Tweed Shire Mayor Chris Cherry: "I think that [the 2022 flooding] has been a big wake up call for all of us."

 

IMAGE: Google Earth snapshot showing 40 Creek Street, Hastings Point & environs. Retrieved 7 August 2023. Click on image to enlarge.

In the matter of Development Application DA20/0386 for a 13 lot subdivision (11 residential lots, 1 drainage lot and 1 residual dedicated riparian lot) at Lot 156 DP 628026 No. 40 Creek Street, Hastings Point made on behalf of Queensland-based Palm Lakes Works Pty Ltd on est. 17.77 ha of flood prone, environmentally sensitive, estuary land which includes preferred koala habitat and SEPP14 wetland.

The Tweed Shire Council meeting which refused development consent saw councillors cast their votes 6 to 1. The sole councillor in support of the DA, was former National Party campaign director and former mayor Cr. Warren Polglase, who in speaking to the motion was moved to utter words to the effect that he did not believe that climate change was occurring here not having seen it with his own eyes. 

Echo, 7 August 2023:

Click on image to enlarge

The Tweed Shire Council has refused a development application (DA) for an 11-lot subdivision at the site of 40 Creek Street, Hastings Point.

The site is zoned residential but ‘has significant environmental constraints as well as being flood prone’ according to the staff report. Despite that, Council staff recommended approval of the DA.

Mayor Chris Cherry told the Council meeting (3 August) that in 2019 she had been one of the councillors to propose ‘in-principle support’ of the subdivision.

‘Looking through that and looking at what that support was based on, it was conditional support based on this application not increasing its development footprint. It was based on it complying with a number of different conditions that were very important to the council of the day and the community.’

Councillor Cherry said point six of the in-principle support stated that:

‘Any future development application that proposes to increase the number of lots, reduce the size of lots or vary any other developments controls to intensify yield or the development footprint or further impact on the buffer or environmental areas will not be looked on favourably by Council.’

Cherry went on to detail a number of ways that the current DA went beyond the basis of the in-principle support, saying that in ‘the proposal in 2019 only three of the lots were intercepting into the 75m ecological buffer zone. Now most of them are, I think seven of them now [are] into that 75m buffer zone. So the developable footprint has increased.

‘The lot for the existing house was 800 square metres in the plan in 2019. It is now 1,470 metres square.

2022 flood

‘There are a lot of changes that have been made that increased the impact of this development. But the biggest thing that has happened in the time since the in-principle support was given is the 2022 floods. I think that has been such a big wake up call for all of us. And we’ve heard today from the flooding experts, from Floodplain Management Australia and the planning expert who came forward, just how much consideration we should be giving to the location, to the impact of storm surge in a climate change future that we are most definitely going to see. And I think it is imperative that we take this very seriously. [my yellow highlighting]

‘Most of you would have seen the article in the Sydney Morning Herald [saying] that it is inexplicable that Hawkesbury Council keeps approving developments of a floodplain when they have gone through such a massive flood. It is the same for us. We can’t keep repeating the same mistakes. We can’t keep saying it will be okay. To put 2.2m of fill across this site to get flood immunity for the new residents is simply not the way. That’s not good planning. That’s not the way we need to go forward as a community…..

Full article here.

Qld 'whiteshoe brigade' developer Graeme Ingles, and Goldcoral Pty Ltd, determined to continue pursuit of the Iron Gate Development proposal in the face of a community which has been resisting development on this site since the 1990s

 

Echo, 19 July 2023:

Evans Heads locals and other concerned members of the public form the Northern Rivers have raised concerns over Richmond Valley Council’s (RVC) apparent lack of preparation to defend the controversial Iron Gates appeal currently underway in the Land and Environment Court (L&EC) in Sydney.

The development application (DA) was rejected by the Northern Regional Planning Panel (NRPP) in September 2022. An appeal was immediately launched by Gold Coast developer Graeme Ingles. Ingles has been trying to regain approval for residential development of the site since his approval was stripped by the L&EC in 1997 after illegal clearing and other works were done at the site. Remediation was required by the L&EC of approximately $2 million, however, this work has never been done by Ingles.

