cover & inserts v2 - glenelg shire council - home page · 2004-09-10 · precinct redevelopment...

31 May 2004

Precinct Redevelopment Plan Contents

Methodology Context Approach Demand Analysis Context Approach Summary User Demand Underlying Demand Commercial Development Demand Options Options Summary Option A – Full Wharf Upgrade and Marina Option B – Existing Wharf and Partial Marina Option C – Full Wharf and Finger Jetties Option D – Full Wharf and Fishermen’s Wharf Upgrade Capital Cost Summary Recommendation Introduction Vision Recommendation Capital Cost Constrained Recommendation Operating Cost Model Methodology Revenue Operating Costs Annual Contribution

Appendices Appendix A – Consultation Results Report

Appendix B – Interested Party List

Appendix C – Operating Cost Model

Appendix D – Capital Cost Estimates

Appendix E – Preferred Vision Plan

Appendix F – Capital Constrained Plan

Appendix G – Vision Perspective Sketches

Precinct Redevelopment Plan Methodology

Page 2

Context The main focus of the proposed Precinct was initially the existing area known as the Trawler Wharf. During the study, it became apparent that additional studies were required to assess the potential use of the area currently being used by the smaller boats, known as the Fisherman’s Wharf area. Key objectives of the redevelopment plan were: To define the boundary of the proposed Precinct To prepare options for the redevelopment of the Portland Fishing Precinct to meet

projected future needs of the commercial fishing industry at Portland To recommend the most cost effective option and a redevelopment plan as a basis

for an RIDF capital funding application Approach 1. Desktop Review – A review of the existing documentation provided to us by DSE

was undertaken. This included previous studies in relation to the facility. 2. Consultation – A series of consultations were undertaken with both the facility users

(trawler operators and cray and abalone fishers), local council representatives, interested parties, State Government representatives and some local representatives. These consultations were undertaken either through face-to-face interviews or via telephone conversations. A listing of the interested parties are attached in Appendix B

3. Local Port Review – A tour of relevant local ports (in Victoria) was undertaken to

review similar ports controlled by government. This provided valuable information for future redevelopment scenarios for Portland. It also assisted the assessment of pricing sensitivities that will be referred to in the Pricing Report.

4. Demand Analysis – In order to provide a realistic assessment of the current and

projected future Precinct and infrastructure needs of the Portland commercial fishing industry over 10, 20 and 30-year timeframes respectively, further consultation to that already undertaken was conducted with Fisheries Victoria. This helped to establish the quota management system and the likelihood of its withdrawal, or alteration over the time frame in question. Through the information retrieved from each of the

existing users, the current berthing arrangements (provided by the Port of Portland) and the information relating to the future trend in quotas resulted in a demand analysis to provide the current and future (forecasts only) demand for berthing and associated facilities at Portland.

5. Preparation of Options – Once the demand was known, and the infrastructure

assessments completed, we were able to table a number of options for redevelopment of the Precinct to meet projected future needs.

6. Recommendation – Through presentation to the steering committee and subsequent

discussions regarding costs (limit of $2 million), operational and planning requirements, we were able to provide a recommendation regarding the preferred redevelopment option for the Precinct and the relevant boundaries for the proposed Precinct. The management of the proposed Precinct was integrated as far as practicable with the abutting Foreshore reserve to enable the precinct to maximise any recreational and tourism potential.

7. Capital Works Program - For the recommended development option, a capital works

cost plan was developed based on the scope of works identified in the preferred option precinct sketch plans. Also identified, were any capital funds required by the future Precinct managers for effective operation of the Precinct.

8. Operating Cost Model – For the recommended development option, an operating cost scenario was developed, including the maintenance costs of the facility. Within the operating cost model, an estimate of annual contributions required for depreciation on the assumption the entire Precinct is redeveloped/replaced in 30 years time was developed.

Precinct Redevelopment Plan Demand Analysis

Page 3

Context The demand for the Portland Fishing Precinct can be divided into three key areas: (i) User Demand – Consolidation, new business / new entrants. (ii) Underlying Demand – the demand relating to consumer demand, export demand,

regulatory effects. (iii) Commercial Development Demand – Value-add businesses.

Approach In investigating the demand, a number of methods were initially evaluated. These were: (i) Economic investigations (ii) Direct throughput analysis (assessing the volume of goods landed at the port) (iii) Interviews with users (both face to face and telephone) (iv) Industry information (sources such as ABARE, Victorian Fisheries, Australian

Bureau of Statistics). (v) Consultation with Industry While we had a preference for direct methods to assess the demand, sufficient reliable data was not available, especially in relation to the longer time forecasts. The following methods were used to collect the data:

Collection Method for Demand Data Demand Collection Method Underlying Stakeholder Consultation, Interviews with regulating bodies,

Interviews with users and Provedores (processors / exporters), economic advice, consumption data

User Interviews with users, potential new entrants Commercial Development Interviews with users, interviews with potential new business

ventures, interviews with industry The demand analysis also assumes that the facility infrastructure works highlighted as immediate requirements within the Infrastructure Assessment Report have been undertaken.

UnderlyingUnderlyingDemandDemand

UserUserDemandDemand

CommercialCommercialDevelopment Development

DemandDemand

Business DemandBusiness DemandConsolidation DemandConsolidation Demand

Consumer Demand Consumer Demand Export Demand Export Demand

Value-Add BusinessesValue-Add Businesses


Page 4

Summary The table below provides the cumulative results of the demand on the berths to be provided as part of the redeveloped facility.

Facility Demand (No. of Berths, Cumulative)

Existing 2004 10 Year 20 Year 30 Year

Large Trawler Berth (40m)

- 1 1 1 1

Trawler Berth - Permanent (20m to 30m)

5 4 4 4 4

Trawler Berth - Itinerant (20m to 40m)

0 (11 currently doubling up)

3* (Assume 14 itinerants)




Cray Berth (10m to 25m)

22 22 20 18 16

TOTAL Berths 27 30 28 26 24 * Trawler berths allowed for the loading / unloading of itinerant vessels. This should be

sufficient to allow those itinerant to unload and then to moor on swing moorings or double up with the agreement of the permanent berth vessel.

User Demand Summary The following issues drive user demand:

(i) Business growth (ii) Consolidation (iii) Facilities (iv) Location of the catch (v) Pricing of the catch

These issues result in a decrease in the number of fisherman’s berths (cray boats) required with a reduction of 2 by the 10th year, a further 2 by the 20th year and a further 2 again by the 30th year. There is also a requirement to park approximately 30 vehicles on or near the wharf area requiring about 1,000m2. The above information is based on the Port of Portland not using the Fisherman’s Wharf in competition to the Trawler Wharf facilities (that is the Trawler Wharf accommodates the entire fishing fleet) and there is no change to licence / quota regulations.


Page 5

Business Growth Many of the businesses interviewed indicated that with the existing quota system in place, their business growth from an increase in catch size is limited (the only exception to this are the squid fishers as they do not have a quota system, only licences to catch). Facility users indicated that the means available to them for business growth are:

1. To acquire other licences and/or quotas. 2. To partner/consolidate with others (consolidation demand is dealt with in the

following section). 3. To expand into complimentary uses such as processing or cannery operations.

Consolidation Throughout the consultation with both the users of the facilities and other associated parties such as Fisheries Victoria, there was a consistent view that industry consolidation will occur. This consolidation relates directly to the quota management system and likelihood of smaller operators combining their licences / quotas in order to be more efficient, ultimately deriving additional profits for themselves. We have estimated, based on our discussions, a 10% reduction in the cray vessel fleet each 10 year period. While consolidation is expected to occur in the cray (rock lobster) fleet, resulting in a reduction in the number of vessels operating from the facilities, it is expected that some will employ larger vessels, thus retaining the total length of boats tying up to the facilities. In relation to the trawler boats, the industry view is that consolidation is not expected to occur to as large an extent as most of these operators have larger quotas with fairly good efficiency. However, as time progresses, we received only anecdotal evidence that larger trawler vessels may be employed which utilise some different fishing methods resulting in larger catches. We have not taken this into account as insufficient information was received.

Consolidation Demand (No. of Berths) Additional / (Reduction)

2004 10 Year 20 Year 30 Year


- - - -

Trawler Berth – Permanent (20m to 30m)

- - - -

Trawler Berth – Itinerant (20m to 40m)

- - - -


- (2) (2) (2)

TOTAL Additional Berths - (2) (2) (2) Facilities In reviewing a number of other commercial fishing ports in the western Victoria area, we noted that a number of them have recently undergone significant capital renewal programs, including the refurbishment of the wharf structures (Apollo Bay and Port Fairy). Throughout the consultation process facility users reiterated that the present condition of Portland’s facilities, including the associated services such as the slipway, have discouraged potential investments. AFE (Australian Fishing Enterprises) indicated during an interview that the facilities have negatively impacted their decisions to base additional boats at Portland, they chose instead to locate them at Port Lincoln in South Australia. Based on our discussions with facility users if the facilities at Portland were to undergo refurbishment, there may be an industry shift. AFE have indicated that they would redirect additional vessels to an improved facility (although they would only require 1 berth and would manage their own fleet to time unloading activities). From our consultations we received no other information to suggest that further vessels would permanently berth at Portland, other trawlers may choose to unload at the facility perhaps as an itinerant. We have no direct information to suggest that this is the case,


Page 6

however, we have assumed that the redeveloped Trawler Wharf areas can be utilised for the itinerant fleet. From our discussions with the Cray fleet and due to neighbouring ports with newly refurbished wharf areas and the proximity to home bases, there should not be additional demand for the new facilities when provided at Portland (retaining the existing fee basis). In addition to the number of vessels, other facilitates will be required on the basis that the fishing facilities are located on the Trawler Wharf. If we were to assume that there is a requirement of two vehicles (based on information gathered during the consultation with the fishers) to be parked at the facility for every berth, then with a total number of berths required (a total of 30), area sufficient for 60 vehicles is required. With half of these vehicles able to be parked on the Trawler Wharf itself (in the centre), then an area is required for 30 vehicles. These vehicles may be located adjacent to the wharf area in public parking areas if required. Location of Catch A strong determining factor in relation to where the fishers unload their catch relates to the location of their catch. For the Trawlers who catch off the west coast of Tasmania and the south-western Victorian coast, Portland appears to be the most convenient deep-water port. It is our understanding from the interviews conducted that the reason some of these fishers do not land their catch in Portland relates to the congestion and condition of the facilities. On the basis that the facilities were upgraded to allow additional boats to unload, this may attract additional boats to unload their catch at Portland. The only basis for us to suggest additional demand as a result of the location relates to AFE (Australian Fishing Enterprises) who indicated they would potentially relocate some of their vessels to Portland. As this has been taken into account in the new entrant section of the Commercial Development Demand section, we are suggesting no impact other than additional itinerant fishers also previously taken into account.

Pricing of Catch Another factor affecting the demand for facilities is the market conditions for the catch. For example, the rock lobster industry is currently experiencing a lower price for their catch, which relates to, according to the fishers interviewed, lower demand from China due to SARS. If the price and other market conditions were to be low enough, some fishers may choose not to fish, or to delay fishing activities. As these issues only offset demand, and potentially only delay fishing activities in the short-term, we are assuming that this does not affect demand for the facility.


