Wire cutters may be the way to go.

A lot depends on what title the property is under and how far back it goes because most only go down to high water mark but if its a Queen or Kings grant then it can over rule what the council says.

Railway iron posts with steel railing going right down into the water, they certainly were'nt messing around but i know some people have some plans for Mr Forrest and co. so the least said the better.It's what is refered to as a purple title and the state govt. are reported to own the beach and the Forrest family only to the high water which is probably the dunes but everyones wondering whats going on.

is this the family of andrew forrest of FMG ?

He owns to the high tide mark.Which is a fair section of the beach.

He has to remove the section of fence that goes past the high tide mark into the water.

Not quite sure how quickly you think these sort of prosecutions take?Doesnt happen overnight.

Just to let you know, I am another pissed off local who uses this beach all the time for boat launching and family days on the beach, but there are alot of misinformed people out there on this issue, and yes I work for the Shire. 

What jurisdiction does the Capel Shire Council have over the beach.The reason i'm asking that is I believe the Southwest developement commission have taken over the control of what happens on the beach.

      their is a thread on this here already , going way back to  when it was closed

from the last conversation i had with the capel shire officer in charge of this dept  , it seemed if i recall correctly the guts of it was as folows   the fence the forrest family had erected with the railway iron was technically on the wrong boundary alignment , it was some metres out according to the survey line , legaly it must be moved to comply with shire stat regs , insurance etc

the capel shire have a bit of aquandry with this whole issue ,

it apeared when landcorp , did the re survey to confirm the  forrest familys right to title of the land and thentheir right  to close the beach etc etc  what i think landcorp discovered was the title was an old original settlement title with some unique rights that wont stay if the land is sold , but currently while still in the family , they do own down to a gps waypoint not high or low tide mark , the waypoint  when originally granted with the title was on dry ground, however over time , 100+ years  with erosion it extended into the water or at best right on the waterline , depending on season and neap tides etc

it also showed the shire had not gotten permission from the forrest family when they did road works and put the road into forrest beach , then turning west along to busso, this track over time was claimed by the shire , and maintained , when the title was discovered the shire had to offer to lease the road back from the family, at a  cheap nominal  rental or buy it  

the family , wanted to have the shire sign a agreeement as part of the lease , that the shire of capel  would provide  a ranger service there pretty much 24/7 at the beach , the shire said no , as it was too expensive, and it considered it was a beach jointly used by other shire residences, s it should be handlballed to the state gov for considereation about resumption , however this never got any air play . too expensive , highly unusual, etc etc ,

so the shire now  have again re surveyed the current fence and found it is not on the gps title boundary , survey points, but the shire must act to have the forrest family move it , onto the legal survey line , whilst not endangering their lease with the family over the road access to the beach and busso etc etc , otherwise you wont be able to drive east from the powerpole marking the gravel section or forrest beach road ,

it will be intersting to see how it plays out , but i wouldnt be bettign excitd about the beach being open anytime soon to cars etc

someone else might have a more  recent  update on it of the last week or so  , have you called the shire howard ??

hezzy

legally the fence must be moved , but i think diplomacy will win the day , not aggressive tacticts if the people are to retain access to the beach , the new alignment might give access along the beach to the east , but it may only be at certain times depending on the tides etc, and weather the family will fence off the northern boundary is/was not known lasdt time i spoke witht the shire

Needs to be bought to bear (by those that care) onto the shire & Minister Castrilli. FFS its just down the road from his patch and plenty of Bunno people have loved using the beach (sensibly) whilst it was open. My argument is (as usual) not with the individual but the bureaucracy. Yes it may need some gentle coercion but it doesn't have to drag on because we 've all died of apathy - I may raise it this week on the ABC so Min. Castrilli can see about delivering everyone a Xmas present. a little bit of appropriately applied pressure can go a long way.

see the thing is that the family legally have the right to close of any land under their title ,same as you and i can on our land if we hold the title ,

what  makes it different and covers the beach is it is an old title , one of the original titles granted way back in the day by the governer of the colony or their representative ,somehwere in the 1800s  as i understand it , the rights under that title or those old titles allow them to actually own the beach and control it ,

even the capel shire where not fully aware of the complexities until a re survey was completed in the last few years , this re survey also then highlighted the shire,s illegal road works and other issues, some of which date back along way bruce  probably even further than the 60s

given forrest family members where on the capel roads board it may have been done in the first place [very early days ]  by word of mouth aggreement , who knows ?same as the old camping site near the water tank etc

the capel shire position has been it needed to negotiate with the family to keep the forrest beach road open under lease agreement , and hopefully find away forward to re open the beach itself to vehicles , to date  that has only been partially successfull , as the beach is open to everyone , but horses and any vehicles ,       you can walk along it etc as far as you like

