![Page 1: Report to General Manager - North Sydney Council€¦ · RECOMMENDATION: 1. THAT Council notes the contents of this report. 2. THAT Council calls for the preparation of comprehensive](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052022/6036a70e4bf33e7fb276e9a7/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Item G01 Governance Committee 11/04/16
N O R T H S Y D N E Y C O U N C I L R E P O R T S
Report to General Manager Attachments:
1. Report Prepared by Turnbull Planning Pty Ltd - March 2016
SUBJECT: Review of Conduct in Respect of Anderson Park DA 227/15
AUTHOR: Adrian Panuccio, Chief Operating Officer
ENDORSED BY: Warwick Winn, General Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The report responds to the 7 December 2015 Council resolution where the Council resolved:
1. THAT Council suspend action acting upon the development consent for the installation of
synthetic surface at Anderson Park pending a review of Council’s conduct as applicant of the
Development Application and the conduct of the NSIPP in determining the application
following the submission of a 95-page report by the applicant and that the report on the
internal review be returned to Council for consideration as soon as practicable.
2. THAT submitters on the Development Application be notified of the timing of that report
and meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Nil
RECOMMENDATION:
1. THAT Council notes the contents of this report.
2. THAT Council calls for the preparation of comprehensive plain English “Code of
Practice” to guide the actions of Council Officers, Consultants, Councillors and the North
Sydney Independents Planning Panel where Council is the land owner or applicant or
otherwise stands to benefit from a development determination or a Review of Environmental
Factors.
3.THAT the “Code of Practice” called for above be prepared within the City Strategy
Division with appropriate internal consultant and be subject to appropriate public
consultation in draft form following adoption by Council.
4. THAT the draft “Code of Practice” be reported to Council within six (6) months of the
date of this resolution.
![Page 2: Report to General Manager - North Sydney Council€¦ · RECOMMENDATION: 1. THAT Council notes the contents of this report. 2. THAT Council calls for the preparation of comprehensive](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052022/6036a70e4bf33e7fb276e9a7/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Report of Adrian Panuccio, Chief Operating Officer
Re: Review of Conduct in Respect of Anderson Park DA 227/15
(2)
LINK TO DELIVERY PROGRAM
The relationship with the Delivery Program is as follows:
Direction: 5.1 Our Civic Leadership
Outcome: 5.3 Council is ethical, open, accountable and transparent in its decision
making
BACKGROUND
Council resolved on 7 December 2015:
THAT Council suspend action acting upon the development consent for the installation of
synthetic surface at Anderson Park pending a review of Council’s conduct as applicant of
the Development Application and the conduct of the NSIPP in determining the application
following the submission of a 95-page report by the applicant and that the report on the
internal review be returned to Council for consideration as soon as practicable.
CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS
In accordance with Resolution 2, all submitters on the Development Application have been
advised of the timing of this report to the Governance Committee.
SUSTAINABILITY STATEMENT
The sustainability implications are of a minor nature and did not warrant a detailed
assessment.
DETAIL
The General Manager and Senior Management in their consideration of this resolution
have recognised the need to ensure the maximum of transparency and credibility. This
dictated that the review be undertaken by a person remote from the application process and
external to the Council and not be the internal review as envisaged by the resolution. It is
also considered that a person (or group) who was qualified and/or experienced in both
Planning and the Law would be in the best position to review this matter and to make
appropriate recommendations. It was in this light that Turnbull Planning International Pty
Ltd was appointed to undertaken the review on behalf of Council.
As matter of background, the principals involved in conducting the review were Mr Pierre
Lebas who has both planning and legal qualification and Mr Ian Ellis Jones who has
considerable experience in Environmental Law.
The report of Turnbull Planning International Pty Ltd is offered in unabridged form for the
consideration of Council.
![Page 3: Report to General Manager - North Sydney Council€¦ · RECOMMENDATION: 1. THAT Council notes the contents of this report. 2. THAT Council calls for the preparation of comprehensive](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052022/6036a70e4bf33e7fb276e9a7/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Report of Adrian Panuccio, Chief Operating Officer
Re: Review of Conduct in Respect of Anderson Park DA 227/15
(3)
It makes three recommendations as to potential improvements in relation to the process
and concerns raised by the community:
1. If Council does not already have such a document, Council should give consideration to
preparing and adopting a document enshrining, and setting out in plain English, the
procedure to be followed in cases where Council, or some person or body acting on behalf
of Council, is the applicant for development consent to a development application.
Comment;
While many of the themes contained within this recommendation are covered by a
number of related Codes and Practice Documents there is no single document that
guides Council conduct as an applicant. Such a code would be useful and assist all
stake holders in understanding their obligations in the preparation and lodgement
of Council Development applications. Such Code should extend to other
development related activities including the preparation of documents which relate
to works carried out by Council but are exempted from development consent by
instruments such as the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure)
2007. Appropriate recommendations have been included in this report.
2. The Council may wish to consider altering/amending the format for report writing and
production, so that it better reflects specific requirements of the EPA Act 1979 (s79C) and
also, so that the documents may be more easily followed and understood by members of
the local community.
Comment;
Council’s report format is a well establish document which has proven itself over
time and is subject to ongoing review and development. It similar to the formats
used by many other Councils and is similar to the format of reports used at State
Government level. Future reviews will continue to make improvements to ensure
that these documents are more easily understood by the broader community as well
maintaining legal integrity. Keeping this in mind a formal recommendation for
adoption has not been made by this report.
3. The Council may give consideration, during orientation of appointed staff dealing with
the assessment of development applications, to a short „induction seminar‟ regarding
potential for conflicts of interest and proper ethical approaches to dealing with
development applications.
Comment;
This recommendation should be read as including those who prepare and lodge
development application on behalf of/or for Council. Additional training is being
sourced and the issue will be well covered by the preparation of the code as
outlined in recommendation one. This issue is largely a management one, the
resolution of which is in train and as such a formal recommendation is not
required.
![Page 4: Report to General Manager - North Sydney Council€¦ · RECOMMENDATION: 1. THAT Council notes the contents of this report. 2. THAT Council calls for the preparation of comprehensive](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052022/6036a70e4bf33e7fb276e9a7/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Report of Adrian Panuccio, Chief Operating Officer
Re: Review of Conduct in Respect of Anderson Park DA 227/15
(4)
2. THAT submitters on the Development Application be notified of the timing of that
report and meeting
In response with Resolution 2, all submitters on the Development Application have been
advised of the timing of this report to the Governance Committee.
