A highly anticipated vote that could see a $10 million RSL club built less than 100 metres from the Deckchair Cinema on The Esplanade will be further delayed, despite hopes the matter would come before Darwin Council aldermen at their next meeting on Tuesday.

Darwin Lord Mayor Kon Vatskalis controversially delayed the vote at the council’s last meeting disappointing a packed room of concerned residents who had turning up to hear the decision.

Mr Vatskalis later revealed the harbour-side land held significant cultural importance to the custodians of the land – the Larrakia people.

But the NT Independent revealed the sudden deferral of the crucial council vote on the RSL’s proposed Esplanade establishment was influenced by an undisclosed letter of a legal nature, a matter which has been denied by the Mayor.

Confusion continues to fester almost two weeks later amid new revelations including an audio recording of the meeting which exposes the council to breaches of its bylaws.

It was hoped the RSL’s proposal would be put to a vote on Tuesday night, but council documents reveal it is unlikely.

Mr Vatskalis said the council is still validating claims the site, adjacent to the cenotaph, holds cultural importance.

“We haven’t received information back from the Aboriginal Protection Authority confirming exactly where there are sacred sites,” Mr Vatskalis said.

Hundreds of people turned up to a Darwin City Council meeting last Tuesday in a rally of support for the Deckchair Cinema.

Mr Vatskalis has revoked his once staunch support for an RSL development on The Esplanade, but highlighted “the Mayor doesn’t run the show”.

“It is beyond our control as to how and when another organisation responds,” he said in response to questions on a timeframe, but said it was of vital importance elected members had all of the information before casting a vote.

“It wouldn’t be fair to aldermen to make them decide without all of the information,” he said.

“I said before, the matter would be discussed at a later date… we want to know… but we need the information first.”

Last week, the NT Independent revealed the decision to defer the council vote was in part based on a letter from a third party, which sources have confirmed Mr Vatskalis received, but are wary of relaying its contents for fear of legal repercussions – it is understood to be serious in nature and necessitated delaying council’s vote

However, Mr Vatskalis denied the existence of a legal letter on Mix 104.9 on Wednesday.

“Well if they’ve got the legal letter they put it on the table, on the newspaper, because there’s no legal letter,” he said.

‘Who am I going to believe, the recording or people who tell me they voted?’

The Mayoral Minute – the motion put forward by Mr Vatskalis to defer the vote on the RSL proposal – continues to be a point of confusion with some elected members stating a vote did not take place, while others remain unwilling to comment.

Despite an audio recording emerging from the fray that reveals a vote did not take place, council documents have recorded the Mayoral Minute was carried all in favour.

Council bylaws state a Mayoral Minute does not need to be seconded, like other motions, but must be voted on by aldermen.

“I put it to a vote and people voted,” Mr Vatskalis said.

“It was a noisy night, there was lots of confusion… who am I going to believe, the recording or people who tell me they voted?”

Last week, the NT Independent contacted all aldermen – five said they would not go on the record about the vote, two said a vote did occur, and three did not respond to requests for comment.

Charles Darwin University fellow-in-law John Garrick said that while the actions of the Mayor might “appear to fly in the face of democratic process” but if carried out, it would have forced aldermen into voting on an issue they were not prepared for.

“They would have been voting on something they don’t have all the information on, the question that still remains, however, is why the Mayor couldn’t provide all of the information at the time,” Dr Garrick said.

“I think [Mr Vatskalis] was within his technical rights to exercise his authority at that moment.”