Join the online discussion

You are invited to provide feedback on the potential sale of waterfront Crown land at Pelican Lagoon, Kangaroo Island.

The South Australian Government can dispose of Crown land to an adjoining owner if it has been declared surplus. Your comments, along with other feedback received from the community, will be provided to the Minister for consideration in making a decision about whether or not to dispose of or lease the land.

You can view a map of the land here.

Have your say by:

Comments closed

Tim Reynolds

15 Jan 2018

I strongly opposed the proposed disposal of coastal Crown Land to a private develop. The land is part of a stunning coastal wilderness landscape with undoubted World Class wilderness values, which development of the type proposed will effectively destroy. There is a large and rapidly growing tourism market for authentic wilderness experiences, and KI is an internationally recognised destination for its wilderness landscapes. Wilderness is a finite and diminishing natural resource. By definition, wilderness cannot be tampered with, and cannot be replaced. It is a non-renewable resource. It exists and is maintained only by careful and responsible conservation. Apart from the fact that the proposed disposal and future use is contrary to and inconsistent with the government’s natural resource management policy and legislative framework, I am extremely concerned about the precedent that this disposal would create for the fate of all coastal land in South Australia. The biodiversity values of this land are too numerous to mention and will be compromised by such development.

Sue Graham

15 Jan 2018

I strongly oppose this sale. Any impact on this coastal remnant vegetation should be avoided.

Henry James

15 Jan 2018

Ruining some of Kangaroo Islands most pristine coastline! Ultimately for a golf course on a piece of coastline which is so windy it is hard to stand up straight... A golf ball will change direction instantly. I'm a regular golfer and know this location well having holidayed on KI regularly. This is just a silly location for a golf course. I'm happy to travel to play golf... I will NEVER play golf here.

Leon Bignell

15 Jan 2018

In making a submission to this consideration of the potential sale of waterfront Crown land at Pelican Lagoon, I am mindful of the submissions already lodged and more recently of the politicising of a proper public consultation process being undertaken through the YourSAy website.
It is important to note the golf course development proposal has already received development approvals from the state and approvals from the Commonwealth with regard to environmental impacts on Matters of National Environmental Significance. Those approvals have conditions which need to be satisfied prior to commencing construction including management plans for native vegetation, cultural heritage, water and the environment in both the construction and operational phases.
What is now being discussed is the potential sale of parcels of Crown land, including a 50-meter coastal strip, to the developer.
As the member for Mawson, and candidate for the reshaped seat which now takes in Kangaroo Island, I have spent many hours talking with locals about issues which concern them and opportunities they can see for the electorate. Many have told me the Kangaroo Island Golf Course development offers the opportunity to add another high quality tourist facility, with national and international appeal, to those already existing on the island and importantly the opportunity for new jobs for local residents. Others have shared their concerns about the pace of change and about preserving what they regard as the qualities of the island. In the 12 years I have been a Member of Parliament I have always been a promoter of jobs and a protector of the environment. The two goals aren't mutually exclusive. I was the architect of the character preservation legislation that has protected McLaren Vale from urban sprawl and locked in our agricultural land and biodiversity corridors. At the same time, we have increased the value of tourism and the food and wine industry in McLaren Vale which has led to more jobs and extra money in the local economy.
The Kangaroo Island development should not become a lasting and bitter division for the KI community.
As part of his consideration, I encourage Minister Hunter to explore ways to ensure the public has ongoing access to the site. Perhaps that means offering the golf course proponents a long-term lease of the Crown Land, rather than selling it to them. There should also be an aim of keeping corridors open for animals and the general public to be able to move along the coastal fringe of the site. Southern Ocean Lodge is a great example of a development which has received world wide acclaim and visitation while also sitting lightly on a fragile ecosystem and piece of the Kangaroo Island coastline.

John Shortt-Smith > Leon Bignell

15 Jan 2018

Minister Bignall: This at one minute to cut-off? Not a good look. I am sure many people, without politicising things (as you have just done),
would have liked to respond to this.

Laura McEntee

15 Jan 2018

We are a global community that does not appreciate what it has until it has been damaged. I also appose the proposed sale of this land and hope to see it kept as a natural resource of enjoyment for mine and future generations.

