Only the "lead" candidate for each party in each ward was emailed the questionnaire - with a reminder sent out several days before the closing date.

The full text of the questions - referred to as Q1-12 below - can be found in the questionnaire.

The candidates are listed in the order they will appear on the ballot paper.

3 councillors will be elected for each ward.

The Responses

A summary of the responses has been compiled for each ward with a link to each candidate's response. The responses are not interpreted in these summaries.

       Ward 1  -  Ward 2  -  Ward 3  -  Ward 4

Our Comments

• Only Brendan Luchetti (Independent, Ward 3) failed to respond.

• One of the highlights is the candidate's brief statement of their "personal conservation values". We encourage readers to read these.

• However, none of the Liberal Party candidates provided a personal statement.

• The Liberal Party candidates' "Joint Response" answered 5 questions without a "YES" or "NO" but with a rephrased or partial answer. This muddied the water and made it difficult to compare the responses.

• A unanimous "YES" answer was received for supporting -
  • current funding to bushcare activities (Q1)
  • ensuring all the existing environmental protection measures currently included in LEP 2005 are not undermined or removed (Q9)
  • the opportunity for the community to provide informed and timely input into Council decision-making (Q12)
  We will monitor activity in these areas.

• Only the Liberal Party candidates didn't answer "YES" to the Council taking measures to oppose recreational hunting in National Parks (Q2).
  Instead they responded with "We are opposed to recreational hunting in the Blue Mountains National Park".

• The most divided response concerned the Council continuing to advocate to extend the existing state Companion Animal legislation to domestic cats (Q3).
  All the Liberal Party candidates, Mark Greenhill (Labor, Ward 3) and Geordie Williamson (Greens, Ward 2) answered "NO".
  Don McGregor (Labor, Ward 1) didn't reply to that question.
  The other candidates supported it with some qualifications.

• A mainly "yes" answer was received for supporting introduction of water bubblers (Q4).
  Some candidates making it subject to funding constraints and consultation.
  Matt Hodgson (Australia First, Ward 1) said "NO".

• A mainly "yes" answer was received for extending the environmental levy for another five years (Q5).
  Some candidates making it subject to funding constraints and consultation.
  Matt Hodgson (Australia First, Ward 1) didn't reply to that question.

• A mainly "yes" answer was received for supporting and promoting practical sustainability initiatives developed by local community organisations (Q6).
  Some candidates making it subject to funding constraints and consultation.
  The Liberal Party candidates responded with the non-answer "We support sustainable practices".
  Matt Hodgson (Australia First, Ward 1) didn't reply to that question.

• Only the Liberal Party candidates didn't answer "YES" to the Council introducing a Green Bin for garden waste while retaining the chipping service (Q7).
  Instead they responded with "We support a review of the way we manage green waste in the Blue Mountains. We would like such a review to examine the possible introduction of green bins".

• A mainly "yes" answer was received for supporting the introduction of an annual e-waste collection (Q8).
  Robert Stock (Independent, Ward 1) didn't reply to that question.

• A mainly "yes" answer was received for ensuring that LEP 1991 is updated and developed consistent with the provisions, methodology and approach taken in LEP 2005 (Q10).
  The Liberal Party candidates responded with the partial answer "We believe LEP 1991 should be updated so the environmental protection measures are consistent with LEP 2005".

• Only the Liberal Party candidates answered "NO" to taking all reasonable steps to restrict one-off “spot” rezoning of land outside of the process of reviewing LEP 2005 and LEP 1991. (Q11).
  All other candidates answered "YES".
  [Spot rezoning allows land to be re-zoned for development (e.g. from residential to commercial or from large lot residential to intensive residential) outside of broader strategic planning such as reviews of LEPs.]