Council slated for “misleading” statements over boarding house FORUM

I refer to the article, Council criticised over Toukley boarding house approval, published on February 16 and, specifically, I refer to the Council responses to our allegations.

Instead of addressing the concerns of the residents, the administration at Central Coast Council attempted to justify their decision process with a misleading representation of what occurred.

Council stated “It should be noted that community members who objected to the final DA submitted, had the opportunity to address the

Court prior to the mediation”. This is incorrect.

The residents were notified of the Land & Environment Court (LEC) Section 34 Conciliation Conference by Solicitors for Council in writing on June 15, 2022.

The solicitor advised the residents they may be able to address the Commissioner at a proposed site meeting on July 27 and that there was usually no other opportunity for the residents to engage the Court further as the S34 conference was confidential between the parties.

There was no final amended DA at that time, so residents could not have possibly had the opportunity to lodge objections prior to mediation as claimed by Council.

On July 27 five of the residents, representing more than 460 local residents, made verbal representations via a video link to the LEC Commissioner, when the onsite LEC Section 34 conference meeting was cancelled due to COVID.

The residents’ presentations were limited to five minutes each, stating we were supportive of integrated quality affordable housing in Toukley, not just any housing, and addressed the main concerns of scale of the development, lack of support services in Toukley, the adverse police report and the inevitable adverse social impact on the character of the area.

Three months later on October 18, 2022 the final amended DA was issued for public comment by Council, with a closing date for objections set at November 18.

To be precise there were more than 300 submissions stating that even though the developer had addressed internal issues and the institutional feel raised by Council and the independent planning panel, none of the social impact issues raised by the residents with the Commissioner at the July conference had been met.

No acknowledgement of our objection letters was received from Council and no further conference was held with residents.

In less than a month from the close of the public objection period of November 18, residents received a letter from

Council’s solicitor advising that Council had reached an agreement with the developer and the DA had been approved.

The Judgment from the LEC clearly states that Council advised the Court that all the residents’ objections had been met in the final DA.

(In our view) council does not represent the interest of the residents and we allege it appears as if Council is simply a servant of the State government and their manic rush to provide housing.