Some of the drains that the developer was ordered to fill that still hasn’t been done over twenty years later. Photo supplied

The current iteration of seeking a DA for residential development is now in its ninth year. The NRPP had roundly rejected the DA by Goldcoral Pty Ltd following a public hearing on the development and two independent professional assessments which recommended refusal. Grounds for rejection included serious fire, flood, ecological and Aboriginal cultural and town planning concerns.

Following his appeal application to the L&EC Ingles put the Iron Gates property up for sale by but the property was withdrawn from sale early in 2023. Goldcoral Pty Ltd was then put into administration and the appeal case in the L&EC was taken over by the large legal firm Corrs Chambers Westgarth from Ingles’ solicitor.

Developer Graeme Ingles. Photo inglesgroup. com.au

Public refused right to know basis of appeal

The matter proceeded to a Section 34 Hearing by a L&EC Commissioner held on site at the Iron Gates at Evans Head. Submissions against the appeal were presented by the public despite the fact that the basis for the appeal was not made public.

Public excluded from onsite meetings

The public was then excluded from further negotiation with the Commissioner, and the parties to the case, including a second respondent, the Bandjalang People, retired behind closed Iron Gates and closed Richmond Valley Council (RVC) chambers for further talks.

The community was not informed of the outcome of the discussions with the Commissioner by RVC’s solicitor who had overseen the public representations. Council’s solicitor declined to respond to questions about the case on the grounds that Council was its client, not the public……

Simone Barker (nee Wilson), daughter of the late Lawrence Wilson who opposed the development back in the 1990s accompanied by supporter Jaydn.

Revised reports not available to public and RVC substantially redacted

None of the new plans or revised expert reports presented by the appellant (Goldcoral Pty Ltd) and considered by the Court are publicly available. Those auditing the case (15 parties at one point during the day) were forced to infer what had been claimed.….

Iron Gates Road in flood March 2022. Photo supplied

Insufficient review time for RVC

Counsel representing Council complained to the Registrar about the fact that it had only just received material pertinent to the case from the Appellant and had insufficient time to review it. And Counsel representing Goldcoral complained that the material it was presenting to the Court needed substantial work to accommodate the significant changes to documentation necessitated by the heavily redacted RVC affidavit, changes accepted by the Registrar and parties to the case.

Despite the complaints the parties worked to adapt to the revised circumstances and most of the afternoon’s hearing was given to presentation by the legal representative from Goldcoral about the revisions to the plan for residential development. In essence the case was put that the material was for a revised development which took account of many of the criticisms put to the NRPP which led to the DA’s refusal.

LEP wetlands riparian map of Iron Gates site and Evans Head. Image supplied

Proposed changes included, among many matters, the extent of the development footprint, reduction in total area of the development, changes to size and diversity of blocks, changes to the internal roads including a new fire trail around the site, a new refuge area for fire and flood for residents cut off during such events, increased setbacks from littoral conservation areas, new consultation processes with Aboriginal stakeholders yet to be completed, changes to earthworks with reductions in mass and impact, changes to vegetation clearance and changes to stormwater management. The hearing with the Registrar is set to continue next Tuesday. Those interested in following the case can obtain details from the Land and Environment Court site.

A spokesperson from Evans Head Residents for Sustainable Development (EHRFSD) said today following the Hearing that it was disappointing to witness the wholesale, and what appeared to be, valid criticism of the case material prepared by the staff of Richmond Valley Council in their affidavit to the Court. The problem was made worse by the fact that the material was not made available to the public and Council’s General Manager had written a generic letter to those asking for more information about the case that it would not be doing so:

Significant cost to ratepayers

The spokesperson for EHRFSD said that the case had already costed ratepayers a seven figure amount and more costs were on the way. He also added that given that the community had provided so much valid criticism about the former DA that it was decidedly wrong to exclude the community from the information attached to the case.

