Council meeting 25 November 2008

Tonight's meeting was a Development Applications committee meeting.

The motion to rescind the rejection of the proposed industrial development in Tighes Hill mentioned earlier, came to this meeting.

Here's what happened...

ITEM-58 NOM 25/11/08 - RESCISSION MOTION - DA 07/1195 73 ELIZABETH STREET TIGHES HILL
Councillors A Buman, S Connell and M King, who had previously declared non pecuniary interests in the matter, retired from the Council Chamber prior to the discussion of this item.

MOTION: (COUNCILLORS B LUKE/B COOK)
We, the Councillors below wish to rescind the motion passed on Item 50 – DA 07/1195 – 73 Elizabeth Street Tighes Hill – of the Development Applications committee 4 November 2008.

The Lord Mayor called for a division which resulted as follows:

For the MotionThe Lord Mayor, Councillors G Boyd, B Cook, B Luke and S Sharpe.

Against the MotionCouncillors S Claydon, T Crakanthorp, M Jackson, N Nelmes and M Osborne.

The Lord Mayor exercised his casting vote in favor of the Rescission Motion.

RESOLVED: (COUNCILLORS B LUKE/B COOK)
We, Councillors B Luke, B cook, G Boyd and S Sharpe wish to rescind the motion passed on Item 50 - DA 07/1195 – 73 Elizabeth Street Tighes Hill – of the Development Applications Committee 4 November 2008.

MOTION: (COUNCILLORS B LUKE/B COOK)
That DA 07/1195: DP 434884 be accepted as per the officers recommendation with the conditions as outlined in the Council Officers recommendation contained in the report considered at the meeting held 4 November 2008.

PROCEDURAL MOTION: (The Lord Mayor)
The matter lie on the table until the Extraordinary Development Applications Committee meeting of 16 December 2008 and Council Staff be required to report on the matters raised in the DunnRoss Lawyers letter and their comments be provided on that when the matter is reported on 16 December. Should legal advice be required in that regard the General Manager be instructed to provide it. The Motion was put to the meeting and the Lord Mayor advised the vote would be by division which resulted as follows:

For the MotionThe Lord Mayor, Councillors G Boyd, S Claydon, T Crakanthorp, M Jackson, N Nelmes and M Osborne.

Against the MotionCouncillors B Cook, B Luke and S Sharpe.

The Lord Mayor declared the Motion carried on the result of seven votes to three votes.

The meeting also considered a 57m tower on the old Hunter Village site.

The proposal has a range of problems with it, including that under the Newcastle LEP it is not allowed unless an architectural design competition is held.





The Council officers highlighted a list of non-compliance issues with the proposal. Here's what they said:



Here's what happened...

MOTION: (COUNCILLORS B LUKE/A BUMAN)
Council to seek the concurrence of the Director General of the NSW Department of Planning to the granting of consent to the proposed development, pursuant to the provisions of Clause 28 of the Newcastle City Centre LEP 2008, notwithstanding that the development exceeds the maximum allowable FSR on the site in respect ofmixed commercial/residential development under the LEP on the grounds that Council is satisfied that:

i) the applicant's written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated under Subclause 28(3); and
ii) the proposed development would be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the relevant development standard and the relevant zone objectives.

FORESHADOWED MOTION: (COUNCILLORS M OSBORNE)
Council to advise the applicant that it is not prepared to support the application in its present form for the reason that it significantly exceeds the maximum allowable FSR for mixed commercial/residential development on the site under the Newcastle City Centre LEP 2008, as well as the adopted DCP guidelines in respect of side and rear boundary setbacks and building separation distance.

However, Council is not opposed in principle to high-rise seniors living development being carried out on the site and would be prepared to give favorable consideration to an amended application that complies with the provisions of the LEP and that provides for side and rear boundary setbacks and building separation distances that satisfy the DCP design guidelines

The Motion was put to the meeting and the Lord Mayor indicated that the vote would
be taken by division which resulted as follows:

For the MotionThe Lord Mayor, Councillors G Boyd, A Buman, S Connell, B Cook, M Jackson, M King, B Luke, N Nelmes and S Sharpe.

Against the MotionCouncillors S Claydon, T Crakanthorp and M Osborne.

The Lord Mayor declared the Motion carried on the result of ten votes to three votes.