As expected, the Santin Quarry application to extend its life for another 12 years to the 12th of May 2036, was keenly debated and easily dominated the Lismore City Council agenda.

What was not expected was the amount of drama that went on in the one-hour sixteen-minute discussion before the majority of councillors approved the extension 6 votes to 4 (Councillor Cook was away). Once again, it was like a bad reality TV show.

There were five public speakers who spoke in favour of the Lismore City Council (LCC) staff recommendation that the application not be approved. Council staff based that recommendation on the likelihood of the quarry having a significant acoustic impact on neighbouring properties, and the proponent has submitted insufficient information to assess whether all reasonable and feasible mitigation measures have been explored.

However, the five public speakers, one of which does not live on the land in the buffer zone near the quarry in Monaltrie, included previously disputed points that the DA (development application) is not substantially the same and the wording of the consent having expired or lapsed.

LCC staff sought outside legal advice and found the DA could be approved on both points finding the DA was substantially the same and council could extend the life of the quarry as the consent had expired. The sticking point was the acoustic impact.

Where the discussion started turning ugly was when some of the public speakers insinuated that a number of councillors personally knew Mr Santin and this may influence their decision to approve the extension.

One speaker said, "When making these decisions, associations and friendships need to be declared and decisions need to be made on facts, not friendships."

Earlier in the evening, a number of councillors did declare they knew Mr Santin and the association was non-pecuniary and non-significant. 

Another speaker was concerned about the road width which was supposed to be widened to 6m but hadn't and was currently 4.9m making it dangerous for cars to pass trucks as they approached or left the quarry.

The final speaker was the catalyst for the meeting to be paused as councillors lost all perspective. To start the October meeting, Mayor Krieg asked councillors to remain respectful throughout tonight's proceedings. That reasoning unravelled at this point.

After prefacing her controversial comments by saying they were her own and she did not represent any body, community or organisation, the speaker went on to challenge the non-pecuniary, non-significant declaration saying, "It seems to me a very obvious conflict of interest."

There was a reference to undertones of nepotism and potential corruption if councillors voted against the staff recommendation.

It was at this point that Councillor (Cr) Rob moved a point of order and Mayor Krieg asked the speaker to stop talking. Something she did not do with Cr Rob sitting and continuing to talk also.

Mayor Krieg then banged his gavel asking for order as part of the gallery applauded. The mayor then threatened to clear the gallery if people could not be respectful to each other. The speaker continued to talk in reply to the mayor's comments before he issued one last warning that she would be removed if there was another outburst.

The speaker and another person spoke once more when Cr Rob stood to change the order of business as they walked out of the meeting. Mayor Krieg made another plea to the gallery to keep order or he would clear the gallery. This was challenged by Cr Guise.

"Mr. Mayor, can you please refer to the code of meeting practice where it gives you the right to clear the gallery based....."

At this point, the mayor is on his feet and refers to 6.9 of the code of meeting practice, "When the chairperson rises or speaks during the meeting, any councillor speaking or seeking to speak, must cease speaking and if standing immediately resume their seat."

Mr Guise then replied, "If you're gonna threaten to kick out the public members from a public facility, practising democracy, please refer to the code of meeting practice where you can do that. We are not in an autocratic regime, yet."

Mayor Krieg then adjourned the meeting for five minutes to find the relevant section.

When the meeting restarted five minutes later, Mayor Krieg reiterated 6.9 that when the chairperson stands, a councillor must immediately cease speaking and resume their seat. He then quotes 15.15, "All chairpersons of meetings of the council and committees of the council are authorised, under this code, to expel any person, other than a councillor, from a council or committee meeting for the purposes of section 10.2b.

The mayor then referred to 15.18, "A member of the public may, as provided by section 10.2a or b of the act, be expelled from a meeting of the council for engaging in or having engaged in disorderly conduct at the meeting. If I have to do it individually, so be it, but I will do it. Thank you, Councillor Guise for bringing those to everyone's attention."

