The rescission motion to withdraw development application (DA) approval for a funeral home and chapel on the site of the former Craze Maze site was voted down at an extraordinary council meeting on Wednesday, January 16.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The DA was originally passed 7-to-3 votes at the December council meeting, with Councillor Brian Murray immediately giving notice of his intention to submit a rescission motion. Normally the motion would have been held over to the February meeting for debate (there not normally being a January monthly meeting) but Mayor Peter Petty and Deputy Mayor Greg Sauer formally requested an extraordinary meeting so that the matter could be dealt with in a timely manner.
The motion was subsequently presented signed by the three councillors who voted against the development: Cr Murray along with Cr Don Forbes and Cr Bob Rogan. Primarily they argued that emotions can be an identifiable factor in decision-making (such as the location of a property to be purchased), citing a research document found on Wikipedia.
“We are not convinced that the type of emotions that may be felt by some people would not be detrimental,” their motion stated.
The motion went on to say that the three councillors believed the presence of a funeral home may negatively influence a prospective purchaser in the first instance and, in doing so, reduce competition and potential opportunities regarding sale prices.
In a comment included from senior planner Tamai Davidson (also presented at the original debate), she acknowledged that here is genuine concern from residents in relation to the proposed development. Quoting from case law in the Land and Environment Court, however, “...Where there is no evidence to support a rational fear it will be irrelevant that members of the community may have modified their behaviour arising from such an unjustified fear.”
The debate again attracted a full public gallery, and the meeting was live-streamed with 17 viewers recorded.
In speaking for the motion, Cr Rogan said there was conflicting information on the impact on property values near the proposed funeral home, and reports from property valuers submitted by the applicants were only opinions.
“The stigma (of being located near a funeral home) is unknown and difficult to assess,” he said.
Cr Rogan reiterated that feeling the need to modify lifestyle behaviours in the vicinity of a funeral home can create stress, and that the threat of falling property values will add to that stress.
In speaking against the rescission motion, Cr Bronwyn Petrie said she was offended by calls (from unnamed sources) that councillors who sell stock through Harold Curry Stock Agents (whose principals share ownership of applicant business Tenterfield Family Funerals) should not vote on the decision. She said Harold Curry’s was one of half-a-dozen agents her family business uses, and the interest is non-pecuniary as any monies are transferred through the agent.
She went on to say that two of the most visited tourism places in Tenterfield are near existing funeral homes. Furthermore if people were concerned about being reminded of their own mortality, having to trudge past the current Tenterfield Family Funerals office on their way to Dr Pilgrim’s nearby surgery when they’re not feeling well would be reminder enough.
Regarding the emotional aspect of property buying, Cr Petrie said there will be factors at any site – be it the nearness of a hospital, ambulance station, aged care home, or even businesses like grocery stories, restaurants or mechanics – so there’s no exceptional reduction in competition for properties in this case.
Cr Forbes, however, cited a September 2018 US study that found, in 96 of the top 100 cities, homes located within 400 metres of a funeral home, mortuary or cemetery were discounted by 10.6 to 13.8 per cent, despite the quiet neighbours.
“I’m confident that the same would apply in an Australian context,” he said.
In his closing comments Cr Petty said while councillors had every right to put forward the rescission motion, he had expected more additional information to be provided particularly given the conclusive result at the original vote and the cost and effort involved in calling the extraordinary meeting.
Ultimately the votes fell the same way as the original decision, 7-to-3.