Making character statements as ineffective as possible?
Re "Character statements need updating" (Peninsula News, March 8), while on first glance this seems like a good move from the council, on reading further I find yet more of the same old, sad disingenuousness and bastardry from our council.
When the original character statements were created, I was often engaged in council processes.
The community involvement in the original character statements was outstanding with over 1000 people lured into the process and attending public meetings in the belief that we could be involved in a sustainable, people friendly development of the city and Peninsula and have some meaningful input.
And so the character statements were adopted with much fanfare, and immediately ignored by Gosford Council planning staff who seemed to think their job was to support all developer proposals.
Their mantra was "all development was good development " and represented "progress".
The council of the day and all subsequent councils allowed so many "variations" and "exceptions" as to render the character statements useless.
Now Central Coast Council wants to update this redundant document "to accommodate legal changes".
Why would you want to "accommodate ... legal changes" that are designed (by the state government) to render the character statements more useless, if that is possible?
The council tells us that "The character statements need to be updated to reflect the many changes in legislation that have occurred since their introduction to ensure they are as effective as possible".
Effective as possible?
This wording is a new low. It is laughable.
I think what they actually mean is, as ineffective as possible.
I would like to know what the Council Administrator thinks of his staff using such obvious weasel words?
I would also like to know his interpretation of the weasel word "consideration"?
One definition of "consideration" is nothing more than a simple thought - so easily dismissed by management or at law.
Or is my interpretation that council is so weak, ineffective and developer-driven that it could be bought for "a small consideration", closer to the real meaning in this context?
There seem to be plenty of examples in the media of this interpretation, across many NSW councils.
SOURCE:
Email, 18 Mar 2021
Bryan Ellis, Umina Beach