When I was in Brisbane last week, I saw an item in the Courier-Mail that attracted my interest. The Redlands Shire Council supported the community in rejecting a proposal for expansion of a quarry, over-turning the recommendations of officers and despite the views of the Mayor, who voted for the project "because council officers, the EPA, Natural Resources and Main Roads departments had all approved it with conditions". He went on to say if it's State policy and all those departments and our officers support it, I should too. Why spend ratepayers money fighting this...?Now that's an interesting argument and has parallels in the Town of Vincent. I agree there is no point in allowing trivial matters to be fought out in the State Administrative Tribunal, as this is not only costly but reduces our credibility on more important matters. However, where Council has reservations about a proposed development and there is also strong community concern, we should be aware that if we approve the proposal, the community has no further opportunity to be heard. On the other hand, if we refuse it and the proponent does take it to the Tribunal, Council can invite members of the community to join with it in defending the appeal.
Some years ago, Council (at my instigation) adopted a practice of being represented by an independent town planner, an elected member and one or more members of the affected community when a proposed development was taken to the SAT after Council refused an application and over-turned an officer recommendation for approval in doing so. We did so to avoid putting our officers in an invidious position of having to defend a Council decision that went against their professional advice.
There are no guarantees of success, although I understand that we are batting very significantly better than 50% and we have had some notable successes. However, this is the only way, under the WA Planning Laws, that the community can be heard after Council has made a decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment