Margaretta Pos
A barge anchored offshore, a gang of men at work, ropes, chains, steel girders drilled into rocks and set in concrete.
The reason for this hive of activity is a move by a number of waterfront residents to build jetties, among them John White, of Tasmanian Compliance Corporation fame, and Incat’s Craig Clifford, who are Clarke Ave neighbours.
Talk about a preemptive strike.
ONE of the joys of walking along the Hobart foreshore is that you never know what you are going to see on the Derwent river. And yesterday (December 18) , on a walk around the Battery Point foreshore, there was plenty to see.
A barge anchored offshore, a gang of men at work, ropes, chains, steel girders drilled into rocks and set in concrete.
The reason for this hive of activity is a move by a number of waterfront residents to build jetties, among them John White, of Tasmanian Compliance Corporation fame, and Incat’s Craig Clifford, who are Clarke Ave neighbours.
Talk about a preemptive strike.
At a time when debate rages over greater public access to the foreshore.
Many people want a city to casino boardwalk, while others will be happy with manmade impediments removed to allow a low tide path, or scramble track, around the Battery Point foreshore.
At a time when the Hobart City Council is negotiating with four waterfront landowners, Guy and Rosslyn Green, and Ken Hosking and Patricia Hosking, who have two adjacent titles in Marine Terrace which extend to or past the low water mark, to buy the strip between the tide marks. The Greens and the Hoskings want about $700,000 for the land, the Council has offered about $70,000.
At a time when many residents feel disenfranchised by the Battery Point Sullivans Cove Community Association following the 2006 AGM, which is effectively controlled by waterfront residents and their friends.
At a time when the Council has sought legal advice on suspending the Battery Point Advisory Committee, which advises the Council on all Battery Point planning matters, and when Council has asked for a report on alleged breaches at the contentious BPSCCA’s recent AGM.
Mr White is a member of the BPSCCA committee. He and many BPSCCA office-bearers, including Mr Hosking, have long said they want to protect the last wild foreshore in Hobart — Battery Point. That means they don’t want a boardwalk (which some would say is only a jetty sideways).
Why? While they talk publicly about preserving the historic heritage of the foreshore, less publicly they say they think it would reduce the value of their properties and they fear noise from people walking along it would disturb their peace (never mind about sound from river activity).
A search reveals that Mr White is chairman/president of Friends of the Foreshore Association, which was incorporated in May 2002 and Patricia Probin, also of Clarke Ave, is treasurer. (Mr Hosking is vice chairman).
The search also reveals that the principal activity of the association is to “protect the foreshore at Secherord (sic) Point and Battery Point.”
So what exactly is happening right now?
Mr Clifford and Mr White live respectively, at 16 and 18 Clarke Ave.
Both have slip rails across the foreshore, Mr Clifford to the left of his property when facing the water, Mr White to the right of his property. Early this year, Mr White gained approval for a jetty from the relevant authorities, which is being built on the boundary between the two properties, with access from both titles.
As noted, there is a barge anchored offshore, a sign proclaims the foreshore to be a construction site, with work under way by FPS Constructions. Holes are being drilled in the sea floor to allow pylons to be dropped into it, and girders have been drilled into the granite rocks on the foreshore and set in concrete.
Further around the foreshore, another jetty is about to start. Two properties, 30 and 32 Clarke Ave, also have a FPS Constructions sign up proclaiming a construction site. There are some steel girders already in place, pink fluoro markings on rocks and huge plastic pipes in a pile, ready for the next stage of construction.
Further along again, in Marine Terrace, on the northern side of the Greens’ property, there is now a metal stake well out into the water, possibly a territory marker, with a black plastic chain connecting it to the end of the fence. The chain is not stopping anyone from walking across the foreshore, but at knee height and black, it could be a hazard at dusk.
Meanwhile, there is a three-member committee established by the State Government early this year to look at the foreshore issue. By last month, it had yet to meet, but comprises a bureaucrat, someone appointed by the Hobart City Council, whose names have yet to be made public, and the nominee of both the Battery Point Sullivans Cove Community Association and Friends of the Foreshore. Their joint nominee is Sandra Champion, of Clarke Avenue.