Page 7

Underlying Demand The following issues drive underlying demand:

(vi) Consumer demand (vii) Exports (viii) Imports (ix) Quota / Licence management (x) Food Safety and OH&S

In summary, issues driving underlying demand do not appear to significantly affect demand for the facilities at the Portland fishing precinct. Consumer Demand The largest demand driver for seafood is consumer demand. This demand indirectly influences the amount of seafood landed, the number of vessels involved in the catching activities and the facilities required. To understand this demand, National Economics have previously provided Bovis Lend Lease Consulting with an analysis of various Australian Bureau of Statistics data relating to the food industry. These were a combination of:

Food retailing survey (eg supermarkets and grocery stores, take-away food retailing, and other food retailing) – some 7,000 businesses;

Household expenditure survey (the survey covers approximately 8,000 households and has been conducted in 1994 and again in 2000);

Consumption of foodstuffs (reported on a national basis and provides estimates of per capita consumption of various food types); and

Population growth According to National Economics, the final consumer demand depends mainly on the population growth and can be summarised broadly by a long-term growth of 2.3% per annum.

Consumer demand forecasts suggest ongoing increases in the future which, due to the nature of the management controls in place are expected to be met through aquaculture and imports rather than increases in catch size. Export Advances in food preparation, packaging and handling technology are making it more feasible to package and transport food internationally. Additionally recent global concerns over food quality help to increase the attractiveness of Australia as a safe source of food. Australia is a net exporter of food, holding 2.7% share of the world’s processed food export markets (Australian Food Statistics, ABARE 2000). A minor change in the balance of world export markets could result in rapid growth for local exporters. According to ABARE (Australian Fisheries Statistics, ABARE 2002) Victorian exports as a percentage of state production is decreasing – albeit, a small decrease, over the past few years. This is assumed to have occurred due to adverse international conditions, certainly in recent times associated with September 11 terrorism attack and the most recent SARS outbreak. With the opening of various Asian markets and the relaxing of international pressures and an improving economic climate, it is expected that the demand for export will again grow. There is little or no data to suggest what the growth may be in this regard and given the management restrictions (quotas) in place, it is expected that if demand does grow, the product price will be impacted by that demand, not the quantity of landed seafood (see the Aquaculture section for alternative sources to meet additional export demand). Based on the above, we have assumed that there will be no impact from export demand in relation to the Portland facilities.


Page 8

Import As Australia’s waters have low nutrient levels, the waters have low catch rates in comparison to international levels. Therefore, a significant amount of seafood is imported into Australia. While seafood imports have no direct effect on the facilities required at Portland, indirectly, if the cost imports are less than the cost of fishing locally, there may be a reduction in the facilities required due to a potential reduction in fishing activities. Like exports, the key driver to the price is the foreign exchange rate – the higher the rate, the lower the exports, and hence a subsequent increase in imports. According to data from ABARE, it appears that most of the species imported are different to those caught in Australian / Victorian waters (with the exception of Lobster and some fin fish). Given this information, and the data that imports over the past few years are fairly constant (Australian Fisheries Statistics, ABARE 2002), we have assumed no impact on the underlying demand at the facilities at Portland barring a significant change in local and international economies. Quota and Licence Management The Fisheries Act 1995 has a key objective of utilising fisheries resources in a manner consistent with ecologically sustainable development (ESD) principles. In short, managing resources in a way that meets the needs of the community today while conserving ecosystems for the benefit of future generations. Regulations such as licence limitation, catch quotas, size limits, gear restrictions, seasonal and area closures are imposed to support this primary objective. Unregulated access to fisheries resources typically results in unsustainable fishing practices and management controls therefore aim to avoid fishery collapse, habitat loss or decreases in the abundance of rare species. The commercial fishing industry in Victoria is one of the most highly regulated and monitored industries operating in Victoria today.

Based on discussions with Fisheries Victoria, there are no plans to either increase or decrease the quotas or restrictions in the near future. Provided that the quota management system and other restrictions remain in place in our design period, there will be no growth in fishing relating to these quotas / licences. Food Safety and Health & Safety In January 2004, a new food safety law will be introduced into the Victorian fishing industry. This new law will impact fishing wharf and/or unloading facilities in areas including (but not limited to); surface, handling and waste. Facility users and industry sources consulted advise that they also expect to see an impact on fishing vessels, with some requiring chilled compartments, or alternate handling of their catch. In recent times, OH&S has become more of an issue both on the boats and on the wharf areas. In our discussions with the users and Seafood Victoria (Trainaing areas), more focus is being placed on the health and safety of the operators both on and off the boats. Based on the discussions, there is limited impact of these items directly on the demand for facilities (i.e. the number of berths).


Page 9

Commercial Development Demand The following issues drive the commercial development demand:

(i) Aquaculture (ii) New Entrants (iii) Complimentary Industry

The following two tables represent a summary of the commercial development demand for the fishing precinct.

Commercial Development Demand (No. of Berths) Additional / (Reduction)



1 - - -

Trawler Berth – Permanent (20m to 30m)

(1) - - -

Trawler Berth – Itinerant (20m to 40m)

2*

- - -


- - - -

TOTAL Additional Berths 2 - - -

* Use of these berths is shared between 3 itinerants and 1 Tall ship

Aquaculture Production and value According to ABARE, Australia’s aquaculture gross value of production (GVP) has nearly trebled over the past decade. Aquaculture GVP rose from $202 million in 1991-92 to $733 million in 2001-02. This represents an annual average growth rate of nearly 11 per cent. As a result of this growth, aquaculture’s share of Australia’s total fisheries GVP increased from 15 per cent in 1991-92 to 30 percent in 2001-02 (ABARE 2003). Most of the species farmed in Australia are high unit value species. While in 2001- 02 aquaculture represented 30 per cent of Australia’s fisheries GVP, it represented only 19 per cent of the total volume of fisheries production (44,300 tonnes out of 233,300 tonnes) (ABARE 2003). Victoria In addition to $3.5 million funding provided by the state government over four years from 2000-01, the state government recently announced a new funding package of $1.1 million to implement the marine aquaculture recommendations of the Environment Conservation Council’s Marine Coastal and Estuarine Investigation announced in August 2000. The funds will be used to prepare management plans for 12 marine growing areas (offshore and land based sites), mainly around Port Phillip Bay, to farm mussels, scallop, abalone, flat oysters and finfish. The implementation of the marine growing areas will see a near trebling of the current area available for marine aquaculture (land based and offshore) (Victorian Aquaculture Council 2002).


Page 10

Portland Bay According to Fisheries Victoria, part of the marine growing areas identified in the previous section is a marine area in the Bay of Portland. This 100 to 200 hectare site is proposed for an offshore finfish aquaculture site. The site is expected to be in operation within 4 years (Fisheries Victoria). This is likely to significantly contribute to Portland area growth including the requirement to land or offload up to an additional 1,000 tonnes of finfish. This may require up to an additional 4-5 vessels (small to medium trawlers size). It is expected that the existing fleet will absorb some of the additional capacity with a requirement for 3 additional itinerant berths required at the facility. The diagram below shows the location of the proposed aquaculture zone.


Page 11

The aquaculture demand can be summarized as follows:

Aquaculture Demand (No. of Berths) Additional / (Reduction)



- - - -


- - - -


1*

- - -


- - - -

TOTAL Additional Berths 1 - - - * Allow 3 itinerants to share facilities (loading and unloading). If further itinerants use the facilities, then they will be encouraged to unload, then moor on swing moorings)

New Entrants Australian Fishing Enterprises While undertaking the consultation with the facility users, Australian Fishing Enterprises (AFE) indicated their interest in the Port of Portland’s fishing facilities. AFE are not technically new entrants, however they have additional boats that currently use the Port Lincoln facilities and may relocate to Portland. They have recently purchased land in Portland with a view to undertake cannery operations there, on the basis that the facilities at Portland had the capacity to accommodate the number of vessels they require to make that operation commercially viable. If they were to base their operations at Portland, a number of additional trawlers would be located there, and additional boats expected to unload their catch at Portland. Currently, AFE operate 4 trawlers from Portland, with another 2 being planned at the moment. If AFE were to open the cannery, then an additional vessel of 40m in length would be required, taking the total of vessels to 7. AFE have also indicated that they would be willing to discuss a commercial arrangement for a dedicated 40m berth area from where they could schedule their vessels (replacing their existing single berth).

New Entrant Demand (No. of Berths) Additional / (Reduction)



1 - - -


(1) - - -


- - - -


- - - -

TOTAL Additional Berths 0 net - - -


Page 12

Complimentary Industry Tall Ships Facility users and stakeholder consulted with advise that two to three times a year, tall ships tie up to the trawler wharf, requiring a re-shuffle of vessels to accommodate. It is suggested that in order to facilitate this occurring, that they be treated like an itinerant user and such a berth be included in that area of the precinct.

Complimentary Industry Demand (No. of Berths) Additional / (Reduction)



- - - -


- - - -


1 (Tall ship)

- - -


- - - -

TOTAL Additional Berths 1 - - -

Precinct Redevelopment Plan Option Analysis

Page 13

Options Summary During the course of studies undertaken for the redevelopment of the Portland Fishing Precinct, several options were considered. The following options were considered in establishing a redevelopment concept:

(A) Full Wharf Upgrade and Marina Trawler Wharf upgrade; Trawler Wharf extension; and Western Marina construction.

(B) Existing Wharf and Partial Marina

Trawler Wharf upgrade; Partial Trawler Wharf extension; and Partial Western Marina construction.

(C) Full Wharf and Finger Jetties

a. Trawler Wharf upgrade; b. Trawler Wharf extension; and c. Western and eastern finger wharf construction.

(D) Full Wharf and Fisherman’s Wharf Upgrade

d. Trawler Wharf upgrade; e. Trawler Wharf extension; and f. Fisherman’s Wharf upgrade.

The following section details further each of the above options including a better description of the works and the costs and issues associated with implementation and operation.


Page 14

OPTION A – Full Wharf Upgrade and Marina

Scope of Works This option involves: Upgrade of the existing Trawler Wharf as identified in the condition report; Extension of the Trawler Wharf by 110m to house 3 new berths, 1 x 40m berth and 2 x

35m berths and associated services. This extension of the wharf on the eastern side constructed of precast concrete piles and deck, with the western side in reclaimed land with rock revetment; and

Construction of a new, 24 berth floating marina to house the smaller vessels including access ramps and associated services.

Capital Cost The following table shows in summary, the capital costs associated with the scope of works. For exclusions and inclusion, please refer to the cost estimate summaries contained in Appendix D.

Work Scope Capital Cost Upgrade of Trawler Wharf $0.42m 110m Extension of Trawler Wharf $2.66m Floating Marina (24 Berths) $1.23m Total Capital Cost $4.32m

Maintenance This option represents the best maintenance regime. With a refurbished Trawler wharf, and newly constructed areas, maintenance will be expected to be low for a period of time, with a gentle increase over time. The only major concern will be the life of the steel sheet piles and the dredged depth of water that should undergo an annual or biannual monitoring program. Issues This options requires significantly more funding than that envisaged under the RIDF

(Regional Infrastructure Development Fund) Some of the Cray fishers may object to being located away from the area they currently

reside. In the past, some of these people have said that they simply would not go over to the western side of the Trawler Wharf.

The new marina is some distance from a cray processing facility, located on the Fisherman’s Wharf. We understand that the lease for this facility expires in 2008. Some use of the wharf (unloading for example) near this facility may be required.

The proposed concept is yet to be fully tested with the fishers. The cost estimates are only based on a concept and will require further detailed

planning once the design is established.


Page 15

OPTION B – Existing Wharf and Partial Marina

Scope of Works This option involves: Upgrade of the existing Trawler Wharf as identified in the condition report; Extension of the Trawler Wharf on the west side only by 30m (no additional trawler

berths provided). This extension is constructed with reclaimed land with rock revetment; and

Construction of a new, 16 berth floating marina to house some of the smaller vessels including one access ramp and associated services.

