Faceless Foreshore Advisory Committee is Finished

Yes, the last meeting of tick-the-box committee meeting was held on 1 May. The Mayor and General Manager along with a number of obviously per-informed members did not attend this compete waste of time event. - the snacks were good by no biscuits.

As usual the attendees were talked at with no room for discussion however on this occasion we were given a sheet of paper to record our question? Why you may ask? Well why because some 4 weeks later we have not had a single reply. Not a single response to some simple and some difficult questions such as:

• What boat washdown areas are there at the reopened boat ramps?
• Are there fish cleaning tables and do they have a roof?
• Do the boatramps meet the boatramp Guidelines/Standards?
• Are there going to be life rings along the foreshore?
• Will there be securing points at the boatramps with no floating pontoons? (pontoons - none)
• What type of boatramp lighting will there be and where is it located?
• What safety and information signs are there?

All foreshore type questions not shown on the presentation.

When it came to the T-wharf there was a big surprise. At the previous FAC we were presented with a plan/proposal to demolish part of the T-wharf as per the John Holland contract and to replace it with suitable floating pontoons.

See the Associations previous post on this matter. While we did not totally support the design it was a great start and what the Committee members had been waiting for and the Community had expected.
Well now the surprise. The T-wharf is to be maintained in the same format. - no change. Old piles on the waterside unusable to any one except a large ferry style vessel. But there is more. Two 30 m long floating pontoons attached to the T-wharf with securing piles on the outside. Yes on the outside of the pontoon so your vessel can come alongside and damage the hull as you secure it. That will limit the available space to one average cruising yacht and maybe a small runabout. The outer ends are unusable for the same reason and so is the shoreside.

But there is more. The movable connecting ramp to get from the T-wharf to the floating pontoons is so long it appears to be 28 m. You may ask why?: to meet the wheel chair requirements of slope gradient. No problem to accommodate accessibility but the proposed on-ramp takes up an estimate 78% of the available space of the pontoon. That leaves two narrow lanes on the shore and seaward side and then with the balance covered by the moving ramp. Now think of that when you try to cast a line with your rod. It will get snagged by the ramp handrails. Not to mention the danger of some child crawling under the ramp and a large wash from the ferry coming by lifting the pontoon and squashing or trapping the child between pontoon and on-ramp.

Now you may ask how we came to this ridiculous situation of maintaining the existing T-wharf when it was clearly stated in all communications that it would be removed and replaced. This replacement was the off-set that the boating public reluctantly accepted when RMS lowering the current bridge level to only 12 meter above the water. So the boating public has been ignored and tricked again. Did I answer the question as to how this came about NO. I will leave that to you to deduce but I can state that the Shire has played a significant role in directing this outcome.

Returning to the FAC itself and the members contributions.

What did the active members achieve in advising the RMS/John Holland project – NOTHING. Yes not a single idea that was put forward appears to have been accepted or incorporated into the foreshore or bridge project. I do think we got separate male and female toilet cubicles and a special section for those with a disability and maybe we may even get a smart litter bin – thanks Director Sharpe.

Now did the FAC fulfill the Community consultation role? Well, no-way because you the community did not know who gave their time to attend these meetings. Not one photo, not one joint gathering with the community and there is still the seal of secrecy and confidentiality over what we saw, so I am not able to tell you more about the traffic flows, parking spaces and design features of the project. When will the community “be informed” hopefully soon because the rate of spend on this project must be massive and your money is going into salaries, holes in the ground, concrete and steel at an alarming rate.

Concrete Wharf to be demolished

The Minister had finally approved the destruction of the concrete wharf and the building of floating pontoons. After some intensive lobbing and failed behind the scenes negotiating the go-ahead has been received for the long awaited establishment of floating pontoons. 

The days of old fashioned concrete weed encrusted piles with pipes and wires hanging underneath along with cracked and rusted reo bars bursting out of the surface has finally come to an end. A new purpose built boat-friendly designed floating pontoon will be installed before the end of the year. This will reduce the boating pressure on moorings, give access to fishing and cruising vessels and provide a safe platform for young people to throw in a fishing line.

