COVID-19 ADVICE

COVID-19 ADVICE: The following links provide official advice and information about the virus known as COVID-19.
Australia's state and federal governments are taking action to help slow the spread of COVID-19. Use the links above to source the latest advice about what you can do to protect yourself and others. Washing your hands for 20 seconds is one of the most effective forms of infection control. Do this after blowing your nose, coughing or sneezing; after close physical contact with anyone who is unwell; after using the toilet; before and after eating; before, during and after preparing food; and after feeding or touching a pet.

Thursday, September 3, 2009

Willow Court forum ends in farce

A WORKING party has been formed to assist the Derwent Valley Council with the redevelopment of the Willow Court historic site. Establishing the new group was the only solid outcome of tonight's community forum which attracted 97 people to the council social rooms.

The meeting provided few answers to the many questions surrounding the stalled redevelopment project and failed to gain any official acknowledgement that the council's seven-year-long approach had been found wanting.

Mayor Tony Nicholson opened the forum with a message of welcome and then disappeared to the back of the room, leaving the running of the meeting to facilitator Adam Saddler. Valley Vision project manager Ian Brown (who was introduced as the council economic development officer) bore the brunt of more than an hour of sustained questioning from the likes of Damian Bester, Anne Salt, Wayne Shoobridge, Ngaire Glover, Mark Bennett, Tim Jenkins, John Shoobridge and others.

Mr Bester asked the first question after Mr Brown said more than 100 jobs had been created by the council at Willow Court, and elicited the answer that few if any of those jobs were ongoing. Mrs Glover asked what costs had been associated with the various jobs and Mr Brown undertook to provide those details later.

A brief history of the council's ownership of the site was given, including news that the former administration building has changed ownership six times. Electricity supply remains one of the stumbling blocks, along with the loss of government funding. The council hopes to raise further funds by selling more of the historic site to private developers.

Mrs Glover asked what conditions had been applied when earlier subdivisions had occurred on the site, in particular with reference to roads and access. Mr Brown said negotiations were ongoing, which drew spirited responses from the New Norfolk Lions Club and the Derwent Valley Masonic Lodge, who said their buildings at Willow Court had no formal access and their members were relying on the goodwill of neighbouring property owner Haydn Pearce. The council has never adequately explained why it sold sealed roads and footpaths when it subdivided the site, effectively leaving some properties with no access.

Mr Brown took issue with a statement by Mr Bester to the effect that the council at one time had $4 million in hand and this could have been used to make a start on the redevelopment but had been squandered. Mr Bester said it had been stated that the council earned $2.4 million from the sale of buildings and $1.5 million in government funds. Mr Brown said this was not correct and asked Mr Bester if he would like to make another guess. A voice said that figure had been published in the Derwent Valley Gazette and in reply Mr Brown said that did not make it correct. When asked, he said the sale of buildings to Barbara Adams had netted $2.238 million, which drew howls of derision from the crowd. The proceeds of the sale of a former workshop building on the site have never been publicly declared.

Former councillor Wayne Shoobridge said a lack of information had been an issue even when he was on the Derwent Valley Council. He asked when the site would be open to visitors and what was being done to preserve it in the meantime. Mr Brown said the site could be open 18 months after the redevelopment project was under way, but could not say when that would be.

Security was raised as an issue by many at the meeting, including one remark that before long Willow Court would be merely a pile of heritage bricks.

Mr Layton Hodgetts expressed the view of many in the audience when he said the agenda seemed to have been designed to cover a meeting held over an entire weekend, rather than the 90 minutes allowed by the council. He suggested that the meeting move on to discussing the future rather than going over the past.

Anne Salt then asked how much money was left in the Willow Court fund, which was revealed to be about $350,000. Mr Brown would not be drawn on how long that money would last. Mrs Salt remarked that it would probably last about seven months based on current spending.

Mr Bester pointed out that Mr Brown had been bearing the brunt of the questioning, and asked where the mayor and general manager were. He said said all three should all be at the front of the room. General manager Stephen Mackey promptly joined Mr Brown but the mayor remained nowhere to be seen, despite calls for his presence.

Several members of the audience then raised the prospect of handing the Willow Court site back to the state government. Mr Mackey said he did not support that view, and said he believed the project was now at the "sharp end" with all the preparatory work that had been done.

Mr Shoobridge called on the council to re-establish its Willow Court Committee, which drew a mixed response. Mr Mackey suggested a working party instead, and when put to the vote there were 33 people in favour and four against. Thirteen people then put their names down for the working party, which will meet in a fortnight.

