Toowoomba Regional Council soon set to disclose legal costs of planning and environment court cases

Toowoomba ratepayers will soon know how much court cases involving contentious development applications will cost the council after major reforms were passed.

Councillor Kerry Shine secured support from his colleagues to pass a motion that will disclose the legal cost to Toowoomba Regional Council of planning and environment court cases. Picture: Kevin Farmer

Toowoomba ratepayers will know publicly how much court cases involving contentious development applications will cost the council after the passing of major reforms.

Councillor Kerry Shine secured enough support from colleagues to pass two motions at Toowoomba Regional Council’s November meeting, following tense and sometimes hostile debates.

Under the reforms, the legal cost to ratepayers of planning and environment court cases will be disclosed at the following ordinary meeting once the matter is finalised.

The change was brought about after a series of council decisions in recent years where councillors voted down controversial proposals due to public pressure, only for the developers to secure approval through the courts.

Mr Shine said the move would make the council’s actions more transparent.

“We have a responsibility not to waste money, particularly when professional advice is to the contrary, which has occurred in some decisions we’ve made, contrary to our professional advice given,” he said.

“I can’t see any good reason arguments against disclosing how we spend ratepayers’ money.

“Transparency is not only a good idea, it’s a requirement.”

Councillor Carol Taylor. Picture: Kevin Farmer

Mr Shine’s motion was met with fierce opposition by councillors like Carol Taylor, who said the publication of legal costs associated with individual court cases might chill dissent against contentious projects by residents.

“While this motion sound innocuous, this proposed change has the potential to influence and change the way council listens to impacted parts of our community,” she said.

“If people who aren’t impacted don’t understand or care what happens to someone else, by publicising these, you’ve got protesting (by people) against the legal costs of this council in an individual case that does not impact them.”

Councillor Bill Cahill. Picture: Kevin Farmer

Bill Cahill was even more emphatic in his dissent, arguing it could dissuade council officers from seeking legal advice around an application.

“I’m all for transparency and I’ve built a reputation around that, but transparency for who? Transparency for the side that opposes us in a court, for very little gain for us?” he said.

“Some unintended consequences might come out of this — if I was a planning officer sitting there wondering whether I should make a call to get some advice on an application, (would I do that) knowing full well that it’s going to be under scrutiny?”

The motion passed 5-5, with mayor Geoff McDonald’s vote acting as the tie-breaker.

Mr Cahill, Ms Taylor, Melissa Taylor, Edwina Farquhar and Tim McMahon voted against it, while deputy mayor Rebecca Vonhoff was absent from the meeting.

In another major reform pushed by Mr Shine, the number of councillors required to “call in” contentious applications to a special meeting has jumped from four to six.

Councillor Tim McMahon during a council meeting to discuss the future of Toowoomba City Aerodrome (also know as Toowoomba Airport), Tuesday, May 28, 2024. Picture: Kevin Farmer

The move means a majority of elected officials will need to sign a letter to the chief executive asking for a DA to be brought before the council.

Mr Shine signalled reforms after council approved a code-assessable (which is the lower level of assessment) application for a retirement resort in Torrington at a special meeting in August — eight months after it had been called in back in 2023.

“There are consequences we’ve seen there considerable costs to council preparing those reports, and a considerable delay to the approval process, leading to a delay in the commencement of much-needed development and costs,” he said.

“This in my view has in the past led to a loss of confidence of some developers being interested in projects in Toowoomba.

“I’m not against calling in applications, I just think the majority need to be in favour of calling it in.”

While he sympathised with the “spirit” of the motion, Mr McMahon said raising the threshold would rob residents and community members from the chance to have their say if they believed an application would impact them negatively.

“What’s happened (already) is certain projects have gone through without any comment or discussion — there has to be some level of scrutiny,” he said.

“It’s defensible to accept that the public wants us to debate (some) applications.”

Mr Cahill was again opposed, alleging democracy was being evoked to “bully” people into silence.

“We’ve just effectively raised the bar and shut more of the community out of being able to represent their views to a councillor,” he said.

“I take exception to the notion that councillors don’t have the right to amend the delegation at any time and call in an application — that’s what we’re here for.”

The motion passed 6-4, with Mr Cahill and Mr McMahon again joined by Carol and Melissa Taylor in dissent.