Redland City Bulletin has asked Redland CEO Bill Lyon to produce documents he claims prove council was "open and transparent" when it decided to change its stance on a court case involving a Mount Cotton power plant in 2012.
These are the questions Redland City Bulletin asked on May 29.
1) Why did Redland City Council fail to defend itself against an appeal by Cleveland Power?
2) How much money and time was spent on the 2011 appeal case?
3) Who made the decision not to defend council's 2011 refusal?
4) What were the grounds for the about turn?
5) When were ratepayers told of the about turn in the defence position?
6) What was the rationale behind deciding not to defend the appeal?
7) What is the new deadline for Cleveland Power's extension?
COUNCIL RESPONSE MAY 29: Cleveland Power has had a number of appeals in the P&E Court, which one are you referring to can you send through the Court determination so I can make sure we get the correct info.
COUNCIL RESPONSE SENT MAY 29 : As with all legal matters Council’s position was informed by advice from independent court experts. This advice indicated (as per paragraphs 8 to 10 of the Judgement) that the application was consistent with the Planning and Environment controls, resulting in Council no longer opposing the application. It should be noted however that the court case continued and throughout the court case Council continued to raise issues, particularly regarding community opposition. Regardless of Council’s position The Court was ultimately responsible for the Judgement (see paragraphs 18 and 19). The costs of this court appeal (2011-2013) for Council were more than $300,000.
COUNCIL RESPONSE JUNE 1: You keep saying that Council’s legal team didn’t defend Council’s decision in court, do you realise Council amended its original resolution in 2012? In other words the 2011 decision by Council wasn’t the one that went to court, it changed in Oct 2012. It was a confidential item (see below) but I am trying to getting the minutes to send to you. http://web01.redland.qld.gov.au/robo/Minutes_Agendas/Jul12-Jun13/index.htm.
REPORTER RESPONSE: JUNE 1: Ahhhh, now it makes sense. OK Thanks so it was a confidential ruling that overturned a 2011 council decision in 2012. When was that going to be made public? I will also need who voted which way and the date. Thanks it's all clear now. I completely understand and the court ruling backs that. Thanks
REPORTER TO COUNCIL, JUNE 2: Hi all, thanks for the agenda listing, can I get a copy of the report that is now no longer confidential? Cheers. Also, why would council continue to pursue the case through the courts when an out-of-court settlement was decided on in October 2012?
COUNCIL TO REPORTER: JUNE 3: The front page story is very wrong and very disappointing. How was the meeting a secret when the minutes are online for anyone who would bother looking and we issued media releases and a factsheet to explain it all? A simple Google search will have given you all the information you needed. When I spoke to you Monday afternoon you told me you hadn’t written the story because you were waiting for our response, which gave me the impression that nothing was going in today’s paper, but it is now obvious that when I spoke with you Monday afternoon the story was already in progress. I saw the online version Monday night and so had arranged for a meeting with Andrew Ross today so you could get the facts, but I’ll cancel it since you have already done the story.
REPORTER TO COUNCIL JUNE 3: Can you tell me where the story is wrong please and we will correct any mistakes. Cheers
REPORTER TO COUNCIL JUNE 4: Hi All, I will need you to point out any mistakes in the story about the Biomass today if we are going to get them into the paper as Monday is a public holiday. Cheers
COUNCIL RESPONSE, JUNE 4: I have outlined the inaccuracies in yesterday's story below. As I mentioned on the phone Monday, with this being a Court matter it is very important the story is accurate. Can I also ask that in future if there is a request that has been generated from an allegation from someone can you include said allegation in the request rather than just questions so we know what we are responding to, this way there are no surprises.
Paragraph 3 reference to a ‘secret’ Council meeting. The Council meeting was never a secret, there was a publicly available agenda and minutes (below) available online and there is ample information on Council’s website including:
o http://www.redland.qld.gov.au/AboutCouncil/NewsPublications/Pages/MtCottonBiomass.aspx
o http://news.redland.qld.gov.au/2012/11/mount-cotton-biomass/
Paragraph 4 refers to P&E Court docs released in May this year - which in fact were released in 2012 as part of the Ecourt Files republished by Council. Paragraph 8 refers to council fobbing off overtures about joining as co-respondent when council was already a respondent to the Appeal but like other parties did not join the BP Association application as itwas held by the court as being started for an "improper purpose and had no reasonable prospect of success" so costs awarded against them (this is all outlined in the court judgement). Paragraph 10 council wrote to members of the BP Association directly and was available at a community meeting on 8 Feb 2013 explaining its reasons prior to them starting their court application and during their application. So they knew about Councils position.
Council Meeting Minutes: 31 Oct 2012 -
http://web01.redland.qld.gov.au/robo/Minutes_Agendas/Jul12-Jun13/index.htm
Item 7: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The following speakers addressed Council on Item 15.3.2 – Appeal 5192 of 2011 – Cleveland Power Pty Ltd at 70-96 Hillview Road, Mount Cotton:
2. Mr D Baxter, President of the Alexandra Hills and representing the Birkdale Progress Association;
3. Mrs T Bowler, resident and representing residents of Mt Cotton;
4. Mr G Hillier of Thornlands;
5. Mr D Bray of Cleveland Power Pty Ltd.
Item 17.1.1 APPEAL 5192 OF 2011 – CLEVELAND POWER PTY LTD AT 70-96 HILLVIEW ROAD, MT COTTON
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A confidential report from Manager Sustainable Assessment was discussed in closed session.
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
Moved by: Cr M Edwards
Seconded by: Cr L Hewlett
That Council resolve as follows:
1. To accept the alternative recommendation as amended; and
2. That this report and its recommendations remain confidential pending the final outcome of the appeal, with the exceptions of points 1, 2 and 3 in the amended recommendation which may be made public after they have been presented to the Court. CARRIED - DIVISION FOR Crs Beard, Talty, Edwards, Hewlett, Hardman and Williams AGAINST: Crs Bishop, Gleeson, Elliott, Ogilvie and Boglary
REPORTER TO COUNCIL AND CEO BILL LYON JUNE 10:
1) Please send me the evidence that the decision to no longer oppose the Biomass development extension was made public in 2012. I still can't find any evidence - on council's website or on the P&E website, to show the public knew that council had changed its mind and had settled out of court.
2) Why did council continue with the court case in 2013 when it had settled out of court in 2012?
3) In the confidential decision of October 31 2012, the adopted decision included a clause to say the decision would remain confidential until the outcome of the court case. How could the decision be put on council's website in 2012?
4) Where was the decision to change the council's stance lodged on the P&E website?
REPORTER TO COUNCIL, JUNE 11: Just hoping to get an estimated time for the proof that the Biomass documents were online. I am still getting the same questions being asked as nobody has seen these documents yet. I will be putting a story online this morning letting people know the questions I have asked the council on this issue. These are the questions we are waiting on documents for 1) Please send me the evidence that the decision to no longer oppose the Biomass development extension was made public in 2012. I still can't find any evidence - on council's website or on the P&E website, to show the public knew that council had changed its mind and had settled out of court.
2) Why did council continue with the court case in 2013 when it had settled out of court in 2012?
3) In the confidential decision of October 31 2012, the adopted decision included a clause to say the decision would remain confidential until the outcome of the court case. How could the decision be put on council's website in 2012?
4) Where and when was the decision to change the council's stance lodged on the P&E website?
