Voting Validity

Waimarino Bulletin, Volume 1, Issue 37, 6 March 1984, Page 2

Voting Validity

Concerning the validity of the Town Planning decision on the Hobbit's application for a public restaurant, I would like to make the following points. As the manager of a business adjacent to the Hobbit I am perturbed at the validity of the decision declining the Hobbit's application to open it's restaurant to the public since 1 believe the Hobbit would only be utilising more fully an existing complex. I realise the difficulty councillors face when requested to vote on council matters, but surely one of the criteria of a councillor's vote, must be that of pecuniary interest. It is without doubt obvious that on this application some councillors stand to benefit from the declining of such an application. 1 also understand that one eouncillor may possibly be the president of the Junction Businessmens Association which was one of the principal objectors. To be an objector and still vote at the hearing must surely be legally questionable. Not only does he have a voting right but also underTown Planning procedure the right to appeal had the hearing decision not favoured his objection. I note that the three other objectors who operate restaurants are open only if and when it suits them, and unfortunately this does not always suit folk wishing to dine out when they choose. I also note that Duncan Harvey stated that there were 1 1 restaurants open for business in Ohakune. Perhaps he would care to invite me out todinnerat each of these 1 1 restaurants over

the next couple of weeks! In having the restaurant petition on my desk I obtained something like 75 voluntary signatures. Does the council feel it need not take notice of public opinion, particularly from those locals who voted them into office? I believe the Ohakune Borough Council with the advantage of hindsight should now declare the hearing invalid and rehear the application.

JiU

Martin