When did we agree Council management could do as they please and who do they answer to?

At the last Council meeting on July 13th 2021 Councilors voted on

21/110 MOTION Councillor Brown/Councillor Tait THAT 1. The General Manager be given delegated authority to negotiate the sale of part Lot 2 DP 1151341 in accordance with Council’s Land Acquisition and Disposal Policy. 2. All actions necessary to be taken to enact the sale of part Lot 2 DP 115134. 3. Council consent be given to affix the Common Seal of Council, if required, to all necessary documents associated with the transfer and sale of the property It was won six votes to three To the average person this means that the General Manager has been given authority to be in charge of the sale, negotiate with prospective buyers, decide who to sell it to and then enact the sale. But hang on a minute! This Council is about to dissolve its current term and go into limbo until the new Councillors are elected. We won't know the out come of the election until September 23rd, 2021. Meantime the General Manager has been tasked to sell the land, accept an offer, enact the sale and affix the Common Seal of Council, if required, to all necessary documents associated with the transfer and sale of the property She has been given total licence with no further scrutiny by Councilors to the transaction. The councillors have admitted that they had to demand to see the land valuation. Based on how the General Manager dealt with the sale of the Moruya Racecourse and the secrecy around the valuation of that land and how she treated the councillors then around Commercial in Confidence and based on how she demanded all Councillor communication devices be recalled to check for breaches when the Mackay Park project winning tenderer was published before it was formally announced there is little doubt that she does not trust councillors with information. Based on her withholding key communication around the concerns held by the Office of Local Government on the ability of Council to meet operation costs of the new pool and theatrette it is clear that she will advise the Councillors of information when, and if, she chooses. In the upcoming Council meeting the Broulee community will be asking how the clearing of a section of land they thought community came to be. The response of Council has no shades of grey. It has no apology for any failure of action or failure of communication. Instead the response is very matter of fact that they sought legal opinion that advised they could proceed and based on that advice it is evident that they will now proceed to sell off the Triangle and the unformed road reserve. It is all there in their final paragraph:. "All of these processes have identified the land for development and/or intent for clearing to occur, including approval of clearing under the bio-certification process." The next development in Council's sights for their much needed urban expansion to meet the Covid driven exodus from Sydney will be on the Coila Lake foreshore at Tuross Head. Much like the Dalmeny subdivision this one "has been on the books for decades". Originally approved in the 1980's the Tuross subdivision plans are moving ahead, but not without protest. Council staff are admanant that the Development Application of the 1980's does not need to be revisited as it was approved and remains approved, irrespective of any legislative changes or other information that has since come about such as environmental studies and the presence of aboriginal artifacts A council spokesperson has advised the Bay Post that "the council wasn't aware of any potential Indigenous burial sites, but could only take into account the most recent modification."

"A previous application lodged in 2012 was supported by a cultural heritage report and General Terms of Approval were issued by the then NSW Office of Environment and Heritage," they said.

"The applicant may be required to obtain permits under this legislation. In this instance, the developer commenced this subdivision back in the 1980s, therefore the current consent remains valid. Council cannot reconsider that historical approval, it can only assess the impact of the proposed modification." A resident opposing the development variations says "This final statement by Council makes a mockery of thirty years of changes. Coila Lake was not a Marine Park then, we had little understanding of climate change and what we agreed to has changed dramatically as blocks have increased, lot sizes decreased, there is no shopping area and no park or playground. It isn't the same plan and it isn't reflective of 2021. It needs, and must have, a new Development Application" The question will be "Who will the Council staff and Councillors back?" when the final determination is made? The Community and their hundreds of submissions and considerable petition or the developer?

Welcome to the Nature Coast where we clearfell #allkindsofnatural for urban expansion

Sem2 Display 750x350 v1a (1).png