IT APPEARS something is going to happen to lessen “frivolous third-party appeals” (P. Gutwein). Jan Davis’ comment defines the problem, “There is clearly something wrong with the system when small groups of anti-development protesters can hold up projects, which have been approved through proper processes and which have strong community support”.
I am aware of a close relative who faced 26 ongoing objections as they built their fully-approved home. It all happened at no cost to the frivolous objector, who seemed to take delight in impeding progress, much to the annoyance of council officers and police who had to respond. Attributing costs to the objector if objections are found to be nebulous might cause such people to think again and lessen selfish NIMBY claims. I applaud the treasurer’s initiative in proposing state legislation.
Dick James, Launceston.
AFTER reading your article in The Examiner (March 9) on the water issues, I felt a need to reply. We live in Branxholm and have done for the past four years. We brought our house unseen while we were on the mainland, at no time were we informed of a water problem. We only found out a year after we had been living there, putting that aside we have as many country towns the exact same issues as Ringarooma. We have posted photos on TasWater Facebook page with no contact from them at all.
We have phoned them and told them we are going to put in tanks and to disconnect us from the water supply only to be told we still have to pay for the service, even if we are not using it because it runs past our property. Now the argument here is the phone and power also runs past but we don’t pay for them if we don’t want them. Also you state that Ringarooma residents have a communal water tank where they can get drinking water from. At Branxholm, we do not have the luxury of a TasWater water tank, we have been buying water for the last three years to drink. Is TasWater going to reimburse us for this? I think not.
Colin Russell, Branxholm.
TANYA Cavanagh (The Examiner, March 2) and Susie Johnston’s (The Examiner, March 8) defence of the financial status of Teen Challenge Tasmania’s Home of Hope prompts further questions. My assessment of Teen Challenge Tasmania’s lack of viability was based on submissions made by the organisation to Meander Valley Council and to state government. I assume they were accurate.
I believe that if Teen Challenge Tasmania is viable, it would have purchased its own property by now and be assisting the mothers it claims are awaiting entry into the drug rehabilitation program. Instead, TCT has spent at least 18 months trying to force itself into a building that by rights should belong to the whole community; and is now seeking government funding for what is primarily a conversion program targeting a select and highly vulnerable clientele.
Brian Hillman, Meander.
HOW wonderful that Errol Stewart and his partners can now go ahead with their build and make the old C.H. Smith site a suitable entrance to our city. It is an eye-opener that our government still allows legislation that supports last-minute objections that will have added thousands to this project.
Is it not staring every politician in the face that this legislation has held up, added to the cost of, stopped some projects and held up progress of the state. As for the Heritage Protection Society Tasmania, possible they have learned to be on the front foot rather than hold up and add to the cost of projects.
Maybe they could look at Reid’s Gates and Gate Cottage on Westbury Road before both become beyond repair and their history lost to the city.