REDLAND City Council has slammed claims it acted in secret over a development permit extension for a power plant.
Council said it decided to change its stance and not oppose extending an application for a Mount Cotton power plant permit at a confidential meeting in October 2012.
The council said it was not a secret meeting as there was a publicly available agenda, minutes available online and information on council's website.
Details of the published minutes stated "A confidential report from Manager Sustainable Assessment was discussed in closed session".
The adopted recommendation included a clause to say the report and its recommendations were to "remain confidential pending the final outcome of the appeal".
At the confidential meeting, in October 2012, councillors Alan Beard, Julie Talty, Mark Edwards, Lance Hewlett, Kim Hardman and Karen Williams voted to accept an out-of-court settlement with Cleveland Power, going against an officer recommendation to continue litigation.
In exchange for the extension, Cleveland Power would alter the height of the emission stack and the emissions velocity to agree with an environmental report.
The officer report, presented at the confidential meeting, said accepting the settlement would remove the rights of more than 700 new residents to make submissions.
The report also said the majority of the court costs had been accrued and an out-of-court settlement would only save $60,000 off the council's total court bill.
Despite the decision to settle out of court, the council and Cleveland Power continued with the court proceedings, which Cleveland Power won in 2013.
A document showing council did not oppose the final orders was lodged on the Planning and Environment Court website on March 20, 2013, the day the final judgment was handed down.
The council has also disputed claims the Planning and Environment court documents were released in May this year.
Council said it believed the documents were released in 2012 as part of the Ecourt Files republished by council, despite the case finishing in 2013.
Council also disputed claims it rejected overtures about joining the Birkdale Progress Association as a co-respondent.
"Council was already a respondent to the Appeal but like other parties did not join the BP Association application as it was held by the court as being started for an improper purpose and had no reasonable prospect of success so costs awarded against them," council said.
"Council wrote to members of the Birkdale Progress Association directly and was available at a community meeting on February 8, 2013, explaining its reasons prior to them starting their court application and during their application. So they knew about council's position," the council said.
The association disagreed and said it would not have continued with the court challenge if it knew the council no longer opposed the development permit extension.
The association also said the content of the agenda and the outcome was not published online until after the court case.
Conversations between councillors at the confidential meeting have not been made public.