Once the order of business was changed, Cr Rob put forward an alternative motion that the application for modification of the Development Consent to extend the life of the quarry be approved for a maximum of 12 years subject to the attached conditions. We later learnt that there were 44 conditions for the Santin Quarry to comply with over various timeframes of the consent. Some of those, like the acoustic noise mitigation measures were to be completed before any quarrying restarts while others were within the first six months of operation and some longer.

Councillor Guise expressed his reasons for not supporting the new alternative motion by outlining the history of the quarry, as well as asking his fellow councillors to support the staff's recommendation.

"Councillors, if you're contemplating ignoring a staff recommendation to refuse this, you are throwing out any adherence to the law. Any adherence to sensible planning decisions and you're ignoring what you folks said you were being elected for, which is to listen to staff recommendations and follow their recommendations. Please don't stand up in this chamber and say that you're going to go against the staff recommendation. When it's quite clear. This quarry will have unacceptable impacts on the community and it does not meet the basic legal threshold tests required for a development application modification."

Later Cr Rob asked Cr Guise what the staff recommendations were when the applications came to the LCC chambers in 2019 and 2020.

Cr Guise responded by saying he couldn't remember those recommendations. Cr Rob mentioned they were to approve the extension of the quarry's life to which Cr Guise replied, "Councillors did resolve to not give consent".

Non-compliance was an issue raised by Crs Bird, Guise and Ekins during the lengthy debate.

Acoustic earth mounds were to have been constructed at the start of the quarry thirty years ago but LCC's Eber Butron said that his understanding was that partial construction has occurred.

Cr Bird put forward a foreshadowed motion to defer the decision so councillors could understand the 44 new and updated conditions attached to the approval before Cr Ekins added more drama to an already bizarre discussion when she said that Mr Santin had donated money to the Greens last state election campaign.

Someone had complained to the General Manager that this caused a conflict of interest for Cr Guise and Ekins. The Greens returned the money but Cr Ekins said, "And in their view (the NSW Greens), it appeared to be an attempt to undermine the democratic process and to remove Council Guise and myself from this chamber."

To this point, no councillor had spoken for the motion to extend the quarry's life. A point not lost on Cr Bird who challenged those councillors to explain their decision.

Cr Rob, who was going to speak then rose and said, " How dare any councillor try and tell me what to do. I do what I want, as long as I believe it's within the code of meeting practice and the code of conduct. So, I'm not going to explain why I want to do this. I'm just going to approve it.

It was put to the vote which was won 6/4 with councillors Gordon, Hall, Jensen, Bing, Rob and Krieg in favour and councillors Guise, Colby, Bird and Ekins against.

The first item took an hour sixteen as did the rest of the meetings agenda items, the LCC meeting was closed at 8:37pm

Another significant item on the agenda was Cr Rob's motion to contact Transport for NSW, the Department of Planning and Environment - Heritage and Janelle Saffin MP requesting, as a matter of urgency, an accelerated process to be fast-tracked to remove the rail bridge and reopen Terania Street due to safety concerns and the impact on local businesses. This is to be followed by the removal of the below rail bridges:

• Union Street and Frank Street
• Crane Street between Barrow Lane and Simmons Street
• Alexandra Parade near Flick Street
• Winterton Parade near the Lismore Turf Club (preferably during school holidays)

Cr Rob spoke about reusing the bridge material that is taken down and outlined the safety concerns for the SES. When there is water under the bridge, the SES cannot get underneath the rail bridge. According to Cr Rob the SES want the bridges removed also.

Cr Ekins spoke against the motion saying the bridges state of decline is due to poor maintenance. "I'd just like to speak for the bridges. They are heritage constructions. They certainly give character to the town and they're beautiful to look at."

There was a concern that users of a rail trail would then have to cross Terania Street if the bridge is removed causing a potential traffic hazard as the street would be a "high-speed traffic" area.

The motion was successful 7/3 with councillors Guise, Gordon, Hall, Jensen, Bing, Rob and Krieg for and councillors Colby, Bird and Ekins against.

The next Lismore City Council meeting will be held on Tuesday, November 21 at 6pm.

We can only hope, councillors have more respect for each other and understand the code of meeting practice at a deeper level after last night's meeting. And that the public has more respect for the meeting process and what our councillors represent.