Here is an extract from the council development application meeting held on 1 July 2008.
Development Applications Committee Meeting held on Tuesday, 1 July 2008
ITEM-28 DA 06/1966 - 292 WHARF ROAD NEWCASTLE, DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AND ERECTION OF A TWO-STOREY CAFÉ RESTAURANT
The Development Applications Committee reconvened at 7.52pm.
The Lord Mayor called for items of interest. Items 28, 30, 31 and 33 were indicated
PROCEEDINGS IN BRIEF
The Lord Mayor indicated that there could be a perceived conflict of interest on the basis of donations towards the State Government election campaign in 2007. He advised a person purchased seats at tables in fund raising events on behalf of the applicant and also monies were received from persons who were clearly associated with the objectors. He stated that on that basis there could be a perceived conflict of interest and as he had done in the past he would withdraw from the meeting and he asked Councillor Scobie to Chair the meeting in this matter.
The Lord Mayor vacated the Chair and retired from the Council Chamber. Councillor Scobie took the Chair to facilitate the proceedings.
The Manager Development and Building Services advised that the matter of how the car parking was calculated. He indicated that a response had been received and circulated from the Independent Consultant which set out "3.11 car parking". He advised that the calculation for the car parking was outlined on the correspondence. He advised that a re-calculation had occurred due to the review of the latest plans which gave a more accurate number.
Note: Councillors discussed the proceedings of the meeting held 10 and 17 June 2008 and determined that the Motion moved by Councillor Hornery and seconded by Councillor Scobie on the night was still open for discussion and inclusion in the current proceedings.
The Motion which was discussed and moved on 10 and 17 June 2008 was as follows:
MOTION: (COUNCILLORS S HORNERY/P SCOBIE)
The application to demolish existing structures and to construct a new 2-storey building for use as a café/restaurant (with ancillary take away food outlet) be approved and consent granted subject to compliance with the conditions set out in the Draft Schedule of Conditions at Appendix B.
The Seconder of the above Motion agreed to the proposed Condition 4 however as the Mover of the Motion was not present Councillor McKenzie determined to move it as an Amendment.
AMENDMENT: (COUNCILLORS I MCKENZIE/C ARNOLD)
The recommendation as printed with the inclusion of an amended Condition 4 as follows:4 The design of the proposed bin storage area show in the DA plans being to provide for internal access from the restaurant to the storage area and to serve external access to the storage area so that it can be opened from the inside only or from the outside with a key.
Reason: To protect the amenity of the adjoining apartments, to enhance the streetscape quality of the proposed building, and to ensure adequate garbage storage and arrangements in the interest of public health safety and sanitation.
FORESHADOWED AMENDMENT: (COUNCILLOR B GAUDRY)
Condition 27
The hours of operation of the takeaway be:
Monday to Sunday 9.00am to a maximum of 9.00pm.
FORESHADOWED MOTION: (COUNCILLOR M OSBORNE)
Council review the car parking requirements in the Newcastle DCP to better reflect the differences in the car parking needs for different businesses.
The Amendment was put to the meeting and a show of hands was requested which resulted as follows:
For the Motion: 4
Against the Motion: 6
The Chair, Councillor Scobie declared the Amendment defeated on the result of four votes to six votes.
The Foreshadowed Amendment was put to the meeting.
FORESHADOWED AMENDMENT: (COUNCILLOR B GAUDRY/M EADE)
Condition 27 be amended as follows:
The hours of operation of the takeaway food counter be:
Monday to Sunday 9.00am to a maximum of 9.00pm.
A show of hands was requested which resulted as follows:
For the Amendment: 6
Against the Amendment: 4
The Chair declared the Foreshadowed Amendment carried on the result of six votes to four votes.
Prior to the Motion being put, Councillor Osborne clarified with the Chair if the Motion included the recommendation. Councillor Scobie confirmed that the Motion was inclusive of the recommendation and the amended Condition 27. background image
The Amendment then became the Motion and as such was put to the meeting and declared carried.
Councillor Parsons called for a division which resulted as follows:
For the Motion: Councillors G Jackson, I McKenzie and P Scobie.