Diane salvi

15 Jan 2018

I am strongly opposed to this proposed sale of Crown Land on Pelican Lagoon, Kangaroo Island.
Crown land should be for public use and remain so for future generations. This land is not surplus to requirements, Kangaroo Island is only special because of such areas.
I also strongly support the protection of this coastal Crown Land as it contains significant natural heritage values that deserve to be protected and enhanced. As the Friends of Dudley Peninsula Parks state “We know that Little Penguins nest in the rocks below the cliffs, and Southern Brown Bandicoots (listed as endangered under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act), as well as White-bellied Sea Eagles and Ospreys, have been recorded in the area in and adjacent to the coastal reserve. Human heritage also is significant in that the area has indications of post- and possibly pre-settlement Aboriginal artefacts on the reserve and also in the dunes immediately inland. There are also early settlement ruins.” The native vegetation there is the last "land bridge" connecting the peninsula to the rest of the island to the west.
This sets a dangerous precedent for governments to sell off coastal reserves on other parts of KI and the state, especially without appropriate public consultation nor environmental or heritage assessment.

I submit that the proposal be rejected and the Crown land be retained by the government for the benefit of the South Australian community and environment.

Quentin Chester

15 Jan 2018

As this 'discussion' ends it’s worth noting that next year will be the centenary of Flinders Chase National Park. The declaration on the 16th of November 1919 to protect 51,000 hectares of untrammelled wilderness on western Kangaroo Island marked the end of a dogged 27-year struggle by a small but committed group of scientists, natural historians and concerned citizens.

Since the days of Mathew Flinders – and long, long before that - Kangaroo Island has always exerted a vital influence over those who have made the effort to submit to its charms. This latest bout of public sympathy for the island and its future is tribute, once again, to the power of nature here to inspire.

For those of us who live and breathe the island life, often working mostly alone and remote, the testimony recorded on this site is a surprisingly powerful affirmation. And in some small way what resonates here feels akin to a bass-note - passionate, sonorous and heartfelt – like a rumbling echo rising up from 100 years ago.

Dr Richard Glatz > Quentin Chester

15 Jan 2018

I was working remotely with a few colleagues yesterday in Flinders Chase. We were inspecting artificial nests for the Green Carpenter Bee, endagered on KI and gone from mainland SA and Victoria. Thank you Quentin. Beautiful!!!

Trish Edwards

15 Jan 2018

How absurd that there is a time limit on discussing how we can best enact our stewardship of the clifftop land at Pelican Lagoon. It is the responsibility of this generation to care for their local environment, and to care for the planet. This quote from David Attenborough sums up the magnitude of every decision we make - 'For the first time in the history of humanity, for the first time in 500 million years, one species has the future in the palm of its hands.'

Gina Collis

15 Jan 2018

As a regular visitor to Kangaroo Island I would like make clear my objection to the sale of the two parcels of Crown Land currently being considered by the South Australian Government.

Like many others who have voiced their disapproval to the proposed sale, I fail to see how this land is considered ‘surplus’, as required by Crown Land Management Act 2009.

I have been fortunate to walk the coastline in question many times, and it epitomises all that I value about the island: it is isolated, undeveloped, and possessed of a wild beauty. Looking directly out onto the Southern Ocean, the cliffs and rocky coves are the home of, and refuge for, an abundance of native fauna and flora, all have which been detailed in the many posts on this site.

My most significant experiences have been of the birds of prey, particularly the White-bellied Sea-Eagle, and the Eastern Osprey. I have been privileged to witness two juvenile Ospreys play only metres overhead, as I walked this coast; and also to observe an active White-bellied Sea-Eagle nest, close to the land parcel proposed for sale. These encounters are possible primarily because as a Coastal Reserve, it has been protected from development.

