Regarding the footpath outside the Eureka Pizzeria.
Cr Hassall asked if permission was given to the owners to do this work.
The manager of works replied that permission had been given.
Cr Hassall asked if Council normally agreed with that.
The MW indicated that, in 1992, a development application was submitted with a sketch showing proposed pavers in the footpath; approval was given to this DA which supposedly included approval for the pavers, being part of the total development application. Subsequently, unauthorised work was done to the pavers.
Cr Hassall further asked if Council was responsible for footpaths, and if so, should Council be doing the work.
The MW advised that Council is responsible for the footpaths, and can authorise and supervise such work.
Mrs Lydia Lee referred to a formal letter regarding the footpath in the vicinity of her shop, the Braidwood Deli, which she intends to submit, and asked the following questions:
(a) Why were the garden and paving removed, when Council had approved them;
(b) Why were the Lees not informed that Council was going to do that;
(c) Why has Council put inappropriate tarmac on the footpath;
(d) Why has Council not reimbursed the Lees for property taken away;
(e) Why did Council do it in the first place when heritage issues should have been taken into account?
In reply, the MW indicated that:
- His response to Mrs Lee’s formal letter may satisfy the above questions.
- The decisions relating to the footpath area were made with the owner because the owner is the correct person with whom Council should be dealing.
- Details of the procedure adopted were the proper method of dealing with unauthorised work which was dangerous for public usage.
- The decision at Council level to have the paving removed was done with the owner’s knowledge.
- Material that was removed was allowed to stay on the premises.
- A claim for “compensation” for the plants could be discussed.
- There was no requirement for Council to do any more or any less with the due notice given to the owner.
- He questioned Mrs Lee’s comment about suitability of the tarmac.
Cr Harrex referred to the paving outside the delicatessen, and indicated he thought it was outside the pizza shop. He asked which was the inferior paving. The MW advised that the pizza shop was used as an example of the general area of the paving in question, and added that the whole area needed to be brought up to higher standard.
Cr Harrex further questioned whether the owner of the deli had been consulted. The MW advised that he had spoken to Mr Lee before the work had been done, and Mr Lee had said for it to go ahead.
Cr Harrex suggested there was an inconsistency in the matter and that liaison should have occurred with the deli. The MW advised that there was no reason to discuss such issues with a tenant. He added that the original application in 1992 was for the full area to be paved.
Email a friend