Esperance Shire Council move jetty feedback

Public feedback on jetty design moved

Council have considered the feedback from the public consultation for the design of the new replacement jetty, moving a motion by the Jetty Replacement Working Group to submit recommendations to H+H Architects.

During the Council Meeting on Tuesday, October 23, council moved to endorse the Draft Concept Design Report and submit the survey feedback to H+H Architects to incorporate into the final concept design.

As a result of the feedback, the group requested H+H develop a strategy to interpret the jetty’s former length, move the dive platform to the end of the structure and work with the Esperance Tjaltjraak Native Title Aboriginal Corporation to recognise the indigenous cultural heritage.

The group also moved that H+H consider swapping the sides for the steel and wooden rails for fishing functionality and consider the inclusion of a Seal Haul Out.

Councillor Steve McMullen moved the motion as per the group’s recommendation, seconded by deputy shire president Natalie Bowman.

Speaking to the motion, councillor McMullen said time was of the essence and urged council to support the motion and provide the community a recreational jetty.

“This has been a long and divisive issue and time is of the essence if we’re going to secure funding,” he said.

Councillor Shelley Payne moved an amendment to the motion, requesting a member of the Friends of the Esperance Tanker Jetty Group be invited to sit on the Working Group and that the terms of reference be updated accordingly.

Speaking to the amendment, councillor Payne said the groups should not be treated differently.

“This issue was brought up at the working group meeting and I think it’s an important part of moving forward,” she said.

“I strongly believe that we should not be meeting with groups separately and ignoring one group and addressing them as a ‘minority’.

“I’m asking everyone to look at how you’re talking about and viewing this group – I’m saying let them in, let them join the discussion.”

Councillor Bowman spoke against the amendment and said the meeting was not the appropriate time.

“The matter was discussed at the meeting but the group felt that it should be council’s decision whether to amend the terms of reference,” she said.

“If Council wish to alter the terms of reference, I believe that deserves a stand alone motion and should be done at a separate time.

“I would like to stress that it was an open and transparent process at the time in which the members of the committee were appointed.”

The amendment was lost 2-6, with councillors Piercey and Payne for.

The original motion was carried 7-1, with councillor Piercey against.