Capital Cost

The following table shows in summary, the capital costs associated with the scope of works. For exclusions and inclusion, please refer to the cost estimate summaries contained in Appendix D.

Work Scope Capital Cost Upgrade of Trawler Wharf $0.42m 30m Extension of Trawler Wharf $0.67m Floating Marina (16 berths) $0.94m Total Capital Cost $2.03m

Maintenance

This option, like option A, represents an efficient maintenance regime. A refurbished Trawler wharf, and newly constructed areas, maintenance will be expected to be low for a period of time, with a gentle increase over time. Of concern again is the life of the steel sheet piles and the dredged depth of water that should undergo an annual or biannual monitoring program. The other for concern (for PoP) is the use of the Fisherman’s Wharf area, which according to the condition reports, should be okay for a two-year period. After that two-year period, costly maintenance and other activities may have to be conducted.

Issues

This options meets the funding envisaged under the RIDF (Regional Infrastructure Development Fund) - $2.0m

Not all Cray fishers can be located onto the new marina requiring an extended period to be housed on the Fisherman’s Wharf. Further capital may be required if the extended period is greater than 2 years.

Some of the Cray fishers may object to being located off the Fisherman’s Wharf. The new marina is some distance from a Cray processing facility, located on the

Fisherman’s Wharf. We understand that the lease for this facility expires in 2008. Some use of the wharf (unloading for example) near this facility may be required.

Further capital works will be required to fully satisfy demand on the Trawler Wharf. The proposed concept is yet to be fully tested with the fishers. The cost estimates are only based on a concept and will require further detailed



Page 16

OPTION C – Full Wharf and Finger Jetties


35m berths and associated services. This extension of the wharf is only on the western side in reclaimed land with rock revetment; and

Construction of new, 22 berth finger wharf structure to house the smaller vessels including associated services.


Work Scope Capital Cost Upgrade of Trawler Wharf $0.42m 110m Extension of Trawler Wharf $2.66m Finger Wharf (22 berths) $1.39m Total Capital Cost $4.48m

Maintenance This option represents the second best maintenance regime. With a refurbished Trawler wharf, and newly constructed areas, maintenance will be expected to be low for a period of time, with an increase over time. The only major concern will be the life of the steel sheet piles and the depth of water that should undergo an annual or biannual monitoring program. In tis case, because the smaller vessels need to come further in towards Henty Beach, additional dredging is expected to be required. Issues This options exceeds the funding envisaged under the RIDF (Regional Infrastructure

Development Fund) - $2.0m This option requires additional capital cost to construct jetties due to additional piling

and associated activities Some of the Cray fishers may object to being located away from the area they currently

reside. The new finger jetties are some distance from a Cray processing facility, located on the

Fisherman’s Wharf. We understand that the lease for this facility expires in 2008. Some use of the wharf (unloading for example) near this facility may be required.




Page 17

OPTION D – Full Wharf and Upgrade Fisherman’s Wharf


35m berths and associated services. This extension of the wharf on the eastern side constructed of precast concrete piles and deck, with the western side in reclaimed land with rock revetment; and

Upgrade / refurbishment of the Fisherman’s Wharf to allow life to be extended for the wharf area.


Work Scope Capital Cost Upgrade of Trawler Wharf $0.42m 110m Extension of Trawler Wharf $2.66m Upgrade Fisherman’s Wharf $1.31m Total Capital Cost $4.40m

Maintenance This option represents the worst maintenance regime. With a refurbished Trawler wharf, and Fisherman’s Wharf, considerable maintenance will be required to maintain operations. Specific areas of concern would be the life of the steel sheet piles, the depth of water, structural adequacy of the piles and the deck on the Fisherman’s wharf. All these will require increased level of minor capital works and need to undergo an annual monitoring program. Issues This option exceeds the funding envisaged under the RIDF (Regional Infrastructure

Development Fund). We understand that the lease for the Cray processing facility on the Fisherman’s wharf,

expires in 2008. The fishing precinct is dislocated and requires the maintenance and operation of two

areas not adjacent to each other. The Port of Portland has not offered the Fisherman’s Wharf to the Government. The Port of Portland has a strong desire to remove the fishing vessels from the

Fisherman’s Wharf due to concerns over environmental issues (they have identified the need to provide a buffer zone).




Page 18

Capital Cost Summary The following table provides a summary of the estimated capital costs for each of the options.

WORK SCOPE($m) A B C DTrawler Wharf Upgrade 0.42$ 0.42$ 0.42$ 0.42$

Trawler Wharf Extension - 110m 2.66$ 2.66$ 2.66$

Trawler Wharf Extension - 70m *

Trawler Wharf Extension - 30m 0.67$

Marina - 24 Berths 1.23$

Marina - 16 Berths 0.94$

Finger Wharf - 22 Berths** 1.39$

Fishermans Wharf Upgrade 1.31$

TOTAL COST 4.32$ 2.03$ 4.48$ 4.40$

* 70m Extension not priced but proportioned based on 70m of the 110m extension** Finger Jetties assumed to be similar construction required for 24 berth marina option, but with 22 berths and 11 access rampsNOTE: Refer to the Cost Estimates in the Appendices for specific exclusions, accuracy levels and other inclusions

Precinct Redevelopment Plan Recommendation

Page 19

Introduction The following section identifies the preferred option and the reasons for that selection. Based on discussions with DSE, DOI and the Council, and the current method of funding the development, we have made the recommendation taking into account the need to stage the delivery. We have therefore made two separate recommendations:

(i) Recommended Option (considered as stage one of the development); and (ii) Vision for the Fishing Precinct; and

Recommendation Based on the RIDF amount of $2m, it is recommended that the Department of Sustainability and the Environment pursue the development of Option B – Existing Wharf and Partial Marina as a staged delivery of the precinct vision. This option is recommended based on the following: Meeting the RIDF funding for capital cost. The lowest maintenance cost to Government. The avoidance of potentially lengthy and protracted negotiations relating to the

Fisherman’s Wharf. The avoidance of additional liability in taking over the Fisherman’s Wharf. The visual aspect from the town will be improved due to the marina structure and

berthing boats on the west side of the existing groyne and Trawler Wharf. It is important to note, that this option requires the cooperation of the Port of Portland, as not all vessels will be relocated to the new marina. In addition to this, further capital funding of around $2.5m will need to be allocated within a two-year period to build the remainder of the trawler wharf extension and the second marina to house the remainder of the vessels. If a period of greater than two years is required, works will be required to be undertaken on the Fisherman’s Wharf area occupied by those fishers not yet relocated to the new marina.

We have prepared a plan identifying this option in more detail. Please refer to Appendix E – Recommended Option. Precinct Vision It is recommended that the Department of Sustainability and the Environment also pursue the ultimate development of Option A – Full Wharf and Marina. This option is recommended based on the following: The lowest capital cost to Government (based on no capital constraints). The lowest maintenance cost to Government. The avoidance of potentially lengthy and protracted negotiations relating to the

Fisherman’s Wharf. The avoidance of additional liability in taking over the Fisherman’s Wharf. The visual aspect from the town will be improved due to the marina structure and

berthing boats on the west side of the existing groyne and Trawler Wharf. We have also prepared a plan identifying this option in more detail. Please refer to Appendix F Preferred Vision Plan. We have also prepared some perspective sketches of the ultimate vision for the precinct, which have been included in Appendix G – Vision Perspective Sketches. Proposed Fishing Precinct Boundary It is recommended that the Fishing Precinct boundary surround the structural elements above the water line. The only area that will require further discussions between Council, the Port of Portland and DSE is the roadway area south of the main wharf area. A boundary has been proposed but the final boundary in this area will need to be agreed. See appendix H which shows the boundary.

Precinct Redevelopment Plan Operating Cost Model

Page 20

Methodology Please note: the following operating cost model is only intended to be a guide for costing purposes only. It should not be used to establish any party’s agreement to provide services (such as office area by the Glenelg Shire Council). The major purpose of the operating cost model is to estimate potential berthing fees to recover operating costs. The operating cost was developed through a combination of consultation with other Port operators (specifically the Port Fairy management) and discussions with the Steering Committee for the Proposed Redevelopment Port of Portland Fishing Precinct. An operating cost model was developed to establish the various elements of the cost, and the likely revenue based on the current levels of rent paid by the existing users (sourced from the Port of Portland). The difference between the revenue and cost being the operating surplus or deficit. The various categories of cost are: Employee Related Expenses; Offices; Repairs & Maintenance; Environment Management & Safety; Marketing Expense; Communications; Stationery and Office Requisite; Computer Services and Equipment (by Council); Motor Vehicle Expenses; Insurance; Legal; Water, Electricity; Travel & Related Expenses; and Miscellaneous Expenses.

In establishing these costs, funding assumptions were made in relation to the support that may be provided by Glenelg Shire Council and the Government. The model also establishes the annual contribution required to be set aside in order to refurbish / replace the fishing precinct in 30 years.

Summary Proposed Portland Fishing PrecinctOperating Model 1 10 20 30

Year Ending Jun-05 Jun-14 Jun-24 Jun-34Revenue

Trawler Berths 29,109 36,353 46,535 59,569Fihermans Berths 60,866 76,013 97,303 124,556Itinerant Berths 17,948 22,415 28,693 36,729Subtotal 107,923 134,781 172,531 220,854

Operating ExpensesEmployee Related Expenses 90,000 74,932 95,919 122,784Offices (assumed to be co-located with Council) - - - -Repairs & Maintenance 10,000 12,489 15,987 20,464Environment Management & Safety 2,000 2,498 3,197 4,093Marketing Expense 2,000 2,498 3,197 4,093Communications (telephone at council, mobile phone costs) 1,200 1,499 1,918 2,456Stationery and Office Requisit (by Council) - - - -Computer Services and Equipment (by Council) - - - -Motor Vehicle Expenses 15,000 18,733 23,980 30,696Insurance (by DOI) - - - -Legal (by DOI) - - - -Water, Electricty 40,500 50,579 64,745 82,879Travel & Related Expenses 1,000 1,249 1,599 2,046Miscellaneous Expenses 2,000 2,498 3,197 4,093Subtotal 163,700 166,973 213,740 273,605

OPERATING SURPLUS / (DEFECIT) (55,777) (32,192) (41,209) (52,750) The figures above are indicative based on the assumptions on the following pages. As the final operating model has not been selected, a range of between $106,000 to $160,000 operating cost should be allowed (plus or minus 20% on a typical year operating cost of $133,700 without escalation). This results in a typical year operating cost of a surplus of $1,923 and a deficit of $52,077.


