"So what": the face of not-so-good governance on the NSW North Coast

Last weekend a copy of Clarence Valley Council's June 2010 Budget Submissions Summary was doing the digital rounds much to the enjoyment of local cynics.
Of particular note was this answer to one concern raised about the fact that after 6 years council still had not reconciled a $1.2 million deficit brought into the amalgamation process by Grafton City Council: "So what".
But what really had locals opened mouthed was this answer to concerns about lack of transparency and accountability:
"As the 'senior administrator' who recommended that CCRT funding be used for lifesaving services, I (Rob Donges) have taken responsibility for including Iluka and will take responsibility should a higher authority determine that this funding arrangement is grossly negligent or some such thing."
That last line comes after a previous entry which goes:
"LPMA representatives have verbally raised concerns as to the funding of this service from CCRT and staff have provided our reasoning. Nothing more has been heard. If the Authority were to formally advise that the funding is inappropriate, we would recommend it be funded elsewhere i.e. General Fund."
The merry cynics are now laying bets that the Land and Property Mangement Authority won't be amused when it learns that its attempt to informally manage the problem of past misallocations of what could be hundreds of thousands of dollars in Clarence Coast Reserve Trust funds has been seen as something council staff can brush aside - especially as it was a resident's complaint which first brought the matter to light and council management has been very careful not to consult with the NSW Department of Lands itself just in case it wasn't left with anymore wriggle room.
Clarence Coast Reserve Trust Budget 2010/11

McDonald's versus Yamba: only two councillors stood for democracy, public interest and community values on the day

The Clarence Valley Council ordinary monthly meeting on 18 May 2010 passed by five votes to two the McDonald's Australia Limited development application for a 6am to midnight eat-in and drive through fast food outlet in Treelands Drive, Yamba, a small town at the mouth of the Clarence River on the NSW North Coast.

Mayor Emeritus Cr. Ian Tiley's motion for refusal of the development application:

I move the following motion for refusal:-

That DA2010/0203 for McDonalds restaurant, signage, parking and landscaping be refused for the following good reasons:-

1."The proposal will be a more intensive use than the existing uses on the subject site and result in adverse impacts on the amenity of the residential area in proximity.

2. The proposed built form, scale and design is unsuitable for the site being inconsistent with the desired future character of development in the locality.

3. The proposal will not enhance the appearance, function and viability of commercial and retail areas as required under 3(a) zone of the Maclean LEP.

4. The proposed restaurant building and associated signage will be visually bulky and intrusive and will compromise and adversely affect the visual amenity of the locality and be overbearing when viewed from surrounding streets and residential properties.

5. The proposed development will adversely affect the character and amenity of adjoining and surrounding properties and the locality, in terms of increased frequency of vehicle movements and attendant impacts including noise, odour, light spillage, lighting and glare, safety and security, and hours of operation.

6. The proposed development will result in an unreasonable increase in vehicular traffic in local streets because of the intensification of use on the site.

7. The proposed development does not provide adequate prevention and management measures to address the threat to the security, safety and amenity of surrounding and nearby residents, and the general public, arising from people loitering and congregating outside the proposed restaurant at late night opening hours.

8. At times when restaurant closed and drive through open, the drive through would be the primary and not an ancillary use

9. The nature, size and location of the proposal will have substantial adverse social impacts significantly disproportionate to any perceived benefits.

10. The proposed development is not in the public interest".

There are compelling grounds for refusal of this application based on size, social impact, increased noise, increased traffic of at least 920 vehicles per day, inadequate vehicular access for community buses, taxis and drop offs, lack of assessment of feeder roads, increased intensity of use of the site as compared to 9 to 5.30 businesses, and especially that it is not in the public interest.

The report before us does not mention the size of the proposed restaurant. It will be larger than McDonalds at Ballina.

In respect of the aims of the Maclean LEP Zone 3(a), the provision of a McDonalds refreshment room in this location cannot possibly improve the viability of Yamba hill and Yamba town centre where council has over the years devoted much resources to facilitate a vibrant mix of restaurants and attractions.

I argue that all of the grounds for refusal in the motion are matters that go to underlining that the proposal is definitely against the public or common interest.

Academic writings on public interest define it as an interest that is potentially common to everybody. The public interest is the primary criterion for judging proposals. Private interests have to be put aside at law.

The academic and legal struggle to operationalise the concept of the public interest in planning has been about separating the public from the private interest.

Thus I keep away from the impact on other businesses. Even though that is absolutely real it amounts to an individual's private interest and would not stand court scrutiny unless it could be argued that the combined business interest amounted to public interest, because of consequent community impacts such as loss of employment. Unfortunately we do not have the benefit of an economic impact study on this issue.