The issue of funding came up again, at which point an endorsed Labor Party candidate for Lyons, Nick Wright, made himself known and said he had been advised that the state government grant of $750,000 was "still on the table".

Summing up the meeting, facilitator Adam Saddler said it appeared that security was the top community priority for the historic site, along with increased transparency and communication from the council.

Mayor Tony Nicholson reappeared and said the evening had provided a good opportunity to listen to what had been done at Willow Court. He said the meeting had not produced the number of suggestions he had been expecting, and he rejected what he described as "recriminations" over the current situation. Cr Nicholson said information about the project had always been freely available. "BULLSHIT" was the unified response from many in the crowd, including Mr Bester, who leapt to his feet and demanded to know why he had to resort to a Freedom of Information request to gain access to the minutes of the Willow Court Committee. "Sit down Damian," the mayor replied. Mr Bester shouted his question several times more, quite rudely pointing his finger at the major. "Because you wanted to," Cr Nicholson said. His response drew several boos from the crowd and prompted a further outburst from Mr Bester, calling on the mayor to resign.

15 comments:

  1. Well done last night, it proved to be a very interesting meeting. One thing that I did not think of until this morning that failed to be mentioned, was Willow Courts' nomination in the National Trusts'Heritage at Risk program. Does our council not know of this nomination?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good write up Damien as usual!
    I wasn't expecting the number of people that attended last night, I was pleased by some of the questions the community asked about Willow Court, the DVC certainly copped a bit of a roasting but rightfully so. I’m looking forward to positively contributing to the Working Party.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is a fairly accurate description of the meeting however, there were a number of other questioners who unfortunately did not identify themselves prior to speaking and in general they had a number of very valid points. Despite the anxiety of some to move forward, it was and is appropriate to address the issues of the past so that those mistakes or misdirection do not happen again. And given Mayor Nicholson was obviously so off beam with his opinion that all had been tickety-boo in the past years with the site and clearly missed the mood and understanding of the meeting (which they quite loudly and rightly expressed),I'm not sure that a 'working party' is the best answer either. With 33 people 'voting' for the non-motion, 4 against and the remaining majority abstaining (50-60)and the 'working party' being formed by anyone interested in putting their name on a list (whether they be ratepayers or not), it would probably have been best for a formal motion to have been put that Council re-form the special committee with a better balance of community members and business acumen. (A peep at the list showed a current Councillor had put his name down - duh!)There were no guidelines given to this 'working group', nor any determination that any Council administrator would be part of or assist the group. Other than 'they would meet in 2 weeks' and then report to another community forum in 'mid-October' that's about it. I am sure those who put their name down did so with the genuine intent of contributing to a way forward, but its formation was not a majority view of those present and I believe Councillors have a responsibility to grasp the situation firmly, set up the structure for a new committee and get on with it - others should not be doing the job you are paid to do! Oh, and certainly have a better venue for the community forum with adequate seating,a PA system, identification of speakers and so on. It was more than difficult to hear jammed in up the back!!
    Helen

    ReplyDelete
  4. Does it matter whether non rate payers are on the working party? After all Willow Court is site with such national significance and has many close and personal ties with lots of Tasmanians, I couldn’t see a point in excluding people that want to volunteer their time to help protect the site. I thought the Working Party was a good idea if only for the fact that information about the site may become more readily available than if it was solely with the council, and their will still be community forums. Also think a working party is better than a committee because of what the last committee was like, at least this way we can have a committee like panel in the working party that aren’t bound by the same restrictions etc the last committee was.I know a few people that have put their names forward on the working party and they are really eager to advocate for Willow Court and bring in fresh ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is unfortunate that not one single person has put forward any ideas for the future of the remaining buildings (except to give back to State Gov) so I would be interested to see what any group can come up with be it a non-representational group or not. I don't think people should be held back with ideas waiting for either council, a working party, valley vision or whatever to do something - hasn't done anyone any good in the past, so perhaps council should put a suggestion box in the foyer so anyone can drop their idea/s in. Or perhaps the Gazette could exercise a great initiative and call for contributions and publish each week - that would be terrific!
    Alice

