Friday, Apr 15, 2011 at 13:43
I’ve seen them.
This is my opinion, it’s tainted by the fact that I prepare drawings to gain local council approval for new homes and additions to homes and I know the building codes and understand why we need regulations…. mostly for people’s health and safety.
Over the last 25 years I have been to/past Wedge and
Grey many times and the
shacks have never got any better, they are
shacks, some are no more than old second hand tin sheds that few people would accept in their back yard as a chook shed or a fire wood shed. Some look cute/fun from outside and are shockingly dangerous when you examine them a little closer. I am surprised more people are not hurt, or at least we do not hear about them being hurt.
Apart from the ramshackle way the place has grown and the total lack of scrutiny regards things like 240 volt wiring, water, sanitary plumbing and white ant treatment to mention a few, some of the old timers who seem to live there are downright rude if you dare trespass on their piece of squatted land. I ventured down a sand track recently showing a visitor from Tasmania (as there is many coastal
shack communities in Tas) and when the track petered out, I needed to do a three point turn in a tight spot, in the process I must have trespassed on “his” land and he came flying out of his humpy with a stick (or jimmy bar) raised and waving above his head. The old fella I mentioned this to as we got back out to a bigger track, said “you should’t have gone down there disturbing his peace, what do you expect?, get out of here and leave us alone”. Half an hour later I was told off by another “resident” for using the wrong sand draw to get back off
the beach. He said I was chewing it up and its “his” to launch his boat.
The new coastal highway has a brand new bitumen road right to the centre of Wedge and I think that has made a few of the locals very unhappy (too many visitors).
Over the years I have been asked to design and draw up many holiday homes on both lease hold and green title land. People pay a premium price for the land because of its location and I can assure you they have not been able to shirk on the building code just because it’s a holiday “
shack”.
The coast between
Lancelin and
Cervantes is stunning and is free for all to use and enjoy, why should some people that have taken a trailer load of old iron and second hand timber up to put up a squatters
shack be allowed to stay, visually pollute and physically pollute, as
well as abuse anyone that ventures into their space? (our space).
I will also add that twenty five years ago (1985) I stayed in one for a week that later that year blew up and burnt to the ground. It was said it was the fault of a faulty gas fitting, but those of us that were guests of the owner have many other explanations, but honestly it could have been any of a number of things, it was so badly built, gust glad no one was in it when it blew.
it’s my opinion, attack away, but only if you have seen Wedge and
Grey.
Steve M.
AnswerID:
451305
Follow Up By: Member - Boo Boo (NSW) - Friday, Apr 15, 2011 at 14:01
Friday, Apr 15, 2011 at 14:01
We visited both areas earlier this year and really found it hard to understand how they were allowed to get away with having the
shacks and I use the term fairly loosely, in such a lovely place.
FollowupID:
723952
Follow Up By: Mike DiD - Saturday, Apr 16, 2011 at 09:51
Saturday, Apr 16, 2011 at 09:51
Initially I felt that the
shacks should stay until the current residents die. There are examples of this at
Stockton Beach in NSW.
"I must have trespassed on “his” land and he came flying out of his humpy with a stick (or jimmy bar) raised and waving above his head. The old fella I mentioned this to as we got back out to a bigger track, said “you should’t have gone down there disturbing his peace, what do you expect?, get out of here and leave us alone”. Half an hour later I was told off by another “resident” for using the wrong sand draw to get back off
the beach. He said I was chewing it up and its “his” to launch his boat."
- if this is the attitude of the squatters, then they shouldn't be surprised that the Enquiry decided that the huts should be demolished.
FollowupID:
724003