However, the one-vote majority reflected the tone of the deferral motion debate.
Numerous clarifications were sought by councillors, while at times some slouched in their seats, shook heads, or voiced frustration in their opinions.
Initially, Cr Shelley Sutton moved a motion for a three-month deferral. However, chief executive Peter Harriott said there were transparency risks in the motion.
“Council adopted a consultation process for 2050; a serious consultation process,” he said.
“They adopted that at the start of the process and now we are trying to develop a new consultation process at a council meeting without any idea of where we're going to go.
“Potentially we do not have the 2050 going back out for exhibition. This could be abandoned 2050 and start again.”
Cr Sutton changed her motion to six months.
But Mr Harriott responded with a general warning to council about procedural fairness.
“This council is at risk, serious risk, in relation to procedural fairness surrounding what is being proposed,” he said.
Despite Cr Sutton asking "how it was unfair?", Mayor Seema Abdullah cut off the chance of further clarifications and moved on with meeting procedure.
Mr Harriott's concerns were also brought up by Cr Chris Hazelman, who referred to the motion as being "absolutely silent" on the matter of community consultation.
“What is council actually directing Peter to do?" he said.
“We just want more consultation and just make a decision in six months’ time.
“As council we have some responsibility to provide a bit more direction about the process — it could be engage consultants or put an advertisement in the Shepp News.
“Or are we talking something more involved and a procedure for Peter and his staff to find?”
Cr Fern Summer moved a foreshadow motion that council remove any time limit in deferral, and focus on community consultation.
Because the six-month motion was agreed by council her foreshadow motion was not considered.
But Cr Summer said council should not worry about hurting the feelings of council staff members because it was common for motions to be voted against.
“As councillors it's not our role to decide operational matters like how the consultation should proceed,” she said.
“We are here at a high level saying ‘there hasn't been enough’, it's up to the organisation to satisfy the councillors who are making the final decision on whether or not it has been satisfactory.”
Cr Dennis Patterson said the 37 people who made submissions to the plan would be feeling neglected by council.
“We've got ourselves in a real hole, I don't know where we're going,” he said.
“When we have consultation and we get to a meeting after that and someone rings up a councillor the day before and says ‘I wasn't consulted’, do we go back again?
“We get to a stage and have to make a decision; show some leadership.”
Crs Sutton, Summer, Bruce Giovanetti, Dinny Adem and Kim O'Keeffe voted for the motion.
Read more on the 2050 plan
2050 growth plan deferred. What happens now?
East of Doyles Rd should be zoned residential not agricultural, landholder says
