Tasmanian Times

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

Economy

Please help me. I am in serious trouble …

*Pic: The enormous workshop. Says Ivo: “We have been custodians of the old ANM Depot buildings for the past 24 years. The buildings, especially the enormous workshop, have heritage value, even if not of official heritage status. It is absolutely clear that if we are evicted, the place will have no security, and it will be just a few weeks before vandals and thieves trash the place, leaving it with broken windows and roofing, exposed to the elements and possums.”

First published September 24

Tasmanian Times readers might remember my pleading letter to the Derwent Valley Council (DVC) to not approve the proposed limestone quarry at Roberts Rd, Maydena, just across the road from our old ANM property near Maydena (article linked below).

Well, that didn’t turn out too well with the DVC approving the quarry 3:2 in favour with 2 abstentions. The quarry is now free to start apart from 2 appeals to the RPAMP appeals tribunal on relative minor matters of detail, and the pesky matter of us residing just 300 metres from the positioning of the noisy machinery. Our presence means that the brand new 2017 Quarry Code of Practice must be ignored for the quarry to proceed. The quarry Code of Practice guidelines specify minimal distances between the quarry machinery and nearest sensitive use location of 300 metres where no blasting, crushing or screening occurs, 500 metres where vibrating and trammel screens alone are utilised, 750 metres where material is crushed only and 1000 metres where regular blasting takes place.

The DVC has taken the expedient route to overcome that problem by issuing us with an “intent to evict” notice: –

“AND TAKE FURTHUR NOTICE that I propose to issue you with an Enforcement Notice in relation to the above offence. Such Enforcement Notice will require you to immediately cease the illegal use and may require the removal of certain items from the property and the discontinuance of certain conduct at the Property.”

I’m not sure about the correctness of their starting a sentence with “AND” and capitals in unusual places, but they obviously mean business! We have until 27th Sept. to appeal this decision, but just to the DVC, not any independent agency or court.

We feel confident that we are legal residents, but that we have minimal chance of successfully appealing our pending eviction notice to the same agency that issued the initial eviction intent notice, and when it will be decided by just a few senior executive staff members in the DVC, who have a vested interest in progressing the limestone quarry next door.
.
The reason we are legal residents is summarised as follows: –

1. We are legal residents owing to our ownership predating the 1993 planning legislation.

2. We have been acknowledged by DVC council as having a house here, via inclusion of that word on our rates assessment, and “dwelling” on our title documents.

3. We are safeguarded by statute of limitations legislation, banning action for an unproven offence which happened 24 years ago.

4. We are advised that a fire destroyed nearly all DVC records of our old ANM property? How then can DVC have any evidence that we have failed to comply with any obscure permit requirements in 1993.

5. We fully complied to the best of our knowledge and ability with all known DVC conditions and permit requirements in 1993.

6. We would automatically have had ANM office and residence permits extended, so hence had no need to apply for new permits.

7. We have been advised by DVC that the onus is on us to prove legal residence status, but that is incorrect. In law innocent until proven guilty applies.

8. We have been inadequately advised of details of our offence, via flat refusal of DVC to answer my repeated questions and explain how the notice of intent to evict was decided, nor provide minutes of discussion at the decision making process.

9. The legislation quoted in the pending eviction notices cites legislation that does not apply to our 1993 condition. Legislation cannot be applied retrospectively

We seriously need the DVC to act like an impartial umpire in this dispute and not continue to act as a kangaroo court. (definition: an unofficial court held by a group of people in order to try someone regarded, especially without good evidence, as guilty of a crime or misdemeanour.)

My specific complaint at this stage is that the DVC flatly refuses to communicate with me on this matter, despite repeated emails explaining our situation and expressing frustration at their attitude. I have an itemised list of over 10 different repeatedly sent unanswered emails to DVC for just some of my questions to Council administration.
Here is just one: –

“Dear DVC, (22nd August)

Thank you for discussing our legal residence use status with my daughter Jo.

We will seek legal representation from an accredited planning lawyer if we need to in coming weeks. In the meantime I am hoping that common sense can prevail and we will be totally cleared of any wrongdoing and avoid an eviction threat for what we claim is at worst a trivial technical unproven allegation, and an obvious ploy by the proponents of the nearby quarry to gain permission in an underhand way to pollute our property with noise, dust and water contamination.

We seriously need the support of the DVC here, not a witch hunt to find some legal reason to have us evicted. We have been custodians of the old ANM Depot buildings for the past 24 years. The buildings, especially the enormous workshop, have heritage value, even if not of official heritage status. It is absolutely clear that if we are evicted, the place will have no security, and it will be just a few weeks before vandals and thieves trash the place, leaving it with broken windows and roofing, exposed to the elements and possums. Within a year or two it can confidently be predicted that the site would then be a derelict trashed eyesore, with the heritage historic values forever gone. In the meantime it is likely that the adjacent quarry will have come and gone, owing to its uneconomic prospects trying to sell very low grade limestone. Then there will be eyesores on both sides of Gordon River Rd, a sad sight for all tourists seeking to explore the scenery and history of the area, but, I suppose, a salutary tale for historians to ponder?

Can we please go through the issues at stake here? I am still unsure of the problem. I will explain the complaints as I see them. Can you then please explain the DVC viewpoint?

1. We bought the property legally, and continued to occupy the house that ANM had used as an office, mainly through the day, but also at night. The residence/office is unchanged structurally from ANM days. It is still used as an office, but also as sleeping quarters. We need to know if the DVC is alleging that we should have applied for a change of status of the ANM office to a residence, when the distinction is minimal, whether we should have specifically applied to the council to use the office for ourselves, as distinct from the previous owners, and what we should have done differently. Please back up any DVC legal opinion with relevant references to substantiate its claims.

2. Re whether the DVC has long known of our 24 year residence at this site. We have been receiving various letters, rates invoices and dog licenses constantly, so we claim that that constitutes obvious evidence of residence occupancy. We would hardly use the site, 2 km from Maydena, just as a postal address to collect mail? We can’t find, at least for the moment, any correspondence categorically proving our residence was known and approved by the DVC, just as they, apparently, have no data to suggest that it was not?

3. Re what difference the 1993 planning legislation makes to our status, regardless of any previous ambiguity regarding our legal residence status.: No matter what we were doing residence wise prior to the 1993 legislation, it is perfectly clear from section 12 clauses that we are entitled to continue use of any building we were using prior to November 1993, so long as the building had been legally constructed and legally used immediately prior to the legislation enactment.”

Once we are issued with our definitive eviction notice I will be complaining long and loud and DVC council members are likely to be collateral damage in an unpleasant row. I wish they would show some support.

Please imagine some of the headlines:

1. Frail 72 year old aged pensioner callously evicted for quarry development after 24 years as custodian of heritage valued old ANM buildings.

2. Abandoned Old ANM Depot buildings with significant heritage value now open to vandals, thieves and the elements following eviction of owners.

3. Last chance to inspect amazing old ANM 2400 sq metre workshop before it is trashed.

4. EPA and DVC approve limestone quarry development, ignoring Quarry Code of Practice guidelines.

The absurd situation is that as EPA quarry approval conditions stand, the quarry can proceed with no noise restrictions whatsoever on our property so long as we are not declared “legal residents” That is to say if the baying hounds at the DVC back off, we can live with reluctant tolerance with a quarry next door without any formal decision needed as to our residence legal status. Then we can work towards changing our zoning from General Industrial to Rural, and gain accredited residence status. If we are in limbo residence status then there are no restrictions on noise. If we are officially declared “legal” then the quarry can still proceed, but with a noise restricted to no more that 45 decibels at our main sensitive site location. Why be so obsessed with evicting us then? The quarry proponents have repeatedly stated that they can comply with this limitation.

It is very frustrating to have a pending eviction hanging over us with the DVC refusing to even discuss the issues with us. This is via a continuing pattern of refusing to properly respond to my emails seeking further details on our supposed illegal residence status.

I am accumulating data to present to the Director of Local Government as a complaint against the DVC. I will be accusing the Council of malpractice. I will present evidence that the Council is aiding and abetting the quarry proponents in an attempt to have us evicted to allow the quarry to proceed. Their total lack of response to my questions will be key evidence.

Please, anyone relating to this total outrageous attempt to evict us on a trumped up totally trivial unsubstantiated charge, complain long and loud to DVC staff and politicians.

Some analogies might be in order:

A. Suppose someone lost his driver’s licence and the police pulled him up and said that onus was on him to prove he had the required licence. The cop explains while taking the guy to the local lockup. “Oh, by the way, don’t look to us to check our records to prove you right, because our records have all been burnt”. The moral of the story: – if we lose something and the DVC has had its records burnt, then we are in trouble through no fault of our own.

B Second example: Man is mistakenly charged with murder. Court says “Sorry, tough luck. – rule change, the onus is now on you to prove yourself innocent, not on us to prove you guilty” The key to his jail cell is thrown away. Moral: it is vastly more difficult to prove something when told “the onus is on you to provide proof of legal residence” than for innocent until proven guilty rules, as universal in law courts, to apply.

C. Third story – 2 people have a $1000 bet. One says there are no foxes in Tasmania, the other says there are. The first person can’t categorically prove there are none because it is generally impossible to prove such a negative. The other person sneaks in a dead fox from Victoria, plants it beside a road and claims the bet winnings. Moral: cheats usually prosper. In our case it is easy for the DVC to find some trivial little misdemeanour in its array of rules and regulations to issue an eviction notice.

DVC contacts, including council members http://www.derwentvalley.tas.gov.au/page.aspx are available on their website. Please note also that the DVC mayor and General Manager have both recently been found guilty of malpractice:

http://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/342508/The_Director_of_Local_Government_Report_to_the_Derwent_Valley_Council_August_2017.pdf

This does not engender confidence in their ability to impartially assess our legal residence status, let alone sensitive use rights. Sensitive use rights are where people are generally not actually employed and working in a site eligible for quarry noise restrictions to apply. They are engaged in non employment activities such as a caravan park or, in my case, legally engaging in hobby activities on our property, whether legal resident or not.

*Ivo Edwards is an independent scientist and inventor from Maydena. He lives on a site zoned General Industry but has no industrial activity and plans none. He is, perversely, threatened by a potential limestone quarry next door on a site zoned Rural Resource which wants to evict him because it is illegal these days to reside in a General Industrial zone. The quarry proponents apparently want unrestricted rights to pollute his property with noise, dust and contaminated water.

