Planned on the old ‘Havana’ site – at 71-85 Port Douglas Road between Oaks Hotels and Resorts and the Mirage Country Club, the resort proposal includes several restaurants and bars, a decadent day spa, a treetop walk and panoramic conference and wedding facilities, all designed around resort-style pools.

Concerned members of the community have contacted Newsport after hearing that an “absolute fortune” in ratepayers’ money is being used to fight the Fairmont development.

How much is the legal fight costing ratepayers?

Newsport spoke to Mr Chiodo, who told us his company alone had so far spent “over a million dollars in legal expenses.”

He said he believed “Council’s legal bills would be at least $500,000 to $600,000, probably close to $700,000 at the end of this.”

We put a series of questions about legal costs to Douglas Shire Council (full list below), including how much money Council had spent on the case, and if reports could be confirmed that the legal costs so far in the P&E Court were in the vicinity of $600,000-$700,000.

In response, Newsport received only a short statement to these and other questions, from Mayor Michael Kerr:

“No, the figure you have listed in your question is not correct,” Cr Kerr said, without stating what the amount was.

Asked if Douglas ratepayers will be fully informed of the details, including the amount of public expenditure incurred on legal fees etc, involved in the court proceedings, the Mayor responded:

“Council reports its financials to elected members and in publicly available reports as per the Local Government Act.”

Mr Chiodo had more to say about the Mayor’s response:

“At no time in any financial reports produced by the council has it stipulated exactly how much money it’s spent on this legal fight or its budget allocated to this legal matter,” he said.

“The Mayor is incorrect in his statement that the council has provided or made public this information. The council should in its duties inform its residents the cost to date of this expenditure of this legal fight on an application that has achieved zero objections.”

Minimal mediation

We also asked Council about efforts to seek mediation with the developer, to avoid costly court and legal proceedings: “Council held a without prejudice mediation meeting with the proponent in 2022 to discuss a number of aspects of the refused development application,” Cr Kerr said.

“As this matter is currently before the courts, it would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage.”
But Mr Chiodo also had his view on mediation, which he said apart from one meeting between the parties in February 2022, had otherwise been severely lacking.

“Again, we have invited the council numerous times to meet with us but that has been rejected by their legal advisors stating they do not want to meet with us and our consultants. This is not a productive position by the council.”

Fairmont, NorthBreak or both?

Mr Chiodo said his firm had asked Council to at the very least, show equal enthusiasm towards and offer compliance concessions to the Fairmont proposal, as it had done for the NorthBreak wave park and accompanying hotel development at Mowbray.

The NorthBreak development is also in the Planning and Environment Court – after Chiodo Corporation Operations Pty Ltd joined local environmental groups and individuals in appealing the approval for the wave park and hotel development.

“Ours doesn’t have any of the issues the wave park’s got – ours is in the right zoning for starters, ours has already got an existing approval for a 250-room hotel. The Council’s all in on the wave park, the (Council) concessions they’ve got is amazing,” Mr Chiodo said.

“Really this matter could be resolved in one or two meetings, and one or two meetings over a serious couple of days, and save everyone money, and then we can all get on with it.”

Newsport’s questions to Council

• How much money has Douglas Shire spent on the case in the Planning & Environment Court against Chiodo Corporations Operations Pty Ltd (and/or any other Chiodo-associated company) over the proposed Fairmont Resort?
• We have heard reports that the amount of legal fees fighting this development has so far cost Douglas Shire Council (ie ratepayers) in the vicinity of $600,000-$700,000. Can you confirm if this is correct?
• As a relatively small shire with not a very deep rates and/or population base, at which point does Council believe it should try to limit spending of ratepayer funds on extensive legal fees to fight such a major development in the Shire?
• Will Douglas Shire ratepayers be fully informed of the details, including the amount of public expenditure incurred on legal fees etc, involved in the above court proceedings?
• What, if any, mediation has been undertaken by Council to try to avoid or at least reduce costly, ratepayer-funded legal proceedings in this case, after the proposed Fairmont Resort was rejected by Council in September 2021?
• Can you say that Council has fairly weighed up the benefits this project would potentially bring to the region - constructions jobs, hospitality and related jobs, indigenous jobs and cultural involvement, spinoff economic benefits, etc - against Council's objections under its planning scheme?
• Is it fair to say that the developer has shown a strong willingness to mediate and negotiate with Douglas Shire Council to try to adjust his plans for the Fairmont Resort, to better suit Council's planning scheme and requirements?
• Will Council consider any further mediation with the developer on this project, to try to stem the legal expenditure, and come to some sort of compromise to move forward on this project?
• Is Council treating the Fairmont developer with the same level of support and enthusiasm that it has shown to the developer of the proposed Wave Park and associated tourism development?

Mayor Michael Kerr’s full response to our questions

“No, the figure you have listed in your question is not correct.

Council reports its financials to elected members and in publicly available reports as per the Local Government Act.

Council held a without prejudice mediation meeting with the proponent in 2022 to discuss a number of aspects of the refused development application.

As this matter is currently before the courts, it would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage.”