This was on the grounds that Sandhurst Diocese representatives were present in the gallery and were thus aware of the decision.

The relevant law is Local Law No. 8, Clause 34, and it is on the council website.

The law states that:

(1) A councillor may propose a motion to rescind a decision of the council provided the previous motion has not been acted upon;

(2) A resolution is acted upon when the chief executive or other officer initiate action or cause action to be initiated on any council resolution at any time after the close of the meeting at which it was carried. A resolution will be considered as having been acted upon once its details have been communicated to persons affected by or reliant upon the resolution or where a statutory procedure has been carried out.

I wonder if the council executive has correctly interpreted the law.

Part 2 of the law clearly states that a resolution is acted upon when the chief executive or other officer initiate action at any time after the close of the meeting. The law then goes on to define what “acted upon” means.

The interpretation applied effectively means that few important council decisions can ever be rescinded because affected parties will probably be at the meeting, and thus it has been communicated to them.

In the case of the Aspinall Street decision, official action by council officers was taken the following week, when a written notice of decision to grant a permit was issued in writing, dated February 16. The proposed rescission motion was submitted in the days immediately following the council meeting, well before February 16.

It would be interesting to know the extent to which the interpretation of the council executive is backed by a professional legal opinion.

FIONA DANGERFIELD, Golden Square