Mayo Healthcare Group director, Elaine Coldham said the directors have always sought to do what is best for the needs of the community. "In fact, a great share of the profits are put back into expanding the hospital's services."

Cathie Bogard, another representative of the Mayo Residents Action Group, spoke about the possible social consequences for the hospital and immediate neighbourhood if the development is approved. "The subdivision will create unnecessary boundaries and prevent proper development of the hospital facilities," she said. "This is a Humpty Dumpty situation. Once the allotment is shattered, it is going to take more than the councillors to put it back together again."

Cr Eddie Loftus moved that the development be accepted as per the 12 conditions recommended in council's report. Cr Katherine Bell seconded the motion.

"It is difficult to understand the residents' objection to this development," Cr Loftus said. "Their argument is that approval of this development will lead to less beds and health services, when it seems the opposite will be the case."

Cr Katherine Bell said she believes council's report adequately answers all of the legal questions posed on the development.

Cr David West spoke against the motion, voicing his concerns over the social impact of the proposed subdivision.

In speaking for the motion, Cr Paul Hogan mentioned the 'obvious miscommunication' between the Mayo Healthcare group and the residents of Potaroo Drive.

"The confusion here is that the residents perceive residential housing will be used on these blocks and not hospital facilities," Cr Hogan said.

"I am sorry the communication between the residents and the developers has fallen into one of fear and mistrust. It could be said that the Mayo Healthcare group could have been more open and made their objectives more transparent to alleviate any fears held by nearby residents."

Cr Mave Richardson echoed Cr Hogan's thoughts when she spoke for the motion.

"I'd like to say that this process has been a real dilemma," she said. "The misunderstandings surrounding this issue have caused great difficulty."

The application was approved four votes to two.

Crs Mal Marks and Allan Tickle were absent and Cr Trent Jennison did not take part in the debate due to a conflict of interests.