• Ivo Edwards in Comments: … I think bookmakers would give great odds on us winning an appeal, but no doubt the DVC will present a team of the best and most expensive lawyers to represent them, so tough luck if we lose and have to pay their costs. But then again if we win and they have to pay the costs of our lawyer and the same $520 per hour for me lying in bed thinking about my strategies for a couple of hours each night, then that would be nice. Probably better odds than poker machines to come out ahead eventually if we appeal, I think …

• Jon Sumby in Comments: … There are Things You Can Do …

EARLIER on Tasmanian Times …

A pleading letter to the Derwent Valley Council

Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]
92 Comments

92 Comments

  1. Rebbecca Thorpe

    July 19, 2018 at 10:37 pm

    Hi … if anyone could put Ivo Edwards in contact with me this would be greatly appreciated. I have had extreme issues with the DVC for the past 9 months, and I feel I maybe able to help.

  2. Robert Middleton

    May 15, 2018 at 12:24 pm

    Does anyone have an update on Ivo’s situation?

  3. William Boeder

    October 17, 2017 at 6:21 pm

    Now Ivo, do you think Jeff Kennett might have his … claws involved in this quarry deal as he had held a quite a powerful influence over the Glenorchy City Council?
    Unfortunately one will never get any truth from the Gutweiner, no matter how hard you try, he is little more than another alleged … aficionado.

    Does anyone out in our communities know who actually runs the show in Tasmania, surely it cannot be the Liberal party State government, they are far to inept and lazy.
    Then of course there is the … Herr Erich Von Abetch pulling on twisted strings and tossing spanners into the innards of good workable and beneficial alternatives that are most commendable and even far more legal industry propositions.

    Bad enough that the new STT is being taxpayer funded to further fatten the Bank accounts of Hamed Sepawi the majority owner of Ta Ann Tasmania and then of his numerous external to maybe just Tasmania, corruption riddled timber companies in the business of clear-felling whatever rain-forest jungles remain upon this planet.
    One bloke who is sure to know it all, he being the known enemy of the Tasmanian people, Senator Eric “I’m a member of the Exclusive Brethren management team” Abetz.
    Who is up for asking this Mordor the necessary questions?

  4. Ivo Edwards

    October 17, 2017 at 5:08 pm

    Hello Mr General Manager of the DVC (sorry, I have forgotten your name!)

    Are you going to proceed with your eviction order or not? Please advise me ASAP as I have things to do and people to meet.

    My co-owner and I complied completely complied with your order to appeal back to you guys (the fox in charge of the hen house) by late September with our detailed reasoning as to why the pending eviction order was not justified. You have not responded at all to our appeal some weeks later which is surely unfair, rude, inconsiderate and perhaps illegal.

    Please explain your proposal about how you are going to deal with our (alleged) heinous crime of residing in a house we legitimately own but can’t for the moment produce a permit to reside in. Are you going to evict us or not? If so, which of our possessions are you going to confiscate? How many tens of thousands of dollars are you proposing to fine us? What clauses in what legislation are you going to use next time to justify your actions? What is your relationship with the quarry proponents?

    Please consider answering my multiple questions. I have previously asked multiple times as it is not a good look for the DVC when you are perceived, in my view, as autocratically … running the DVC show. This is by ignoring elected council members and ratepayers who might have a viewpoint of their own about the legality, fairness and justification of wanting to evict us just to facilitate a noisy quarry next door to us and at the potential cost of having the old heritage value ANM buildings trashed by vandals.

    Oh yes, can you also please explain under what conditions you might have agreed to withdraw the eviction threat if I agreed to withdraw my appeal against the DVC quarry approval?

    (edited)

  5. Geoffrey Swan

    October 13, 2017 at 1:17 pm

    #87 I too, was shocked at the information revealed in #77 (before it was removed) and the apparent blatant act by the DVC to take such immediate action. The information Ivo provided is surely enough evidence to indicate that there is unquestionable … wrongdoing by this Council.

    Stay strong Ivo… and at 72 you are still young, and you still have your intelligence and fortitude!

    (edited)

  6. DPIPWE friend

    October 13, 2017 at 12:13 pm

    Hey TT editor – I don’t blame you for deleting Ivo’s comment number 77, as litigation happy DVC lawyers, financed by us ratepaying locals, could have potentially given you an expensive hard time over it. Luckily I read the comment in the period of its brief appearance … and was appalled at its content.

    This was that the DVC and quarry proponents were so angry at Ivo for appealing the quarry approval that within 2 days they issued him with a half baked pending eviction order, erroneously citing clauses in the 1993 Act that did not even provide for eviction …

    Ivo queried …

    (edited)

  7. Kathy DeSasa

    October 13, 2017 at 11:00 am

    As someone originating from outside Australia, I have found this article and especially the comments section totally enthralling and mesmerising. I had considered Australia to be a democratic society relative free of bullying, officious and … officials in public service. Now I know better.

    I would recommend that the Federal Government take up this story and use it in its advertising to dissuade refugees seeking out Australia for a better life. If they could emphasise that an old pensioner on his own land can be evicted on a mind-blowing totally frivolous and petty matter of allegedly not having a permit to enter a house he owns, and at the same time have many of his possessions confiscated and be issued with fines potentially totaling over $100,000, then that should send a stern lesson to refugees seeking out people smugglers thinking that Australia might be a nice place for a new start in life!

    I wonder how many people who have owned and lived in a house for over about 30 years actually have the required permit to live in it? I bet not more than 1 in 10? Who would even have known of such a requirement several decades ago, before widespread internet availability? I wonder how many dogs the DVC has evicted because their owner can’t find the dog registration permit. How many millions of dollars in fines gained because a landowner caught and relocated a possum without a Crop Protection Permit?

    For the Derwent Valley Council to demand to see such a permit when they themselves have burnt their own records should be added to the Government advertising just to emphasise that Australia can be much harsher and unfair in its treatment of locals than any war-torn middle eastern country.

    How much safer and more just really, I wonder, will the planet really be after the eviction order is issued to this poor guy?

  8. spikey

    October 10, 2017 at 11:56 pm

    a very good question
    not one i’m sure im qualified to answer
    though i see many good reasons for restraint

    the foremost being rational thought tends to go out the window when we are influenced by the fight or flight chemical rush

    poorly considered violent actions are usually used by fascists to advance their goosestepping causes

    you’re no joe, hammers and steak knives ain’t likely to get you assassinated, but lets not give the next joho, taswater or council employee bear the brunt of your councils wrongdoings

  9. Ivo Edwards

    October 10, 2017 at 10:29 pm

    Re #83.Why not? No threats from my end and I am not at the end of my tether, nor am I trying to support my cause, nor do I want to keep anything cool. Just explaining my situation. Just what is it that you consider wrong with violence exactly, when it is deserving?

  10. spikey

    October 10, 2017 at 8:55 pm

    Ivo< you have the support of your community. Threats made by you don't support your cause. If you are at the end of your tether, please, keep it cool. At 72, if the swat type feel the need to take you out, they're not going to look very community minded. Curse the bastards, but don't please don't let them make you resort to violence.

  11. Ivo Edwards

    October 10, 2017 at 5:42 pm

    Hi DVC – Just for your information. Please note that I will be defending myself to the hilt if you decide to go through with your intention to evict us from our lawful residence for 24 years. I will be armed with kitchen knives and a hammer. I know that I am a bit frail relative to what I was 50 years ago, but I can still potentially inflict serious injury to your hit squad of pathetic inexperienced swat type vigilantes.

    Hey, I guess 72 years is old enough for anyone to live anyway. I might as well go with some style and take a few deserving people with me?

  12. Russell

    October 5, 2017 at 12:22 pm

    Re #77
    The DVC has no legal right to evict you so they are trying to scare you into giving in. These … bastards just don’t want to lose face, that’s all.

    It’s a trick used by insurance companies when they receive an insurance claim and don’t want to pay (they never want to pay).

    Remember, they or anyone else cannot trespass onto your property without your express permission. Put a lock on your gate and doors (and use them – “break and enter” is a much more serious charge again) and a sign stating “No Trespassing Allowed”.

    Tell them you are happy to let it go to Court so that they are forced to come up with real evidence to support their claims. To me, They obviously don’t have any. They cannot physically evict you and they know it. Take it all the way to the High Court if need be. Then they’ll be liable to pay an enormous compensation package to you plus all the Court costs. From there other inquiries may be set in motion to delve further into the operations of the DVC.

    Again I refer you to Plenty v Dillon (1991) in my previous #30 and #38 posts.

    (edited)

  13. William Boeder

    October 5, 2017 at 12:01 pm

    Well Ivo seems that Pete Godfrey has touched upon some good advice to you of which suggests each party to this matter is now seeking an option from the other.
    Now that the cards have been dumped face up on the table that display exactly that which each party separately seeks to achieve, bear in mind you have not been doing any …
    Any Court Action in this State is likely to contain its bias against your best interests, therefore to follow the face-saving options as expressed by Peter at his #79 sounds to me the very best of actions to follow as each party including you Ivo, gains their win without this matter entering the danger trap of a very expensive court action in our State.

    (edited)

  14. Peter Godfrey

    October 5, 2017 at 10:37 am

    Ivo, it sounds like the council is open to negotiations.
    My suggestion is this:
    Tell them that you are willing to drop the objection on the conditions that:

    – They rezone your land to residential status;
    – They get the proponent to put in some sort of noise abatement (such as a rock pile) to lessen the effect on your residence.

    Going through the court system would in most jurisdictions get you a win, but we are talking about a small island here where many folk know each other. It appears that the proponents have friends in council who will most likely have friends in other places too. This complicates the legal outcomes.
    Use the hand you have been dealt to your advantage would be my advice.
    Good luck
    Pete

  15. William Boeder

    October 4, 2017 at 8:41 pm

    Yes Ivo, there has to be some sort of benefits package available to the DVC to act in the manner in which they have now been fully exposed.

    Another item of interest is how Peter Gutwhine is quieter than a mouse amid and among the Mafioso type functions in this State.

    This is where the State government are currently at, which is to engage in games of trickery and deception upon the voters in our State.
    Speed on the upcoming new election, only then can these sinister characters be ar– –led back to the opposition bench, otherwise known as their regular place of occupation.