There is no doubt that we need to protect the finite Yamba 'food pie'. The people want a local food economy as does council, underlined through council's participation in the NR Food links Project and support of Northern Rivers Food and Clarence Cuisine.

The drive through would be an integral part of the business proposal and not an ancillary use, or a use of premises which is incidental and subordinate to the predominant use. Whilst a drive through is not prohibited under the Maclean LEP and is not mentioned therein, at certain times of the day, when the proposed restaurant is closed and the drive through alone is open for service it would become the restaurant, have a "stand alone" function and then be equal to the predominant use.

The revised S79C assessment received since the Committee meeting, has but one sentence dealing with the NSW Coastal Policy and the North Coast Design Guidelines as required under S32B of the North Coast REP – quote "the proposal does not contravene any of the aims listed, nor the specific design and locational principles provided by clause 32B". At least some valid objections should have been addressed in this assessment.

The MNC Regional Strategy is not mentioned in the revised Assessment. Part B of the Guidelines for Crime Prevention and assessment of Development Applications must be considered but again no mention. The DA has not been referred to NSW Police for comment. Whilst optional, one would have thought this a prudent course of action. All very disappointing and unsatisfactory.

I am particularly disappointed that the report before us failed to mention the considerable case law where McDonalds Development Applications elsewhere have been rejected. This must be remedied in future reports if the council is of a mind to refuse a controversial Development Application. We must have more balance in officers reports.

Our role as representatives is to make decisions for the electorate. We are relied on to listen to the alternate viewpoints and to make best decisions. In the event of position being overwhelmingly adopted by the community, there is no doubt in my mind that the elected representative should support the community position, in the absence of compelling grounds. We have an overwhelmingly supported community position and we do not have alternate compelling grounds in this instance.

Our key council strategic plans including Valley Vision 2020 and the sustainability initiative dictate that we should hold true to the values of our community as clearly expressed. We must now follow through our good policy with good decision-making. This application, if approved will undermine our forward-thinking.

I have proudly watched Clarence Valley Council grow from its infancy. Today we have the opportunity to grow more, to show leadership and do positive good for those we represent.

No McDonalds in Yamba is the overwhelming view of community. That is indisputable. The people have spoken with great clarity and determination. 94.8% of 455 submission writers were opposed.

As Dom Ferry so eloquently said a week ago, we should also stand for the many silent ones out there.

My hope today is that CV will join the communities of Blue Mountains, Byron Bay, Port Douglas, Margaret River, Randwick, Ashfield and others which have rejected McDonalds.

In my time in local government, with the possible exception of the Clarence Valley Council amalgamation I have never witnessed such civic engagement on an issue or such overwhelming opposition.

We witnessed a most unusual but effective alliance between the Chamber of commerce and Valley Watch with combined full page adds. What a clear message to council!

There is a whole lot of passion out there, a word one could suggest that the folk of Yamba have almost redefined!

The proposal would be out of character for Yamba. Not in the public interest. Not in conformity with Yamba's cultural heritage.

Many have rightly argued that Yamba is unique, the adjudged best town in Australia, the seaside fishing village, the sun sand and surf, the quiet enjoyment atmosphere, the retirement treasure.

The people have told us clearly what they really care for as a community. Letters were from the heart telling us that they care.

This reinforces what they told us when council prepared the Sustainability Initiative in 2006.

Yamba values need to be protected for future generations. As an iconic tourist destination it needs to remain different from all those other places that exhibit high rise and sameness.

The public interest test involves assessing whether the importance of the public detriments is greater than the importance of the public benefits. There can be no doubt that this proposal is not in the public interest and should be rejected.

Yamba does indeed still that X factor, that special difference, the quiet rural coastal town/family holiday feel, which many people who live elsewhere search for, often vainly nowadays. They value, they enjoy, they wish and expect us to preserve. That is what we as elected representatives of the people must do today.

Cr. Sue Hughes speaking in support of the refusal motion:

I have been elected by the community to represent the community and be their voice on their Council. 94.8% of the community are saying NO to McDonalds – and as an elected councillor I therefore am saying no to McDonalds.

This proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the 3 (a) zone, under the Maclean LEP, which states that the particular objectives of this zone are (a) well designed commercial and retail development which will ENHANCE the appearance, function and viability of commercial and retail areas – I ask will this proposal of colossal proportions ENHANCE the appearance, function and VIABILITY of commercial and retail areas – i think not. Remember, this McDonalds is BIGGER than the one in Ballina – which I may add has a population of 15,000 - and a steady passing trade from the Highway. WHY – when our population is half that, 80% of the year. I question the viability of commercial and retail areas – there is no denying that many local businesses will SUFFER – not just in Yamba either, areas such as Maclean, Ferry Park and Harwood.

