Over
my lifetime I have lived in eight local government areas.
During my
childhood years only one impinged on my consciousness, when community
resistance to a proposed council measure
saw parents & children armed with buckets of paste, large
paintbrushes and posters, out after dark on the back of a truck
deployed to festoon
telegraph poles & public buildings with sentiments opposing the proposition.
It
was also the first time I began to realise that local government was
a point at which competing interests vied to be heard and an arena
it which every interest hoped to prevail.
It
was brought home to me when
returning from attending a council meeting, a neighbour entered my
family home exultantly crying “The
mick’s have it!
We won!”.
It
was during those early years that I also began to learn that both
state government and local council decisions about where to create
new urban precincts can have unexpected consequences for families
purchasing a home. In my case the lesson came with fast moving flash flooding,
which sent water rushing under dwellings
in a largescale housing
project
built
on sloping former
farmland land
at
the fringes of a city.
Carving
away clay and soil from foundations and making timber
houses
quiver like jellies on their newly exposed, vulnerable brick piers.
Over
the years since then I have watched local government grow more
complex and in many ways more powerful. With its elected arm frequently highly politicised and its administrative
arm intent on imposing its own will on council decision making as its default position in relation to planning matters.
I
have
lived long enough to see more and more cities, suburbs, towns and
villages expand their built footprints until they began
to fill New South Wales coastal floodplains and,
in the last three decades noted that this particular planning
strategy has been repeatedly warned against.
I
have also watched with both interest and sometimes alarm as vested
interests have grown even more powerful when it came to deciding if,
where and when areas on those floodplains should be turned into mile
after mile of family homes just as vulnerable to the forces of nature
as was that
family home of my childhood. Still being built as mine was to designs
and with materials which were never fully
capable
of withstanding severe storms, floods, wildfire or earthquake.
Right
now the little town of Yamba
(at
the mouth of one such floodplain) is
the focal point of one of those contests between residents
seeking to protect the wellbeing
and safety of a community and the political interests of three tiers
of government aligned as they currently are within
this state with
the financial and commercial interests of property developers and
land speculators both foreign and domestic.
Part
of that contest
is being played out in the matter of Valley
Watch Inc v Clarence Valley Council,
Case
No. 2022/00290453,
before
the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal (Administrative and Equal
Opportunity Division) in
Sydney on
Monday
17
October 2022 at
a Case Conference (GIPA and Privacy) at which the progression of the
matter through the Tribunal process will be decided.
Note: Full title of GIPA is the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 which in NSW is the vehicle under which a legally enforceable right to access most government information is exercised unless there is an overriding public interest against disclosure.
Clarence
Valley Independent,
12 October 2022:
Valley
Watch takes council to NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal
Eight
years of frustration by local community group Valley Watch over
Clarence Valley Council not releasing important Yamba floor level
survey results will now be subjected to a review by the NSW Civil and
Administrative Tribunal.
Valley
Watch spokes-person Helen Tyas Tunggal said 14 years after Yamba’s
existing flooding problem was identified in council’s 2008 flood
study, and eight years since professional floor level surveys were
done in 2014, affected residents are still unable to access the
results.
“Enough
is enough” Ms Tyas Tunggal said.
“14
years is too long.
“The
council has an obligation to act in the best interests of residents
and stop keeping this information secret.”
The
2008 Yamba Floodplain Risk Management Study FRMS identified the issue
of a lack of a floor level survey, but Ms Tyas Tunggal said it took
another six years to be conducted.
“Due
to a lack of surveyed floor level data an assessment based on
approximations,” the FRMS stated.
The
approximations, Ms Tyas Tunggal said were made of the number of
existing house floors that would be inundated including a 20-year
flood (122 homes); a 100-year flood (1223 homes) and extreme flood
(2144 homes).
“It
took until 2014 for the floor level survey to be conducted,”’ Ms
Tyas Tunggal said.
“(The
residents were notified) as a part of the investigation work for the
preparation of the Development Control Plan that will guide
residential development in West Yamba, it is a requirement that floor
levels of surrounding residential dwellings be ascertained,”
affected residents were told by council.
“These
floor levels are required to determine whether any existing dwellings
are at risk from the proposed future filling of appropriately zoned
parts of West Yamba to enable future residential development.”
“And
yet those residents whose floors were surveyed have not been told by
the Council what the results are,” Ms Tyas Tunggal said.
Valley
Watch has made various attempts to clarify what has happened to the
resulting documentation from the 2014 floor level survey.
As
a result, the organisation has asked its solicitor to seek a review
of Council’s refusal to release the information.
“We
think it is only fair for residents to be told how at risk of
flooding their homes are,” Ms Tyas Tunggal said.
“Council
has that information and could make the information available if they
wish.”
When
council replied to Valley Watch’s request for information the
written response stated “Premature release of the floor level data
might (for instance) result in one or more sales falling through
without the statutory immunity of Council being assured.”
“We
do not accept that by releasing floor level survey data council will
lose its statutory Immunity,” Ms Tyas Tunggal said.
“The
statement however raises concerns that there is significant
information contained within the survey results that residents and
the public need to know.
“We
are asking the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal to take an
independent look.”
A particular quote in the aforementioned article is revealing to say the least:
“Premature release of the floor level data might (for instance) result in one or more sales falling through without the statutory immunity of Council being assured.”
One has to wonder why Clarence Valley Council would expose itself so blatantly, in asserting words to the effect that it believes it is perfectly proper for council to keep the full range of flood risk information from existing homeowners, as well as to actively involve itself in duping prospective homebuyers and presumably conveyancing agents acting on the buyer's behalf.
Such a coldly cruel expression of caveat emptor by an imperious Clarence Valley Council.
It was interesting to note
that the article set out below also appeared in that same issue of the Clarence Valley Independent. A well-intentioned article which voices the ideal while skirting around much of the problematic reality that is local government in 21 Century Australia.
Clarence
Valley Independent,
12 October 2022:
Mayoral
column 3 – Community engagement and consultation
October
12, 2022 -
In
late 2021, during the Council election campaign, some candidates
acknowledged that the Council should do much better in informing the
community on matters of importance.
I
believe that a local Council that consistently engages effectively
with its community is helping to safeguard local democracy while
placing people at the centre of local government. Perfunctory,
irregular “consultation” should be unacceptable.
Councillors
have received complaints of a lack of communication and response
times to your communications. We are committed to continuous
improvement in this regard. If you have experienced communication
issues, I encourage you to contact me or your local councillor.
The
level of community engagement undertaken should always be appropriate
to the nature, complexity and impact of the issue, plan, project, or
strategy. Adequate time and reasonable opportunity should be provided
for people to present their views to Council in an appropriate manner
and format. The Council should have proper regard to the reasonable
expectations of the community, to the costs and benefits of the
engagement process, and to intergenerational equity.