The Mercury, Wednesday: Enclave jetty boom
Andy O'Brien
December 18, 2006 at 15:04
This story and the whole foreshore saga encapsulates the sorry state of Tas politics at all levels; the “legal system”; the well documented (!)use of power and influence; plus the general (!) of those whose position and wealth could be so damned positive for the community. Unfortunately, their idea of “community” ends at the foreshore boundary!
Andy O’Brien.
permit me please
December 18, 2006 at 22:48
All moorings and related structures (fixed or otherwise) require prior approval and the payment of annual permit fees to Marine and Safety Tasmania (MAST). Do these proponents have such approvals and if so how were they granted given the issues surrounding the walkway. I smell a (water) rat!
Guy Parsons
December 19, 2006 at 02:22
This is just too depressing.
The rank and insulting hypocricy that someone could take the title of president/chairman of a “Friends of the Foreshore Association” with the aim of “preserving the historic heritage of the foreshore” and then proceed to construct an obstruction on the same location.
Who gives such permission? Friends indeed.
Does Mr White have ambitions for greater use of his jetty other than to piss bile into the Derwent waters, which he can never possess?
permit me please
December 19, 2006 at 10:36
I heard today that the jetty proponents had gained “Council permission” for jetty construction. This is strange given that maps of the Council Planning Scheme seem to end at the water edge. I think you will find that Council permission only pertains to the part of the jetty over the foreshore – not over the water. This is the jurisdiction of MAST and its minister Mr. Llewellyn. Was MAST permission granted?
Low Carl
December 19, 2006 at 14:03
I don’t know about all of this but as the incremental clutter increases the typical deteriations of our functional and aesthetical environment happens. You know … this is how the poetries of constructed sprawl choke the psyches of those obliged to live with it – be they crabs, people or owner builders.
Human natures being good bad and ugly produce impacts accordingly. It might be a good idea to conglomorate all the jetties into a coordinated boardwalk/wharf. But facts being facts the fast bastards look after themselves quickly and wholistic politics is frustrated even in the church.
The point of verbal expression is all we have for now. And we plead, that the future is best for, both, all and one.
JL
Realist
December 21, 2006 at 17:06
Is it not wonderful when the right hand does not know what the left is doing? It’s time for a shot of realism here, along with a little factual information.
Following Margaretta’a TT article about the two jetties being built on Secheron Point, a certain Alderman Briscoe waxed lyrical about jetties in the media. Realists would hardly expect such an alderman to vote for the approval of such jetties in Council…..or would they?
After painstaking research, Realist can reveal that, according to the minutes of Open Council meetings on 26 September 2005 and 15 August 2005, planning approval was passed in respect of both of these jetties. But wait, there’s more: in both cases approval was unanimous and in both cases Alderman Briscoe was listed as being present and voting in FAVOUR of the approvals.
Makes you wonder…….
Polly Watch
December 22, 2006 at 10:47
There’s many a deviation, often an escalation, between the council building permit stage and the actual building erection, especially when council doesn’t have the ticker to insist that its permit conditions are strictly adhered to – and it is unknown for council to actually make anyone pull down a structure that doesn’t meet permit conditions. It is more likely that the paperwork for enlarged works will be put through council after the event and the builder will probably be penalised a pittance. Thus it pays to have the hide to ignore council permit conditions! And especially at Christmas time, when many council staff members are on holiday and all aldermen are absent.
You have the right Margaretta to ask to see the plan and the building permit for the works to satisfy your right to know what is being built, and if you are concerned after seeing the plan, also request council staff to inspect the works to ensure they are being built to the permit plan specifications.
Don’t be put off by red tape – take a tradesmen with you into council to inspect the plans and permit if necessary. If the permit was not issued by council, ask the builders to show you their permit and if they refuse, move on to the next step. If the works are taking place outside building permit conditions, contact the ombudsman and ask that the work be stopped.
Jeff is making the usual noise about the works, but where was he when aldermen passed the development application? Has he checked the building permit to familiarise himself with what is being built?
Realist
December 22, 2006 at 12:32
Polly Watch,
Realist can tell you where Ald Briscoe was when the two development applications were passed (unanimously) – if Council’s minutes are correct he was sitting right there in the council chamber and he voted FOR the approvals!
A realist might ask why it is that only now does he make all this fuss…….