The council arguably acted outside of its planning authority status. As per the advice of the Central Highland Council's contract planner, the development application complied with the planning laws. Yet, the majority of the councillors voted the application down.

The developers have strong grounds to appeal. This thought is also shared by the Premier, who released a scathing media release following the result. It is the view of the state government that there would be strong grounds for an appeal given the council ignored its own planning advice and the proposal complies with the planning scheme.

There were many submissions against the proposal, however, those objections fell outside of the development application requirements. Issues with the federal government process of giving the development the tick of approval should not have been a factor during this decision making process.

So what happens next? An appeal can be lodged. This means more funds spent by the proponent and, if the decision was found to be wrong, the council would be liable for some hefty costs. What this decision demonstrates is a clear misunderstanding between the role of councillors as elected representatives and the process of acting as the planning authority. More training for all councillors is needed to ensure this distinction is understood. So that arguments can be made in relation to the plans, not as councillors.

The situation the councillors were placed in was not enviable. They have to live in a community, shop at the local supermarket and attend events with people who are angered by this development. 

But in this instance, based on advice, the wrong decision may have been made, which will only cost all involved more time and money.