The proposed CV council super-works depot

People have a right and an obligation to examine, form an opinion and be critical on the operations of a public institute like the CVC, especially when they make decisions that affect everyone.
Take the new proposed council super-depot as an example, the project that’s been covered in a cloak of secrecy for years. Surely this sort of action breeds nothing but suspicions? What is so wrong with transparency?
Setting aside the confidential issue, it makes a lot of sense to combine all the five or more suggested council depots and offices into one well positioned centralized super works depot; improve communication, reduce staffing levels, etc. This should equal falling costs to council.
As long as it can be accomplished under an accurate and affordable budget and the yields for the old sites are realistic and offer a favourable return to council
This is where the wheels fall off CVC decision making process and common-sense goes out the window with this project.
The GM and he’s chain of command conducted a feasibility study and identified three preferred council owned sites for the project. The site chosen as the best option for the proposed super depot was the old treatment sewage works in Tyson Street South Grafton.
A toxic site next to a high school in a residential area, it will increase the school safety, security issue and add to the present limited parking problem, the site needs extensive excavation work and will create excessive noise before during and after construction.
With the abundance of land available in and around Grafton, why choose this site? Wouldn’t it make more sense to identify the best overall location for a large scale project like the super depot and position it there? Regardless of whether its council owned land or not, isn’t council able to acquire and rezone land, tick their own local government required boxes and address any environmental issues identified. Choose a site big enough to cover the needs of such a large scale significant project, where they can incorporate off street parking for staff and visitors and include a noise buffer from neighbouring properties. Wouldn’t the purchase price of a more suitable and strategically positioned property be more cost effective than bringing the Tyson street site up to scratch with the multi-million dollar budget required for environmental and levelling works?
Am I being over critical of the guarded decision making process of our well-oiled machine we all know as the Clarence Valley Council?
Gordon Smith,