A development application to subdivide a corner block in Retford Park divided councillors at the June 24 council meeting.
It was the fourth time the development application had appeared before council.
The subdivision at Sir James Fairfax Circuit, Retford Park would consist of two detached dual occupancy buildings and a subdivision which will create two lots of 570 metres squared and 500 metres squared.
Mr Allen Robinson addressed the council on June 24, and spoke against the DA.
"The development of the residential sub division of the western side of Retford Park has been a matter of discussion between the late James Fairfax, myself and council executives for many years," he said.
"Mr Fairfax then and for the rest of his life wished for the buildings in the residential subdivision be appropriate neighbours to the historic mansion.
"To this end he developed building guidelines to be developed for the houses to be built to the west of Retford Park.
"All purchases of land to the west have agreed to be bound by those guidelines. When the lot is sold to a second or third purchaser, condition of each sale is that the new purchaser formally agrees to abide by the guidelines."
Mr Robinson also stated that "every purchaser of land at Retford Park has signed an agreement to be bound of the guidelines."
"However this proposed subdivision is clearly contrary to those guidelines," he said.
"The current owner of that lot has signed the agreement to abide by the guidelines but claims not to be bound by them."
Mr Scott Lee addressed the councillors on behalf of the applicant Paul Samulski.
"This is the fourth time council planning staff have recommended approval for this proposed development," he said.
"On all four occasions the assessment officers have been in conclusively in favour of the DA.
"The simple reason is because it is worthy of the support and it is permissible development, it is compliant development, it is suitable development to its location and to its conditions and it is consistent to the character of its locality.
"Despite councillors previous decisions to not support the DA we do remain optimistic that an approval will be forthcoming."
Mr Lee said that council approval would enable the discontinuation of a Land and Environment court action that Mr Samulski had taken against Wingecarribee Shire Council.
Councillor Graham McLaughlin moved a motion to refuse the development application. He was seconded by Councillor Ian Scandrett.
Cr McLaughlin said that he was standing up for the community.
"Just because things are allowable doesn't necessarily mean they have to be approved," he said.
"We know the intention of Mr Fairfax and his intention to provide a quality subdivision."
Councillor Grahame Andrews spoke in favour of the application.
"This is the fourth time that Mr Samulski has come back with and he's changed the development many times," he said.
"He shouldn't be punished for an oversight from the developer.
"It is clearly is permissible in all facets, it complies. It should be allowed to go forward."
Councillor Peter Nelson said he would vote for the application but said he had reservations.
"I agree that it's out of character, I agree that it's not in public interest, I agree that it's inconsistent with aims and objectives of the design review panel and I agree with the aims of the original subdivision and contract of purchase of the land," he said.
Read more: Fairground Follies to shut its doors
"However as it stands and it has been said that the proposed development complies.
"The applicant's case, I believe, would win in the Land and Environment court and cost council thousands in rate payers dollars and that's the reason why I am voting [for the applicant].
The motion to refuse the applicant was lost.
Councillors McLaughlin, Scandrett, Larry Whipper and Ken Halstead voted for the motion to refuse the application.
Councillors Andrews, Nelson, Garry Turland and Mayor Duncan Gair voted against the motion.
Cr Gair used his casting vote against the motion to break the tie.
A second motion by Cr Turland was put forward to allow the development to go through.
Councillors Andrews, Nelson, Turland and Gair voted for the motion.
Councillors McLaughlin, Scandrett, Whipper and Halstead voted against the motion.
Cr Gair once more used his casting vote to break the tie and voted in favour of the subdivision.
Councillor Gordon Markwart was absent from council.
Cr McLaughlin indicated that he would call on a Notice of Rescission once all councillors were present in the chamber.