What a strange letter from Richard Lysnar in the 26 October Scenic News. His very questionable conclusion is that the demise of the Tamborine Mountain Progress Association, TMPA, was self-inflicted. However, he damages his credibility by ignoring major events which conflict with his assumption.

But first, a clarification. Obviously referring to my recent letter in the News re- the same TMPA matter, he stated that my letter was ‘on behalf of the TMPA’. I write my own thoughts, and not on behalf of others. To avoid such groundless aspersions, I am not a member of any organisation in the public eye, such as the TMPA.
Now back to Richard Lysnar’s omissions. Incredibly, he fails to even mention the basic cause of all the hurt. Council and developer flouted the long-standing convention that costs not be claimed in the Planning and Environment Court. This provision was necessary to allow residents to represent themselves in Court if a Development Application threatened their interests. This would not be possible if they were threatened with having to pay the massive costs of developers and their legal teams. But flouting the convention is exactly what the Council did to the co-Respondents who had been supporting its case in Court. Not only did the Council suddenly change sides, but it then sued its previous allies for costs. It will probably set a new precedent. Surely that basic cause deserved a mention in Richard Lysnar’s narrative.
But then Mr Lysnar went further. I had outlined the future problems arising if the convention was abandoned. He referred to these as ‘myths‘. Such a suggestion can only be laughed at, but the humour would be rather black.
He strongly supports community involvement in consideration of Development Applications. Surely, the TMPA had been facilitating this for 108 years. The formal process was legislated decades ago, with the introduction of Planning Schemes and Development Control Plans. The procedure is for the Local Government to produce a Draft for public comment. This results in a revised version that is then published for public comment, before being considered for adoption by Council.
In my 30 years of observation of the workings of the TMPA, it was obvious that it always strongly encouraged the community to contribute. Then, when a Plan was gazetted, the TMPA invariably defended its provisions. The first Tamborine Mountain Development Control Plan was gazetted in 1985. Its successor in 1997 was gazetted after a four-year gestation period. This set the pattern for the Tamborine Mountain plateau we now enjoy. Subsequent iterations have been less sharply focussed. Unfortunately, our present Mayor seems to see this as an opportunity to submerge our uniqueness in one-size-fits-all.
Phil Giffard
UPDATE ON DEVELOPMENT MAIN WESTERN RD
Your readers may recall a development application made mid- last year to build five cabins and an Onsen bath house with seven baths at 713-735 Main Western Road.
Council failed, yet again, to respond within the timeframes set in law, and the developers took a deemed refusal and went off to the Planning and Environmental Court. Several submitters against the proposal also joined in the action.
Council later heard the application and approved the development by a majority vote. However, they are still in court, at your cost, but are siding with the developer.
Surprise surprise – the appeal is still ongoing.
Friday 27 October, we were back in court to set the dates for the actual hearing. It was decided that it would be a 4-day hearing, 21-24 November. I think that it will end up as a 2-day hearing, but that remains to be seen.
I am arguing that the Onsen building, as a Tourist Attraction, with a coach bringing guests up from the Gold Coast for a two hour visit and then return throughout the day, is an inconsistent use for the Rural Residential Zone A Precinct, and therefore should be disallowed. The cabins are a potentially consistent use and, whilst I think that it is an over-development for the area, I am not fighting against these.
I will let you know the outcome.
Nigel Waistell
Cr 2012 – 2020
                      
WATER SUPPLY TO MOUNTAIN RESIDENTS
In a recent letter, I asked the question: was there a water crisis on the Mountain? In that letter, I suggested that the Mountain required another water supplier.
I now note that there is an application to Council to sink a bore in Hartley Road to conduct local water supply. I have also noted some criticism of this application because people fear that the water will be taken off the Mountain.
I have spoken to the applicant, and he has confirmed that he only wishes to supply post code 4272, Tamborine Mountain. I support this application, as we need another supplier.
