Page | 1

EOIChurchPointCommuterWharf

Address to Council 05.12.11

What happens at Church Point over the next two or three years will be what we live with over next 30 to 50 years.

While it’s impossible to achieve 100% consensus, within the limits of time and resources available, considerable efforts have been made by the elected Offshore representative committees to communicate the overall intent and each stage of the Church Point Plan of Management.

Of course, one can always communicate more. SIRA and WPCA are proposing a survey of every household on the Western Foreshores and ScotlandIsland in regard to options for creating extra parking in the area opposite the CommuterWharf.

As for the broad mandate to move forward with the Plan of Management, Councillors will recall that a large contingent of Offshore community members attended the Council meeting in November, 2009 where the current POM was approved with huge support.

Why are these particular Wharf designs being supported?

Safety and amenity at the current CommuterWharf is a serious issue and capacity needs to be increased. But it’s important that the shape and position of this Wharf and the future of carparking at Church Point are closely linked.

The CommuterWharf is designed to accommodate the future shape of the foreshore. While there has been some improvement in available parking space since permits were introduced, it is probable that this small advantage will disappear over the next few years, making it difficult to access our homes.

  1. Our view in regard to Design:

(a)The final design for additional parking within this area may vary from that shown in the POM, but we must proceed assuming that the proposals in that plan are to be implemented. The Wharf proposals going to tender allow for this.

(b)Councillors would have noted that there is a proposal in the Report for the alternative usage of the existing CommuterWharf pontoons to implement current Management Plans for Wharves on ScotlandIsland. If this proceeds it will greatly improve safety, decrease foreshore boat tie ups and avoid wastage. We are wary of temporary arrangements. Often “the temporary” becomes “the permanent”.

  1. Our view in regard to Cost:

The advertised proposed fee is $285 per annum. We strongly encourage Council to look for a funding arrangement that allows for the above design, while minimising the impact on those in our community who have low disposable incomes and for whom $285 is a considerable additional expense.

To this end we ask two things:

  • Firstly, when exact estimates of costs are available, we ask Council to continue in its usual spirit of open collaboration in discussing how the level of fees is to be calculated. The fees should only be the amount needed to service the loan required for construction cost, plus a small contribution for future maintenance.
  • Secondly, we ask Council once again to consider a special discount concession on both parking and boat permits for residents who are in receipt of either a Mature Age Pension or Disability Support Pension.

We thank Council staff for all the time and work they are putting into this project. We hope that those who have widely varying views on this topic show each other the required respect and that the process we have followed these past several years continues to provide a guide.

In summary --

  • We can’t go back to the 1980s
  • The POM has given us back our carpark and increases our boat spaces, and
  • The cheapest option is not always the best

We have come the furthest in the last 20 years and we need to move on in a spirit of community co-operation.

Bill Gye