The Northern Rivers Times Edition 128

Council backfips on Treeland Drive centre

By TIM HOWARD

Clarence Valley Council’s backfip on its planned demolition and rebuild of the Treelands Drive Community Centre has pleased a group of Yamba residents.

Members of the recently formed Yamba Community Action Network, unfurled a banner protesting the proposal in the council business paper at its December meeting, to reaffrm support for the project which was the centre point of the Yamba Community Precinct Project.

Instead of proceeding with Option A, which proposed to demolish the current community centre, sell off the Wooli St hall and move the library into a purpose-built facility in the proposed new community centre.

Instead councillors voted for Option B which proposed to build a new library, make minor renovations to the exisiting TDCC and retain the Wooli St Hall.

Council conducted community consultation prior to the decision which was also clouded by recent events involving the closure of the Grafton Olympic Pool.

Council had secured an $11.1 million grant from the State Government for the TDCC project, but council voted to transfer those funds to its plan for a new aquatic centre at Grafton, which it had made it’s number one priority project.

The council’s community consultation showed that Option A had been the preferred course of action with 105 in favour of the demolition and construction of a new centre (Option A) and 91 in favour of Option B.

But Yamba CAN members were unhappy with the community consultation process, which included stalls at Yamba Markets, was not rigorous enough.

The organisation’s chair, James Lamerton, attended the council meeting last week and described the council decision as a “good

Yamba Community Action Network members, chair James Lamerton, secretary Lynne Cairns and member Renata Millonig with a banner protesting against a Clarence Valley Council proposal to demolish the Treeland Drive Community Centre.

result”.

“Demolishing a perfectly good hall and replacing it with a Taj Mahal, was something the Yamba community doesn’t need or want,” he said.

“But for some reason the council pushed ahead with it, even when the funding from the bushfre recovery fund was switched to the Grafton pool.”

Yamba CAN secretary Lynne Cairns, who had earlier made a deputation to the council on the issue, said there were some worrying decisions made in the council’s pursuit of this project.

She said there were concerns the previous general manager, Ashley Lindsay, had awarded tenders without a resolution of council to back him, as required under the Local Government Act.

But his successor Laura Black, said this was not the case and said comments made in the deputation were incorrect.

But Mrs Cairns said there were more anomalies in the council documents which showed council had been determined to push this project through.

It was revealed council has spent $728,818 to date on planning for the project and this amount was to be included as a defcit in the council’s

general fund.

In the meeting councillors debated a motion from Cr Greg Clancy that Option B become the council’s preference.

Three councillors wanted to proceed as planned.

Cr Karen Toms said this plan had been on the books since 2006 when it became apparent the Treelands Drive Community Centre was not “ft for purpose”.

“I would rather see nothing done than proceed with Option B,” she said.

She said Option A was a forward looking plan that represented an investment for Yamba in its future.

She said if the council had not changed direction in July to deal with the Grafton pool issue, the project would be funded and underway.

“Treelands Drive was not ft for purpose when it was built and tizzying it up is not giving the community what it wants,” she said.

Cr Allison Whaites said Option A was the most popular of the two choice and sticking with it best represented the views of the community.

She downplayed the Yamba CAN argument, saying the views of its 50 members were outnumbered by the 194 people who responded to the council community

consultation process.

And Cr Steve Pickering was the most passionate. He said supporting Option B was a vote to do nothing.

He said all Option B would do is give councillors more reading

material and throw away $728,000 already committed to the project.

He said there was nothing in the proposal to support claims it would cut council costs.

“There’s nothing here that says it would be a

third, half or twice the cost of Option A,” he said.

“It could be anything.” But most councillors were reluctant to embark on a project where the council would fnd itself borrowing up to $12 million.

Cr Jeff Smith pointed out on current projections that would cost council $600,000 a year to repay, or $15 million over 25 years.

It was a point Cr Clancy took up in his right of reply, arguing now was a time to be cautious spending money.

“A lot has happened in the last few year, we’re in a new world,” he said. “We’re no longer able to throw money at things.

“We can’t afford to demolish a building that’s not that old.”

He agreed there were good arguments for the other option and Option B was not perfect.

“Option B has got warts on it,” he said. “But Option A has bigger warts.”