Report to Fellow Parties - January 2011, continued ...
So far:
- The judge has accepted that Rainbow Shores has lodged a valid appeal despite their inability to contact some of the people who made a submission on the Development Application.
- The parties before the court in the matter are:
Rainbow Shores
Gympie Regional Council
Department of Environment and Resource Management
J Lawler, Citizens Helping Inskip Peninsula, M Lawler, R & S Ruescher and E Devereux
( I am agent for these parties and we are described as the First Co-respondent by election)
Fraser Island Defenders Organisation
Rainbow Beach Commerce and Tourism Association
Greg Wood, Fiona Hawthorne, Vivian Griffin, National Parks Association of Queensland, Cooloola Coastcare (Greg acts as agent for these parties)
Department of Main Roads - Pursuant to Orders we have each given a list of issues that we wished raise additional to the ones already raised. We have then nominated expert witnesses to give evidence on distinct issues. The expert witnesses from each side have met and produced joint reports
- The judge has set a time for us to:
- Put together a comprehensive list of issues (12 January)
- Accept that changes proposed to the Plan of Development are minor (see below) (12 January)
- Have a hearing as to whether the changes are minor (17 January)
- Attend a day's mediation (20 january)
- Exchange any further expert reports (2 February) - The hearing is booked for February.
Comments and Explanations
I have attended most of the hearings. RS, council and DERM are always there. Greg and Andrew Sinclair from FIDO are generally there in person or on the phone. Main Roads got permission to only appear if transport matters changed. Scott Elms from RBCTA has taken no part (apart from an unfortunate email.)
Issues
I put forward no additional issues as we can rely on the isssues for refusal, the issues for acceptance of the appeal and issues that others raise. RS put forward additional reasons for acceptance. The Council added issues of water and sewerage and town planning issues. DERM has a comprehensive list of environmental issues. Greg added Town Planning issues and issues of need. FIDO had no extra issues.
Experts
Then the parties had to nominate experts in the field that they wanted to advance their issues.This was the big disappointment from Council. They nominated their engineer as an expert in water supply and sewerage but did not nominate an expert to defend their town plan. This meant that Greg had to have an expert on Town Planning and also on Need and had to raise the funds to employ these experts. Greg was in a better position to do this and we would be better off supporting his efforts. So we employed no experts. (had I seen a need we would have had this report and a formal discussion much sooner) Rainbow Shores has experts in everything and DERM have experts on environmental matters. FIDO has no experts.
Reports
The reports from joint meetings of the experts have produced vital information. The Planning Experts, from Rainbow Shores and Greg, deliberated and produced a request for more information and pointed out that the Plan of Development submitted by Rainbow Shores could be not be interpreted in a rational and consistent manner and needed alteration. It appears that the population allowed under the plan could be as high as more than 9000 under some interpretations and there were other failures. Rainbow Shores did not reply to try to fix this problem for two months and then they objected to producing some of the information, refused to commit to change the plan as suggested by their own expert, and wanted the experts to consider the original plan and a proposal from their own expert at the same time and in the same report.
Greg objected to this as it would lead to confusion and more expense and at the last hearing the judge forced RS to accept the changes.
Change in Plan of Development
So now we have an altered Plan of Development. I have just received a copy of the changed PoD and have to inform RS if we consider it to be a minor change. If it is a major change then the Appeal is dismissed and RS have to start the whole process again. But there are fairly distinct criteria to evaluate to consider if it is a minor change. If there is not an increase in the impact or extent of the development, then it is probably a minor change and the judge will say that. It would appear that these changes are mainly to make clear what the development is and not to extend the development. There are some parts of the PoD that cause me concern in interpretation and I will ask RS about these but I will accept that it is a minor change unless I unearth good reasons that it isn't.
