied Sea-Eagle (i.e. from May through to December inclusive). f) Restricted access to the beach during the Hooded Plover breeding season (i.e. from August through to March inclusive). g) Information be provided to all visitors to the subject land regarding important flora and fauna, including the White-bellied Sea Eagle, Glossy Black-Cockatoo and Hooded Plover, including how impacts on them can be minimised. h) More extensive landscape planting and revegetation than that proposed, so as to adequately screen the development, establish an adequate buffer and provide greater biodiversity, together with a timeframe and a management regime (including monitoring). i) Pest animal and weed control management regime. j) Monitoring program to identify any impacts on the White-bellied Sea Eagle, Glossy Black-Cockatoo and Hooded Plover (including contingencies for further impact mitigation that may be needed as a result of monitoring).

The Plan shall be prepared in consultation with the Coast Protection Board and Natural Resources Kangaroo Island.

 Landscaping and Revegetation Plan, including the extent of revegetation of the land and plantings to soften the visual appearance of the buildings and to provide a vegetated buffer from sensitive avifauna and habitat.

The Plan shall be prepared in consultation with the Coast Protection Board and Natural Resources Kangaroo Island.

 Construction Management Plan, including the final location / siting of the buildings, construction methodology (including internal fit-out) and measures to mitigate impacts.

 Detailed plans and elevations.

22 Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2 22 June 2017

 Detailed plans, specifications and documentation associated with the provision of infrastructure to service the site (especially for the waste treatment system).

Planning Conditions:

1. That except where minor amendments may be required by other relevant Acts, or by conditions imposed by this application, the development shall be established in strict accordance with the details and plans, including the following amended plans and documents as submitted in development application number 520/L001/17:

Plans and Elevations  Plan Titled ‘Site Plan 1:10000 - Cape St Albans Retreats’, dated 2016/12/02, prepared by Max Pritchard Gunner Architects.  Plan Titled ‘Site Plan 1:2000 - Cape St Albans Retreats’, dated 2016/12/02, prepared by Max Pritchard Gunner Architects.  Plan Titled ‘Cliff protection/Revegetation Plan 1:10000 - Cape St Albans Retreats’, dated 2016/12/02, prepared by Max Pritchard Gunner Architects.  Drawing Titled ‘Floor Plan 1:200 - Cape St Albans Retreats’, dated 2016/12/02, prepared by Max Pritchard Gunner Architects.  Drawing Titled ‘North East Elevation, North West Elevation, South East Elevation, South West Elevation 1:200 - Cape St Albans Retreats’, dated 2016/12/02, prepared by Max Pritchard Gunner Architects.

Reports / Correspondence  Cape St Albans Retreats Planning Statement. Prepared by Future Urban Group for Rokrol Pty Ltd, dated 16 December 2016.  Letter Titled ‘Confirmation of White-Bellied Sea Eagle Impact Mitigation Strategies for DA 520/L001/17’ from Future Urban Group, dated 8 may 2017.

2. That all stormwater design and construction shall be in accordance with Australian Standards and recognised engineering best practices to ensure that stormwater does not result in adverse erosion or impacts upon the land.

3. That all exposed cut and fill shall be rounded off to follow and blend with the natural contours of the land, covered with approximately 100mm of top soil immediately after excavation and seeded with ground covers and screened with trees and shrubs to avoid erosion and visual concerns within 6 (six) months of the site being excavated.

Advisory notes a. The development must be substantially commenced within 12 months of the date of this Notification, unless this period has been extended by the Development Assessment Commission. b. a. The authorisation will lapse if not commenced within 12 months of the date of this Notification. c. The applicant is also advised that any act or work authorised or required by this Notification must be completed within 3 years of the date of the Notification unless this period is extended by the Commission. d. The applicant will require a fresh consent before commencing or continuing the development if unable to satisfy these requirements. e. The applicant has a right of appeal against the conditions which have been imposed on this Development Plan Consent or Development Approval. 23 Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2 22 June 2017

f. Such an appeal must be lodged at the Environment, Resources and Development Court within two months from the day of receiving this notice or such longer time as the Court may allow. g. The applicant is asked to contact the Court if wishing to appeal. The Court is located in the Sir Samuel Way Building, Victoria Square, Adelaide, (telephone number 8204 0300). h. The applicant is reminded of its general environmental duty, as required by Section 25 of the Environment Protection Act 1993, to take all reasonable and practical measures to ensure that the activities on the whole site, including during construction, do not pollute the environment in a way which causes or may cause environmental harm. i. The emission of noise from the premises is subject to control under the Environment Protection Act 1993 and Regulations, and the applicant (or person with the benefit of this consent) should comply with those requirements j. Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the Native Vegetation Act 1991 in respect to approvals required for the clearance of native vegetation. k. Your attention is drawn to the environmental assessment and approval requirements of the Commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999. The Act regulates proponents directly and civil and criminal penalties apply for breaches of the Act. The proponent should contact the Commonwealth Environment Minister through Environment Australia to seek a further determination for this proposal if required. l. The applicant must ensure there is no objection from any of the public utilities in respect of underground or overhead services and any alterations that may be required are to be at the applicant’s expense.

Lee Webb Senior Specialist (Environmental) Planner DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, ASSESSMENT DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, TRANSPORT and INFRASTRUCTURE

24 Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2 22 June 2017

Appendix 1: Relevant Development Plan Policies

COASTAL CONSERVATION ZONE

OBJECTIVES 1 To enhance and conserve the natural features of the coast including visual amenity, landforms, fauna and flora. 2 Low-intensity recreational uses located where environmental impacts on the coast will be minimal. 3 Development that contributes to the desired character of the zone.

DESIRED CHARACTER

The zone defines the coastal areas of high landscape or conservation value and incorporates policy to ensure the preservation of the coastal landscape resource.

Pelican Lagoon, Prospect Hill and Sapphiretown Peninsula in particular, have been identified as having high conservation value and should be protected. In addition, the high scenic value of Chapman River and the surrounding area at Antechamber Bay should be protected for camping and recreational use.

However, the coastal environment plays an important role in Kangaroo Island's economy and the tourist attraction provided by the coastal environment, coastal scenery and abundant wildlife is expected to see growth in visitor numbers that will need to be appropriately managed and catered for. The provision of facilities, including tourist accommodation and recreational facilities, may be established in the zone provided they are sited and designed in a manner that is subservient to the natural and coastal environment and adverse impact on natural features, landscapes, habitats and cultural assets is minimised.

The preference is that tourism development, including any associated access driveways and ancillary structures, be located on cleared areas or areas where environmental improvements can be achieved. Development should be located away from fragile coastal environments and significant habitat or breeding grounds.

In order to reinforce the Island’s scenic and landscape experiences, tourism development should maintain a strong visual impression of a sparsely developed or undeveloped coastline from public roads and land-based vantage points.

The design and siting of tourist accommodation should ensure emphasis is given to raising consciousness and appreciation of the natural, rural, coastal and cultural surroundings.

Upgrading of existing dwellings is encouraged in order to meet various criteria, including approved waste control and effluent disposal systems, the raising of living areas above the level of hazard risk for flooding and inundation or to reduce the level of hazard risk, and other environmental considerations.

It is envisaged that development is not undertaken on coastal dune systems, tidal wetlands, mangroves, sand dunes or other environmentally sensitive areas.

The desired character of the zone does not seek to encroach on the existing use rights of farmers.

PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

Land Use 1 The following forms of development are envisaged in the zone: 25 Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2 22 June 2017

▪ coastal protection works; ▪ conservation works; ▪ interpretive signage and facilities; ▪ tourism/visitor facilities; and ▪ tourist accommodation.

2 Development listed as non-complying is generally inappropriate and not acceptable unless it can be demonstrated that it does not undermine the objectives and principles of the Development Plan. 3 Buildings and structures should mainly be for essential purposes, such as shelters and toilet facilities associated with public recreation, navigation purposes or necessary minor public works. 4 Development involving the removal of shell grit or sand, other than for coastal protection works purposes, or the disposal of domestic and industrial waste should not be undertaken.

Form and Character 5 Development should not be undertaken unless it is consistent with the desired character for the zone. 6 Development should be designed and sited to be compatible with conservation and enhancement of the coastal environment and scenic beauty of the zone. 7 Development should: (a) not adversely impact on the ability to maintain the coastal frontage in a stable and natural condition (b) minimise vehicle access points to the area that is the subject of the development (c) be landscaped with locally indigenous plant species to enhance the amenity of the area and to screen buildings from public view (d) utilise external low reflective materials and finishes that will minimise glare and blend in with the features of the landscape. 8 Buildings or structures should be unobtrusively located, limited to a height of 6.5 metres above natural ground level, and be of such size and design, including materials and colours, to harmonise and blend naturally with the landscape and natural features of the zone. 9 Where public access is necessary in sensitive locations, walkways and fencing should be provided to effectively control access. 10 Sheds, garages, outbuildings and farm buildings, should be erected only as ancillary uses to an existing dwelling or for the continued management of any existing farm. 11 Development should not prejudice the landscape quality and natural bushland of the zone. 12 Tourist accommodation should complement the natural landscape and be designed in a way that minimises impact on the natural environment.

26 Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2 22 June 2017

COUNCIL WIDE - COASTAL AREAS

OBJECTIVES 1 The protection and enhancement of the natural coastal environment, including environmentally important features of coastal areas such as mangroves, wetlands, sand dunes, cliff-tops, native vegetation, wildlife habitat, shore and estuarine areas. 2 Protection of the physical and economic resources of the coast from inappropriate development. 3 Preservation of areas of high landscape and amenity value including stands of vegetation, shores, exposed cliffs, headlands, islands and hill tops, and areas which form an attractive background to urban and tourist areas. 4 Development that maintains and/or enhances public access to coastal areas with minimal impact on the environment and amenity. 5 Development only undertaken on land which is not subject to or that can be protected from coastal hazards including inundation by storm tides or combined storm tides and stormwater, coastal erosion or sand drift, and probable sea level rise. 6 Development that can accommodate anticipated changes in sea level due to natural subsidence and probable climate change during the first 100 years of the development. 7 Development which will not require, now or in the future, public expenditure on protection of the development or the environment.

PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 1 Development should be compatible with the coastal environment in terms of built- form, appearance and landscaping including the use of walls and low pitched roofs of non-reflective texture and natural earth colours.

Environmental Protection 2 The coast should be protected from development that would adversely affect the marine and onshore coastal environment, whether by pollution, erosion, damage or depletion of physical or biological resources, interference with natural coastal processes or any other means. 3 Development should not be located in delicate or environmentally-sensitive coastal features such as sand dunes, cliff-tops, wetlands or substantially intact strata of native vegetation. 4 Development should not be undertaken where it will create or aggravate coastal erosion, or where it will require coast protection works which cause or aggravate coastal erosion. 5 Development should be designed so that solid/fluid wastes and stormwater runoff is disposed of in a manner that will not cause pollution or other detrimental impacts on the marine and on-shore environment of coastal areas. 6 Effluent disposal systems incorporating soakage trenches or similar should prevent effluent migration onto the inter-tidal zone and be sited at least 100 metres from whichever of the following requires the greater distance: (a) the mean high-water mark at spring tide, adjusted for any subsidence for the first 50 years of development plus a sea level rise to reflect probable climate change during the first 100 years of the development (b) the mean high-water mark at spring tide, adjusted for any subsidence for the first 50 years of development plus a sea level rise of 1 metre (c) the nearest boundary of any erosion buffer determined in accordance with the relevant provisions in this Development Plan. 7 Development that proposes to include or create confined coastal waters, as well as water subject to the ebb and flow of the tide should be designed to ensure the quality of such waters is maintained at an acceptable level.

27 Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2 22 June 2017

8 Development should be designed and sited so that it does not prevent natural landform and ecological adjustment to changing climatic conditions and sea levels and should allow for the following: (a) the unrestricted landward migration of coastal wetlands; (b) new areas to be colonised by mangroves, samphire and wetland species’ (c) sand dune drift; and (d) where appropriate, the removal of embankments that interfere with the abovementioned processes.

Maintenance of Public Access 9 Development should maintain or enhance public access to and along the foreshore. 10 Other than small-scale infill development in a predominantly urban zone, development adjacent to the coast should not be undertaken unless it has, or incorporates an existing or proposed public reserve, not including a road or erosion buffer, of at least 50 metres width between the development and the landward toe of the frontal dune or the top edge of an escarpment. If an existing reserve is less than 50 metres wide, the development should incorporate an appropriate width of reserve to achieve a total 50 metres wide reserve. 11 Development that abuts or includes a scenic, conservation or recreational coastal reserve should be sited and designed to be compatible with the purpose, management and amenity of the reserve, as well as to prevent inappropriate access to the reserve. 12 Development, including marinas and aquaculture, should be located and designed to ensure convenient public access along the waterfront to beaches and coastal reserves is maintained, and where possible enhanced through the provision of one or more of the following: (a) pedestrian pathways and recreation trails (b) coastal reserves and lookouts (c) recreational use of the water and waterfront (d) safe public boating facilities at selected locations (e) vehicular access to points near beaches and points of interest (f) car parking. 13 Where a development such as a marina creates new areas of waterfront, provision should be made for public access to, and recreational use of, the waterfront and the water. 14 Public access through sensitive coastal landforms, particularly sand dunes, wetlands and cliff faces, should be restricted to defined pedestrian paths constructed to minimise adverse environmental impact 15 Access roads to the coast and lookouts should preferably be spur roads rather than through routes, other than tourist routes where they: (a) do not detract from the amenity or the environment (b) are designed for slow moving traffic (c) provide adequate car parking.

Hazard Risk Minimisation 16 Development and its site should be protected against the standard sea-flood risk level which is defined as the 1 in 100 year average return interval flood extreme sea level (tide, stormwater and associated wave effects combined), plus an allowance for land subsidence for 50 years at that site. 17 Commercial, industrial, tourism or residential development, and associated roads and parking areas should be protected from sea level rise by ensuring all of the following apply: (a) site levels are at least 0.3 metres above the standard sea-flood risk level (b) building floor levels are at least 0.55 metres above the standard sea-flood risk level

28 Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2 22 June 2017

(c) there are practical measures available to protect the development against a further sea level rise of 0.7 metres above the minimum site level required by part (a). 18 Buildings to be sited over tidal water or which are not capable of being raised or protected by flood protection measures in future, should have a floor level of at least 1.25 metres above the standard sea-flood risk level. 19 Development that requires protection measures against coastal erosion, sea or stormwater flooding, sand drift or the management of other coastal processes at the time of development, or in the future, should only be undertaken if all of the following apply: (a) the measures themselves will not have an adverse effect on coastal ecology, processes, conservation, public access and amenity. (b) the measures do not nor will not require community resources, including land, to be committed. (c) the risk of failure of measures such as sand management, levee banks, flood gates, valves or stormwater pumping, is acceptable relative to the potential hazard resulting from their failure. (d) binding agreements are in place to cover future construction, operation, maintenance and management of the protection measures. Erosion Buffers 20 Development should be set back a sufficient distance from the coast to provide an erosion buffer which will allow for at least 100 years of coastal retreat for single buildings or small-scale developments, or 200 years of coastal retreat for large scale developments (ie new townships) unless either of the following applies: (a) the development incorporates appropriate private coastal protection measures to protect the development and public reserve from the anticipated erosion (b) the council is committed to protecting the public reserve and development from the anticipated coastal erosion. 21 Where a coastal reserve exists or is to be provided it should be increased in width by the amount of any required erosion buffer. The width of an erosion buffer should be based on the following: (a) the susceptibility of the coast to erosion (b) local coastal processes (c) the effect of severe storm events (d) the effect of a 0.3 metres sea level rise over the next 50 years on coastal processes and storms (e) the availability of practical measures to protect the development from erosion caused by a further sea level rise of 0.7 metres per 50 years thereafter. 22 Development should not occur where essential services cannot be economically provided and maintained having regard to flood risk and sea level rise, or where emergency vehicle access would be prevented by a 1 in 100 year average return interval flood event, adjusted for 100 years of sea level rise.

Development in Appropriate Locations 28 Development along the coast should be in the form of infill in existing developed areas or concentrated into appropriately chosen nodes and not be in a scattered or linear form. 29 Development of a kind or scale (eg commercial or large-scale retail) that does not require a coastal location and would not significantly contribute to the community’s enjoyment of the coast should not be located in coastal areas.

COUNCIL WIDE - DESIGN AND APPEARANCE

OBJECTIVES 1 Development of a high architectural standard that responds to and reinforces positive aspects of the local environment and built form.

29 Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2 22 June 2017

2 Roads, open spaces, buildings and land uses laid out and linked so that they are easy to understand and navigate.

PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 1 The design of a building may be of a contemporary nature and exhibit an innovative style provided the overall form is sympathetic to the scale of development in the locality and with the context of its setting with regard to shape, size, materials and colour. 2 Buildings should be designed and sited to avoid creating extensive areas of uninterrupted walling facing areas exposed to public view. 3 Buildings should be designed to reduce their visual bulk and provide visual interest through design elements such as: (a) articulation (b) colour and detailing (c) small vertical and horizontal components (d) design and placing of windows (e) variations to facades. 4 Where a building is sited on or close to a side boundary, the side boundary wall should be sited and limited in length and height to minimise: (a) the visual impact of the building as viewed from adjoining properties (b) overshadowing of adjoining properties and allow adequate natural light to neighbouring buildings. 5 Building form should not unreasonably restrict existing views available from neighbouring properties and public spaces. 6 Transportable buildings and buildings which are elevated on stumps, posts, piers, columns or the like, should have their suspended footings enclosed around the perimeter of the building with brickwork or timber, and the use of verandas, pergolas and other suitable architectural detailing to give the appearance of a permanent structure. 7 The external walls and roofs of buildings should not incorporate highly reflective materials which will result in glare. 8 Structures located on the roofs of buildings to house plant and equipment should form an integral part of the building design in relation to external finishes, shaping and colours. 9 Building design should emphasise pedestrian entry points to provide perceptible and direct access from public street frontages and vehicle parking areas. 10 Development should provide clearly recognisable links to adjoining areas and facilities. 11 Buildings, landscaping, paving and signage should have a co-ordinated appearance that maintains and enhances the visual attractiveness of the locality. 12 Buildings (other than ancillary buildings or group dwellings) should be designed so that their main façade faces the primary street frontage of the land on which they are situated. 13 Where applicable, development should incorporate verandas over footpaths to enhance the quality of the pedestrian environment. 14 Development should be designed and sited so that outdoor storage and service areas are screened from public view by an appropriate combination of built form, solid fencing or landscaping. 15 Outdoor lighting should not result in light spillage on adjacent land. 16 Balconies should: (a) be integrated with the overall architectural form and detail of the building (b) be sited to face predominantly north, east or west to provide solar access (c) have a minimum area of 2 square metres. 17 The external materials and colours of a building should not result in a detrimental impact upon the existing character of the locality.

