Noel Plumb, of the Nature Coast Alliance, said conflict between community groups and the council about the strategy was not new.

“It goes back to the draft LEP 2012,” he said.

“There were attempts to portray this as anti-farmer and anti-rural. It was not. It was a step forward.

“The steering committee for the Rural Lands Strategy has pushed for E3 zoning to be abolished and replaced by RU1 – it’s virtually a developer’s daydream, and a resident’s nightmare. They have said no at Broulee and they have said no at Tuross Head. This is a crazy proposal.”

Several speakers said community consultation was inadequate, including Reina Hill. She was also “appalled” the council had not followed state government agencies’ recommendations.

Debbie Bowerman, of Tuross Head, said the objections were not about development per se.

“We are not opposed to development,” she said.

“(The RLS) appears intended to allow further development on the shoreline of the lake – something that has been resoundingly rejected by the community.”

Tony O’Dowd, of Tuross Head, feared checks and balances were under threat.

“If we do not have them we are very likely to see interpretations that lead to degradation of the physical environment,” he said.

“There is a concern we have about the increase in power by shire officials in relation to the interpretation of guidelines.”

Mylene Boulting, of the Tuross Head Progress Association, seconded his concerns.

“We want to ensure the preservation of the coastal landscape and we need experts to guide us,” she said.

“We want to understand why the council decided not to listen to expert advice. Madam Mayor (Liz Innes), when you visited us in Tuross, you said the best way for us to be heard was to organise ourselves. Here we are – we have followed your advice, please listen.”

Planning Director Lindsay Usher said state government recommendations were considered.

“One of the first things the council did was establish a steering committee … representatives from all five agencies participated fully in meetings,” he said.

“Their advice was considered – we had people in the community who wanted to see far more subdivision. Due to advice from the agencies we came to our current, modest position.

“Some points of professional disagreement remain.”

Deputy Mayor Anthony Mayne brought a motion to defer voting on proposals related to the RLS until councillors had been personally briefed by state government agencies.

His motion was nearly excluded, due to errors in wording. Cr Innes proposed a break for him to correct the motion, with the help of staff.

Cr Lindsay Brown demurred.

“I am concerned about taking a break to help the councillor out when he’s had weeks and council staff to help him,” he said.

“I would encourage Cr Mayne to withdraw and come back with a more articulated motion rather than try to do this on the run.”

Cr Mayne said he could not recall being told by staff that his motion was incorrect, but acknowledged he did not seek explicit advice.

The motion was amended to read: “That the council not consider the planning proposal related to the RLS until councillors and staff have had an opportunity to meet with the following NSW Government Department representatives: OEH, Local Lands Service, NSW RFS, DPI (Fisheries and Agriculture).”

Councillor Patrick McGinlay was the sole supporter of Cr Mayne’s motion.

“The councillor is asking for time to get the same quality of information we have had from council staff, from government organisations,” Cr McGinlay said.

“I know they have made submissions. I know our staff have gone through those and come up with reasons to disagree – I would like to hear both sides of the disagreement.

“I am keenly aware that several speakers were concerned we hadn’t understood or taken note of written submissions. I know some of you have been working on this for five or six years and are frustrated.”

Cr Brown said the speakers were not representative.

“I was the chair of the RLS committee and the voices I’m not hearing today are the landowners, property owners and farmers – those who have invested their life and soul into the land,” Cr Brown said.

“They have a vested interest. The consultation process was exhaustive, and the RLS was adopted – this is not a draft document.”

Cr Brown said the job of councillors was to make decisions, not to be popular.

“Under democratic process our job is to make decisions – you don’t have to like or agree with those decisions, but I think the inference of a personal agenda is abhorrent,” Cr Brown said.

“We make decisions in the best interests of the community.”

Cr James Thomson said he supported the RLS.

“As a landowner I think the right and proper process has gone through,” Cr Thomson said. 

“The strategy does not allow landowners to desecrate their land, and why would they want to?”

Cr Mayne said he was not focussed on the strategy, but on community sentiment.

“I’ve brought the motion for no other reason than to increase confidence in transparency,” Cr Mayne said.

“I have been briefed, but I cannot take confidential information out into the community. The “professional disagreement” is why I have an issue. We need to take the community with us.

“This is not saying it is a bad strategy – we need to clarify why we have a fundamental difference with several departments, allay those concerns, and move on.”

Mr Usher said that no councillors had come back with questions after being briefed on the strategy – and that he would be happy to publish the notes on the council website, after the proposal had come back from the Department of Planning.

Cr Innes called for a division, and Cr Mayne’s motion lost, with Crs Mayne and McGinlay in favour and Crs Innes, Tait, Brown, Pollock, Constable, Thomson and Nathan against.