Council staff find lost petition

Gosford Council staff have found a petition about a development proposed for Nowack Ave, Umina, they previously claimed had not been received.

However, a staff report to the Council has defended the action stating that the issues raised had been considered and the council could not "re-make" the decision.

Senior Gosford Council staff have conceded that a petition of 105 signatures, submitted by Member for Peats Ms Marie Andrews objecting to the development proposed at 18 Nowack Ave, Umina, was received.

A report prepared by former director development and health Mr John Murray acknowledged that the petition was incorrectly treated as correspondence and not presented to council for consideration along with the application on November 4 last year.

The development application was passed.

Cr Lynne Bockholt raised the issue of the lost petition in Council on January 27 and a report was brought back to the meeting on March 23.

Cr Bockholt asked how the petition was missed in the preparation of the report and why the director development and health had advised her that no petition had been received by Council when one had.

Mr Murray stated: "The assessment file does not contain a copy of representations submitted by the Member for Peats or the attached petition in respect to the development.

"The letter from Marie Andrews was not classified as a petition but was dealt with as normal correspondence.

"The letter was referred to the senior assessing officer who responded to the Member for Peats by letter dated May 5.

"My review of the matter concludes that Council failed to identify the letter of representation from the Member for Peats as a petition objecting to the development."

He said that the issues raised in the letters of objection and the petition were addressed in the assessment of the application.

He concluded that Council failed to identify the letter of representation from the Member for Peats as a petition objecting to the development.

He also noted that the original petition objected to the original plans but amended plans were later submitted.

"The report to Council reflects the submissions received to the advertising of the amended plans and does not include the original submissions.

"As the petition was included in the Council records as a submission to the development, it is highly likely to have been dismissed by the assessment officer as related to the first set of plans."

The report to council stated that all petitions were now formally registered when they came into council.

The council resolved to note the report.

Council agenda DH030, March 23