Hurstville mayor Con Hindi maintains that two legal reports have cleared him of any wrongdoing over his building site at 40 Crump Street, Mortdale.
He said the reports also proved that he had been ‘‘stitched up’’ by someone on the council over the stand he had taken on general manager Victor Lampe who had been stood down pending investigation on misconduct.
Cr Hindi hired his own barrister to examine the breaches regarding asbestos contamination and unauthorised works on the report presented to the council in May and the results matched those of the council-appointed lawyer.
He said he is now considering selling the Crump Street site, and had handed a chronological report to ICAC for further investigation.
Councillors voted on Wednesday night, July 1, to take no further action but the opposing faction is unlikely to let the matter rest and a rescission motion is expected.
Cr Brent Thomas, who voted with the minority group, said the council’s legal advice left more questions than it provided answers.
‘‘In fact, the advice stipulates a number of enforcement options for the council to consider about these very serious matters identified on mayor Hindi’s property,’’ he said.
Cr Thomas said that the legal advice outlined how a neighbour had hired an independent expert who found asbestos on the site.
‘‘The legal advice goes on to state that this asbestos was likely to have been caused by the demolition on 40 Crump Street,’’ he said.
‘‘It was suggested that the council could issue a clean-up notice for remedial works but yet again, the usual faction of councillors voted down any action’’.
Cr Justin Mining, another minority member, said he had been contacted by many residents worried about the risk to their families and it was hard to reassure them given these events.
“Why have a majority of councillors resolved to take absolutely no enforcement action about 40 Crump Street?’’ he said.
Cr Hindi said he had been treated more harshly than any resident and was the only person ever asked to dig up his pool to prove there was no asbestos.
He said the report item saying that the ‘‘owner and contractor were seen picking up asbestos without proper protective equipment was a lie’’ and that a compliance officer had confirmed that in writing.
‘‘I welcome the minister invoking an investigation under section 430 of the Act, and in due course, the public will get to see the real reasons why 40 Crump Street, Mortdale, became the headline,’’ Cr Hindi said.
Cr Hindi’s summary of the report from the council’s lawyer, Lindsay Taylor:
Site remedial action is no longer necessary as it is not not clear that penalties could be issued to Cr Hindi as is not clear he caused the contamination as opposed to merely directing a contractor to carry out the demolition. Proceedings or penalties should be sought for any breaches of concern.
Breach 1: Development (excavation) not in accordance with consent.
Response: I cannot advise that a prosecution for the excavation has reasonable prospects.
Breach 2: Development not in accordance with consent (waste receipts).
Response: The council has been provided with receipts relating to waste received from the contractor, State Demolition, and delivered to Blacktown Waste Services Pty Ltd on April 15-18, 2015. At this stage, I cannot advise that a prosecution for the failure to provide receipts has any prospect of success because it has not been established that any further material was removed from the site beyond that referred to in the contractor’s dockets and the sparrow pick.
Breach 3: Development not in accordance with consent (no notification to Workcover).
Response: This matter should not proceed because the council’s file indicates that on May 18, 2015, Workcover advised the council that it had, in fact, been notified on March 23 of the proposed demolition and asbestos removal work.
Breach 4: Development not in accordance with consent (sediment controls and condition six).
Response: I do not think that condition six requires any such sediment and erosion controls to be installed; it merely requires the installation of a sign.
Breach 5: Failure to comply with protection of the environment operations clean-up notice dated April 27.
Response: I do not think that any breach has been established. Further, there is at least a reasonable prospect that the notices are invalid on grounds that procedural fairness was not afforded to Cr Hindi before the issuing of the notices.
Minority faction believes that the Hindi faction selected parts that suit their case.
1) Unauthorised works: the legal advice stated there is not sufficient evidence to show that evacuation exceeded the authorised amount. But this is not proof that the council staff were wrong or that no unauthorised excavation took place. The legal advice states that the council could progress the matter to the point where Cr Hindi had to show why a fine should not be issued.
2) Sediment controls: the legal advice bizarrely stated there was no requirement for Cr Hindi to have installed sediment controls. But this was a standard condition in all demolition and construction consents.
3) Asbestos: it has never been disputed that asbestos was found lying on this site after the demolition works, which has always raised significant concerns for the neighbours and the community. Also Cr Hindi admitted this soil was used to fill in the pool on the site.
