An arrogant attempt to shift blame
I’M seriously impressed by the level of cluelessness and arrogance displayed by the MWCC when they blame the HCC for the excessive costs associated with assessing their development application. The fact their application was assessed by these independent consultants as being significantly non-compliant with the planning scheme and the management plan hasn’t deterred them from continuing to appeal to an imaginary silent majority and blame everyone but themselves for their failures.
Geoff Couser
Sandy Bay
INSULTING PROCESS
IT’S interesting to observe the MWCC try to spin their ill-fated DA around into a waste of ratepayers’ money. The HCC is to be commended on the due diligence that was given to such an important issue – the permanent and irreversible ruination of a priceless natural asset. The cost of such diligence is immaterial in the scheme of things.
Perhaps one of the major issues in the rejection of the DA was the insult to the Aboriginal people – engaging a FIFO consultant, with just one assistant, who took just two days to declare there was no significant Aboriginal heritage. Truly astonishing. Continuing the battle to save this magnificent mountain and all that it means to the people of Hobart, and others, is vital. Yvonne Stark
Battery Point
THINK BIGGER
OVER the past few weeks, there has been a regrettable lack of vision in relation to the proposed cable car. What the proponents of this internationally significant development should be pushing for is a multi-staged program that consists of a) a cable car from Battery Point to the peak of Mount Wellthem ington b) a chair lift from Salamanca Place to Battery Point and c) a chair Lift from Marieville Esplanade, Sandy Bay to Battery Point. This development would provide access to the cable car for local, national and international tourists. It would provide a better guarantee of economic viability for the project and would involve a significant increase in construction expenditure and hence more jobs in the initial stages. Think big, develop bigger Richard J Goodram
Mt Nelson
COSTLY MISTAKES
THE alleged assessment costs are outrageous. The Hobart City Council should acknowledge its incompetence to assess the cable car application as it falls outside the regulations and planning issues normally considered by the council officers and planners. Who were the consultants engaged and what was their brief? We need to know the reason for these costs. The inference that more costs are applicable according to the Kenji Sato’s piece as the “hundreds of hours spent by council staff and councillors” are not factored in. The councillors and staff are being paid whether they are assessing applications or not.
The matter should have been for the government’s consideration as it is a benefit to all of Tasmania not just a local Hobart issue and any costs should not be borne solely by the HCC.
The cable car is clearly favoured by the majority of Tasmanians. Can the government with commonsense, please take over the process and thus avoid more delays and unnecessary costs? If ever there was a time for some stimulus, it is now.
Robin Retchford
South Hobart
WASTE IS EVERYWHERE
AS Louise Elliott points out, perhaps Mike Dutta could let us know how much council has spent assessing and recommending perfectly compliant projects only for him to vote against based on nothing but his own personal whims? Or how much councillors have spent on external consultants reports only for those reports to be ignored because they don’t fit individual councillors agendas? Or how much has been spent on defending lost appeals when his votes and others from like-minded councillors are overturned by RMPAT? In the case of the MWCC proposal, perhaps we should see if RMPAT overturn that one as well before deciding whether “councils eyewatering cost to ratepayers” assessing the project was yet another example of gross council waste?
Tony Donaghy
Ellendale
USE COUNCIL STAFF
I INVITE Councillor Mike Dutta to put his policy initiative “where developers of this nature should contribute to the cost” to one side (Mercury, September 13) and probe (or council publish on its website) whether the $240,000 plus assessment costs to date is the result of consultants operating with an open cheque.
For instance, do the costs include the senior legal counsel engaged, on a retainer? Was a probity framework applied, a request for tender process conducted, selection criteria advertised, and operating terms of reference defined for the consultants, over the twoyear assessment process?
Why weren’t internal HCC planners used; or does this expose the fact councils are completely out of their depth with projects “of this nature”. Why not spare ratepayers further costs and use cost-neutral internal planners?
Finally, in response to “we had hoped the proponent would abandon its obsession with a cable car”, the proponent’s answer is an unequivocal “no … we’re here for the long haul”.
Mick Bendor
Danby