“Unreasonable complainant” vindicated

By Tim Howard

A Yamba woman Clarence Valley Council branded an “unreasonable complainant” has been vindicated in the findings of independent regulator the Information Privacy Commission.
In a report released last month, the commission found the council erred in refusing a GIPA request from Lynne Cairns for documents linked to a controversial development application for a property on the Yamba canals.
On November 5, council general manager Ashley Lindsay emailed an apology to Mrs Cairns for refusing her request.
“We got it wrong,” Mr Lindsay said. “I’ve apologised to Mrs Cairns and I have staff working on getting the documents she has asked for.”
He was reluctant to discuss how the council failed to correctly apply the GIPA (Government Information (Public Access) Act) legislation.
Although Mr Lindsay advised Mrs Cairns to make a GIPA application, by the time the request came in June, he was on sick leave and the decision to refuse was made by the acting general manager, Laura Black.
Also in April Mrs Cairns made a formal complaint to Mayor Jim Simmons, informing him she thought the council was failing its GIPA requirements.
Cr Simmons replied to Mrs Cairns in May, saying redacted copies of the documents would be sent to her within three days. That didn’t happen.
Mr Lindsay was at a loss to explain the handling of the GIPA request.
“We should have assessed the GIPA request in accordance with the legislation,” Mr Lindsay said.
“This is no excuse, but I wasn’t at work at the time, I wasn’t aware of the GIPA application until … we got that letter from IPC.
“So I can’t really comment on why we didn’t deal with it properly.”
Mr Lindsay agreed the acting general manager, Ms Black, during the period, was “well qualified”.
“I can’t really comment further,” he said. “My response to Mrs Cairns is that I’ve apologised and staff are working on getting the information she requested in line with the GIPA legislation.”
Council took another look at the development early in the year.
It inspected the works in February 2021 and ordered modification request and a fresh DA for works completed, under construction or to be built.
Mr Lindsay said council had provided some of the information she requested, which was included when the modification request and the new DA were submitted earlier in the year, hinting staff frustration with her persistent requests might have been behind the GIPA request refusal.
There are hints council staff viewed the residents’ objections as unimportant.
In reports to the May meeting about the new DA and the request for modification it noted the original DA approach “was not well received” and result in a “high level of scrutiny during the construction phase”.
Mrs Cairns said she and her husband were not the only ones concerned as council had removed the as built non-complying, unlawful structures into a new DA in order that these structures complied.
Council removed Point 14 of Conditions of Consent from the new DA “All structures located within the 7.5 metre rear building alignment shall not exceed 1.2 metres in height from existing ground level.”
Submissions against the DA included 40 signatures in a petition as residents knew this would set a precedent which could potentially impact their views, sun, breeze and devalue their properties.
But neighbours were not happy as the as built development differed from the original DA, did not comply with regulations and were not included in the original plans including a retractable privacy screen, a water tank and a 4m high privacy screen, from ground level, just behind the revetment wall.
Council’s May reports said “council progress inspections did not occur during construction works”.
“Residents in the canal have just watched the unlawful, non-complying development being constructed, emailed the general manager and he took five months until he finally had a staff member telephone the builder to stop working on the development,” she said.
Mrs Cairns emailed in May 2021 asking why council hadn’t acted in accordance with its planning acts, regulations and enforcement policy. No response was provided.
Mr Lindsay also noted the council was not the only organisation providing information for Mrs Cairns.
“It’s not just staff here that are running around after her,” he said. “She’s got people at the IPC, NSW Ombudsman and the Office of Local Government chasing up information for her.”
The dispute over the 19 Gumnut Rd DA goes back more than two years.
Mrs Cairns, and other residents who live near the property accused the council of mismanaging a development application the owners had lodged for a deck, studio, carport and awning council staff approved under delegated authority in 2019.
Council had ignored photos and wording in Mr and Mrs Cairns submissions in November 2019 prior to original DA approval.
These photos showed the development had been partially constructed prior to DA approval and asked whether a survey was done.
Council ignored this for nearly 18 months. Mrs Cairns received a copy of a basic survey, for the first time, on May 12, dated March 26 after the development had been constructed.
