The council is exploring its legal options in regard to a cleared development site at Eastgrove.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The 27-lot residential subdivision at 99 May Street has attracted controversy in recent months due to large volumes of muddy water washed down into the Goulburn wetlands from torrential rain.
The developer was hit with two penalty notices totalling $14,000 in November for polluting waters and the subdivision's 'non-accordance' with consent conditions.
READ MORE:
Specifically, council planners alleged the site, cleared of vegetation and located below Rocky Hill, did not have adequate stormwater controls.
A stop-work order issued on November 7 remains in force until stormwater infrastructure is addressed to the council's satisfaction.
In December, compliance officers directed clean-up action following further rain that month and in November. A report to Tuesday night's council meeting stated that the methodology had to be furnished by December 13 and approved before any work started.
"(This) was to ensure no further damage was caused to the wetlands, however this was not forthcoming and the council was required on several occasions to stop the developer from commencing clean-up activities," environment and planning director Scott Martin said.
Planners alleged eight separate pollution incidents occurred between November 7, 2021 and January 15, 2022. Penalty infringement notices had only been issued for one of these on November 7.
Mr Martin said this was because each notice carried a statute of limitations, meaning no further action could be taken after a certain period.
"Given the widespread impact that has been experienced it is recommended that the council continue to refrain from issuing penalty infringement notices until such time as a direction on litigation is determined," he reported.
Councillors unanimously agreed with the move, without discussion. Legal options included action in the Local or Land and Environment Court. The council also has obligations under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act.
The EPA confirmed it was not investigating and that enforcement powers resided with the council.
Mr Martin said it was about striking a balance.
"We need to uphold the standards the community expects and penalise where appropriate," he told The Post.
"(However) it's around what level of penalty is right. We could issue another infringement notice but does that help or should we be going to court and seeking a larger fine? The notices are fixed...
"...Given the evidence we have collected, the seriousness of the breach onsite and community expectations around it, we want to be able to enforce something but not so we push the developer too far. Our first preference is for them to continue developing the property. If we keep holding it up, it doesn't achieve anything or let them progress to kerbing and guttering and proper stormwater infrastructure."
Mr Martin said he didn't want a situation where "ratepayers were picking up the pieces."
The developer has declined several requests for comment.
But Mr Martin said the company had engaged a hydraulic consultant who attended the site for the first time on January 10, following more rainfall. A subsequent report identified numerous controls put in place including 'rock check dams, additional geofabric at spill points and sediment control fences. The council reviewed this and suggested additional measures, which have since been implemented.
Tuesday's decision still leaves the door open on more infringement notices if necessary.
A further report on legal options is expected to be brought back to councillors this month.
Do you have something to say about this issue? Send a letter to the editor. Click here for the Goulburn Post
We depend on subscription revenue to support our journalism. If you are able, please subscribe here. If you are already a subscriber, thank you for your support.