Cr SAM Rowland says he won’t be signing a council letter addressed to objectors of the proposed Islamic Cemetery.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
He’s branded it “disingenuous” and likely to ‘further erode’ trust between Council and opponents of the controversial plan.
Councillors discussed the draft letter in an ‘out of meeting’ session on Tuesday night.
General manager Warwick Bennett said it was designed to clarify facts and information, following numerous emails and correspondence from objectors.
The Marulan cemetery, proposed by the Al Mabarrat Benevolent Society, is a hot potato. Council is defending its ‘deemed refusal’ in the NSW Land and Environment Court but opponents are unhappy with its legal approach.
Mr Bennett wrote the letter and on Tuesday was asking for councillors’ agreement on its contents.
It was headed ‘From the Office of the Mayor.’
This was rapidly changed given that Geoff Kettle has declared a non-pecuniary significant interest in the matter.
An objector, Charles Mendel, donated to his 2012 council re-election campaign.
Mr Bennett said the letter explained Council’s position regarding the upcoming case and the fact the DA had been taken out of its hands with the court action.
“There seem to be some misunderstandings,” he said.
Cr Rowland said he’d only sign it “with editing.”
He was not comfortable with some aspects.
“I’ll speak to you in private,” he told Mr Bennett.
But he later said he wouldn’t be signing the correspondence.
“We didn’t even write it,” he told the Post.
“I won’t sign it because one of the biggest issues we have is establishing and maintaining trust between the Marulan people and Council. It’s very disingenuous.”
Specifically, he objected to phrasing in the letter, attributed to the proponent’s consultant, that he’d taken the matter to court to secure a quicker and impartial response.
It claimed the consultant had also referred to objectors as ‘rednecks.’
Cr Rowland said this would only cause further confusion and could be misinterpreted.
During the discussion, Cr Banfield also objected to its inclusion, saying “people would burr up about it,” thinking they were Council’s words.
Cr Rowland said he didn’t know what prompted the letter, whether it was intended as a “PR exercise” or was a genuine attempt to respond to people’s concerns.
“Some may see those concerns as misconceptions but to some extent, they’re valid,” he said.
Councillors were sending their suggested edits to Mr Bennett before the letter was sent.
Letter is ‘necessary’ Cr Rowland was alone in his outright rejection.
Deputy Mayor Bob Kirk said while he was yet to see the final version, he agreed with the general thrust.
He told the Post he’d received numerous emails and correspondence from objectors.
“Some have put their own interpretation on things that are either incorrect or misunderstood,” he said.
“I said to Warwick that I hate not replying to people but I’m mindful of the position we find ourselves in and that we have contentious legal opinion being debated.
I have no expertise to rule on what’s right and wrong.”
The draft letter was the result. It outlines the sequence of events and details Council’s legal defence.
The Deputy Mayor said the seven councillors eligible to vote on the matter agreed to the legal direction several weeks ago.
“Any suggestion that we’re not mindful and aware of the community’s view is wrong,” he said.
“...We might not be presenting the case the way they want but their views are at the top of my mind.
We’re defending a deemed refusal and that’s something people seem to have forgotten.
“I’m concerned at the level of angst being directed at Council.
We’re there to support the community and and represent their views and that’s reflected in (our defence).”
Cr Robin Saville echoed this view and said some were “wrongfully” accusing Council of going through the motions and having a predetermined outcome.
“The emails we have been receiving have been full of heat and anger at Council but it frankly it is not good enough to throw stones at councillors for not forwarding the heat and anger on,” he said.
“We must work within the law and provide genuine reasons for rejecting this DA. This is called responsible governance.
“Because of the heat and anger among some in the community I feel it is necessary to send a response in which the facts are spelt out.
“You do not win court cases just because you shout the loudest. Some people need to be reminded of this.”
Though not a formal meeting, Mayor Geoff Kettle and Cr Alf Walker left the room during discussion, having previously declared interests in the cemetery.