now i dont  agree with it being closed and pushed with mick murray to have the gov buy the beach section up to the high tide mark back of the family or have it resumed compulsarily ,    to resume it seems extremely difficult so i was  advised by the shire and gov dept,

it is still amatter for the state gov to settle , and resume it or landcorp /whoever to deal with imho , a sit is not only the forrest family, the other end of the beach at peppy has land titles with the  roberts family that have the same sort of entitlements , hence you have another piece of beach closed at the east end , this adjoins the forrest section of beach as i understand ,

so even if the forrest family must remove part of their fence to re align it , the other familys title concerned may still stay put ,and also there fences

for private familys to close of beach is not unknown , it has other precedents along the wa coast under old title , it isnt right imho however ,

everyone was under the delusion that forrest beach was gov owned , it isnt , but it should be

given the location of that beach , it is prime land behind it for a developement of some eco variety , into the future , the capel shire has it gazzeted a green zone , not for development

however , im sure into the future this could change if abig enough proposition was put forward, with a large piece of the land going back to the gov as eco /green vacant land etc  such a prize piece of land could be worth a LOT of money if you owned it .. so if you where the family concerned wouldnt you want to protect your financial future in case of  such a possibility may present itself into the future  ??i sure i would want to be able to decide its future if i owned it ,

look at bunker bay resort ??  exactly the same sort of issue and final result may happen imho

all the land holders have a right to keep whats theirs and protect it , it would be unwise to not do so imho ,

with an state election coming  people need to make some noise with a polly or two

and the bigger issue that spills out of this , is that curently the beach from bunbury through to peppy is now under even more vehicle pressure , the shire has tried with its latest review to keep it open , but it is being made more and more difficult with idiot drivers who go their and dont follow the common courtesy of other beach users, .....if it keeps up as it is at present , more beach will be lost to us for fishing and recreation

it is a reminder to all beach users , be considerate, of others , slow down , control your horses  ,dogs, kids kayaks, boats , etc, ...leave  reasonable access for  others to  pass by .....play fair or it will be taken away in time from us all

hezzy

Reading through all the technical detail you guys have been posting about Forrest Beach It's no wonder some people are considering taking the law into there own hands and get it sorted out once and for all.Very frustating to say the least.

I got the red tape run around on the 15 Nov 2012 regarding the fences on Forrest beach. I rang the shire of Capel to inquire as to what was happening regarding the fences. The shire said that they thought that they had jurisdiction over what happens on the beach but they have not ( but they have on all the other beaches apparently within their boundary). The shire also said that the southwest development commission was dealing with the problem and give them a call. I did and the man said that the Forest family owns the land to the highest high water mark (in the sand dunes) so the fences are on state land and the Roberts family owns the land to the lowest low water mark (in the ocean). I did ask when the fence is being removed and he said that they were negotiating with the Forest family lawyers. I also asked what was there to negotiate but he would not answer. I would strongly urge anyone to give the southwest development commission a call regarding Forrest beach to voice your opinion before it is too late as they have had none at the time that I rang them.

[quote squidder ]  anyone takes a drive to Forrest Beach from the road between Peppy and ludlow one will notice the "OLD ORIGINAL" road as soon as one goes over the small bridge heading towards Forrest Bch. It's quite visible, and this was done because the OLD road in question divided their land.]

bruce, i think you will find the land you are talking about is on a seperate title altogether , many of these older family propertys are made up of a collection of smaller titles , so if the rule you refer to was valid it will only be aplicable to that title  where the road was altered

the road realignment from the bridge on that road was done somewhere around 79-84 if i recall correctly , the shire took out the two bad 90degree left and right hand turns , it had several bad smashes on it and it was ablack spot , the new alignment is much better after the shire did it

jetty rat who at the south west developement commision did you talk to ??  as it doesnt seem right what he has told you in regards to the forrest family land titles  entitlements  from what background i know ,

landcorp and the shire where upfront about the situation as it was then ,would be interesting to know if or what has changed since then ??

when i was on the board at recfishwest we did alot of searching at the start of this to discover all the facts and try to find a solution , see who we could lobby etc etc

it was rock solid definitly in the forrest familys power as the land owner to close of access ,the capel shire really had no choice but to try to negotiate with their lawyers also over many months

, now  it may be possible the SWDC  has been given the handball to try to negotiate a better outcome  hopefully ?

hezzy

How does Landcorp come into this? They are a statutory body for land development and have nothing to do with the administration of titles and surveys. Do you mean Landgate?