THE first item ever heard by the Hawkesbury Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) saw its state government appointed chairperson excuse herself because of a conflict of interest.
The state government introduced legislation last year to create IHAPs, panels which take away planning power from Councils for development applications (DA) valued between $5 million and $30 million, or DAs which received a number of complaints.
They have been described as anti-democratic by some, while the state government and other supporters believe they will reduce corruption and increase efficiency of decision making while taking politics out of the equation.
Alison McCabe, who was appointed by Planning Minister Anthony Roberts, declared a conflict of interest for the first item heard by the IHAP at its first meeting on March 28.
Minutes for the meeting show that McCabe was not present at the meeting, after declaring the conflict of interest, because “the Council appointed Town Planning Consultant had previously undertaken contract work for the firm of which she is a Director.”
That item, a DA for a 37-lot subdivision at 396 Bells Line of Road, Kurmond, was deferred by the four person panel of Steve Kennedy (alternate chair and expert representative), John Brunton (expert representative), Jane Fielding (expert representative) and Cassandra Holtom (community representative).
“The Panel unanimously resolved that the determination of the application be deferred to allow the applicant an opportunity to submit amended plans. The amended plans are to be submitted to council by no later than 30 June 2018,” according to the meeting’s minutes.
Meanwhile, the second item heard before the IHAP was approved.
The DA was for a National Broadband Network tower to be built at 112 Hermitage Road, Kurrajong Hills.
Several people attended the meeting and spoke against the recommendation to approve, while one person spoke for it.
The minutes listed the following reasons for the decision.
“1. The proposed facility is an important piece of infrastructure that will provide benefits to the public; 2. Its location has been the outcome of extensive community consultation and thorough investigation; 3. It has been sited to ensure that visual impact is minimised; 4. A number of mitigation measures to visual impact have been proposed; and, 5. Based on the information provided, the forecast radiation levels are at acceptable levels, in accordance with the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) standards.”
