It's a shame because I think the councillors do care about what the residents think, but unfortunately this will make many locals even more negative about our council and even more distrusting of politicians in general. However, the Muslim people of the area all seem to have taken this decision in a positive light. It seems that many of them took the controversy over the school to be based on their religion. It seems that they saw the resident's arguments about traffic and flooding problems and their comments about the site being too small for the proposed 800 student school, as excuses to cover up the truly racist motivations of the opposition. So they were very relieved when the school was approved. Some of them said after the meeting that it will allow their children to go to a school near their homes. Others though, were from outside the area, hailing from suburbs including Bankstown, but said that they came to support the school because they supported Muslim schools throughout Sydney, in general.

So for them, the issue was more about the validity of Muslim schools and their community's right to open them wherever they want and wherever they can meet the planning regulations.

But the majority of locals did not have a problem with the school's religion but rather they did not support the application due to quite valid, in my view anyway, traffic, parking, flooding and planning concerns.

That site is quite small for a development of the size proposed. And the roads in the area are very narrow and very busy during peak traffic times. So I do understand the resident's opposition and why they are now very upset by the decision that has been made.

Hoxton Park residents are now considering what further action they can pursue. One avenue could be launching a class action against the decision at the Land and Environment Court. But they say they won't be able to afford to pay for anything of the kind, because they're just ``average working people''.

The councillors that voted against the school are also putting a rescission motion against the decision, which means that it may be reversed, but only if two of the councillors that voted it for it change their minds.

But that seems unlikely.

When I asked Cr Hadid why he voted for the school, he said he voted for it because he did not think that the planning was flawed, as the residents said. Before voting he asked whether the residents had submitted an alternative traffic report, which illustrated their point. But the officer's answer was no. So he said he voted for the school, because there was no evidence that the information was inaccurate.

Steve Bowman, a former councillor, who lives in Hoxton Park and took somewhat of a leadership role with the issue, said residents didn't submit an alternative report because it isn't their job to do so.

``It's not up to us to commission traffic reports, it's up the council to gather the appropriate information,'' Mr Bowman said.

``They shouldn't just be taking information they receive from the applicant as gospel, they should have commissioned further traffic reports.

``They should have also looked into the flooding more, they really didn't listen to the resident's concerns and that's very disappointing.''

Mr Bowman argues that the Labor councillors voted in favour of the school to win over the support of Muslim voters and Labor party heavyweights.

``It's all about getting the right people onside and repaying previous favours,'' Mr Bowman said.

What I think it's important to remember is that Liverpool isn't Camden. We already have three or four Muslim school and several Islamic community organisations and mosques, it's not like Muslims are new to the area and residents are opposed to them settling in.

It seems to me that local's concerns should have been investigated. Since there is so much opposition to the school, shouldn't officers have put in some extra work to verify that the traffic reports submitted were accurate? And shouldn't councillors have investigated the issue a bit further themselves?

Labor Councillor Jim McGoldrick, who voted for the proposal, said he is not a planner and thus believes that councillors need to trust their officer's views on the matter.

He said, in the meeting, that councillors should rely on the experts views.

Cr Mannoun said after the meeting that had the councillors voted against the school, the applicant would have taken council to the Land and Environment court and there it would have been approved.

``It would just be a waste of time to knock it back now,'' Cr Mannoun said.

``The Land and Environment court would have definitely approved it.''

But is that sufficient reason to approve it? I just feel that councillors and council officers haven't given this issue the due consideration it deserves and I would encourage them to launch a more wide-ranging investigation into the resident's concerns.

The fact that they are so concerned and have been so vocal about it, should be enough to make the councillors sit up and listen. And some aspects of the planning materials presented to council, such as the traffic report which identifies 10am to 11am as a peak time for traffic, do seem flawed, even to an inexpert eye.

And experts, town planners and council officers have made mistakes in the past.

Why should their word be taken as gospel? Isn't the reason why we have elected representatives so they will represent our interests? And if locals want something to be looked at in more detail shouldn't this be done?

I think it should. I'm not saying the school shouldn't go ahead, I just think more investigation needs to be done into whether the Hoxton Park site is an appropriate one for it. And now is the time to do it. There will be a rescission motion against the decision at the next council meeting, on June 29, so if it is reversed, councillors can ask for a further report to be put together on the matter and further investigations be done and maybe suggest some changes to the plans, which will make them more appropriate. I only hope that this happens.

Look out for further coverage of the decision in the June 24 Liverpool Champion.