We have received hundred's of letters from the local community and from tourists who visit our town – they all indicate the reason why they chose to spend their holidays and money in Yamba is because of it's uniqueness, no traffic lights, no McDonalds, no Hungry Jacks, KFC or the like – we would lose those tourists who will find somewhere else to spend their money. This proposal will have adverse impact on the character and economic vitality of the town and it's not just food outlets either.

The applicant indicates that they are going to employ between 50-100 staff – are these the same people who would lose their jobs in their current place of employment because business owners have to reduce their staffing numbers due to a down turn in business???

This proposal is inconsistent with our core objectives and I refer to CVC Valley Vision 2020 – under our VISION and I quote:

"a sustainable Clarence Valley : Life in the Clarence Valley, now and in the future, is based on a culture of living sustainably that protects and carefully utilises the natural environment, its beauty and resources, our cultural heritage and UNIQUE identity of our valley and its communities" – I think we would agree that Yamba is UNIQUE and that it IS part of its identity. That is why we have chosen the live here – that is why tourists come here.

I further add – in the summary – HUMAN HABITAT – Our intention is to live in sustainable communities, including a healthy natural environment, supported by efficient and effective essential services and transport systems, our homes and streetscapes reflecting local heritage, character and charm – I ASK – where does a McDonalds restaurant and drive through fit in with this?

SOCIETY AND CULTURE – Our intention is for our creative valley cultures, rich in history and diversity, to be supported by good information, education, health, recreation and other services, providing opportunities for quality lifestyles involving a sense of well-being in which we value our communities and each other – I ASK does a McDonalds restaurant and drive through equate to a healthy lifestyle???
Further by voting NO we are valuing the majority of our community and each other.

For us to ignore our own corporate strategic plan would be foolish – why spend the time and money if we ignore the principles which underpin our core values.

This is not about being multi national, it's not about the brand McDonalds – its about VIABILITY, listening to our community AND protecting a sustainable economic framework and keeping a community functioning on an economic level.

I am sure that the ratepayers in Yamba would be happy to spend the money and go to the Land & Environment Court if McDonalds challenged our decision.

For all the reasons outlined above, I believe that the nature, size and location of this proposal WILL have a significant economic and social impact on Yamba and for this reason I am voting NO to McDonalds and encourage my fellow elected councillors to listen to the voices of our community and vote NO.

Is 'The Daily Examiner' the Voice of the Clarence Valley?

The less than totally frank account of Clarence Valley Council's 2009/10 rate structure by the Grafton-based news publication, The Daily Examiner, casts serious doubt on its claim that it is the voice of the Clarence Valley.

For the second year in succession Clarence Valley Council has reduced Grafton's rate levies, leaving ratepayers in the rest of the shire to make up the service cost difference.

But instead of recognising this burden, The Daily Examiner reported on a move to "ease the burden of Grafton and Junction Hill ratepayers..." claiming "Their rates remain the highest in the valley" [DE 8.5.09].

Were they?

Unfortunately this Grafton-based news publication omitted from its list Grafton's average rate, despite giving the average rates of all the other centres of population within the Clarence Valley for 2009/10:-
Farmland avg rate $1036.71
Coastal villages avg res rate $992.23
Yamba/Wooloweyah avg res rate $960.48
Iluka avg res rate $738.65
Maclean/Townsend avg res rate $681.59

Gulmarrad/Woombah etc avg res rate $671.14
Lawrence avg res rate $641.69

The truth is the average Grafton rate is $879.14 and that certainly does not "remain the highest in the valley".
In fact perusal of Clarence Valley Council's past rate structures show that they have never had the highest average rates in the valley.

A news publication with any integrity would have included the average residential rate in Grafton along with the rest of the list provided by Clarence Valley Council.

Therefore any claim by The Daily Examiner that it is the voice of the Clarence Valley must be greeted with scepticism.

The subject of Grafton's rates is not new to The Daily Examiner.

Prior to forced local government amalgamation, The Daily Examiner's 30th November 2001 headline read "COUNCIL CRISIS" reporting Grafton City Council's spending commitment blowout had reduced its working capital from $500,000 to $32,000.

