Please explain

JOHN Friend’s letter (TC, flood risk, 05/06) in response to my earlier (Duck shoving, of 25/05) raises some interesting points.

In the Toowoomba region there are many, many places where residential development well clear of potential flooding could safely and securely be undertaken. So why take the risk of approving the Bradley St (Meringandan West) proposal, particularly after the council itself has indicated a flood risk, and also because further flood studies are presently under way and have the potential to identify a future increased flood risk?

Regarding the powers of the present planning legislation and the possibility for these to result in any rejection of a DA on the basis of flood risk leading to “… millions of dollars of legal beagle double talk”, in the case of Bradley St the matter could have been easily settled had the mayor explained why he voted to approve the application (as John Friend points out).

Indeed I’ll go further and fill in a few blanks.

The mayor was not at the original DAP meeting (where he would have been a committee member “around the table” and could have freely voiced an opinion) but as chair of the subsequent general meeting, was not required to vote until the 5/5 split from his councillors was revealed.

I understand that prior to the vote there were many councillors who took the opportunity to explain their position so that everyone knew how they were being represented and why, but the chairman (the mayor) did not (indeed should not – except perhaps to give procedural guidance and even that is often left to the CEO) express any opinion during the discussion.

I am also given to understand that when faced with the 5/5 split, the mayor simply cast his vote to approve, without comment, and then moved to the next item on the agenda.

With 206 objectors representing 10% of the entire local community and more than 90% of these located within 1km of the proposed development, as well as 50% of his council voting to reject the application, the mayor needs to fully and publicly explain – preferably by way of a press statement - why he voted to approve.

Did he feel council was bound in some legal way to approve, or was it that he did not want his council to risk a legal stoush (as seems to have happened in the council’s backflip from initially rejecting the Highfields, Cawdor Rd servo 7/11 application)?

Or was it simply a personal choice made even against the opposition of a significant number of affected ratepayers and half his council?

Please explain.

— TONY LAKE, Meringandan West