Role of Gympie Regional Council
Of course this whole matter should not have happened. It is ridiculous that:
- Rainbow Shores submits an incompetent Plan of Development
- Our council has it for years and does not detect that the Plan of Development is incompetent
- The council lists Town Planning as an area of their concern but does not supply an expert to ensure that their interests are properly considered.
- Private individuals such as Greg and others have to raise funds and employ experts to do what is the core business of council: ensuring proper planning.
The cost to council of providing a Town Planning expert would be minimal as they have staff who could have defended the Town Plan.
It is evident from the Joint Report that there is conflict with the Town Plan. It is council's responsibility to defend their plan against inappropriate development. When the Development Application was made over 800 submissions were made and the vast majority from residents were against the application and many on Town Planning grounds. Council has failed to give an effective voice to these people and this is also their core business. If they do not represent the justified concerns of their residents or defend their town plan for effective planning outcomes, what are they there for?
Joint Reports - Consideration
I have to study the joint reports of the experts in different fields before I can make detailed comments. A preliminary examination of the joint report on Water Supply and Sewerage with Rainbow Shores' expert and the Council engineer, Robert Fredman, seems to conclude that all will be well if Rainbow Shores give council lots of money. It is interesting that the Shire Engineer has suggested discharging water from the sewerage treatment plant direct to the environment but Rainbow Shores has run away from this as DERM would never agree. As I said, I have to study the reports further and seek more information but the Council engineer evidently puts a lower value on the environment than Rainbow Shores or DERM.
I am asking for more information about the data used to produce the reports as there are some errors and I want to establish what the foundations are of some of the reports. More later.
Timing
The general situation is that Rainbow Shores are pushing as hard as they can for everything to happen quickly. This is despite the fact that they put everything back by two months by their failure to respond to the Town Planning experts. They are sending bullying legal rubbish to Greg blaming him for delays after their failure to respond properly put back the timetable.
I can't see how I can realistically give an opinion on whether it is a Minor Change by 12 January or be able to reasonably argue at a hearing on 17 January. The push by RS for speed only advantages those with the greatest resources - who are Rainbow Shores by several orders of magnitude.
I have also had problems with the way that Rainbow Shores operate in the court through their counsel, Geers. At the last two hearings we have been presented with an affadavit of over 50 pages as we entered the court room and expected to reply to it without any chance of even reading it. At the last hearing I objected to this procedure and the judge was willing to grant an adjournement for a couple of hours. However Judy was ill and I had to get home so I struggled on in the court.
There is another problem in that we are reaching the stage where I will need to consult with you, who I represent, about what we should do. To do this I will need an adjournment of at least a couple of days if Geers try it on again.
I think that it is more important to get this right than to hurry it so that some viewpoints and information are lost.
Reporting, Consultation and the Future
As I said earlier, the procedure has developed along the lines that we expected. However there will be more need for consultation from now on. I have written this report to provide a basis for future consultation which will probably be by phone and email.
I have tried to assist Greg with fundraising and suggest that financial contributions go through the Sunshine Coast Environment Council to Greg's effort as he needs the support. It is tax deductable. Our efforts are more general and relate to historical matters as I have both information and records and am continuing to use Right to Information legislation to get more information. This uses some money but we are OK at the moment.
Apart from individuals, I am also representing Citizens Helping Inskip Peninsula. On Friday and Saturday I covered a lot of the camps on Inskip with information and discussion about RS2 and the appeal and distributed Greg's flyer. I also spoke at the New Year's concert on the point. I received a great reception and lots of ideas. We also hope that Greg gets some financial support from the people. There was not one person in favour of RS2.
However the campers are just a part of CHIP and I will try to use the media to report to a larger group of members and supporters.
Can I also suggest that it would help if people wrote to council and the media about council's failure to live up to their clear responsibility to support their own town plan and represent the people who elected them.
I'll contact you further as needed and ask that you don't hesitate to contact me on any matters of concern or information
Regards
Reg Lawler
P.O. Box 9
Dagun
Q 4570
regl@bigpond.com
07 54843273
2/1/11