COUNCILLOR WHO THINK THAT THEY MUST
FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ARE
NOT DOING WHAT THEY WERE ELECTED
TO DO ... REPRESENT THEIR CONSTITUENTS!
THEY ARE ALSO ALLOWING THE TAIL TO
WAG THE DOG!!
\Dear Byron Shire residents, please let Councillors know that you care about the environment and want to protect our remaining wild places Save Wallum - Brunswick Heads #savewallum #keepwallumwild
Where do we stand if this is what democracy in local government looks like? When decisions are made from within an institution that doesn't consult adequately with the public they are hired to serve, and employs elected representatives - only some of who represent ‘the public interest’ faithfully.
We’re concerned that Council Planning Staff are stating the plans have been assessed as compliant - those plans will bulldoze a significant part of the SEPP, which is a protected area under state legislation.
The artificial ponds will be ineffective as mitigation measures for the Wallum Sedge Frog, especially the WSF female who hides out in the areas they intend to bulldoze. She doesn’t call, so is regarded as cryptic and even experts don’t know her full picture.
To give deeper ecological context, the male could continue to call from the sedges for five years to females that have been destroyed, and as the assessment methods they use to determine WSF presence is simply the call of the male, it will appear they are there; but eventually there will be a silent summer.
- These “ecological restoration works” are highly destructive and show no understanding of wallum ecology -
The damage is significant for Koalas also. Coastal Koalas use more area than hinterland koalas as the nutrition matrix is lower due to poorer soils. So a hinterland koala can localise while a coastal koala must roam wide to get their nutrition. The huge concern for this site extends even beyond the 100 old-growth koala feed trees that would be destroyed and includes the reduced ability for koalas to interconnect and risks a dissection that could literally lead to local extinction of that coastal population 
In the case of both species and many others a development here risks local extinction.
Wallum - DA at 15 Torakina Road, Brunswick Heads
This has been a difficult issue for Councillors to navigate, primarily because it was not a decision of Council. In May 2023, the Northern Regional Planning Panel made the determination to approve this DA. Once an approval like this is granted, there is little scope to change course. If an appeal is lodged within 3 months, then that case can be considered on its merits. ‘Leave to appeal’ can be granted outside this timeframe, though it is rare for this to happen. Council does not have an ability to appeal this decision and despite some vocal community opposition, unfortunately no appeal has been lodged by objectors.
Council’s only official role in this matter is to ensure that the consent conditions of the DA approved by the NRPP are complied with. We do not have a role in assessing the merits of the development. In order to assess whether the consent conditions have been complied with, we engaged an independent consultant to prepare the relevant reports so as to remove any potential accusation of bias were staff to perform this function. In short, they concluded that for each of the reports provided by the developer, the consent conditions had been met. These reports, due to a prior resolution of Councillors, were brought to the December meeting of Council rather than being acted upon by staff. At the December meeting, consideration of this matter was deferred until February, ostensibly so we could consider the large volume of material in the reports. The real reason was to give objectors time to lodge an appeal, which we were told was imminent.
Councillors will again look at this item on Thursday and, if we are performing our roles properly, will be focusing on whether the updated management reports provided satisfy the consent conditions. That is our only official role once a DA has been approved. We cannot ‘re-assess’ the merits of the development. Unfortunately, I have seen no valid argument that I can rely on in any of the correspondence which shows that these reports do not satisfy the conditions of consent. This is in the main because conditions of consent need to be achievable and follow what is called the ‘Newbery Test’.
More info here on this test for those that are interested:
I also want to address the claim that this DA was lodged under a shroud of secrecy. Below are links to the Echo edition in June 2021 where it appeared on the front page of the paper, and also as an online article.
This item was also on a Council agenda last year, in February 2023, with respect to the dedication of land to Council for conservation and public reserves as a result of the development. It was called up for discussion by Councillor Dey, as referenced on a recent post on the Save Wallum site. Some of the quotes from his opening speech are worthy of note, given his interesting take on this subsequently where he said he had no idea this was coming up for decision by the planning panel in May 2023.
Cr Dey: “I support the staff recommendation…I had a look at the site, it’s an interesting site.. it’s mostly on cleared land..it’s interesting that this site is going to be developed and it’s mostly bushland surrounding it which will actually add to the joy of living there.” He then went on to discuss and ask questions around the drainage. Only Councillor Coorey asked questions about the Wallum froglet, threatened species etc., with the answers around this remaining the same as have always been given with respect to the s.34A certificate, and the EPBC Act. All Councillors present then voted to proceed with the planning agreement, which was simply an adjunct to the main process underway in the NRPP.
The audio file is here, it was the last item of the day and it begins at 4hrs23min:
This has been in the public domain for many years, including leading up to the decision by the NRPP in May 2023. Councillors were never lobbied by the community leading up to the decision by the NRPP, nor was there any serious effort or campaign to stop the development at the time there needed to be, despite it being very much on the public record. We never had a reason as Councillors to be proactive regarding the site as we were not the consent authority, nor were we lobbied by anyone at the time to get involved. We considered the dedication of land issue and resolved it as would be expected of us in that capacity. For objectors to now try to paint this as a decision of Council, when it isn’t, is disingenuous and an abrogation of the responsibility that all the community has to be across things that are happening, to be involved and to lobby at the right time. If Councillors had been lobbied and had the values of the site brought to our attention at this time, we could have addressed the planning panel, helped others to do so and attempted to prevent the development in line with community expectations.
All that is before us now however, is to determine on the consent conditions. Should we use an invalid excuse to not resolve on Thursday that these consent conditions have been met, it will be a waste of our resources and a complete abrogation of our duty as Councillors. It will see us go to court and lose, cost us money we don’t have and likely remove any hope we have of obtaining concessions from the developer, which I am still hopeful of doing. I will not cost our Shire money fighting a legal battle we will most definitely lose. It is not fair for Councillors who are fulfilling their responsibilities to be painted as the bad guys in this situation. Everyone needs to take their share of responsibility for what happens and for what they could have done and haven’t.
It has been an impressive and concerted campaign by Save Wallum and it is heartening to see the level of care for our natural environment on display. For those that are unperturbed, focused on the injustices of habitat loss and willing to do anything to stop this development, you still have options. You can continue to lobby the Federal Department for the Environment. You can lodge an appeal against the DA. You can protest on-site and ‘lock on’. I will respect your choices and I will not stand in your way but please understand this was never a Council decision and effort must be directed in a way that can make a difference and that is not in the hands of Councillors in this case.
No comments:
Post a Comment