foi release from alex schaap

Just came across this - for those that have not seen it before!


This is a copy of the FOI request that is in the public domain - it appears to be the real McCoy and a copy of the covering letter and the FOI material can be found here on the Tas Times web site.


http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/meanwhile-gunns-expects-to-finalise-/

Its half way down the page and titled:

"? Download Alex Schaap File Note on Gunns Permit:
RTI_014_-_Active_disclosure_final.pdf"


Worth a read both the FOI release letter and the file note; and for what its worth I think it is a very telling document - I'm interested to see what others make of it.


From: Schaap, Alex (Environment)
Sent: Monday, 22 August 2011 5:47 PM
To: Brown, Gary (Environment); Willcox, Simon (DPIPWE); Arkell, Brad (DPaC)
Cc: McLeod, Barbara J (Environment)
Subject: File note - Gunns permit
Just had a brief phone conversation with Calton Frame.
He rang to advise what they were planning 􀍴 in line with his promise to keep us better informed.
Says they have let the contract for site works (Hazel and John Holland joint venture but

the mo) and will make quiet announcement in next few days with work starting by end of the week. Reckons
works will take 6 wks and $25 Mil.
They are trying to ensure they are up to speed with all permit requirements and he said they had now made
progress with community consultation group with Police, RACT and Council nominees in hand who they will


He noted that I was being pointed to in terms of substantial commencement and said they were getting their
facts together in expectation that they might need to make a submission to someone arguing why they had
substantially commenced. Said that would be useful because it would probably be me asking for it as the
regulator with most regular need to approve stuff under the permit.
Gave him the same explanation of how I thought things might play out as I had given Alistair Graham (on behalf
of TCT who I expect will be writing to me and others on the matter) in phone call a few minutes earlier. Said I
thought there were at least two ways in which the question of substantial commencement would be tested.
One was if planning authority (ie George town Council) chose to question if the earth works being done at the
mill site were authorised by a permit.
forcing the issue.
More likely a regulator, most likely me, needed to determine if the thing he was considering approving or
issuing (eg a site plan, permit variation or EPN) related
instrument in relation to a permit if that permit has actually lapsed. Said that would happen if and when I had
an instrument to consider and that to some extent the timing of
probably prefer to have the matter resolved sooner rather than later (to ease investor concerns) so reckon
manage to fit that bill).
substantially commenced and then take legal advice on the matter.
Said to him as I did to Alistair that whatever I then decided was quite likely to be challenged in one court or
another and Calton agreed (as Alistair had earlier). He said that Gunns had taken some advice on how all that
was likely to play out and we briefly discussed likelihood of injunction on further works while question was
resolved. He said he thought that was unlikely. He also mentioned to me they had done planning with tas Pol
re managing safety issues of possible onsite protests.
I wished him luck for next few weeks which we agreed were going to be interesting times for us all.


CoolRoom
do your own research - check and re check the facts