Council meeting 28 April 2009

Lord Mayor uses his casting vote to stop the public from commenting on the Ad Valorum with a minimum rating structure.

The extraordinary council meeting considered placing the draft management plan and rates and charges on public exhibition.

I moved (seconded Cr Crackenthorp) that Council place on exhibition the Ad Valorum with a minimum rating structure and the Ad Valorum with a base rate rating structure.

The Motion was put to the meeting and a show of hands was requested which resulted as follows:

For the Motion: 6
Against the Motion: 6

As the vote resulted in a tied vote the Lord Mayor exercised his casting vote and declared the Motion defeated.

In the end, Council decided to let local residents comment only on an Ad Valorum with a Base Rate rating structure, one at 30%, one at 40% and one at 50%.

The amendment then became the motion and as such was put to the meeting and Councillor Osborne called for a division which resulted as follows:

For the Motion: The Lord Mayor, Councillors G Boyd, S Connell, B Cook, M King, B Luke and S Sharpe.
Against the Motion: Councillors A Buman, S Claydon, T Crakanthorp, M Jackson, N Nelmes and M Osborne.

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

The Ad Valorum with a Base Rate structure favours those people who own expensive properties at the expense of those who own less expensive properties. The Ad Valorum with a minimum structure favours those people who own less expensive properties at the expense of those on expensive properties.

According to data provided to all Councillors:

The Ad Valorum with a minimum structure would have meant that 66% of the rates of households would not rise by more than 3.5%.

The Ad Valorum with a Base Rate of 30% would have meant that 39% of the rates of households would not rise by more than 3.5% (rates for land valued at $100,000 would rise 5.5%).

The Ad Valorum with a Base Rate of 40% would have meant that 13% of the rates of households would not rise by more than 3.5% (rates for land valued at $100,000 would rise 14.3%).

The Ad Valorum with a Base Rate of 50% would have meant that 39% of the rates of households would not rise by more than 3.5% (rates for land valued at $100,000 would rise 22.9%).

These kinds of public policies should be about the greatest good for the greatest number.

Council meeting 21 April 2009

Maryville markets proposal

While I was away visiting my children overseas, the Lord Mayor used his casting vote to further the Maryville Markets proposal...

APOLOGIES
RESOLVED: (The Lord Mayor/Councillor M Jackson)
The apology submitted on behalf of Councillor King be received and accepted and leave of absence granted.

RESOLVED: (Councillors S Claydon/M King)
The apologies submitted by Councillor Osborne were received and accepted for the period of leave from 23 March 2009 to 26 April 2009 inclusive.


DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY/NON PECUNIARY INTEREST
Lord Mayor – Councillor Tate Item 26 – Proposed Amendment to Newcastle LEP 2003 with Respect to 248 Hannell Street Maryville.

The Lord Mayor declared that in the March 2007 State Government Election a company known as Newcastle Soccer Pty Ltd purchased a number of tickets to a fund raising event which was towards a campaign which he ran in that Election. He advised it was public knowledge by virtue of the returns to the Electoral office at that time and the details are available through the Electoral office.

The Lord Mayor believed that Newcastle Soccer Pty Ltd was a related company to the applicant of Item 26 – Proposed Amendment to Newcastle LEP 2003 with Respect to 248 Hannell Street Maryville and he formally declared it under the Code of Conduct and he noted it was not a pecuniary interest and he noted it was not a pecuniary interest in his view of significance. He noted the provisions of the Code of Conduct and the provisions of pecuniary interest therefore he made the declaration.

Councillor S Sharpe Item 26 – Proposed Amendment to Newcastle LEP 2003 with Respect to 248 Hannell Street Maryville

“I would like to declare a conflict of interest in regards to Item 26 concerning the proposed “Parklea” style market at Hannell Street Wickham. I would like to state that I have not received a political donation from anyone involved in this development nor have I in any way been personally linked with the proponent of this development.

Paragraph 7.1 of the Code of Conduct states that: ‘A conflict of interest exists where a reasonable and informed person would perceive that you could be influenced by a private interest when carrying out your public duty.’ I believe that it is most important to abide by the required Code of Conduct but above that set a personal ethical standard that is adhered to in all circumstances. If a precedent has been set you must remain committed to that position. To waiver from this standard for any reason is certain to instil doubt in the mind of the community and have them question your motives. We must remember as the elected body and leaders that it is the perception of probity that the community holds most dearly. In short you will be abusing their trust.

Paragraph 7.5 of the Code states that: ‘A pecuniary interest is an interest that a person has in a matter because of a reasonable likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss.’

As many would know I am involved in a family business that may or may not be financially affected by Item 26. This item is pursuant to a development application for ‘Parklea’ style markets. It has been stated by the proponent in the media that nursery goods may be sold at the proposed market and it is entirely reasonable to believe this to be the case.

I will also declare a non-pecuniary conflict of interest under 7.10 of the Code of Conduct due to a family member writing a weekly article for The Post newspaper which is owned by the developer.

Thus, to avoid any perception of conflict of interest I will absent myself from the chamber and any briefings regarding this matter to ensure the spirit of the Code of Conduct is followed so that I might retain the full confidence of the Community and this elected body”.

ITEM-26 CCL 21/04/09 - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO NEWCASTLE LEP 2003 WITH RESPECT TO 248 HANNELL STREET, MARYVILLE

Councillor Sharpe retired from the Council Chamber prior to the commencement of discussion of this item.

MOTION: (COUNCILLORS B LUKE/S CONNELL)

1 Council resolve: a. pursuant to Section 54(1) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 (the Act), to prepare a draft Local Environmental Plan to amend Newcastle LEP 2003 by including an enabling clause to allow the temporary use of Lot A DP 431732, No. 248 Hannell Street, Maryville as shown on the map at Attachment C, for retail markets on weekends and public holidays until the Standard LEP is adopted in 2011.

b. That the enabling clause for the use of the site for markets be reviewed as part of the conversion to the Standard LEP 2011 to determine whether permanent provision should be made for the continued use of the site for markets in the new comprehensive LEP.

c. Notify the Director-General, Department of Planning pursuant to Section 54(4) of the Act of its decision to prepare the draft Local Environmental Plan, requesting delegation of functions under Sections 65 and 69 of the Act in relation to public exhibition and final reporting of the draft LEP.

d. The draft LEP be reported back to Council following completion of consultation and pubic exhibition to determine whether to finalise the draft plan.

FORESHADOWED MOTION: (COUNCILLOR S CLAYDON)

1 Council refuse the application.

2 Council commit to discussions with the of residents Maryville, Wickham, Islington, Carrington and Tighes Hill regarding changes to current zonings in these suburbs in preparation for the 2011 LEP.

During discussion Councillor Crakanthorp advised that fellow Councillors and he would have liked a briefing on this issue prior to the matter coming before Council.

PROCEDURAL MOTION: (Councillor M Jackson) RESOLVED: (COUNCILLOR M JACKSON) The question be put.

The Motion was put to the meeting and the Lord Mayor called for a division which resulted as follows:

For the Motion: The Lord Mayor, Councillors G Boyd, S Connell, B Cook and B Luke.
Against the Motion: Councillors A Buman, S Claydon, T Crakanthorp, M Jackson and N Nelmes.

As the vote resulted in a tied vote the Lord Mayor exercised his casting vote and declared the Motion carried.