Consultation is an admission of the councillors' that they have no idea, vision or plans. It would save a heap of money instead of creating a lawyer's picnic. With the decision getting the go-ahead anyway after all the milking is done. Just do your job. Stop running back asking us how you are going. That decision will become obvious at the next election.

Remember, no koala gets to vote. Now, just get busy, run the company for the benefit of the shareholders/ratepayers.

The previous council rorted the IPA re DAs and had cosy little agreements with developers.

The development department is there to assess the application and if the applicant makes a mistake or wants to change it's the applicants' responsibility to reapply. It's not for the development department to say it's only a "minor change".

In the past, an applicant could just say, well, I want to add a basement car park or another storey or two and what happens? The officers agree and no one is told.

Want examples? There are a few.

This helps prove to myself and other that his council has no idea and can make a decision by themselves. They must be scared that they might step on someone's toes. Unfortunately people elected to council must make these decisions as that's what they were elected do to.

I support positive feedback by residents, but when a handful of residents make an issue out of nothing and prevent the rest of the city moving forward, thats where the council must step in and make their mark.

Again this council is playing the blame game and blaming the previous council, if they made poor decision fine all people do, but get on with the job and make it better, just seems to me like a drowning man clutches at straws.

Sorry, but this just does not add up! A case of too little, too late! Bring on the next election!

The IPA does allow for council officers to approve amendments AFTER the DA has been approved by the full council, however the problem is that the guidelines are only "major or minor" and these amendments are not made public or available to the Councillors.

So if an officer is "matey" with a developer it can and could well result in developments ocurring that bear little relationship to those seen at the "public scrutiny "period.

No amendments are allowed after the public has seen the DA and applicants are required to wait untill the full council approval has been given.

This is not apparently occurring and at present one DA that we have requested both an FOI and RTI are being delayed for access to Council documents.

WHY? Because the applicant is objecting to release.

WHY? Because the applicant and the RCC are hiding important public documents of great concern. The council is not here to help developers they administer without favour.

I say to the applicants "get it right first time or the RCC must deny and the applicant should resubmit so that the public scrutiny cannot be bypassed".

Debra Henry is trying to open this can of worms that exists in the Development department and that is good.

She is doing it for the ratepayers and those that object are probably the very people that use the "back door" that exists to get approvals for amendments that are, in my view, incorrect and rely on cosy relationships that could exist between developers and council officers.

The solution = abide by the act and change these officers every few months so that they are not influenced.