Opinion was divided on whether the initiative represented a new asset for the town, generating employment and prosperity, or a blight on the landscape causing traffic bottlenecks and reminding neighbours of their mortality.

READ ALSO:

The development involves the conversion of the existing building to a chapel, and the construction of a funeral home on its northern side (the current site of the maze), retaining the existing hedge around the site.

The case for

Tenterfield Family Funerals’ principal Glen Curry, with business partners wife Lisa and Troy and Robyn Hillier by his side, told councillors that what has been so disappointing about the process was the complete disregard by some community members for truth and factual information.

He refuted two rumours regularly raised in objections to the project: that they planned to incorporate a crematorium and already had the equipment, and that neighbouring property values would be adversely affected.

Tenterfield Family Funerals provided the opinions of three property valuers who operate in the Tenterfield area who couldn’t offer any evidence of a negative impact on the value of surrounding properties.

Mr Curry cited 14 examples of funeral homes and chapels which he said are happily coexisting within their surrounding neighbourhood, in some cases near schools, playgrounds and new housing developments.

Also speaking in support of the development was Bob Brown, who lives 300 metres from the site and hoped that his difference of opinion wouldn’t alienate his friends and neighbours. 

He anticipated the new establishment would be unobtrusive and well-run, with minimal effect on residents in the area. He said he’s never heard of any problems in similar situations in other towns, and wondered if those same residents would object if it was a church being proposed, with its own funeral services and processions.

The case against

Speaking against the development was Bernadette Dunnett, who said the location of the funeral home a kilometre from the Welcome to Tenterfield sign, greeting visitors as they entered town, was not inconspicuous and not in keeping with the current happy and relaxed amenity.

She said Tenterfield is known for its large funerals which could overflow the parking facilities. Funeral processions would cause congestion when they entered the highway, potentially blocking driveways and emergency access to Millrace, in contrast to the staggered fashion in which vehicles arrived and departed the former restaurant.

She said a mortuary would have an impact on mental health.

“It would be a constant reminder of our mortality,” she said.

The last speaker was Allan Williams, who said the development had legal, environmental and ethical issues, with a negative effect on property values and quality of life. He accused the proponents of cherry-picking supporting facts. 

Mr Williams said councillors would be feeling the pressure from ‘influencers’, and that many people opted not to sign the petition due to concerns about the impact on their businesses. The opponents submitted a petition of 49 signatures by the meeting deadline, primarily against locating a funeral home in a residential area, claiming a further 92 by the time the meeting came around.

He encouraged councillors to ‘lift up your heads and vote with truth and integrity.”

Councillors weigh in

Councillors Gary Verri, Don Forbes and Bob Rogan each raised concerns about the development, Cr Verri saying council couldn’t justify the upset to the sense of order. Cr Forbes had concerns about the negative impact on property values in the area and Cr Rogan felt nearby residents may feel obligated to change their behaviour during services, such as curbing children playing.

“These gatherings are different in style to the previous usage, and the concerns are real,” he said.

“While appropriate for the town, it’s not appropriate for this location.”

Cr Bronwyn Petrie remarked on the campaign of bullying and nasty personal comments.

“I’ve received no pressure from proponents, but have from opponents,” she said.

She said neighbours next to churches continued their normal activities and that home values weren’t diminished, and she’s been told that large funerals wouldn’t take place at the chapel.

She indicated her intention to move at a future meeting that no crematoriums be allowed in RU5 dense residential areas, to address concerns that the development could move in that direction.

Acknowledging it was an emotive subject, Cr Greg Sauer said it was necessary to go by fact not emotion, complimenting senior planner Tamai Davidson on her assessment of the development application. Originally against the proposal, he is concerned that if council denies the application a subsequent appeal to the NSW Land and Environment Court could be successful and council would have to bear the court costs.

“Tenterfield needs a good funeral home like this,” Cr Tom Peters said.

“It would be good for the town. If people put money into this, we should support them.”

Cr John Macnish’s concerns over traffic congestion were alleviated by the projection there would be only one or two funerals a year at the funeral home itself, but he said if he lived in George Street he’s probably feel the same way as its residents.

No grounds to refuse

In her report Mrs Davidson said that while there is obvious concern from some members of the community, in this instance there was insufficient evidence to warrant refusal of the proposal on the grounds of perceived amenity impacts.

Ultimately all councillors accepted her recommendation that the DA be approved with the exception of Crs Rogan, Forbes and Brian Murray. Cr Murray immediately stated his intention to put forward a rescission motion, for which Mayor Peter Petty advised him to present additional information.

Councillors are considering calling an extraordinary meeting in January to consider the motion, in order to provide some closure for the applicants. The alternative is waiting until the next ordinary meeting scheduled for February 27 in Wallangarra/Jennings.