Here are some key points you may wish to raise with your State MP or relevant Minister, State candidate, KI Council, or state agency etc. Please cut and paste, add and subtract to suit your own interests and concerns - this is just a starting point.

We can also provide other resources you might want to include with your letter/email including (links on Resources page):

·       The search of Matters of National Environmental Significance conducted in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site, which shows multiple threatened species as ‘known or likely’ to inhabit the area.

·       The 2023 Kangaroo Island Glossy-Black Cockatoo Census Report

·       The draft 2025 Kangaroo Island Glossy-Black Cockatoo Count Report

NB please include your name, address and/or phone number and an offer to speak with the MP/Minister if you wish.

***

Dear [title],

I write as a concerned member of the community on / lover of Kangaroo Island. My connection with Kangaroo Island is […add personal details here if you wish – or delete.]

Melbourne-based firm Junctions 90 Pty Ltd has applied for approval to build:

‘Tourist accommodation and wellness complex comprising 60 accommodation modules, a restaurant, day spa and reception building, services outbuildings, ancillary tourism experience structures, footpaths and decking, 33 geothermal bathing pools, 26 staff accommodation units, landscaping, carpark, new internal roads and access, and on-site infrastructure including solar PV, water storage dams and waste treatment facilities’.

(Application ID 25024492 on the Plan SA Development Register - 15/10/25)

The would-be Melbourne developer calls it an ‘eco-regenerative tourist facility’, but it appears to be a development of extremely significant size and intensity for an environmentally sensitive area. An 86-dwelling facility (more dwellings than nearest local town, Parndana, based on the 2021 ABS Census) is proposed by Junctions 90. At full operation it would house 132 guests plus staff, and including day visitors the proponent anticipates visitation of 300 people per day at its Hot Springs facility alone, making it the biggest tourist development proposal on KI in our memories. By comparison, Baillie’s Southern Ocean Lodge in Hanson Bay KI hosts a more modest 21 suites, lodge and spa facility.

There appears to have been little consultation with the KI community by the would-be interstate developer who may not even own the land at this stage, but is seeking approvals to build what appears to be the equivalent of a fifth major (tourist) township on KI.

The proposal has been referred to KI Council (who point out some key issues with the proposal to the SPC here) and SA agencies including the Coast Protection Board, SA Country Fire Service, and Native Vegetation Council, which have not responded to date.

Despite those other agencies having not yet responded publicly, the proponent commenced public notification on 2 January on Plan SA, to close 22 January 2026.  While the hundreds of pages of proposal documents ware available online, hard copies were only available at the Plan SA office, in Adelaide, and not on the Island. This makes perusal of a hard copy inaccessible to Island residents without incurring additional travel and cost, and fails to recognise digital isolation of some residents and lack of access to reliable internet on parts of the Island. The public notification notice placed adjacent the property is difficult to see and the proponent’s timeframe for notification is aligned with the peak holiday period when many people are travelling and may not be in a position to make a submission. Given that technical issues have also been reported with the Plan SA website preventing them from lodging a submission an extension of lodgment time should be requested.

Neighbouring farmers, landholders and environmentalists are united in their concerns regarding the impact on agricultural land, natural water supplies and flows, and nationally listed threatened species.

Neighbours have expressed concerns that the widening of existing access tracks to allow for construction as well as guest, worker, delivery and CFS access will necessitate significant excavation and fill to manage erosion, requiring additional vegetation clearance. The proponent’s own native vegetation clearance data report anticipates additional, unquantified vegetation clearance once the facility is built, and the application documents on PlanSA indicate at 2.0 Native Vegetation that while ‘almost zero native vegetation’ will be affected by the ‘built development elements of this proposal, ‘native vegetation clearance requirements remain for the additional clearance required to meet SA CFS requirements and standards’ to enable access and manage fire risk. There is concern that it may also create increased risk of the spread of phytophthora cinnamomi, which is listed as a Key Threatening Process (KTP) under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). Despite all of these factors, the applicant does not appear to have self-referred its application as should in our view be required under the EPBC Act.

Aside from clearing, excavation and waste management, the development will require significant amounts of water as well as waste-water treatment, potentially disrupting natural water flows, hydrology and the water table, through the damming of two creeks, one spring-fed, and installation of a weir and geothermal bore, to cater for 86 dwellings, a ‘farm garden’ and 33 geothermal pools. The Government must provide guarantees to the public that any risks associated with such drilling have been thoroughly analysed and will be appropriately managed by the proponent and that the proponent has the skills to do so, as this could have significant impacts on local hydrology and properties.

The potential cumulative impact of the development could disrupt farming on neighbouring land, as well as threatening viability of habitat and threatened and endangered species. Yet the proponent states that this huge development will somehow ‘sit lightly upon the land’.

Most KI residents support sensible development for the good of the community, that is the subject of respectful consultation with the community, and sensitive to farming and environmental priorities and local amenity.

However, the developer has not properly consulted the KI community, and its own native vegetation clearance report admits that the site houses nationally-listed threatened species including the endangered Kangaroo Island Glossy-Black Cockatoos and endangered Kangaroo Island Echidnas. Notwithstanding this, the report states it was not considered necessary to undertake a comprehensive, independent site fauna assessment - which should be required as a matter of course.

Neighbours estimate remnant vegetation on and adjacent to the site provides nesting and feeding habitat for 40 Kangaroo Island Glossy-Black Cockatoos - or a little under 10% of the estimated 446 such birds that remain in existence. The draft September 2025 count of these iconic birds shows their North Coast population has already dwindled by almost 10% over recent years due to loss of habitat following the bushfires – and by around 16% on the mid-North Coast.

In addition, White-Bellied Sea Eagles, Peregrine Falcons and Heath Goannas are regularly observed on and adjacent to the property, and a search of the national register of threatened species shows multiple other threatened species in its immediate vicinity. These include the following KI bird subspecies, listed as threatened since the Black Summer bushfires: the KI Brown-headed Honeyeater, KI White-eared Honeyeater, KI Western Whipbird (all endangered), the KI Little Wattlebird, KI Crimson Rosella, KI Striated Thornbill, KI Shy Heathwren (all vulnerable), the Western Bassian Thrush and the Western Beautiful Firetail (SA subspecies both endangered).

Further, it is already a challenge for Kangaroo Island Council to maintain the island’s road, beach and other infrastructure, given the Island’s small ratepayer base. The KI Council’s comments on the proposal make clear that the developer should fund any infrastructure needed to support the massive increase in visitation to the North Coast associated with its development. Local ratepayers and SA taxpayers should not be asked to foot these bills while an interstate developer reaps the profits. The impact increased North Coast traffic would have on the safety and amenity of island roads and road users must also be carefully considered - noting in particular that Council’s comments of 16 November 2025 regarding the proposal say that the ‘additional traffic volumes are likely to create a dangerous road environment’ which ‘needs to be addressed by the applicant’.

I am keen to understand your views on the appropriateness of this proposed development, as Minister/my elected representative/candidate in the impending State election. I also respectfully request your support to do all that you can to protect this environmentally sensitive area, for residents, farmers, and nationally-listed threatened wildlife on the North Coast of KI. I look forward to receiving your response and to your support for the KI community in this matter.

Kind regards,

[signoff]