Big concerns about CST

THE proposed oceanside cruise ship terminal is bigger than first planned, taking away parkland and creating traffic challenges along The Spit, according to a new report.

The Bulletin in January revealed councillors had received a secret briefing about doubling the planned terminal at Philip Park on The Spit, with sources suggesting the costs could blow out from $400 million to $650 million. But Mayor Tom Tate, who promises ratepayers will “not tip in one cent”, yesterday suggested costings were likely to be “a lot less” than $450 million.

State Development released to the Bulletin a report by consultants to The Spit master plan who, after considering the council’s business case, made the following recommendations:

• Council, in embarking on a bigger terminal footprint, must consider the implications of removing about 25.4ha of land, and how that impacts on the city’s park demand and supply.

• Removing about 317 public carparking spaces from Philip Park may discourage beachgoers and force the relocation of a patrolled surf area.

• The jetty could provide shade but large numbers of cruise ship passengers may displace locals on the beach.

The report said the business case put forward by the council predicted that facility would represent a “net cost to the CoGC over the 30-year analysis term” and “generate a significant economic return and worthwhile investment”.

“The business case also concluded that a positive cost-benefit ratio would only be achieved through a home port option, not a transit port facility,” the report said.

“For a home port option there are a greater number of passenger and logistical support functions required.”

The terminal building will cover a gross floor area of 3750sq m, the jetty is 900m long and more ramping must be built to accommodate prime movers. A 780m breakwater will extend up to 6m above the lowest astronomical tide.

The council business case suggested the terminal was “not considered likely to have a significant impact on availability or quality of habitat”.

But it noted traffic upgrades would be required.

Mayor Tate said: “Council will present its business case to the State Government once The Spit master plan has been finalised and endorsed. As Mayor, I will be the first to rule out a cruise terminal if it does not meet environmental impact study criteria.’’

Responding to reports about costings of $450 million, Cr Tate said he believed the project would be “a lot less”.

But councillor Glenn Tozer said the latest report only backed up his concerns about the feasibility of the project, which began as a transit port.

“Any reasonable person who sees the report ... would suggest that the costs are likely to increase, which in turn will affect the economic feasibility of the project,” he said.