Bass Coast Post
  • Home
    • Recent articles
  • News
    • Point of view
    • View from the chamber
  • Writers
    • Anne Davie
    • Anne Heath Mennell
    • Bob Middleton
    • Carolyn Landon
    • Catherine Watson
    • Christine Grayden
    • Dick Wettenhall
    • Ed Thexton
    • Etsuko Yasunaga
    • Frank Coldebella
    • Gayle Marien
    • Geoff Ellis
    • Gill Heal
    • Harry Freeman
    • Ian Burns
    • Joan Woods
    • John Coldebella
    • Jordan Crugnale
    • Julie Statkus
    • Kit Sleeman
    • Laura Brearley >
      • Coastal Connections
    • Lauren Burns
    • Liane Arno
    • Linda Cuttriss
    • Linda Gordon
    • Lisa Schonberg
    • Liz Low
    • Marian Quigley
    • Mark Robertson
    • Mary Whelan
    • Meryl Brown Tobin
    • Michael Whelan
    • Mikhaela Barlow
    • Miriam Strickland
    • Natasha Williams-Novak
    • Neil Daly
    • Patsy Hunt
    • Pauline Wilkinson
    • Phil Wright
    • Sally McNiece
    • Terri Allen
    • Tim Shannon
    • Zoe Geyer
  • Features
    • Features 2022
  • Arts
  • Local history
  • Environment
  • Bass Coast Prize
  • Community
    • Diary
    • Courses
    • Groups
  • Contact us

Questions remain over ferry plan

23/2/2018

8 Comments

 
Picture
Cartoon: Natasha Williams-Novak
The environmental, social and planning impacts of a car ferry must be assessed, writes Cr Michael Whelan. 
I WILL vote to agree to the release of the draft business case for the Cowes to Stony Point car ferry tonight but I have some concerns that I would wish to see addressed before this document returns to council for consideration for adoption. I put them now so that the public are aware of these issues during the ongoing consultation phase.

Environment
Objective 4 of the project brief states that the business case should “… investigate benchmark environmental standards required for the development and maintenance of a vehicle ferry and passenger ferry infrastructure and operations.” The draft business case doesn’t do this; rather it sets out the legislative hurdles for environmental approval.

We’ve had a question tonight about the impact of a car ferry terminal on the habitat of the weedy sea dragon and this is unresolved. The proposed site is immediately adjacent to a declared Ramsar Wetland site, which is merely stated in the paper. It is proposed to be built over a prime northern beach valued by locals and visitors as well as for its habitat value. The proposal needs a thorough environmental assessment and assurance of no ongoing impact.

While the sites have been selected with a view to avoid the need for dredging it has the worrying rider that detailed design will determine whether dredging is necessary. That is a crucial issue and must be understood upfront.

Cowes Jetty
The report states that the preferred site precludes the necessity for the replacement of the Cowes Jetty. I’m not all happy with this and indeed it is contrary to the council’s own advocacy strategy whereby the replacement of Cowes Jetty is a key ask of Government.

I am concerned about Bass Coast Shire’s exposure to expenditure for this project and note that the report suggests that Parks Victoria will maintain the ferry infrastructure. The current jetty is maintained by Parks Victoria but has load limits imposed on it – it cannot take vehicles – so I am not reassured by that claim.
We are in the middle of the Jetty Triangle refurbishment, the sweet spot of Cowes as identified in the Cowes Activity Centre Plan. What is the impact of the proposed car ferry and infrastructure on this project? The draft business case doesn’t refer at all to the Cowes Activity Centre Plan. It does reference the Phillip Island Integrated Transport Study, which is good, but the Activity Centre Plan is a centrepiece of our planning for the future. These strategies deal with traffic and parking issues in The Esplanade, as well as development sites at the Isle of Wight and old Warley site.

We cannot look at the future through the prism of the past; it must be demonstrated how the car ferry fits with this agenda.

Social impact
The business case mentions the high disadvantage rating on Phillip Island and suggests the project would have a positive impact, as well suggesting that it would allow people to travel for services such as health care. I reject that on a couple of levels: firstly comprehensive plans are being implemented to better address health needs right here in Cowes with a medical and community health hub. We are also advocating to the State Government for a 24-hour pharmacy and nurse. Disadvantaged people will not achieve wealth or income effects from the project and should not be used in this way.

The other form of social impact I expect to be addressed is the impact on people’s enjoyment of this area, including the immediate neighbours. I want this discussed and assessed. We’ve heard concerns about the impact on the operations of the yacht club and this must be understood and defined.

Traffic
The draft business case estimates a $12 million benefit for savings on transport due to people using the ferry. Feedback from the public to VicRoads discussing issues with the Phillip Island Road and bridge infrastructure are mentioned as if it has some authority. The lead consultant, who also did the Visitor Economy strategy for Council, has briefed us that the bridge provides a capacity regulator. The Island becomes over-crowded at about 28,000 visitors a day. The optimum is 24,000. He has argued against duplication. And it becomes a requirement for demand management initiatives beyond that.

To claim that those things will therefore not be necessary with a car ferry is misleading. Similarly, to suggest that congestion will not occur – that there will be zero road closures – is also misleading.

