A group of Tenterfield Shire councillors made an unusual effort to walk back a decision over a development on Neagles Lane as a group of residents pushed for examination of the decision in a last-minute meeting on the site.
Murray Finnerty, whose multi-generational farm dominates the lane, presented to councillors in the last ordinary meeting, hoping the development approval would be voted down. Instead, it received approval with conditions.
When the decision became public, a number of residents took to Facebook but the online dissatisfaction bubbled over into a public meeting on Neagles Lane last Sunday.
One councillor told The Town & Country Journal that rate payers are “extremely concerned” that Tenterfield Shire staff have not met all requirements as far as the Development Application which was approved.
Developer Lindsay Clarke, however, said he doesn’t know what all the fuss is about.
“It’s just a simple development,” he told the paper, claiming that Murray Finnerty developed land nearby. New England Developments, Mr Finnerty’s business, describes itself as a “construction and renovation company”.
Mr Finnerty, in response, says he is not a developer but that he sold five acres of his property (half to a family member) in order to raise funds to clear 100 acres of regrowth on another property he owns.
“I made all this clear in my last letter to council,” Mr Finnerty said, adding that “the Mayor herself said there was no hypocrisy on my part.”
“I offered him the block at the top,” to retain the view, Mr Clarke said. “Do a swap of land and we all win.”
Mr Finnerty says that residents feel “blindsided” by the approval. Neighbouring residents believed the land was owned by and being developed to a far smaller extent (five blocks) than what was eventually approved (a possible 16 blocks) and by a different party.
In a highly unusual move, a source close to the matter said that councillors tried to raise a recission motion but were told it was impossible as the development application has been acted on.
Mr Clarke, who was unaware of the recission effort when we spoke to him, says he has ordered in the excavators but no other work was yet started on site. Mr Clarke spoke from the emergency room of the hospital where he was receiving stiches to his head after an accident.
A rescission motion is a formal proposal to revoke or cancel a previous council decision. It essentially seeks to return the council to the "status quo" as if the original motion had never been passed. It is only under rare circumstances rescission motions are raised. In NSW, a rescission motion needs to be signed by three councillors if it's brought within three months of the original decision. An examination of the Local Government Act 1993 on recission motions does not mention exclusion of development decisions that have already been acted upon.
For instance, after a council meeting in Lismore in February of this year, four separate recission motions were put forward. One of the recission motions centred on the subdivision of land.
It appears that a recission motion should be allowed, especially if there are perceived “errors” in the original application and papers tabled. Were there errors?
“That’s what I’m trying to find out,” Mr Finnerty said, adding that he has not been able to get answers from council staff he has contacted. Mr Finnerty believes that had Mayor Petrie been at the last meeting, the vote would possibly have gone the other way. Now, he says, “we have enough councillors on board now” to hopefully change the outcome.
Cr Kim Rhodes expressed concern that council staff told community members there would be adequate public information, meetings, and notifications yet only some residents received notification and not others.
Cr Rhodes says that “several residents contacted me the day before [last Sunday’s meeting] to see if councillors would be willing to meet to discuss the Tenterfield Shire Council DA processes.”
About 18 people arrived at 9 am including Mayor Petrie, Cr Peters, Cr Murphy, Cr Purcell, and, of course, a group of residents.
Residents within a one kilometre radius spoke about the number of current DA's that have been approved in the vicinity. Specifically, the use of roads at high speed by cars, trucks and motor bikes. Another topic was the possible contamination of ground water.
Needs and wants are, however, two different trajectories as one resident put it.
“It doesn’t matter what the council does someone is always going to be unhappy. If you want rates to stop climbing so fast there needs to be development to increase the population of the area. Unfortunately we can’t have it both ways.
Also with higher population comes the ability to access better healthcare without having to travel, as funding is increased. So it has plenty of benefits. I believe the benefits will outweigh the negatives.”
Read More: Tenterfield