  16. Ivo Edwards

    October 4, 2017 at 7:30 pm

    (Comment reviewed and deleted)

  17. Geoffrey Swan

    October 3, 2017 at 11:17 pm

    Sorry Ivo, I sent a detailed email to my “contact” at the Mercury … asking for some investigative journalism .. but the response came back as –

    “Thanks for the email. I’ll pass this on to our Derwent Valley Gazette reporter for a look. “

    I am sure this is of absolutely no interest .. sorry about that. I don’t know this newspaper – I can only imagine by it’s title. Apologies.

  18. Mike Bolan

    October 3, 2017 at 2:02 pm

    Note that this thread personifies the value of social media as a knowledge development tool. If ever there was a case for social media, it’s potential as a means of citizens defending themselves from big government is clearly shown here.
    Thanx Linz!

  19. Peter

    October 2, 2017 at 11:19 am

    Ivo, why not talk to Damian Bester, Derwent Valley councillor (and Mercury journo)?

    http://www.damianbester.com/

  20. lola moth

    October 1, 2017 at 11:29 pm

    Ivo, I understand how it may seem easier for you to just give up and move, and to leave the stress behind to start with a clean slate somewhere else. Sometimes the path of least resistance is very tempting but in your case it would mean giving up a much cherished lifestyle just so someone else can make a couple of bucks. Your way of life, your commitment to preserving the heritage value of your property, and the passion you have put into the place for the last 25 years are worth far more than any business can ever hope to reap out of a quarry. You have a handful of greedy individuals trying to knock you down but you have a whole community standing behind you to help keep you standing tall.

  21. Jon Sumby

    October 1, 2017 at 9:15 pm

    Ivo,
    I am not sure if you are aware of this:

    61. Appeals against planning decisions

    (7) If an authorised officer issues and serves on a person an enforcement notice under section 65C, the person may, within 14 days after the day on which the notice is served, appeal to the Appeal Tribunal against the decision of the authorised officer to issue and serve the notice.

    This sets a time limit of 14 days for your ability to challenge the enforcement notice before the RMPAT.

    Please consult a lawyer about this process and the process of arguing your case before the Magistrate. The Hobart Community Legal Service (6223 2500) does have people with knowledge on planning matters.

  22. Peter Godfrey

    October 1, 2017 at 8:43 pm

    #70 Ivo, I enquired with the Tasmanian Planning Commission and it was they who told me that the Local Government Act of 1962 was the relevant legislation before 1993.
    I have found a copy of that document.
    There are clauses in it that are relevant to you.
    Especially Clause 430 that states that if a structure is built without permission but no relevant objection could be taken under the law at the time then the building was deemed to comply.
    Also Clause 448 that states that if a building is erected and the building inspector could reasonably be expected to know about it then it cannot be demolished after 90 days from when they should have known about it.

    It seems that 24 years should have been enough time for the council to become aware of you living there and as such they are out of time.
    I have the document but it is a .pdf and it is not possible to post it here.
    I can send it to you or you can look it up on the web.
    I got it from the AUSTLII site.

  23. Ivo Edwards

    October 1, 2017 at 7:37 pm

    Hi Peter (#69) As I understand things the legislation predating the 1993 planning Act was the 1985 Act. Like you I can’t find this on the internet but I am advised that it, like the 1993 Act, says that a person needs a permit to reside in a home they already own (for god’s sake!! – as if anyone would know that, especially back in 1993)
    Anyway, I guess, since we had no idea of that weird requirement, if it is real, goodbye Maydena from us and hello Broome (about as far away from Maydena as we can possibly go within Australia?)

  24. Peter Godfrey

    October 1, 2017 at 6:49 pm

    Ivo, as long as you can show that you bought the property before the 1993 Local Government act and the Land Use Planning Approvals Act of 1993 came in then the Derwent Valley Council is going to have to start quoting legislation to you from way back in 1962.
    The relevant Act that was in force prior to 1993 was the Local Government Act of 1962.
    Even the Tasmanian Planning Commission don’t have a copy of it.
    It may be available from the Law Library but I bet that DVC don’t have a copy either.

  25. Geoffrey Swan

    October 1, 2017 at 6:44 pm

    #67 Point taken Ivo – and well put.

    I did write to David at the Mercury and gave him a link to your article. He will not be offended I am sure, and as a good journo he will understand.

  26. Ivo Edwards

    October 1, 2017 at 6:14 pm

    Thank you Mr Swan and Mr Boeder and anyone offering media contacts as an opportunity for me to explain my situation. Sorry, but I am an incredibly private person that way and it is not going to happen. I will advance my case in other ways but thank you for your wonderfully generous offers. Here is the only interview I will be ever giving with this guy called ABC

    ABC – hello Ivo, what is this pending eviction threat all about?
    Me – thank you for your concern and interest. I have actually written an article describing in intimate detail the gory details. They can be viewed on Tasmanian Times.

    ABC – How did you feel when you received the pending eviction notice?
    Me – I thought, OMG, why is this the first question interviewers ask when someone is in a stressful situation or has just experienced a personal tragedy.

    ABC – you only received a few comments to your article, indicating that most people are not really interested in your personal problems. Care to comment?

    Me – Yes, but it would have much less than that if I hadn’t blackmailed some people into commenting and bribed others.

    ABC – thanks Ivo for your cooperation and willingness to expand on your concerns with us. This is obviously just another run of the mill dispute between a powerless pathetic semi-senile old pensioner and the arrival of the new guard powerhouse bureaucracy leading Tasmania into the next Century with dynamic ideas and innovative ventures.

    Me – thank you for your voyeuristic interest in my plight.

  27. Geoffrey Swan

    October 1, 2017 at 5:34 pm

    #65 As a mere interested observer … keen to assist if Ivo needs any feet on the ground come eviction time .. thank you Truth Seeker.

    I do believe you have concisely interpreted the situation in one paragraph.

    As I said earlier – I believe there is criminal negligence going on here and it is time people (public servants involved) are exposed.

    I reckon you have a TV media story here Ivo, certainly something in the Mercury. I have personally found David Killick at the Mercury to be a good chap – I will drop him and email.

  28. Truth Seeker

    October 1, 2017 at 4:36 pm

    Excuse me – is this for real? Can someone please correct me if I have some wrong interpretation here?

    As I understand things Ivo and Wade legitimately bought the old ANM Depot in 1993, before it was forbidden to have a residence on Generally Industrial land zoning. Now no one knows whether the DVC has any records of the legal titles and various permits which were allegedly burnt; no-one knows whether the land zoning was changed to General Industrial after they purchased the property and without even their knowledge or not; no-one knows whether this would have a bearing on the legitimacy of their residence status or not; no-one knows the essential distinction between an office and a residence; no-one knows whether Statute of Limitation rules apply to prevent DVC prosecution down the track 24 years; no-one knows whether Presumption of Innocence rules apply so that DVC can’t say that “the onus is on you to prove you have a permit to actually live in a house you legitimately own; no-one can say whether post 1993 legislation can be applied to evict them retrospectively; no-one can say why the alleged illegal occupancy is other than a totally trivial matter; no-one can explain the absolute refusal of the DVC to even politely answer Ivo’s quite reasonable and legitimate questions, and no-one can explain why the DVC General Manager is so desperately eager to evict them just to please the quarry proponents, when such an action would leave the heritage valued old ANM Depot buildings quickly trashed because of lack of security?

    Does anyone in the DVC actually even know what day it is?

  29. Law & criminal mind expert

    October 1, 2017 at 12:39 pm

    G’day – I reckon I know as much about the law as anyone, since I have spent half my life either in court or in jail. I well understand the criminal activities that petty bureaucrats in positions of authority are capable of, since we are alike apart from the fact that I was caught and they never are.

    Ivo’s case is pretty watertight in that he predates the 1993 legislation and therefore his only little innocent alleged misdemeanour was to use what used to be an office with a permit for such use, as a house. Probably the multipurpose building also had a permit to be used as a residence, but DVC have lost the records so presumption of innocence rules have to apply, as do Statute of Limitation laws.

    This alleged offence though, judged by DVC as so serious as to arrant eviction and potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, is, as any drovers dog could confirm, about as serious on the criminal justice scale, as watering your garden when water restrictions apply, and answering your mobile phone while driving. It is staggeringly trivial. It is much less serious than the proven malpractice judgement by the Director of Local Government against the Mayor and General Manager of the DVC. Look what happened to them for their improper acts – nothing!

    In any case, as Mr Sumby pointed out, (comment 60) the DVC have scope for discretion here and can easily drop all charges against Ivo for the sake of preventing the old buildings at the old ANM site being vandalised and wrecked.

  30. Andrew

    October 1, 2017 at 12:35 pm

    If the Jenkins hire limestone quarry gets the go ahead with no regards for you, then I would support a rally at the site and hope many readers and supporters of you would join in. You have been treated like shit and it’s in a dumb place with all the increased tourism the region is about to receive. Up to 60 trucks a day is a disaster waiting to happen on those windy roads.

  31. Russell

    October 1, 2017 at 10:57 am

    Re #54
    I would think that if Ivo locked the gate and his home himself before going shopping, anyone entering while he was gone could/would be charged with a trespass offence.

    Ditto what lola said #56

  32. Jon Sumby

    September 30, 2017 at 9:34 pm

    -continued-
    I don’t they would be best pleased in the fact that by taking you to court they will have to publicly admit that they haven’t been doing the job that is their statutory duty and responsibility and that they are breaking the law under the same Act that they are using to prosecute you. As well as leaving themselves open to prosecution for $1 million-plus!

    It goes another way possibly. By not acting against you for 24 years but taking rates from you and providing the usual services to residents that councils do, it could be argued that they have tacitly recognised you as a legal resident and the zoning could be considered a historical artefact and erroneous in nature.
    But anyway, these are some issues that you could discuss with a lawyer because you are going to have to prepare a defence against the enforcement notice (if they decide to prosecute) and also to run an appeal through RMPAT (or whichever forum your lawyer advises).

    RMPAT is designed to be less intimidating than courts, as this explanation from the Hobart Community Legal Centre describes:
    The Tribunal is now the most important forum for the resolution of environmental and planning issues in Tasmania and nearly all land use disputes are heard in the Tribunal in the first instance. However, the Tribunal cannot hear disputes relating to forestry or the granting of mining or marine farming leases.