The presence of White-bellied Sea-Eagles, listed as Endangered under the National Parks and Wildife (NPW) Act 1972 (South Australia), in and around the Crown Land being considered for sale should alone be cause for concern. Terry E. Dennis, who has extensively studied the species, notes that South Australia has only 70-80 pairs, with Kangaroo Island containing 26.4 % of the states known population. These eagles are very sensitive to human activity, and South Australian Natural Resources state that: “The loss of nesting sites due to development is a major threat to the White-bellied Sea-Eagles. Disturbance of nesting pairs by human activity can cause them to abandon their nests. “

I have only mentioned one species; other postings outline in much more detail the environmental value of this land, and its function as a corridor for flora and fauna between Dudley Penisula and rest of Kangaroo Island. Also important is its heritage value: the archeological sites, and Aborginal artifacts that exist on the land.

It seems that before this Crown Land be declared “surplus” there should be some environmental assessment of the land in question, as otherwise how can the Government declare that: “there is no significant conservation or heritage values that warrant retention of the land in Crown ownership”?

Sharon Pledge

15 Jan 2018

We would like to add our voices to this important discussion. We strongly oppose the proposed sale and urge everyone concerned with making this decision to spend time reading and considering the 320+ responses posted here to inform themselves of why it is so environmentally and culturally significant. Submissions have come from all sections of the KI community and beyond: community groups, landowners, scientists, naturalists, archaeologists, business operators, families and individuals have contributed. These contributions, almost without exception, ,express the public outcry and overwhelming opposition to the proposed sale of this piece of coastal crown land, containing valuable remnant coastal vegetation.
No piece of coastal reserve should ever be considered 'surplus', particularly one that has been highlighted to be of such environmental, cultural and historical importance.
We urge the government to immediately stop this ill conceived sale and honour its often stated commitment to 'preserving the natural heritage of Kangaroo Island'.
Sharon Pledge & Derek Moore
Pelican Lagoon

Jeff Foulkes

15 Jan 2018

We strongly oppose the proposed development of a golf course on crown land along the southern coastline of Kangaroo Island (as indicated on the Your Say Website).

This development proposal and associated agency comments about the land being ‘surplus’ are at odds with the Kangaroo Island Regional NRM Plan (2017) and the KI Regional Biodiversity Plan (2001). The Kangaroo Island NRM Plan identifies inappropriate development/land-use as threat to the national and international profile/brand of Kangaroo Island as well its distinctive flora and fauna species and communities.
The proposed development also appears inconsistent with the KI Regional Biodiversity Plan - Summary for Kangaroo Island (2001) by DEH and Planning SA, which states:
- Special attributes of Kangaroo Island include: “coastal dunes and “coastal cliffs” and specifically the “exposed southern coastline”
The land parcel subject to the proposed development forms part of the South Coast corridor/Large Remnant Area (p). Priority projects recommended for the area include the “Re-establishment and restoration of native vegetation to link areas of native vegetation”, not clearance of native vegetation for a Golf Course. The proposed sell-off of this coastal reserve land without appropriate investigation or assessment is concerning.

Recommended actions to reduce threats to biodiversity on Kangaroo Island include “Retention of existing vegetation”, and to “Manage industry appropriately to prevent impacts on native biodiversity” (p. 13).
Some obvious questions arise. Why are these adopted state government plans for KI being ignored or contravened? Are plans produced by DEWNR meaningless and/or prepared just for statutory purposes, and with no actual intention of government themselves being accountable to fulfilling the specific objectives of the plans?

The large area of cleared land to the north of the crown land provides a far more appropriate and justifiable option for this sort of development. Developments need to clearly demonstrate environmental benefits and harmonise with surrounding natural areas, not destroy them. This approach taken smacks of “ the old way” of doing things which are now discredited and unethical. Why is it that developers cannot come up with modern, sustainable development proposals that ensure natural values are not further compromised or destroyed?

The proposal seems very poorly integrated with social and environmental values on Kangaroo Island. What is the actual long-term economic and social viability of the proposal? There is no justification for this land to be sold to enable “players to take advantage of coastal scenery”. Already there are strong indications that the proposal is unpopular with many locals. How would such a divisive development be supported by the island community?

