THE Taco Bell debate is not quite over yet.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
After a narrow vote on Wednesday night, council resolved not to delete a condition of consent for the development that limited the Howick Street side of the site to ingress only.
However, on Thursday morning mayor Bobby Bourke and councillors Alex Christian and Monica Morse submitted a rescission motion, meaning the resolution from Wednesday is on hold.
The matter will come back to council at the next meeting in September.
Councillors do not have to cite a reason for a rescission motion, however it is understood the reason behind Thursday's decision was because they did not think it was a fair vote.
Cr John Fry had declared a non-pecuniary interest prior to discussion of the matter, stating that he had a relative who lived in the vicinity of the site.
He remained in the chamber during the discussion and cast a vote.
He, along with councillors Warren Aubin, Graeme Hanger, Jess Jennings and Jacqui Rudge, voted not to delete the condition.
If Cr Fry had refrained from voting, the vote would have been tied four-four and the mayor would have used his casting vote to break the tie.
As Cr Bourke was voting for the condition to be deleted, a second vote from him would have resulted in a different outcome.
Cr Fry has defended his decision to remain in the chamber.
"I purely put it on the record that I had a relative that was one of the objectors," he said.
"It was for transparency, but going on past practices of other councillors who have declared non-pecuniary interests and have still debated and still voted, I felt that it was a standard convention that I was able to vote.
"If I had a financial interest, I could not have voted."
According to council's Code of Conduct, councillors need to declare if they have a pecuniary interest, which relates to financial gain or loss for themselves or a close relative, or if they have a non-pecuniary interest, which is generally to do with personal or family relationships or involvement with a particular group.
It is up to a councillor to determine for themselves if the interest is significant enough for them not to be present while the matter is dealt with.
Cr Fry has also explained his vote, saying he voted against deleting the condition due to his concern for public safety, as increased traffic through that intersection could result in more traffic accidents.
Councillors had to think carefully about the report in front of them on Wednesday night, knowing that a decision not to delete the condition, which had been requested by the applicant, could see Taco Bell scrap its Bathurst plans.
Cr Fry said, if the developers were not happy with the access, there were other sites in Bathurst that would be suitable for Taco Bell.
He also thinks it's unlikely that there will be a different result when the matter is dealt with next month.
Do you have something to say on this topic?
- Why not write us a letter to the editor ...