On the 18th June 2003 The Daily Examiner 's headline "Hip pocket nerve" reported Grafton City Council as signing off on a rate hike of 3.25% above the pegged rate 3.60 per cent to fund its lavish abundance of services.
By that time Grafton City Council already had the second highest average rate ($662.00) of local government areas in the region and this further increase above the pegged rate propelled it to the top.
Maclean Shire Council's average rate at that time was lower at $552.00.

Grafton City Council had no-one to blame for its high level of rates but itself.
It had the opportunity to reduce its level of services in line with its income, but chose instead to increase its rates.

However despite its increase in rates, its auditors reported that Grafton City Council was still unable to meet its massive service costs and after raiding its internal reserves of some $900,000 it came into forced amalgamation $412,000 in deficit leaving the Maclean Shire Council surpluses to subsidise it.

But not a word of this situation from the supposed voice of the Clarence Valley, the Grafton-based Daily Examiner's sabres were silent.

The amalgamated Clarence Valley Council's subsequent budgets reveal a rates increase for all population centres except Grafton with no additional services included.
While Grafton received a less proportionate increase with no decrease in services.

The Daily Examiner's omission of Grafton's average rate from its article of the 8th May 2009 and its incorrect claim that Grafton rates "remain the highest in the valley" was not just a failure to be totally frank with its Clarence Valley readers, it left an obvious impression that it is parochially biased and is pushing its own agenda.

As the only daily news publication in the Clarence Valley, The Daily Examiner must surely have an obligation to act responsibly, report facts accurately, be impartial and display the utmost integrity.
Otherwise it has no right to refer to itself as The Voice of the Clarence Valley.

RAY HUNT
Yamba

Guest Speak is a North Coast Voices segment allowing serious or satirical comment from NSW Northern Rivers residents. Email ncvguestpeak at live dot com dot au to submit comment for consideration.

Six Nervous Pollies or Where will NSW lose its next federal electorate in 2009?

In December 2008 Malcolm McKerras predicted that the NSW electorates of Gilmore and Throsby would possibly merge in any 2009 redistribution.
In February 2009 Antony Green is tipping; "Fowler and Macarthur are currently the NSW electorates with the lowest total enrolment and therefore subject to amalgamation, not Gilmore and Throsby. However, if the branch of Sydney Harbour known as Iron Cove is ignored and the boundary viewed as contigous, then any mini-redistribution on current numbers would see Lowe and Sydney amalgamated."
The Australian Electoral Commission has begun the lengthy redistribution process.
So which pollie will have to go?
And does this mean that we have avoided a politically expedient early federal election push by the government of the day or an opposition trying to scare us with the threat of one?

Tiley v Williamson: Clarence Valley mayoral debate continues

I read with interest the letter placed in the Letters to the Editor column and submitted by Arthur Lysaght concerning the Election of the Mayor for the Clarence Valley Council.
The letter was written as an endorsement for Richie Williamson because he topped the poll and could be regarded as a Graftonian.

It is Arthur's right to go into bat for one of his own. It is also the right for others to give support for the incumbent Mayor Ian Tiley.
Graftonians have been smarting ever since a non-Graftonian was elected to the position of Mayor and they must be reminded that their turn will come, but let's hope it is not this year.

When amalgamation took place Ian Tiley was given the most difficult task of moulding the Councillors into a formidable group to look after the interests of the Valley which he has done.
A lot of decisions that have been made will not suit a lot of people but at the end of the day his actions, whilst he has been Mayor, have placed the council in a good position to face its second term.

Ian Tiley's cone of vision extends well beyond the precincts of Grafton and fairness for all of his constituents has been paramount in his thinking and in dealing with all the problems that are associated with being the Mayor.

This is the second time that the Valley has been confronted with the suggestion that "The one who tops the poll should be the Mayor."
Former councillor Chris Gulaptis was also in the same position, however, common sense prevailed and Councillor Ian Tiley, who has two degrees in Local Government, was elected to the job and has come through it with flying colours.

People should be reminded that just because you are popular doesn't necessarily make you the right person for the job.
Isn't it better that if you fly in an aircraft the pilot should have the right qualifications to fly the aircraft than just being popular back at the base?

I am sure that Richie Williamson will eventually become the Mayor as he is keen and young enough to wait for the right time.
Being at the microphone with gigantic headaches each day might prove to be just too much to handle.
But then again with the social life that he has led over the years it might be nothing new to him.
Don't rush things Richie, listen to the stories about the "old bull and the young bull," they will make if easier for you if you are elected but God help you if you don't take heed.

The Clarence Valley Council needs another term of Ian Tiley at the helm, as there are still many teething problems to overcome and it may prove to be a disaster if he is removed and replaced by someone with much less experience.

