Firstly, why seemingly was there no due diligence carried out independently by council on the proposed severely flood-prone site in North Wagga prior to the decision to sell the publicly owned land to the developer at the token price of only one dollar?

Is it true that, subsequent to the decision by council to dispose of the land, a belated attempt was made at the council meeting of May 25 for independent due diligence to be carried out by way of seeking a report on the proposed track, including "due diligence in all planning and flooding impact matters", but this attempt was defeated by the casting vote of the mayor?

Secondly, why in council's document provided to the planning panel was it stated that "ratepayers were not contributing to the facilities in any way" at the site when in fact the land was conservatively valued by the Valuer General Department at close to half a million dollars and was currently providing income to the council by way of leasing for agricultural purposes? 

Thirdly, why was the planning panel advised by council that plans for a northern lake were purely "historical" and that no plans had ever been drawn up for such a lake? The land, for good reason given its very high risk flooding status, had been specifically purchased by council for a lake and preliminary plans had been drawn up via an independent consultant's report indicating, among other details, that locks would be required.

Wagga MP Daryl Maguire, as recently as this year, pleasingly and wisely gave support to the concept of a northern lake.

Wagga will likely have a population of over 100,000 in the not too distant future and possibly 250,000 by the end of this century, making such a lake more affordable and desirable and a huge asset to the city in terms of recreational activities and general amenity, attractive to residents and visitors alike. 

The huge opportunity cost of approving the development of this particular site was apparently not considered by either council or the planning panel, despite the social and economic impacts of a development application being a legally mandatory consideration.

Fourthly, why did council and the planning panel essentially rely on flood modelling provided by a consultant hired by the developer when there is so much at stake in terms of the impact of flooding on the rest of Wagga, including the CBD, and of course North Wagga itself.

There is a huge conflict of interest and in any event at the panel meeting it was even acknowledged that the 2012 flood did not behave as predicted. Indeed, every flood is different and just a millimetre or two can be the difference between protection and disaster. Flood modelling in general is inherently difficult and notoriously unreliable as evidenced by numerous unanticipated flood events throughout the nation, some with terrible consequences.

Yes indeed there are serious questions raised by the approval process.  Of interest and significance is that both council members on the depleted panel, deputy mayor Dallas Tout and Councillor Paul Funnell, sensibly and rightly, given the significant uncertainties, voted against the development despite the formal council recommendation to approve it. The two external members present voted in favour.

So, courtesy of ratepayers, Harness Racing NSW receives a valuable land grant, council removes the opportunity for a new magnificent lake in the future which would be a huge and valuable asset to the city and flooding risk is increased for the people of Wagga.