    The Tribunal is less formal than a court and is intended to make it easier for members of the public to appeal against administrative acts and decisions. For example, the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence, conducts public hearings and has a simpler, less technical hearing process.

    Good luck!

    63A. Enforcing compliance with planning schemes
    (1) A planning authority that does not take all reasonable steps to ensure that a planning scheme that has effect in respect of an area within its municipal district is complied with is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
    (2) A planning authority convicted of an offence against subsection (1) is liable to a fine not exceeding 500 penalty units, and a planning authority who is so convicted in respect of a continuing contravention of this section –
    (a) is liable, in addition to the penalty otherwise applicable to that offence, to a fine for each day during which the contravention continued of not more than 500 penalty units; and
    (b) if the contravention continues after the planning authority is convicted, is guilty of a further offence and is liable, in addition to the penalty otherwise applicable to that further offence, to a fine for each day during which the contravention continued after that conviction of not more than 50 penalty units.

  33. Jon Sumby

    September 30, 2017 at 9:31 pm

    Ivo,
    I had a further look as I was wondering why the DVC think they can remove you and your property, as they say in the quote you gave:
    ‘AND TAKE FURTHUR NOTICE that I propose to issue you with an Enforcement Notice in relation to the above offence. Such Enforcement Notice will require you to immediately cease the illegal use and may require the removal of certain items from the property and the discontinuance of certain conduct at the Property.’

    As you mentioned they are using 63(2)(a) of the LUPAA 1993 and reading through that again, I found what I think they will be relying on:

    63. Obstruction of sealed schemes
    (2) A person must not use land in a way, or undertake development or do any other act, that –
    (a) is contrary to a State Policy or a planning scheme

    You have been living for the last 24 years in a place zoned ‘general industrial’ which currently prohibits residential occupation, that is the ‘illegal use’. The ‘removal of certain items’ could mean things like you car, etc., while the ‘discontinuance of certain conduct at the Property’ can only mean living there; you probably could use it as a workshop but not as a dwelling.

    The next part simply says that by living in an industrial zone you have committed and offence:
    (3) A person who contravenes subsection (2) is guilty of an offence punishable, on summary conviction, in accordance with subsection (4).

    Subsection 4 is the monetary penalty clause but it is subsection 5A that is really important, because it means the magistrate can order you to do things to remedy the offence:
    (5A) If a person is convicted of an offence against subsection (3) , the court may order that –
    (a) the person is required to carry out, within the period specified in the order, work specified in the order;

    It is part 5B that defines what the ‘work’ in the magistrates order given in 5A should do:
    (5B) The work that may be specified in an order under subsection (5A) in relation to a person is work that will ensure that a use or development carried out by the person is in accordance with the relevant planning scheme, permit, special permit or determination.

    The magistrate may make an order that will ‘ ensure that a use’ of the property is compliant with the zoning, in other words, ordering you to not live there.

    As I have said, please see a lawyer either privately or at the Hobart Community Legal Centre asap.

    There are bits of light. For example under the Derwent Valley Interim Planning Scheme 2015, there is this:

    ‘ 9.1 Changes to an Existing Non-conforming Use
    9.1.1
    Notwithstanding any other provision in this planning scheme, whether specific or general, the planning authority may at its discretion, approve an application:
    (a) to bring an existing use of land that does not conform to the scheme into conformity, or greater conformity,
    with the scheme; or
    …
    where there is –
    (a) no detrimental impact on adjoining uses; or

    (b) the amenity of the locality; and

    (c) no substantial intensification of the use of any land, building or work.

    In exercising its discretion, the planning authority may have regard to the purpose and provisions of the zone and any applicable codes.

    So there are possibilities.

    However, as to the enforcement notice that states that you are committing an offence under the LUPAA 1993. This part of the Act is there to prevent someone from using or developing illegally and then getting the zoning changed to make their use or development legal. What it means is that if the DVC does prosecute and before then your property is rezoned to rural-residential, you will still be liable for prosecution:
    11 (5) It is not a defence to a charge of an offence of using or developing land in a municipal area in contravention of a planning scheme or this Act that, after the offence was committed, the use or development has become lawful under a provision of a planning scheme or the Tasmanian Planning Scheme in relation to the municipal area.

    However I found something else. The DVC is legally bound to manage the land under its planning control. In fact, if they don’t they are breaking the law (below). Currently a penalty unit is $159, this means that since the DVC hasn’t noticed that you were living in a general industrial zone for 24 years under the Act, if we apply the maximum penalty per day, the DVC faces a fine of $1,392,999.

  34. Simon Warriner

    September 30, 2017 at 9:13 pm

    Thanks for your reply Lola. Useful to know.

  35. Ivo Edwards

    September 30, 2017 at 6:51 pm

    Re #57. Thanks Jon for detailing that. I responded to these matters in my initial appeal against the DVC quarry approval. This appeal was ruled invalid for obscure reasons by the RMPAT chairman, so my revised appeal grounds are focusing just on the failure of the quarry approval to comply with quarry Code of Practice guidelines.

    I said: –

    “3. The EPA assessment was based on at least two serious lies in the proponents application..
    The first is the claim, via a Vipec noise level simulation which assumes that the noisy machinery would be located well away from Roberts Rd (fig 4, page 245 on the PDF file page numbering) i.e. all the noise projection data is based on the machinery being approximately 450 metres to the south of where it will actually be in the phase 1 extraction operations, likely for the initial 7 – 8 years of the quarry operation. This would mean that all the calculated noise level data in the various graphs should be moved to the left of the diagrams 450 metres, and hence the expected noise levels at our front door can be expected to be in the vicinity of 60 – 70 decibels, depending on weather conditions and drill use.

    This is a serious charge that the quarry proponents mislead the EPA to the extent that the EPA assumed that noise levels on our property could be contained to below 45 decibels, when that is impossible based on data provided

    Specific appeal charge: The EPA approval is based on erroneous noise data provided by the quarry proponents

    The second is that the quarry proponents deliberately omitted to list our property as the nearest site with a residence. They carefully used the words “nearest legal residence” They knew well of our existence as Mr Tim Jenkins had even visited and been inside our house in 2014. They presumably mistakenly thought that because we are a residence on a General Industrial zoning, illegal since 1993, we could be ignored.

    Would they ignore a charging bull just because they thought it was illegally in their paddock?

    Specific appeal charge: The quarry proponents wilfully mislead the EPA about the presence of our adjacent property which would have otherwise have caused the EPA to reject the quarry proposal because it would have contravened the Quarry Code of Practice.”

  36. Jon Sumby

    September 30, 2017 at 6:10 pm

    Hi Ivo,

    I just had a look at the EPA’s Environmental Assessment Report for the mine proposal and you are mentioned in reference to the submission you made and the EPA also focusses on the legal status of your home. I’ve put the relevant parts in as quotes for other interested people to read. The full report is available at:
    http://epa.tas.gov.au/assessment-site/Pages/Completed-Assessments-for-2017-2018.aspx

    I do hope that your appeal to the RMPAT is successful!

    The following comments and issues were raised:
    ï‚· The nearest residence is located at the old ANM site, approximately half the distance as that stated in the VIPAC report. Noise levels at this location are between 45 dBA and 50 dBA according to the report. Representor considers that they will be subject to unacceptable noise levels
    .

    The emission limit is measured at the ‘nearest sensitive receptor in other ownership’ and this is further defined as a ‘residence or residential zone’. The legal status of the building at the old ANM depot has not been confirmed. This is a matter for the Planning Authority to determine. Should it be determined to be a legal residence the emission limit will apply at this location.

    The VIPAC report did not assess the potential noise impacts on this building, and focused measures based on equipment located in proximity to R1 [n.b., the nearest house in a residential zoned area]. However, predicted noise emission contours demonstrate that noise levels are between 45 and 50 dB(A) at the former ANM log yard building under the extraction model scenario for neutral and worst case weather scenario.

    Based on these findings and additional industry standard mitigation measures as detailed in the Supplement to the DPEMP, including earthen bunds and shrouded drill rigs, it is expected that noise emissions from this activity are unlikely to cause environmental nuisance at this location.

    And:
    Blasting hours will be restricted under condition B1, consistent with the commitments of the DPEMP. All residents within a 1 km radius must be notified on each occasion prior to blasting on the Land, under condition B2. This is consistent with management measures proposed in the DPEMP.

    It is noted that the legal status of the building at the old ANM depot has not been confirmed, however as the owner/occupiers retain the right to make complaints regardless of their legal status, it is considered to the proponent’s benefit to include this location in their notifications.

    Blast limits will be imposed under condition B3. These limits apply such that they are measured atthe curtilage of any residence (or other noise sensitive premises) in other occupation or ownership.

    As noted above, the legal status of the building at the old ANM depot has not been confirmed. This is a matter for the Planning Authority to determine. Should it be determined to be a legal residence the blasting limit will apply at this location.

    The Vipac report indicates that the blast limits are likely to be complied with at the residence located approximately 850 metres from the quarry, and appropriate mitigation and management is expected to allow limits to be met at the ANM yard. Exceedance of limits must be reported to the Director under this condition.

  37. lola moth

    September 30, 2017 at 4:29 pm

    #54 Simon, as Ivo owns the property he cannot be locked out of it. They can tell him he can’t use the building as a dwelling but they can’t remove him. They can send cease and desist letters advising him he is using the property contrary to council approval but that is about all they can do.

    If Ivo comes home to a padlock and an eviction notice he can break into his property and call the police to let them know that a trespassing stranger has tried to lock him out. He should also padlock his gate each time he leaves and have a notice on the gate stating that it is private property and for people to keep out.

    I know that council employees can sometimes think they have power over residents but when stood up to face to face they usually back down. I once had a council ranger at my door telling me how to live and while I gave him a full 10 seconds to remove his filthy carcase from my property, he managed to leap the fence and make it to public land in under 5.

  38. john hayward

    September 30, 2017 at 3:44 pm

    Don’t rely too closely on law books to predict what will happen in a Tas court, where such verities are flouted on an industrial scale.

    The advantage of a court challenge is that the court would have to put its name to the DVC gambit, which they may not be keen to do unless its beneficiaries include some bigger players.

    Getting a noted mainland barrister to make an enquiry the Council might be enough to spook them.

    John Hayward

  39. Simon Warriner

    September 30, 2017 at 2:17 pm

    Lola, you might ask your rellies what the situation is if Ivo and his good lady leave the property to go get groceries and return to find the gates padlocked and the eviction notice pinned to the door.