Page 21

Revenue The Port of Portland provided revenue amounts to BLLC. These amounts are based on a berthing cost per meter for each of the vessels berthed at both the Trawler Wharf, and the Fisherman’s Wharf. The amounts are: Trawler Berth: $191.00/m/annum Fisherman’s Berth: $59.56/m/annum Itinerant Berth: $1.09/m/day Outgoings: $154.03/month ($1,848.36/year)

In establishing the model, it is assumed that the revenue for the 2003/2004 as advised by Port of Portland will not change (see the pricing report for a more detailed explanation). Therefore, the existing berthing fees will be charged for the new facility. Operating Costs As identified in the methodology section, various costs were assessed for the operation of the Port of Portland Fishing Precinct. The following section identifies the assumptions for each cost area. Employee related expenses – A full-time Ports operations Manager is included at a rate of $60,000 per annum, which is inclusive of on-costs. In the initial 6-month period of operations, another employee has been allowed at the same rate ($30,000 being half the rate due to the 6 month period). This is to assist in establishing revised operations on the facilities such as traffic management and safety, and the management of the new berthing arrangements on the marina area. Offices – No office costs have been included, as it has been assumed that Glenelg Shire Council will provide an office from which the Port Manager may operate from as required. Repairs and Maintenance – Included is minor repairs on the trawler wharf and the fisherman’s marina. This to cover only minor works such as bollard repair, minor asphalt repair and similar activities. If further repairs are required due to damage caused by a vessel from the fleet, it is assumed to be provided through insurance or recovered from the party whom caused the damage. Maintenance activities include activities such as

monitoring (for example the steel sheet pile wall, depths etc) and other activities such as pest control, waste and similar. With the new structures, it is expected that maintenance activities will be low to begin with, with an increase over time. The floating marina is expected to need minimal maintenance over its 30-year life. Environment Management & Safety – Included is the provision of personal protective equipment for the employee/s and an allowance for the management of any minor spills. Any major environmental issues are outside this item and are expected to be covered under insurance. Marketing Expense – Included is an annual report distribution to the users and also quarterly information brochures as required. Communications – Included is a mobile phone for the Fishing Port Manager. Other telephone or facsimile costs are assumed to be provided by the Glenelg Shire Council as part of the office space provided. Stationery and Office Requisite – No costs have been included, as it has been assumed that Glenelg Shire Council will provide these services and offices for which the Port Manager may operate from as required. Computer Services and Equipment – No costs have been included, as it has been assumed that Glenelg Shire Council will provide these services and offices for which the Port Manager may operate from as required. Motor Vehicle Expenses – Included as one vehicle for the Fishing Port Manager at a rate of $15,000 per annum, which is inclusive of running costs, maintenance and fuel. Insurance – The insurance required may be public liability, and professional indemnity and is assumed provided by Government as part of the provision for a number of fishing ports. Legal – This includes legal activities in relation to the establishment of berth arrangements and is assumed to be recovered in the berthing fees. Any other legal charges fall outside the operating costs. Water, Electricity – Included is the forecast electricity and water usage for each berth for the trawler berths and the fisherman’s berths. The basis of the forecast cost is the


Page 22

existing outgoings charge less a margin (assumed to be approximately 20% and round the outgoings cost to $1,500 per berth per year. This amount needs to be verified from actual charges for the facility however, it is our understanding from the Port of Portland that separate charges are not known for the fishing facility). Travel & Related Expenses – Included is an allowance for minor travel related costs such as parking, accommodation and meals if required. Miscellaneous Expenses – Included is any other costs that may be incurred whilst managing the operations of the fishing port. Annual Contribution In order to establish the annual contribution required to effectively replace the structure at the end of 30 years a scope of works was first identified. This scope includes: Replacement of the sheet piles Pile wrapping (as required) Re-surfacing Re-line marking Replace tie rods Replace whaler Rebuild revetment walls Refurbish/replace services Lighting Replace marina as required

At today’s dollars, a very preliminary estimate of $5,000,000 was allocated to this scope of work. Please note, as the final scope of works is not known until actual replacement time, this estimate is only a preliminary allowance. The $5,000,000 was then escalated to the 30th year at a CPI rate of 2.5% per annum resulting in a future value of $10.2million. This amount was then annualised to provide the contribution required to be made each year at a nominal discount rate of 8.65%. The amount required to be set aside would on an annual basis is $87,733.

Precinct Redevelopment Plan Appendix A Consultation Results

Page 23

Contents

1.0 Introduction 3 2.0 Interview Profile 3

2.1 Overall Profile 3 2.2 Facility Users 3

3.0 Facility User Operations 4 3.1 Vessels 4 3.2 Vessel Movements (Days per Week) 4 3.3 Peak Fishing Periods 5 3.4 Berths 5 3.5 Unloading 5 3.6 Transport 5

4.0 Facility User Issues 6 4.1 Food Safety 6 4.2 Facility Services 6 4.3 Facility Improvements 7 4.4 Special Requirements 7 4.5 Other Comments 8

5.0 Other Interested Party Issues 10 5.1 Comments 10

6.0 Appendix A Facility User Questionnaire Summary 12 7.0 Appendix B Other Interested Parties Summary 21

1.0 Introduction

As part of the Portland Fishing Precinct preliminary studies stakeholders consisting of Facility Users and Other Interested Parties (for the Fishermans and Trawler Wharves) were invited to participate in a user questionnaire (titled Facility User Questionnaire).

In order to establish detail within the survey and collate detailed comments and reasoning behind answers direct one-on-one interviews were conducted with 17 Facility Users and 9 Other Interested Parties.

This report summarises the results of the data analysis.

2.0 Interview Profile

The stakeholder list supplied identified 42 Facility Users and 18 Other Interested Parties. Correspondence advising of the preliminary studies and explaining the consultation process went to all 60 stakeholders. The tables below detail the stakeholder and facility user profiles for the consultation participants.

2.1 Overall Profile

STAKEHOLDER CONTACT %

Facility Users

Introductory Letter 42 100%

Follow up phonecall 33* 79%

Consultation participant 17 40%

Other Interested Parties

Introductory Letter 18 100%

Consultation participant 9 50%

* Contact telephone numbers were not available for the remaining 9 (21%).

2.2 Facility Users

CATEGORY CONSULTATION %

Cray / Squid fisher 10 59%

Trawler operator 4 24%

Other ** 3 18%

TOTAL 17

** OTHER includes processor, boat surveyor/analyst, boat builder/maintainer.

3.0 Facility User Operations

This section summarises the consultation responses by the Facility Users to operational issues faced by the businesses they operate at the fishing precinct facilities.

3.1 Vessels

CATEGORY CONSULTATION NO. OF VESSELS

Cray / Squid fisher 10 10

Trawler operator 4 8

Other ** 3 1

TOTAL 17 19

** OTHER includes processor, boat surveyor/analyst, boat builder/maintainer.

3.2 Vessel Movements (Days per Week)

The table below highlights that most cray fish vessels go out daily while trawlers go out mainly every 3 to 5 days (weather dependant of course). Due to the higher number of cray vessels at Portland the overall vessel movements (see diagram) per day is high at 50%.

DAYS OF THE WEEK OVERALL CRAY / SQUID TRAWLER

Daily 50% 80% 13%

Every 2 to 3 days / week 6% - 13%



Every 10 to 14 days / month 6% 10% -

Every 14 to 28 days / month 6% 10% -

Overall Facility User Vessel Movements

Daily

Every 2 to 3 days / week



Every 10 to 14 days / month

Every 14 to 28 days / month

3.3 Peak Fishing Periods

The peak fishing periods detailed in the table below were those specified by each of the Facility Users. The diagram below highlights the overall peak months from November to June.

PERIOD CRAY / SQUID TRAWLER

November to January 10% -

November to March 10% -

November to May 20% -

November to August 30% -

February to June - 13%

March 10% -

April to May 10% -

June to July - 25%

Unknown 10% 63%

January

February

March

AprilMay

June

July

August

September

October

November

DecemberJanuary

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

3.4 Berths

Current practices see all of the trawler operators utilising the Trawler Wharf when staying in port. The majority of cray fishers consulted use the current Fishermans Wharf with some vessels being dry berthed when not in use.

BERTH FACILITY CRAY / SQUID TRAWLER

Trawler Wharf 10% 100%

Fishermans Wharf 80% -

Other* 20% -

*Other includes dry berths or other ports

3.5 Unloading

Due to the condition and congestion of the current facilities approximately 40% of the users nominated more than one unloading area when they came into port based on availability at the time.

UNLOADING FACILITY** CRAY / SQUID TRAWLER

Trawler Wharf 9% 57%

Fishermans Wharf 82% -

Port of Portland Commercial Port - 43%

Unknown 9% -

**Some Facility Users nominated more than one loading area when in port.

3.6 Transport

TRANSPORT TYPE***

Car / Van / Utility 65%

Semi-trailer / Crane truck 35%

***Some Facility Users nominated more than one form of transport.

4.0 Facility User Issues

The following section summarises the comments and issues relating to the facilities, services, requirements and improvements believed to be required by the Facility Users consulted.

4.1 Food Safety

Food safety was a recognised issue by all Facility User consultation participants with all agreeing it would impact their business in varying degrees based on their catch. Other comments in relation to food safety included:

Need to be addressed at the current facility – need a washable wharf surface.

Will ensure wider export market acceptance & provide inroads into European markets.

Will encourage boat development in areas such as refrigeration which in turn will impact fishing cycles.

Live catches will not be impacted in the same manner – the trawler industry will be more impacted.

Food safety requirements have gone too far but they need to be adhered to.

Current contamination issues created through the utilisation of the Commercial Port facilities need to be resolved.

4.2 Facility Services

The table below summarises the services identified as necessary at a wharf facility by the Facility Users consulted.

SERVICE CRAY / SQUID TRAWLER

Water 40% 100%

Waste 40% 75%

Toilet 40% 25%

Drive by Security - 25%

Lighting 20% 75%

Washdown 30% 25%

Processing - -

Fuel - 25%

Fuel bowser 30% -

Fuel truck 40% 75%

3 phase power 70% 100%

Showers - -

Ice - 25%

Storage 10% -

Fire fighting equipment 10% -

Telephone 10% -

Lifesaving equipment 10% -

4.3 Facility Improvements

Aside from the necessary services other comments made by the Facility Users consulted in relation to potential facility improvements include:

Safe secure access along the wharf and to boats.

Development of retail / commercial operations around the precinct.

Need more wharf space as there is too much congestion.

Ensure better price parity of Trawler Wharf as it is currently approximately 3 times more per metre than other ports.

Incorporate tourism aspect and maintain public access.

Extend the Trawler Wharf to the extent of the groyne to allow alongside berthing on the eastern side only.

Pottable water quality – it is currently undrinkable.

Carparking was raised by several participants.

Include a storage yard.

Maintenance bay with high pressure water for cleaning.

Better unloading areas and space to accommodate all the vessels.

200 tonne travel lift to accommodate the fleet.

A single multi purpose slipway.

The wharves that service the slips need to be cleaned.

Autonomous management.

Alongside berthing on both west & eastern side of the Trawler Wharf.

Prefer a usable open plan wharf with no designated bays – pens are difficult for manoeuvrability and waste space.

Washable concrete surface.

Bollards.

Dedicated loading bay is needed for peak periods to ensure vessels keep moving on to allow unloading – a 2 bay loading facility would be ideal to ensure timely unloading.

Ensure a 4m draw fro trawler berthing on eastern side.

4.4 Special Requirements

Further special requirements mentioned by the Facility Users consulted include:

Straddle lift (10-30 tonnes).

Boat building facilities / Boat ramp (8m wide)

A few of the fishers requested a weigh station / area.

Non slip surfaces.

Several requested an operable slipway (250-300 tonne).

Several fishers requested maintaining the ability to off load, tie up and do everything in one spot – direct access.

No designated fuel bay - No designated unloading bay.

Dry berthing facilities / area.

A designated unloading area to transport direct to a processor.

Ability to accommodate larger trawlers on Trawler Wharf (for example 37m).

A clear deck on the wharf with only services infringing on the space.

Direct access to Moyston Court – relocation will create double handling of crays.

Some requests for space to uncoil (rewind) wire onto the boat as each trawler has to do this maintenance every 18 odd months.

Several requests for alongside berthing.

4.5 Other Comments

Other comments made by the Facility Users consulted include:

Existing facility

Several users agree Portland is a good central location for fishing in the Discovery Bay area, although without adequate facilities would need to consider relocation.

