Objection MCU18

should not have to point out to Mayor Stewart and Councillors that it is improper for Mayor
Stewart to so arbitrarily, and I regret to say, contemptuously, dismiss valid objections by
residents on the basis of relative proximity or distance. Neither the Act nor the Noosa Plan
imposes any such restriction on objections. Residents throughout the Shire are entitled to
make representation, objecting to MCU-STA applications and Councillors and the Mayor are
obliged by their Office to dutifully and reasonably consider such objections according to
their merit, and use the information provided by residents’ objections to inform their
decision making. Merit is not subject to the narrow confines of immediate proximity.

This statement by Mayor Stewart has unfortunately gained traction in the community,
deleteriously affecting the rights of constituents to lodge objections. I have been
approached by residents who have advised me that they were going to lodge an objection
to 10 Hill St, but had heard they were not “allowed to” because they lived more than 50
metres from the site. Note the contraction of the Mayor’s (arbitrary) original restriction of
100 metres to 50 metres. It is, in my view, now incumbent on Mayor Stewart to correct this
misconception that has eroded the rights of her constituents and is likely to materially affect
the number of objections lodged against MCU 18/006.03.

Patently decisions cannot and should not be made in advance of receipt of objections. To
indicate voting intentions and to record them on the public record, in advance of the closing
of the objection period and without the benefit of Planning Staff advice is improper,
negligent, entirely inappropriate and unreasonable by any reasonable, measured
assessment. Such action sends appalling messages to residents and objectors, and
encourages and rewards poor behaviour by applicants and their representatives.

Councillors and Mayor Stewart in particular expressed concern (meeting 12/7) about the
legal costs of defending appeals or being sued by unsuccessful applicants. Councillor
Stockwell advised the meeting that the compilers of this application (MCU 18/0006.03)
Martoo Consulting, have indicated if their applications are not approved by Council, they
will sue. I have no evidence other than Councillor Stockwell’s comments on the record, to
support such a contention, ascribed to Martoo Consulting. Accordingly I make the following
comments in a generalised capacity; regarding “threats” to sue. My comments are
generalised in nature and should not be read as comments directed at, or censorious of,
Martoo Consulting specifically.

Firstly “threats” to sue, are exactly that: threats. There is no substance, no specific detail, no
legal or intellectual force brought to bear. They are, at this stage, merely empty statements
without even the most basic detail of claim. Secondly: sue for what; on what basis? Due
process has not commenced, let alone been completed. The process of application;
objection if any; initial assessment; recommendation; final assessment and voting is yet to
have taken place. The applicants and objectors if any, then have the opportunity to apply,
pursue and exhaust all avenues of appeal. And, by that process, obtain favourable decisions
or evidence of suitable support for further action, before the applicants are in any position
to assess the viability of any further legal avenues or positions which may be available to
them at that time.




                                                3