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have received a few ideas from people across the broader community, but they do not know where to submit them.
    I'm on the working party and I have a number of ideas whether they are viable or not I guess we will find out. I have posted on my Willow Court facebook group a topic section asking for ideas on Willow Court, most of the feedback I have got back so far as been art galleries, museums, ghost tours and Port Arthur like experiences.
    I do agree that there should be a suggestion box at the DVC or at least have an (advrtised) email address where interested parties could forward there suggestions.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ideas are all very well & good but without money that is all they are - ideas. The working group should be not looking at what we think should be done but what NEEDS to be done at this stage, ie: to be able to secure the site from further damage & deterioration. And why can't this group look into alternative funding ideas as well, surely not every avenue has been exhausted by council!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Given we now know just how few funds there are left remaining (and I would like to know what other revenue has been gained other than by the Barbara Adams fiasco), Megan is correct. The biggest issue is the site security and preventing further damage. Of course, this should have always been the case but obviously not seen as a priority by previous 'managers'.
    Still the suggestion box idea is great.
    Jeff

    ReplyDelete
  9. The meeting was an admission of failure and failure to act. Failure to protect the assets of Willow Court while under the ownership of Derwent Valley Investments and the Derwent Valley Council. Failure to implement an effective protection of the site and its assets. Failure to have any future effective plan for security. Failure to create a business plan and proof up the financial viability of the site and proposed use. Failure by the Mayor to take control and oversee the outcomes if any. Failure to have the funds and progress for the site closely monitored by Councillors. Failure to have a committee working on the project or any other body. Failure for a full and transparent exposure of the actions of the Council made available to the general public.
    And a failure to give the public meeting a full disclosure of facts. Facts that were told at another public meeting in May 2006 that there were no business plans then and that work would start in 18 months. The same words were used last week, nearly 3½ years later. At that same meeting in May 2006 it was stated that the ratepayers were ultimately liable for the financial failure of the Willow Court site.
    When the money runs out who foots the bill? With the current rate of undisclosed itemised expenditures averaging $49,000 per month this represents an enormous drain on every ratepayer.
    What last week's meeting demonstrated is that Council is able to form committees. This new committee has been set up to fail. There is insufficient money left to do anything constructive and if the State Government gives back the $750,000 that may pay for another year or so but will not provide the $24 million to complete the project. It will be another waste.
    What the Council achieved last week was an orchestrated life ring for the captains of the ship that is rapidly going down, hoping that the passengers will come up with answers.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well that’s right without money there is little a working party can do in a monetary sense but at least its reassuring to know that some people are willing to take a stand and try and help the crumbling site in what ever way they can, god knows we can't wait for the Council to Act upon anything.
    I don’t think sourcing alternative funding is a role a working party should be taking on, the DVC have paid employees (Willow Court Funding) whose job it is to do just that. The Community Forums should be demanding the DVC to act upon sourcing any alternative funding. Good on those people who are actively trying to help, let’s give the working party a chance.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It's interesting that the DVC doesn't appear to take any responsibility for their lack of action - is it a fact that the Councillors weren't receiving regular updates on what was happening on the site and surrounds? Was all the communication only between the Mayor and the now-disbanded WC Committee and not being passed on? I would really like to hear from a current Councillor or 8 as to what they did or did not know.
    I think like a couple of previous comments that the working party is set up to fail, poor beggars, and that it is the Councillors who have the ultimate responsibility to ensure the site is looked after, funded and restored to a glorious attraction to the municipality. If they don't act NOW, then turf 'em out at the upcoming election!!
    Elaine

    ReplyDelete
  12. As a result of the Fiasco of the public forum and the misinformation of that weeks Gazette. I took it on myself to obtain the financials of the RDH and spent some 10 hours auditing them to make sense of what has happened. I beleive that if the information is handled correctly all will be informed in a future Gazette. The figures are not pretty and shows a total lack of commercial competence. In confidence has been badly used. I aim to have all clarified prior to the elections so that we can move forward from the current position as one council & community.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Just wondering why the Working Party/Group is meeting tomorrow night (monday 14/9)yet this has not been made public knowledge. I was under the impression that this group, when they met, would welcome anyone from the community to attend. Bit hard when only those who put their names on a piece of paper are invited.

    ReplyDelete
  14. And now would be a good time for a new candidate in the upcoming Council elections....

    ReplyDelete
  15. why does someone not do something like make new norfolk the centre for antiques and collectables in tas. it is close to hobart. there could be an auction in one of the buildings a few timesa year and market set up in the grounds. also encouragement for more of these type of shops in the town. what a great town for this sort of thing with the derwent river and a lot of old english style settings and houses. even some of the old homesteads might be open to the public a few times a year

    ReplyDelete