At the Kettering Community Association (formerly KOCRES) Annual General Meeting held on 5 August, DIER’s Manager Planning and Design, Mr Shane Gregory was on hand to talk about plans for implementation of the recommendations in the Ferry Road/Little Oyster Cove Precinct Plan.
By way of introduction Mr Gregory made the following points:
- There has been some confusion about the link between the $8 million pre-election promises made by Labor and the recent State budget. Funding has been included in the budget under an innovative, umbrella infrastructure fund (the more cynical may describe it as a hollow log) rather than as line items for individual projects. DIER will “draw-down” from this fund as planning proceeds.
- Actual construction work on road improvements is likely to commence towards the start of the third year of the term of the current government.
- The financial commitment is divided into two components: $1 million to fix the urgent problem with the ferry terminal sewerage; and $7 million (or thereabouts) to fix the road and traffic congestion problems.
- An 18 month to 2 year planning timetable is typical for this size road project: Aboriginal heritage assessments have commenced, European heritage assessments will follow. Geotechnical assessments will be extensive especially if any reclamation is required.
- Community workshops will be held during the planning phase. The first workshop is likely to occur in September and will focus on traffic management issues. Representatives of community groups will be invited to participate.
DIER seemed to have formed the opinion that the community didn’t want to see reticulated sewerage in Ferry Road. Odd but true and in any event academic given that they have no role in providing community-wide sewerage services.
The information sessions planned for 19 August and 25 August will clarify Southern Water’s position on provision of sewerage services to Kettering. The big money is on them telling us its not financially viable.
Public Notice in The Classifieds 5 August 2010
Following Mr Gregory’s introductory remarks a brief but obligatory “tennis match” between the reticulated proponents and antagonists ensued. On this occasion it was obvious that no one’s heart was really in the contest and it came to a halt with the tabling of a radical solution to pump all sewage to the allegedly un-inhabited Trial Bay area. The idea was allowed to go through to the keeper, to the relief no doubt of the owners of Lot 2 Ferry Road which overlooks the boat ramp and will be having a new house built on it in the near future.
In the meantime DIER have lodged a development application with Kingborough Council for a waste water treatment plant to be located on the Oyster Cove Inn’s land and to be shared by the Oyster Cove Inn and the Mermaid Cafe/Ferry Terminal. That’s a pretty long flush in anyone’s book – especially when you take into account that the effluent from the Ferry Terminal will be pumped to the Pub for treatment and then back to the terminal to be disgorged into the once pristine waters of the cove.
Kingborough Council were asked if they would like to have any of the septically-challenged properties along Ferry Road hooked into the system but they declined the offer. Interesting given that Council have been dye-ing to fix the problems since 2006 at least. (Note: Dye-ing refers to the practice of tipping a litre of cochineal into suspect septic systems to see if the waters of Little Oyster Cove turn pink.)
Laying of pipework along Ferry Road is expected to commence in September to enable completion before the annual holiday season traffic jams. Obviously no Aboriginal artefacts in the general area of the road verge then.
It is expected that the new treatment plant will be commissioned and operational during January 2011 – public opinion willing.
Questions were raised as to why DIER was spending $1 million on this idea when the previous solution of a treatment plant adjacent to the Ferry Terminal had been estimated to cost a mere $350,000. Mr Gregory admitted that perhaps apart from the community resistance the earlier idea wasn’t actually as viable as it had at first appeared.
Much discussion followed on the impact of the proposed treatment plant on the value of properties which fall within the 100 meter “noise and pong” attenuation buffer identified in the development application drawings. The buffer zone apparently caters for a treatment plant 10-times the size proposed implying that it should really only be a 1o- meter radius buffer zone (joke Joyce).
When quizzed on exactly which of the Precinct Plan recommendations DIER would be pursuing in their planning Mr Gregory said that basically all would be adopted except:
- A reticulated sewerage system which is someone else’s (Southern Water’s) problem; and
- Relocation/expansion of the public toilets which is Kingborough Council’s problem and will therefore most likely occur about the same time that the foreshore walkway/boardwalk sees the light of day. Once the new marshalling area is built it is likely that queues for the toilets (especially early morning) will exceed queues for the ferry.
Mr Gregory’s appearance at the meeting was greatly appreciated as it is the first piece of feedback from government on the Precinct Plan that has been forthcoming since the draft plan was released a year ago. He was rewarded by a hearty clap.
The meeting subsequently resolved to make representations to Council on the waste water treatment development application currently before them. Just what views will be represented remained unclear at the time of going to press. In addition to the so-called buffer zone, impact on visual amenity may be a starting point. Click on image below to enlarge.
A schematic of the proposed WWTS
A think-piece in Issue 121 of the influential Crikey Dot Ken newsletter makes the following observations about the sewerage proposal:
My first concern is the complex nature of such a proposal as shown in the layout and drawings making it meaningless for a lay person to comment on. In instances like this there should be an opportunity for an alternative or contrary view given by a qualified person so those with genuine concerns can voice an alternative view by building on the expert’s alternative points. So, having disqualified ones self from querying the hardware there still is the ‘what ifs’ and ‘can they be trusted to stick to the original concept’.
Should this be the thin edge of a wedge, to provide such an expanded sewerage system, then it will be a dreadful legacy for future ratepayers to bare (sic). Even if this system is not expanded, which I gravely doubt, I believe any effluent of any standard, to the bay, would be detrimental to the future and image of this delightful boat haven. Perception is reality. I have doubts there is sufficient water at a reasonable cost to run such a system or when, if found, that the then used water be better reticulated onto some land found instead of emptying in the bay.
This DA-2010-318 thinking is so 19th century. Why can’t the proponents come up with something innovative. Surely science and technology have advanced in sewage treatment along with all other sciences? I don’t trust Council Planning and Council to condone or supervise a sewerage system like this proposal for their record in such is abysmal, witness the debacle of the Woodbridge Sewerage Treatment Plant that is non functioning and requires the waste created to be trucked away at huge expense to rate, and tax payers.
If you have concerns about this proposal then make them known to Council before 16 August which is when the representation period for the development application closes.
Recent Comments