A boating representative is quoted as saying: “The move to a modern floating pontoons with water, electricity and suitable lights has finally arrived. Fuel will also be available for the local and visiting vessels. No longer will skippers have to fear being trapped under this structure as the tide rises and vessels will not be damaged by the old wooden piles and protruding steel and concrete. This is a clear step into the future to use the Boating Now licence funds in a constructive and advantages way.”

Access to boater, fishos and those less able to climb onto a boat will be enhanced with a modern, secure and safe floating pontoons built by the internationally acclaimed company Bellinghams. The local marina manager and licence holders have gone out of their way to accommodate the boats having to move from the existing wharf during construction in Bermagui harbour.

Lets see this further north along NSW.

Standards - What standards?

Today bureaucrats phrase every new regulation or restriction in terms of increased safety or security. Yes saving lives while fishing by wearing life jackets or auditing your vessel and mooring to save the environment. What we got today is Maritime’ announcement that they are going to audit the 28,000 moorings and attached vessels to see if they comply with a standard that does not exist or if your vessel is seaworthy to criteria so subjective it would not pass the pub test all in the name of safety and the environment.

They state on their web page that if a vessel comes adrift from a mooring due to poor maintenance it could damage infrastructure, other vessels and the environment. Yes that is correct. The adrift vessel is responsible for any damage caused and is a mooring condition. Their argument that it cost Maritime money for salvage which could be used for boating infrastructure is very thin and we have yet to see Maritime salvage or tow a vessel.

Now what is wrong with this mooring and vessel audit?

Essentially nothing but the aims are inter alias; increase mooring compliance, remove mooring minders and reduce wait list for moorings plus some verbiage about a register of non-compliant vessels to protect secondary resale market purchases.

Where did all that come from? Million dollar water front house owners? Or may be the BIA members looking for more business via the RVAG committee?

Well lets look at the process.

Firstly the audit will be conducted by the local Boating Safety Officer (BSO) who, I am sure, has been adequately trained in inspecting moorings according to the NSW mooring standard…… but wait there is no standard, so how will they judge that it is non-compliant?

The BSO will audit your vessel to determine if they consider it to be seaworthy. OK by what standard? Sure it should have the correct markings and boatcode label but will the BOA check if the rig is in good condition or if the bilge pumps are working – no way. The FAQ have a set of defects that will attract a penalty notice but the majority are so subjective (hull and equipment in poor condition) that they would not pass in a court of law or even the pub test.

Now the outcome.

You will be issued with a non-compliance letter (certified mail requiring signature – joke) setting out the items to be rectified and the usual threat of fine and/or prosecution and a time-frame of usually 21 days.

If you object or cant meet the time conditions you have to contact the local BSO (yes the same one who issued the defect notice) to develop a “plan of action” to correct the non-compliance issues. The plan will have the items to be rectified and the schedule and has to be agreed by you and BSO!
When completed you have to provide proof of service and invoice from a qualified mooring contractor. Hello, what qualifications does this contractor have to have? There are none. RMS does not have a list and recommend you use the yellow pages! Or in respect of your vessel a qualified shipwright. Hello, have you seen one of those in a 100 nm radius of the Bay – no. Thankfully you can make a stat dec that you serviced the mooring yourself.

What are the consequences of doing nothing.

Maritime will issue you with a fine and a notice to remove the vessel – again certified mail requiring signature – more jokes by me. Can you appeal the audit and the mooring cancellation (assuming the legislation is changed) yes but to the very authority who issued the notice.

Now I understand this has been suggested to focus on Sydney area and the many mooring minders that hold mooring for when the owner can afford a better boat but the law is an ass and wrong.
Remove the 28 consecutive day restriction to say one year or permit the subletting of moorings (with notification) to a similar type of vessel. That would make proper use of the facilities.

Secondly, let the State through Maritime offer to take unused or not wanted vessels at no cost to the owner and to dispose of them via dismantling and recycling but not to auction. That would be a nice little business to be in and foster reuse of equipment. This along with the first suggestion will clear the mooring minders and unwanted vessels from the Sydney waterways. It worked in Florida and elsewhere in the USA so why cant it work here in Australia?