Such a proposal risks setting a dangerous precedent by handing over crown land for private purposes/benefit and we urge you to reconsider the approach taken and follow acceptable due process.
Yours faithfully,

Tim Jury and Jeff Foulkes
Threatened Plant Action Group
Nature Conservation Society of South Australia

Sheila Gatehouse

15 Jan 2018

Please can you consider Kangaroo Island as a unique ecological tourist destination and therefore no part of it should be considered 'surplus'. Golf can be played anywhere else, and consideration should be given for the long term affects a commercial development will have on the environment in this section and water supply of the island.

Craig Wilkins

15 Jan 2018

Conservation Council of South Australia

We express our deep alarm and concern at the proposed sell-off of this coastal reserve land without appropriate investigation or assessment, the loss of access to this land by the general public, and the precedent this sale will create.

This land is not ‘surplus’, but rather a vital and integral part of the coastal strip of this region, and the coastal reserve system of the state.

Our primary concerns:

1) The process

This sale process cannot be considered separate from the proposal for a golf course in the vicinity. Our understanding is that the original golf course layout was on private, cleared former farmland set back from the coast, and development approval was granted on this basis.

The developers then sought and obtained approval by the Planning Minister for a variation which involved a major revision of the design, layout and location.
The golf course is now intended to be built predominantly on crown land (obtained via lease or sale), and this land is of significantly higher heritage and environmental value, and right up to the sea front.

Yet, despite this major revision in the proposal, no appropriate public consultation nor environmental or heritage assessment of the merits of the original proposal (and the impact on the public land) has been conducted.

This is an appalling process, and has dismayed many. It is clear that changes are required to strengthen legislation related to both the development approval process and sale/lease of crown land.

The outpouring of concern by the public on the YourSAy website is indicative of a deep skepticism that this sale is being conducted with due process and with appropriate checks and balances.

Any Minister or Government who ignores this public concern does so at its peril.

2) The land is clearly not ‘surplus’

To sell this area of coastal reserve means that it must be declared to contain “no significant conservation or heritage values that warrant retention of the land in Crown ownership”. This is clearly not the case.

The land in question (and several adjacent crown land parcels on which development has been approved) have not been subject to environmental and heritage assessment. Therefore, there is no measureable information to substantiate the claim that the land is ‘surplus’ and has no use to the government.

What little is known clearly indicates the land has significant conservation value because of its high value remnant vegetation (it has a vegetation rating similar or higher to many other coastal reserve regions on KI) and heritage significance (including at least two Aboriginal artefact scatters). It also acts as an important wildlife corridor between the Dudley Peninsula and west of the Island, and present are resident ospreys, white-bellied sea eagles, Southern Brown Bandicoots, Little Penguins and other vulnerable and threatened species.

Less populated cliff areas like this one are important breeding zones for osprey and white bellied sea eagles. Too much human disturbance can lead to nest site abandonment.

3) A dangerous precedent

To sell off this coastal reserve would set a dangerous precedent for the state government to dispose of coastal reserves on other parts of KI and other regions of South Australia.

The coastal reserve system in South Australia is an extraordinary asset owned by the people of South Australia. Already, much of it has been lost, so it is essential that all remaining areas be kept in public hands. The need for public ownership and control of coastal reserves will only build over time as the impact of climate change increases.

All this land should remain for the benefit of the environment and the enjoyment of all South Australians in perpetuity, not sold off to private developers.

4) Keeping public access

Public access should be a default right on all public coastal land, unless there are significant safety or environmental reasons for denying entry. However, selling off public land to private developers immediately removes that right.

The original golf course proposal involved the maintenance of public access along the cliff top. The revised design has removed this.

We reject the assertion that this land is difficult to access and ‘practically nobody’ goes there. We understand that many avid walkers access and walk those cliffs.

The wonderful success of the KI Wilderness Trail shows the clear appetite for visitors to experience this type of wild, cliff top landscape. Sale of this land would compromise any future potential for expanding walking tourism along this part of the island cliff tops and coast.

Craig Wilkins
Chief Executive
Conservation Council of SA

Pauline Crawford

15 Jan 2018

PLease leave remnant vegetation for all to enjoy. A golf course uses way too much water.

Gina Collis

15 Jan 2018

As a regular visitor to Kangaroo Island I would like make clear my objection to the sale of the two parcels of Crown Land currently being considered by the South Australian Government.