Need to ensure separation of trawlers and crays - overcrowding is the big issue.

Existing facility is good as it is calm, no surge, good water quality, carparking, offloading facilities, proximity to processing.

Water on the western side of the Trawler Wharf is warmer – unsuitable for cray well boats.

Front part of Fishermans Wharf has been condemned – can’t access the area for small maintenance works.

Like the circulation of water from the canal as it allows keeping catch in boat well if required.

This is a local port that has missed out on funding for a long time.

Water quality is an issue – an estuary from Wattle Creek.

Some of the existing cray fishers want to stay in the existing facilities and pay less fees – others are willing to pay for better facilities.

Shallow low tide water with low circulation means stagnant water and kills fish/crays – at Fishermans Wharf able to leave crays overnight.

The canal is full of bilgewater and fuel spills.

Business expansion has been restricted by poor facilities – for example a 37m trawler will be restricted on timings it can come into port as it will only be able to berth at the Commercial Port.

Erosion is an issue on the western side.

Redevelopment

There has been ad hoc planning of the facility.

Need to accommodate squid boats too.

Keep smaller boats on Fishermans Wharf and change access to separate it from Port of Portland.

Exclude general public vehicles – issue permits to users only to maintain easy access for semi-trailers.

Several participants agreed there is a need a Harbour Master - Port Fairy management structure could work or could become one group.

There will be a duplication of assets – the Fishermans Wharf needs minimal work to accommodate the cray fishers.

Pen area for trawlers are not acceptable or practical.

Finger wharves could be fixed due to minimal surge.

Ensuring there are good storage facilities and slipway facilities is important for business and will allow business & boat development.

Need to ensure parity of fees across the ports – have been paying excessive fees for poor facilities.

Trawler setup and operation at Southport and Coffs Harbour is great.

Would prefer a “buddy” double up system of dedicated berths as then have a 50:50 chance of getting a direct alongside berth.

Trawler Wharf is too high – tier wharf would cover movements in the tide.

Crays could be stored overnight in cages around the yacht swing moorings if required.

OH&S and public access issues need to be addressed.

Squid fleet needs to be accommodated for 5-6 months of the year.

Slipway

Portland Ocean Steel have increased prices for cranage – slipway prices are too expensive.

Slipway needs to be incorporated as Ocean Steel does not have staff and core business established to service the fishermen.

Slip costs high due to requirement for divers, winch handler and jetty control.

Slipway area rubbish needs to be cleaned up for safety and ease of access.

Political Issues

Upset about the Government not taking back Fishermans Wharf also – no obligations on the Port of Portland for fishing or foreshore – what are the agreement & obligations on Port of Portland.

Port of Portland has indicated they will maintain access to the Fishermans Wharf – is this true?

The new overpass adjoining the Port of Portland entry releases additional land to the Port of Portland so maybe Fishermans Wharf could be traded for that.

Need to enforce dredging requirements placed onto Port of Portland under the channel authority agreement.

Tourism

Need to be careful when mixing tourism and unloading.

A number of users feel that tourism needs to be accommodated via fish punt for product, tourist bus access, tall ships berth (required approx 3 times per year).

Community

Public swimming not an issue as most of it occurs at Nuns Beach.

Berthing on the western side of the Trawler Wharf will impinge onto public areas.

Expansion will reduce the current buffer between industry and community foreshore uses so need to consider tourists and safety.

Heritage

Heritage area needs to be respected.

Ensure protection of the existing structure.

Traffic

Traffic study required for management on pier and access to and from it.

General

In WA there is a levy on fuel which goes directly into a fund towards capital works for facilities and this could be a way to deal with future capital works.

Dust is an issue across the entire town.

The well boats are not really that good as there is freshwater from the canal.

Portland Marina facilities need upgrade also to cater for fishing and visitor users.

Bottom long liners may come to Portland.

Vessel developments & quotas mean that time in the water is decreasing so a dry stand area is important for the future.

Catch is currently weighed on board however in the future there may be changes to this to require computerised weighing facilities.

Would be interested in discussing a commercial arrangement for a dedicated berth area.

5.0 Other Interested Party Issues

The following section summarises views and feedback from other interested parties and community groups.

5.1 Comments

Comments from Other Interested Parties consulted include:

Existing facility

Tug moorings in the fishing precinct have undermined the wharf structure.

Disparity in pricing compared to other fishing ports in the region is disadvantaging Portland fishers.

There is no support to move to the west side of the Trawler Wharf because of the concerns about congestion of the approaches to the launching ramp, water quality for lobster held in wells, and flow on effects to the general community who are the users of Henty Beach.

Redevelopment

Ensure that future business expansion objectives, such as Australian Fishing Enterprises, are taken into consideration.

Fees must be comparable with other fishing ports – all other local ports receive funding for operations and capital expenditure.

A Committee of Management should be set up to oversee the entire fishing precinct and represent all users/stakeholders.

Slipway

Slipway rates have also become exorbitant (for example Apollo Bay pays $68/day to slip – Portland $200/day on slip for the same sized vessel

Political Issues

The pre-election announcement in November 2002 stated that the Fishermans Wharf would be included in the divestment at a peppercorn rent. The cray fishers that use this area feel their concerns have been overlooked. Concerns include a desire for security of tenure & for maintenance now and on an ongoing basis.

The divestment agreement when signed should carry written provisions that the cray fishers concerns will be addressed.

$2 million will not be sufficient to build a wharf to accommodate the combined fleets therefore further infrastructure funds will be required in the future.

A band aid engineering solution is not a way to resolve a political error.

Consultants terms of reference are based purely on apolitical point of view – a political mistake needs to be corrected – the Fishermans Wharf was conveniently left out once politics got involved.

The initial problem was that Portland fishing boats had nowhere to slip and no permanency of tenure – fisherman complained and then the Trawler Wharf came into it – now the Government thinks they can resolve their mistake by fixing the Trawler Wharf only

Tourism

Tourism / public contact and the continuation of foreshore uses and access is important.

Tourism factors need to be accommodated within the design of the new wharf facilities.

Community

Concerned about the loss of facilities that are important to the local community.

The fishing industry is being forced to encroach on public areas.

Recreational fishing is a big part of tourism for Portland.

The consolidation of the fishing precinct will decrease recreational fishing spots and create congestion and pollution – fisherman can be irresponsible with their rubbish and the area needs to be controlled – a management committee would be good.

Three local school groups use the Trawler Wharf groin area three times per week for fishing classes.

Tourism / community / recreational activities that are not economically beneficial occur there and will be impacted or forced to relocate if the Trawler Wharf is expanded.

All the good recreational fishing spots are gone – the Breakwater is too crowded.

Heritage

The Glenelg Planning Scheme does not record either the Fishermans wharf or Henty Beach under a heritage overlay, however this omission is due most likely to the conditions of past criteria and ownership issues and the need for a heritage review, rather than a judgement concerning their cultural significance.

Heritage Victoria lists a number of archaeological sites in this area on the Heritage Inventory.

The National Trust records both the Fishermans Breakwater and Henty Beach as culturally significant.

Trawler Wharf is not listed on a historical register.

Fishermans Wharf is considered of historical interest.

The Fishermans Breakwater and Henty Beach are considered significant because of historic, aesthetic, scientific and social values.

Traffic

Concerned about increased traffic circulation and the interaction with cable tram route and issues raised by concentrating traffic into one area.

Need to do a traffic study to review potential congestion issues.

Estimates that there will be an extra 200 vehicles per day if the facility is redeveloped and expanded.

The tram was put there without any forethought and now causes huge traffic problems (a flag bearer is an inadequate way of managing the congestion) – the tram was unplanned and now they are not willing to discuss resolutions – can’t speak out against any tourist issues as you are seen as being anti-development.

General

GSC are undertaking an assessment survey for recreational fishing purposes in the area – it would be good to get areas back from the Port of Portland for recreational use but of course this is unlikely as they are unwilling to relinquish any space or encourage community users.

Skate park may not be in the best location and may need to consider relocation if carparking / access is required.

The skatepark is inappropriately located.

Frustrated with the inappropriate development and lack of forward planning and overview.

The foreshore masterplan seems to be on the back burner again – lack of overview.

6.0 Appendix A Facility User Questionnaire Summary

User Participant: 1 (CRAY/SQUID – 1)

Category: Cray fisher

Vessel: Aluminium 15m boat that requires dry berthing

Frequency: Daily Peak period November to August

Catch: 100 – 200 kg per day Total allowable catch 450 tonne

Facilities: Berths at Trawler Wharf Off site processing

Transport: Utility Car

Loading: Unloads catch onto Fishermans Wharf Dedicated loading bay difficult as catch is live and needs to be

offloaded immediately

Services: 3 phase power wash down toilet / showers fuel bowser bins

Food Safety: Significant impact Will ensure wider export market acceptance & provide inroads

into European market

Improvements: Safe secure access Development of retail / commercial operations around the

precinct

Special Requirements:

Convenient direct access from ute for loading etc. Straddle lift – 10-30 tonnes Boat building facilities Boat ramp – 8m wide Weigh station

Other Comments: Relocated 2 years ago to Port Macdonnell Vessel developments & quotas mean that time in the water is

decreasing so a dry stand area is important for the future Portland is a good central location for fishing in the Discovery

Bay area Need to ensure separation of trawlers and crays


Category: Cray fisher / skipper

Vessel:

Frequency: Throughout the year

Catch: 5 – 10 tonne

Facilities: Berths at Fisherrmans Wharf

Transport: Utility Car

Loading: Unloads catch onto Fishermans Wharf

Services: 3 phase power wash down toilet maintain fuel truck as it could become a monopoly otherwise

Food Safety: Will be a greater impact on the trawler industry

Improvements:


Non slip surfaces Operable slipway

Other Comments: Existing facility is good as it is calm, no surge, good water quality, carparking, offloading facilities, proximity to processing

Water quality is an issue – an estuary from Wattle Creek Water on the western side of the Trawler Wharf is warmer In WA there is a levy on fuel which goes directly into a fund

towards capital works for facilities and could be a way to deal with future capital works

There has been ad hoc planning of the facility Want to know what the agreement & obligations of Port of

Portland are Port of Portland has indicated they will maintain access to the

Fishermans Wharf – is this true? Portland Ocean Steel have increased prices for cranage Upset about the Government not taking back Fishermans Wharf

also – no obligations on the Port of Portland for fishing or foreshore

User Participant: 3 (TRAWLER – 1)

Category: Trawler operator / Squid fisher

Vessel:

Frequency: 2 –3 days Throughout the year Peak period February – June for squid

Catch:

Facilities: Berths at Trawler Wharf

Transport: Car / Utility Small truck Semi-trailer

Loading: Unloads at Trawler Wharf

Services: 3 phase power water waste bins fuel lighting ice

Food Safety:

Improvements: Need more wharf space as there is too much congestion


Maintain ability to off load, tie up and do everything in one spot

Maintain ability to tie up alongside

Other Comments: Overcrowding is the big issue Need to be careful of mixing tourism and unloading

User Participant:

4 (OTHER – 1)

Category: Squid processor

Vessel: N/A

Frequency: Peak in April – May

Catch: N/A

Facilities: N/A

Transport: Semi-trailer

Loading: N/A

Services: 3 phase power maintain fuel truck – require training & equipment to combat spills

& barricading for protection of public

Food Safety: Current squid boats do not have refrigeration but regulations will require catch be landed in refrigerated state so boats will need to be developed & this will also allow them to stay out a few days rather than come in daily

Improvements: Ensure better price parity of Trawler Wharf which is currently approx 3 times more per metre than the other ports