‘The community is not asking for a “running commentary” on legal proceedings,’ he said. ‘We have never done so. What we are asking for is the basic information such as new reports and affidavits and plans on which the case for an amended DA is based so that we can assess for ourselves the veracity of materials being presented, follow court proceedings and draw our own conclusions. The community is not stupid and has much to offer and it is becoming patently clear through what appears to be a dismal performance by council in material preparation, that community input may be essential to the case as it has been in the past for success.

‘There is no doubt that the case is a complex one but this is not a ground for refusing to provide basic information to an interested public, particularly one that has already gone through four versions of the DA and made substantial submissions.

‘As it currently stands the question before the Court, as we understand it is, “are the changes to the application so significant that it should be a new DA process, or should it be approved by the L&EC without further consideration by the public, as an amended application?”

‘It is our view that even in the absence of detailed information the amendment application looks like a very different application to the one we have seen and should be treated accordingly as a new DA,’ he told The Echo.

‘But there is a bigger question here which council has refused, and continues to refuse, to deal with and that is, “is the Iron Gates a suitable area for residential development or should it be rezoned in keeping with it natural and cultural attributes for environmental protection?”

‘This is a question that the community has been asking for a review of for decades. It is important to remember that this land was zoned for residential development in the early 1980’s, forty years ago when the “white shoe” brigade was in ascendance.

‘It is vital to ask the question “is residential zoning appropriate here today given the future impacts of climate change and our better understanding of the environment, protection of the public interest, and keeping the public out of harm’s way? There is recent precedent for doing so in the Clarence Valley,’ he explained.

Read the full article at:

https://www.echo.net.au/2023/07/richmond-valley-council-drops-the-ball-in-appeals-case-before-the-lec/

New words and phrases entering the Northern Rivers lexicon

 

The first phrase in this occasional segment is:

“disaster investor” [origin unknown, circa 2023] — a person who deliberately seeks out homeowners whose properties have been flood damaged and offers these homeowners as little as 10 cents on the dollar of the pre-flood value of a freestanding house.

STATE OF PLAY NSW 2022: In a changing climate is your local council and the regional planning panel in your area really taking into consideration all state policies, acts & regulations applicable to flooding?

 

In a changing climate whose effects and negative impacts have been driven home to NSW communities since the mega bushfires of 2019 and the increasingly heavy rainfall events across the state, there is a need for communities to ensure their wellbeing and safety is paramount in the minds of all those making policy and/or planning decisions concerning the local government areas and regions in which they live.

The widespread and catastrophic flooding to date in 2022 highlighting the need to ask this particular question.

Is my local council and, the NSW regional planning panel in my area which has authority to consent to state significant and high dollar value development applications, really obeying all the planning instructions that have been put in place since 2020?

In July 2021, the NSW Government updated its guidance to councils on considering flooding in land-use planning. 

Set out below is the "Flood prone land package" concerned residents, ratepayers and community groups can use as part of their own checklists when trying to ensure that proposed land releases and large-scale development applications have been genuinely assessed against growing flood risks.

• Revised flooding local planning direction under s9.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

• PS21-006 planning circular on flooding

• Considering flooding in land use planning guideline - July 2021

• Standard Instrument LEP Amendment Flood Planning Order 2021

• Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Flood Planning Regulation 2021

• State Environmental Planning Policy Amendment Flood Planning 2021

No sign of a break in widespread rain across NSW and road damage toll mounts

 

The Sydney Morning Herald, 20 October 2022:

Holidaymakers heading into regional NSW over the next few months have been told to brace themselves for longer journeys on more dangerous roads after a year of record rain and flooding.

The severe weather has caused billions of dollars in damage to local roads across the state, bringing regional councils to “their knees” as they struggle with repairs, and heaping pressure on the state government to intervene…..

NRMA spokesman Peter Khoury said the damage to roads across the state posed a safety risk heading into the summer and councils needed more state and federal funding to ensure their roads were safe after the rain.

