A divided debate saw Crs Paul Tuddenham, Jim Mauger, David Stranger and Ken Halstead vote against the recommendation on the basis that it supported demolition of the building. They believed the council was being wasteful for wanting to get rid of a building while community groups were searching for suitable places to operate from.

Cr Tuddenham suggested the building could be renovated at minimal cost and urged Council to investigate this possibility as well as ask for public input.

“A lot of community groups do fit that criteria [public recreation],” Cr Tuddenham said. “There are no major defects with the building. It doesn’t have to be demolished... and we still haven’t consulted with the community.”

“The responsibility is on us to hold community consultation. How about we do it properly and find out from the community what they want us to do with it.”

Cr Duncan Gair refused to support a suggestion to keep the existing building in operation and disagreed with Mr Tuddenham over the low cost of renovation.

“The legal opinion hasn’t changed, so I see no reason why Council should change its position,” he said. “[The building] can only be used on an ad hoc basis while most groups are looking for a permanent home. I believe Council is putting itself in a position where the cost to renovate will not be worth the effort.”

Cr Jim Clark said the recreational requirement knocked out too many uses for the building, Cr Larry Whipper wanted demolition costs to be considered in next year’s budget, while Cr Mauger said claims that renovations could be carried out at an acceptable figure should be investigated.

“I cannot support a motion that would lead to demolition of this building [without looking at the proposals put forward to renovate it cheaply],” Cr Mauger said.

Cr Juliet Arkwright described the ongoing issue as “just like Old Man River, it keeps rolling along”.

“Sometimes it is easier to start again and allow substantially more uses [for the site]. We have to accept that the uses for this building are limited,” she said.

A foreshadowed amendment from Cr Halstead was dismissed by meeting chair Cr Whipper as being too similar to an already defated motion put forward by Cr Tuddenham to keep the existing building.