No designated fuel bowser No designated unloading bay

Other Comments:

Exclude general public vehicles – issue permits to users only to maintain easy access for semi-trailers

Public swimming not an issue as most of it occurs at Nuns Beach Need a Harbour Master like at Port Fairy Tourism needs to be accommodated via fish punt for product,

tourist bus access, tall ships berth (required approx 3 times per year)


Category: Cray fisher (commonwealth waters)

Vessel: 20m boat

Frequency: Goes out every 2 – 4 weeks Peak month is March

Catch: 4 tonne cray or king crab 13 tonne quota

Facilities: Berths at Fishermans Wharf

Transport: Utility Semi-trailer

Loading: Unloads at Fishermans or Trawler Wharf

Services: 3 phase power waste toilet maintain fuel truck and implement plan to treat minor spill

Food Safety: Live catch so not impacted in the same manner

Improvements: Incorporate tourism aspect – maintain public access


Weigh bridge / area

Other Comments: Utilises off site storage shed Need to accommodate squid boats too Keep smaller boats on Fishermans Wharf and change access to

separate it from Port of Portland Replace 100 tonne slip with 100 tonne travel lift Slipway needs to be incorporated as Ocean Steel does not have

staff and core business established to service the fishermen Front part of Fishermans Wharf has been condemned – can’t

access the area for small maintenance works

User Participant: 6 and 7 (CRAY/SQUID – 4 & 5)


Vessel:

Frequency: Seasonally - peak November to August Daily

Catch:

Facilities: Berth at Fishermans Wharf Utilise processors and exporters

Transport: Utility

Loading: Unloads at Fishermans Wharf

Services:

Food Safety:

Improvements: Extend the Trawler Wharf to the extent of the groyne for alongside berthing on eastern side only


Other Comments:

Like the direct access from car to boat of exiting facility Like the circulation of water from the canal as it allows keeping

catch in boat well if required Berthing on the western side of the Trawler Wharf will impinge

onto public areas There will be a duplication of assets – the Fishermans Wharf

needs minimal work to accommodate the cray fishers Dust is an issue across the entire town Slipways prices are too expensive This is a local port that has missed out on funding for a long time The new overpass adjoining the Port of Portland entry releases

additional land to the Port of Portland so maybe Fishermans Wharf could be traded for that

Port Fairy management structure could work or could become one group


Category: Trawler operator

Vessel: 71 foot – 146 tonne trawler

Frequency: Throughout the year Once per week Peak June - July




Loading: Unloads on Trawler Wharf or Berths 1, 2 or 6 at Commercial Port

Services: 3 phase power water waste maintain the fuel truck

Food Safety: Will adhere to it when it comes in – have gone too far with food safety

Improvements: Water quality – its currently undrinkable


Ability to uncoil, layout and measure wires at the wharf

Other Comments: Likes the current alongside berthing Pen area for trawlers not acceptable or practical



Vessel: 13 tonne boat

Frequency: Throughout the year Daily Peak from November to March

Catch: 100-250 kg

Facilities: Berths at Fishermans Wharf Off site shed

Transport: Utility


Services: 3 phase power water cardboard & plastic waste toilet maintain the fuel tanker

Food Safety: Will need to have a concrete washable surface

Improvements: Carparking

Special Requirements: Dry berthing facilities

Other Comments: Finger wharves could be fixed due to minimal surge Under a quota system learning to work the price a bit more



Vessel: 45 foot

Frequency: Throughout the year Daily Peak from November to May

Catch: 100 kg

Facilities: Sells directly to Moyston Court / Lanes / Alan Churchill

Transport: Utility Van

Loading: Unloads onto Fishermans Wharf

Services: Storage 3 phase power water maintain the fuel truck

Food Safety:

Improvements: Storage yard Carparking


Dry berthing area

Other Comments: Ensuring there are good storage facilities and slipway facilities is important for business

The well boats are not really that good as there is freshwater from the canal

Trawler setup and operation at Southport and Coffs Harbour is great

User Participant: 11 (CRAY SQUID –8)


Vessel: 20 m – 70 tonne

Frequency: 11 trips per year 10 – 14 days Peak November to May

Catch: Works Tasmanian waters

Facilities: Berths at Fishermans Wharf Sells to Moyston Court


Loading:

Services:

Food Safety: Minimal as crays are in a shell and protected

Improvements:


Other Comments: Utilises slip facilities in Strahan (Tas) Would prefer a “buddy” double up system of dedicated berths as

then have a 50:50 chance of getting a direct alongside berth Some of the existing cray fishers want to stay in the existing

facilities and pay less fees – willing to pay for better facilities


Category: Cray and scale fisher

Vessel: Trailable boat with circulating tank

Frequency: Throughout the year Daily Peak November to January

Catch: 3 tonne quota Average catch 45 kg per day

Facilities: Double berths at Fishermans Wharf Sells to Moyston Court

Transport: Utility


Services: 3 phase power water introduce fuel bowser (currently uses petrol) lighting wash down

Food Safety:

Improvements: Maintenance bay with high pressure water for cleaning Need safe access to boat


A designated unloading area to transport direct to a processor Operable slipway

Other Comments: Shallow low tide water with low circulation means stagnant water and kills fish/crays – at Fishermans Wharf able to leave crays overnight

If facilities do not improve may be forced to switch to Port Campbell

Trawler Wharf is to high – tier wharf would cover movements in the tide

Improvement of the facility will allow development of business and boat

Need to maintain public interest and tourism – enjoys the contact The canal is full of bilgewater and fuel spills Crays could be stored overnight in cages around the yacht swing

moorings if required Currently not paying berthing fees as a stance against Port of

Portland Slipway is crucial to business development

User Participant: 13 (OTHER – 2)

Category: Cargo / Commodity Analysts and Boat Surveyors

Vessel: 16ft (4.88m) carribean offshore

Frequency: Approx 170 trips per year

Catch: N/A


Transport: N/A

Loading: N/A

Services: N/A

Food Safety: Believes there are issues with current sharing of commercial wharf facilities between chemical loads and fishermen

Improvements: N/A


N/A

Other Comments: Engaged by P&O (stevedore company) Portland Marina facilities need upgrade also to cater for fishing

and visitor users



Vessel: 21, 26, 27 and 37 metre trawlers – 360+ tonnes

Frequency: Throughout the year 3-5 days fishing




Loading: Unloads on Trawler Wharf – sometimes forced to use the Commercial Port but hates it you get moved

Services: 3 phase power water maintain the fuel truck lighting

Food Safety: Currently appalling on the Trawler Wharf.

Improvements: Better unloading areas and space to accommodate all the boats


Ability to accommodate larger trawlers on Trawler Wharf 35m vessel has 4m draw and at low tide sits on the bottom when

berthed on the eastern side of the Trawler Wharf

Other Comments:

Slips at Port Lincoln Portland very centrally located for fishing areas but without

adequate facilities would consider leaving Business expansion has been restricted by poor facilities – for

example the 37m boat will be restricted on timings it can come into port as it will only be able to berth at the Commercial Port

Intend to get a fifth vessel within next 6 months See Portland as a strategic location and will focus on increasing

number of vessels, increasing quota holding and increasing complimentary businesses such as processing/cannery

Would be interested in discussing a commercial arrangement for a dedicated berth area

User Participant: 15 (OTHER – 3)

Category: Boat Building and Repair & Maintenance Facilities

Vessel: N/A

Frequency: N/A

Catch: N/A

Facilities: Slipway

Transport: N/A

Loading: N/A

Services: N/A

Food Safety: N/A

Improvements: 200 tonne travel lift would accommodate fleet


250 – 300 tonne slip

Other Comments: OH&S and public access issues need to be addressed Squid fleet needs to be accommodated for 5-6 months of the

year Slip costs high due to requirement for divers, winch handler

and jetty control Bottom long liners may come to Portland


Category: Squid fisher (commonwealth waters)

Vessel:

Frequency: Seasonally Daily Peak April to May

Catch:


Transport:


Services: 3 phase power water wastage station lighting

fire fighting equipment telephone life saving equipment fuel berth

Food Safety: Will need to be addressed

Improvements: Single slipway which is multi purpose Wharves that service the slips need to be cleaned Autonomous management Alongside berthing on both west and eastern side of Trawler

Wharf – prefer a usable open plan wharf with no designated bays – pens are difficult for manoeuvrability & waste space


A clear deck on the wharf with only services infringing on the space

Direct access to Moyston Court – relocation will create double handling of crays

Other Comments: Need to ensure parity of fees across the ports – have been paying excessive fees for poor facilities

Need to enforce dredging requirements placed onto Port of Portland under the channel authority agreement

Heritage area needs to be respected Traffic study required for management on pier and access to

and from it Expansion will reduce current buffer between industry &

community foreshore uses - need to consider tourists & safety Ensure protection of the existing structure Erosion is an issue on the western side Slipway area rubbish needs to be cleaned up for safety & ease

of access



Vessel: 26 metre

Frequency: Throughout the year 3 – 5 days Peak June – July Peak days are Monday and Wednesday as boats come in to

unload catches for main Melbourne Fish Market days of Tuesday and Thursday

Catch: Scale fish


Transport: Utility Semi- trailer Crane truck

Loading: Unloads at Trawler Wharf – if unavailable uses Commercial Port

Services: 3 phase power water waste toilet drive by security maintain the fuel truck lighting wash down

Food Safety:

Improvements: Dedicated loading bay needed for peak periods to ensure vessels keep moving on to allow unloading – 2 berth loading facility would be ideal to ensure timely unloading

Washable concrete surface Bollards


Space for putting (rewinding) wire onto the boat as each trawler has to do this maintenance every 18 odd months

Alongside berthing

Other Comments:

Catch is currently weighed on board however in the future there may be changes to this to require computerised weighing facilities

7.0 Appendix B Other Interested Parties Summary

Interested Party:

1

Comments: The pre-election announcement in November 2002 stated that the Fishermans Wharf would be included in the divestment at a peppercorn rent. The cray fishers that use this area feel their concerns have been overlooked. Concerns include a desire for security of tenure & for maintenance now and on an ongoing basis.

The divestment agreement when signed should carry written provisions that the cray fishers concerns will be addressed.

$2 million will not be sufficient to build a wharf to accommodate the combined fleets therefore further infrastructure funds will be required in the future.

Tourism factors need to be accommodated within the design of the new wharf facilities.

Fees must be comparable with other fishing ports – all other local ports receive funding for operations and capital expenditure.

A Committee of Management should be set up to oversee the entire fishing precinct and represent all users/stakeholders.

Interested Party:

2

Comments: Tourism / public contact and the continuation of foreshore uses and access is important.

Skate park may not be in the best location and may need to consider relocation if carparking / access is required.

Ensure that future business expansion objectives, such as Australian Fishing Enterprises, are taken into consideration.

Interested Party:

3

Comments: Concerned about increased traffic circulation and the interaction with cable tram route and issues raised by concentrating traffic into one area.

Need to do a traffic study to review potential congestion issues.

Interested Party:

4

Comments: All the good recreational fishing spots are gone – the Breakwater is too crowded.

Tourism / community / recreational activities that are not economically beneficial occur there and will be impacted or forced to relocate if the Trawler Wharf is expanded.

Tug moorings in the fishing precinct have undermined the wharf structure.

A band aid engineering solution is not a way to resolve a political error.

Interested 5

Party:

Comments: Concerned about the loss of facilities that are important to the local community.

Trawler Wharf is not listed on a historical register. Fishermans Wharf is considered of historical interest. The Fishermans Breakwater and Henty Beach are considered

significant because of historic, aesthetic, scientific and social values.

