With one DA for 14 Lots first coming to Council in May, Council had been conciliatory with some of the concerns of the Mongarlowe community and imposed minor conditions that amalgamated two of the Lots, increased the buffer zone to the Creek to 100 metres, changed the required fencing to seven-strand plain wire, in order to provide easier access for wildlife, and made it clear that all costs associated with road making and improvements related to the development will be met by the developer.

At this meeting, Council staff confirmed that "Council is within its rights to amend the details of a development application by way of conditions."

However, by omission, the resolution did not fully pass the DA, and the application had to come back to Council on 12 June, when planning staff had added a late addendum to the report stating that;

"A restriction-to-user under the provisions of Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919 shall be placed over all proposed lots having frontage to Feagans Creek to prohibit the drawing, pumping or transference of water by any means from Feagans Creek to each lot for any purpose. Palerang Council shall be the only body empowered to alter, amend or rescind this restriction.

Reason: To minimise the impact of the subdivision on Feagans Creek and the Macquarie Perch."

The report continued that "the concept of limiting water usage from natural water courses is receiving increasing acceptance and arises out of concerns over the environmental degradation, and potential ecological collapse, of water courses through the taking of water beyond environmental capacity of those water courses."

The report also noted that "other Council's and State Government agencies are looking at sustainable water use in conjunction with development. It is, therefore, considered that the condition restricting water use is relevant and not in breach of legislation."

At the June meeting a separate DA for a 4 lot subdivision by the same applicant, on adjoining land, was brought to Council, and both were deferred until July.

At last weeks meeting, Council presented legal advice regarding the condition restricting water use stating that Council did have the right to impose restrictions.

However, with the original Recommendation (from the May meeting) still in the Business Paper as well, the first DA was passed without the concessions made regarding lots, buffer zones, fencing and costs, and the second DA followed after.

Community members addressing the issue included CSIRO scientist Hugh Tindale Biscoe, who pointed out that even in the last few days there were new reports published laying out the consequences of climate change and that flow rates will be optimistically 15 % less.

Di Bott from the Friends of the Mongarlowe River (FMR) addressed the meeting with detailed information from government agencies and information regarding the Sydney-Canberra Corridor Strategy released that afternoon, before being cut off.

In debate Cr Bransdon said he had "changed my mind since seeing the legal advice" and Cr Horan said that "we can do it but it will have consequences."

Cr Raynolds warned that it "we can do it for the future, but not for this one." He continued that "you cannot have policy changes at a council meeting. It leaves Council open to corruption. That's exactly what happened to Shellharbour (Council) yesterday."

Cr Moore warned that other councils are aware of protecting water courses and that "it would be a very brave developer who wanted to challenge a council about sustainability and water."

Cr Hart contributed that as it was rezoned it "could have been 200 lots. These are 'ideal farmlets.'

Cr Marjeson tried to foreshadowed a contrary motion to bring back the motion with the changes stating that it was "not unusual to make changes and the applicant hasn't come back to complain about it."

Cr Harrex questioned "why the FMR don't pool their resources and come back and buy it." Stating that he thought the developer is "just waiting to come back and go to the Land and Environment Court."

Cr Raynolds continued that it "amazes me that at this stage of this Council, that not one legal development has been refused, but it looks like it might happen tonight."

"The opinion of the community is that it is a good development....the community decided that in 1991" he said.

Cr Raynolds continued that it "upsets me that three Councillors who had nothing to do with Braidwood in 1991...you don't know what you are doing. Braidwood needs that development and needs it badly."

The Mayor said "I guess it comes down to me. I would like to hear the contrary motion" but voted against it as he "couldn't split the blocks."

When the second DA was brought up Cr Moore said "we're not talking about taking away anyone's rights as they don't have them now...I wouldn't be proud of a 1991 LEP as it was required it be reviewed every 5 years. Councillors from the other side did do better when they reviewed theirs." She urged Council "to bring itself into the 21st century and look at the climatic conditions."

Cr Horan said he thought the whole thing should have been discussed at a workshop adding that "we have a number of councilors around the table who are not familiar with the area...and that may be the pig ignorance that Cr Gardiner was talking about.'

"We're getting arguments from people who are not aux fait with farming, the area, rainfall etc" said Cr Horan.

Referring to the 1991 LEP Cr Bransdon said that "things have changed a lot in 17 years."

Later in Questions and Statement Cr Moore said that this "confirms that Council is not concerned with water use and sustainable development and it's a disgrace."