Against the Motion: The Lord Mayor, Councillors C Arnold, A Buman, M Eade, B Gaudry, H O'Neill, M Osborne, K Parsons and B Scully.
The Chair, Councillor Scobie, declared the Motion lost on the result of three votes to nine votes.
Councillor McKenzie advised the Chair that the matter was neither approved or refused therefore a rescission motion would be in order for the Chair to receive.
The Manager Development and Building Services advised that the Councillors had voted to not adopt a motion to refuse the application and Council had similarly voted to not adopt a subsequent motion to approve the application. He advised that the application was undetermined as it had neither been approved nor refused. He stated that the applicant was entitled to approach the Land and Environment Court on the basis of a `deemed refusal' as there had been no decision of Council to refuse the application but there has been no decision to approve it so it could be assumed to be refused. He stated there had not been any reasons enunciated for refusal therefore if Council was to fight an appeal against the refusal, Council would be at a disadvantage as there were no reasons for refusal. He advised there were a number of ways to resolve the matter which included Councillor McKenzie's suggestion for a rescission motion to not refuse the application.
Councillor McKenzie believed a rescission motion was the way forward as outlined in the Code of Meeting Practice.
PROCEDURAL MOTION: (Councillor B Gaudry)
The Committee recess for five minutes.
A show of hands was requested which resulted as follows:
For the Motion: 9
Against the Motion: 3
The Motion was declared carried on the result of nine votes to three votes.
RESOLVED: (COUNCILLORS B GAUDRY)
The Committee recess for five minutes.
The Committee reconvened at 9.48pm. background image
Councillor Scobie advised that he had received a rescission motion signed by Councillors H O'Neill, M Osborne and K Parsons.
RESOLVED: (COUNCILLORS M OSBORNE/H O'NEILL)
The Committee rescind the decision made to refuse the application.
The resolution was declared carried unanimously.
MOTION: (COUNCILLORS M OSBORNE/H O'NEILL)
A The application be refused in its present form on the basis that it is inappropriate for the site being too big and bulky, inappropriate adverse impacts on the neighbours and there was inadequate parking provided or adequate contribution made to parking.
B Council advise the applicant that it would be prepared to consider a proposal of a more appropriate scale in recognition of the constraints of the site.
The Motion was put to the meeting and Councillor Arnold called for a division which resulted as follows:
For the Motion: Councillors C Arnold, A Buman, M Eade, B Gaudry, H O'Neill, M Osborne, K Parsons and B Scully.
Against the Motion: Councillors G Jackson, I McKenzie and P Scobie.
Councillor Scobie declared the Motion carried on the result of eight votes to three votes.
RESOLVED: (COUNCILLORS M OSBORNE/H O'NEILL)
A The application be refused in its present form on the basis that it is inappropriate for the site as it is too big and bulky, inappropriate adverse impacts on the neighbours and there was inadequate parking provided or adequate contribution made to parking.
B Council advise the applicant that it would be prepared to consider a proposal of a more appropriate scale in recognition of the constraints of the site.
Councillor Scobie vacated the Chair and the Lord Mayor returned to Chair for the balance of the meeting proceedings.
FORESHADOWED MOTION: (COUNCILLORS M OSBORNE/C ARNOLD)
Council review the car parking requirements in the Newcastle DCP to better reflect the differences in the car parking needs of different businesses.
Councillor Eade advised that a draft report would be presented to Council shortly on the issue of car parking requirements in the Newcastle DCP.
The Manager Development and Building Services advised that the Council would be receiving a report shortly a review of the current DCP in relation to car parking. He stated that all issues relating to car parking would be available for discussion and consideration.
The Motion was put to the meeting and a show of hands was requested which resulted as follows:
For the Motion: 8
Against the Motion: 4
The Lord Mayor declared the Motion carried on the result of eight votes to four votes.
RESOLVED: (COUNCILLORS M OSBORNE/C ARNOLD)
Council review the car parking requirements in the Newcastle DCP to better reflect the differences in the car parking needs of different businesses.
No comments:
Post a Comment