By Mitch Gaynor
SUNSHINE Coast Council will not reveal how much ratepayers spent fighting a major quarry expansion after a judge described parts of its case as “non-sensical”, “scaremongering” and a “gratuitous attack” on an expert witness.
In an at-times scathing 223-page judgment, Judge Nicole Kefford found the council was “completely unprepared” to support one alleged planning-code breach, relied on an earlier decision in a way that created “a false impression” and abandoned several issues late in the hearing.
She also found the council and community group Save Our Glass House Mountains Inc had a tendency to “catastrophise” the potential impacts of Hanson’s proposed Glass House Mountains quarry expansion.
Earlier this month, the court allowed Hanson’s appeal to deepen the quarry and increase annual extraction from 600,000 tonnes to as much as 1.2 million tonnes, subject to final conditions.
Judge Kefford repeatedly commented how parts of the refusal case were framed and pursued across issues including groundwater, surface water, ecology, traffic, noise and air quality.
Several issues were abandoned during the hearing, some on the final day after Hanson had prepared its final written submissions.
‘Henny Penny’ Judge Kefford compared the approach taken by the council and SOGHM to the children’s story character Henny Penny, who believed the sky was falling.
“The allegations on this issue epitomise my impression that the refusing parties approached the proposed development with the optimism of ‘Henny Penny’,” she wrote.
“They reflect a tendency on the part of the Council and Save Our Glass House Mountains Inc. to catastrophise in relation to potential impacts of the proposed development.”
The judge found neither party had identified with any specificity the environmental features said to be threatened or the risks posed by the expansion.
“On the issue of environmental impacts, the refusal parties’ propensity to exaggerate was left unchecked as neither the Council nor Save Our Glass House Mountains Inc. retained ecological experts,” she wrote.
The only ecological evidence came from two Hanson specialists, whose evidence Judge Kefford described as detailed, measured and balanced.
Unlike the community group, the council had access to planning staff and the capacity to retain lawyers and expert witnesses.
Despite repeated questions, it has declined to disclose what it spent on lawyers, barristers, experts and consultants.
Planning lawyers GC&M News spoke to suggested the total could be as much as $400,000.
The council’s 2024–25 annual report, the most recent available, shows its overall legal fees rose from $2.48 million in 2023–24 to $3.78m in 2024–25.
The scrutiny comes after Mayor Rosanna Natoli delivered a 2026–27 budget revealing a $7m deficit last financial year and a forecast $12m deficit this year.
A council spokesperson said it would not comment while the matter remained before the court.
“In line with standard practice, Council does not discuss specific legal matters or costs,” the spokesperson said.
“Council participates in all appeal matters in which it is a party and carefully considers its obligations to the Court, the community, and the implementation of its statutory planning framework.”
‘I don’t know’
Another exchange concerned an allegation linking the quarry’s site water balance with groundwater impacts.
“The evidence of Dr Johnson and Mr Giles reveals that the allegations of the refusal parties about ‘impacts to groundwater’ on this issue are non-sensical,” Judge Kefford wrote.
She said she raised her concerns early in the hearing to allow the council to address problems with the framing of the issue.
“When I asked for clarification about the meaning of the issue, Counsel for the Council responded: ‘I don’t know. I don’t want to waste time on it, your Honour’,” she wrote.
The council and SOGHM’s written submissions also failed to address the allegation as made.
“To the extent that there are difficulties with the framing of the issue, that falls at the feet of the Council and Save Our Glass House Mountains Inc.,” Judge Kefford wrote.
Scaremongering
Judge Kefford reserved another sharp criticism for council submissions about the relationship between water quality, water releases and storage capacity.
“I otherwise reject the Council’s submissions,” she wrote.
“They involve nothing more than scaremongering.”
The council also alleged Hanson had failed to comply with an outcome of the Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands Overlay Code.
“Although the Council was responsible for raising the allegation, it was not able to assist me with the allegation during final submissions,” Judge Kefford wrote.
“The Council was also completely unprepared to provide me with such assistance during oral submissions.”
‘False impression’
A similar problem arose with an alleged breach of the Extractive Industry Code.
“Neither Counsel could articulate the nature of the alleged non-compliance and yet both parties maintain the allegation of non-compliance,” Judge Kefford wrote.
The council was also criticised for quoting part of a 1997 quarry judgment while omitting four key sentences.
Judge Kefford found the earlier observations had been “taken out of context” and, when read alone, created “a false impression of the findings” of the previous judge.
She also rejected the council’s submissions concerning Hanson geologist Rodney Huntley.
“They are no more than a gratuitous attack on Mr Huntley and ignore important aspects of the evidence,” she wrote.