“The roads are not great, they are littered with potholes and are severely damaged, but also roadworks will be taking place, which means people will need to slow down for those as well,” he said.

“There are safety risks when it comes to roads that are so badly damaged. It is easier to lose control, especially on high-speed roads.

“It’s going to be a challenging period and it’s not going to get better until the rain stops.”

The NRMA roadside assistance team was receiving almost twice as many call-outs for tyre and wheel damage in NSW compared with last year.

NSW Farmers fears the state of regional roads will impede the harvest of this year’s winter crops, due to start in NSW in the next few weeks, because heavy vehicles and machinery will struggle to get to farms and then get the crops to market…...

Local Government NSW said some councils were now spending up to 90 per cent of their capital works budgets on road repairs and this year’s rain had caused $2.5-$3 billion worth of damage to local roads.

It reiterated its call for the state government to act on its 2019 election promise and take over 15,000 kilometres of country roads owned and repaired by councils.

A spokesman said the government’s failure to do so had “heaped more pain on many regional and rural councils, who are financially on their knees due to rising repair costs”.

Almost 80 councils have identified 500 roads they want the state government to reclassify or take over. So far, the government has said it will take on five roads – totalling 391 kilometres – identified in a priority audit, but the transfer of ownership will take time. An independent panel is reviewing the remaining nominations……

The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) expects this current bout of rain to continue falling over the Northern Rivers region at least until Thursday 27 October.

BOM advice as of 19 October 2022 was:

Significant rain and thunderstorms are continuing to spread across eastern and south-eastern Australia and will continue into next week.

Rain and thunderstorms with heavy falls over South Australia and Queensland are due to spread into northern and western New South Wales towards the South Australian and New South Wales border on Wednesday night.

Severe thunderstorms are also likely across Queensland and northern New South Wales, with heavy rainfall leading to flash flooding, damaging winds and large hail. Heavy falls across inland South Australia could also lead to flash flooding.

Thursday will see widespread thunderstorms across eastern Queensland, New South Wales, northern Victoria, and far eastern parts of South Australia, with isolated heavy falls.

Inland Queensland and New South Wales are also likely to see some severe thunderstorms with heavy rain, damaging winds and large hail, with giant hail also possible.

Further rainfall in coming days for southern inland Queensland, on and west of the ranges in New South Wales and northern Victoria is likely to lead to widespread moderate to major flooding impacting already flood affected communities.

On Friday and leading into Saturday widespread showers and thunderstorms will continue for eastern Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania, as humid and unstable conditions persist across eastern and south-eastern Australia.

Severe thunderstorms are likely across eastern Queensland, New South Wales, and parts of Victoria, bringing more large hail, damaging winds, and heavy rainfall.

Severe thunderstorms are likely across eastern Queensland, New South Wales, and parts of Victoria, bringing more large hail, damaging winds, and heavy rainfall.

Widespread rainfall totals of 25 to 50 mm are likely across South Australia, Queensland, New South Wales, and Victoria this week and into the weekend, with 50 to 100 mm falls possible in southern inland Queensland, on and west of the ranges in New South Wales.

This rain and storm activity will lead to renewed river level rises and widespread moderate to major flooding across southern Queensland, inland New South Wales, and possibly northern Victoria…...

For all the latest warnings see National Warnings Summary.

8-DAY TOTAL RAIN FORECAST

Australian Bureau of Meteorology, rain map, issued 7:43am AED Thursday 20 October 2022

So, you are looking to buy a house or land in Yamba on the Clarence Coast in NSW?

 

A recent local newspaper article of 12 October 2022 stated that Clarence Valley Council would not release the results of a circa 2014 floor level survey of an unstated number of Yamba homes.

This survey was apparently undertaken to assess flood risk vulnerability against potential flood height modelling for Yamba township and environs.

The reason Council gave for withholding this information appears to be; “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.”

By Census Night in August 2021 there were 4,073 residential dwellings recorded for a Yamba population of 6,376 people.