    Do they need to remain present on the property at all times so that they cannot be verballed by council officers who say later in court that they were asked to leave and left willingly?

    Given the tactics used to date that sort of dishonesty does not seem out of character.

  40. Peter Godfrey

    September 30, 2017 at 12:04 pm

    Hello again Ivo.
    Another matter came to mind that is very relevant to your case.
    Around 2006 the State Government gave retrospective approval to hundreds of illegal buildings.
    All the shacks at the Great Lake, Ansons bay and around the coast that were illegally built on leased crown land were given title deeds ( they had to pay for the land eventually) and also their shacks were given a deemed to comply approval.
    This is a massive legal precedent, that I am sure should be brought to the magistrates attention in your case. It happened under the Labor Government.

    There was also considerable opposition from the Green Members of Parliament and the Aboriginal
    community. Doubts were expressed about the provisions in the legislation that the project would be implemen ted outside of the normal planning rules and not in accordance with the guidelines of the State Coastal Policy.
    Generally however, apart from the previously mentioned opposition there was acceptance of the proposed legislation and the recognition that at the end of the day not everyone would be happy.
    The Crown Lands (Shack Sites) Act 1997 received Royal Assent on 14 January 1998. There were two later amendments to the principal act. In 1998 there was a general election and a change of Government. In October 1999 the new Minister for Primary Industries, Water and Environment introduced an amendment to the principal act. The Minister described a number of unexpected issues with the legislation particularly with the consultation process as specified under S6. He stated that it was a complex and time consuming process. The Amendment was to allow for an extension of time—
    “
    to ensure that all stakeholders have adequate input without prejudicing the outcomes sought by the act……”
    3
    The extension of time was for a further three years. Another provision in the Amendment provided that all costs associated with the conversion process are met by the shack owners and not the taxpayer. The Amendment was generally supported but with the Tasmanian Greens
    again voicing their concerns.
    In April 2004 a further Amendment to the Act was debated in Parliament, the purpose of which was to allow the Government greater flexibility in
    the provision of assistance to shack licensees facing financial hardship.
    There had been some doubts about legal issues in providing leases to some shack owners. Once again the Minister stated that the process was
    nearing completion.
    4. HISTORY OF SHACKS ON CROWN LANDS
    The first shacks were constructed on Crown Land around 1944 and leased to the occupier. They had variously been described as having a unique
    character of construction and were part of the rich history and integral part of a way of life for many Tasmanians.
    Shacks were located in pockets all around the state but principally at relatively is
    olated beach areas and fishing spots in the Central Highlands. The shacks were built without
    regard to any planning or any environmental concerns.

    There were approximately 1370 shacks on Crown Lands authorised by either an annual licence or a short term lease. Due to the uncertainty of
    this type of tenure owners were reluctant to improve the shacks and few shacks complied with modern environmental and building standards.

  41. Peter Godfrey

    September 30, 2017 at 11:45 am

    Ivo the following is from the LUPA act. Land Use and Planning approvals act 1993.
    It appears pretty clear that as long as you bought the land and moved in before 1993 that you are in the clear. See section 7 below.
    Apparently there used to be a clause in the Local Government Act, that said if a diligent building inspector did not become aware of the existence of a building in a reasonable time ( 12 months?) then the building was deemed to comply.
    If this is true as my friend told me then you are also in the clear.

    63. Obstruction of sealed schemes
    (1) . . . . . . . .
    (2) A person must not use land in a way, or undertake development or do any other act, that –
    (a) is contrary to a State Policy, a planning scheme or special planning order; or
    (b) impedes or obstructs the execution of any such scheme or order; or
    (c) constitutes a breach of a condition or restriction of a permit imposed by a planning authority pursuant to any such scheme or order or a
    determination of the Appeal Tribunal.
    (3) A person who contravenes subsection (2) is guilty of an offence punishable, on summary conviction, in accordance with subsection (4).
    (4) A person convicted of an offence against subsection (3) is liable to a fine not exceeding 500 penalty units, and a person who is so convicted in
    respect of a continuing contravention of subsection (2) –
    (a) is liable, in addition to the penalty otherwise applicable to that offence, to a fine for each day during which the contravention continued of
    not more than 50 penalty units; and
    (b) if the contravention continues after the person is convicted, is guilty of a further offence against subsection (3) and is liable, in addition to
    the penalty otherwise applicable to that further offence, to a fine for each day during which the contravention continued after that conviction
    of not more than 50 penalty units.
    (5) Where a person is convicted of an offence against subsection (3), the court may –
    (a) in addition to any fine imposed under subsection (4), order that the person pay to the planning authority the reasonable cost incurred by
    the authority in carrying out any work so as to ensure that the use or development is in accordance with the relevant planning scheme, special
    planning order, permit or determination; and
    (b) direct that payment of the amount so ordered to be paid may be enforced in the manner provided by section 44 of the Sentencing Act 1997
    as if the person convicted had been adjudged to pay that amount in a conviction or order made by justices.
    (6) The application of subsection (2) extends in relation to a permit or a condition or restriction attaching to a permit under a planning scheme or
    special planning order where the scheme or order was in force immediately before the commencement of this Act and notwithstanding that the
    permit or the condition or restriction if any was imposed before that commencement
    http://www.thelaw.tas.gov.au/print/index.w3p;cond=;doc_id=70++1993+AT@EN+20090608000000;histon=;r
    8/06/2009 1:29:05 PMTasmanian Legislation Online
    Page 36
    (6) The application of subsection (2) extends in relation to a permit or a condition or restriction attaching to a permit under a planning scheme or
    special planning order where the scheme or order was in force immediately before the commencement of this Act and notwithstanding that the
    permit or the condition or restriction, if any, was imposed before that commencement.
    (7) Nothing in subsection (6) is to be construed as rendering unlawful any use or development that was completed pursuant to a permit in force
    before the commencement of this Act.

  42. lola moth

    September 30, 2017 at 11:00 am

    Ivo, I have spoken to my solicitor and my barrister [cousin and uncle, at a family bbq] and, like others, I am pretty sure the council can’t evict you. If you leave without being physically removed you are considered to be leaving voluntarily of your own choice and you cannot say you were removed illegally. Tell them you will continue to reside at your address until dragged kicking and screaming from it. If they come to physically evict you before the matter has been clarified by a court then I suggest you fill your property with guests on eviction day to make the process as difficult and public as possible. I am sure the TT community can muster enough people to help fill your home and at least one corner of that enormous shed.

  43. Peter Godfrey

    September 29, 2017 at 10:38 pm

    Ivo, it is interesting that so much of Tasmania’s historical building and planning documents just disappeared.
    It happened in the Deloraine area too. Here the council used to be based in Deloraine then moved to Westbury, during the move they somehow lost all records of buildings prior to their move.
    Whenever someone wants to put an addition onto their house now the council asks them to draw a complete plan of the house so that they have a record.
    Of course this is an expensive exercise that is not reimbursed.
    I have done some research on your area.
    First there used to be a limestone quarry on the ANM land that supplied limestone to the Boyer paper mill. It must have been good enough for their uses.
    Then I tried to find out about the planning schemes prior to 1993. I can only say that I cannot find anything yet.
    All searches return to the 1993 Local Government Act.
    If your residential status pre-dates that document then it is going to be very difficult for the council to evict you.
    As John Sumby points out they cannot actually evict you. You are the rightful owner of the land and are legally entitled to use your land.
    I hope that you can get good legal representation and that you can stay living where you have been so long.
    It would be a travesty if the council were able to force you to move out of your house, because some mate wants to build a quarry.

  44. Russell

    September 29, 2017 at 5:14 pm

    Re #47
    I believe a copy of all Title Deeds are kept in Hobart, otherwise if your copy was lost how would anyone know who owned what?

    Just ask a local conveyancing solicitor where all are kept and they should be able to tell you, most likely for free. A good honest one in Burnie is Graham Woodhouse (Woodhouse Conveyancing).

    There will ALWAYS be the original or a copy somewhere, including information about any/all historic changes to it. Try this link: http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/land-tasmania/land-titles-office/land-titles-office-faqs#HowdoIobtainacopyofmycertificateoftitle?

    I also believe officials destroying/losing/’misplacing’ legal property files would amount to a criminal offence.

  45. Geoffrey Swan

    September 29, 2017 at 3:28 pm

    #47 Unlike the others to whom you have referred, I have no legal expertise to offer you IVO… just my ongoing empathy and emotional support for your plight.

    For the Planning Commission to suggest they have no paper or electronic copies of public servant records is indeed preposterous and tantamount to a crime, I would think.

    The excuses of fire and water damage to important Council records is also used far too often. The Huon Valley Council has a similar story in this vein.

    Keep up the fight Ivo … and if I can quote a favourite piece from Bob Katter in a 60 minutes interview when he was referring to a battler fighting against one of the big banks:

    “you stand up and you fight … you don’t let ’em walk all over the top of you … and you understand that there are people out there who will come in on your side.

    Whereas my message to you is … we are Australians, stand up… fight”

  46. Ivo Edwards

    September 29, 2017 at 12:43 pm

    Thank you once again everyone. The comments expressing outrage and anger at the DVC are inspiring. The serious legal opinions expressed by many others, especially Jon Sumby, John Hayward, Russell Langford, William Boeder, Peter Godfrey, MjF, Shane Johnson, and Second Opinion is invaluable in so far as deciding appeal options.

    It is a pity our local council cannot be equally supportive. Not only have they apparently burnt our property records, ( they will neither confirm nor deny!) but now neither them nor the Planning Authority can tell us the all important date of the change over from Rural to General Industrial on our property. Please note latest correspondence from the Planning Authority: –

    “Dear Mr Edwards, I have now been able to review the archived files in relation to the issue you raised. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

    Unfortunately, I have been unable to find any information about the date the zoning of your property changed from Rural to General Industrial. One file has correspondence which mentions a strategic planning study that may have been able to throw some light on the issue but the actual document was missing. We contacted the author of the document but they did not have a paper or electronic copy of the study.

    I’m sorry that I cannot assist in this matter. You are welcome to come to the Commission’s office and view the file for yourself if that was of any benefit to you. Just contact me to arrange a time to come in if you would like to do that.