Like many others who have voiced their disapproval to the proposed sale, I fail to see how this land is considered ‘surplus’, as required by Crown Land Management Act 2009.

I have been fortunate to walk the coastline in question many times, and it epitomises all that I value about the island: it is isolated, undeveloped, and possessed of a wild beauty. Looking directly out onto the Southern Ocean, the cliffs and rocky coves are the home of, and refuge for, an abundance of native fauna and flora, all have which been detailed in the many posts on this site.
My most significant experiences have been of the birds of prey, particularly the White-bellied Sea-Eagle, and the Eastern Osprey. I have been privileged to witness two juvenile Ospreys play only metres overhead, as I walked this coast; and also to observe an active White-bellied Sea-Eagle nest, close to the land parcel proposed for sale. These encounters are possible primarily because as a Coastal Reserve, it has been protected from development.

The presence of White-bellied Sea-Eagles, listed as Endangered under the National Parks and Wildife (NPW) Act 1972 (South Australia), in and around the Crown Land being considered for sale should alone be cause for concern. Terry E. Dennis, who has extensively studied the species, notes that South Australia has only 70-80 pairs, with Kangaroo Island containing 26.4 % of the states known population. These eagles are very sensitive to human activity, and South Australian Natural Resources state that: “The loss of nesting sites due to development is a major threat to the White-bellied Sea-Eagles. Disturbance of nesting pairs by human activity can cause them to abandon their nests. “
I have only mentioned one species; other postings outline in much more detail the environmental value of this land, and its function as a corridor for flora and fauna between Dudley Penisula and rest of Kangaroo Island. Also important is its heritage value: the archeological sites, and Aborginal artifacts that exist on the land.

It seems that before this Crown Land be declared “surplus” there should be some environmental assessment of the land in question, as otherwise how can the Government declare that: “there is no significant conservation or heritage values that warrant retention of the land in Crown ownership”?

Gary Taylor

15 Jan 2018

Australian Entomological Society Conservation Committee

Mission Statement: In acknowledging that terrestrial invertebrates perform critical ecological functions in all terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems; and given the unique levels of continental, regional and local endemism in the Australian invertebrate fauna; and recognising that this fauna is facing widespread threats including habitat loss, climate change, invasive species and urbanisation; the Australian Entomological Society through its Conservation Committee will promote research, disseminate information, develop and inform policy, and manage conservation of terrestrial invertebrates, both in taxonomic and functioning entities, in native and modified ecosystems.

On behalf of members of the Australian Entomological Society (AES), the Invertebrate Conservation Committee wishes to officially voice our strong opposition to the proposal to sell or lease Crown Land south of Pelican Lagoon, on Kangaroo Island.

The AES is the peak body representing knowledge and application of all things to do with insects and allied invertebrates: ranging from basic science through agricultural pest management to biodiversity conservation. As such, it is the key advocacy group for the conservation of ecosystem function based on the critical role played by insects in all agricultural systems, food webs and ecological interactions. The Conservation Committee reports to the Board of the AES and is specifically charged with providing the best available evidence-based scientific advice on any matter relating to conservation. It is in this capacity that the Conservation Committee provides this submission on behalf of the Society.

We wish to raise a number of serious concerns regarding this proposal.

1. Ecological damage
The area in question is high value remnant, coastal cliff and sand dunes. It occurs in the ecologically important region of Kangaroo Island. The area directly supports a range of insect and other invertebrate species that are thought to occur only on KI, as well as species that have become rare on the mainland. The area in itself is very poorly studied in terms of insects and other invertebrates which we remind the minister are crucial for ecosystem functionality and other services. Importantly, this area provides the only link for habitat of that type, between the Dudley Peninsula and the western end of the island. The proposed development will clearly destroy much of the area, (e.g. contribute significantly to habitat fragmentation) and increase the ‘human footprint’ on an ecologically sensitive coastal system (e.g., couch grass and other weed infestation) which are at odds with the conservation purposes of the Crown Land.