When I arrived on the Mountain, we had six suppliers and now we have two.
This is why the Council approved the amendment to the Planning Scheme in June 2023 to allow a person in the Rural Zone to conduct water supply.
This will ease the pain on those who need water from our two water deliverers. It will also help our water deliverers, who stress when their suppliers are running low.
Nigel Waistell
Cr 2012-2020
TM PROGRESS ASSOCIATION
What is it with Richard Lysnar? In his letter in Scenic News of 26th October, he goes over old ground already covered on numerous occasions in the Tamborine Times, March and April. In criticising TMPA not only for its support for severely impacted residents but also the broadly held local values in the Planning Scheme, Mr. Lysnar presents as coming from the “other side”.
Nearly all of us love our Tamborine Mountain lifestyle, sustained by years of adherence to the local Planning Scheme, but with constant bombardment from greedy developers attempting to breach this, residents unsurprisingly become quite distressed.
Tamborine Mountain Progress Association was a State government-registered Community Purpose organisation. Over many decades, it has fought on behalf of residents to protect their environmental semi-rural lifestyles, and always according to the local Planning Scheme.
In the Eagles Retreat Place appeal, both the presiding judge and the costs-obsessed supporting judge, service both the Planning & Environment Court (civil law) and the District Court (common, case law).
In the P & E Court, where participants have traditionally paid their own way, a civil law re-assessment is based only on the local Planning Scheme and state and federal regulations. This excludes common law decisions by judges in other proceedings. It does not treat the assessment as an adversarial dispute between parties. 
However, during the early stages of the appeal, the developer spent nearly two months attempting to knock out TMPA and its submission compiled by a highly recommended town planner. This was reversed by a different judge, slamming the developer’s lawyers stating, “wetting the saliva of lawyers with one hand on the guillotine can only frustrate rather than meet the ends of justice”.
In a winnable case, Council, TMPA, several residents supported by town planning submissions, plus residents who chose Amanda Hay to front them, all opposed the development’s massive scale and intensity on the slippage- prone mountain escarpment.
After fifty-three weeks – and several weeks before the appeal was due to end – Council did a complete about-turn following the developer’s “minor change” to his application. This in effect changed nothing (some rubbish bins moved, area for effluent disposal changed) – the scale and intensity remained. The developer now claimed this was a new development application, with no objections, therefore the residents were “happy with the development”. Ignoring its residents, Council went along with this, and now supported the developer. (In its initial refusal in 2021, Council had added that this DA could not be conditioned!)
In his judgment, the presiding judge dismissed all original 243 objections as worthless. Besides TMPA’s, many were on pro-formas but included extensive submissions painstakingly compiled by alarmed neighbours, with two adding formal objections compiled by qualified town planners. They also included a quality objection submission from a local who happens to be a senior State Government town planner… “devoid of merit”!?
The judge stated his judgment would cause no harm. Two neighbouring businesses now faced closure, with the probability of a third. Residents are now beset by massive disruption to their chosen quiet lifestyles, all because of a callous and greedy developer, with no regard to the damage he chose to inflict on unfortunate residents. This is not to mention the precedent now set to damage the environmental semi-rural character of Tamborine Mountain.
He opened the door to astronomical costs from the developer and Council, which TMPA could not pay. In the infamous Gillion/Power Pde water case, which ploughed its way through three courts, the last round clearly vexatious, the costs claim by Council did not succeed.
Apparently oblivious to the downstream consequences of his decision and not differentiating between the two courts, this judge has effectively excluded communities and citizens from access to the P & E Court – their legal right as properly made submitters under the Local Government Act. It is now the playground of the legally qualified and mega-rich.  
But negatively impacted residents will still be there, with others giving a hand to support them. These will regroup. So, Mr. Lysnar, the road ahead (As-It-Should) will not be an Open Road for greedy developers with inappropriate development applications set to damage residents’ lifestyles.
Jeanette Lockey,
President of the former TMPA