    Regards”

  47. Jon Sumby

    September 28, 2017 at 11:56 pm

    -Continued from above-
    So we walk through the Act.
    In:
    65C. Enforcement notices
    (1)An authorised officer who reasonably believes a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit, an offence against section 57(4A), section 60ZB(1), section 63(3) or section 64(7) may issue a notice (an enforcement notice) in relation to the offence and serve it on the person.

    This appears to be what has happened to you, however, in the following part the DVC must issue you with a notice of intent of enforcement under section 65B before serving you an enforcement notice under 65C:
    (2) Subject to subsection (3) , an enforcement notice in relation to an offence may only be issued and served on a person if –
    (a) a notice of intention to issue an enforcement notice in relation to the same offence has been issued and served on the person under section 65B

    If this has not happened the notice you have been served is invalid. Further, the DVC in their notice ordering you to leave (i.e. eviction), seem to rely on this part of the Act:

    65D. Requirements of enforcement notices
    (1) An enforcement notice that is served on a person under section 65C may require the person to do any one or more of the following:
    (a) not to commit, or to cease to commit, the offence to which the notice relates;
    (b) to take the action, specified in the notice, to remedy the consequences of the commission of the offence;

    The action they apparently have, ‘specified in the notice’, is to leave your home (i.e. eviction). However, eviction is not mentioned in the LUPA 1993 and any enforcement action the DVC states is only actually enforceable by the ruling of a magistrate if they take you to court for noncompliance and under the Act these are only financial penalties.

    There are Things You Can Do:
    1. The issue is not development but the place you have made your home for 24 years or more. Therefore I absolutely advise you to contact the Hobart Community Legal Service (Please call them for an appointment on: 6223 2500 and have a look at their website http://www.hobartlegal.org.au ) and make a personal appointment to speak with one of their lawyers. They will be interested.

    2. You must determine the zoning status of your home at the time you took possession. If the zoning at the time you bought and occupied allowed residence you are free to remain. If not there are still options. The very fact that the DVC was content to recognise your residence and claim rates and other monies off you for 24 years undermines their decision to just to decide that you are not actually allowed to be a resident and throw you out onto the street.

    3. I had a read of the mine DPEMP and found that they did not correctly identify the planning zones. As well, they identify a house as the nearest ‘authorised residence’, this wording is questionable as it speaks to prior, background, discussions which may be a breadcrumb trail about the status of your home. It may be possible to challenge the DPEMP procedurally and get yourself some time.

    4. All is not lost. They are throwing dubious legalese letters at you. You don’t have to jump when they say, ‘Frog’. The only way that they can enforce their will on you is by the ruling of a court, their ‘letters of enforcement’ mean nothing until then. This takes time, I urge you to seek legal advice, first from the Hobart Community Legal people and then along whatever avenue they advise.

    5. Enjoy life.

  48. Jon Sumby

    September 28, 2017 at 11:44 pm

    Ivo,
    If we go to 63 part 6;
    (6) The application of subsection (2) extends in relation to a permit or a condition or restriction attaching to a permit under a planning scheme where the scheme was in force immediately before the commencement of this Act and notwithstanding that the permit or the condition or restriction, if any, was imposed before that commencement.
    If, as you say, the land was zoned ‘general industrial’ prior to the LUPA 1993 then that zoning still applies. However, the zoning definition of ‘general industrial’ may not have been in use when you moved in and the definition used at that time may have had residential permissions included. It would be worthwhile to find out what the actual zoning definition was in place when you occupied the property.
    Note that as you say, the LUPA 1993 is not retroactive but 63(6) captures previous schemes and their zoning, so it is important to find out what exactly the zoning at the time allowed. In today’s schemes ‘general industrial’ prohibits residential use, but that may not have been the case back then as it may have allowed for a site managers residence or similar. I don’t know but you should seek clarity on this matter.
    This is also because of 63 (7):
    (7) Nothing in subsection (6) is to be construed as rendering unlawful any use or development that was completed pursuant to a permit in force before the commencement of this Act.
    Alas this section only allows for a use with a ‘permit in force’ at the time; therefore finding out what the zoning permissions were in force over your property at the time you bought it is as I have said, vital.
    As for subsection 2:
    63. Obstruction of sealed schemes
    (1) . . . . . . . .
    (2) A person must not use land in a way, or undertake development or do any other act, that –
    (a) is contrary to a State Policy or a planning scheme; or

    63 (2)(a) seems to be what the DVC is relying on. However they seem to be sloppy as the subsequent sections clearly state that the matter must go to the Magistrates Court and you must then be found guilty before they can apply any penalty, that is, they can issue an enforcement notice in their belief that you are infringing but they must take you to court if you do not comply and then the magistrate makes the decision on if you are infringing.

    The penalty appears to be monetary in the main and has no eviction powers. This is where it gets murky. The Act is tilted toward managing the actions of developers and seems to be silent on the situation you are in. The SPP (or LPS) prohibits residential occupation in areas zoned ‘general industrial’ but is similarly silent on established occupiers. Again we come back to the definition of a ‘general industrial’ zone prior to 1993 or whatever time the definition of a ‘general industrial zone’ was developed for the SPP (or LPS).

    -Continued below-

  49. Russell

    September 28, 2017 at 11:57 am

    Re #41
    Please re-read #30 & #38 …

    NO-ONE, not even the King or Queen, has the right to come onto your property without your permission.

    There is no such thing as “Local Government.” The concept failed in the 1988 referendum.

    Councils CANNOT make Laws, and ALL State and Federal Laws bow to Common Law. I couldn’t give a tinker’s cuss about your ‘Local Government Act.’

    A Policeman in fact has MORE right to enter your property than some Council pleb, BUT the precedent of the Plenty v Dillon (1991) High Court decision exists and shows that NO-ONE has the right to come onto your land WITHOUT your permission, FULL STOP!

  50. Ivo Edwards

    September 28, 2017 at 11:37 am

    Re #42. Ray Bender, back in 1993, fresh from having his Lune River Limestone mine closed down because it was in a World Heritage Area, actively investigated this area for continuing limestone mining. He had a lucrative limestone contract to supply EZ Co, actually purchased the old ANM Depot property from ANM, obtained rezoning to General Industrial, and undertook serious feasibility studies. In the end though, he decided not to proceed because he couldn’t see it as being a commercially viable proposition. He then sold the property to us. I wonder how Jenkins and Stroud can be so much smarter than Ray Bender and assess the quarry as a great money spinner.

  51. Second Opinion

    September 28, 2017 at 3:23 am

    Contrary to general belief, it was John Howard who implemented the first “First Home Owners Grant”
    ANM sold THE ENTIRE TOWN Of Maydena.
    Houses were sold for $10,000, of which the Grant paid $7000, for a married (how quaint) couple, and perhaps $3500 for a single occupant.
    Tim Morris, later to be the Mayor of the DVC, bought the single men’s quarters, and more.
    I am wondering if Ivo bought his piece of history, at that time.

  52. MjF

    September 28, 2017 at 12:08 am

    #38
    I don’t see how a ‘trespassing’ policeman has got anything in common with a duly authorised representative of the council entering a ratepayers property.

    Unless of course the Local Government Act doesn’t actually exist.

    In which case you wouldn’t receive your rates notice every year if you happen to own property.

    Or receive your dog licence renewal or have your wheelie bin emptied regularly.

  53. john hayward

    September 27, 2017 at 10:18 pm

    This sort of third-world scenario could only happen where the legal system has broken down.

    If the DVC has legal title to the property, the Land Titles Office would have a copy. They can’t make legal claims on the basis of a vanished agreement.

    If Ivo has lived there since prior to 1993, there must be some record of a title transfer or lease somewhere. It not, he would seem to have a good claim to his land in adverse possession, which a tenant can claim if occupancy has not been challenged or asserted for 12 years.

    Be very wary of using a Tas lawyer or relying on government officials. In my experience they will usually tank a case if it displeases bigger players on the other side, while gouging their client at the same time.

    All communications should be in writing. Good luck. Remember, we don’t really have a justice system.

    John Hayward

  54. Ivo Edwards

    September 27, 2017 at 2:17 pm

    I seriously need some free legal advice from TT readers before this issue really comes to a head. John Hayward, where are you when I desperately need you?

    I summarised the issues from my point of view in my article. My co-owner and daughter have independently sought legal advice and essentially come to the same conclusions as me.

    We know, quite categorically, the following: –

    1 We predate the 1993 planning legislation so it is unquestionable that we are legal residents so long as ANM had permits for offices and residences , since these carry on automatically from owner to owner.

    2. The DVC know well that we have lived here for 24 years.

    The important questionable issues are:

    1 Are were safeguarded by statute of limitations legislation, banning action for an unproven offence which happened 24 years ago.

    4. We are advised that a fire destroyed nearly all DVC records of our old ANM property. How then, can DVC have any evidence that we have failed to comply with any obscure permit requirements in 1993? Is this a valid appeal ground?

    5. We fully complied to the best of our knowledge and ability with all known DVC conditions and permit requirements in 1993. Does that make any difference?

    7. We have been advised by DVC that the onus is on us to prove legal residence status, but that is incorrect. In law, innocent until proven guilty applies. Is that right?

    9. The legislation quoted in the pending eviction notices cites legislation that does not apply to our 1993 condition. Legislation cannot be applied retrospectively. Is that right?

    We need informed argument here. Not just opinion, please. Thank you again everyone for being so supportive.

  55. Russell

    September 27, 2017 at 1:40 pm

    Re #35
    There is no such thing as Local “Government”, see the 1988 referendum which rejected that. Councils can NOT make Laws.

    All ‘Local’, State and Federal Laws are below Common Law and therefore void in such a case, and can only be changed via a referendum. That attempt by the Federal Government failed in 1988.

    See the High Court case Plenty v Dillon (1991). A policeman (Plenty) went onto Dillon’s land and when Plenty refused to leave when Dillon asked him to, he was charged and convicted of trespass. The Police had to pay $160,000 compensation and about $600,000 costs.

    Councils are NOT above the Law and either are the Police, and a precedent exists.

  56. anon

    September 26, 2017 at 11:56 pm

    I hear there is some media interest in this story. Sounds like a good opportunity to reach out to the broader community and I can only hope it will help council to realise they are acting improperly and unfairly towards someone who has been living in their house and paying rates for 24 years!!