![Page 5: Report to General Manager - North Sydney Council€¦ · RECOMMENDATION: 1. THAT Council notes the contents of this report. 2. THAT Council calls for the preparation of comprehensive](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052022/6036a70e4bf33e7fb276e9a7/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
INDEPENDENT REPORT REGARDING REVIEW OF CONDUCT
IN RESPECT OF ANDERSON PARK DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
DA227/15
March 2016
T:\Current Matters\nor.cla1n1\nor.cla1n1_Independent Conduct Report.pdf
© Turnbull Planning International Pty Limited and Pierre Le Bas 2016
This document is Copyright
and apart from any fair dealings for the purposes of private study research criticism or
review as permitted under the Copyright Act no part may be reproduced in whole or in part
without the written permission of Turnbull Planning International Pty Limited
Suite 2301/4 Daydream Street Warriewood NSW
ABN 12061186409
![Page 6: Report to General Manager - North Sydney Council€¦ · RECOMMENDATION: 1. THAT Council notes the contents of this report. 2. THAT Council calls for the preparation of comprehensive](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052022/6036a70e4bf33e7fb276e9a7/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
2
INTRODUCTION
North Sydney Council (‘Council’), at its meeting held on 7 December 2015,
relevantly resolved:
‘1. THAT Council suspend action acting upon the development consent for the installation of synthetic surface at Anderson Park pending a review of Council’s conduct as applicant of the Development Application [DA227/15]
and the conduct of the NSIPP [North Sydney Independent Planning and Panel] in determining the application following the submission of a 95-page
report by the applicant and that the report on the internal review be returned to Council for consideration as soon as practicable.’
It was determined by Council’s General Manager, Mr Warwick Winn, and
Senior Management, that in the interests of probity and transparency, the review required by Council’s resolution of 7 December 2015, should be
undertaken by ‘a person remote from the application process and external to Council’ and not be an internal review. Further, it was decided that a
person ‘qualified and/or experienced in both Planning and Law would be in the best position to review this matter and to make appropriate
recommendations’.
Turnbull Planning International Pty Limited (‘TPI’), Consultant Town Planners, was engaged by Council to provide a report to the Council making
appropriate recommendations, after carrying out a review of Council’s conduct as applicant of Development Application DA227/15 (‘the DA’ or
‘Anderson Park DA’) as well as the conduct of the North Sydney
Independent Planning and Panel (’NSIPP’ or ‘the Panel’) in determining the DA.
The instructions provided to TPI made it clear that the review was to be
limited to ‘the process that took place prior to [the] NSIPP determination on 2 December 2015, of DA227/15, which sought consent for the following
development: provision of a synthetic pitch and associated ground lighting at Anderson Park’ (source: Council letter, dated 15 January 2016, from
Stephen Beattie, Manager Planning and Development Services to TPI and supporting Minutes of NSIPP).
The review was carried out conjointly by Mr Pierre Le Bas, Director and
General Counsel of TPI, and Dr Ian Ellis-Jones, Special Counsel of TPI (the ‘Reviewers’).
BACKGROUND
The DA, which was lodged on 30 June 2015, sought approval from Council
for upgrade of the existing sportsfield on Anderson Park by the provision of synthetic surface with ancillary cut and fill, drainage works and
![Page 7: Report to General Manager - North Sydney Council€¦ · RECOMMENDATION: 1. THAT Council notes the contents of this report. 2. THAT Council calls for the preparation of comprehensive](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052022/6036a70e4bf33e7fb276e9a7/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
3
replacement of flood lighting. The stated purpose was to allow for
increased usage of the existing facility.
In accordance with a previous resolution of Council and well-established practice and procedure of Council, the DA was referred to the NSIPP for
determination as the application involved works in respect of land in Council’s care, control and management. In this case, the land is also
Crown land.
The DA was first considered by NSIPP at its meeting held on 4 November 2015, where it was resolved to call for further information from the
applicant (Council). The request took the following form:
‘The Panel considered the consultant’s report [see report IPP07, dated 23 October 2015, and prepared by Kerry Gordon, Consultant Town Planner,
of Kerry Gordon Planning Services Pty Ltd] and the issues raised by the submitters and considered that the application should be deferred for more
information as follows:
(a) The history of Council studies and decisions regarding sports field upgrading leading to the lodgement of the subject development
application for provision of a synthetic turf sports field at Anderson Park including plans of management;
(b) Details of the extent of consultation undertaken with the community prior to lodgement of the DA;
(c) A review of the benefits and dis-benefits of the synthetic surface
recently installed at Cammeray Park; (d) The type and extent of fencing required to accommodate different
sports including hockey and soccer; (e) Upgrade lighting assessment to address light spill impacts to
adjoining residents as required by the conditions;
(f) The extent of uses that are currently accommodated and what future uses would be accommodated for both organised sport and
recreational activities at Anderson Park.
The Panel recommends a further report be prepared to address the above and be referred back to the Panel.
(Panel Reason: To allow a comprehensive assessment and to fully understand the context of the proposal and the issues raised by the
submitters).’
Council’s Open Space and Environmental Services Section (‘OSES’) provided further information and advice in response to the NSIPP’s
resolution of 4 November 2015.
In Report IP11, dated 2 December 2015, and prepared by Robin Tse, A/Team Leader Assessments as well as an Addendum Report of 1
December 2015, also prepared by Robin Tse, information was provided
![Page 8: Report to General Manager - North Sydney Council€¦ · RECOMMENDATION: 1. THAT Council notes the contents of this report. 2. THAT Council calls for the preparation of comprehensive](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052022/6036a70e4bf33e7fb276e9a7/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
4
relating to the several matters referred to in paragraphs (a) to (f) of the
NSIPP’s resolution of 4 November 2015 as set out above.
Following submission of the above mentioned additional information and consideration of further written and verbal representations by the
community, the NSIPP at its meeting on 4 December 2015 resolved as follows:
‘The Council Officer’s Recommendation is endorsed by the Panel.
