Thread: Losing SA boatbuilding heritage - Searle's Boatyard.

Despite the misleading claims of being the THE woodenboat centre and on the radio, the ONLY woodenboat centre in South Australia (Kingsley has always been amusing in that way), this is a site that is worth preserving.

Adelaide used to have clipper ships stacked six deep along the edges of its wharves and another 200 offshore sitting at anchor waiting to pick up grain.

Searles is one of the few last pieces of meaningful working sites along the river.



The others were the Yacht Club and the Port River Sailing club. On a good day .. a sailing day on the weekends, these clubs would attract five or 10 times the number of people that will live in the apartments overlooking the river.

Basically it is being turned into a static scene rather than something that people are really involved with.

The plan


There should be a number of small boat launching sites integrated with the development plans ... nothing else keeps the river as a vibrant place in the same way. The apartment holders - some will have their own marina berths in front, but what about equity of access to the river for the rest of us? Some beach or wharf area to rig up sailing boats to people who just want to go sailing - something missing from redevelopments in Sydney, Newcastle and others.

Also heritage points like the two sailing clubs and Searles should have been, should be preserved as they are access points for normal average people to gain REAL access to the river.


port river sailing club

It would be necessary to find a different way of using it I suspect. The slipways can't be used the way they once were because of EPA concerns about scrubbing antifoul and the site did have a lot of abandoned moulds and half built boats ... not pretty and something that Kingsley inherited when he bought the site (maybe he got rid of them).

Planning guys and girls just don't understand how people interact with waterways if they think stone walls and wharves and walkways reflect the use patterns of real people. They never sit down by the water to WATCH what people really do and work out ways to enhance that - but they don't seem able to grasp anything but a static view of the waterfront.

I always like the idea that the architect and developer's names should be put on cornerstones on the buildings in perpetuity - so people can judge them for their vision or their trail of devastation.

Best wishes

MIK

But what to do?

boat on trailer blockade of parliament house? A flock of sails around the place would be a great media stir.

Does someone want to ferret out the relevant ministers email addresses?

I would at least like to show my displeasure by sending an email or several.

MIK

Originally Posted by Boatmik

But what to do?

boat on trailer blockade of parliament house? A flock of sails around the place would be a great media stir.

Does someone want to ferret out the relevant ministers email addresses?

I would at least like to show my displeasure by sending an email or several.

MIK

Mik,
I believe Mrrs. Rann and Holloway would be appropriate.

http://www.ministers.sa.gov.au/ministers.php

Cheers
Mike

Hi Mike, MIK,
Sounds like the site might be a good candidate for inclusion on the state heritage register, or protection by some sort of local planning overlay as a working example of SA's industrial archaeology. These mechanisms can provide opportunity for review and objection to DA decisions.
If you're really keen, speak to a strategic planning officer at the local council, - they might be able to provide some advice, although a state government can usually find a way to overwhelm local planning issues if pressed....
You might also want to talk to these guys:
http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/heritage/
Sounds like the horse may be halfway out the gate and starting to bolt, though.

Jack

It does very much.

I have no idea what Ashley, the owner, has done.

But some irritating emails are good for politicians .. they have to be reminded that they are responsible in perpetuity )

MIK

Horse has long bolted.
IIRC, the whole thing was given "Major Project" status which allowed it to
bypass or over-rule all sorts of minor issues like heritage & public interest.
Now the financial crash has stuffed up money flow & time-table. <shrug>

Hello all.

This is my first post. I'm sorry it's not on a happier topic.

Sadly, in the case os Searles, the horse has indeed bolted. The yard has been cleared, with some of the machinery sold or cut up for scrap.

You can reminisce by looking at the work of two photographers:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/paperbarque

http://www.flickr.com/photos/imagegallery

Both paperbarque1 and Mangrove Rat have a good feel for what has been lost.

Here are a few salient facts about the way Searles has been treated:

The development stalled last year at Stage 2. Searles Boatyard is on land slated for Stage 7. The original timetable had Stage 7 not commencing for 3-5 years. Now there is no date fixed for commencement.

Adjacent Searles Boatyard is the Royal Australian Navy's reserve facility, on which substantial sums have recently been spent. My research indicates that the Navy has no intention of leaving.

There is a class action underway by numerous unhappy buyers of apartments in the development, citing misrepresentation and breach of contract.

One of the partners in the consortium, Multiplex, was taken over in June 2007 by international asset giant Brookfield Asset Management.

The Rann government, Searles' landlord, has for 10 years prevented Searles from upgrading their building.

The Rann government has prevented Searles from taking on apprentices because Searles has had only a short, renewable tenure. Technically, a lease of 4 years or more is required before a workshop can take on apprentices.

