Australian Walking Company’s controversial Kangaroo Island accommodation plans head to Supreme Court
Plans for high-end accommodation in Kangaroo Island’s biggest conservation park face another battle before they see the light of day, with campaigners heading to the Supreme Court.
- Kangaroo Island: locals poised to fight Flinders Chase lodges
- KI businesses urged to jump on board with accommodation project
- Controversial KI accommodation plan wins development approval
Campaigners fighting plans for high-end accommodation in Kangaroo Island’s biggest national park have launched a Supreme Court battle to block the development.
Kangaroo Island Eco-Action has lodged a bid for an injunction to prevent work from starting on Australian Walking Company’s development in Flinders Chase National Park.
The group has applied for a judicial review of the State Commission Assessment Panel’s decision to approve the works and the Native Vegetation Council’s green light for the vegetation clearance.
Australian Walking Company, which already runs luxury tours in Victoria and Tasmania, plans to build two lodges at Sandy Creek and Sanderson Bay.
The lodges, alongside refurbished lighthouse keepers’ cottages at Cade du Couedic, would cater for walkers on guided tours of the Kangaroo Island Wilderness Trail.
Fraser Vickery, of Kangaroo Island Eco-Action, believed his group had “good grounds” for the review, arguing that national parks were “sacrosanct” and islanders should have been given a chance to have their say on the proposals.
Instead, because of the $4.8 million project’s development classification as a Category 1 proposal, locals were shut-out of the planning process — unable to make formal submissions.
“It’s been assessed on the basis that it’s a building or dwelling and not a major tourism development,” Mr Vickery said.
He said it should have instead been assessed as a Category 3 project.
“Flinders Chase is an ecologically fully functioning ecosystem — it hasn’t been disturbed and that’s unique anywhere in the world,” Mr Vickery said.
“It’s home to a whole range of nationally-listed species, as well as state-listed species.”
His group and Friends of Parks branches have raised about $48,000 to pay for lawyers’ fees.
Members will run another crowd-funding campaign to boost their legal action kitty as they head to court.
Mr Vickery said campaigners would also argue that there were other errors made during the approval process, which would “privatise” a section of the park.
These include the plans being contrary to the park’s management plan, which refers to small-scale, “eco-style” accommodation next to the 61km trail.
Mr Vickery said about 7km of roads and trails would need to be built to accommodate the plans, featuring about 20 buildings, and the Sandy Creek accommodation was about 3km away from the Kangaroo Island Wilderness Trail.
There was also no application submitted for a land division, he said, to allow the State Government to lease its land to the Australian Walking company.
AWC’s general manager Heath Garratt said the company had met “every standard, regulation or other environmental compliance requirement” through the “stringent” process. He said the company’s four-day walks would provide full-time work for 30 people.
“Support of the project has continued to grow with a fantastic response by the local community following our recent call for businesses and individuals who would like to work with us during the construction phase or once the walk is operational,” Mr Garratt said.
Mr Garratt said a 2013 Kangaroo Island Futures Authority Report recommended a commercial tour operator build accommodation at four “nodes” within the park, to service the wilderness trail.
“(The company) responded to the tender process and was selected as the proponent based on our proposal which utilises only two accommodation nodes in the park,” he said.
“The additional night of the four-day walk will be at the Light Keepers Cottages following a $300,000 Australian Walking Company-funded renovation.”
The Environment Department and Native Vegetation Council declined to comment, while the State Commission Assessment Panel did not respond before The Advertiser’s deadline.
michelle.etheridge@news.com.au