We do not consider that the appropriate scientific scrutiny had been applied to the ecological effects of developing the associated Crown Land, which must surely be significant given its environmental characteristics and placement. We consider it mandatory to undertake a rigorous scientific assessment of the biodiversity of the ecological community to adequately assess the environmental impact of developing the land before any such proposals can be critically assessed. It appears that no environmental or cultural impact assessments have been performed on any of the parcels of Crown Land associated with the amended development. This is unacceptable to our committee and suggests that legislative changes are required to direct the minister to make these assessments on any Crown Land designated for conservation purposes.

Some of the insect species that may be impacted directly or through disruption of east-west movement (and potential genetic segregation of populations) include:
• Kangaroo Island Enigma moth (Aenigmatinea glatzella) – known only from KI, and also its parasitoid wasp (undescribed genus and species)
• Small Eastern Bronze Azure Butterfly (Ogyris otanes) – threatened on mainland
• Black and white skipper (Antipodea atralba) – threatened on mainland. Other skipper butterflies also potentially affected
• Stiletto flies (Anabarhynchus spp.) flies – several undescribed species known only from KI

The ecological importance of sand dune ecosystems cannot be underestimated. The above examples are but a small fraction of the overall invertebrate biodiversity potentially impacted. As mentioned, there are many species occurring in this habitat that are yet to be discovered. Many are reliant on the sandy environment and the plants that grow there. Many species live only on a limited (or single) plant species and thereby reliant on intact plant communities. Knowledge of many of these interactions is poor.

For these reasons, and to achieve improved environmental outcomes overall, the conservation committee supports policy that aims to conserve various ecosystem types and prevent unintended environmental consequences. We see the current sale, and broader amendment process to be at odds with this approach. Members of academic and scientific institutions regard Kangaroo Island as an important area for research and have visited regularly over the recent years.

We do not accept this land can be deemed “surplus” as it applies to the relevant Act. We do not accept that there is sufficient scientific grounding to support such a decision.

2. Precedence
We believe this sale sets a dreadful precedence where high value ecosystems owned and accessed by the public are sold in the knowledge they will be damaged for short-term commercial benefits that are purely hypothetical. We find it highly surprising that news of this sale originates from Kangaroo Island which ironically is renowned for its remnant native ecosystems and largely non-developed coastline that underpins the economy of the island. If the proposal were to proceed, access to the coastline is surely to be restricted to everyday Australians. We do not believe this should occur for commercial gain of a few; this raises moral and ethical questions about the sale.

3. Planning amendment procedure
We are highly critical that such a large redesign of the development can be passed off as an “amendment”, apparently avoiding the need for the planning minister to consult. In this case, the difference between the original development that was assessed (almost entirely on weedy former pasture) and the amended development (in virtually intact remnant vegetation), in terms of environmental and cultural impact, is stark. However, it appears that no environmental or cultural assessment has occurred prior to approval of the amended development. This is unacceptable and we strongly urge the government to re-assess the amended development after undertaking these assessments. This is important for mitigating or avoiding impacts and for transparency and integrity of the development approval process. Overall, the process appears opaque and undermines confidence in the integrity of the development legislation.

4. Inadequacy of public consultation
We have assessed the information that is readily available to the public regarding this proposed sale. It is highly inadequate and amounts to a poor quality map with no detail about the land in question. There should be detail about land use and zoning regions within the titles and adjacent titles. How big is the area we are being asked about? What are details of the intended land use? What ecological and physical data exist for the site? How much is the land worth? Cost : benefit analysis for intended use? This information and more, would be required to make an informed decision.

5. Inappropriate legislation
The fact that the “need” to acquire/lease crown land of high ecological value can be incorporated into a planning amendment, and that this allows the planning minister to bypass external consultation, reveals serious legislative flaws.

We think this is highly inappropriate management of our public wilderness areas. We suggest several changes to existing legislation to prevent this occurring in future:

• changes to the approval process to prevent the planning minister to disregard internal advice to conduct environmental and heritage assessments .
• changes to legislation regarding the sale and lease of Crown Land so that environmental and heritage assessments are automatically required if Crown Land held for conservation purposes is to be considered for disposal.
• minimum standards should also be set for public information provided to facilitate consultation.
In summary, we emphatically oppose the sale of this waterfront Crown Land on the grounds discussed above. We strongly suggest that the government immediately conduct full environmental and heritage impact assessments for all Crown Land added to the proposal as part of the development amendment. This should be done prior to the close of consultations and a final decision.