The Panel notes that the applicant has responded to all the issues raised by the Panel from the meeting of 4 November 2015, at which time it was
deferred [.] This additional information has enabled the Panel to make a determination having regard to the relevant concerns of the local residents, and the mechanisms to ameliorate the impacts of the proposed
development.
From the additional report and information prepared for the December
meeting, the Panel notes the history of decision making by Council concerning recreation needs and park improvements within the local government area including Anderson Park.
The Panel also notes that while North Sydney Council has a Plan of Management for Sports Grounds in the Local Government Area, the Panel
recommends that an ‘Operational Plan of Management’ be developed for Anderson Park in consultation with the local community and be reviewed every 5 years.’
CONDUCT ISSUES
Council’s resolution of 7 December 2015 identifies two sets of conduct to be reviewed, namely:
Council’s conduct as the applicant of DA227/15; and
The conduct of the NSIPP in determining the DA.
As a working definition of the word ‘conduct’, the authors of this report
have adopted the definition of the word contained in section 5(1) of the Ombudsman Act 1974 (NSW):
‘conduct’ means:
(a) any action or inaction relating to a matter of administration, and (b) any alleged action or inaction relating to a matter of administration.
Admittedly, the phrase ‘matter of administration’, words fraught with legal
and other difficulties, is somewhat inappropriate when considering action or inaction on the part of Council as applicant. Collectively, matters of
administration compendiously embrace a wide range of governmental
![Page 9: Report to General Manager - North Sydney Council€¦ · RECOMMENDATION: 1. THAT Council notes the contents of this report. 2. THAT Council calls for the preparation of comprehensive](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052022/6036a70e4bf33e7fb276e9a7/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
5
activity carried on by bodies other than the legislature and the judiciary.
Be that as it may, the emphasis upon both ‘action’ and ‘inaction’ in relation to the performance of, firstly, Council’s role as applicant and, secondly, the
role of the Panel as consent authority, is helpful and instructive.
Although Council was not listed as the applicant on the DA form, it was referred to as the applicant in the statement of environmental effects, and
that was clearly the intention. For all intents and purposes Council was the applicant, and so shall be referred to as the applicant in this report.
TPI requested that Council articulate exactly what were the ‘conduct issues’
to be reviewed and reported upon. It was made clear to TPI, after TPI had sought clarification and specific instructions on the matter, which insofar as
the conduct of Council ‘as applicant’ was concerned, TPI’s brief was not to review or report upon:
(a) any conduct of Council or its members or staff that preceded the lodgment of the Anderson Park DA, or
(b) policy matters, and the exercise of policy-making functions, pertaining to the decision to prepare the Anderson Park DA, or
(c) any conduct pertaining to the exercise of administrative functions
by Council or its staff in relation to the processing of the Anderson Park DA, or
(d) any conduct of persons or bodies other than Council or its
members or staff or the Panel at any time occurring.
Thus, insofar as the conduct of Council as applicant was concerned, TPI’s brief was to focus on the procedural conduct of Council from the time of
lodgment of the Anderson Park DA, until the time of its determination by the Panel.
The primary focus of TPI’s inquiry into the conduct of Council as applicant
thus became a consideration by TPI of the adequacy and sufficiency of the planning reports and associated documents that accompanied the DA, the
procedures followed or not followed by Council, and a consideration of
whether Council as applicant achieved the level of transparency and accountability that is rightly required, indeed demanded, in cases where a
local council is both the applicant and the consent authority.
The level of focus and consideration required to be carried out in the review necessarily excludes a consideration of certain matters including the
conduct of, and preliminary decision-making by, Council staff as respects the discharge of Council’s role as consent authority in connection with such
matters as the acceptance of the DA and its preliminary review and administrative treatment at various stages from lodgment up to the point
![Page 10: Report to General Manager - North Sydney Council€¦ · RECOMMENDATION: 1. THAT Council notes the contents of this report. 2. THAT Council calls for the preparation of comprehensive](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052022/6036a70e4bf33e7fb276e9a7/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
6
or points in time when the Panel first considered the matter on 4 November
2015.
Early in the course of TPI’s review Mr Le Bas and Dr Ian Ellis-Jones were made privy, on a confidential basis, to the details of a certain staff matter.
The subject-matter of the information provided on a confidential basis, related to the conduct of one of Council’s members of staff at a point in
time which would otherwise have meant that it would have formed part of the conduct to be reviewed and reported upon by TPI.
After discussing the staff matter with a number of persons, including but
not limited to Council’s General Manager and the Manager Development Services, and perusing a Council record, the Reviewers are fully satisfied
that this staff matter has been appropriately and fully dealt with and is now at an end. Accordingly, no useful purpose would be served by canvassing
the matter openly in this report other than in the broadest terms. Indeed,
only harm and prejudice (in terms of, among other things, an infringement of privacy and a breach of confidentiality) would ensue. Furthermore, staff
matters are fully ‘operational’ in nature and fall within the statutory province and purview of the General Manager. What the authors of this
report can and do say is this: the Reviewers are fully satisfied, on the basis of the interviews conducted with members of the Panel and Council staff,
that the conduct issue alluded to in this paragraph did not in way detrimentally affect the due, proper and genuine consideration and
determination of the Anderson Park DA.
![Page 11: Report to General Manager - North Sydney Council€¦ · RECOMMENDATION: 1. THAT Council notes the contents of this report. 2. THAT Council calls for the preparation of comprehensive](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052022/6036a70e4bf33e7fb276e9a7/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
7
THE REVIEW
Review of documents
The following documents were perused and considered by TPI as part of
its review:
Council letter, dated 15 January 2016, from Stephen Beattie, Manager Planning and Development Services to TPI;
Development application documents submitted to Council as part of the DA, expert reports and submissions made as regards the
application; Confidential material relating to conduct by a Council staff
member (alluded to above); Report IP07 of 23 October 2015 submitted to NSWIPP meeting
of 4 November 2015;
Minutes of NSIPP meeting held on 4 November 2015; Report IP11 of 2 December 2015 submitted to NSWIPP meeting
of 2 December 2015; Addendum Report of 1 December 2015 submitted to NSWIPP
meeting of 2 December 2015; Minutes of NSIPP meeting held on 2 December 2015;
A written submission dated 8 March 2016 from Anderson Precinct.