  57. Shane Johnson

    September 26, 2017 at 10:00 pm

    Ivo, a quick look at the Zoning Map shows that your property (2 titles?) is the only one with General Industrial Zoning and that it lies in a sea of Rural Resource Land.
    It would be difficult to mount an argument opposing conversion of your land to Rural in the new Scheme.

  58. MjF

    September 26, 2017 at 9:44 pm

    RL @ 30

    Local Government Act 1993

    20A. Powers of entry

    (1) In order that a council may perform its functions or exercise its powers under this or any other Act, the general manager may authorise a person to enter land for a specific purpose or in general.

    (2) An authorised person need not be an employee of a council.

    (3) The general manager must give notice to the owner or occupier of the land before entry is made under subsection (1) unless –
    (a) an emergency exists; or
    (b) the entry is in relation to an application by the owner or occupier for a licence, permit or other approval given by the council; or
    (c) notice would defeat the purpose of the entry.
    (4) A person entering land under this section is to produce the identity card issued to that person under section 20B .
    (5) The general manager may revoke an authority under this section.

    Note clause (3)(c)
    Landholder permission not needed if it suits.

  59. William Boeder

    September 26, 2017 at 9:16 pm

    Dear Ivo, there is absolutely no need to just hand over the keys, you are fully enabled and entitled “to say no and that you are currently seeking the appropriate legal advice to determine the elderly abuse being suffered and the legality of the proposed eviction.”
    It would be both regrettable and reprehensible if the police arrive with a council representative as this will reverberate right across Australia.
    Do let me know all about the matter via my email and I will advise Ms Michelle Guthrie the new head of the ABC.
    Saying no and etc should get you some important time to better defend your position.

  60. Peter Godfrey

    September 26, 2017 at 8:47 pm

    Ivo, Russell may be onto something. In Tasmania the trespass laws are different to other states.
    Here Trespass comes under the Police Offences Act of 1935 ( hope I am right on the year).
    A person has the right to come to your front door but if you tell them to leave they must.
    If they will not leave then you can call the police and direct them to remove the trespasser.
    The council would have to prove that they had a legal right to be on your property, and that they had a right to evict you.
    I believe that they may have a hard time doing that.
    You could always lay a swag on the ground outside and say that you actually sleep there and cook on an open fire. That the house is only used for storage.

  61. Bronwyn

    September 26, 2017 at 8:31 pm

    I am sad to see this proposed course of action by the Derwent Valley Council. Having previously had the privilege of a short stay on the property in question, Mr Edwards’ passion and care for the property was clearly evident. Buildings with heritage value should be protected, and who better than by the person who has been protecting them already all these years? It is also surprising that the Council would push ahead with the heavy construction required for the quarry when there have been recent thylacine sightings in the area. I trust Mr Edwards’ concerns will be properly addressed.

  62. Robin Charles Halton

    September 26, 2017 at 8:30 pm

    Ivo sorry to hear about your dilemma with DVC but have you thought of the possibility of either leasing or selling the site to the Defence Force as a more isolated base for troop assembly and training measures.

    When I first saw the photo of the former ANM workshops that is what immediately came to my mind.

    Australia is not so far away from engaging from increasing its military might within the SE Asian region and there is no reason why bases in tasmania should not be considered especially after the loss of the Brighton training facility leaving only Dowsings Point which is too close to the city for strategic reasons.

    Tasmania needs to attract at least more Reserve personel asap given the threat and interest in Australia as a possible country for settlement by SE Asian expansionism either by force or eventually by trade and business submission due to our inept political leaders.

    Defence will rapidly become the most important aspect of our lives over the remainder of this decade by the way things are shaping!

  63. Russell

    September 26, 2017 at 3:43 pm

    Re #16
    Ivo, is your Land Title Deed classed as Fee Simple?

    Furthermore to my understanding that Councils are no more than businesses and don’t have the authority to make Laws, in 1988 an Australian Referendum was held as below:

    “A Proposed Law: To alter the Constitution to recognize local government. Do you approve this proposed alteration?”

    The result was resoundingly in the negative with 6,248,166 against to 3,163,488 for.

    Councils are NOT a form of Government and as I understand it have no rights to evict you, or even trespass onto your land without your permission. Not even the King or Queen can do that under Common Law while we are still a member of the British Commonwealth.

    Put a lock on your gate and see http://www.lockthegate.org.au/

    You can get a sign to put on your gate quoting the Plenty v Dillon (1991) 171 CLR 635 F.C. 91/004 High Court decision, which would probably be a precedent.

  64. Emily Porter

    September 26, 2017 at 2:32 pm

    Making this decision without consulting you, a long term rate payer and member of the community, is reprehensible and a clear dereliction of process by the council. I hope you take this up with the relevant Tasmanian Senators and Members of Parliament. Long term residents should not be forced out by corporate interests.

  65. Shane Johnson

    September 26, 2017 at 2:02 pm

    Ivo, one of the objectives of the Local Provisions for the new Statewide Scheme is for Councils to correct inappropriate zonings. If they advocate for and make this change then your costs are greatly reduced.
    A first step might be to have a planner prepare a submission within this Local Provisions process.
    This is all happening now so it might be prudent to at least talk to a planner as quickly as you can.

  66. Ivo Edwards

    September 26, 2017 at 12:55 pm

    Thank you so much everyone for your overwhelming support and helpful advice. Today is the closing date for our appeal against the pending eviction notice . We are really just waiting now to be issued with a final eviction notice and will then start an appeal process, with a planning lawyer, probably to the RMPAT appeals tribunal.

    We have strenuously appealed the pending eviction notice of course but it’s just like the hen appealing her pending fate to the fox really

    I think bookmakers would give great odds on us winning an appeal, but no doubt the DVC will present a team of the best and most expensive lawyers to represent them, so tough luck if we lose and have to pay their costs. But then again if we win and they have to pay the costs of our lawyer and the same $520 per hour for me lying in bed thinking about my strategies for a couple of hours each night, then that would be nice. Probably better odds than poker machines to come out ahead eventually if we appeal, I think.

    Re. Peter Godfrey enquiry (#26) about which Act the DVC are referring to. Yes, it is the 1993 Act, which we predate, so it is not applicable. Not that that petty little detail is a problem to the DVC.

    Re. Shane Johnson’s interesting comment. (#15). Yes, we will have to try to get rezoned to Rural from current General Industrial. This should be just a matter of paying the $3,500 fee and engaging a certified planning expert to do the paperwork. It is a bit late for the current crisis though and the quarry proponents will probably object if we try and get rezoned down the track because they don’t want us legal since they will then have to comply with the noise restrictions of 45 decibels on our property.

  67. Peter Godfrey

    September 25, 2017 at 11:46 pm

    Sorry to hear about your plight Ivo.
    There are far too many power hungry types who clog up the halls of council offices.
    I am wondering which act the council are using to evict you. What year was this act they are citing written.
    If they are quoting the local government act of 1993 then you may have an out.
    As long as they have been charging you rates stating that there is a dwelling on the land then, it appears to me that they cannot throw you out.
    If the rates notice says House, then they have known for all that time that you live there.
    Like others, I suggest that you need legal advice.
    Try the free legal centre.
    Or alternately go directly to the Tasmanian Planning Commission and ask them for advice.

  68. William Boeder

    September 25, 2017 at 11:45 pm

    Some number of years ago an old bloke living in the town of Rosebery for a long number of years had given me his opinion of how Tasmania got itself into a situation that had created a lot of today’s problems in the State government circles.
    He had said that back many years ago there were no limits set on how many babies were born and cared for were actually a product of an intimate relationship between brother and sister, father and daughter, mother and son, that kind of thing.
    He had went on to say that that this accounted for most of the persons in government circles as they were generally the product of such incestuous relations going on all over the State in those former times.
    He added that people were not allowed to murder these new offspring so they had to be parented as if they were born by way of a more conventional kind of partner relationship.
    As much as I respect the elder persons in the Tasmania of today this does not suggest that I agreed to what that particular old-timer had told me around some 15 or so years ago.
    Though it can be a cause for consideration when one takes into account how isolated from the common people were the government circles in that former time, then who knows if this may still be the situation that has transcended into the same hierarchical circle of today’s current incumbents in this State’s hierarchy.

  69. Nigel Geeves

    September 25, 2017 at 8:59 pm

    This sounds like a situation likely to be found in a dictatorship,and definitely does not belong in a democracy.
    Perhaps this is another council our State Government should be taking a close look at.

  70. Anna Banfai

    September 25, 2017 at 4:41 pm

    AS a Clinical Psychologist, I find it appalling that DVC would question the legitimacy of a senior citizen’s home and secure base, BEFORE CHECKING ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS, INCLUDING THE LAW AS WELL AS THE HUMAN FACTOR. It is irresponsible to approach this situation without doing so. Has a council worker visited Mr Ivo Edwards, a rate-payer for decades, to check out how he is going with it all? What his side of the story is? Or suggested that perhaps a solution can be found together? Has a council member reassured Mr Edwards and shown him a flowchart on how this matter can proceed, what are the various outcomes and avenues of appeal? If not, we can all try to imagine how he would feel, if we imagine how WE would feel if we received a notice from OUR local council that an eviction notice is to be issued, can’t we? Anna Banfai, Clinical Psychologist, Victoria.

  71. Clinical Psychologist

    September 25, 2017 at 4:16 pm

    As a Clinical Psychologist it is my considered professional opinion that the Derwent Valley Council … are deluded narcissistic pretentious schizophrenic spoiled brats and unmitigated bullies who should be compulsorily detained for appropriate therapy to attempt to reverse their compulsive antisocial and base delusional tendencies. These are in regard to their mistaken beliefs that old age pensioners are sub human and can be treated like cockroaches. Such treatment should include electro-convulsive treatment, and isolation in Siberia for several years to prevent cross contamination of their virally induced delusions.

    (edited)

  72. William Boeder

    September 25, 2017 at 2:29 pm

    The objective of seeking a legal representative from the offerings of this profession in Tasmania is fraught with peril, as most are a member of the iniquitous brotherhood that are not really concerned who wins the case as long as there costs are going to be met.
    Far too often client confidentiality has become non-existent as this idea of confidentiality had been hurled out of the window many years ago, the finality of the court decision is not necessarily awarded to the person(s) deserving.
    Having spoken with the legend John Hayward on past occasions his advices were along the lines of that contained in the above.
    In retrospect his opinion was sought relative to a trustworthy Tasmanian legal practitioner, he seemed to think such a person does not dwell in Tasmania.
    So in the best interest of Ivo Edwards it would be more the wiser to look outside of this State.