Gary Taylor
Convenor, Australian Entomological Society Conservation Committee

Deborah Sleeman

15 Jan 2018

I am strongly opposed to the sale of crown land on the southern ocean opposite pelican lagoon on kangaroo island
This land is an important corridor of remnant native vegetation connecting the eastern and western parts of kangaroo island. To suggest that this land is surplus and has no environmental or heritage significance makes one realise that the department put in place to protect these values is obviously unable to do its job under the present policies of this government.
This dangerous precedent. Cannot be allowed to happen.
Deb Sleeman
Pelican lagoon.

Steve Berris

15 Jan 2018

I strongly object to the sale of the coastal land on Dudley peninsula on kangaroo island as it sets a dangerous precedent that could allow anyone with land adjacent to the coast to purchase crown land and exclude the public from a community resource. The sale of this land would also allow land clearance of native coastal vegetation which provides an important corridor for native birds and animals between Dudley peninsula and the rest of the island.

Ben Seamark

15 Jan 2018

I apose the development as it is not apropriate.

Tim Quinn

15 Jan 2018

The sale of this land for golf course use is something that I am strongly opposed to. Pristine natural environments should stay that way. This golf course proposal is yet another short-sighted attempt to make a short-term economic gain without considering the long term consequences on the habitats of the animals and plants living in these ecosystems. Kangaroo Island's ecological diversity is something that should celebrated, not diminished by the sale and destruction of this land.

Rosalie Day

15 Jan 2018

Crown Land should remain accessible to the public anywhere in South Australia. Uses such as golf courses are not appropriate on an island where water supply is limited.

Carol Clark

15 Jan 2018

My wife and I have had the good fortune to have travelled and trekked through amazingly diverse countrysides around the world, including spectacular coastal scenery especially around Australia, New Zealand and North and South America.

The only places, we can recall, where we were denied access to coastal areas by privately financed developments were hotel and housing developments on the coast line of California and on Kangaroo Island where the Wilderness Track is diverted inland around a large hotel/resort area and not taken along the cliff tops or down along the beautiful beaches under these cliffs in front of the new Southern Ocean Lodge above Hanson Bay.

The coastal areas of KI with beautiful sandy bays and beaches, crystal clear waters some days and crashing, wind swept breakers the next, magnificent towering, rugged and cliffs and eroded rocks, in our opinion, provide some of the world’s best coastal scenery and some of the world's most memorable coastal walks and treks.

The public, both the islanders and the increasing numbers of tourists, should not be denied access to Crown Land anywhere in South Australia/ Australia.

Why would a Labour Government contemplate such a breach of trust to the citizens of South Australia ?

Dallas and Carol Clark.

Donella Peters

15 Jan 2018

I write to voice my opposition to the sale of this parcel of land for several reasons.

The Government is describing this land as “surplus to requirements” and having no significant conservation or heritage values. However, it would appear that this piece of land has significant aboriginal heritage value, needing further consultation with relevant experts.

The area under discussion is the only continuous piece of remnant native vegetation between Dudley and the island's western landmass. Environmentally, while there is a small area of box-thorn, it nonetheless has a high biodiversity value, and is home to a good variety of reptiles and birds, including the White-bellied Sea-eagle and Australian Osprey, both of which are endangered. This alone should be enough to prevent the sale of the land. We have destroyed so much of our wildlife’s habitat in the past two hundred years that it is now essential to keep every last piece that we still have.

Kangaroo Island’s image internationally is enhanced by it not being over-developed. Visitors are attracted to areas that are natural, rather than built-up, and there are already enough developed areas in the rest of Australia to satisfy those who want such things. The government should aim to keep as much of KI as possible in as natural a state as possible, in line with the KI Development Plan, and the goals stated in the NRM Plan.