Interviews
Various interviews were conducted on Tuesday, 1 March 2016, Thursday, 3 March 2016 and 8 March 2016 at North Sydney Council. Both Mr Le Bas
and Dr Ellis-Jones were present together throughout the interviews on 1
and 3 March 2016, whilst Mr Le Bas only, conducted the interview with the Anderson Precinct Committee representatives on 8 March 2016 (see
under). Some interviews were conducted over the telephone and some in person.
The persons interviewed, and the date on which they were interviewed, are
as follows:
1 March 2016
Mr Stephen Beattie Mr David Manson
Ms Jan Murrell Mr Ian Pickles
Ms Virginia Waller
![Page 12: Report to General Manager - North Sydney Council€¦ · RECOMMENDATION: 1. THAT Council notes the contents of this report. 2. THAT Council calls for the preparation of comprehensive](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052022/6036a70e4bf33e7fb276e9a7/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
8
3 March 2016
Mr Stephen Beattie
Mr Warwick Winn Ms Robyn Pearson
Mr Robin Tse Mr Geoff Mossemenear
Mr Robert Emerson Mr David Hoy
Ms Lara Huckstepp
8 March 2016
Mr Colin Lynch Mr Graham Bates
The first person to be interviewed, and in person, was Mr Stephen Beattie, Manager, Development Services, CIS. He gave a full history of the DA and
made mention of the various persons who played some sort of role in the preparation and making of the DA as well as its handling thereafter. He also
referred to the role played by NSIPP in the determination of the DA.
The next person to be interviewed, again in person, was Mr David Manson, Council’s Parks and Reserves Manager. He described, among other things,
his duties and the role he played as respects the Anderson Park DA, which was for the most part providing input to other officers of Council who were
more heavily involved in the preparation of the DA. Mr Manson also referred to liaison he had with certain users and hirers. He came across to the
Reviewer’s as a sincere, enthusiastic and well-intentioned person who was familiar with the subject-matter of his responsibilities and was
knowledgeable about the various users and hirers of Council’s sporting and
recreational facilities.
The next person to be interviewed, over the telephone, was Ms Jan Murrell, a former Commissioner of the Land and Environment Court of NSW and
currently a member and the Chair of NSIPP. Ms Murrell stated that she was ‘very conscious of due process’ and outlined the extent of the Panel’s
deliberations concerning the Anderson Park DA. She outlined the various concerns articulated by the Panel at its meeting held on 4 November 2016
and referred to the additional condition imposed by the Panel at the time of granting development consent to the DA (viz the condition as respects
the need for an operational plan of management). When asked whether she was of the view that the planning reports in relation to the DA were
voluminous, and whether the Panel had not had sufficient time to give proper consideration to the DA, Ms Murrell replied that those concerns were
ill-founded. She also stated that the Panel ‘did our own reviews’ and that
![Page 13: Report to General Manager - North Sydney Council€¦ · RECOMMENDATION: 1. THAT Council notes the contents of this report. 2. THAT Council calls for the preparation of comprehensive](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052022/6036a70e4bf33e7fb276e9a7/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
9
all the Panel members were experienced enough to properly digest and
consider lengthy reports and attachments.
Three (3) unsuccessful attempts were made to contact Panel member Michael Harrison by telephone. He was not interviewed.
Attempts were also made to contact Panel Member Francesca O’Brien, who
did attempt to return calls made, but whom was not ultimately interviewed despite various repeated telephone calls on the part of the parties, over a
number of business days.
The next person to be interviewed, again over the telephone, was Panel member Ian Pickles. Like Ms Murrell, Mr Pickles spoke at length about the
extent of the Panel’s deliberations concerning the Anderson Park DA. He said that this matter was ‘probably the most time consuming matter we’ve
dealt with’ in the three (3) years he has been a member of NSIPP. He stated
that he, along with the other Panel members, had ‘sought further information’ as respects certain matters, which he mentioned, the matters
being essentially the same ones mentioned by Ms Murrell. Mr Pickles mentioned that the panel had spent more than an hour considering and
deliberating upon the Anderson Park DA. He also referred to the imposition of the additional condition as respects the need for an operational plan of
management. Mr Pickles also stated that all the Panel members were able to properly digest and consider lengthy reports and attachments and that
they had not expressed any concern that they had too much to read or insufficient time to properly digest and consider the material.
The next person to be interviewed, also over the telephone, was Ms Virginia
Waller, who is also a member of NSIPP. Ms Waller stated that she was only present at the Panel meeting of 4 November 2015 when the decision was
made to defer the matter. As did the other Panel members interviewed, Ms
Waller listed with great specificity the various matters in respect of which additional information was sought by the Panel and stated that she was
very much of the view that the process followed by Council staff and the Panel was ‘open and transparent’.
There was a further round of interviews on Thursday, 3 March 2016. Each
person interviewed on that day was physically present, each in turn, in the room at the time of their respective questioning.
Before the interviews of that day began, the Reviewers again spoke to Mr
Stephen Beattie, more as a matter for courtesy than anything else, bearing in mind that the Reviewers had spoken at length to him on Tuesday, 1
March 2016.
The next person to be interviewed was Mr Warwick Winn, Council’s General
Manager. Mr Winn also gave a full history of the making and determination
![Page 14: Report to General Manager - North Sydney Council€¦ · RECOMMENDATION: 1. THAT Council notes the contents of this report. 2. THAT Council calls for the preparation of comprehensive](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052022/6036a70e4bf33e7fb276e9a7/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
10
of the DA and formally confirmed for the benefit of the Reviewers, the
conduct issues to be dealt with.
The next person to be interviewed was Ms Robyn Pearson, Team Leader, CIS. Ms Pearson outlined the role she played regarding the DA. That role
was basically a supervisory one. After referring to Council’s established practice and procedure, Ms Pearson explained why the DA was referred to
an external planning consultant for the preparation of the planning report to be submitted to the Panel, and why Ms Kerry Gordon of Kerry Gordon
Planning Services Pty Limited was selected. (Ms Gordon had carried out the same role in relation to the Cammeray Park development, which was
exactly the same type of development.) The DA in question, in terms of the estimated amount of the cost of the development, was over the specified
threshold ($250,000.00) and hence was required to be submitted to NSIPP, for consideration and determination. Ms Pearson also stated that she took
the Panel members to Anderson Park for a site inspection and was present
when the Panel members met.