Consultants terms of reference are based purely on a political point of view – a political mistake needs to be corrected – the Fishermans Wharf was conveniently left out once politics got involved.

The initial problem was that Portland fishing boats had nowhere to slip and no permanency of tenure – fisherman complained and then the Trawler Wharf came into it – now the Government thinks they can resolve their mistake by fixing the Trawler Wharf only.

The Glenelg Planning Scheme does not record either the Fishermans wharf or Henty Beach under a heritage overlay, however this omission is due most likely to the conditions of past criteria and ownership issues and the need for a heritage review, rather than a judgement concerning their cultural significance.

Heritage Victoria lists a number of archaeological sites in this area on the Heritage Inventory.

The National Trust records both the Fishermans Breakwater and Henty Beach as culturally significant.

Interested Party:

6

Comments: Three local school groups use the Trawler Wharf groin area three times per week for fishing classes.

GSC are undertaking an assessment survey for recreational fishing purposes in the area – it would be good to get areas back from the Port of Portland for recreational use but of course this is unlikely as they are unwilling to relinquish any space or encourage community users.

Recreational fishing is a big part of tourism for Portland The consolidation of the fishing precinct will decrease

recreational fishing spots and create congestion and pollution – fisherman can be irresponsible with their rubbish and the area needs to be controlled – a management committee would be good.

Interested Party:

7

Comments: Frustrated with the inappropriate development and lack of forward planning and overview.

The foreshore masterplan seems to be on the back burner again – lack of overview .

Estimates that there will be an extra 200 vehicles per day if the facility is redeveloped and expanded.

The tram was put there without any forethought and now causes huge traffic problems (a flag bearer is an inadequate way of managing the congestion) – the tram was unplanned and now they are not willing to discuss resolutions – can’t speak out against any tourist issues as you are seen as being anti-development.

The skatepark is inappropriately located. Relocation of the fishers from the Fishermans Wharf will put

added pressure on the intersection leading onto the Trawler Wharf.

Fishermans Wharf is the original, historic facility and is good for small and recreational boats.

The Trawler Wharf is insufficient for the users and an eyesore for tourists.

The Trawler Wharf has two main issues – food handling and quality control.

Needs to have lighting, wash down, waste, hand washing facilities,

Need to address OH&S issues and separating tourists, recreational fishers and commercial fishers.

Carparking will need to increase and encroach on skatepark or Henty Beach as it needs to be close to move goods.

Distance between Trawler Wharf and Marina end is not too great.

Brings the industry and their mess closer to Henty Beach. Slipway is critical to the area.

Interested 8

Party:

Comments: Disparity in pricing compared to other fishing ports in the region is disadvantaging Portland fishers.

There is no support to move to the west side of the Trawler Wharf because of the concerns about congestion of the approaches to the launching ramp, water quality for lobster held in wells, and flow on effects to the general community who are the users of Henty Beach.

The fishing industry is being forced to encroach on public areas. Slipway rates have also become exorbitant (for example Apollo

Bay pays $68/day to slip – Portland $200/day on slip for the same sized vessel.

Interested Party:

9

Comments: Wants to have the opportunity to comment on the precinct redevelopment plans once they are released.

Concerned about the impact on Henty Beach. The boat ramp is utilised by recreational users and relocating

fishing boats onto the western side of the Trawler Wharf will impact the turning circle and increase congestion in the vicinity.

Agrees that the fisherman’s facilities need to be upgraded but also need to protect the communities facilities.

Precinct Redevelopment Plan Appendix B Interested Parties List

Page 24

Appendix B (Interested Parties List v2).xls

Portland Fishing Precinct Study – Interested Parties

Name Contact Phone CommentsContact to GSC 25/9/03

Ph FU for Cons#1

BLLC Consult

#1

BLLC Consult

#2Address1 Address2

Trawler Berth Contacts (provided by Port of Portland)

1Tober Fish Pty Ltd 03 5523 4371 Left message 9/10/03. PO Box 362 Portland 3305

2Australian Fishing Enterprises Aziz Bisic 0418 317 903 Fri 17/10 PO Box 88 Portland 3305

3Sutherland Enterprise Fishing Nanette Sutherland 5523 2417 Thurs

16/10PO Box 484 Portland 3305

4Victory Fishing Pty Ltd Craig Stewart 0418 105 597 or 5523

4102Trawler operator - member Portland Fishing Precinct Committee Wed

15/102 Prospect Court Portland 3305

5Oakley Shipping PO Box 5318 North Geelong 3215

Itinerants (provided by Port of Portland)

6Ajka Pty Ltd PO Box 643 Port Lincoln 5606

7Lorjona Pty Ltd PO Box 240 Sandy Bay 7006

8Sarriba Pty Ltd 08 8682 5711 Left message 13/10/03. PO Box 1073 Port Lincoln 5606

9William Rose Pty Ltd PO Box 175 Beachport 5280

10Sarunic & Sons 08 8682 4955 Left message 13/10/03. PO Box 1242 Port Lincoln 5606

11Jack Miriklis Marine Pty Ltd PO Box 1032G Greythorn 3104

12Seafare Australia Tom Bibby 5523 1581or 0438 231 581 23-Oct

13Simoan Pty Ltd 08 8682 2278 No answer 13/10/03. 26 Baudin Place Port Lincoln 5606

Port of Portland Fishermens Berth (provided by Port of Portland)

14G Hollis 5523 5089 10/10/03 - Will be represented by the Portland Professional Fishing

Association. Member PPFA.PO Box 726 Portland 3305

15T P Crapper Tony Crapper 5523 5231 Thurs


16R N O’Connell RSD 4768 Portland 3305

17I W Towers Ian and Wayne Towers 5523 1473 9/10/03 - Waste of time at only $2M - we'll talk for the next 20 years. 2x

Members PPFA.23 Derril Road Portland 3305

18P C Hollis PO Box 1121 Portland 3305

19D Humphries Dean Humpheries 5521 7366 9/10/03 - Will catch up with Steve Nathan & call back if he has time.

Member PPFA.61 Childers Street Portland 3305

20S J Nathan Steve Nathan 5523 3640 President Portland Professional Fishermans Association. Thurs

16/1065 Blair Street Portland 3305

21J L Jennings John Jennings 5523 5564 9/10/03 - Will call if he has any issues. PO Box 1172 Portland 3305

22B O’Connor 5523 6224 Left message 9/10/03. Member PPFA. PO Box 848 Portland 3305

23Petaree Fisheries Pty Ltd Peter Price 5523 4726 9/10/03 - Will be away but will call if he has any issues. 2 Coonong Court Portland 3305



Ph FU for Cons#1

BLLC Consult

#1

BLLC Consult

#2Address1 Address2

24D M & E A Johnston David Johnston 08 8738 2410 Wed

15/10PO Box 259 Port Macdonnell 5291

25G J & J E Kerr Gary Kerr 5523 2112 Thurs


26D T & E McCarthy David McCarthy 5523 6603 Thurs

16/1027 Must Street Portland 3305

27Makstrait Pty Ltd Doug McDougall 5523 5283 9/10/03 - Will call if he wants to participate. RMB 4124 Portland 3305

28Tober Freight & Ice Pty Ltd Bill Tober 5523 4971 Thurs


29Patricom Pty Ltd Roger Graham 5521 7240 9/10/03 - Will take his advice from Steve Nathan - he's doing a good

job. Member PPFA.104 King Street Portland 3305

30A Andre 5523 2655 9/10/03 - Not a fisher - just ties his boat at the fishermans wharf which

is now for sale.1 Beavis Street Portland 3305

31A Garland RMB 3530 Portland 3305

32K Treloar 0418 306 714 9/10/03 - Charter operator - does not feel impacted by the fishing

facilities.2 Clarke Street Portland 3305

33D Jennings 5523 6222 Left message 9/10/03. 34 Garden Street Portland 3305

34Austral Supermarine John Edgar 0427 527 315 Commonwealth squid fisher Fri 17/10 PO Box 426 Portland 3305

35Sallymac Pty Ltd Rod McDonald 5822 1575 Member PPFA. Thurs

17/102 Field Street Shepparton 3630

Other Facility Users

36Portland Ocean Steel Pty Ltd Denis Strom or Rob Dunlop 5523 4858 or (RD) 0439

634 858Boat manufacturers & repairs - building on trawler wharf Fri 17/10 Trawler Wharf Portland 3305

37North Western Shipping & Towage 5521 7253 Privatised tug operators Canal Road Portland 3305

38Portland Maritime Services Des Hein 5521 7645 or 0409 235

325also Chairman of Potland Cable Trams Asscoaiation Fri 17/10 30 Kerrs Road Portland 3305

39Arrow Fisheries Lisle Elleway 5523 5561 or 0427 504

916Squid processor Thurs


40Robert Davis 5523 2606 or 0427 232

606Cray fisher. Member PPFA. Fri 17/10 PO Box 1053 Portland 3305

41Levings Commercial Fisheries Andrew Levings 5523 5196 Member PPFA. Wed

15/101 Blackers Road Narrawong 3285

42Mark McLean 5523 4853 or 0419 007

734Cray fisher - Left message 13/10/03. Did not show up for Friday 17/10 meeting. Left message 21/10/03.

65 Cliff Street Portland 3305

Other ContactsPort of Portland Pty Ltd 5525 0900 PO Box 292 Portland 3305

1Haebich Providores Robert Hope 5523 3372 or 0418 561

562On the Trawler Wharf behind Ocean Steel 30-Oct Lee Breakwater Road Portland 3305

2K & S Freighters Pty Ltd 5523 4144 Fish transporters Canal Road Portland 3305

3Peter Stoitse Transport Pty Ltd 5521 7747 Kunara Crescent Portland 3305

4Portland Progress Association Danny Halstead 5523 6655 PO Box 134 Portland 3305

5Portland Tourist Association Pam Burke or Robert Hunt PO Box 1142 Portland 3305



Ph FU for Cons#1

BLLC Consult

#1

BLLC Consult

#2Address1 Address2

6Portland Professional Fisherman’s Association Steve Nathan 28-Oct PO Box 826 Portland 3305

7Portland Angling Club Colin Donehue 5523 2953 21-Oct PO Box 1019 Portland 3305

8Portland Cable Trams Inc Jeff Constantine 5523 2831 15-Oct 2A Bentinck Street Portland 3305

9Portland Sport & Gamefishing Club Geoff Strurzaker 5523 1055 7-Nov PO Box 901 Portland 3305

10TS Henty Sea Cadets 5523 2528 65 Learmonth Street Portland 3305

11Portland Yacht Club John Stanford 0408 529 309 Contacted AA 28 Jan 04. Asked to be included in any further

correspondence or consultations.43 Muir Street Portland 3305

12Gannet Dive Club 8 Clematis Court Portland 3305

133 Bays Dive Club PO Box 875 Portland 3305

14John Sealey 0419 587 255 Former trawler operator - name provided by Cr Bill Collett - member of

Federal Committee in Seafood Industry. Member PPFA.Wed 15/10

PO Box 88 Portland 3305

15Ken Nathan 5523 2126 10/10/03 - Will call if he wants to participate. 12 Moodie Street Portland 3305

16Moyston Court 5521 8188 Crayfish processor PO Box 876 Portland 3305

17Gordon Stokes 5523 3178 National Trust and Heritage Advisor

20-Oct13 Bentinck Street Portland 3305

18

Blue (Graham) Grant 0408 560 963 Abalone diver - impossible to accommodate on the one facility - community is greatly impacted. Email [email protected]. Member PPFA