30 Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2 22 June 2017

Building Setbacks from Road Boundaries 18 The setback of buildings from public roads should: (a) be similar to, or compatible with, setbacks of buildings on adjoining land and other buildings in the locality (b) contribute positively to the streetscape character of the locality (c) not result in or contribute to a detrimental impact upon the function, appearance or character of the locality. 19 Except where otherwise specified, buildings and structures should be set back from road boundaries having regard to the requirements set out in Table KI/3 - Building Setbacks from Road Boundaries. 20 Lesser setback distances may be considered where the proposed building will be substantially screened by existing vegetation, natural form and features of the land or adjacent existing buildings.

COUNCIL WIDE - SITING AND VISIBILITY

OBJECTIVES 1 Protection of scenically attractive areas, particularly natural, rural and coastal landscapes.

PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 1 Development should be sited and designed to minimise its visual impact on: (a) the natural, rural or heritage character of the area (b) areas of high visual or scenic value, particularly rural and coastal areas (c) views from the coast, near-shore waters, public reserves, tourist routes and walking trails (d) the amenity of public beaches. 2 Buildings should be sited in unobtrusive locations and, in particular, should: (a) be grouped together (b) where possible be located in such a way as to be screened by existing vegetation when viewed from public roads. 3 Buildings outside of urban areas and in undulating landscapes should be sited in unobtrusive locations and in particular should be: (a) sited below the ridgeline (b) sited within valleys or behind spurs (c) sited in such a way as to not be visible against the skyline when viewed from public roads (d) set well back from public roads, particularly when the allotment is on the high side of the road. 4 Buildings and structures should be designed to minimise their visual impact in the landscape, in particular: (a) the profile of buildings should be low and the rooflines should complement the natural form of the land (b) the mass of buildings should be minimised by variations in wall and roof lines and by floor plans which complement the contours of the land (c) large eaves, verandas and pergolas should be incorporated into designs so as to create shadowed areas that reduce the bulky appearance of buildings. 5 The nature of external surface materials of buildings should not detract from the visual character and amenity of the landscape. 6 The number of buildings and structures on land outside of urban areas should be limited to that necessary for the efficient management of the land. 7 Driveways and access tracks should be designed and constructed to blend sympathetically with the landscape and to minimise interference with natural vegetation and landforms. 8 Development should be screened through the establishment of landscaping using locally indigenous plant species:

31 Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2 22 June 2017

(a) around buildings and earthworks to provide a visual screen as well as shade in summer, and protection from prevailing winds (b) along allotment boundaries to provide permanent screening of buildings and structures when viewed from adjoining properties and public roads (c) along the verges of new roads and access tracks to provide screening and minimise erosion.

COUNCIL WIDE - SLOPING LAND

OBJECTIVES 1 Development on sloping land designed to minimise environmental and visual impacts and protect soil stability and water quality.

PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 1 Development and associated driveways and access tracks should be sited and designed to integrate with the natural topography of the land and minimise the need for earthworks. 2 Development and associated driveways and access tracks, including related earthworks, should be sited, designed and undertaken in a manner that: (a) minimises their visual impact (b) reduces the bulk of the buildings and structures (c) minimises the extent of excavation and fill (d) minimises the need for, and the height of, retaining walls (e) does not cause or contribute to instability of any embankment or cutting (f) avoids the silting of watercourses (g) protects development and its surrounds from erosion caused by water run-off. 3 Driveways and access tracks across sloping land should be accessible and have a safe, all-weather trafficable surface. 4 Development sites should not be at risk of landslip. 5 Development on steep land should include site drainage systems to minimise erosion and avoid adverse impacts on slope stability. 6 Steep sloping sites in unsewered areas should not be developed unless the physical characteristics of the allotments enable the proper siting and operation of an effluent drainage field suitable for the development intended. 7 The excavation and/or filling of land outside townships and urban areas should: (a) be kept to a minimum and be limited to a maximum depth or height no greater than 1.5 metres so as to preserve the natural form of the land and the native vegetation (b) only be undertaken in order to reduce the visual impact of buildings, including structures, or in order to construct water storage facilities for use on the allotment (c) only be undertaken if the resultant slope can be stabilised to prevent erosion (d) result in stable scree slopes which are covered with top soil and landscaped so as to preserve and enhance the natural character or assist in the re- establishment of the natural character of the area.

COUNCIL WIDE - TOURISM DEVELOPMENT

OBJECTIVES 1 Environmentally sustainable and innovative tourism development. 2 Tourism development that assists in the conservation, interpretation and public appreciation of significant natural and cultural features including State or local heritage places. 3 Tourism development that sustains or enhances the local character, visual amenity and appeal of the area.

32 Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2 22 June 2017

4 Tourism development that protects areas of exceptional natural value, allows for appropriate levels of visitation, and demonstrates a high quality environmental analysis and design response which enhances environmental values. 5 Tourism development in rural areas that does not adversely affect the use of agricultural land for primary production. 6 Tourism development that contributes to local communities by adding vitality to neighbouring townships, regions and settlements. 7 Increased opportunities for visitors to stay overnight. 8 Ensure new development, together with associated bushfire management minimise the threat and impact of bushfires on life and property while protecting the environment.

PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 1 Tourism development should have a functional or locational link with its natural, cultural or historical setting. 2 Tourism development and any associated activities should not damage or degrade any significant natural and cultural features. 3 Tourism development should ensure that its scale, form and location will not overwhelm, over commercialise or detract from the intrinsic natural values of the land on which it is sited or the character of its locality. 4 Tourism development should, where appropriate, add to the range of services and accommodation types available in an area. 5 Any upgrading of infrastructure to serve tourism development should be consistent with the landscape and the intrinsic natural values of the land and the basis of its appeal. 6 Car parking should be designed in clusters instead of large expanses.

Tourism Development Outside Townships and Settlements 9 Tourist developments located within areas of high conservation value, high indigenous cultural value, high landscape quality or significant scenic beauty should demonstrate excellence in design to minimise potential impacts or intrusion. 10 Tourism developments in rural areas should be sited and designed to minimise adverse impacts on either of the following: (a) the surrounding agricultural production or processing activities (b) the natural, cultural or historical setting of the area. 11 Buildings and structures to accommodate tourists and associated activities should: (a) not exceed a building height of 6.5 metres (from natural ground level) (b) have a minimum setback of 100 metres from any of the following: (i) public roads or be no closer to a public road than existing buildings on the subject land, whichever is the lesser (ii) adjoining allotment boundaries (iii) the high water mark (iv) cliff faces unless it can be demonstrated that a lesser setback would achieve one or more of the following: (v) will achieve a superior outcome in respect to the requirements of the relevant zone, policy area or precinct than if the minimum setback was applied (vi) would assist in avoiding areas of high value remnant native vegetation (vii) would provide a comparatively safer location in respect to exposure to bushfire hazard, including along access roadways (viii) would not result in unacceptable exposure to coastal flood and erosion process or stormwater inundation. 12 Development providing accommodation for tourists should be designed to minimise the potential for buildings to be converted into or used as a dwelling(s) where: (a) if the development comprises multiple tourist accommodation units – by ensuring that facilities, access driveways, parking areas, amenities and the like are shared 33 Development Assessment Commission AGENDA ITEM 2.2.2 22 June 2017

(b) if the development involves a single accommodation unit on a site or allotment in the Coastal Conservation Zone, Conservation Zone or Water Protection Zone, one or more of the following characteristics is evident: (i) the structure provides basic shelter and limited internal space (eg cabin, hikers- hut) (ii) one or more of the functional areas typically found in a dwelling (eg, laundry, kitchen) is absent (iii) the structure is of a temporary or semi-permanent nature. 13 Development comprising multiple tourist accommodation units (including any facilities and activities for use by guests and visitors, including conference facilities) should: (a) ensure buildings and structures are clustered on the same allotment (b) for larger scale developments (ie those proposing or resulting in more than 25 accommodation units), have direct or convenient access to a sealed public road. 14 Tourism developments in rural areas: (a) should primarily be developed in association with one or more of the following: (i) agricultural, horticultural, viticultural or winery development (ii) heritage places and areas (iii) public open space and reserves (iv) walking and cycling trails (v) interpretive infrastructure and signs (vi) rural industries that primarily use ingredients sourced primary from the Island’s farms and coastal waters (b) may involve the provision of facilities and accommodation associated with outdoor adventure, recreation and leisure activities. 15 Where appropriate, tourism developments in areas outside townships and settlements should: (a) adapt and upgrade existing buildings of heritage value (b) seek to improve conditions in disturbed or degraded areas on the site. 16 Advertisements associated with tourism developments should: (a) not exceed 0.5 square metres in area for each display (b) be limited to no more than two per site (c) be located on the same site as the tourist development (d) not be internally illuminated. 17 Tourism development in rural areas should occur only where it: (a) incorporates a separation distance or buffers to avoid conflict with existing rural industries or agriculture or otherwise is designed to overcome the potential impacts associated with the adjoining land use (such as noise, dust, spray drift, odour and traffic) (b) will not give rise to demands for infrastructure and services, especially on public lands, that are inappropriate to the purpose of the zone and/or policy area. 18 Tourism development, particularly in remote areas should be designed to minimise energy and water demands and incorporate alternative, sustainable technologies that use renewable energy sources and/or treat and reuse stormwater and wastewater to minimise reliance on mains services. 19 Natural features, signs and walkways should be used to manage and minimise potential risks of visitors damaging areas of cultural or natural significance, fragile areas, and areas of highest environmental value. 20 The visual and ambient impact of vehicles should be minimised by placing roadways and parking areas in unobtrusive locations.

34

CAPE ST ALBANS RETREATS PLANNING STATEMENT

Prepared for: Date: Rokrol Pty Ltd 16.12.2016

© Future Urban Group, 2016

Proprietary Information Statement

The information contained in this document produced by Future Urban Group is solely for the use of the Client identified on the cover sheet for the purpose for which it has been prepared and Future Urban Group undertakes no duty to or accepts any responsibility to any third party who may rely upon this document.

All rights reserved. No section or element of this document may be removed from this document, reproduced, electronically stored or transmitted in any form without the written permission of Future Urban Group.

Document Control

Revision Description Author Date V1 Draft Planning Statement CGV 1/11/16 V2 Final Planning Statement CGV 15/12/16

REF 0063-1-Cape St Albans | 16 December 2016 i

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. SITE AND LOCALITY 2 3. PROPOSAL 5 3.1 Relevant Documentation 5 3.2 Retreat Description 5 3.3 Retreat Design 5 3.4 Retreat Design Philosophy 5 3.5 Building Appearance and Design 6 3.6 Building Setbacks 6 3.7 Environmentally Sustainable Development (“ESD”) Features 6 3.8 White-Bellied Sea Eagle Mitigation Strategies 7 4. IMPACT ON KANGAROO ISLAND TOURISM 8 5. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 9 6. DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT 10 6.1 Coastal Areas 10 6.2 Design and Appearance 12 6.3 Building Efficiency 13 6.4 Hazards 14 6.5 Infrastructure 14 6.6 Landscaping, Fences and Walls 15 6.7 Natural Resources 17 6.8 Orderly and Sustainable Development 20 6.9 Siting and Visibility 20 6.10 Sloping Land 21 6.11 Tourism Development 22 6.12 Transportation and Access 24 6.13 Waste 25 6.14 Coastal Conservation Zone 27 7. CONCLUSION 30

APPENDICES

Appendix 1. CERTIFICATE OF TITLE ...... 1 Appendix 2. PROPOSAL PLANS ...... 2 Appendix 3. WHITE-BELLIED SEA EAGLE ASSESSMENT ...... 3

REF 0063-1-Cape St Albans | 16 December 2016 ii

1. INTRODUCTION

This statement has been prepared on behalf of Rokrol Pty Ltd in support of a proposal to construct four self-catered tourist accommodation retreats at Section 390, Red House Bay, otherwise known as Cape St. Albans, Kangaroo Island.

The proposed retreats will provide much needed high quality short term accommodation on the eastern end of Kangaroo Island and will result in a number of positive benefits.

The design of the retreat buildings is minimalistic, unobtrusive and discrete in appearance, and strongly influenced by the textures, shape and slope of the surrounding land. The use of corrugated rusted steel, large aluminium window frames, and site-sourced stone, creates a colour scheme that responds particularly well to its landscape context. The design also responds very well to the environmental conditions of the land and climate – avoiding the removal of native vegetation and incorporating a range of Environmentally Sustainable Development design features and elements to ensure the retreats are self-sufficient.

The siting, design and appearance of the retreat buildings are highly consistent with the expectations of the Coastal Conservative Zone thus reinforcing the scenic, environmental and landscape qualities of the site, locality and Kangaroo Island generally.

The proposed development is considered to result in a number of positive tourism benefits and in our opinion warrants the favourable consideration by the Development Assessment Commission.

REF 0063-1-Cape St Albans | 16 December 2016 1

2. SITE AND LOCALITY

The subject site is legally described as Section 390 within the Red House Bay area, otherwise known as Cape St. Albans situated at the north eastern extent of Kangaroo Island. The site is currently vacant however a number of sheep are grazing on the land. The site is located within the Coastal Conservation Zone.

Figure 1: Subject site.

The topography of the land is varied by virtue of the land having frontage to two vastly different coastlines. The land generally slopes down towards the north coastline (Red House Bay), where views over Antechamber Bay and Backstairs Passage towards the Mainland are obtained. The land also slopes down towards the east where a lighthouse exists on Commonwealth owned and controlled land.

Figure 2: Contours and images of the landscape.

REF 0063-1-Cape St Albans | 16 December 2016 2

The northern portion of the site is protected by the generally higher land towards the south where the coastline is very steep and rugged. Between the coastal cliff face and the southern boundary of the site is an area of Narrow Leaf Mallee.

The south is exposed to coastal winds and experiences rough coastal conditions. The north is exposed to warm summer winds and generally experiences calmer coastal conditions.

Between the northern coastal area and the subject site is a strip of crown land representing a part sand and rock beach.

Access to the site is via an unsealed compacted rubble road. Access within the site is defined along a legal right-of-way which is shared with the Commonwealth Government (specifically the Australian Maritime Safety Authority) to obtain access to the lighthouse. The main access is comprised of natural ground. Other vehicle access tracks that exist on the subject site are not formal and have been created through informal continual use. Access to the beach on the north coast currently occurs via an informal ‘track’ through Crown land. Despite the informal nature of some of the vehicle access and pedestrian trails, they have been established in areas that are cleared of native vegetation.

Figure 3 Existing access track.

The land is predominantly devoid of any significant areas of native vegetation. Where native vegetation does exist, it occurs in ‘clusters’ and predominantly along the southern boundary adjoining the rugged and steep coastline and within a central location on the site. While primary production land uses exist to the west, the land is characterised by its natural scenic qualities and uninterrupted views.

The subject site is identified as a “Medium Bushfire Risk Area”.

Copies of all relevant Certificates of Title are contained within Appendix 1.

The north-east part of Kangaroo Island is nearly totally separated from the rest of the island by American River, forming the Dudley Peninsula. The eastern part of the island is mostly shared between primary production uses and conservation purposes along the coastline. Land adjoining the subject land consists of large allotments used predominantly for coastal conservation and primary production purposes.

Most of this part of the island has not been provided with sealed road infrastructure, but has a network of unsealed roads. The closest town to the subject land is Penneshaw, about 20 kilometres north-west, where ferries from the mainland arrive. The island’s major road leaves west from Penneshaw. A secondary road goes east towards the subject site and is sealed for 10 kilometres.

REF 0063-1-Cape St Albans | 16 December 2016 3

A Tourist Accommodation Zone exists within Antechamber Bay and includes two forms of tourist accommodation - one camping site within the Lashmar Conservation Park; and, self-contained Ecocabins and camping site at Antechamber Bay Ecocabins.

Cape Willoughby Conservation Park and lighthouse are located approximately 5 kilometres to the south, where two fully-furnished heritage-listed lighthouse keepers’ cottages serve as tourist accommodation. The cottages are directly accessible through the unsealed Willoughby Road.

Also accessible from Cape Willoughby Road is the Sea Dragon Lodge located in Pink Bay, which offers both Bed & Breakfast and self-contained facilities in the form of a lodge, suites and villas.

A Sea Eagle nest exists on the eastern cliff face within the Crown Land as shown in the proposal plans.

In our opinion, the site and locality represent an area of high landscape, scenic and environmental qualities which should be suitably referenced and protected in the design of the retreat building.

REF 0063-1-Cape St Albans | 16 December 2016 4

3. PROPOSAL 3.1 Relevant Documentation

In preparing this statement we have assessed the proposal depicted in the plans prepared by Max Pritchard Gunner Architects dated 2 December 2016 included in Appendix 2.

We have also reviewed the White-Bellied Sea Eagle Assessment prepared by EBS Ecology dated 21 October 2016 which forms part of the application and included in Appendix 3 to this statement.

3.2 Retreat Description

Rokrol is seeking approval for self-catered tourist accommodation cabin retreats. A total of four high quality designed retreats provide the opportunity for either families or groups of friends to stay in one, or multiple retreat buildings. The purpose of the retreat buildings is to create a comfortable, independent experience for families and friends seeking to enjoy the Kangaroo Island lifestyle and landscape.

3.3 Retreat Design

The four self-catered tourist accommodation retreats feature similar floor plans which include the following:

 three bedrooms, each with a separate ensuite;  fully serviced kitchen and dining area;  lounge with wood fire;  outdoor terrace with BBQ facilities;  laundry facilities; and  a single carport.

All buildings will have a north-west orientation to maximise views over Antechamber Bay as well as exposure to sunlight. This orientation will also protect guests from the constant, and occasionally unpleasant southerly breezes.

The cabins are proposed to be accessible via four newly created tracks, each stemming from the existing light house road (an unsealed compacted rubble road). The existing access track is subject to a legal right- of-way which is shared with the Commonwealth Government specifically the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (“AMSA”) to obtain access to the lighthouse.

AMSA only require access to the lighthouse once a year, or when maintenance is required. The proposal will not impact on AMSA access requirements.

3.4 Retreat Design Philosophy

The philosophy of the retreat design is to provide a high quality contemporary form of self-catered tourist accommodation on Kangaroo Island in a secluded environment offering significant natural scenic appreciation and uninterrupted views. The design of the buildings take advantage of these qualities offering a high quality experience for visitors.