It is also part of an area that is popular with hikers, photographers and bird-watchers, and should be kept as Crown land that the public can access for generations to come.

David Hay

15 Jan 2018

We strongly object to the sale or lease of Section 507 Hundred of Dudley and Allotment 1 in Deposited Plan 76540

We are landowners, residents and business owners on Kangaroo Island and the mainland and fully understand the need for progress and development, however we also understand the need to retain the heritage and conservation of our environments.

We believe that there is no coastal crown land that could, or should, ever be described as ‘surplus’ on Kangaroo Island. The Island is a unique place in Australia because so much has been retained as conservation zones and national parks.

It beggars belief that any southern coastal Conservation Zones would be considered ‘surplus’ and having visited the area and many parts of the southern coast of Kangaroo Island we also resent the implication that the cliffs tops are ‘degraded’! This is crown land and owned and held in trust for us all and for future generations.

As business people, we would question the economics of the project; however, if it must proceed, it should be on the farmland further to the north, as in the earlier plans. One actually wonders if anyone from the department or government has stood on those cliffs when a ‘gentle’ southerly was blowing.

There are many others who have far more technical knowledge and understanding of the flora and fauna of this area who have submitted detailed responses to the online forum youSAy, and we would hope that their comments are taken seriously and respected.

Finally, what safeguards are in place, should this ridiculous proposal proceed, the land sold and then the golf course fails? Have caveats been planned to prevent subdivision or community title of the land, and prevention of the possibility of future housing?

David S Hay & Michael J Speers

Jean Turner

15 Jan 2018

I am registering my strong opposition to the proposed sale of adjoining coastal Crown Land parcels Section 507 and Allotment 1 Deposit Plan 76540 in the Hundred of Dudley. These land parcels, in the vicinity of Pelican Lagoon, are part of the continuous, intact strip of wild coastal cliff-top habitat facing Kangaroo Island's Southern Ocean coast. In my opinion, and also the opinion of many others, they are of high ecological and biodiversity value and should not be considered 'surplus' land to be disposed of. Rather they should be cherished and retained as part of South Australia's natural heritage estate.

I fortunately have had the opportunity to walk along part of this cliff-top area and have seen the diversity of native flora and fauna species that live in it and rely upon it. The succession of intact coastal habitats - ranging from the inland margin of tall coastal shrubland, through low, wind-swept coastal heath vegetation along the edge, to the magnificent, inaccessible sculptured cliff faces, extensive rocky intertidal reefs and small areas of sandy beach fringing the pristine Southern Ocean - is testament to the ecological value and integrity of these parcels.

Unfortunately, the map of these parcels provided for public comment showed little detail or insight into these habitats for anyone who hasn't actually been there. Thankfully, others have taken photos and shared them via their comments. Closer viewing of the parcels via the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources' own fantastic, publicly available 'Nature Maps' web site reveals aerial and oblique photographs documenting the intact vegetation (= fauna habitats) along the cliff-tops. And while there are no flora or fauna survey sites with species lists in either of these parcels, past biological surveys at other sites within the connected cliff-top habitat nearby recorded 26 species of native plants (shrubs, herbs and grasses) in a 30 metre x 30 metre survey area. The Biological Survey of Kangaroo Island identifies the significance of the low cliff-top heath vegetation for the elusive Southern Emu-wren. Just two tiny hints of the biological riches these land parcels support!

Over the years, the South Australian Government has invested public funds in purchasing land of high ecological and biodiversity value for conservation, adding to Crown Lands already owned by the people of South Australia. I support and applaud the Government for establishing this conservation estate on our behalf, for protection of our native species and their habitats. So it just doesn't make any sense to me for existing Crown Land parcels of high ecological and biodiversity value to be considered 'surplus to requirements' and sold to private investors.

Through Kangaroo Island Regional Director, Damian Miley, I urge the Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources and the Minister for Environment, the Hon. Ian Hunter, to reconsider the recommendation to dispose of these coastal parcels to the adjoining land owner; and then to properly assess and document their biodiversity and ecological values. Surely it is far better to keep these Crown Land parcels in trust for the future, than to sell them off and later regret the loss of integrity of the natural coastal environment?!