The Rescission motion was brought by Cr Ian Marjason, Cr Howard Crozier and Cr Terry Bransdon.

The original reasons for refusal were given that " it is sited inappropriately in regard to its anticipated usage applications; • there are potential health issues given the close proximity to the existing residential development, and • it is inappropriate in terms of village amenity and as such it is not in the public interest."

With several speakers against the monopole, councillors questioned the Telstra representatives about the positioning of the pole and concluded that the pole was more about mobile reception for Kings Highway users, than for local residents.

Cr Raynolds said "This is one of those times that I don't like to be a councillor. I think people do want the best that is available and Telstra is just too big for us, too strong."

Cr Moore said "There is no comparison here with the Carwoola situation. If any other developer had use the same pressure that this developer has, it could quite possible have been a matter for ICAC."

"That is not the right way of going about getting an outcome. It's heavy handed and not acceptable" Cr Moore continued. "Lets' give it a go. We have nothing to lose by adopting a precautionary approach. Yes, there's electro magnetic radiation everywhere, but we don't; have to be complicit in it."

Cr Cockram agreed that there was "no need to reverse the 7th May decision."

The recision motion was not successful with Crs Marjasan, Bransdon and Raynolds for it, and Crs Turley, Graham, Cockram and Moore against. (Cr Goonan has declared a conflict and left the room.)