‘‘WHY the rush?’’ summed up questions put to Liberal councillors, who were grilled this week over last-minute, sweeping changes to Sutherland Shire’s draft local environmental plan (LEP).
The most telling answer may come today (Thursday) when the architect of the amendments, former mayor Kent Johns, is due to appear at a public hearing, conducted by review panel doctor John Roseth and Meredith Sussex.
Labor councillors Phil Blight and Diedree Steinwall told how they were given just over an hour before a special council meeting on July 29 last year to consider 75 changes in Cr Johns’s mayoral minute.
Another Labor councillor Peter Scaysbrook was unable to attend due to the short notice.
They submitted it was unfair to residents and an abuse of the system for the report, which required cross referencing with the ‘‘huge’’ original document, to be dealt with so quickly.
The panel was told Labor and Shire Watch Independents councillors failed in a move to have the matter deferred for a week, with the council voting to include the changes and re-exhibit the draft LEP.
Deputy mayor Tom Croucher and fellow Liberals Carmelo Pesce, Bruce Walton and Hassan Awada were all quizzed about the meeting.
Questions included: ‘‘In the context of five years, would another week have mattered?’’ and ‘‘Are you saying because it was going on exhibition, it didn’t need to be considered properly?’’.
Other questions were: ‘‘You don’t think it would be of benefit to check [the contents] before you exhibit them?’’, ‘‘Do you have any idea why other councillors say they needed more time?’’ and ‘‘Why, when you had two reports to consider [one from council officers and the other from the mayor], did you choose one over the other?’’.
The Liberal councillors admitted they were not able to consider every matter, but said they were heavily involved in preparing the draft LEP and from site visits, discussions and emails, knew the details of many amendments, particularly those involving their wards.
They said the late changes were ‘‘not the end of the matter’’ or ‘‘gospel’’ as the amended draft LEP was to be re-exhibited and there would be a further period, during which submissions were being analysed, when the plan could be ‘‘tweaked’’.
The Liberals also said Labor councillors could have moved a recission motion.
Create a free account to read this article
or signup to continue reading
RESIDENTS ADD THEIR VOICE
Several residents called for the draft LEP to be ‘‘wound back’’ to the stage it was at before the mayoral minute was produced, while others wanted it scrapped.
Miranda resident Helen Mabbutt, who attended the July 29, 2013, council meeting with her son, 17, said they were ‘‘appalled’’ at ‘‘the abuse of power’’.
Mrs Mabbutt said a 722-page detailed report by council officers on submissions to the first public exhibition of the draft LEP was ‘‘overridden’’ by the mayoral minute, which contained 19 pages of amendments that went beyond what the staff had recommended.
Marilyn Urch, representing North Cronulla and Woolooware Precinct Committee, said the report by council officers was supported by ‘‘substantial documentation’’, whereas the mayoral minute had nothing to back its recommendations.
Mr Urch said the Local Government Act stated, ‘‘a mayoral minute should not be used to introduce, without notice, matters that need research or consideration by councillors such as a hugely important local environmental plan’’.
‘‘Was it right to ‘‘rush’’ the changes?’’