  73. Wade

    September 25, 2017 at 12:14 pm

    The old Workshop pictured above should be definitely heritage listed and the owners live on the land (As they always did in the ANM days) as caretakers. I believe this to be the largest wooden building in the southern hemisphere. The trees were cut down by the old timers with saws (Not chainsaws) and the logs were pulled out of the bush by the old type steam winches. The timber beams in the workshop are axed and not saw milled.

  74. MjF

    September 25, 2017 at 11:29 am

    #16
    Thanks for clarifying ivo.
    As others have suggested good legal representation is a must here as the councils case probably has holes. Not withstanding any other factor they have established a precedence by going along with your living arrangements for many years it seems and done nothing about it.
    They would need to be careful how the Enforcement Notice was exactly worded when based on relevant sections of the Act.
    Legal review for you is required unfortunately as a minimum.

  75. Geoff Edwards

    September 25, 2017 at 3:25 am

    I have known Ivo Edwards for 72 years, and have always found him honest, industrious and imaginative. He puts store on the Aussie ideal of a “fair go”, and is perhaps happiest when working on one of his inventions (e.g. animal-friendly traps for native pests, a bottling plant for fruit juice) in the impressive ANM machinery maintenance shed on his property at Maydena. I find it difficult to believe that hard-working (still), socially responsible Ivo would be evicted from his home of nearly a quarter of a century. I suppose I am too far removed to appreciate how DVC came to the view that the community interest would be served by evicting my brother. Geoff Edwards, Kew, Victoria

  76. Simon Alderson

    September 25, 2017 at 1:51 am

    This is disappointing behaviour from Derwent Valley Council. I would hope to see a council being understanding and supportive in its treatment of a senior resident who has contributed rates to the area for many years. At a bare minimum I would expect the DVC to respond to communications in a timely and sensitive manner. It is unclear to me that a legally defensible reason to evict this resident has been established rather than a ‘quick fix’ workaround to ensure the quarry progresses smoothly.

  77. Ivo Edwards

    September 25, 2017 at 1:13 am

    Dear MjF (#14). The charge is this : –

    “Specifically I reasonably believe that , contrary to section to section 63(2)(a) of the Act, you are using land for a residential dwelling (‘use’) on land at 3777 Gordon River Rd, Maydena in Tasmania (‘Property’)”

    Unfortunately this section of the Act doesn’t have much application to this matter as I explained in another of my answered letters:

    “Thank you for your notice of intention to evict us,

    Unfortunately section 63(3) of the Act only appears to provide for fines for this offense, not eviction?

    Can you please explain the apparent anomaly?”

  78. Shane Johnson

    September 25, 2017 at 1:10 am

    I would be interested to see what the proposed zoning will be after the Local Provisions of the Statewide Scheme are applied in the Derwent Valley.
    The Strategic Review will be underway now.
    Will it necessarily be Industrial or might it change to Rural or similar? The building pictured would be ideal for some form of non-industrial adaptive re-use.
    Is there scope for you to proceed down this path?

  79. MjF

    September 24, 2017 at 11:36 pm

    #1
    ………I propose to issue you an Enforcement Notice in relation to the above offence.

    What’s the ‘offence’ exactly ??

  80. bert lawatsch

    September 24, 2017 at 7:39 pm

    Ivo has lived there for over 20 years paying his rates and now the Derwent Valley Council want to kick him out as he is too close to the proposed Jenkins Quarry. They never had a problem with it until now.
    He has been treated very poorly by the DVC who are ignoring his emails and not considering his many good arguments for being allowed to stay there. A group of concerned residents went to the Council meeting on the decision night to voice our concerns – off course we were all ignored too.

    Obviously the Council is just looking after big business and not the rate payers who pay their salaries. They should be ashamed of themselves and get the sack for their mis-handling of this case.

    Ivo is an elderly resident who just wants to be left in peace to live out his remaining years and the Derwent Valley Council should be lobbying the developer for this outcome rather than evict him.

    Submittor’s concerns to the EPA have been ignored too – the large number of truck movements at all hours of day and night, noise, road safety, tourism impact, road kill etc etc all ignored.
    Maydena and the upper Derwent Valley could be a great tourism hot spot for Tasmania – yet the Derwent Valley Council seem happy to evict people and have a quarry instead.

  81. Mike Bolan

    September 24, 2017 at 7:21 pm

    An old story in Tas Ivo. In your situation I’d contact John Hayward who lives near Deloraine for comment and advice. John has a clear view and lots of experience dealing with Taslegal related problems and if anyone can help, he’d know them. He writes comments on TT so you should find his contact details there.

  82. Michael

    September 24, 2017 at 6:14 pm

    Surely The Hodgman government would step in here and realise what a mess this whole situation is for you and indeed the whole valley?

  83. Second Opinion

    September 23, 2017 at 10:55 pm

    Thanks for the heads-up Ivo. Get the crowd funding started now.

  84. DPIPWE friend

    September 23, 2017 at 7:02 pm

    Hey Ivo – Stop stressing so much. Looking after the old ANM heritage buildings is not your problem, Let them be trashed and bequeathed to vandals, thieves, possums, and local low life. It is time for you to enjoy yourself in retirement. Say good riddance to Maydena and the DVC. Become a grey nomad and get away from the stress and aggravation of dealing with low life trashing your buildings and other low life trashing your sanity with bullshit eviction notices. You don’t need this stress.

    Move onto plan B and just focus on sending the new quarry bankrupt with simple technical reports detailing how low grade the limestone is …

    You can do that from anywhere in Australia, lazing around a nice warm beach resort …

    (anonymous comment edited)

  85. TV Resident

    September 23, 2017 at 6:01 pm

    This behaviour sounds pretty normal when it comes to all levels of gov’t…steamroll the public. Federal gov’t, State gov’t and our local councils are all guilty of this activity. We are the ‘cash cows’ and then the council waste it on some favoured ‘development’. Our objections fall on deaf ears every time. I live in the Launceston area and I was making myself a nervous wreck trying to deal with the council. Now I just say they will do what they want regardless and I will not allow myself to become involved in council approvals ever again. I now have my health back because I have learned to switch off.

  86. Simon Warriner

    September 23, 2017 at 5:59 pm

    re 2, I am not so sure it is the agenda that is being hidden here, so much as whose interests are being served by the council actions. The agenda serves the interests, not the other way around.

    If we had a functional, competent Integrity watchdog they would be using their investigative competence and powers to determine if those interests were indeed legitimate. That they are not speaks volumes about the watchdog and those who brought it into being.

    (A watchdog doing it’s job competently does not need to be invited, informed, or asked. It makes sure it is situationally aware at all times and it investigates those instances that fall outside the normal, such as this. If it does not then it is not a competent or effective watchdog.)

    It will be interesting to watch how this gets dealt with.

  87. over the top outraged

    September 23, 2017 at 4:39 pm

    This has to be by far and away the most outrageous example of government and local council (dubious behaviour) I have ever come across, which is saying something significant. There are simply not enough adjectives in the English language dictionary to describe how terrible and (questionable) this is.

    Hang in there Ivo and nail the bastards to the wall with blunt rusty 6 inch nails. I am just about to tell the DVC what I think of them in no uncertain terms. I will keep doing this until my fingers go numb.

    (anonymous comment edited)

  88. William Boeder

    September 23, 2017 at 3:36 pm

    Comments 1 2 and 3 are quite easy to follow, however I see this issue as outright bullying being used to pressure and coerce residents from their homes, their wish to live in a peaceful environment, not just to be bullied about by Local government councils and State government departments.
    Then there is the ignorant concept held by this 2 forms of government; “ah there are only a small number of oldies there so it should be easy to steamroll these older nuisance persons out of the way that want to hold up progress and State development.

    http://epa.tas.gov.au/Documents/Jenkins Hire Pty Ltd & Stroud Pty Ltd, Hard Rock Quarry, Maydena – DPEMP.pdf

    http://www.mrt.tas.gov.au/mrtdoc/tasxplor/download/08_5765/EL17_2002_200811_01_report.pdf

    So Ivo it seems that no matter to any view of alternatives and historical buildings, the oldies just get told to shut pp and to clear out.

    This is symptomatic of all proposed developments throughout the State of Tasmania.
    “We’ll just have to get the oldies to toe-the-line or we will start litigation proceedings that they will have to spend big money they haven’t got to counter this development.”
    Unfortunately just another day in local and State government of bulldozing oldies from their homes.

    Our bastard tyrannical levels of government will do their utmost to satisfy the developers no matter of concerns otherwise the oldies will have to cop it in the neck..

  89. Diana Quilliam

    September 23, 2017 at 3:05 pm

    … I do hope you take up Russell Langfield’s suggestion to engage a Barrister versed in property law. Yes… and we could band together to do the crowd funding thing to help cover costs.
    Also strongly encourage you to lay a complaint against the DVC. Especially, as you say that the mayor and one alderman have already been found guilty of malpractice.
    The councillor who abstained from voting was the one who felt he had not been given adequate time (6 days) to read (approx 300+ page document) and fully comprehend the details and implications of the proposed quarry development. This is a travesty

    (edited)

  90. Russell

    September 23, 2017 at 12:56 pm

    I would suggest you get a Barrister versed in property Law. Maybe try crowd funding if you can’t find someone to do it for free or don’t have the finances?

    One thing I can tell you is that the DVC, like all other Councils, are NOT Government departments and do NOT have the authority to make Law. Only Parliament can do that.

    As I understand it Local Councils are just a business like any other busines and have an ABN to prove it. All they are entitled to do is offer you a service, and you can refuse to take up that offer if you don’t want it.

  91. Andrew

    September 23, 2017 at 12:17 pm

    The DVC should hang their heads in shame considering you are a long term ratepayer in their municipality. They should of had your issue sorted before they voted or at least deferred their decision so they could obtain all the facts.
    It’s incredulous that councilors were unaware of the quarry proposal just days before they had to vote. Looks like it was rubber stamped for approval well before council’s decision.
    One might cynically question if there is a hidden agenda here.

  92. Ivo Edwards

    September 23, 2017 at 12:12 pm

    I am advised that I was misinformed about the DVC vote for the quarry approval. It was 5 in favour, 2 against and 1 abstention

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top