Some information was blanked out, although the parts omitted appear orthodox.I haven't yet worked through the report and how it measures up against the decision-making obligations under the LG Act 2002 (the financial and governance arrangements are quite complicated). However, a couple of points are readily apparent:
- Apart from a desire "to meet the intent of the Council that this issue be reported back in this term of Council", there is nothing in the written report that suggests that the matter was urgent such that the decision needed to be made prior to the election.
- In terms of the assessment of significance, the report accepts that the proposal itself is significant but relies on the previous provision for the project in the LTCCP to avoid further public consultation. In terms of whether the new proposal gave rise to an obligation to reconsult the community because it was materially different from the project in the LTCCP, the critical conclusion is that the "change to 50% ownership of Tuam 2 Ltd by the Council is not significant for the purpose of Section 80". Intuitively, this conclusion seems vulnerable - but I'm seeking more information to see the analysis.
More thoughts once I've worked through the issue.