In 2015 Phillip Island received 1.8 million visitors. Of those, 20,000 came by passenger ferry. The car is forecast to deliver 164,000 visitors to Phillip Island in 2023. There will be little impact on the road usage.

Where there is a case is the touring public and it’s a good argument. Currently only about one per cent of this market visits Mornington and Phillip Island whereas some six per cent visit Gippsland. But these are largely new visitors who are not coming otherwise, so I struggle to see how there is scope to claim a transport offset.

We need to ask ourselves why they would stay. I commend the State Government for its investment in Phillip Island – the Penguin Parade, the Woolamai roundabout and much more. But the Island infrastructure is tired. We have an aspirational pathways plan that must become perspirational, but alas there is no money allocated. To attract overnight visitors, we need excellent environmental, recreational and hospitality infrastructure. That’s the challenge.

There is still a lot of work to be done, including picking up from the wisdom of our community through their input to the consultation process.

This is an edited version of a speech delivered by Cr Michael Whelan at Wednesday night’s council meeting when councillors voted to release the draft business case for a car ferry for public feedback. Feedback will be collected via an online survey and at drop-in sessions at the Mussel Rocks barbecue area on The Esplanade in Cowes from 10am-4pm on March 11, 12, 13, 19 and 20.

8 Comments
Mel Marks
23/2/2018 04:04:10 pm

Many good points, which must be considered fully before a final decision is made by Council.
Regarding Cr Whelans final paragraph...Council please listen and seriously consider the opinions, local knowledge and expertise of the residents who elected you. This is not being done in many of the recent and not so recent decisions of this, and previous councils.

Reply
Anne Davie
23/2/2018 04:30:23 pm

Cr Whelan's contribution to the Car Ferry discussion is helpful and timely. Consideration of the proposal must involve the Island community and its stakeholders. It is an expensive project and has the potential to be a game-changer.

Reply
Adrian James
23/2/2018 08:34:25 pm

Well done Cr Whelan on your good analysis.
Yes we need more detailed data and information, as there is a lot at stake.
This old chestnut always gets dragged out of the closet at election time. Let''s put it back in the closet and ensure it's properly locked this time!

Reply
John Pandazopoulos
24/2/2018 12:20:59 pm

Cr Whelan is very much aware that the next stage after the business case is the significant environmental focus that will occur. This is not normally done at the business stage. As someone involved in many of these processes in the past and as someone who has been a strong environmental advocate for our State the process as proceeded is the most appropriate. You cannot answer all issues at the start of the process. The start of the process provides additional questions and queries which have to be looked at in more detail as the next stage. This is not a project that would happen overnight. It still needs more work. But the essential principles are that a carry ferry terminal is simply a larger jetty than the one we have at Cowes and a very much smaller project than the bridge that connects San Remo to Newhaven. The abundance of marine wildlife under these structures provides a strong indication of the environmental health under these structures and other structures over water across the State.

Reply
Cr Geoff Ellis
25/2/2018 12:25:06 am

John, when you say the Cowes terminal is 'a very much smaller project than the bridge that connects San Remo to Newhaven' and then state that the fact there are fish under the bridge evidences the environmental benefits of a jetties across the state I really, really don't see the relevance and suggest that you are conflating co-incidence with causation and underestimating the critical thinking of our community.
FYI that bridge has a name.

Reply
steve milton
24/2/2018 03:27:14 pm

I agree with Michael's analysis and his call for more research and to proceed with caution. The draft Business Case makes it clear that this is a medium to high risk project in terms of financial risk and environmental risk. Nowhere is Climate Change mentioned in the report and this will have a huge impact on the coast in years to come. I refer readers to http://www.ozcoasts.gov.au/climate/sd_visual.jsp This is a Government site and clearly indicates projected rises along our coasts. Irrespective of what you believe, Council has a duty to ratepayers to consider the cost of this project on our rates both now and into the future.

Reply
Graham Jolly
5/3/2018 05:28:00 pm

If their is a need for a second ferry then what is the user capacity of the one we have now.
When talking to tourist bus drivers who daily travel from inner Melbourne. They say their bus service will grow and not change with a proposed vehicle ferry.
The outlay of revenue for a private business must stop. Let the private busines put their own money forward. Council must determine what secondary changes to a council road or other will be needed.
Using very old statistics for this busines case must be challenged by council officer. Why is council running this & not the State Government ? More must be brought out into the open for the Stoney Point or Crib Point location. Council should have rejected this business case when the council was given the document many days prior to the public release when the report was highly flawed. Council should have said go away and correct the reports errors. Why the rush with a flawed report that the public has to try and determine what's actually correct. Funding for this report must not be paid out.

Reply
Mark Robertson
6/3/2018 03:47:29 pm

Could John Pannzanopolous please ensure that any plans for this environmentally benign(?) ferry has a series of safe crossing points for the plagues of whales which utilise the Western entrance channel - a roundabout perhaps? One would hope that the environmental effects statement is far less voluminous and more accurate than the desalination plant one.....

Reply



Leave a Reply.