The retreats aim to offer an immersion in a natural environment with the buildings themselves designed to integrate within the natural landscape through its materials, colours and form.

REF 0063-1-Cape St Albans | 16 December 2016 5

The orientation of the buildings and the siting of below the ridgeline will ensure the buildings are not subjected to the harsh winds from the south and south west.

3.5 Building Appearance and Design

The retreats have been designed to a scale that allows them to dissolve into the existing landscape and natural slope of the land, through the use of local stone, minimalistic forms and natural tones to the external facades.

The single storey form of the buildings will present as a lesser scale when viewed from the south due to the slope of the land. The rusted corrugated steel blends the structure into the land and the high-level glass openings have been proposed to further reduce this bulk.

The form of the roof ensures that when viewed from the north, the buildings still appear as modest forms and by including bases to the buildings (constructed from stones collected onsite), the buildings will appear to ‘float’ out from the side of the hill. The glazed northern façades of the retreats maximise views over the bay, solar penetration and further soften the building forms in the landscape.

3.6 Building Setbacks

The subject site is identified as a “Medium Bushfire Risk Area”. The location of the retreat buildings and access tracks will not involve the removal of any significant areas of native vegetation. The retreat buildings and new access tracks are set back a significant distance from existing Narrow Leaf Mallee clusters on the site.

The buildings are also sited more than 100 metres from each of the coastlines and is setback a substantial distance from the Cape St. Albans lighthouse.

The buildings are setback between 600 metres and 1 kilometre from the existing sea eagle nest.

3.7 Environmentally Sustainable Development (“ESD”) Features

The design of the retreat buildings is underpinned by many ESD design principles. In addition to the landscape design response, the buildings will be plumbed to rainwater tanks to maximise water re-use, will facilitate cross ventilation, maximise natural light penetration and minimises power generation through the provision of roof solar panels. Some of the specific ESD features intended to be incorporated within the buildings include:

 double glazing, appropriate insulation products as per Code requirements;  large façade windows to maximise natural light with openable panels along the northern and southern sides of each building to allow for cross ventilation;  the setting in of north facing windows together with window shading created through an extension of the roof elements to control northern light access;  the use of heat exchange fire places in the living area;  provision of roof-mounted solar panels;  two 20,000L rainwater tanks for each retreat (including dedicated firefighting water supply);  waterless toilets, black water treatment, reticulation for the hydronic system;

REF 0063-1-Cape St Albans | 16 December 2016 6

 where possible, treated water will be utilised for landscape rejuvenation;  use of appropriate fixtures to minimise water waste;  provision of a ‘three waste stream’ system to encourage recycling; and  revegetation of areas and screen planting with indigenous species grown from a local supplier.

3.8 White-Bellied Sea Eagle Mitigation Strategies

The following mitigation strategies are proposed to minimise the potential impacts of the proposed tourist accommodation:

 plant and establish vegetation along the cliff top, which will act as a screen to the stretch of coastline below;  undertaking civil and structural works outside of the most sensitive period within the breeding season (i.e. May to July);  undertaking only internal works to the retreat buildings such as painting etc. during the breeding season (i.e. May to December);  utilising the existing access track and any new tracks to be situated as far away as is possible from the known nest and guard roosts mapped in Figure 1 of the EBS Ecology Assessment; and  any guests at the tourism accommodation should keep away from the cliff edge for safety reasons and be informed that sea-eagles are known to the area. This will not extend to providing details around nest location or guard roosts as this may encourage interest and/or undesirable access to view the nest or guard roosts more closely.

REF 0063-1-Cape St Albans | 16 December 2016 7

4. IMPACT ON KANGAROO ISLAND TOURISM

Tourist accommodation on Kangaroo Island is comprised of hotels, lodges, Bed and Breakfast establishments, caravan parks and holiday villages with separated cabins, but mostly of self-contained apartments, houses, cottages or shacks. This proposal adds fresh and modern options to the middle-range accommodation price point to expand the offering to wider target market and thus continue to grow the Kangaroo Island tourism market.

The tourist accommodation offer in proximity to the site is located around Penneshaw and Hog Bay. A few options exist around Pink Bay and Antechamber Bay as well as along Willoughby Road and Cape Willoughby. These accommodation options cater for around 4 to 8 people each, apart from the heritage accommodation at Cape Willoughby which is capable of accommodating up to 9 people in each cottage.

The proposed accommodation aims to appeal to all consumers, comfortably sleeping up to six people in each retreat. Families, couples and groups of friends are expected guests and are anticipated to stay for a variety of time frames.

As concluded by the South Australian Tourism Commission (SATC), Kangaroo Island has a projected potential Tourism Value of $168 million by the year 2020. Currently, Kangaroo Island facilitates the needs of an average of 126,000 visitors per year, through the employment of approximately 500 direct staff at 120 tourism businesses (SATC, 2015). International visitors to Kangaroo Island total 30 per cent, and domestic visitors make up the remaining 70 per cent, with over half of these domestic visitors being from Adelaide.

Renting a holiday house is a popular choice, with more than 27 per cent of domestic visitors preferring this accommodation type. The proposed development expands this selection of holiday houses, by offering retreats (similar in scale to holiday houses) which could accommodate up to six people and are fully self- contained. The independence of these retreats allows guests to holiday in private and create their own schedule not bound by regular lodge or hotel arrangements and time frames. It allows them to utilise the renowned Kangaroo Island produce and to explore their surroundings including, but not limited to:

 Penneshaw (colony of penguins, boat hire, snorkelling trips, whale and dolphin watching trips);  Chapman River;  Wineries, including but not limited to : » Dudley Wines Cellar Door; » Sunset Winery; and » Chapman River Wines Cellar Door.  Walking and hiking trails: » The Ironstone Hill Hike (4km) in the Baudin Conservation Park; » Cape Willoughby Lighstation Heritage Hike (2km); » Cape Willoughby Conservation Park and Lighthouse (guided tours); » Lesueur Conservation Park; and » Lashmar Conservation Park.

In our opinion, the retreats will provide a much needed offer at the eastern end of Kangaroo Island which will result in a number of positive benefits to local producers, wineries and tourism operators. The retreats will also provide an opportunity to establish partnerships with these stakeholders to maximise and diversify offerings for tourists.

REF 0063-1-Cape St Albans | 16 December 2016 8

5. PROCEDURAL MATTERS

The subject land is located within the Coastal Conservation Zone of the Kangaroo Island Council Development Plan (consolidated 17 September 2015). According to the procedural matters contained therein, the proposed development is neither identified as a complying or non-complying development and therefore must be assessed on its merit.

The Coastal Conservation Zone identifies tourist accommodation that is setback a minimum of 100 metres from land within an adjoining allotment used for farming or horticulture as a Category 2 form of development.

The proposed tourist accommodation retreat buildings are setback greater than 100 metres from the nearest adjoining allotment (to the south) and therefore must be assessed by the Development Assessment Commission as a category 2 development.

With respect to statutory referrals, we note the following will be required only:

Coastal Protection Board as the development is located within the Coastal Conservation Zone.

In this particular circumstance, the Development Assessment Commission must have regard to comments made by the Coast Protection Board.

The following statutory referrals are not required:

Native Vegetation Council as the Kangaroo Island Council Development Plan does not contain a map showing an area of substantially intact native vegetation within the site of the development or within 20 metres of, the area shown on the map.

South Australian Country Fire Service as the development is not located within a High Bushfire Risk Area (rather a Medium Bushfire Risk Area).

Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (State Heritage) as the development will not directly affect the Cape Willoughby Lighthouse.

Extensive consultation has occurred with DEWNR in relation to the White-Bellied Sea Eagle nest. The enclosed assessment prepared by EBS Ecology and the siting and design of the retreat buildings is a result of these pre-lodgement discussions.

REF 0063-1-Cape St Albans | 16 December 2016 9

6. DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT

With respect to the Development Plan we have assessed the proposal against the relevant Council Wide provisions followed by those of the Coastal Conservation Zone.

The following section headings reflect those contained in the Development Plan for ease of reference.

6.1 Coastal Areas

Objective 1 The protection and enhancement of the natural coastal environment, including environmentally important features of coastal areas such as mangroves, wetlands, sand dunes, cliff-tops, native vegetation, wildlife habitat, shore and estuarine areas

Objective 3 Preservation of areas of high landscape and amenity value including stands of vegetation, shores, exposed cliffs, headlands, islands and hill tops, and areas which form an attractive background to urban and tourist areas.

Objective 4 Development that maintains and/or enhances public access to coastal areas with minimal impact on the environment and amenity

Objective 5 Development only undertaken on land which is not subject to or that can be protected from coastal hazards including inundation by storm tides or combined storm tides and stormwater, coastal erosion or sand drift, and probable sea level rise.

PDC 1 Development should be compatible with the coastal environment in terms of built-form, appearance and landscaping including the use of walls and low pitched roofs of non-reflective texture and natural earth colours.

Environmental Protection

PDC 2 The coast should be protected from development that would adversely affect the marine and onshore coastal environment, whether by pollution, erosion, damage or depletion of physical or biological resources, interference with natural coastal processes or any other means.

PDC 3 Development should not be located in delicate or environmentally-sensitive coastal features such as sand dunes, cliff-tops, wetlands or substantially intact strata of native vegetation.

PDC 4 Development should not be undertaken where it will create or aggravate coastal erosion, or where it will require coast protection works which cause or aggravate coastal erosion.

PDC 5 Development should be designed so that solid/fluid wastes and stormwater runoff is disposed of in a manner that will not cause pollution or other detrimental impacts on the marine and on-shore environment of coastal areas.

REF 0063-1-Cape St Albans | 16 December 2016 10

PDC 6 Effluent disposal systems incorporating soakage trenches or similar should prevent effluent migration onto the inter-tidal zone and be sited at least 100 metres from whichever of the following requires the greater distance:

(a) the mean high-water mark at spring tide, adjusted for any subsidence for the first 50 years of development plus a sea level rise to reflect probable climate change during the first 100 years of the development (b) the mean high-water mark at spring tide, adjusted for any subsidence for the first 50 years of development plus a sea level rise of 1 metre

(c) the nearest boundary of any erosion buffer determined in accordance with the relevant provisions in this Development Plan.

PDC 9 Development Should maintain or enhance public access to and along the foreshore

PDC 14 Public access through sensitive coastal landforms, particularly sand dunes, wetlands and cliff faces, should be restricted to defined pedestrian paths constructed to minimise adverse environmental impact

PDC 17 Commercial, industrial, tourism or residential development, and associated roads and parking areas should be protected from sea level rise by ensuring all of the following apply:

(a) site levels are at least 0.3 metres above the standard sea-flood risk level (b) building floor levels are at least 0.55 metres above the standard sea-flood risk level (c) there are practical measures available to protect the development against a further sea level rise of 0.7 metres above the minimum site level required by part (a).

PDC 20 Development should be set back a sufficient distance from the coast to provide an erosion buffer which will allow for at least 100 years of coastal retreat for single buildings or small-scale developments, or 200 years of coastal retreat for large scale developments (ie. new townships) unless either of the following applies:

(a) the development incorporates appropriate private coastal protection measures to protect the development and public reserve from the anticipated erosion (b) the council is committed to protecting the public reserve and development from the anticipated coastal erosion.

PDC 22 Development should not occur where essential services cannot be economically provided and maintained having regard to flood risk and sea level rise, or where emergency vehicle access would be prevented by a 1 in 100 year average return interval flood event, adjusted for 100 years of sea level rise.

The subject land is located in an area of high landscape and scenic value which should be protected and suitably referenced in the design of the proposal.

REF 0063-1-Cape St Albans | 16 December 2016 11

Being setback more than 100 metres from the coastline and sited well above sea level, the retreats will not create or aggravate coastal erosion, nor will they be subject to inundation or other coastal hazards, or be impacted by sea level rise.

The proposal therefore will not require future protection and/or public expenditure. The retreat’s effluent disposal system will also be setback greater than 100 metres so as to not impact on the intertidal zone.

The proposal will utilise the existing access track further east and therefore maintain existing access for AMSA to the lighthouse.

The proposal will not involve the removal of any of the Narrow Leaf Mallee clusters or any other flora and/or fauna habitat, thus protecting these natural features of the land.

Importantly, the following mitigation strategies are proposed to minimise the potential impacts of the proposed tourist accommodation on the White-Bellied Sea Eagle nest:

 plant and establish vegetation along the cliff top, which will act as a screen to the stretch of coastline below;  undertaking civil and structural works outside of the most sensitive period within the breeding season (i.e. May to July);  undertaking only internal works to the retreat buildings such as painting etc during the breeding season (i.e. May to December);  utilising the existing access track and any new tracks to be situated as far away as is possible from the known nest and guard roosts mapped in Figure 1 of the EBS Ecology Assessment; and  any guests at the tourism accommodation should keep away from the cliff edge for safety reasons and be informed that sea-eagles are known to the area. This will not extend to providing details around nest location or guard roosts as this may encourage interest and/or undesirable access to view the nest or guard roosts more closely.

Extensive consultation has occurred with DEWNR in relation to the White-Bellied Sea Eagle nest. The siting and design of the retreat buildings and above mitigation measures are a result of these pre-lodgement discussions

Overall, we have formed the opinion that the proposed development has respected the coastal environment and the natural landscape features to avoid detrimental environmental flora and fauna impacts.

6.2 Design and Appearance

Objective 1 Development of a high architectural standard that responds to and reinforces positive aspects of the local environment and built form

PDC 1 The design of a building may be of a contemporary nature and exhibit an innovative style provided the overall form is sympathetic to the scale of development in the locality and with the context of its setting with regard to shape, size, materials and colour.

PDC 2 Buildings should be designed and sited to avoid creating extensive areas of uninterrupted walling facing areas exposed to public view.

REF 0063-1-Cape St Albans | 16 December 2016 12

PDC 3 Buildings should be designed to reduce their visual bulk and provide visual interest through design elements such as:

(a) articulation (b) colour and detailing (c) small vertical and horizontal components (d) design and placing of windows (e) variations to facades.

PDC 7 The external walls and roofs of buildings should not incorporate highly reflective materials which will result in glare.

PDC 9 Building design should emphasise pedestrian entry points to provide perceptible and direct access from public street frontages and vehicle parking areas.

PDC 11 Buildings, landscaping, paving and signage should have a co-ordinated appearance that maintains and enhances the visual attractiveness of the locality.

PDC 14 Development should be designed and sited so that outdoor storage and service areas are screened from public view by an appropriate combination of built form, solid fencing or landscaping.

PDC 17 The external materials and colours of a building should not result in a detrimental impact upon the existing character of the locality.

The design of the retreats will result in a contemporary, unobtrusive and discreet building appearance influenced through the modern and minimalistic design. The use of the of glass facades, rusted corrugated steel, and stone materials also result in a natural colour scheme appropriate to its landscape context.

The materials used in the design reflect those which are evident on the site and which characterise the landscape: rock formations, stone, vegetation, and lichen. The design does not incorporate any highly reflective materials that will result in any unreasonable glare or ‘shine’ when viewed from different areas within the locality.

The main entrance to each retreat building is directly accessible through the outdoor terrace which is connected to the single carport. Service areas will be integrated inside the main building or at ground level and screened with landscaping.

In our opinion, the design and appearance of the development constitutes a very high quality design that has responded particularly well to the landscape context of the site and locality.

6.3 Building Efficiency

Objective 1 Development designed and sited to conserve energy and minimise waste.

PDC 1 Development should provide for efficient solar access to buildings and open space all year around.

REF 0063-1-Cape St Albans | 16 December 2016 13

PDC 2 Buildings should be sited and designed so that the open spaces associated with the main activity areas face north for exposure to winter sun

The siting of the proposal has all bedrooms, bathrooms, and living areas including the outdoor terrace, facing north west and featuring full-length glass windows which will allow natural daylight penetration. The roof over-hang along the north-western aspect will limit the sun’s exposure in the warmer months, while the high level glass openings on the south west façade will allow for cross ventilation.

Roof mounted solar panels and a backup generator will be provided for each retreat.

In our opinion, the proposed retreats are designed in a manner that will promote energy efficiency.

6.4 Hazards

Bushfire

PDC 7 Development in a Bushfire Protection Area should be in accordance with those provisions of the Minister’s Code: Undertaking development in Bushfire Protection Areas that are designated as mandatory for Development Plan Consent purposes.

PDC 9 Residential, tourist accommodation and other habitable buildings should:

(a) be sited on the flatter portion of allotments and avoid steep slopes, especially upper slopes, narrow ridge crests and the tops of narrow gullies, and slopes with a northerly or westerly aspect (b) be sited in areas with low bushfire hazard vegetation and set back at least 20 metres from existing hazardous vegetation (c) have a dedicated and accessible water supply available at all times for fire fighting.

The proposal is located within a Medium Bushfire Risk Area. While no referral to the South Australian Country Fire Service is required, we note that the proposed buildings are setback a substantial distance (greater than 20 metres) from any significant clusters of Narrow Leaf Mallee that exist on the site.

Each retreat is provided with two 20,000L rainwater tanks which will include sufficient water for fire-fighting (if required).

The proposal is not expected to create, or be affected by existing or future hazards due to the low-impact of the building design on the natural landscape and the setbacks provided from areas with the potential to be hazardous.

6.5 Infrastructure

Objective 1 Infrastructure provided in an economical and environmentally sensitive manner.

Objective 4 The visual impact of infrastructure facilities minimised.

Objective 5 The efficient and cost-effective use of existing infrastructure.

REF 0063-1-Cape St Albans | 16 December 2016 14

PDC 1 Development should not occur without the provision of adequate utilities and services, including:

(a) electricity supply (b) water supply (c) drainage and stormwater systems (d) waste disposal (e) effluent disposal systems (f) formed all-weather public roads (g) telecommunications services (h) social infrastructure, community services and facilities.

PDC 2 Development should only occur only where it provides, or has access to, relevant easements for the supply of infrastructure.

PDC 4 Development should not take place until adequate and co-ordinated drainage of the land is assured.

PDC 6 In areas where no reticulated water supply is available, buildings whose usage is reliant on a water supply should be equipped with an adequate and reliable on- site water storage system.

PDC 7 Electricity infrastructure should be designed and located to minimise its visual and environmental impacts

PDC 9 Utilities and services, including access roads and tracks, should be sited on areas already cleared of native vegetation. If this is not possible, their siting should cause minimal interference or disturbance to existing native vegetation and biodiversity.