Mr Robin Tse, Planner, CIS, was the next person to be interviewed. He explained his role in the matter. That role was one as assessing officer. He
stated that he acted in Ms Pearson’s position as Acting Team Leader, CIS, for some 3 weeks and was the author of both the second planning report
and the addendum to that report, being documents submitted to the Panel’s second meeting held on 4 December 2015. It is important to emphasise
that as Mr Tse stated it was not his function, in preparing the second report, to recommend to NSIPP as to whether the DA should be approved or
refused. This was properly left to Ms Gordon.
The next person to be interviewed was Mr Geoff Mossemenear, CIS Executive Planner. Mr Mossemenear outlined the role he played in relation
to the DA. Essentially, that role was as convenor of NSIPP. His duties as
convenor included providing help with the agenda, arranging site visits and providing professional advice as planner to the Panel members when they
had queries about planning aspects of the DA. He also explained why it was necessary for this development application to be submitted to the Panel for
final consideration and determination (it was above the cost threshold of $250,000.00).
Mr Robert Emerson, Director of Parks, was the next person to be
interviewed. The Reviewers spoke at length with Mr Emerson about the staff matter referred to above. Mr Emerson informed the Reviewers of the
action taken by Council staff in relation to this matter. He also stated that although he was present at Council for the preparation of the DA he was
later on leave. The Interviewers questioned Mr Emerson about the content of the external planner’s report and planning assessment of the DA and
made mention, in that context, of the additional matters that the Panel
![Page 15: Report to General Manager - North Sydney Council€¦ · RECOMMENDATION: 1. THAT Council notes the contents of this report. 2. THAT Council calls for the preparation of comprehensive](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052022/6036a70e4bf33e7fb276e9a7/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
11
decided required further particulars. Mr Emerson also stated that he had
been asked questions by the Panel and he had answered those questions.
The next person to be interviewed was Mr David Hoy, CIS Team Leader. Mr Hoy stated that he was one of the signatories to the first Council report
submitted to the Panel, as he was at that time acting in the position of Manager, Development Services. He also informed the Reviewers that he
was present at the first Panel meeting at which the DA was considered. He stated that he was also present at the second Panel meeting at which the
DA was considered but then in a different capacity (namely, Team Leader CIS, but present at the meeting only as an observer). Mr Hoy stated that
he went on the relevant site visits with the Panel (in this case, the visit in relation to the first Panel meeting at which the DA was considered by the
Panel).
The final person to be interviewed on Thursday, 3 March 2016 was Ms Lara
Huckstepp, CIS Executive Planner. Ms Huckstepp stated that she had no real involvement in the subject DA matter. She stated that she was,
however, present at the first meeting of the Panel at which the DA was considered because at that time she was acting in the position of Manager,
Development Services.
On Tuesday, 8 March 2016, Mr Pierre Le Bas met with Mr Colin Lynch, President, Anderson Precinct Committee, and Mr Graham Bates a member
of that Committee (‘Precinct Representatives’), at the offices of the Council.
There is no need to reiterate details of the role of the various Precinct Committee’s as regards DA consideration generally, as this will be well
known to most readers of this report. Suffice to say that the Precinct Committee is an independent body of local citizens whose function as a
collective, is to comment to the relevant consent authority (in this case
NSIPP) upon a variety of local matters and in particular development applications lodged with the Council.
The Precinct representatives presented oral and written submissions to Mr
Le Bas.
In summary, the Precinct representatives submitted, firstly, that they were concerned that Council selectively lobbied for submissions from outside of
the Municipality. Secondly, they considered that the Council failed to ‘effectively’ notify the local community regarding the DA. Thirdly, the
Precinct representatives stated that in their opinion, the Panel failed to provide adequate time for submitters/objectors to respond to the
documents tendered by the applicant and to digest the 95-page report and comment thereon, and in so doing denied natural justice to the objectors
and, fourthly, the Panel failed to adequately review the report of the
![Page 16: Report to General Manager - North Sydney Council€¦ · RECOMMENDATION: 1. THAT Council notes the contents of this report. 2. THAT Council calls for the preparation of comprehensive](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052022/6036a70e4bf33e7fb276e9a7/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
12
independent consultant planner and the subsequent report that was
prepared by the Council officers.
The Precinct Representatives submitted that clear rules need to be put in place for situations where Council is the applicant, that NSIPP processes
need to be changed in such cases, that Council, as the applicant, should ‘cancel’ its approval of the DA based on the alleged ‘improprieties’, and that
Council, as the applicant, if it is so minded, should submit a new development application in respect of the proposed development. The
written submissions provided to TPI stated that a ‘timeline’ (Exhibit F) was included. Unfortunately a timeline was not provided as part of Exhibit F.
ASSESSMENT
Conduct of Council as applicant
Having carefully perused and reviewed the several documents listed under the sub-heading ‘Review of documents’ above, the Reviewers are fully
satisfied that Council, as applicant, caused to be produced a most comprehensive and well-articulated development application, statement of
environmental effects and associated plans, reports and ancillary documents. Some councils, as applicants, have been known to produce less
than fulsome applications and supporting documents when they themselves are the consent authority. That was not the case here.
The Reviewers acknowledge the Precinct Committee’s submission that
firstly, an officer in effect sought submissions outside of the Council area. In terms of the outcome of any so called ‘lobbying’, whilst it is apparent
that many submissions were from outside of the local precinct area, there
were also a number of submissions from ‘local’ residents. Notwithstanding some evidence that this has occurred (with appropriate Counselling of the
officer being undertaken subsequently), the Reviewers feel that this event notwithstanding, the NSIPP has the ability to balance the breadth of the
submissions and make an appropriate determination based, inter alia, on the issues raised and the opinions of all submitters whether for or against
the proposal. There is no evidence that the Reviewers are aware of, in this regard, that the process was corrupted or perverted by any action of the
Council. The report prepared by Ms Gordon (an independent planner) appears to properly relate the issues raised to the Panel (at pp13 & 14) and
deal with those issues in an objective manner (pp21 –24). To the Reviewers knowledge, the facility is not intended to be used exclusively by physically
proximate users and as such accepting submissions from a broad community cross section is entirely appropriate. As well, the manner of
provision of submissions relating to a DA to the Council, is not as important
as the issues themselves. The NSIPP assessment is, inter alia, ‘issues
![Page 17: Report to General Manager - North Sydney Council€¦ · RECOMMENDATION: 1. THAT Council notes the contents of this report. 2. THAT Council calls for the preparation of comprehensive](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052022/6036a70e4bf33e7fb276e9a7/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
13
based’ and the total ‘number’ of submissions either for or against a proposal
are quite properly, not a head of consideration under Section 79C ‘Evaluation’ of the EPA Act (refer specifically 79(C)(1)(d)).
