Maurice Furlan's story

From a houseboat builder to a single father.

Council placed this public NOTICE in the Local paper in early January is confirmed by the dates mentioned within it. The council were in possession of the application and plans. The application included an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. Council required it before they would accept the application. It is not mentioned in the notice

This is the council REGISTER as it appears today. It shows two applications for the same BOTEL project. They are numbered 1/87 and 13/88. 

The council is lying by showing 1/87 as "REFUSED". Note that the second entry is not yet determined according to the register. 

This is the Land and Environment Court cover sheet. It describes the appeal relating to 13/88 which is not refused according to the REGISTER. The register used a numbering system made up from the order of received application and the year of application. 

Today, a Freedom of Information Report (IPC17/R000388) has revealed that the Botel application underwent an "integrated approval" process. 

Para 16 The Agency included an excerpt of the Functional Retention and Disposal Authority which states:

6.7.1 - Assessments of integrated approval applications forwarded by other consent agencies - Retain minimin of 10 years after date of last action, then destroy.

If this was true then why were Maritime, Crown Lands and numerous other agencies not included in the court action and why did the developer have no knowledge of it whereas the solicitors and court which rules on the administration of the law would have known.

In this letter you see that Crown Lands were insisting on a Special Lease.

google-site-verification: googled43a203acad7aefa.html