Mr Newman stated that because of the requirements of the legislation, councillors and mayors are not in control, not even of council staff. They have been disempowered from representing ratepayers.

Although Campbell Newman’s address at the LGAQ Conference is like a breath of fresh air, he should have been much more forceful.

He could have pointed out that it is not always the requirements of the legislation that caused the problem but also the interpretation.

The interpretation the majority of our Councillors have applied has resulted in them ceding more and more power to council staff and thereby disempowering themselves from doing the job they were elected to do.

The Scenic Rim Regional Council has been working under this legislation and allowed this intolerable situation to deepen for nearly four years.

Five of the seven councillors have previous experience as councillors, so I ask the questions on behalf of the community “Did they not realise they were being “hamstrung” and “Why hasn’t something been done to change the situation before now”.

Councillor Swanborough’s efforts to have the situation changed must be acknowledged, but unfortunately he has been a lone voice and outvoted by his councillor colleagues.

Astrid Kennedy

Tamborine Mountain

However, some council comments reported in the Beaudesert Times about Hyacinth Development could be misleading.

The whole sequence of events is easily summarised.

Quite early in the term of the present council I realised something seemed not quite right about the series of Hyacinth Development approvals.

I reviewed the record and, in a series of submissions to council, detailed apparent flaws in the approval process.

There was not even the courtesy of an acknowledgment.

With more approvals in train, the Progress Association then tried to have the situation properly resolved with council.

However, with council apparently not interested in a mediated resolution, the association took the matter to court since the ongoing and apparently flawed approvals would have unacceptable impacts on the Tamborine Mountain character.

The judge generally agreed with the association cancelling all approvals but one and the latter was for a subdivision which was left without an underlying plan of development.

With much still at stake, the association appealed that one approval but failed.

With the council having been unwilling to attempt to resolve the situation without going to court, the council spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of ratepayers funds in legal costs.

The progress association was much more economical but still incurred its own significant costs.

Each party was responsible for its own costs other than in the appeal with the council as the winner then claiming its appeal costs.

It is reported that the association has offered to make payments over a period and the council accepted providing a confidentiality clause applied.

I can understand such a clause would cause problems for the association which has a paying membership, elected officers and considerable dependence on community assistance and contributions.

It is a pity that the whole thing became such a sorry and expensive mess.

What a pity that the council did not sit down and talk when residents identified to council apparent flaws in the approval process that were subsequently demonstrated to be real.

Phil Giffard

Tamborine Mountain

TMPA is not stubborn nor has it been unreasonable as claimed.

TMPA’s proposal to pay a portion of the court fees awarded against it, over a five-year period was accepted by council.

It is merely the condition of confidentiality that TMPA finds difficult to comply with.

How can a registered community organisation whose meetings, for 96 years, have always been open to the general public agree to confidentiality when a breach of this clause would have the organisation in some form of contempt?

TMPA has no assets and would have to raise funds from the community so again how can this be kept confidential as council insists?

Council’s unidentified spokesperson has attempted to “spin” the facts into pro-council propaganda.

In the interests of justice and truth some of the true facts of the matter, which was decided in a court of law, deserve to be publicly aired.

After a long drawn out process to ascertain the details of the development on Tamborine Mountain known as “Hyacinth”, TMPA advised council in 2008 that the development approvals were not valid under existing regulations.

Council took no notice and was not interested in discussing the matter.

Because of the council’s intractable stance TMPA resorted to court action.

The court awarded judgement in three out of the four matters contested to TMPA, the presiding judge even going so far as to state that council’s actions were “incomprehensible and inexplicable”.

Council had initially stated that it would not defend TMPA’s claims but in what can only be regarded as a face saving exercise decided at the last minute to be represented by Senior and Junior Counsel. That decision needlessly cost ratepayers some $280,000.

TMPA, on legal advice, took the fourth item to the court of appeal. The matter was one of technical law and council did not even need to be represented.

Nevertheless it again engaged Senior and Junior Counsel. The court decided against TMPA and council was awarded costs of almost $36,000.

Again, money that council need not have spent and now it claims to be acting in the interests of ratepayers in pursuing those costs. Where was that concern when it rejected TMPA’s original approach and decided to waste the $280,000?

For almost a century TMPA has tried to help the residents of Tamborine Mountain. Over the years the records show that generally councils have been reasonable in their demands and in their cooperation. Unfortunately the Scenic Rim council has to date not displayed this degree of reasonableness.

Roland Lindenmayer

TMPA management committee

I write in support of to Mr David Mason’s letter in 13^th October’s edition of Beaudesert Times.  I am one of the many residents of the region who have called for improved library and community facilities in the township of Beaudesert for many years.

I couldn’t agree more with Mr Mason’s perspective on this issue

It has been 15 years since I returned to Beaudesert to raise my family.  I have continued to be astounded that the township which is meant to be the service centre of the region has lacked adequate community facilities.

Twenty-three years later and my children still have the same facilities with minimal improvements in the resources on offer. 

As a mother of a teenager and primary school aged children and also having attempted to complete tertiary studies while a resident of Beaudesert – I have directly experienced the inadequacy of these facilities from an educational, cultural and community perspective.

I note correspondence in the same edition from Mr Ken Vandermoylan.  I whole heartedly refute his perception that there has been “non-existent public consultation regarding this project”. 

I know I have been calling for these improvements via our local councilors for 15 years.  I am well aware of many others who have done the same.

I have been aware of the Council’s ambition to improve these facilities through many documents and meetings including the Cultural Policy consultations as early as 1998.  A number of community consultative forums I have attended have raised inadequate facilities as a key community issue, including consultations on the region’s Social Plan.

I acknowledge all residents right to voice their views and appreciate that some other residents may hold concerns that are important to consider in the consultations that occur on the design of the proposed facility.  I feel reassured that council will be putting designs out for consultation in the near future.

I offer my support for the renewal of Beaudesert township, upgrading of public facilities and the establishment of a modern, adequately resourced library for our region’s centre.  I believe our children, young people and all of us deserve this.

Beaudesert