Thurs 16/10

Po Box 440 Portland 3305

Precinct Redevelopment Plan Appendix C Operating Cost Model

Page 25

Proposed Portland Fishing PrecinctOperating Model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Year Ending Jun-05 Jun-06 Jun-07 Jun-08 Jun-09 Jun-10 Jun-11 Jun-12 Jun-13 Jun-14 Jun-15 Jun-16 Jun-17 Jun-18 Jun-19 Jun-20 Jun-21 Jun-22 Jun-23 Jun-24 Jun-25 Jun-26 Jun-27 Jun-28 Jun-29 Jun-30 Jun-31 Jun-32 Jun-33 Jun-34Revenue

Trawler Berths 29,109 29,837 30,583 31,347 32,131 32,934 33,758 34,602 35,467 36,353 37,262 38,194 39,148 40,127 41,130 42,159 43,213 44,293 45,400 46,535 47,699 48,891 50,113 51,366 52,650 53,967 55,316 56,699 58,116 59,569Fihermans Berths 60,866 62,387 63,947 65,546 67,184 68,864 70,586 72,350 74,159 76,013 77,913 79,861 81,858 83,904 86,002 88,152 90,356 92,614 94,930 97,303 99,736 102,229 104,785 107,404 110,090 112,842 115,663 118,554 121,518 124,556Itinerant Berths 17,948 18,397 18,857 19,328 19,811 20,307 20,814 21,335 21,868 22,415 22,975 23,549 24,138 24,742 25,360 25,994 26,644 27,310 27,993 28,693 29,410 30,145 30,899 31,671 32,463 33,275 34,107 34,959 35,833 36,729Subtotal 107,923 110,621 113,387 116,221 119,127 122,105 125,157 128,286 131,494 134,781 138,150 141,604 145,144 148,773 152,492 156,305 160,212 164,217 168,323 172,531 176,844 181,265 185,797 190,442 195,203 200,083 205,085 210,212 215,468 220,854

Operating ExpensesEmployee Related Expenses 90,000 61,500 63,038 64,613 66,229 67,884 69,582 71,321 73,104 74,932 76,805 78,725 80,693 82,711 84,778 86,898 89,070 91,297 93,580 95,919 98,317 100,775 103,294 105,877 108,524 111,237 114,018 116,868 119,790 122,784Offices (assumed to be co-located with Council) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Repairs & Maintenance 10,000 10,250 10,506 10,769 11,038 11,314 11,597 11,887 12,184 12,489 12,801 13,121 13,449 13,785 14,130 14,483 14,845 15,216 15,597 15,987 16,386 16,796 17,216 17,646 18,087 18,539 19,003 19,478 19,965 20,464Environment Management & Safety 2,000 2,050 2,101 2,154 2,208 2,263 2,319 2,377 2,437 2,498 2,560 2,624 2,690 2,757 2,826 2,897 2,969 3,043 3,119 3,197 3,277 3,359 3,443 3,529 3,617 3,708 3,801 3,896 3,993 4,093Marketing Expense 2,000 2,050 2,101 2,154 2,208 2,263 2,319 2,377 2,437 2,498 2,560 2,624 2,690 2,757 2,826 2,897 2,969 3,043 3,119 3,197 3,277 3,359 3,443 3,529 3,617 3,708 3,801 3,896 3,993 4,093Communications (telephone at council, mobile phone costs) 1,200 1,230 1,261 1,292 1,325 1,358 1,392 1,426 1,462 1,499 1,536 1,575 1,614 1,654 1,696 1,738 1,781 1,826 1,872 1,918 1,966 2,015 2,066 2,118 2,170 2,225 2,280 2,337 2,396 2,456Stationery and Office Requisit (by Council) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Computer Services and Equipment (by Council) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Motor Vehicle Expenses 15,000 15,375 15,759 16,153 16,557 16,971 17,395 17,830 18,276 18,733 19,201 19,681 20,173 20,678 21,195 21,724 22,268 22,824 23,395 23,980 24,579 25,194 25,824 26,469 27,131 27,809 28,504 29,217 29,947 30,696Insurance (by DOI) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Legal (by DOI) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Water, Electricty 40,500 41,513 42,550 43,614 44,704 45,822 46,968 48,142 49,345 50,579 51,843 53,140 54,468 55,830 57,225 58,656 60,122 61,626 63,166 64,745 66,364 68,023 69,724 71,467 73,253 75,085 76,962 78,886 80,858 82,879Travel & Related Expenses 1,000 1,025 1,051 1,077 1,104 1,131 1,160 1,189 1,218 1,249 1,280 1,312 1,345 1,379 1,413 1,448 1,485 1,522 1,560 1,599 1,639 1,680 1,722 1,765 1,809 1,854 1,900 1,948 1,996 2,046Miscellaneous Expenses 2,000 2,050 2,101 2,154 2,208 2,263 2,319 2,377 2,437 2,498 2,560 2,624 2,690 2,757 2,826 2,897 2,969 3,043 3,119 3,197 3,277 3,359 3,443 3,529 3,617 3,708 3,801 3,896 3,993 4,093Subtotal 163,700 137,043 140,469 143,980 147,580 151,269 155,051 158,927 162,900 166,973 171,147 175,426 179,812 184,307 188,915 193,637 198,478 203,440 208,526 213,740 219,083 224,560 230,174 235,928 241,827 247,872 254,069 260,421 266,931 273,605

OPERATING SURPLUS / (DEFECIT) (55,777) (26,422) (27,082) (27,759) (28,453) (29,164) (29,894) (30,641) (31,407) (32,192) (32,997) (33,822) (34,667) (35,534) (36,422) (37,333) (38,266) (39,223) (40,203) (41,209) (42,239) (43,295) (44,377) (45,487) (46,624) (47,789) (48,984) (50,209) (51,464) (52,750)

Annual Redevelopment Contribution (87,733) (87,733) (87,733) (87,733) (87,733) (87,733) (87,733) (87,733) (87,733) (87,733) (87,733) (87,733) (87,733) (87,733) (87,733) (87,733) (87,733) (87,733) (87,733) (87,733) (87,733) (87,733) (87,733) (87,733) (87,733) (87,733) (87,733) (87,733) (87,733) (87,733)(30 year at 8.65% nominal discount rate)

Assumptions1. Outgoings are paid by the port operator and chraged as a monthly rate to each berth = $154/month2. Berthing fees are based on Port of Portland figures of $191/m/year for trawler berths, $59.56/m/year for fishermans berths and $1.09/m/day based on 50 days per year for itinerant berths.3. Berthing fees for both the trawler and fishermans berths include 12 months of outgoings at $154.03 per month4. All amounts above are ex GST5. Electricity and water costs are included at $1,500 per berth (27 berths)6. The amounts above assume council assistance in providing insurance, office location including computer if required), stationary, office support and telephone.7. Repairs and maintenance only includes minor repairs. Larger damage is assumed to be recovered from insurance.8. Amounts are in Aust $, current at March 20049. Amounts are escalated by CPI each year, assumed to be 2.5% per annum

OPERATING SURPLUS / (DEFECIT)

(60,000)

(50,000)

(40,000)

(30,000)

(20,000)

(10,000)

-2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Precinct Redevelopment Plan Appendix D Capital Cost Estimates

Page 26

PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PORTLAND FISHING PRECINCTSUMMARY COST ESTIMATES (31 March 2004)

Trawler Wharf ExtensionExtension of Trawler Wharf 1,197,449$ 443,852$ 1,197,449$ 1,197,449$ Precast concrete structure 406,530$ -$ 406,530$ 406,530$ Mooring Fenders 28,950$ -$ 28,950$ 28,950$ Dredging 166,700$ 15,000$ 166,700$ 166,700$ Electrical Services and Hydraulics 40,850$ -$ 40,850$ 40,850$ Fire Services 104,000$ -$ 104,000$ 104,000$ New Toilet Facility 35,000$ 35,000$ 35,000$ 35,000$ Surface of Trawler Wharf Extension 47,620$ 2,027,099$ 12,195$ 506,047$ 47,620$ 2,027,099$ 47,620$ 2,027,099$ Contingency 202,710$ 50,605$ 202,710$ 202,710$ Preliminaries Charges 283,794$ 70,847$ 283,794$ 283,794$ Trawler Wharf Extension Subtotal 2,513,602$ 627,498$ 2,513,602$ 2,513,602$

MarinaJetties/finger jetties 504,000$ 353,000$ 627,000$ -$ Dredging 245,000$ 208,250$ 245,000$ -$ Electrical Services and Hydraulics 100,850$ 78,150$ 100,850$ -$ Relocate Weigh Station 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ -$ Fire Services 62,000$ 936,850$ 52,000$ 716,400$ 62,000$ 1,059,850$ -$ -$ Contingency 93,685$ 71,640$ 105,985$ -$ Preliminaries Charges 131,159$ 100,296$ 148,379$ -$ Marina Subtotal 1,161,694$ 888,336$ 1,314,214$ -$

Upgrade of Existing Trawler WharfPavements and services 178,398$ 178,398$ 178,398$ 178,398$ Structures - top plate, tie rods etc 93,609$ 93,609$ 93,609$ 93,609$ Waste Station (allowance) 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ Health & Safety - traffic management (allowance) 25,000$ 322,007$ 25,000$ 322,007$ 25,000$ 322,007$ 25,000$ 322,007$ Contingency 32,201$ 32,201$ 32,201$ 32,201$ Preliminaries Charges 45,081$ 45,081$ 45,081$ 45,081$ Upgrade Subtotal 399,288$ 399,288$ 399,288$ 399,288$

Upgrade of Existing Fisherman's WharfRoadway/Pavement Repairs 276,550$ Plumbing 76,002$ Electrical 18,450$ Communications 160$ Structural Works -$ -$ -$ 624,490$ 995,652$ Contingency -$ -$ -$ 99,565$ Preliminaries Charges -$ -$ -$ 139,391$ Upgrade Subtotal -$ -$ -$ 1,234,608$

Total design cost (6% of total) 244,475$ 114,907$ 253,626$ 248,850$

TOTAL (Including Design) 4,319,060$ 2,030,030$ 4,480,731$ 4,396,349$

Further design and estimation works needs to be undertaken before using these estimates for budgeting purposes. No allowances have been made for planning, public consultation or statutory charges and excludes geotechnical investigations, any contaminated material or water and that the harbour has a stable base with no quicksand.

OPTION D Full Wharf and Upgrade Fishermen's

Wharf OPTION C

Full Wharf and Finger Jetties

p y ( y) p p p

OPTION BExisting Wharf and Partial Marina

OPTION AFull Wharf and Marina

Precinct Redevelopment Plan Appendix E Recommended Option Plan

Page 27

SXW23

RECOMMNEDED OPTION OPTION B - Existing Wharf and Partial Marina

SXW23

Moyeston Court

Precinct Redevelopment Plan Appendix F Vision Plan

Page 28

SXW23

Moyeston Court

SXW23

Precinct Redevelopment Plan Appendix G Vision Perspective Sketches

Page 29

Precinct Redevelopment Plan Appendix H Proposed Fishing Precinct Boundary

Page 30

SXW23

Portland Fishing Precinct Boundary

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

PROPOSED FISHING PRECINCT BOUNDARY Option B - Existing Wharf and Partial Marina

SXW23

Moyeston Court

SXW23

31 May 2004 Revision A

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

SXW23

Area of Roadway to be discussed further as to its inclusin in the Fishing Precinct

SXW23

cover & inserts v2 - glenelg shire council - home page · 2004-09-10 · precinct redevelopment...

Documents