CURRENT: Shoalhaven Council

The Good News.

On April 11 the majority of Shoalhaven City Councillors passed a motion (see below) that instructs Council staff to prepare a timeline to heritage list the church and grounds.

They also ruled out any so-called “scraping” of the site and reaffirmed the requirement of Council to “Continue to liaise with key stakeholders including the Jerrinja LALC, Council’s Aboriginal Advisory Committee, and the Huskisson Heritage Association (HHA)”. 

Councillors asked staff to prepare a briefing to outline an approach for Council to work with the community and developer to undertake a community led process to determine future options for use of the site.

We applaud the Council for taking this path.


FOR: Clr Findley, Clr Kotlash, Clr Norris, Clr Butler, Clr D’Ath, Clr Christen and Clr Gray
AGAINST:  Clr Copley, Clr Ell, Clr White, Clr Wells, Clr Watson and Clr Kitchener
CARRIED

Below are Council Papers etc that were presented at the 11/4/22 SCC Meeting. The majority of Councilors rejected the staff advice and supported the above motion. Hopefully it will be a game changer.


Council are being asked to proceed with so-called “scraping” of the site. Councillors know that the Aboriginal community are opposed to this. The SCC’s Aboriginal Advsory Committee and descendants do not want the ground of the ancestors disturbed.
When a descendant said she would do everything in her power to stop it, developer and hotel owner Stephen Bartlett was quoted in the press: They can carry on all they want. The police are going to bring in a tactical response and move them on.
We call on Council to respect the Aboriginal voice and not approve the “scraping:.

To justify the “scraping” Navin Officer have produced a 110-page Heritage Assessment and Historical Archaeological Research Design report (HAHARD). The report has been prepared without consultation with the local Aboriginal community who have much to say about the burial site.
Council must insist that consultation take place before anything happens on the site.

The report purports to be a rebuttal of evidence presented by the community, the HHA and the GPR survey Navin Officer itself commissioned. The one that located seventy-three areas of disturbed soil most likely to be associated with unmarked grave shafts and/or funerary urn burials.

The HHA will produce and circulate a critique of the report and undertake to revise its own findings if new evidence rquires it.

AGENDA-item-Update-Possible-Steps-Agenda-Ordinary-Meeting-Monday-11-April-2022

Navin-Officer-Heritage-Report-Nov-2021-1