Each retreat is provided with a dedicated water supply where two 20,000L tanks will provide potable water and a fire-fighting supply (if required). Each retreat will have also have its own water recycle and waste treatment system (septic). There are no changes proposed to be made to the existing access track which leads to the lighthouse, however four new tracks providing access to each retreat building are proposed. The location of these tracks and buildings will not require the clearing of native vegetation and will have minimal impact on the area’s biodiversity.

The proposal is capable of providing, and has access to, all relevant service infrastructure to function and be self-sufficient.

6.6 Landscaping, Fences and Walls

Objective 1 The amenity of land and development enhanced with appropriate planting and other landscaping works, using locally indigenous plant species where possible

Objective 2 Functional fences and walls that enhance the attractiveness of development

REF 0063-1-Cape St Albans | 16 December 2016 15

PDC 1 Development should incorporate open space and landscaping in order to:

(a) complement built form and reduce the visual impact of larger buildings (eg. taller and broader plantings against taller and bulkier building components) (d) minimise maintenance and watering requirements (e) enhance and define outdoor spaces, including car parking areas (f) provide shade and shelter (g) assist in climate control within buildings (h) maintain privacy (i) maximise stormwater re-use (j) complement existing native vegetation (k) contribute to the viability of ecosystems and species (l) promote water and biodiversity conservation.

PDC 2 Landscaping should:

(a) include the planting of locally indigenous species

PDC 3 Landscaping should not:

(a) unreasonably restrict solar access to adjoining development (b) cause damage to buildings, paths and other landscaping from root invasion, soil disturbance or plant overcrowding (c) introduce pest plants (d) increase the risk of bushfire (e) remove opportunities for passive surveillance (f) increase autumnal leave fall in waterways (g) increase the risk of weed invasion.

The landscaping proposed in the application adequately addresses these provisions. Little to no clearing of existing vegetation, apart from weed species such as the African Box Thorn, will occur through the course of the development as the development site is relatively clear of all understorey by past and existing grazing activities. The development of the proposal will have the benefit of removing existing grazing from the site which will support regeneration and the objectives of the proposed landscaping.

The landscape approach is summarised as follows:

 revegetate with indigenous species only;  use plantings grown from a local seed source from either the subject site or surrounds;  protect new plant species where required to ensure an appropriate period of establishment;  provide sacrificial/beneficial planting, such as Acacia sp. and Pultenaea sp. which will add nitrogen to the soil, giving more opportunity for more fragile species to grow;

REF 0063-1-Cape St Albans | 16 December 2016 16

 strengthen existing habitat planting, such as the central stands of Allocasuarina verticillata, providing more opportunity for feeding and nesting birds; and  enhance the individual tracks to each retreat with landscaping;

With respect to the landscape built form elements, the use of glass facades, rusted corrugated steel, and stone (limestone) materials will result in a natural colour scheme appropriate to its landscape context.

6.7 Natural Resources

Water Sensitive Design

Objective 1 Retention, protection and restoration of the natural resources and environment

Objective 5 Development consistent with the principles of water sensitive design

Objective 8 Native flora, fauna and ecosystems protected, retained, conserved and restored.

Objective 10 Minimal disturbance and modification of the natural landform.

Objective 13 Protection of the scenic qualities of natural and rural landscapes

PDC 1 Development should be undertaken with minimum impact on the natural environment, including air and water quality, land, soil, biodiversity, and scenically attractive areas.

PDC 2 Development should ensure that South Australia’s natural assets, such as biodiversity, water and soil, are protected and enhanced.

PDC 5 Development should be designed to maximise conservation, minimise consumption and encourage re-use of water resources

PDC 10 Development should have adequate provision to control any stormwater over- flow runoff from the site and should be sited and designed to improve the quality of stormwater and minimise pollutant transfer to receiving waters.

PDC 13 Stormwater management systems should preserve natural drainage systems, including the associated environmental flows.

REF 0063-1-Cape St Albans | 16 December 2016 17

PDC 14 Stormwater management systems should:

(a) maximise the potential for stormwater harvesting and re-use, either on-site or as close as practicable to the source (b) utilise, but not be limited to, one or more of the following harvesting methods:

i. the collection of roof water in tanks

ii. the discharge to open space, landscaping or garden areas, including strips adjacent to car parks

iii. the incorporation of detention and retention facilities

iv. aquifer recharge.

Biodiversity and Native Vegetation

PDC 27 Development should retain existing areas of native vegetation and where possible contribute to revegetation using locally indigenous plant species.

PDC 28 Development should be designed and sited to minimise the loss and disturbance of native flora and fauna, including marine animals and plants, and their breeding grounds and habitats.

PDC 30 Vegetation should not be cleared if such clearing is likely to lead to, cause or exacerbate any of the following:

(a) erosion or sediment within water catchments (b) decreased soil stability (c) soil or land slip (d) deterioration in the quality of water in a watercourse or surface water runoff (e) a local or regional salinity problem (f) the occurrence or intensity of local or regional flooding.

PDC 31 Development that proposes the clearance of native vegetation should address or consider the implications that removing the native vegetation will have on the following:

(a) provision for linkages and wildlife corridors between significant areas of native vegetation (b) erosion along watercourses and the filtering of suspended solids and nutrients from run-off (c) the amenity of the locality (d) bushfire safety (e) the net loss of native vegetation and other biodiversity

REF 0063-1-Cape St Albans | 16 December 2016 18

PDC 32 Where native vegetation is to be removed, it should be replaced in a suitable location on the site with locally indigenous vegetation to ensure that there is not a net loss of native vegetation and biodiversity.

PDC 33 Development should be located and occur in a manner which:

(a) does not increase the potential for, or result in, the spread of pest plants, or the spread of any non-indigenous plants into areas of native vegetation or a conservation zone (b) avoids the degradation of remnant native vegetation by any other means including as a result of spray drift, compaction of soil, modification of surface water flows, pollution to groundwater or surface water or change to groundwater levels (c) incorporates a separation distance and/or buffer area to protect wildlife habitats and other features of nature conservation significance.

Soil Conservation

PDC 38 Development should be designed and sited to prevent erosion.

PDC 39 Development should take place in a manner that will minimise alteration to the existing landform.

The proposed design has given particular attention to the natural landscape and the resources that characterise the environment. The proposal incorporates many innovative water sensitive design features that will capture and reuse rainwater from the roof.

The location of the development also ensures that the existing natural drainage systems are not obstructed, ensuring the natural environments around these natural flows are maintained.

With respect to native flora and fauna, the proposal does not result in any clearing of existing vegetation (and thus will not impact on any fauna habitats), apart from weed species such as the African Box Thorn. The development of the proposal will also have the benefit of removing existing grazing from the site which will benefit regeneration.

A ‘Soil Erosion and Drainage Management Plan (SEDMP)’ is proposed to be developed in accordance with the 'Code of Practice for the building and construction industry' to prevent soil sediment and pollutants leaving the site during development. An appropriate condition of consent can formalise this matter.

As previously discussed in the Section 6.1 a number of mitigation strategies are proposed to minimise the potential impacts of the proposed tourist accommodation on the White-Bellied Sea Eagle nest.

For the above reasons, we have formed the opinion that the proposal will not be detrimental to the scenic qualities of the landscape, nor harm its local biodiversity.

REF 0063-1-Cape St Albans | 16 December 2016 19

6.8 Orderly and Sustainable Development

Objective 3 Development that does not jeopardise the continuance of adjoining authorised land uses.

Objective 4 Development that does not prejudice the achievement of the provisions of the Development Plan

PDC 1 Development should not prejudice the development of a zone for its intended purpose.

The proposal is a form of development that is desired within the Coastal Conservation Zone and will not jeopardise the continuance of adjoining authorised land uses.

6.9 Siting and Visibility

Objective 1 Protection of scenically attractive areas, particularly natural, rural and coastal landscapes

PDC 1 Development should be sited and designed to minimise its visual impact on:

(a) the natural, rural or heritage character of the area (b) areas of high visual or scenic value, particularly rural and coastal areas (c) views from the coast, near-shore waters, public reserves, tourist routes and walking trails (d) the amenity of public beaches.

PDC 2 Buildings should be sited in unobtrusive locations and, in particular, should:

(a) be grouped together (b) where possible be located in such a way as to be screened by existing vegetation when viewed from public roads.

PDC 3 Buildings outside of urban areas and in undulating landscapes should be sited in unobtrusive locations and in particular should be:

(a) sited below the ridgeline (b) sited within valleys or behind spurs (c) sited in such a way as to not be visible against the skyline when viewed from public roads (d) set well back from public roads, particularly when the allotment is on the high side of the road.

PDC 4 Buildings and structures should be designed to minimise their visual impact in the landscape, in particular:

(a) the profile of buildings should be low and the rooflines should complement the natural form of the land

REF 0063-1-Cape St Albans | 16 December 2016 20

(b) the mass of buildings should be minimised by variations in wall and roof lines and by floor plans which complement the contours of the land (c) large eaves, verandas and pergolas should be incorporated into designs so as to create shadowed areas that reduce the bulky appearance of buildings.

PDC 5 The nature of external surface materials of buildings should not detract from the visual character and amenity of the landscape.

PDC 7 Driveways and access tracks should be designed and constructed to blend sympathetically with the landscape and to minimise interference with natural vegetation and landforms.

As is demonstrated in the photomontages and site section, the proposal will hardly be seen from the two most significant viewing areas – Antechamber Bay and Cape Willoughby. Previous discussion relating to the appearance, design and materials of the building demonstrates substantial conformity with the abovementioned provisions.

6.10 Sloping Land

Objective 1 Development on sloping land designed to minimise environmental and visual impacts and protect soil stability and water quality.

PDC 1 Development and associated driveways and access tracks should be sited and designed to integrate with the natural topography of the land and minimise the need for earthworks.

PDC 2 Development and associated driveways and access tracks, including related earthworks, should be sited, designed and undertaken in a manner that:

(a) minimises their visual impact (b) reduces the bulk of the buildings and structures (c) minimises the extent of excavation and fill (d) minimises the need for, and the height of, retaining walls (e) does not cause or contribute to instability of any embankment or cutting (g) protects development and its surrounds from erosion caused by water run- off.

PDC 3 Driveways and access tracks across sloping land should be accessible and have a safe, all-weather trafficable surface.

PDC 4 Development sites should not be at risk of landslip.

The driveway, access track and parking area will not necessitate earthworks as the material used will be gravel and rubble and it will follow the natural topography of the land.

REF 0063-1-Cape St Albans | 16 December 2016 21

6.11 Tourism Development

Objective 1 Environmentally sustainable and innovative tourism development

Objective 2 Tourism development that assists in the conservation, interpretation and public appreciation of significant natural and cultural features including State or local heritage places.

Objective 3 Tourism development that sustains or enhances the local character, visual amenity and appeal of the area.

Objective 4 Tourism development that protects areas of exceptional natural value, allows for appropriate levels of visitation, and demonstrates a high quality environmental analysis and design response which enhances environmental values.

Objective 7 Increased opportunities for visitors to stay overnight

Objective 8 Ensure new development, together with associated bushfire management minimise the threat and impact of bushfires on life and property while protecting the environment.

PDC 1 Tourism development should have a functional or locational link with its natural, cultural or historical setting.

PDC 2 Tourism development and any associated activities should not damage or degrade any significant natural and cultural features.

PDC 3 Tourism development should ensure that its scale, form and location will not overwhelm, over commercialise or detract from the intrinsic natural values of the land on which it is sited or the character of its locality.

PDC 4 Tourism development should, where appropriate, add to the range of services and accommodation types available in an area.

PDC 5 Any upgrading of infrastructure to serve tourism development should be consistent with the landscape and the intrinsic natural values of the land and the basis of its appeal.

PDC 6 Car parking should be designed in clusters instead of large expanses

PDC 9 Tourist developments located within areas of high conservation value, high indigenous cultural value, high landscape quality or significant scenic beauty should demonstrate excellence in design to minimise potential impacts or intrusion.

PDC 11 Buildings and structures to accommodate tourists and associated activities should:

(a) not exceed a building height of 6.5 metres (from natural ground level)

REF 0063-1-Cape St Albans | 16 December 2016 22

(b) have a minimum setback of 100 metres from any of the following:

i. public roads or be no closer to a public road than existing buildings on the subject land, whichever is the lesser

ii. adjoining allotment boundaries

iii. the high water mark

iv. cliff faces…

PDC 12 Development providing accommodation for tourists should be designed to minimise the potential for buildings to be converted into or used as a dwelling(s) where:

(a) if the development comprises multiple tourist accommodation units – by ensuring that facilities, access driveways, parking areas, amenities and the like are shared (b) if the development involves a single accommodation unit on a site or allotment in the Coastal Conservation Zone, Conservation Zone or Water Protection Zone, one or more of the following characteristics is evident:

i. the structure provides basic shelter and limited internal space (eg. cabin, hikers-hut)

ii. one or more of the functional areas typically found in a dwelling (eg. laundry, kitchen) is absent

iii. the structure is of a temporary or semi-permanent nature.

PDC 13 Development comprising multiple tourist accommodation units (including any facilities and activities for use by guests and visitors, including conference facilities) should:

(a) ensure buildings and structures are clustered on the same allotment…

PDC 18 Tourism development, particularly in remote areas should be designed to minimise energy and water demands and incorporate alternative, sustainable technologies that use renewable energy sources and/or treat and reuse stormwater and wastewater to minimise reliance on mains services.

PDC 20 The visual and ambient impact of vehicles should be minimised by placing roadways and parking areas in unobtrusive locations.

The proposed development has been considered at length in order to best configure an appropriate built form which would meet the needs of the growing tourism industry on Kangaroo Island, whilst protecting the environmental abundance for which the region has become so renowned.

REF 0063-1-Cape St Albans | 16 December 2016 23

The development offers four additional independent and self-contained accommodation options for domestic and international families, friends, and couples visiting Kangaroo Island. It is our opinion, that the design is sympathetic to the environmental conditions and sensitivities of the locality. Further to this, the design has been intended to blend in with the landscape’s colours and textures through the use of locally sourced materials, and tones selected from those naturally occurring in the area.

Guests will be able to hire cars in order to access their retreats and visit some of the attractions Kangaroo Island has on offer. These include the historic sites, local markets, shops, restaurants, wineries, rivers, and nature hikes. By proposing additional accommodation to the south eastern section of Kangaroo Island, it is enhancing the attraction of the area for nature tourism and exposure of local businesses in this area.

The proposed development shows a comprehensive understanding of the area and provides a high quality environmental and landscape design solution that will minimise potential impacts and visual intrusion upon the natural environment.

In relation to PDC 11, the buildings will not exceed a height of 6.5 metres (measured from natural ground level), and will be setback greater than 100 metres from public roads, adjoining allotment boundaries, the high water mark and a cliff face.

The retreats provide both laundry and kitchen amenities to allow guests to stay independently for extended periods of time. Provision of these facilities allows a point of difference between the proposed accommodation and that which is existing, as the length of the guests’ stay will not be limited due to the lack of these facilities. However, respecting PDC 12, these retreats will not be turned into or used as dwellings as land division requirements do not permit additional allotments in the zone. Therefore, no building will ever be contained solely within its own site.

In our opinion the type and design of the proposed retreat will enhance the current selection of accommodation for all visitors looking to spend time on Kangaroo Island.

6.12 Transportation and Access

Objective 2 Development that:

(a) provides safe and efficient movement for all motorised and non-motorised transport modes; (b) ensures access for vehicles including emergency services, public infrastructure maintenance and commercial vehicles; (c) provides off street parking.

PDC 4 Roads should be sited and designed to blend with the landscape and be in sympathy with the terrain

PDC 21 Development should have direct access from an all-weather public road.

PDC 22 Development should be provided with safe and convenient access which:

(a) avoids unreasonable interference with the flow of traffic on adjoining roads (b) accommodates the type and volume of traffic likely to be generated by the development or land use

REF 0063-1-Cape St Albans | 16 December 2016 24

(c) is sited and designed to minimise any adverse impacts on the occupants of and visitors to neighbouring properties.

PDC 27 Driveways, access tracks and parking areas should be designed and constructed to:

(a) follow the natural contours of the land (b) minimise excavation and/or fill (c) minimise the potential for erosion from run-off (d) avoid the removal of existing vegetation (e) be consistent with Australian Standard AS 2890 Parking facilities.

PDC 28 Development should be sited and designed to provide convenient access for people with a disability.

PDC 36 Parking areas should be sealed or paved in order to minimise dust and mud nuisance.

Access to the retreat will be provided for vehicles, including emergency vehicles, via an all-weather rubble road. A single carport is integrated under the main roof of each retreat, providing the vehicles with protection from the elements and as the carport will be on the same plane as the building, access for disabled persons is easily achieved.

Vehicles are necessary for guests to access the retreats, and for them to enjoy external experiences such as wildlife tours, food and wine, adventure tours, and coastal activities.

The access track is existing, and blends into the landscape. The proposed additional access tracks will also be of all-weather rubble materials, and stem from this main access way and into each site. Each individual access track will be landscaped.

6.13 Waste

Objective 1 Development that, in order of priority, avoids the production of waste, minimises the production of waste, reuses waste, recycles waste for reuse, treats waste and disposes of waste in an environmentally sound manner.

PDC 1 Development should be sited and designed to prevent or minimise the generation of waste (including wastewater) by applying the following waste management hierarchy in the order of priority as shown below:

(a) avoiding the production of waste (b) minimising waste production (c) reusing waste (d) recycling waste (e) recovering part of the waste for re-use (f) treating waste to reduce the potentially degrading impacts (g) disposing of waste in an environmentally sound manner.

REF 0063-1-Cape St Albans | 16 December 2016 25

PDC 2 The storage, treatment and disposal of waste materials from any development should be achieved without risk to health or impairment of the environment.

PDC 5 Development should include appropriately sized area to facilitate the storage of receptacles that will enable the efficient recycling of waste.

PDC 6 Development that involves the production and/or collection of waste and/or recyclable material should include designated collection and storage area(s) that are:

(a) screened and separated from adjoining areas (b) located to avoid impacting on adjoining sensitive environments or land uses (c) designed to ensure that wastes do not contaminate stormwater or enter the stormwater collection system (d) located on an impervious sealed area graded to a collection point in order to minimise the movement of any solids or contamination of water

PDC 12 Development that produces any effluent should be connected to an approved waste treatment system which may include sewage, community wastewater management systems, or on-site wastewater treatment and disposal methods.

