Councillor Corinne Lamont was told she hadn’t done her homework during debate at the December 10 Central Coast Council meeting.
The discussion was about whether Council should prioritise sand nourishment over seawalls.
Lamont told the meeting that the councillors elected to the regional planning panel should not be present for the discussion.
She quoted the codes of conduct and meeting practices.
Deputy Mayor Doug Eaton said Lamont was a new councillor and obviously hadn’t done her homework too well.
He said Lamont was one who had a conflict of interest since she appeared to be the person behind the Wamberal Beach Save Our Sand group.
Councillor Rachel Stanton said Lamont was trying to gag the Liberal councillors.
Councillor Jane Smith asked staff to explain what “beach armouring” meant – the words in the motion – but was directed back to the mover of the motion, Lamont.
“You’re asking the wrong people,” CEO David Farmer said.
Lamont said beach armouring meant seawalls and the biggest of them all was a proposed 1.4km seawall at Wamberal.
At issue was whether four councillors – Eaton, Stanton, Jared Wright and Kyle MacGregor – should stay for the debate.
The four are either delegates or alternate delegates for the Regional Planning Panel.
Next year the panel will deliberate on three development applications (DAs) for the Wamberal seawall and one at North Entrance.
Lamont might be a new councillor, but it turns out she was right.
The Code of Meeting practice for the regional planning panel talks about avoiding perceptions of bias.
One sentence states that councillors should stand aside if a matter is related.
All four councillors left the chamber earlier in the evening during the public forum when two residents spoke about the item and referenced the Wamberal development applications.
But only MacGregor left the meeting when the sand nourishment item was debated about four hours later.
Lamont also questioned whether the CEO, in a written response to the motion, should have noted that he had signed off on a land holders agreement as Council owns some of the land included in the seawall DAs.
Lamont’s motion called on Council to adopt a formal position of prioritising offshore sand nourishment over beach armouring in its coastal management plans, as a sustainable and environmentally sensitive approach to addressing coastal erosion.
The CEO’s written response stated that there were financial, legal and policy implications of the proposed motion but he did not say what they were.
“An additional report from the Chief Executive Officer may be provided, subject to resolution of Council, to further outline this process,” he wrote.
He quoted part of a Council decision from October 2022.
That October decision was about the costs of construction works on private land while dealing with the engineering design requirements for a Wamberal seawall.
Lamont said this showed the item was connected to the seawall development applications.
She asked for extra time to speak to her motion when three minutes had passed.
Earlier in the evening, Council had agreed to cut down the speaking time from five to three minutes.
Mayor Lawrie McKinna gave Cr Lamont one extra minute, but not a fifth minute, to conclude her speech.
“What is the point of me being here?’’ she asked.
“Yes, what is the point?” McKinna replied.
In the end, the councillors deferred a decision; leaving it to an as-yet unformed committee to deal with in the future.
The meeting ended at 10.13pm, immediately after this item.
But a week later, Lamont was vindicated.
All councillors will be excluded from the regional planning panel when it meets to discuss the Wamberal seawall applications due to perceptions of a conflict of interest.
A spokesperson for the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure said the Hunter Central Coast Planning Panel is governed by the Sydney and Regional Planning Panels Code of Conduct .
The Code outlines that any sitting panel member who has an actual, perceived or potential conflict of interest in a matter before the panel must declare the conflict and excuse themselves from participating.
Where the panel Chair considers that a conflict of interest has not been disclosed or appropriately managed by a panel member, the Chair may elect to excuse them from sitting on the panel for that matter.
“The Hunter Central Coast Planning Panel Chair has excused all Councillors from the three Wamberal seawall development applications (DAs), citing a reasonably perceived conflict of interest/conflict of duties as the three DAs include land to which Central Coast Council has an interest,” the spokesperson said.
Additionally, Council confirmed that there will be no Council representatives on the JRPP determining the seawall DAs as Council has an interest in the matter.
This is great news. Councillor Lamont has obviously done more homework than Eaton, Staunton, & wright – maybe they could learn from her & try & understand & work with other councillors moving forward! Instead of showing pure arrogance on the night . David farmer would do well to apologise to councillor lamont
Why why why are the Libs so wanting to open a massive can of legal worms by pushing on with the ugly as seawall that will prove to be a lawyers picnic at public expense. At this point CCC is in no way liable for any damage to any structures along the beach as soon as a design is approved…who knows?… lawyers at ten paces. Neighbour v neighbours v council . Sand nourishment obviously way to go
I dont want a seawall only because I want all the dumb people who build a house on top of a sand hill near the ocean to lose their homes to teach them a lesson.
If the Planning Panel reps had a conflict of interest then CLR. Lamont equally had a direct conflict of interest, given her involvement with the SOS group.
At best I’d call it “one all” not sure how CCNews concluded she was vindicated.
Her motion tried to be too tricky, she tried to exclude other councillors on the basis her motion broadly included the Wamberal wall proposal – yet that inclusion would equally have prevented her participation – and likely made the very motion invalid.
@Coastie, You are mistaken. Under Section 5.3 of the NSW Office of Local Government Code of Conduct, Cr Lamont has no conflict of interest regarding the Wamberal Beach seawall issue as she campaigned on the issue. Cr Lamont is simply doing what she was democratically elected to do. The Regional Panel was correct in removing the other Councillors from the Panel’s assessment of the seawall as Council is a seawall DA applicant. Cr Lamont was vindicated as outlined in the article. There was nothing tricky about Cr Lamont’s motion. Her ‘sand nourishment instead of armouring’ motion was clearly related to the Wamberal Beach seawall matter as Council’s CEO, David Farmer, used the earlier Wamberal Beach seawall EDR motion as a rebuttal to Cr Lamont’s sand nourishment motion. Also, if you listen to the Council meeting recording, you will hear that Cr Lamont did not call for the other Councillors to be excluded from the sand nourishment motion due to conflict of interest. Instead, she pointed out that the Councillors on the Regional Panel were no permitted to debate or vote on the ‘sand nourishment instead of seawalls’ motion because the NSW Regional Panel Code of Conduct procedural rules forbid it (Section 5). Only one of the four ‘Regional Panel Councillors’, Councillor McGregor, took that advice and rightly excused himself from the meeting. The other three Councillors, Eaton, Stanton and Wright, did not leave the meeting. The Panel later cited the conflicts of interest of the Panel Councillors and removed them from the Regional Panel’s assessment of the Wamberal Beach seawall DAs, exactly as Cr Lamont had forewarned.
Bravo Councillor Lamont. Incompetence still reigns supreme at CC council with these arrogant clowns not knowing the rules.