The constructed building is within the required setback and it did not meet the required floor height as required on flood liable land according to council flood mapping.
Between March and June 2021, she was in regular contact with the council, through Ms Black, seeking the documents.
On June 28 Ms Black advised Mrs Cairns that month’s council meeting had resolved the matter and the council would no longer provide her with information about the developments.
On June 30 Mrs Cairns lodged a GIPA request, which the council rejected a week later, based on Section 51 of the GIPA Act, which allow requests to be rejected if they cause “an unreasonable diversion of the agency’s (CVC) resources.”
A week later Mrs Cairns lodged a request with the IPC for a review of the council’s decision.
The council went a step further, late in July, when Ms Black informed Mrs Cairns council staff would no longer interact with her, unless it was regarded as an emergency or an electoral matter and that she had become an “unreasonable customer complainant” – a declaration that would stay in force for six months.
Mrs Cairns said her status as an unreasonable customer complainant had not been resolved.
She knows of two men who have been in almost constant email communication with the council since 2017 and the result was the governance office made an appointment to speak with them. Both men provided email confirmation of this.
“The governance officer stayed there for three hours discussing their issues,” she said.
“Neither of these fellows have been claimed as unreasonable complainants, so it’s inconsistently applied policy.”
In August Mrs Cairns lodged a formal complaint about Ms Black with Mr Lindsay, who had returned to work after a lengthy illness break.
At the same time she informed Mr Lindsay of her GIPA request, which he claimed to know nothing about until after the IPC findings were released.
Mr Lindsay said while the GIPA request was not handled well, the substantive matters behind it were not in question.
“We had three independent assessments of the work done at 19 Gumnut Rd and all agreed the variations were of a minor nature and the as built items were compliant,” he said.
“They had gone above and beyond the original DA approvals, but that’s why we required a modification request and a new DA.”
Mr Lindsay said the property owner’s decision to begin works before getting consent had put council in a difficult position.
“We have a policy of retrospective approval in these situations, if the work is assessed as complying with our planning codes,” he said.
“We can’t just refuse something because work began before consent was given. There are State laws which say if work is compliant, then it’s legal.
“We would be in real trouble if we refused it or ordered it to be taken down if a court found the work complied with the rules.”
Mrs Cairn said the variations were not “minor” as confirmed in the DA Lodgement Checklist Modification of Development Consent with s4.55(2) ticked.
She said council reports were not accurate.
Mrs Cairns said the reports mentioned a portion of the decking was exempt under the State Environment Planning Policy (SEPP) (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008.
“The area that exceeds the SEPP is conservatively calculated at less than 11sqm and is considered a minor variation.”
Mrs Cairns obtained assistance from a building surveyor to calculate the decking exempt under SEPP and this is 25sqm.
The amount of decking constructed as described on the new plans was 122.6sqm.
Upon inquiry to council’s planning section email replied “the codes SEPP does not permit variations and neither of the current applications before council are exempt/complying so the Codes SEPP is not applicable.”
She said there were 10 variations to council’s development control plan not two as claimed in the council reports.
Mrs Cairns wondered why Clarence Valley Council was so far out of step with other regional councils in providing information on its website.
“I’ve done research on Ballina, Armidale, Port Macquarie and Coffs Harbour,” she said.
“All of those councils have the majority of those DA documents available on their websites.
“Probably the most user friendly one is Ballina. It just brings up the documents and you can look at it. No redactions whatsoever.
“If our council would follow that, it would save them a lot of time and resources.”
Mr Lindsay said the council’s website was a work in progress.
“We’ve just made some changes to it and I know there are more changes to come,” he said.
“I’m not aware of what other councils are doing, but I agree in principle that easier access to documents is the best way to go.”
Mrs Cairns said she has been advised the outcome of NSW Ombudsman’s inquiry in relation to 19 Gumnut Rd states.
It said “the Ombudsman’s office cannot replace council’s discretion to make planning decisions.”
In relation to being branded an “unreasonable complainant” Mrs Cairns is awaiting a further response, however the Ombudsman’s office found “council had departed from its unreasonable complainant procedure.”