PDC 13 The methods for, and siting of, effluent and waste storage, treatment and disposal systems should minimise the potential for environmental harm and adverse impacts on:

(a) the quality of surface and groundwater resources (b) public health (c) the amenity of a locality (d) sensitive land uses.

PDC 14 Waste treatment should only occur where the capacity of the treatment facility is sufficient to accommodate likely maximum daily demands including a contingency for unexpected high flows and breakdowns.

PDC 16 A dedicated on-site effluent disposal area should not include any areas to be used for, or could be reasonably foreseen to be used for, private outdoor open space, driveways, car parking or outbuildings.

The proposed retreats will be provided with on-site septic tanks. The septic tanks will be provided underground and therefore screened from any view.

The retreats will also contain a ‘three waste stream’ system (general, recycling and green) which will be the responsibility of guests, and the cleaning staff who will clean the retreats after each stay. Waste will be disposed/recycled off-site.

REF 0063-1-Cape St Albans | 16 December 2016 26

6.14 Coastal Conservation Zone

The following extracts of the desired character statement are most relevant.

The zone defines the coastal areas of high landscape or conservation value and incorporates policy to ensure the preservation of the coastal landscape resource.

However, the coastal environment plays an important role in Kangaroo Island's economy and the tourist attraction provided by the coastal environment, coastal scenery and abundant wildlife is expected to see growth in visitor numbers that will need to be appropriately managed and catered for. The provision of facilities, including tourist accommodation and recreational facilities may be established in the zone provided they are sited and designed in a manner that is subservient to the natural and coastal environment and adverse impact on natural features, landscapes, habitats and cultural assets is minimised.

The preference is that tourism development, including any associated access driveways and ancillary structures, be located on cleared areas or areas where environmental improvements can be achieved. Development should be located away from fragile coastal environments and significant habitat or breeding grounds.

In order to reinforce the Island’s scenic and landscape experiences, tourism development should maintain a strong visual impression of a sparsely developed or undeveloped coastline from public roads and land-based vantage points.

The design and siting of tourist accommodation should ensure emphasis is given to raising consciousness and appreciation of the natural, rural, coastal and cultural surroundings.

Objective 1 To enhance and conserve the natural features of the coast including visual amenity, landforms, fauna and flora

Objective 2 Low-intensity recreational uses located where environmental impacts on the coast will be minimal

Objective 3 Development that contributes to the desired character of the zone

PDC 1 The following forms of development are envisaged in the zone:

Coastal protection works Conservation works Interpretive signage and facilities Tourism/visitor facilities Tourism accommodation

PDC 5 Development should not be undertaken unless it is consistent with the desired character for the zone.

PDC 6 Development should be designed and sited to be compatible with conservation and enhancement of the coastal environment and scenic beauty of the zone.

REF 0063-1-Cape St Albans | 16 December 2016 27

PDC 7 Development should:

(a) not adversely impact on the ability to maintain the coastal frontage in a stable and natural condition (b) minimise vehicle access points to the area that is the subject of the development (c) be landscaped with locally indigenous plant species to enhance the amenity of the area and to screen buildings from public view (d) utilise external low reflective materials and finishes that will minimise glare and blend in with the features of the landscape.

PDC 8 Buildings or structures should be unobtrusively located, limited to a height of 6.5 metres above natural ground level, and be of such size and design, including materials and colours, to harmonise and blend naturally with the landscape and natural features of the zone.

PDC 10 Sheds, garages, outbuildings and farm buildings, should be erected only as ancillary uses to an existing dwelling or for the continued management of any existing farm.

PDC 11 Development should not prejudice the landscape quality and natural bushland of the zone.

PDC 12 Tourist accommodation should complement the natural landscape and be designed in a way that minimises impact on the natural environment.

The proposal is a form of tourist accommodation and is a desired land use in the Zone. It provides visitors to Kangaroo Island with a new alternative form of accommodation within a high quality landscape with scenic qualities.

As has been demonstrated throughout this statement, the proposal will not harm the surrounding landscape or environment. The proposal seeks to respect its natural environment, and to provide guests a secluded and nature-based stay. The proposal is appropriately sited for guests to enjoy the coastal surroundings and natural landscape.

The development will follow the natural contours of the land. The sloped and partly overhanging roof elements will also reduce the already modest appearance and blend the buildings t into their environment.

The use of discreet materials, such as glass, stone, and other materials that represent natural textures and tones, such as corrugated rusted steel, will provide an overall cohesive appearance that appreciates, and is in harmony with, the natural landscape and coastal environment.

The retreats will not be visible from any public road and will hardly be seen from any land-based vantage points. The surrounding land will therefore maintain its landscape and coastal integrity.

The proposal directly responds to the Desired Character and the key Objectives of the Coastal Conservation Zone.

With respect to some of the finer design details, the buildings will be less than 6.5 metres high above natural ground level, and the materials used will minimise glare and complement the natural environment.

REF 0063-1-Cape St Albans | 16 December 2016 28

The carparks will be integrated under the main roof of the retreat, shielding vehicles from view, whilst not contributing any additional bulk to each building or the overall development.

The above discussion is not exhaustive as previous assessment has addressed similar issues.

Overall, we have formed the opinion that the proposed development strikes at the heart of the Coastal Conservation Zone.

REF 0063-1-Cape St Albans | 16 December 2016 29

7. CONCLUSION

In our opinion, the proposal to construct four self-catered tourist accommodation retreats at Section 390, Red House Bay, otherwise known as Cape St. Albans, Kangaroo Island is appropriate for the site, locality and Kangaroo Island generally. The proposal will provide:

 much needed additional offerings on the eastern end of Kangaroo Island and will result in a number of positive benefits to local industry and businesses;  seclusion, significant natural scenic appreciation and uninterrupted views, which are key attractors for international tourists;  buildings that are integrated within the natural landscape through materials, colours and shape;  buildings of appropriate height, scale, bulk and mass which respect the natural form and slope of the land;  minimal impact upon significant areas of native vegetation, the coastal environment and the Cape Willoughby lighthouse;  minimal impact upon the White-Bellied Sea Eagle through appropriate mitigation measures;  a design that maximises water re-use, cross ventilation, natural light penetration and minimises waste; and  all necessary service infrastructure to function and be self-sufficient.

The design and appearance of the development constitutes a very high quality built form outcome that has responded particularly well to the landscape context of the site and locality.

Accordingly, we believe the proposal should be granted Development Plan Consent.

REF 0063-1-Cape St Albans | 16 December 2016 30

APPENDIX 1. CERTIFICATE OF TITLE

APPENDIX 2. PROPOSAL PLANS

APPENDIX 3. WHITE-BELLIED SEA EAGLE ASSESSMENT

Cape St Albans White-bellied Sea-Eagle Assessment Kangaroo Island Cape St Albans White-bellied Sea-Eagle Assessment: Kangaroo Island

Cape St Albans White-bellied Sea-Eagle Assessment, Kangaroo Island

21 October 2016

FINAL

Prepared by EBS Ecology for Future Urban Group

Document Control

Revision No. Date issued Authors Reviewed by Date Reviewed Revision type 1 01/09/2016 EBS EBS 01/09/2016 Draft 2 23/09/2016 EBS EBS 21/09/2016 Draft 2 21/10/2016 EBS EBS 21/10/2016 Final

Distribution of Copies

Revision No. Date issued Media Issued to 1 01/09/2016 Electronic Chris Vounasis, Future Urban Group 2 23/09/2016 Electronic Chris Vounasis, Future Urban Group 2 21/10/2016 Electronic Chris Vounasis, Future Urban Group

EBS Ecology Project Number: E60602

COPYRIGHT: Use or copying of this document in whole or in part (including photographs) without the written permission of EBS Ecology’s client and EBS Ecology constitutes an infringement of copyright.

LIMITATION: This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of EBS Ecology’s client, and is subject to and issued in connection with the provisions of the agreement between EBS Ecology and its client. EBS Ecology accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any third party.

CITATION: EBS Ecology (2016) Cape St Albans White-bellied Sea-Eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster) Assessment, Kangaroo Island. Report to Future Urban Group. EBS Ecology, Adelaide.

EBS Ecology 3/119 Hayward Avenue Torrensville, South Australia 5031 t: 08 7127 5607 http://www.ebsecology.com.au email: [email protected]

ii

Cape St Albans White-bellied Sea-Eagle Assessment: Kangaroo Island

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 2 1.1 Background Information ...... 2 1.2 Ecology of WBSE ...... 3 1.3 WBSE pair adjacent to Cape St Albans ...... 4

2 RISK ASSESSMENT ...... 7 2.1 Methodology ...... 8 2.2 Impact Assessment ...... 10

3 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 13

4 RECOMMENDATIONS/MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 14

5 REFERENCES ...... 16

6 APPENDICES ...... 17

1

Cape St Albans White-bellied Sea-Eagle Assessment: Kangaroo Island

1 INTRODUCTION

The objective of this report is to assess the potential impacts of the proposed development at Cape St Albans on White-bellied Sea-eagles (Haliaeetus leucogaster) (WBSE). This includes a review of known information on WBSE on Kangaroo Island (KI), with a particular focus on the pair known to breed and forage, adjacent to the proposed Cape St Albans development. 1.1 Background Information

There have been a number of developments on Kangaroo Island that provide valuable information and context for the proposed development. A tourism accommodation was originally proposed by Alexander Brown Architects for Lot 2, North Cape Kangaroo Island for approval to the Kangaroo Island Council in 2014.

The land bordering the proposed North Cape Holiday Home is surrounded by a coastal reserve under the care and control of DEWNR (Appendix 1). At the time of the submission to the Development Assessment Commission, the tourist accommodation consisted of two separate residential suites joined by a decking area with two separate car parking facilities; this proposal has since been revised. In 2014, when the proposal was considered by the Coast Protection Board, there were concerns about disturbance to environmentally sensitive locations, with specific relevance to the White-bellied Sea-Eagle (WBSE). Records of this species flying along this coast and fishing off the coastline at this location, were known, and concern was raised that the proposed development may impact on this habitat, potentially leading to abandonment of the nest and/or guard roosts (DEWNR 2014).

The subject site is located toward the head of the cape on a separate allotment. The access track currently services the existing Cape St Albans Lighthouse on the headland to the north of the site. The presence of the St Albans Lighthouse generates human activity, for maintenance purposes and as a result of people travelling to the site to access the view from the lighthouse. Discussions between the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR) and the proponent have been raised around the point that current movement around the site, including maintenance activities, and people wanting to access the view from the lighthouse, is unregulated. This access is regulated through the means of a padlock (W. Lashmar, pers.comm. 2016). It has also been proposed that the WBSE pair co-exist on site in the context of the existing activity and access regime.

A previous development was proposed at the subject site involving a large tourist retreat building sited approximately 450m from the sea eagle nest. As part of the submission to DAC (11 September 2014), the proponent offered the following measures to manage any impacts (which was understood to have satisfied both the Development Assessment Commission and federal representatives of DEWNR):

 Relocate the proposed building up to 100m in a north to northwest direction meaning the setback to the nest would increase to around 550m;

2

Cape St Albans White-bellied Sea-Eagle Assessment: Kangaroo Island

 Erect a post and wire fence along the northern side of the native vegetation that exists along the cliff top to prevent access and provide appropriate signage along the post, wire fence and reinforce the restriction and

 Construct the building only outside the annual White-bellied Sea-Eagle breeding period and not make the retreat available for guests from June to July during the breeding period.

The Development Assessment Commission prepared supportive recommendations however the application was withdrawn by the proponent at the time before the formal date.

The applicant and long standing owner has detailed the history of human activity upon the subject land and the level of interaction with the eagles over the years. The applicant proposes that whilst the development will introduce a number of new activities upon the land, it is considered that when this is balanced with the improvements in management of the site and restriction of access to the most sensitive portions, it is unlikely to result in a material increase in impact over and above that which already occurs (i.e. grazing, motorbikes, tractors, aerial topdressing) and that to which the birds have already been exposed/accustom to over many years. 1.2 Ecology of WBSE

The White-bellied Sea-Eagle (WBSE) (Haliaeetus leucogaster) is listed as marine under the Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and listed as Endangered under the National Parks and Wildlife (NPW) Act 1972 (South Australia). Species listed as marine under the EPBC Act are afforded specific protection within Commonwealth marine areas. It is an offence to kill, injure, take or trade listed marine species in or on a Commonwealth area unless permitted to do so by the Minister of Environment. Species listed as endangered under the NPW Act, are species considered to be facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild. The WBSE is listed as endangered because the population size in South Australia is estimated to number fewer than 250 mature individuals.

The White-bellied Sea-Eagle is typically found in coastal habitats including offshore islands. The habitats occupied by sea eagles are characterised by the presence of large areas of open water (larger rivers, swamps, lakes, and the sea). Sea eagles generally forage over large expanses of open water; this is particularly true of birds that occur in coastal environments close to the sea-shore, where they forage over in-shore waters (Marchant and Higgins 1993; Smith 1985).

Drastic declines of this species have occurred across South Australia due to landscape scale changes of its coastal habitat (Dennis et al 2011a). The species is particularly sensitive to human related disturbances at critical times of their breeding cycle and this has been attributed to many nest failures and territory desertions (Dennis et al 2014). Just the approach of a human, within line-of-sight of a nest, could have negative implications for a nesting pair at a critical nesting time (T. Dennis 2016, pers comm). It should be noted here that there would be no line of sight issues; the nest related to the current development proposal is halfway down a cliff and is located over 2km away from the proposed retreat (W. Lashmar, pers.comm.2016).

3

Cape St Albans White-bellied Sea-Eagle Assessment: Kangaroo Island

Sea eagles are long lived, take many years to mature and defend specific territories centred on favoured nesting and roost sites, which can be used for successive generations (Dennis et al 2014). White-bellied Sea-Eagles have several guard roosts in the vicinity of their nesting territory where they spend considerable amounts of the day. These roosts are utilised for hunting, observing approaching predators and for territorial defence. These roosts are always within line-of-sight of the nest but can be as far as 800m away from the nest (Dennis et al 2014). The north facing roost is not within line-of-sight of the nest, in the case of the current proposed development; the lighthouse roost is a human made structure which has had considerable construction and maintenance works completed without the White-bellied Sea- eagle pair being concerned (W. Lashmar, pers.comm.2016).

In extensive South Australian studies, Dennis et al (2011b) found that sea eagle nest success decreased rapidly with an increase in human disturbance. Unlike in other areas of Australia, the majority of South Australian sea-eagle nests and guard roosts are on isolated and open cliffs devoid of major vegetation (Dennis et al 2014). Therefore, nests and guard roosts can be disturbed much easier in these exposed locations and from a greater distance than they are in more vegetated habitats (Dennis et al 2011a). South Australian nests are also usually below the top of the cliff so nests are more than likely disturbed from above which intensifies the disturbance to the nesting pair (Dennis et al 2012). The nest relevant to the current development proposal is situated half way down a cliff; the WBSE pair have remained undisturbed when being viewed from the northern roost site (W. Lashmar, pers.comm.2016).

Disturbance during the critical courtship and nest building phase (which commences in mid-May), can result in abandonment of a nest attempt and disturbances extending through the incubation period, until early September. This can result in mortality of nestlings (Dennis et al 2012).

South Australia has a small and isolated population of the species with only 70-80 pairs, mostly occurring on offshore Islands (Dennis et al 2014). Kangaroo Island contains a significant proportion of the known population with 26.4% of the states known population focused around 18 occupied territories (Dennis et al 2011b).

1.3 WBSE pair adjacent to Cape St Albans

The Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources has previously made comment with regard to the WBSE breeding pair relevant to the previous development (DEWNR 2014). The clifftop and coastal landforms adjacent to the site’s north western boundary is an important feature of this coastal area; the north western boundary is a roost site, not breeding site for this WBSE pair (W. Lashmar, pers.comm.2016).These cliffs also provide breeding habitat for White-bellied Sea-Eagles. The proposed development is located between 600m and 1km to a known, primary, White-bellied Sea-Eagle nest and known guard roosts are located approximately 500m from the eastern most retreat building.

4

Cape St Albans White-bellied Sea-Eagle Assessment: Kangaroo Island

The pair of WBSE have been observed perched on the Cape St Albans Lighthouse; their feeding area is out to sea, along the coast to the west end of Antechamber Bay, south along the coast to Cape Willoughby and west of Cape Willoughby to Cape Hart (W. Lashmar pers.comm. 2016) (Figure 1). The sea-eagles have been observed sitting on perches for hours, using the one that suits them best depending on the weather conditions; the one most used is the Lighthouse because of the visibility along both coast lines at once (W. Lashmar pers.comm.2016).

The flight path is between the nest (Figure 1), perches and along the coastline; it is uncommon to see them flying inland, however when they do, they are harassed by Wedge-tailed Eagles (Aquila audax). The WBSE pair usually fly around the headland, not over the hill from one side to another (W. Lashmar pers.comm.2016) (Figure 1). The nest site is located on a crag on the cliff face, which is very difficult to access (Figure 2). A perch site is situated in a tree on the same latitude as the nest site tucked behind the nest (W. Lashmar, pers.comm. 2016). The nest which is located on the south/south-east cliff face, has been used for more than 50 years (W. Lashmar pers.comm.2016). This nest was first observed in the 1960’s; a long history of farming in the area has since followed.

The Lighthouse is visited by Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) and Electricity Trust of South Australia (ETSA) staff when maintenance of the Lighthouse is required and most of the area is crossed using farm vehicles (W. Lashmar pers.comm. 2016). From personal observations made by Lashmar over many years, none of the activities, people movements or buildings have had any effect on the WBSE. The Lighthouse as a roost site, is protected by a high, unclimbable fence. If guests visiting the proposed development, are walking around the lighthouse and the WBSE pair are perched on top, then they have the freedom to leave and still choose between two natural roost sites (W. Lashmar, pers.comm.2016).

The threat most apparent to sea-eagles appears to be low flying aircraft or helicopters that at times fly the coastline (W. Lashmar pers.comm. 2016). The nest is located on crown land which adjoins the subject site. The applicant/landholder does not intend to obtain legal rights over this land, nor do they have plans to access the crown land in which the nest exists.

5

Cape St Albans White-bellied Sea-Eagle Assessment: Kangaroo Island

Figure 1. Cape St Albans WBSE movements (W. Lashmar pers.comm.2016).

6

Cape St Albans White-bellied Sea-Eagle Assessment: Kangaroo Island

Figure 2. WBSE nest – St Albans (red arrows indicate nest (right arrow) and perch site (top arrow).

