The SIRA Committee received a [wpfilebase tag=fileurl id=220 linktext=’letter ‘ /]from Mark Ferguson, General Manager, Pittwater Council dated 16 February outlining a plan to introduce a dedicated Wharf Ranger.

This Ranger will cover the entire Church Point Precinct (extending from Rostrevor Reserve to Thomas Stephens Reserve, Church Point carpark and associated foreshores) and other wharves and boat tie-up facilities across Pittwater in order to tackle the many compliance issues. This initiative is in response to a number of complaints received from Offshore community members about the lack of compliance enforcement.

From Monday 23 February 2015 there will be a full time Ranger on duty on a 12 month trial basis. The first month will be an education exercise, after which infringement notices will be issued.

SIRA has been advised that this is being funded from the existing Ranger budget and using existing staff resource and no funding is being taken away from the Church Point carpark fund.

[wpfilebase tag=fileurl id=220 linktext=’Download the full letter here’ /]

We encourage residents to join the discussion below, or on Facebook.

Wharf Rules

6 replies
  1. Steve Pollard
    Steve Pollard says:

    I have tried to download the Council letter several times, both here and through a SIRA email but haven’t been able to open it. There are several causes for concern, specifically what is meant by “other wharves and boat tie-up facilities across Pittwater.” Is this foreshadowing fees for vessels tied up to public wharves other than Commuter Wharf? What will its impact be on those who tie up outside Thomas Stephens Reserve? Surely, if the Council is providing such a Ranger than it should empower that Ranger to clear the dinghies currently on the flats on the southern shore of Pittwater from the car park to BYRA which are just as unsightly as our dinghies, if not more so.

    Reply
  2. Robyn
    Robyn says:

    One of the points Mark Ferguson makes in his letter that will be policed and attracting fines, is:

    “Illegal boat tie-ups on the commuter wharves, reserves, ferry and other public

    wharves”

    Bells wharf, Eastern wharf and Carols wharf are all public wharves. Does this mean no boats will be able to tie up there? This needs clarification. As Steve says, will we need permits for these wharves too?

    Reply
    • Bill Gye
      Bill Gye says:

      Hi Robyn,
      We only just received this letter from Council and as I said in my reply to Steve Pollard we are just as in the dark as everybody regarding the full scope of this proposed Rangers responsibility. We do know that this proposal is in response to several complaints over an extended period of time from individual community members to Council about lack of compliance enforcement. In regard “other wharves and boat tie up facilities” Council staff are well aware that we need the public wharves on the Island to tie up our boats to access our homes. Knowing the people involved I would be very surprised if these became the focus of compliance. We will seek to clarify this with Council as soon as we can so we can let people know and hopefully allay their concerns.

      Reply
  3. Bill Gye
    Bill Gye says:

    Hi Steve,
    Thanks for letting us know about the problem with the download, we will try and fix it asap. We are just as in the dark as everybody regarding the full scope of this proposed Rangers responsibility. we do know that this proposal is in response to several complaints over an extended period of time from individual community members to Council about lack of compliance enforcement. In regard “other wharves and boat tie up facilities” Council staff are well aware that we need the public wharves on the Island to tie up our boats to access our homes. Knowing the people involved I would be very surprised if these became the focus of compliance. We will seek to clarify this with Council as soon as we can so we can let people know and hopefully allay their concerns.

    Reply
  4. Tracy Smith
    Tracy Smith says:

    She has been disappointingly over officious, even to the point of threatening kids jumping off wharves and dogs swimming in the pittwater without a lead. She is a negative public face for a council who needs consider more the guidelines of her parameters. 12 months is an over estimation of the needs. Most of the “offending ” boats are no longer using the facility. She is struggling to find things to occupy herself with and so reads the letter of the law too closely. This has not made our lives any easier. The nanny state is becoming unpleasant and less community oriented. Where is the tolerance?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply to Bill Gye Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *