Rodney Stevens
Clarence Valley councillors voted to demolish the existing 22-year-old Yamba Treelands Drive Community Precinct TDCP at their February meeting despite backlash from Deputy Mayor Greg Clancy, who argued the motion was illegal and moved a dissent motion.
In an extraordinary turn of events that pre-empted council’s vote, people who had made submissions about the TDCP were advised by email more than three hours before the CVC meeting that the Northern Regional Planning Panel will meet on March 14, at 2pm, to determine the development application’s fate.
As the TDCP is considered a regionally significant development it will be determined by the Northern Regional Planning Panel.
Cr Karen Tom’s moved the council officer’s recommendation that council rescind its decision from the December 2022 meeting to investigate a contract variation with the current design contract for the detailed design of Option B, and allocate the $728,818 expenditure to date to the general fund as a deficit.
Cr Tom’s then moved, and Cr Steve Pickering seconded the officer’s recommendation that council:
- Reaffirm support for design Option A for construction of the Yamba Community Precinct project;
- Endorse the proposed funding strategy identified in the Budget/Financial section of the report, with confirmation to be reported at the time of awarding the contract.
- Retain ownership of the Wooli Street Hall and consider possible uses on completion of the Treelands Drive Community Centre project.
- Invite the shortlisted contractors to submit tenders for construction of the Yamba Community Precinct project: a. Bennet Construction. b. Alder Construction. c. Hinds Construction. d. BARPA Construction Services.
Immediately, Cr Clancy called a point of order.
“This motion is not legal,” Cr Clancy said.
“Under the code of meeting practice 17.2 and under the Local Government Act 372, this motion does not comply with the act or the policy.
“The only way that a rescission motion can be put to council is if three councillors sign the rescission motion and that it be lodged seven working days prior to the meeting.
“This has not occurred and therefore it is not a legal motion.”
Mayor Ian Tiley said after receiving an email from Cr Clancy about his concern, he instructed General Manager Laura Black to seek advice from the Office of Local Government.
“Our view is that section 372 only applies to situations where a councillor is seeking to alter, amend or rescind a previous decision of the council,” Cr Tiley said the Office of Local Government advised.
“It does not apply to a situation where, because of changes in circumstances, a staff report is put up recommending the alteration, amendment or rescission of an earlier decision.”
Cr Clancy then moved a motion of dissent.
“I dissent to your decision (about the illegality of the motion) because I would argue that there is no new information that is available,” he said.
“If you read the motion that is to be rescinded, nothing has changed in relation to that motion.
“So to actually say that we have new information is totally wrong.”
Cr’s Jeff Smith and Peter Johnstone supported Cr Clancy’s dissent motion, which was defeated 6-3.
Cr Tom’s said the new information was that council can’t use the $11.1 million Bushfire Local Economic Recovery BLER grant towards Grafton pool as was requested and it can only be used to demolish the TDCP, not expand the current premises as was Option B.
“The information is very very clear that we can’t use it for any other project than what went in there with the BLER funding application,” she said.
“That’s why I am supporting the officer’s recommendation, because there is no way in the world I can support $11.1 million being returned to the government.”
Cr Pickering supported Cr Tom’s motion saying, ‘This asset hasn’t been of a suitable quality since at least 2006, when it was first raised as an option to replace it.’
“You can’t retrofit an old building and bring it up to today’s standards,” he said.
Cr Clancy then put forward a foreshadowed motion ‘That council authorise the mayor to write to the funding authority to ascertain whether the funding for the Treelands Drive Community Centre can be applied to Option B (as presented to the community during the survey) considering that Option A has already been altered and it is considered to be the same project.’
He argued that his December motion had nothing to do with transferring the BLER grant money to the Grafton Pool redevelopment, therefore there was no new information about that motion.
“I am not suggesting that we give the money back,” he said.
The foreshadowed motion was defeated 6 to 3, with votes the same as the dissent motion.
Councillors voted 6 to 3 to support Cr Tom’s motion, with Cr’s Clancy, Smith and Johnstone voting against.