7

Cape St Albans White-bellied Sea-Eagle Assessment: Kangaroo Island 2 RISK ASSESSMENT

Based on background research above, the following section details assumptions in relation to the species and presents an impact assessment for the WBSE. When determining what the ‘risk’ or ‘impact’ to the species is, it is assumed for the purposes of performing a risk assessment, that impact is disturbance associated with the construction/ongoing presence of the accommodation (i.e. distance to nest, positioning of infrastructure near the clifftop) and the ongoing presence of visitors at the site.

Indirect impacts can be identified by measuring an attribute (such as bird use) affected by the development before and after the impact happens, where the change has its effect (impact site) and where it does not have an effect (reference or control site). This allows changes to be ascribed to the impact, as opposed to other more widespread changes. To test for indirect impacts, monitoring of the WBSE at the site, before the tourist accommodation is developed and afterwards, would be beneficial using the same methods (i.e. same survey points, duration and number of surveys). 2.1 Methodology

The model considers the consequence and likelihood of an impact to arrive at a level of risk. The level of consequence and its likelihood (Table 1) are arranged to form a risk matrix detailing different levels of risk that arise with various combinations of consequence and likelihood.

The risk assessment methodology has been sourced and adapted from The Native Vegetation Council Guidelines for Preparing Roadside Vegetation Management Plans (Native Vegetation Council 2012), the Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna Assessments for Ecological Impact Assessment (Thompson and Thompson, 2010) and the Australian Defence Risk Management Framework (Gaidow and Boey, 2005).

A likelihood of occurrence rating was assigned to the White-bellied Sea-Eagle. This rating was based on the following criteria:

 Observations by W. Lashmar (personal observations of the sea-eagle pair have included nest and guard locations, and movement of the pair along the coastline adjacent to the proposal);

 Previous comments submitted as part of the previous submission to DAC by DEWNR with regard to the sea-eagle pair in vicinity of the proposed tourist accommodation (as discussed above);

 Previous records of White-bellied Sea-Eagle (Atlas of Living Australia) – 19 records within Red House Bay (adjacent to Cape St Albans Lighthouse to the west), the most recent being 2010;

 Knowledge of the species habitat preference, distribution and causes of its decline and local population trends;

 The potential for impact (Y/N) for the WBSE was assigned taking into consideration the species’ likelihood of occurrence, known distribution, habiat preferences and existing threats, and the nature of the project, the extent and location of the proposed infrastructure and

 Location between the nest and proposed development.

8

Cape St Albans White-bellied Sea-Eagle Assessment: Kangaroo Island

Consequence is considered minor for species with no conservation status, minor if the species is rare in South Australia and significant if the species is vulnerable or endangered (at a state or national level). Likelihood of impact scores are determined from the species relative abundance on site and its risk behaviours, as described in Table 2.

The risk matrix in Table 3 describes the relationship between risk, likelihood and consequence. Species of conservation significance with a high likelihood of impact have the highest risk score. The matrix provides a basis for making bird risk mitigation discussions. Where a risk is found to be low, no further action is advocated; if it is medium or high, mitigation actions may be required (such as modifications to design) to reduce the risk remaining after mitigation to acceptable levels (Table 4).

Table 1. Descriptors used to classify likelihood. Likelihood: How likely is the event (i.e. associated impact on species) to occur associated with the project Description Criteria (read as either/or) The event may occur in exceptional circumstances, has rarely occurred in the Rare industry and is not expected in the life of project. Unlikely The event could occur at some time (e.g. within a one to five year timeframe). Likely The event is likely to occur at some time (e.g. once in a while). Frequent The event should occur (e.g. probably will occur in most circumstances). The event will occur (expected to occur in most circumstances/is likely to be of a Chronic high frequency).

Table 2. Descriptors used to classify consequence. Consequence: Significance of associated impact on species viability Description Criteria (read as either/or) No loss of conservation significant fauna/flora/community or regional biodiversity and an insignificant impact on non-conservation significant fauna/flora/community. Insignificant Confined to a small area within impact of operations. The impact is restricted to an individual level and impact on a species would be unlikely to affect the viability of a local population. May have impact on local population, no impact on species. No loss of conservation significant fauna/flora/community or the localised loss of Minor individuals and species in a regional context. Contained within area impacted by operations. Likely to have impact on population, potential to impact on long term viability under some scenarios. Loss of an individual from a conservation significant species or a moderate loss of Moderate non-conservation significant fauna/flora/community in a regional context. Impact confined within the project area (within or outside the area impacted by operations). Critical event, very likely to have significant impact on species. Significant loss of conservation significant fauna/flora/community or loss of a significant number of Major non-conservation significant fauna/flora/community at a landscape scale. Impact may extend beyond the project area. Potential to lead to collapse of species. Loss of a population of conservation significant fauna/flora/community at a local scale or loss of a significant number of Catastrophic non-conservation significant fauna/flora/community at regional scale. Impact may be locally severe (e.g. local species destruction) or unconfined and/or on a regional scale.

9

Cape St Albans White-bellied Sea-Eagle Assessment: Kangaroo Island

Table 3. Risk Matrix Consequence Likelihood Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic Rare Low Low Moderate High High Unlikely Low Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High Extreme Extreme Frequent Moderate High High Extreme Extreme Chronic High High Extreme Extreme Extreme

Table 4. Acceptability of Risk Description Criteria (read as either/or) Low No action required. Avoid if possible, routine management with internal audit and review of monitoring Moderate results annually. Externally approved management plan to reduce risks, monitor major risks annually with external audit and review of management plan outcomes annually. High Will probably require a referral to the Department of the Environment under the EPBC Act. Extreme Unacceptable, project should be redesigned or not proceed.

2.2 Impact Assessment

The main potential impacts to the White-bellied Sea-Eagle are considered to be the direct and indirect causes by disturbance and potential mortality of individuals (disturbance at the critical time of the breeding cycle which may lead to nest failure and territory desertion) (Table 5). The consequence of these risks are addressed in Table 6.

The impact of the proposed tourist accommodation on WBSE, has been minimised by implementing a number of mitigation measures which were also proposed as part of the previous development application (e.g. siting the infrastructure on already degraded land etc). The proposed development is also set back a further distance and is of lower scale when compared to the previous development.

It is difficult to determine if WBSE will suffer temporary or permanent loss associated with construction activities. Species vulnerability to such changes will vary depending on their habitat requirements and ability to traverse across the landscape.

Table 5. Summary of potential impacts - WBSE Category Description of potential impacts  Impacts associated with human, vehicle and construction activity, increased Construction noise and human activity at the site and along the cliff top and operation of  reduction in habitat suitability (indirect habitat loss) tourist accommodation  displacement and disturbance (indirect habitat loss)  restricted movement of individuals Infrastructure  displacement of individuals (Physical and  habitat loss from disturbance, restricted movement of individuals (barrier visual barriers) effect) and habitat exclusion.

The risk was assessed as low for the indirect displacement of WBSE due to disturbance (e.g. vehicles, noise, light, human traffic) (Table 6). The overall risk was assessed as moderate for the White-bellied Sea-

10

Cape St Albans White-bellied Sea-Eagle Assessment: Kangaroo Island

Eagle (Table 7). Moderate level risks should be avoided if possible, routinely managed with internal audits and review of monitoring results annually.

11

Cape St Albans White-bellied Sea-Eagle Assessment: Kangaroo Island

Table 6. Risks to WBSE. Issue Risk Likelihood Consequence Significance Action Fragmentation of habitat Permanent loss of threatened species in Rare Moderate Moderate Avoid if possible, routine (where habitat can be the project area management with internal audit defined as both the nest and review of monitoring results and known foraging annually. pathways) Permanent loss of WBSE from specific Unlikely Minor Low No action required. habitat types – habitat being this part of the coastline and desertion of nest Death or reduced vitality of the particular Unlikely Moderate Moderate Avoid if possible, routine threatened species management with internal audit and review of monitoring results annually. Edge effects, inhibiting the movement of Rare Insignificant Low No action required. WBSE across the landscape WBSE movement restricted resulting in Rare Insignificant Low No action required. the death of fauna and a loss of biodiversity Indirect, permanent loss Loss of WBSE due to disturbance (e.g. Likely Minor Low No action required. of habitat human activity), displacement, habitat suitability and exclusion Temporary loss of Displacement of WBSE leading to loss of Likely Insignificant Low No action required. habitat WBSE from parts of the project area

Table 7. Risk assessment for WBSE known to occur within the project area. Conservation status Likelihood of Consequence event causing at a species/ Species name Common name Level of risk Action Aus SA species population mortality level State threatened fauna Unlikely Moderate Moderate Avoid if possible, routine management with White-bellied Sea Haliaeetus leucogaster Ma E internal audit and review Eagle of monitoring results annually.

12

Cape St Albans White-bellied Sea-Eagle Assessment: Kangaroo Island 3 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In EBS’s opinion, if the recommendations are taken on board and successfully implemented, then the impact to the White-bellied Sea-eagle pair, can be mitigated. The primary concern is for the resident pair of sea-eagles, which have a breeding territory encompassing the proposed development site and have a nest situated between 600m and 1km away. The tourist accommodation proposed is situated within a highly disturbed area, which is currently farmed. The machinery and human activity associated with agricultural activities, raises question around potential impacts already caused to avifauna within the localised area.

The proposed development when compared to the previous development is lower in scale (downsized with a smaller footprint) and is situated further away from the nest.

Coastal development has been identified as the primary cause of the significant reduction in White- bellied Sea-Eagles across South Australia. In recent decades on Kangaroo Island and in other coastal regions of SA, tourism developments, land subdivision, penetration into remote coastal areas by off-road vehicles and various forms of recreation, have each been implicated in the abandonment of Sea-Eagle nesting sites (Dennis et al 2011b). It should be noted here that vehicle movement will be restricted as part of the current development proposal (W. Lashmar, pers.comm.2016). Dennis et al (2014) recommend that any disturbance in the vicinity of a known sea eagle nest should be a minimum of 2000 m away. With this buffer in mind, the proposed development would be in breach of this recommendation. The biggest threat would be impact on nest success or in the worst case scenario, could result in a territory desertion from the resident pair. Strict conditions would need to be applied during peak construction periods and visitor access restricted away from the clifftop edge which would limit the risk of impacting on the resident pair.

There are few long-term on-site management activities which can be implemented to mitigate this risk due to the nature of the species and the nest location. The relocation of the nest is not considered to be a suitable option due to the very low likelihood of success. The revegetation of open land between the development and the nest site may reduce the impact of some activities on the WBSE, as well as screen the coastline from curious tourists staying at the accommodation. There is however already good vegetation between the current proposed development and the adjacent cliff (W. Lashmar, pers.comm.2016).

If the proposed development was to be granted approval, strict conditions would need to be adhered to minimise disturbance on the WBSE known to nest and forage within the area, including monitoring both pre-post construction of the tourist accommodation.

Cape St Albans White-bellied Sea-Eagle Assessment: Kangaroo Island 4 RECOMMENDATIONS/MITIGATION MEASURES

The following mitigation strategies are recommended to minimise the potential impacts of the proposed tourist accommodation at the site.

The current proposed development is some distance from the eastern cliff, where the nest is not visible; it has a good line of bush vegetation to the cliff’s edge (W. Lashmar, pers.comm.2016). Limiting pedestrian access to the cliff top directly adjacent to the proposed development (on the eastern side closest to Moncrieff Bay), will assist with minimising disturbance. Fencing will be made difficult due to the limestone and basalt rock that exists on site.

The proposed site is situated on an expansive headland which has been largely cleared of native vegetation and replaced by farming activities. It is recommended to:

 Plant and establish vegetation along the cliff top, which will act as a screen to the stretch of coastline below. This may assist with discouraging tourists to ‘take a look’ and therefore minimise the level of activity along the cliff top. It would be important to choose relatively fast growing native plant species, given that it may take 10-15 years whilst the vegetation becomes established. Vegetation should be thick along this section to prevent people from wondering through to get to the cliffs edge.

Much concern is around the distance of the proposed accommodation to a known active nesting site as well as guard roosts. Whilst the proposed development still places the accommodation within the recommended DEWNR buffer of 2000m from a known nest location, restriction around the construction activities associated with the proposal, may minimise potential impacts.

 White-bellied Sea-Eagles are particularly susceptible to disturbance during the breeding season from May through to December inclusive. In their commitment to mitigating against potential disturbance to the WBSE pair, the proponent will undertake civil and structural works (associated with the project) outside of the 1May-December period. Internal works to the retreat buildings such as painting etc, will need to occur within this period however. This is considered to have less potential impact based on the fact the nest cannot be viewed from where the proposed building will be situated, and works are minor during this time.

Track location should be given consideration when discussing mitigation measures for this proposal. Regularity of track usage to and from the site is a potential issue. It is recommended:

 Access roads and tracks are maintained as far away from the coastline as possible – in mitigating against impact to the known nest, any new track development should be situated as far away from the known nest and guard roosts mapped in Figure 1.

1 It was acknowledged in the previous proposal that the most sensitive period within the breeding season was between May to July

Cape St Albans White-bellied Sea-Eagle Assessment: Kangaroo Island

There are always two arguments with regards to the topic of whether to educate the public on the presence of a threatened species or not e.g. whether to have signage along the fenced area to say ‘keep out’ or whether to promote safe practices to tourists around limiting their access, whilst staying at the proposed retreat. It is recommended that:

 Any guests at the tourism accommodation should keep away from the cliff edge for safety reasons and be informed that sea-eagles are known to the area. This does not extend to providing details around nest location or guard roosts.

Cape St Albans White-bellied Sea-Eagle Assessment: Kangaroo Island 5 REFERENCES

Baxter, C. (2015) Birds of Kangaroo Island. ATF Press, Hindmarsh.

Dennis, T.E., Detmar S.A. and Patterson, C. (2014). Discussion Paper.

Dennis, T. E., Fitzpatrick, G. J., and Brittain, R. W., (2012). Phases and duration of the White-bellied Sea-Eagle Haliaeetus leucogaster breeding season in South Australia and the implications for habitat management. Corella, 36(3): 63-68.

Dennis, T. E., Detmar, S. A. Brooks, A. V. and Dennis, H. M. (2011a). Distribution and status of White- bellied Sea-Eagle, Haliaeetus leucogaster, and Eastern Osprey, Pandion cristatus, populations in South Australia. South Australian Ornithologist 37: 1–16.

Dennis, T. E., McIntosh, R. R. and Shaughnessy, P. D. (2011b). Effects of human disturbance on productivity of White-bellied Sea-Eagles Haliaeetus leucogaster. Emu – Austral Ornithology 111: 179– 185.

Development Assessment Commission (2014). Internal Document.

Gaidow S and Boey S (2005) Australian Defence Risk Management Framework: A comparative study. DSTO Systems Sciences Laboratory.

Garnett, S.T., Szabo, J.K., and Dutson, G. (2011) The action plan for Australian birds 2010. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria.

Living Fauna Atlas of South Australia (2016) http://www.ala.org.au/

Marchant, S. & P.J. Higgins, eds. (1993). Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Volume 2 - Raptors to Lapwings. Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press.

Native Vegetation Council (2012) Preparing Roadside Vegetation Management Plans, a guide to assist local councils. South Australian Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources, Adelaide. [This document replaces the Native Vegetation Council’s 2004 publication Preparing Roadside Vegetation Management Plans – Guidelines for Local Government].

Smith, G.C. (1985). Analysis of prey remnants from Osprey Pandion haliaetus and White-bellied Sea-eagle Pandion leucogaster feeding roosts. Emu. 85:198-200.

Thompson SA, Thompson GG (2010) Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna Assessments for Ecological Impact Assessment. Published by Terrestrial Ecosystems. Available at www.terrestrialecosystems.com.

Cape St Albans White-bellied Sea-Eagle Assessment: Kangaroo Island 6 APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Alexander Brown Architects – North Cape Holiday Home Project.

17

EBS Ecology 3/119 Hayward Avenue Torrensville, SA 5031 www.ebsecology.com.au t. 08 7127 5607 f. 08 8352 1222

CAPE ST ALBANS RETREATS

issued 2016/12/02 MAX PRITCHARD GUNNER ARCHITECTS PO BOX 808, Glenelg, SA 5045 [email protected] www.mpgarchitects.com.au CAPE JERVIS

PENNESHAW

SITE LOCATION KANGAROO ISLAND

LOCATION PLAN

PENNESHAW

ANTECHAMBER BAY

CAPE ST ALBANS LIGHTHOUSE

SITE LOCATION

CAPE WILLOUGHBY

LOCATION PLAN CAPE ST ALBANS RETREATS 2016/12/02 CAPE ST ALBANS RETREATS 2016/12/02 CAPE ST ALBANS RETREATS 2016/12/02 OUT LINE OF EXISTING NATURAL CLEARINGS

REVEGETATE AROUND CABIN 04 BUILDINGS WITH LOCAL INDIGEOUS SPECIES

CABIN 03 NEW TRACK TO CABIN

REVEGETATE AROUND CABIN 02 BUILDINGS WITH LOCAL INDIGEOUS SPECIES

EXISTING TRACK TO LIGHT HOUSE

NEW TRACK TO CABIN

NEW TRACK TO CABIN

REVEGETATE AROUND BUILDINGS WITH LOCAL INDIGEOUS SPECIES CABIN 01

NEW TRACK TO CABIN

CAPE ST ALBANS RETREATS 2016/12/02 RAINWATER TANKS

GENERATOR

Note - one unit may be required to be modified for disabled access

CAPE ST ALBANS RETREATS 2016/12/02 SOLAR PANELS ON ALUMINIUM STONE BASE CORRUGATED ROOF WINDOW FRAMES (COLLECTED ON SITE) RUSTED STEEL

CORRUGATED RUSTED STEEL

CORRUGATED RUSTED STEEL CAPE ST ALBANS RETREATS 2016/12/02 CAPE ST ALBANS RETREATS 2016/12/02 approx location of cabins amongst vegetation

CAPE ST ALBANS RETREATS 2016/12/02

Site of Cabin 1 – View from the SW

Site of Cabin 1 – View from the NE

Site of Cabin 2

Site of Cabin 3, with the site of Cabin 4 to the far right of the photo

Ref: CPB/020/17 L9, 81-91 Waymouth Street Adelaide SA 5000 4 April 2017 GPO Box 1047 Adelaide SA 5001 Australia DX138 Development Assessment Commission Contact Officer: Peter Allen GPO Box 1815 Ph: 8124 4906 Adelaide SA 5001 Fax: 8124 4920 email: [email protected] www.environment.sa.gov.au BY APPIAN

Dear Sir/Madam

Development Application No 520/L001/17 Applicant Rokrol Pty Ltd c/ Future Urban Group Description 4 self contained tourist accommodation units Location Section 390 Cape St Albans Kangaroo Island Council Kangaroo Island Council

I refer to the above mentioned amended development application forwarded to the Coast Protection Board (the Board) in accordance with Section 37 of the Development Act 1993. The planning authority is required to have regard to this response prior to making a decision on the proposal. In accord with part 43 of the Development Regulations 2008, a copy of the decision notification must be forwarded to the Board at the above address.

