Cr Dianne Guise said she would not fight the shop-use inclusions because of the financial cost, which ” according to the city ” would be about $50,000.
A council report to reinstate the uses of liquor store and hairdresser was withdrawn from the meeting agenda on July 23, following a review by the State Administrative Tribunal in May. The city administration asked for more legal advice before returning it to this month’s agenda.
‘It would only go back to the SAT, we’d only get overruled again and it would cost the ratepayers of this city more money,’ Cr Guise said.
Get in front of tomorrow's news for FREE
Journalism for the curious Australian across politics, business, culture and opinion.
READ NOW‘On that basis I will reluctantly support the motion before us.’
Cr Frank Cvitan urged the council to support the liquor store-hairdresser motion and said it was now up to the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor to determine a future liquor store.
The only councillor to vote against the report was Dot Newton, who said she was the voice of the residents in the bordering retirement village.
‘It’s a total upheaval to their lives and adding these additional uses is only going to add to that, so for them, I’m going to vote against,’ she said.
Planning and sustainability director Len Kosova said the city had spent more than $100,000 on planning and development issues relating to the Drovers Place precinct in recent years.
‘These costs have included, but are not limited to, the preparation and review of the Drovers Place Precinct Structure Plan No. 80 and addressing and responding to a range of planning, appeal and legal matters,’ Mr Kosova said.