As to the second submission by Precinct Representatives, whilst the
Reviewers acknowledge the comments that ‘notices’ erected by Council Rangers may not have been ‘ideally located’ or may have been removed by
persons unknown, possibly before the end of the notification period, the proposal was also notified to nearby residents by letter and as far as we
can ascertain, to the Anderson Precinct Committee. In any case, there is on the Council file, an objection to the proposal on its merit, from the
Anderson Precinct Committee dated 13 November 2015. In the Reviewer’s opinion, there was no procedural failure in the notification process, caused
by the Council.
The Reviewers reject the opinion of the Precinct Representatives that
Council/NSIPP failed to provide adequate time for objectors to respond to the documents tendered by the applicant when the matter came before
NSIPP for the second time and in so doing, denied natural justice to the objectors. The Reviewers also reject the Precinct Representatives view that
the Panel failed to adequately review the report and recommendation that was prepared by Council itself. The Reviewers are of the opinion, that there
was a sufficient opportunity for submitters to consider the additional material which for the most part was far from complex or technical, and
then address the Panel in accordance with the Panel’s usual procedure and rules. In any event, the additional material had been sought by the NSIPP
at the first meeting at which the Panel considered the DA and was intended for its consideration rather than that of the Anderson Precinct. The Precinct
had already had an opportunity to comment on the development proposal during (and after) the notification period. Nothing was hidden from the
public and the purported invocation of the hearing rule of natural justice
seems in any event to be somewhat misplaced and inappropriate in the circumstances of this case.
However, the Reviewers agree with the precinct Committee that there is
merit in Council putting in place ‘clear rules’, that is, a clear, publicly available document that sets out, in plain English, how Council is to deal
with situations where Council is itself the applicant. Nevertheless, the Reviewers were not persuaded by the Precinct Committee’s submission
that the Panel’s processes need to be changed in cases where the Council is the applicant.
The Reviewers have also found no evidence of any lack of transparency or
accountability, or failure to follow established procedures, in relation to the conduct of Council as applicant in relation to the DA.
![Page 18: Report to General Manager - North Sydney Council€¦ · RECOMMENDATION: 1. THAT Council notes the contents of this report. 2. THAT Council calls for the preparation of comprehensive](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052022/6036a70e4bf33e7fb276e9a7/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
14
Conduct of the NSIPP
Subject to one or two fairly minor concerns (discussed in the next
paragraph) the Reviewers are satisfied as a matter of law that the NSIPP had before it reports that were professionally prepared and which
canvassed in a genuine and proper way, the matters required to be considered and assessed.
The Reviewers note that neither the independent Report IPP07 for the
NSIPP meeting held on 4 November 2015 prepared by Kerry Gordon Planning Services Pty Limited nor the internal planning Report IPP11, for
the NSIPP meeting held on 2 December 2015 nor the addendum report of 1/12/15 referred to Council’s Foreshore Parks & Reserves Plan of
Management. Be that as it may, the Reviewers are satisfied that nothing untoward resulted from that omission, as the proposed development can
easily be seen to be consistent with the objectives of that plan of
management. The important thing was that the Sportsground Plan of Management 2011 as well as the site specific Anderson Park Plan of
Management were considered in one or other of the reports submitted to the Panel. Bearing in mind that Anderson Park is a sportsground, the
important thing was the last mentioned two plans of management be considered, and that was indeed the case.
Report IPP07 does not strictly follow the order of matters of consideration
as set out in section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) [the ‘EPA Act’]. For example, the section 79C(1)(c) matter
for consideration (the suitability of the site for the development) is treated under the heading ‘REFERRALS’ and various subheadings such as
‘Environmental Health’, ‘Engineering/Stormwater Drainage’, ‘Flooding’, and others. There is absolutely nothing ‘incorrect’ in so doing, and many NSW
councils do likewise as do many town planning consultants including our
own firm. The important thing, as a matter of law, is that the report analyse and weigh in the balance the various relevant matters for consideration and
otherwise assist the decision-maker or decision-making body (in this case, the NSIPP), to give ‘proper, genuine and realistic consideration’ to the effect
of its decision in all material respects: see Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550; 62 ALR 321; 9 ALN N28; Chumbairux v The Minister (1986) 74 ALR
480.
Now, it is almost undeniable that the totality of the material was quite sizeable in that:
Report IP07 of 23 October 2015 submitted to NSWIPP meeting
of 4 November 2015 comprised in total 123 pages (inclusive of attachments);
![Page 19: Report to General Manager - North Sydney Council€¦ · RECOMMENDATION: 1. THAT Council notes the contents of this report. 2. THAT Council calls for the preparation of comprehensive](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052022/6036a70e4bf33e7fb276e9a7/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
15
Report IP11 of 2 December 2015 submitted to NSWIPP meeting
of 2 December 2015 comprised in total 95 pages (inclusive of attachments); and
Addendum Report of 1 December 2015 submitted to NSWIPP meeting of 2 December 2015 comprised in total 2 pages.
The Reviewers understand from our discussions with Council staff (in
particular, Stephen Beattie) that there was some concern expressed that the NSIPP was not able to consider all of the documentation in a 5 day
period before the last meeting. As well as this, the Anderson Precinct Committee representatives expressed concern to Mr Le Bas, that they were
unable to consider this material in the timeframe provided before this second meeting of NSIPP, where the DA was finally determined. The
reviewers have dealt with the Precinct Committee concerns firstly. In this regard, as mentioned earlier, it is apparent that the material was provided
for review, assessment and consideration by the Panel rather than directly
for review and ‘assessment’ by the Precinct Committee. The community was given time to comment upon the proposal when it was notified in
accordance with the Council Policy. Further, community members were permitted to address the NSIPP at both meetings where the matter was
considered. Also, it was the request of NSIPP that gave rise to the volumes of additional information. Further, the information submitted was made
available to interested parties in an open and transparent manner, as far as we can ascertain from the documents we have received.