While the Rann government has in the case of renovations and demolitions at Adelaide Oval and the Freemasons Hall in Adelaide supported the concept that the heritage value lies in the continuing use of the site for its original purpose, in order to allow demolition if that use continues, it has expressly denied the validity of this concept in the case of Searles Boatyard, saying that only places can be of heritage value, not uses.

The South Australian Treasurer Mr Kevin Foley has aligned himself very closely with the Newport Quays consortium and the Newport Quays development, defending both on numerous occasions.

There have been movements in employment of executives between the LMC and the Newport Quays consortium.

The Newport Quays consortium has donated AUD$660,000 to the South Australian Rann government, using various tactics to hide its identity as the donor.

The South Australian government's Land Management Corporation (Searles' landlord) is a partner in the 'Marina Adelaide' development 6kms away downriver. LMC has offered Searles space at that marina at a rate 15 times Searles' present rent for less than 50% of the area and without the capacity to slip large boats. Searles cannot economically take up the offer. LMC made similar offers to the other closed Birkenhead boatyards none of whom found the offer realistic.

No boat launching ramp, marine workshop or fuel outlet is planned for the Newport Quays development, despite the total of 600 marina berths to be provided at Newport Quays. All boat launching (for which there is a fee), fuelling and repairs are to take place at the LMC's Marina Adelaide 6kms away downriver.

The South Australian government's claim that Searles Boatyard was a source of pollution seems tenuous is not supported by any available tests or figures. Given the timber boat work that was Searles' principal business, the care Searles took to collect glues, liquids and dusts, and the fact that the water at the Searles slipway is invariably sweet and clear with small fish and marine flora evident, the claim seems to have no basis. In any case, private owners, surreptitiously pumping bilges and doing other work on their boats rather than make the trip to Marina Adelaide to patronise the single LMC-connected boatyard there would be likely to create more pollution than Searles controlled operation. In any case, Searles has an EPA licence ay least until 2012

In April 2009 LMC made it a condition of Searles' tenure that no representative of any media was allowed to be on the boatyard property at any time, nor was the proprietor or any employee allowed to speak to any media.

The South Australian government is adamant that the state does not need an independent commission against corruption.

I am a freelance writer and blue water sailor presently working on an article about the closure of Searles Boatyard.

Please PM me if you have or would like further information or corroboration for my claims.

Further on Searles Boatyard: Anyone wanting an overview of the whole issue with many points of view should look at the following thread on development forum Sensational Adelaide:

http://www.sensational-adelaide.com/...8fcd9fd60b2d28

This thread has had almost 600 posts and 40,000 views.

I know this is a couple months old now but I just wanted to say in response to the suggestion that people send annoying emails to politicians that you are wasting your time. I can tell you - as a former member of partliament and senior advisor to a Senator and Minister - that it would be highly unusual for any politician to see, let alone respond to, any correspondence critical of him/her or government policy. What happens is any email is automatically forwarded to a staffer who then scrolls through them. His/her job is to weed out the friendlies and dump the rest in the trash.
Its the same with petitions. At every sitting, petitions are tabled in the parliament, where the clerk of the House reads out the text of the petition and declares how many signatures there are. It then goes to archive and it is rare indeed that the issue being petitioned is actioned. Their main purpose is to provide MPs with more names for their databases so they can come knocking on your door promising you the world and their utmost attention if you vote for them.
sorry to be the source of such disillusionment.

Unfortunately, Shedhand speaketh truly.
Letters to government members are useful only to establish a paper trail of "trying to
do the right thing" before going public to embarrass the appropriate minister.
(Must be getting close to time to park a bunch of white fire appliances 6 abreast in
North Terrace... )
cheers
AJ

Originally Posted by b.o.a.t.

Unfortunately, Shedhand speaketh truly.
Letters to government members are useful only to establish a paper trail of "trying to
do the right thing" before going public to embarrass the appropriate minister.
(Must be getting close to time to park a bunch of white fire appliances 6 abreast in
North Terrace... )
cheers
AJ

Sounds like your politicians are about like our politicians. Rotten b******s all of 'em

Really sad to see the little guy get shoved around like Mr. Haskett has been by government and corporate interests.

Howdy,

I got a different point of view from the federal govt in OZ.

They had a rule of thumb that one email means 50 people p'ed off enough not to vote for them next time. Or one letter means 100 people are upset.

So one email or five doesn't make much difference as you say, but a large number of emails on one topic coming in over a few weeks or months can unsettle local members quite nicely.

MIK

The anti-stem cell research nutters flooded my boss with emails. I was instructed to bin them all - which I did. Let Fielding deal with them...