At Monday night’s Policy and Planning Committee meeting councillors voted to remove the banner. 

In a move to deter ongoing environmental vandalism along the foreshore council had installed a banner in place of the small metal signs.

When the banner was installed Mayor Joanna Gash said that some residents were under the false impression that because they paid higher rates they were entitled to a view.

“There is no legal entitlement to a view and it is illegal to kill vegetation on public land,” she said.

Shoalhaven councillors voted in favour of the banner staying there until the end of January 2014 as a trial.

While the owner of the property on Elizabeth Drive, John Levedetes, would not speak to the South Coast Register his view on the matter was partly explained in a letter he wrote to Shoalhaven City Council earlier this year.

Mr Levadetes wrote, “What Council has forgotten is that the foreshore residents have higher land values hence higher council rates and Land Tax to pay. The high cost do not reflect the ability of the residents and holiday makers to enjoy and admire the views of one the best assets in the world, Jervis Bay. At the end of the day the local residents and holiday makers only get the opportunity to look at trees instead of the bay’s magnificent vistas. 

“The walkers and cyclists that use the pathways only have views into our rear back yards because they cannot see the Jervis Bay at all. This results in the residents’ loss of privacy. If the residents wanted to look at bushland vistas they would have purchased land in the bush and not on the foreshore,” he wrote.

Members of the Vincentia Ratepayers and Residents Association were disappointed that the banner was going to be removed.

The association and many residents had campaigned for years to get council to take a stance on the matter. 

The issue was expected to be the focus of discussion at last night’s Vincentia Ratepayers and Residents Association meeting.

President John Fergusson said the association would form a motion to advise council of their collective views on the decision.

“We would ask council to support a resolution to leave the banner in place for the three-month trial to allow community comment as was originally intended.

“Premature removal of the banner sends a message from council that environmental vandalism will be tolerated and could be allowed to continue without intervention.

“My own view is we should be encouraging council to develop a policy to deal with this unlawful act.

“To her credit we are very appreciative of the support of Mayor Jo Gash in dealing with this issue which had been neglected by previous councils,” he said.

At Monday night’s meeting Cr Andrew Guile moved the motion to take the banner down.

“It was just supported,” he said.

“I was initially in support of the trial of the banner, but I changed my mind, because I said originally it had to be done with support of local residents and I don’t think that ever happened.”

While the banner does not name Mr Levadetes or anyone else as the offender Cr Guile said the fact that council could not prove who killed the trees and the fact it is in front of his house led some in the community to point the finger.

“That can have some pretty profound effects on people. I understand an elderly couple who live there have been caused stress and I don’t think we should be a party to that.

“So unless you get the process right, these are the unintended consequences.

“If it’s right outside your house, it puts you in the frame. 

“It’s a subtle form of character assassination in some ways,” he said.

One councillor who did not vote to remove the banner was Amanda Findley.

She, too, received a letter from Mr Levadetes threatening legal action this week.

The letter instructed her to take down comments on her blog about the issue.

“I went down there and took photos which showed the banner in relation to the house,” she said.

Cr Findley said the letter accused her of being the sole reason why Mr Levadetes’ tenants were being harassed. 

“As if my blog was being seen by all of the thousands of people who live in Vincentia.

“There is a lot of public interest in respect to this issue.

“During the course of this episode the Town and Country Magazine ran the story on its front page and there was a very strong press release from the mayor which reached over 150,000 people.

“I’m concerned that just because I put a blog post about it, and was a councillor who spoke up, I’m singled out.

“The letter said if I didn’t take it down he would continue with defamation [action].

“I have taken my blog down but have replaced it with a copy of the Fairfax article so people who kept up with that issue could see that the mayor took a strong stance on it.

“My main issue with Tuesday night’s committee meeting was the mayor wasn’t there.

“I was really cheesed off that Cr Guile, who has been vocal on use of delegated authority, used that as a weapon to hide this issue, to not have it brought before the mayor and full council.

“This was Cr Guile’s double standard in respect to delegated authority.

“There are a lot of council documents recently that say council needs to persevere and show strength and leadership. This doesn’t show that.

“None of the other neighbours either side of the banner to the best of my knowledge indicated that they were unhappy, and I’d have assumed we would have heard from someone if they were.

“Byron Bay doesn’t use pretty posters like us; they put up bright orange hazard mesh. Others have used big white solid billboards, so this has been a very subtle and tasteful approach.

“I’ll be bringing it back up as an urgent item at Tuesday night’s council meeting. Hopefully, I’ll get support on this issue.”