IT appears all too easy for Wingecarribee Council to place the onus on landholder Jim Mauger to provide a land use application to comply with so-called "erosion control" and water storage facilities on his properties (press release).
This is contradictory to council's deemed decision in 2006, when council staff (two) and a senior water resources officer inspected the site.
It is of greater concern that up to within days of the council's resolution (October 26, 2011) that the group (three) chosen to investigate this matter had relied on false and misleading information provided by others, i.e. the claim that Jim Mauger was directly related to a former senior staff member and that via that attachment was provided some nefarious conduit to council for advantage.
Although the council may consider the case as closed, apart from LGA implications, I pose the following questions of the council's management etc:
Who claimed Jim Mauger was related to the senior staffer at WSC?
To what extent did the "independent group of three" rely on this false/misleading information?
Did Wingecarribee Shire Council provide this information by statutory declaration?
Why would the investigators pursue the matter without proof?
Also, if the council was devoid of proof to substantiate its claim over such an extended period, and at substantial cost to all parties, where does the council legally/partially stand in regard to having acted in good faith together with the investigative "independent group".