In terms of NSIPP’s consideration, the reports could be scanned by the
members of the Panel all of whom have had experience in reading and considering Council planning reports. Each report, other than the
Addendum Report which comprised only 2 pages, contained an executive summary as well as a conclusion and recommendations. With the benefit
of hindsight, it might have been more helpful if Report IP07 had contained
a more fulsome executive summary at the front and also a less perfunctory ‘Environmental Appraisal’ with its checklist ‘CONSIDERED … YES … N/A …’
but they are very minor criticisms of what is otherwise a demonstrably thorough and professional report.
It is the Reviewers experience that reports of that length and complexity
are by no means uncommon in NSW local government. Indeed, they tend to be the norm. On the positive side, the totality of the contents of the
various reports constitute what, in our view, was a more than legally sufficient assessment of the development application in all material
respects. Furthermore, as already mentioned, the Reviewers are fully satisfied that the Panel had more than sufficient time to fulfil its statutory
duty to give real, proper and genuine consideration to the Anderson Park DA.
There are legal principles that are relevant to the proper consideration and
![Page 20: Report to General Manager - North Sydney Council€¦ · RECOMMENDATION: 1. THAT Council notes the contents of this report. 2. THAT Council calls for the preparation of comprehensive](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052022/6036a70e4bf33e7fb276e9a7/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
16
determination of development applications. Some of the more important of
those principles are PROVIDED as follows:
The council must not act in want or excess of power and must not exercise its powers for an improper purpose or in bad faith: see
Sydney MC v Campbell [1925] AC 338; Thompson v Randwick MC (1950) 81 CLR 87; [1950] ALR 711.
The council must act fairly and impartially and otherwise on the
basis of logically probative material: see Twist v Randwick MC [1976] HCA 58; (1976) 136 CLR 106 (17 November 1976);
McGovern v Ku-ring-gai Council [2008] NSWCA 209; Coleen Properties Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1971]
1 All ER 1049; Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Pochi (1980) 4 ALD 139; 31 ALR 666; Mahon v Air New Zealand Ltd
(1983) 50 ALR 193.
The council must not must not fetter itself in advance as to how it will exercise its statutory discretion, whether by way of contract,
estoppel or otherwise: see NSW Trotting Club Ltd v Glebe MC (1937) 37 SR (NSW) 288; Wilkinson v Tamarang SC (1932) 50
WN 23; Doran Developments Pty Ltd v Newcastle CC (1984) 13 APA 436; Bruce Kerr Pty Ltd v Gosford CC (SC(NSW), Cohen J, No
4057/93, 7 July 1994, unreported).
The council must strictly comply with those procedural requirements in respect of which it was the intention of the
legislature that a failure so to do should result in invalidity of the ultimate decision made or action taken: see Project Blue Sky Inc
v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28.
Where the council is required to ‘take into consideration’ certain specified matters, it must give ‘genuine’ and ‘proper’
consideration to those matters: see Parramatta CC v Hale (1982)
47 LGRA 319.
The weight to be given to a particular circumstance is a matter for
the council, not the courts; nevertheless, the council, in considering all the relevant material placed before it, must give
‘proper, genuine and realistic consideration’ to the effect of its decision in all material respects: see Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR
550; 62 ALR 321; 9 ALN N28; Chumbairux v The Minister (1986) 74 ALR 480.
The council is perfectly entitled to rely on the inquiry, advice and
recommendations of its officers: see Parramatta CC v Hale (1982)
![Page 21: Report to General Manager - North Sydney Council€¦ · RECOMMENDATION: 1. THAT Council notes the contents of this report. 2. THAT Council calls for the preparation of comprehensive](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052022/6036a70e4bf33e7fb276e9a7/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
17
47 LGRA 319 at 346.
Equally, the council or other decision-maker may also rely on the recommendations of a consultant employed by it: see Bohun v
Commissioner for Main Roads (L & E Ct, Stein J, No 40203/87, 11 December 1987, unreported).
There is also no legal or policy objection why the council should
not be able to take into consideration a consultant's report submitted by, say, an applicant for approval: see Oshlack v
Richmond River Council (L & E Ct, Stein J, No 40090/93, 22 December 1993, unreported). However, it is for the council to
determine what weight, if any, it places upon such a report: Oshlack.
The council is not bound to follow the views or recommendations
of its officers; the final decision rests with the council: Parramatta CC v Hale (1982) 47 LGRA 319. In determining an application for
approval, the council is entitled to fix conditions of approval which are different from those recommended by a council officer: see
Scott v Wollongong CC (L & E Ct, Cripps J, No 40090/89, 21 September 1989, unreported). See also Scott v Wollongong CC
(1992) 75 LGRA 112.
A condition of development consent must satisfy the threefold Newbury test of validity laid down in Newbury District Council v
Secretary of State for Environment [1981] AC 578, namely, the condition must be imposed for a planning purpose, must fairly and
reasonably relate to the development proposed in the application, and must otherwise be reasonable. Additionally, a condition of
development consent must be final and certain: see Mison v Randwick MC (1991) 73 LGRA 349; Randwick Cl v Pacific-Seven
Pty Ltd (1989) 69 LGRA 13.
In that regard, the council must not exercise its powers
unreasonably in the sense that no reasonable council, acting within the four corners of its powers, could ever have reached the
decision in question: see Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1947] 2 All ER 680; [1948] 1 KB 223.
See also South Australia v Tanner (1989) 166 CLR 161 as to the principle of proportionality.
For the most part, the council has a wide discretion in reaching its determination: see Tooth & Co Ltd v Lane Cove MC (1967) 87 WN
(Pt 1) NSW 361. The range of matters that a council is bound to consider may not be coextensive with the range of matters which
it is entitled to consider: see Sean Investments Pty Ltd v
![Page 22: Report to General Manager - North Sydney Council€¦ · RECOMMENDATION: 1. THAT Council notes the contents of this report. 2. THAT Council calls for the preparation of comprehensive](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052022/6036a70e4bf33e7fb276e9a7/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
18
MacKellar (1981) 38 ALR 363.