It is possible that conservatively between 30% to 53% of this housing stock is vulnerable to varying degrees during heavy rainfall associated with adverse weather events and Lower Clarence River flooding. A smaller percentage of Yamba dwellings above flood height on Pilot Hill and environs may be still be at risk - from land slippage during prolonged heavy rain and high seas.

Now according to propertyvalue.com.au there have been 142 houses sold in Yamba and environs in the last twelve months with a median price of $925,000.

Looking at online real estate sites there are also a number of dwellings in the town currently for sale – ranging from modest houses on manufactured relocatable housing estates through to 3-4 bedroom brick family homes and onto million dollar plus residences of up to 5 bedrooms & 2 bathrooms with all the mod cons.

There’s no easy way to establish floor levels in Yamba just by viewing real estate websites or looking at documents currently publicly available on Council’s own website. The only historic information publicly available ‘guesses’ dwelling floor heights in many of the town’s streets based on the surveyed height of the adjacent road surface.

An estimation method which clearly had its drawbacks in March 2022 when this overview of a section of Yamba Road was taken.

Embed from Getty Images

If Clarence Valley Council is determined to cloak in secrecy a more accurate extant list of floor heights, perhaps it’s time that the Yamba community began to help people who want to move here make informed choices before committing themselves to a mortgage or spending their hard-earned retirement savings?

Remembering that the Lower Clarence River estuary has flooded on average every three years since the 1990s, looking at Google Earth as well as basic digital flood modelling that Clarence Valley Council has available online and, then sampling from the over 50 dwellings currently advertised for sale for an example of each of the three aforementioned housing types:

• that sweet little 3 bedroom home in one of Yamba’s manufactured home estates is probably only est. 4m above mean sea level and, if its floor level doesn’t turn out to be at least 2.84m AHD then there is a statistical 1 in 100 chance in any given year that it will have stormwater and/or floodwater running across the bedroom carpeting;

• the 4 bedroom brick home with a tidy garden is probably est. 4m above mean sea level but if its floor level isn’t high enough then there is a statistical 1 in 50 chance in any given year that flood water will enter the property and threaten the house. There is also a 1 in 100 chance in any given year that with a floor below or even at 2.84m AHD the river will come knocking at the door and take possession of the house for as many days as it pleases;

• when it comes to one of those houses with the million dollar plus price tag, well it is an est. 3-4m above mean sea level. However if its floor level falls short of 2.84m AHD then it may be uncomfortable to live in as there is a statistical 1 in 50 chance in any given year that flood water will enter the property but possibly not the house. However, there is also a 1 in 100 chance in any given year that storm water and/or flood water will enter the property and threaten the ground floor areas of this house.

Needless to say all three example residences are highly likely to be inundated during an extreme flood event given that modelled flood water heights would reach above the ceiling of the average single storey house design and above ceiling level on the ground floor of the average two-story design.

I rather suspect that Council is not voluntarily offering up that information to prospective home buyers, unless they happen to ask a precisely framed question in writing over the signature of their solicitor and perhaps not even then – given how many hundreds of land or house & land packages property developers are hoping to sell over the next five to twenty-five years in Yamba and how attractive future increases in rate income are to local government. 

Although quite frankly with Australia’s climate already having warmed on average by 1.44 ± 0.24 °C since national records began in 1910 [Dept. Planning and Environment, AdaptNSW 2022] and the possibility being canvassed that the world and Australia will reach long-term 1.5°C warming as early as the 2030s, Clarence Valley Council has more to worry about than riverine flooding.

In a worst case scenario due to the expected increase in sea-level rise this warming will bring, a significant amount of land within Yamba town precincts will be begin to go under water at high tide in another 8-17 years time.

Climate Central Inc. interactive mapping
Sea-level rise at 1.5°C global warming
Click on image to enlarge

Valley Watch Inc takes Clarence Valley Council to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal seeking an honest answer as to the exact number of Yamba dwellings identified as having floor levels below modelled flood inundation heights

 

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.