Interest declared in skinny tower vote

THREE of the four councillors who used the same PR consultant in their election campaign have declared a perceived conflict of interest when debating a controversial development.

Shac Communications is a consultant on the Golden Gate building, a 44-level tower that will be just 12m wide overlooking the beach in Wharf Road.

Council planning chairman Cameron Caldwell and colleagues Pauline Young and Kristyn Boulton made the declarations but remained in the chamber and voted for the project, which has sparked a resident protest.

The councillors had hired Shac to prepare advertising and promotional material in the lead-up to the March 2016 poll.

Veteran councillor Gary Baildon, who also employed Shac, did not rise in the meeting to declare any conflict. He did not speak during debate but voted against the project.

Outside the chamber, he said: “My business with Shac Communications ended with my election to council in March 2016. I do not believe I have any conflict of interest.”

Asked if that was how he would continue to deal with the matter, Cr Baildon replied: “That will depend on the circumstances at the time.”

The Crime and Corruption Commission in its Operation Belclarra report, after evidence from Shac Communications managing director Simone Holzapfel, found the PR consultancy worked for several candidates but did not share information or strategies.

But the CCC recommended that to improve transparency, laws be changed to ensure real-time disclosure of expenditure by candidates, not just limiting the reporting of help to donations.

The CCC in July was told some candidates paid between $5000 and $11,000 for services from Shac, which included graphic design and strategic advice on planning.

During the planning committee meeting to discuss the Golden Gate application, Cr Caldwell as chair declared a real or perceived conflict of interest.

But he told councillors that he had considered his position and was firmly of the opinion he “could participate in debate and vote on the matter in the public interest”.

Ms Holzapfel declined to comment.

Residents from the neighbouring Breakers North building have asked the council to reject the proposed tower, claiming it would cast greater shadows and set a poor precedent on density levels.

Area councillor Paul Taylor supported the residents and strongly opposed the project, urging his colleagues to support him. He listed several objections including the narrowness of the site with the original footprint and a 600sq m easement providing for a 1264sq m site.

“In my view it’s impossible for this development proposal to demonstrate acceptable compliance with the city highdensity residential code because the site would need to be at least nine times wider than what it currently is,” Cr Taylor said. “As councillors we cannot disrespect long-term ratepayers’ genuine concerns.”

But Cr Caldwell spoke strongly in favour of the project, arguing it would be an iconic development on the city’s skyline.

“It is probably something we are going to have to get used to,” he said, adding that technology and engineering were improving construction options on smaller sites.

Cr Taylor, Cr Baildon and Cr Daphne McDonald were the only councillors to oppose the proposal.