The following response is provided by the Board in compliance with its policies. Those policies are contained in the Board’s Policy Document which is located on the following website: http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/about-us/boards-and- committees/Coast_Protection_Board/Policies_strategic_plans

More information on coastal development assessment and planning policy is contained in the Coastal Planning Information Package at: http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/our-places/coasts

Proposal

Tourist accommodation retreat consisting of four self-contained accommodation units. The site is within the Coastal Conservation Zone of Council’s Development Plan.

Coast Protection Board Response

1. The Coast Protection Board supports appropriate nature based tourism accommodation on the coast. However to ensure that tourists continue to be attracted to the Island it is important to protect the environmental values of Kangaroo Island, and that includes the protection of the White-bellied Sea Eagle. 2. A critical factor in the Board’s response is the impact of the development on the resident pair of White-bellied Sea Eagles. The EBS Ecology Cape St Albans White-bellied Sea-Eagle Assessment report provided with the development application is inadequate and does not propose measures to adequately mitigate the risk of impact from the proposed development. A review of that report is contained in Attachment 1. It is the Board’s assessment that the development will reduce the productivity of a resident pair of White-bellied Sea Eagles, potentially resulting in them moving to a sub-optimal breeding location. At worst, the proposed development may lead to the complete abandonment of the breeding territory.

3. The Coast Protection Board recommends that the proposed development be refused as, in addition to the impact on the White-bellied Sea Eagle, it is contrary to its policies on coastal open space, orderly development, coastal access, scenic amenity, coastal conservation and biodiversity, and tourist accommodation development in areas of high conservation value. Attachment 2 contains a full discussion of those issues.

4. The Coast Protection Board is of the opinion that any development of the type and scale proposed may not be suitable on this allotment given the environmental constraints of the site.

Yours sincerely

Allan Holmes Presiding Member Coast Protection Board

2 ATTACHMENT 1

Review of development application documentation provided in relation to the Cape St Albans White-bellied Sea Eagles, specifically: “EBS Ecology: Cape St Albans White-bellied Sea-Eagle Assessment Kangaroo Island, 21 October 2016” also referencing “Future Urban Group: Cape St Albans Retreats Planning Statement, 16 December 2016” and associated application documents. Review by S. Detmar, Coast and River Murray Unit, Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources.

Summary review of the EBS Report

The EBS report is not based on a site inspection undertaken by a suitably qualified coastal raptor expert. It appears to be based on plans provided by the applicant and the verbal opinions of W.Lashmar who is either the allotment’s owner or may be related to the owner. Therefore that opinion may be from someone with a conflict of interest. In addition, the information provided by the person consulted and the advice within the EBS report is mostly unsubstantiated, often conflicting and in some instances it is incorrect.

The EBS report is not considered to be an assessment by a suitably qualified expert of the likely impact of the proposed development on the White-bellied Sea Eagle breeding habitat, as demonstrated by the conflicting information and advice, and inadequate recommended mitigation measures. There is no reference within the report as to the author’s qualifications in providing specialist coastal raptor advice.

While the report refers to a ‘Holiday Home’ (which was approved as tourist accommodation) at North Cape on Kangaroo Island (p.2 of the EBS report), the advice provided by EBS for that development proposal is not consistent with the advice provided for this proposal which is considerably larger in scale and in a more remote location. Thus this development has a significantly larger potential impact.

The report asserts that the proposed development, if undertaken with the recommended mitigation measures, would be unlikely to increase the impact than that which occurs from the existing activities (agricultural) or development (lighthouse). However, the lighthouse is automated and located approximately 800 metres from the primary nest, it was established in 1908, and there is very limited human disturbance associated with its operation, as AMSA only require access to the lighthouse once a year or when maintenance is required (Future Urban report, p.5). In addition, it is understood that AMSA have been provided information to assist them to reduce impact from maintenance activities at sensitive areas around the Island.

With regards to the agricultural activities, the “site is currently vacant however a number of sheep are grazing on the land” (Future Urban report, p.2). This is not a use that requires high levels of human activity or presence. Therefore, the proposed development, which has a potential occupancy of 24 people at any one time, would result in an greatly increased level of human activity. White-bellied Sea Eagles are known to be particularly sensitive to new disturbances rather than existing ones.

1 The risk assessment outlined within the EBS report does not appear to have been undertaken in accord with the criteria outlined within the report, resulting in the risks and consequences being significantly underestimated. As such, the recommended mitigation measures to address the potential impacts are also underestimated.

Detailed review of the EBS Report

Page 3. The report states: “The applicant and long standing owner has detailed the history of human activity upon the subject land and the level of interaction with the eagles over the years. The applicant proposes that whilst the development will introduce a number of new activities upon the land. It is considered that when this is balanced with the improvements in management of the site and restriction of access to the most sensitive portions, it is unlikely to result in a material increase in impact over and above that which already occurs (i.e. grazing, motorbikes, tractors, aerial topdressing) and that to which the birds have already been exposed/accustom to over many years.”

The detailed history of the interaction has not been provided, nor is there any indication of what type of ‘interaction’ has been detailed. The statement does not specify who considers that the proposed development will not result in an increase in impact over the existing activities. However, the grazing and agricultural activities that have been occurring on the land do not require intensive activity or daily presence of numerous people as would be likely with a tourist accommodation development. Nor would the grazing and agricultural activities be likely to involve people wandering around the property as would be likely with a tourist development. In addition, there are likely to be guests that wish to view or take photos of the sunrise, which will lead them to the cliffs in close proximity to the sea eagle breeding territory. While the birds are accustomed to the existing activity, it is well known that new development or activity can result in nest failure or territory desertion, and the increased level of human activity from the proposed development would be significant. Therefore, the statement that the proposed development will not increase the impact on the sea eagles is considered incorrect.

The person consulted by EBS states that there are no line of sight issues and the nest is located over two kilometres away from the proposed retreat. However, the plans and rest of the report shows the nearest cabin is just 600 metres from the nest, in addition, there is a cleared area near the proposed developments that leads to the cliff edge where there is a line of sight to the nest and as this area is not proposed to be fenced off, there is a potential for guests or staff to accidentally go to the site during the breeding season, causing significant disturbance.

Page 4. The person consulted by EBS states that the sea eagle pair are not ‘concerned’ by the activity that occurs around their northern roost of the lighthouse, however, he/she does not specify how the birds behaviour (or unconcern) has been assessed nor does it specify what time of year the activity occurs or for how long, as elsewhere in the report

2 it states that the lighthouse is only visited once a year by DPTI for maintenance purposes.

The person consulted by EBS states that the WBSE pair have remained ‘undisturbed’ when being viewed from the northern roost site. This statement appears to indicate that there is a line of sight issue from the northern roost site of the lighthouse back towards the nest. There is no substantiation of how the non-disturbance has been measured or determined, nor at what time of year the observation(s) occurred.

In addition, it is noted that during the assessment of the previous tourist development proposal, the site was visited by the owner, DPTI and two DEWNR representatives. On the vehicle approach along the existing track, the two adult sea eagles lofted, flying overhead, indicating disturbance behaviour in response to the vehicles. As this was during the highly sensitive May-September period, the site visit was abandoned.

Para 4 refers to 18 occupied territories on Kangaroo Island from Dennis et al 2011b – there were 19 occupied territories.

The development is identified as being located at its closest 600 metres from the White- bellied Sea Eagle nest and 500 metres from a known guard roost. This is very close to such a sensitive breeding habitat and is likely result in disturbance. In addition, while reference is made to a known guard roost, it is understood that there was no site assessment undertaken, therefore there may be other guard roost locations that are even closer to the proposed development, increasing the likelihood of disturbance.

Page 5. Para 2 states that the nest has been used for more than 50 years, however the site was abandoned in the 1960s following severe human disturbance whereby the sea eagle pair moved to a sub-optimal location for a number of years until further human disturbance to the sub-optimal location resulted in the pair returning to this location.

Para 3 states that none of the activities that have occurred have had any effect on the WBSE. There is no justification as to how this has been assessed.

Risk Assessment – p8-11 Page 9 Using the criteria provided by EBS in Table 1. If this refers to the ‘event’ being disturbance to the WBSE associated with the project, if a conservative approach is taken then the result would be “Frequent”, but realistically there will be disturbance as result of the project and the proposed mitigation measures may reduce but not avoid disturbance to the sea eagles, therefore the description should be “Chronic”.

Table 2. The Consequence of the disturbance should be considered as “Moderate” to “Major” as ongoing disturbance to the WBSE is likely to lead to the loss of the pair from the area, and as they are a threatened species and 1 pair is equivalent to more than 5% of the Kangaroo Island population of Sea Eagles it is a significant loss at a regional or landscape scale.

3 Page 10. Using Table 3. Taking the conservative approach above the risk matrix is identified as “High” and using the realistic approach the risk matrix is “Extreme”. So following the Acceptability of Risk in Table 4, the result is “Externally approved management plan to reduce risks, monitor major risks annually with external audit and review of management plan outcomes annually. Will probably require a referral to the Department of the Environment under the EPBC Act.“ or Extreme – “Unacceptable, project should be redesigned or not proceed.”. However, EBS have assessed the risk as low for the displacement of WBSE and moderate overall. This significantly underestimates the impact of the proposed development, particularly as the report details on page 3 and 4 the sensitivity of WBSE to disturbance and how disturbance has led to nest failures and territory desertions.

Table 6, and 7 on page 12 the impacts are significantly underestimated. For example, Table 6 identifies that the loss of WBSE due to disturbance as likely to occur, but has the consequence as minor and no action required. Therefore, in this part of the report, in contrast to other sections of the report, EBS have assessed that the proposal is likely to cause disturbance that leads to a loss of the sea eagles from the site, but that no action is needed to address the risk. This is inconsistent with the methodology described on page 9 that states the Consequence is considered significant if the species is endangered.

Due to the underestimation of the risks, the recommended actions do not accurately mitigate or address the risks, and are considered to be inadequate.

Page 13. 3 Discussions and Recommendations. The report states that “In EBS’s opinion, …… the impact to the White-bellied Sea-eagle pair, can be mitigated.” However, this ‘opinion’ appears to be based on unqualified information from the client or interested party rather than a scientific assessment or on- ground assessment by a suitably qualified person.

The EBS report states that the current breeding territory is situated in a “highly disturbed area” but it does not state how that is determined or the criteria used to assess the existing disturbance. Within a peer reviewed, scientific journal, a recognised coastal raptor ornithologist has used specified criteria and assessed disturbance levels at numerous nest sites around Kangaroo Island (Dennis et al 2011a). This nest has been assessed as having a moderate level of disturbance, the proposed development would increase this to a high level, and as can be seen within the paper, nests with high level of disturbance have significantly lower productivity rates.

The report identifies that development has been identified as the primary cause of the decline in the WBSE population across SA and that the proposed development could impact on the productivity or result in territory desertion of the resident pair. The report goes on to say that there are few long-term on-site management activities that can be implemented to mitigate this risk but that revegetation, access restrictions and timing of construction outside the breeding period may reduce the risks. This conflicts

4 with other areas of the report (e.g. p.3) where EBS have stated they do not think the proposed development will increase the impact to the sea eagles. Considering the nature of the land, the type of development and the threatened status of the WBSE together with the known facts about the impact of this type of development is likely to have on the pair, the recommended ‘mitigation’ measures are not considered adequate. EBS identify that “The biggest threat would be impact on nest success or in the worst case scenario, could result in a territory desertion from the resident pair.” which is inconsistent with the EBS assessment that the proposed development will not increase the impact to the resident sea eagle pair.

EBS have recommended that monitoring should be conducted pre-post construction of the development. It does not provide any information on what should be monitored, who should do the monitoring or how the monitoring should be undertaken. If it is referring to the WBSE pair, then any monitoring would need to be done by a suitably qualified person, under strict adherence with relevant scientific permits and wildlife ethics approvals. Inexperienced persons trying to ‘monitor’ the pair without the required approvals may result in significant further disturbance to the pair.

Page 14. 4 Recommendations/Mitigation Measures. The report does not recommend fencing due to the difficulty of the limestone and basalt rock on the site, however the previous proposal included fencing to control pedestrian access, so it is unclear why it is not recommended for this application.

The report recommends that the following mitigation measures will minimise the impacts of the tourist accommodation on the White-bellied Sea Eagle pair: revegetation; construction being done outside of the breeding season; access tracks being located as far away from the coastline as possible, and; encouraging guests not to access the cliffs due to safety considerations. These measures are not adequate to minimise the disturbance to the WBSE pair and are open to significant interpretation and variation.

Revegetation is recommended along the cliff top to provide additional screening from the coast where the birds are likely to be located and discourage visitor access. There is no site-specific recommendation on where this should occur, or details of what species should be used to ensure that they do provide sufficient screening and are suitable for the harsh conditions of this environment. There is no guidance on when the revegetation should be undertaken, considering that it is proposed to be undertaken along the cliff top and most revegetation works are undertaken at the start of winter which is the breeding season for the WBSE when they are most sensitive, there is a very high chance of this activity causing significant disturbance in itself. In addition, as the report states that it may take 10-15 years for the vegetation to become established. Revegetation is not considered an adequate mitigation measure for this development.

Recommending that the main construction works are undertaken outside of the breeding season of May to December and that only internal works will occur during that time does not address the huge potential impact of the ongoing and significantly increased activities of the tourist accommodation nor does it address the increased vehicle activity for the internal works (which have been observed as causing disturbance

5 at a critical time of the breeding season previously). Therefore, this recommendation is not considered to adequately reduce potential impacts.

It has been recommended that the guests are told to stay away from the cliffs for safety reasons, but there is no recommendation of how this would be done or enforced. It is highly likely that guests attracted to stay in this location would be inclined to explore the surrounding environment and may be willing to walk towards cliff edges to experience spectacular views.

6 ATTACHMENT 2

Issues

1. Flooding and Erosion

The development is not subject to a flooding or erosion hazard risk.

2. Conservation

Coast Protection Board policies support the minimisation of disturbance to environmentally sensitive locations.

Coast Protection Board Policy 1.4 (e) states: “The Board will seek to ensure that the siting and design of development on the coast minimises its impact on the environment, heritage and visual amenity of the coast.”

Coast Protection Board Policy 4.2 (a) states: “The Board will seek to identify, protect and manage coastal environments with high conservation values.”

These policies are reflected in the Kangaroo Island Development Plan, for example:

Council-Wide: Coastal Areas Objective 1: The protection and enhancement of the natural coastal environment, including environmentally important features of the coastal areas such as …., cliff-tops, native vegetation, wildlife habitat, shore and estuarine areas.

Council-Wide: Natural Resources PDC 28: Development should be designed and sited to minimise the loss and disturbance of native flora and fauna, including marine animals and plants, and their breeding grounds and habitats.

The development application does not demonstrate how it will protect and enhance this important coastal area as sought by the Board’s conservation policies, for example measures, such as landscaping and access control, that balance the negative impacts of the development discussed further below.

The section on landscaping in the Future Urban Planning Statement (p.16-17) is brief and there is no detail within the proposal to ensure that the proposed landscaping can occur and be effectively managed, or where the revegetation is to be undertaken, when it is to be undertaken and what method would be used. Other necessary details around density of plantings, species and maintenance are not provided. A detailed and effective landscaping plan is particularly important in this type of development, especially when removing grazing, to ensure long-term success. It should be noted however that whilst the proposed landscaping and associated information is insufficient, it is unlikely that a more comprehensive landscaping program would mitigate the expected impact of this development on the resident White-bellied Sea Eagle population (detailed below).

2.1 Proximity to White-bellied Sea Eagles

The presence of coastal raptors including White-bellied Sea Eagles is an important development consideration for the Board. The clifftop and coastal landforms adjacent to

1 the site are important features of this coastal area. They are of particularly high environmental value.

A major concern regarding development along the coast is the increased disturbance to native coastal fauna and continuing impacts on habitat and biodiversity.

White-bellied Sea Eagles have been recorded flying along this coast and fishing off the cliff tops at this location. Most importantly for the subject proposal, feeding and guard roosts exist along the cliff tops and a nest is located on the eastern cliff face of Cape St Albans. These cliffs also provide breeding habitat for White-bellied Sea Eagles. The proposed development is within close proximity to a known occupied White-bellied Sea Eagle nest. Threats to the White-bellied Sea Eagle

The White-bellied Sea Eagle population for South Australia is small and isolated and has been estimated at 70-80 pairs (Dennis et al. 2011b). Significant population declines and breeding territory desertions have been found in recent decades, particularly on the mainland. Landscape scale land-use change and human activities causing disturbance during the breeding season have been implicated in these declines. Population declines have resulted in the White-bellied Sea Eagles being listed as Endangered under the SA National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972. Protecting the White-bellied Sea Eagle from further disturbance and population decline is becoming increasingly crucial due to development and recreation pressures along the coast of South Australia.

Like most large eagle species, the White-bellied Sea Eagle is sensitive to disturbance during the breeding season, particularly early in the season where disturbance is likely to cause nest abandonment (Olsen 1998; Clunie 2004; Threatened Species Section 2006; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007). In addition, raptors in remote locations, such as Kangaroo Island, have a lower tolerance to human disturbance (Dennis et al. 2011a). Increased disturbance is likely to result in the birds abandoning breeding attempts and/or territories.

A long-term study of the White-bellied Sea Eagle population on Kangaroo Island found that breeding territories that experienced high levels of disturbance had significantly lower productivity than areas with little disturbance. The highly disturbed territories resulted in less laid eggs, fewer young being fledged and had much higher nest failure rates than nests with low levels of disturbance (Dennis et al. 2011a).

The breeding habitats of White-bellied Sea Eagle are unique in SA compared to other states, in that SA has few tall trees and most of the breeding habitats occur in areas with low vegetation and very little visual screening. This means that the disturbance from human activity will occur at greater distances, for longer time periods and quite often from above the level of the nest or guard-roost which is much more threatening to large eagle species, than that occurs at nests in tall trees (Olsen 1998, Dennis et al. 2011a). This is very much the case for the proposed development location. As described in the Future Urban report (p.3) “the land is predominantly devoid of any significant areas of native vegetation” and contains “uninterrupted views”. These characteristics will result in a significant increase in the incidence and longevity of disturbance from human activity to breeding sea eagles.