A failure by a council to take a relevant matter into consideration that the
council was otherwise duty bound to consider in determining an application for consent will ordinarily justify judicial review by the Land Court only if
that failure is serious in relation to the totality of other relevant factors: see Everall v Ku-ring-gai MC (1991) 72 LGRA 369. Indeed, the NSW Land and
Environment Court has indicated on a number of occasions that it will recognise a breach of, relevantly, s.79C of the EPA Act only after ‘anxious
consideration’: see Parramatta CC v Hale (1982) 47 LGRA 319; Boulton v Burwood MC (1988) 66 LGRA 131. Most importantly, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, the presumption is that the council has given consideration to all relevant matters: see Jang Investments Ltd v
Sutherland SC (L & E Ct, Hemmings J, No 40048/89, 8 September 1989, unreported).
In Parramatta CC v Hale (1982) 47 LGRA 319 Moffit P, suggested that local councils would be well-advised to gather information themselves, or at least
through their officers, where this would not otherwise be available to them, particularly in relation to technical or otherwise controversial matters. This
is especially important where a council proposes to make a decision which many would regard as a ‘bad’ decision. Street CJ said (at 326):
‘There was no express obligation on the council or its officers to seek out
these reports, but the fact of the council not bothering to check on the existence, contents and possible significance of these reports is at least consistent with the proposition that by that time minds had closed and
conclusions had been formed on the part of the council.’
In short, a statutory application for the consent or approval of Council is required by law to be assessed by Council objectively, on its respective
merits, without bias whether by way of predetermination or otherwise, and without Council fettering its statutory discretion whether by way of
contract, estoppel or otherwise. In addition, Council, in determining any application submitted for its approval, must not, in determining that
application, take into account any irrelevant or extraneous considerations
and must not otherwise engage in any conduct that would constitute maladministration or corrupt conduct.
Based on our review, the Reviewers have found no evidence of any breach
by the Panel of any of the above legal principles or any other relevant principles of which the Reviewers are aware. Our interviews with the Panel
members the Reviewers were able to interview, have led us to conclude that the Panel gave real, proper and genuine consideration to the DA and
did not rush its consideration of the matter. Indeed, its consideration and deliberations extended over two separate meetings of the Panel and, as Ms
Murrell pointed out to us, the Panel ‘did [its] own reviews’ of the material provided to it, called for further information, considered the additional
![Page 23: Report to General Manager - North Sydney Council€¦ · RECOMMENDATION: 1. THAT Council notes the contents of this report. 2. THAT Council calls for the preparation of comprehensive](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052022/6036a70e4bf33e7fb276e9a7/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
19
information provided and made its determination, even going so far as to
impose an additional condition of development consent.
In short, the Reviewers are fully satisfied that the Panel had more than sufficient time to fulfil its statutory duty to give real, proper and genuine
consideration to the Anderson Park DA. There is no evidence that the Panel failed to properly perform that duty, and there is evidence that it did in fact
properly perform the duty. The Panel members interviewed were not in any way overwhelmed, intimidated or otherwise negatively affected by the
lengthy material provided to them in relation to the Anderson Park DA. The very fact that they sought additional information when they first considered
the DA, and ultimately imposed one extra condition when making the decision to grant development consent to the DA, is clear and unambiguous
evidence that the Panel was able to, and did in fact, properly discharge its responsibilities.
FINDINGS
1. The Reviewers have found no evidence of any lack of transparency
or accountability, or failure to follow established procedures, in relation to the conduct of Council as applicant in relation to the
DA.
2. The Reviewers have found no evidence of any lack of transparency or accountability, or failure to follow established procedures, in
relation to the conduct of NSIPP in relation to the DA.
3. Subject to one or two fairly minor concerns (discussed in this report) the Reviewers are satisfied as a matter of law that the
NSIPP had before it reports that were professionally prepared and which canvassed in a genuine and proper way the matters
required to be considered and assessed.
4. The Reviewers are fully satisfied that the Panel had more than
sufficient time to fulfil its statutory duty to give real, proper and genuine consideration to the Anderson Park DA.
5. The Reviewers have found that the factual circumstances
pertaining to the staff matter alluded to in this report, did not in any way, adversely affect the otherwise proper handling and
consideration of the DA.
6. The Reviewers have found that the above mentioned staff matter
was handled properly and lawfully and is now fully at an end.
![Page 24: Report to General Manager - North Sydney Council€¦ · RECOMMENDATION: 1. THAT Council notes the contents of this report. 2. THAT Council calls for the preparation of comprehensive](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052022/6036a70e4bf33e7fb276e9a7/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
20
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Reviewers have concluded that Council, as applicant, caused
to be produced a comprehensive, detailed and soundly articulated development application, statement of environmental effects and
associated plans and documents.
2. The Reviewers have concluded the Panel performed its statutory duty as consent authority in a proper manner and otherwise in
accordance with well-established legal principles.
3. The Reviewers have concluded, after carefully considering the
conduct of Council as applicant and the conduct of the Panel as
per the instructions provided to the Reviewers as their terms of reference, that there is no basis for cancelling or revoking the
development consent granted in respect of DA DA227/15, nor for submitting a new development application in respect of the
proposed development.
![Page 25: Report to General Manager - North Sydney Council€¦ · RECOMMENDATION: 1. THAT Council notes the contents of this report. 2. THAT Council calls for the preparation of comprehensive](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022052022/6036a70e4bf33e7fb276e9a7/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
21
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. If Council does not already have such a document, Council should
give consideration to preparing and adopting a document enshrining, and setting out in plain English, the procedure to be
followed in cases where Council, or some person or body acting on behalf of Council, is the applicant for development consent to
a development application.
2. The Council may wish to consider altering/amending the format for report writing and production, so that it better reflects specific
requirements of the EPA Act 1979 (s79C) and also, so that the documents may be more easily followed and understood by
members of the local community.
3. The Council may give consideration, during orientation of appointed staff dealing with the assessment of development
applications, to a short ‘induction seminar’ regarding potential for conflicts of interest and proper ethical approaches to dealing with
development applications.
……………………….
Mr Pierre A Le Bas BA (Geog) (UNE), LLB (Hons1), Grad Cert Leg Prac (UTS), MTCP (Syd)
……………………….
Dr Ian Ellis-Jones BA, LLB (Syd), LLM, PhD (UTS), DD, Dip Relig Stud (LCIS), Adv Mngt Cert