A common method for reducing or preventing disturbance for this, and other species, is to determine a buffer distance from the nest where human activity is excluded. The best

2 evidence available to the Board regarding buffer distances recommends a minimum buffer of 2000 metres as a precautionary measure for this particular species, in the absence of specific buffer distance advice from a suitably qualified expert. The default buffer distance was established after review of numerous research papers and field observations by scientific officers and researchers over a substantial period of time. The proposed development is approximately 600m from the primary nest.

On the 29 July 2016, the Coast Protection Board resolved to adopt the following guidelines in relation to Coastal Raptors.

Appendix 3 – Guidelines for proposed coastal development outside of urban areas.

Within “Threatened and sensitive coastal species, communities and /or habitats: Coastal Raptors – White-bellied Sea Eagle and Eastern Osprey.

“On the basis of scientific reports, the Coast Protection Board has established a default spatial buffer for development from the nests and roosts of these birds, being 2 kilometres for the White-bellied Sea Eagle and 1 kilometre for the Eastern Osprey. A lesser buffer distance may be supported where there is specific, independent advice provided by a suitably qualified person to indicate a lesser distance is acceptable with regards to the proposed development.”

The development application includes an assessment of the Cape St Albans White- bellied Sea Eagle by EBS Ecology. That assessment has been the subject of a detailed review by Coastal Scientific Officers within the Department of the Environment, Water and Natural Resources’ (DEWNR) Coast and River Murray Unit. As a consequence of that review, the Board is of the opinion that the EBS assessment lacks rigour, and provides no assurances that the proposed development will not significantly impact on the local White-bellied Sea Eagle population. More detailed comments on the subject report can be provided on request.

In essence the subject EBS report is found to contain inconsistencies, errors, contradictions, and understates the likely impact of the development upon the resident raptors. The likely impact of the development is significant on the Kangaroo Island population given its conservation status and the importance of Kangaroo Island to the species as a whole.

One of the significant limitations of the EBS report is that an on-site assessment does not appear to have been undertaken by a suitably qualified person. Careful on-site assessment is required to fully assess the potential impacts of such a proposed development and to identify key guard roost locations. Although three roost locations are approximately located in the EBS report (Figure 1), all such locations need to be determined as they may be significantly closer to the proposed development than the nest.

Kangaroo Island is an important refuge for the South Australian population of Sea Eagles, and each pair represents almost 6 percent of the Island’s total breeding population. Any loss may have a significant impact on the long-term viability of the population. It is the Board’s assessment that the proposed development will increase disturbance to the resident pair of White-bellied Sea Eagle. The increased disturbance, and importantly, a change in the type of disturbance (i.e. tourism activity rather than agricultural) is likely to result in a further reduction in the breeding success or quite likely an abandonment of the territory.

3 It is the Board’s opinion that in the best-case scenario this increased disturbance would reduce the productivity of the pair and potentially result in them moving to a sub-optimal breeding location. A worst-case scenario would be the complete abandonment of the breeding territory, as has occurred in other locations on Kangaroo Island as a result of development.

In summary the EBS report is not considered adequate to alter the recommended minimum buffer of 2000 metres, and it does it adequately address the likely impact of the proposed development on the sea eagle breeding habitat.

Considering these are important and threatened coastal species, any activity or development that is likely to negatively impact on the long-term viability of the population or their breeding success is not considered appropriate.

2.2 Glossy Black Cockatoo habitat

Regional officers of DEWNR have advised of the presence of a population of sub-adult male EPBC-listed Glossy Black Cockatoos that forage in the She-oak community on the allotment. The development application acknowledges this key habitat but does not provide any measures to protect it from activities on the allotment.

2.3 Little Penguins and Hooded Plovers

Any access to the coast from the allotment could potentially impact on EPBC-listed Little Penguins (Eudypula minor) and Hooded Plovers.

2.4 Flora

The bulk of native vegetation has been impacted by grazing. The clearing of the land has resulted in some weed problems, and the revegetation of eroded / degraded sections of the property should be a priority consideration.

The Board has been advised by regional officers of DEWNR that Euphrasia collina ssp. osbornii, a nationally threatened plant species listed as Endangered under the EPBC Act, has been recorded from the section of Coastal Crown Land directly adjacent to Section 390.

It is unknown if this species is present on Section 390, but given its proximity, the potential for this species to be present on the allotment needs to be considered in the environmental assessment.

3. Access to the coast

Coast Protection Board Policy 4.2 (a) states: “The Board will seek to identify, protect and manage coastal environments with high conservation values.”

The level of information in the application on how guests will be managed (e.g. formalised walking trails, fencing/signage to prevent access to sensitive location, etc.) is inadequate. The apparent lack of access management would result in a high chance of disturbance to threatened species, and a high chance of increased informal tracks resulting in increased degradation of sensitive coastal vegetation and habitats. Provisions in relation to the management of pest plants, animals, or visitor’s pets would be of value. However, as indicated above with regards to landscaping under “Conservation”, on the information to

4 date it is likely that visitor and operational restrictions would be insufficient to mitigate the disturbance to the White-bellied Sea Eagles in this case.

This allotment has frontage to the coast, and any coastal access track developed through to the beach on the northern side of the allotment would need to consider potential impacts on Hooded Plover and Little Penguins. Access from any tourism development to the beach needs to be carefully considered to reduce impact on the coastal zone. Any formal access across coastal Crown lands under the care and control of DEWNR would need to be authorised by Crown lands officers in DEWNR.

4. Visual impact and scenic amenity

Coast Protection Board Policy 1.4 (e) states: “The Board will seek to ensure that the siting and design of development on the coast minimises its impact on the environment, heritage and visual amenity of the coast.”

Coast Protection Board Policy 5.1 states: “The Board will facilitate and support the identification, recognition and protection of coastal areas with a:

 significant landscape value,  marine archaeological heritage,  cultural significance, and  scientific significance.”

Coast Protection Board Policy 5.2 (a) states: “The Board opposes development that has significant visual impact on coastlines with significant landscape value”

The Board has a duty to protect coastal environments of high scenic value and in doing so ensure that incremental development does not detract from the aesthetic appearance of the coast.

A report produced for the Coastal Protection Branch, of the Department for Environment and Heritage ‘Coastal Viewscapes of South Australia’ by Dr Andrew Lothian 2005, measured and mapped the scenic quality of the South Australian coastline. This project identified this area as having a value of 7.0 to 7.9 (high scenic quality), for land 100 metres inland from the coastline, dropping back to a value of 6.0 to 6.9 (moderate scenic quality) for land beyond that.

The subject site is located on a rugged and dramatic stretch of coastline in an elevated, visually exposed location. Vegetation is sparse in parts and is not easily established for screening purposes due to landform and climate.

The subject buildings are relatively small however they will be visible from Antechamber Bay and waters to the west of the Cape, thus impacting on the current visual appeal of this headland.

5 5. Orderly Development

In terms of orderly coastal development the Board seeks to minimise impacts of development on the coast, protect scenic amenity, and restrain ad-hoc ‘sprawl’ along the coastline.

Coast Protection Board Policy 1.5 (a) states:

“The Coast Protection Board opposes:

(a) Linear or scattered coastal development, with the exception of tourist accommodation development or that which has a significant public or environmental benefit, as per Policy 1.6. The Board prefers development to be concentrated within existing developed areas or appropriately chosen nodes”

Coast Protection Board Policy 1.6 states:

“The Coast Protection Board may support development, including tourist accommodation or that which has a significant public or environmental benefit, in coastal areas outside of urban areas provided:

 It is sited and designed in a manner that is subservient to important natural values within the coastal environment;

 It is not subject to unaddressed coastal hazards;

 Adverse impacts on natural features, landscapes, habitats, threatened species and cultural assets are avoided or minimised; and

 It will not significantly impact on the amenity of scenic coastal vistas.

[Guidelines for proposed coastal development outside of urban areas are contained in Appendix 3 of this Policy Document.]“

Appendix 3 of the Coast Protection Board Policy Document also addresses Guidelines for Proposed Coastal Development Outside of Urban Areas, as follows:

“General Siting and Design Parameters

The Board’s Policies address regular siting and design objectives. In addition, coastal development outside of urban areas should demonstrate measures to conserve and preferably enhance the coastal values of the site, for example through:

● Closure of unnecessary tracks and access points, and discouraging access to sensitive areas;

● Being sited to avoid or minimise the clearance of native vegetation including for vehicle and/or pedestrian access;

● Avoiding impact to threatened fauna and flora species and their habitat;

● Being sited to avoid impacting on highly valued, undeveloped coastal vistas;

● Being a type of development which will not impact on environmental water resources (including aquifers) to the detriment of wetlands, watercourses and other water-dependant ecosystems;

6 ● Being designed so that it is responsive to the landform and natural environment;

● Implementation of a native flora re-vegetation program;

● Implementation of a pest species management program; and/or

● Establishment of a Heritage Agreement or Land Management Agreement, over all or part of the allotment, to protect it from further development or ensure ongoing conservation management.”

The proposed development does not meet the Board’s orderly development policy and does little to meet the Board’s general siting and design parameters for coastal development outside of urban areas. Most significantly, the proposed development does not avoid or sufficiently minimise an adverse impact on the White-bellied Sea Eagle and its habitat. The proposed development:

 does not discourage access to sensitive areas  is not sited to avoid impacting on highly valued, undeveloped coastal vistas  provides minimal re-vegetation  does not establish a pest species management program or a Land Management Agreement or similar to protect the land it from further development or ensure ongoing conservation management.

While the EBS report and the Future Urban Planning Statement propose some mitigation strategies, there is no detail as to how these would be implemented or enforced. One inconsistency identified is that the Future Urban report states that the civil and structural works would be undertaken outside of the breeding season of May to July, however as specified in the EBS report, the breeding season is from May to December. Irrespective of the above, the mitigation strategies recommended by EBS are considered inadequate to minimise the disturbance from the proposed tourist accommodation at this site.

White-bellied Sea Eagle References

Clunie, P. (2004). White-bellied Sea-Eagle Haliaeetus leucogaster – Action Statement No. 60. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Melbourne.

Dennis, T. E., McIntosh, R. R. and Shaughnessy, P. D. (2011a). Effects of human disturbance on productivity of White-bellied Sea-Eagles Haliaeetus leucogaster. Emu – Austral Ornithology 111, 179– 185.

Dennis, T. E., Detmar, S. A., Brooks, A. V. and Dennis, H. M. (2011b). Distribution and status of the White-bellied Sea-Eagle Haliaeetus leucogaster and Eastern Osprey Pandion cristatus populations in South Australia. South Australian Ornithologist 37, 1–16.

Dennis, T. E., Fitzpatrick, G. J. and Brittain, R. W. (2012). Phases and duration of the White-bellied Sea- Eagle Haliaeetus leucogaster breeding season in South Australia and the implications for habitat management. Corella 36, 63–68.

Olsen, P. (1998). Australia's raptors: diurnal birds of prey and owls. Birds Australia Conservation Statement No. 2. Supplement to Wingspan 8(3). Threatened Species Section (2006). Threatened Tasmanian Eagles Recovery Plan 2006–2010. Department of Primary Industries and Water, Hobart.

7

REF:0063 -3

8 May 2017

Level 1, 89 King William Street GPO Box 2403 Mr Lee Webb Adelaide SA 5001 PH: 08 8221 5511 Senior Specialist (Environmental) Planner E: [email protected] Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure W: www.futureurbangroup.com Level 5, 50 Flinders Street ABN: 34 452 110 398 ADELAIDE SA 5000

Dear Lee,

CONFIRMATION OF WHITE-BELLIED SEA EAGLE IMPACT MITIGATIONSTRATEGIES FOR DA 520/L001/17

We write further to our meeting held on 26 April 2017 in which you sought confirmation of the applicant’s mitigation strategies associated with the presence of the White-bellied Sea Eagles adjacent to the subject land.

You have requested this confirmation in light of comments received from the Coast Protection Board during agency consultation.

As you are aware, extensive consultation has occurred with DEWNR in relation to the presence of the White-bellied Sea Eagles. The siting and design of the retreat buildings and the proposed mitigation measures are a direct result of these pre-lodgement discussions. We understand that DEWNR did not make any comment in relation to the proposal.

Following we confirm the mitigation strategies proposed as part of the development together with some additional measures which we believe address the concerns raised by the Coast Protection Board.

FENCING

The White-bellied Sea Eagle nest is located on a cliff face which can only be accessed with abseiling equipment. The top of the cliff edge is also heavily vegetated. Notwithstanding, the physical constraints to access the nest site, the proposal will include fencing along the edge of the vegetated area to prevent access. This area will also be supplemented with additional native vegetation and be provided with appropriate signage.

The proposed fencing will be erected along the extent of the proposed re-vegetation area as identified in Figure 1 (over page)

RE-VEGETATION

Native vegetation is proposed to be planted within the area identified in Figure 1 and also around the proposed retreat buildings as identified in the proposal plans.

Plantings will occur manually (no machinery for digging) and with caution prior to the commencement of the breeding season (May through to December inclusive) to ensure minimal disturbance to the Sea Eagles.

REF 0063 | 8 May 2017 1

Figure 1 Proposed fencing

The native species proposed to be planted include the following:

• sacrificial/beneficial planting, such as Acacia sp. and Pultenaea sp. which will add nitrogen to the soil, giving more opportunity for more fragile species to grow; and • plantings which will strengthen the existing habitat, such as the central stands of Allocasuarina verticillata, providing more opportunity for feeding and nesting birds.

It is anticipated to take 10-15 years for the landscaping to be fully established, however the additional vegetation will contribute to what the existing vegetation extent already provides as an effective measure to restrict access. The additional vegetation will also contribute positively to the natural landscape and the overall amenity and scenic qualities of the land.

It is important to note that during the establishment of the vegetation, the proposed fence will restrict access into the sensitive area. Appropriate signage will also make visitors aware of the revegetation program.

SIGNAGE

Appropriate signage will be placed along the extent of the proposed fence. Messages will deliberately not refer to the presence of Sea Eagles in the area as this may encourage interest and/or undesirable access in an attempt to view the nest. Signage will prevent access on the basis that the area beyond the fence is:

• subject to a revegetation program; and

REF 0063 | 8 May 2017 2

• unsafe due to the cliff edge.

The content and location of signage can be confirmed with the Development Assessment Commission and/or the relevant agencies and formalised by way of condition.

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

As confirmed in the development application, the civil and structural works for the development (including installation of fencing) is proposed to occur outside of the White-bellied Sea-Eagles breeding season which occurs between May through to December.

Only internal works are proposed to be undertaken during the sensitive breeding months. These works will be undertaken with caution so as to ensure minimal disturbance occurs. This is considered to be acceptable as the nest cannot be viewed from where the proposed buildings will be situated, and works will be internal and of a minor nature.

OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

One way of managing impacts is through education however the risk with this strategy is that it may promote interest and undesirable access to view the nest site.

Traditionally, visitors would be made aware of the location of the nest site through the provision of specific information and educational material within the retreat building or via the accommodation website. Whilst education of the Sea Eagles is valuable, in this particular instance it may be counter-productive and pose an unnecessary risk. In our opinion, a more acceptable alternative may be to provide more general information about Kangaroo Island fauna in the retreats and on the accommodation websites to educate visitors.

This information can also be complemented by a donation at the time of booking and/or providing a donation jar within the retreats. This provides an opportunity to obtain funds from tourists and at the same time increase visitor awareness.

The applicant proposes to introduce a donation scheme where funds collected at the time of a booking or within each retreat building (collected after each stay) will provide an opportunity to collect funds for the establishment of potential monitoring programs. We recommend that these monitoring programs be established and undertaken in conjunction with DEWNR. The purpose of such a program will enable the nest and Sea Eagle pair to be monitored by a qualified expert which will provide invaluable data, information and evidence on the Sea Eagles. Such information can then be used to “ground truth” the significant amounts of literature prepared to date.

In addition, the operation management plan will enforce a no pet, no smoking and low noise level policy and will restrict the number of visitors on the site at any one time. Visitors will be made aware of the importance of using the pedestrian and vehicular access tracks to protect the natural environment and indirectly not disturb the Sea Eagle nest. Each cabin will also be provided with a fire management plan and relevant equipment in the event that a fire is caused within a cabin or if safety is threatened by a bushfire.

The operation management plan will be provided to Development Assessment Commission prior to operation of the development.

REF 0063 | 8 May 2017 3

LOCATION AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

In addition to the above measures it is important to note that the location and design of the buildings also mitigate impacts upon the Sea Eagle presence.

The retreats are proposed to be accessible via four newly created tracks, each stemming from the existing light house road (an unsealed compacted rubble road) which is located below the ridge line.

The retreats have been designed to a scale that allows them to dissolve into the existing landscape and natural slope of the land through the use of local stone, minimalistic forms and natural tones to the external facades. The rusted corrugated steel blends the structure into the land and the high-level glass openings have been proposed to further reduce their overall bulk.

The single storey form of the buildings will present as a low scale when viewed from the top of the ridgeline due to the slope of the land. From the north, they will appear to ‘float’ out from the hill by including bases to the buildings which are proposed to be constructed from stones collected onsite. Native vegetation is also proposed around each retreat building.

We have calculated that the nearest retreat to the nest site is approximately 600 metres away with the furthest retreat located some 1000m away. This distance has been calculated as a direct dimension and does not account for the variations in land form between the nest site and the retreat buildings. From the nesting site, the “view shed” will be over the sea and the cliff face itself. The siting of the retreat buildings and their associated tracks are on the northern side of the ridgeline which means that they will not be visible from the nesting site. The retreat buildings are also located a substantial distance away from the known roosting sites.

Respecting the above, we have formed the opinion that the design and location of the retreat buildings in relation to the Sea Eagle presence is acceptable.

CONCLUSION

The additional fencing, signage and landscaping, as well as the Construction Management Plan and Operational Management Plan, are expected to provided adequate measures to mitigate the impact of the proposed development on the White-bellied Sea Eagles. The proposed development is also sensitively designed and located.

Respecting this, we have formed the opinion that the proposed development will not have a detrimental impact upon the Sea Eagle presence and therefore, the Development Assessment Commission should be comfortable in granting Development Plan Consent subject to appropriate conditions.

Should further clarification be required in relation to any of the matters discussed above, please contact our office on 8221 5511.

Yours sincerely

Chris Vounasis Director

REF 0063 | 8 May 2017 4