In conclusion, may I congratulate all the newly elected councillors on being elected and hope that the interests of the whole valley will be of the utmost importance and that parochialism does not come into any decision making.

APPSIE
Clarence Valley

* GuestSpeak is a feature of North Coast Voices allowing Northern Rivers residents to make satirical or serious comment on issues that concern them. Posts of 250-300 words or less can be submitted to ncvguestspeak@live.com.au for consideration.

Clarence Valley Council: Dinham did what?

The Clarence Valley local government area elected its 9 shire councillors on the 13th September 2008.

Like many areas before it, the Valley voted almost blind when it came to most of the candidates found on the ballot paper.

Take newly-elected Clarence Valley shire councillor, Ian H. Dinham, for instance.

A relatively small number of voters knew that, before mandatory local government amalgamation, he had been a staff member at Maclean Shire Council and later headed the Clarence River County Council (CRCC), an entity which operated across all the then existing Clarence Valley local government areas.

Some voters also knew that while wearing the CRCC General Manager hat Ian Dinham was also elected a Maclean Shire councillor, which saw him in the ridiculous position as a councillor of voting to write to himself as a general manager and chronically late to almost every council meeting.

However, that is not all that Cr. Dinham now is.
Apparently when he stood for election to Clarence Valley Council (CVC) this month, he was and is a consultant engineer employed by Tweed Shire Council and has a current email address idinham@tweed.nsw.gov.au

But wait, there's more.
When Cr. Dinham was CRCC General Manager he got wind that the Valley-wide local government restructuring was coming, which would see the CRCC dissolved and a new agency created and, his alleged actions after that have been the subject of persistent and consistent rumour ever since.

Rumour has it that Cr. Dinham drew up his own redundancy agreement (with attached confidentiality agreement/clause) which allowed for him to receive a lump sum equal to two years full pay in the event his employment was terminated for any reason.
He supposedly then presented this to certain members of the CRCC board and had the agreement endorsed.

This rather unusual agreement would have seen Cr. Dinham pocket a sum coming closer to half a million dollars than the more modest standard 26-30 weeks pay other managers in similar situations usually received.

It is no wonder then that in the CRCC Annual Report 2003-04 as former general manager, he wrote: I wish to extend my very best wishes to the new Clarence Valley Council as we enter a new era of serving our community...

With all those coins allegedly jingling in his pocket Dinham then went on to become the Executive Manager of Clarence Valley Floodplain Service which effectively replaced the CRCC. Leaving one to wonder just how many days he actually spent redundant and unemployed.

He held this new position until around mid-2007.

It is my understanding that the local media recently approached Dinham concerning the circumstances of his redundancy pay-out and that he has flatly refused to comment. Safe in the knowledge that (whatever the actual circumstances of his redundancy package) former council and county council personnel records are sealed for the next 50 to 100 years.

Now another rumour is doing the rounds; that Ian Dinham wants to be Deputy-Mayor of Clarence Valley Council at the end of the month when the mayoral election is held.

Five questions spring to mind:

• if Cr. Dinham's redundancy package is not as described by rumour, why doesn't he deny the rumour when asked?
• how many employers does Cr. Dinham actually have?
• can Clarence Valley ratepayers afford this man?
• which council will now have his loyalty - Clarence Valley or Tweed?
• given the distance between the two local government areas, will he even bother to turn up to CVC monthly meetings?

Global economic downturn may see NSW North Coast councils return to roads, rats and rubbish

In The Northern Star yesterday North Coast local government exposure to the failing US subprime market was discussed.
Byron Bay Council takes issue with NSW Treasurer Michael Costa's assessment of the situation, but Lismore Council admits to difficulties.

It was revealed yesterday that NSW councils faced service cutbacks and even higher rates after losing up to $400 million in the sub-prime mortgage crisis.
Byron Shire was listed among the top 10 worst-affected councils, with a reported loss of $6.9 million - or 11 per cent of its total investments. But the council yesterday hit back, saying the claims were deceptive.--
Lismore City councillor and finance journalist David Tomlinson said it was clear Lismore City Council, which lost $3.1 million in the credit crunch, did not really understand the sort of product that was being used to invest ratepayers' funds.
"The strategy being recommended by our financial advisers is to hang on and hope for the best," he said.
"There is, however, a real credit risk if things do not improve.
"Lismore has $1.7 million at what is now regarded as relatively high risk, and another million regarded as troubled.
"We could lose the lot."

In the Clarence Valley some ratepayers are also beginning to worry that all is not well in their financial garden and wonder about the level of subprime exposure there.
Clarence Valley Council's investment income was $1.3 million lower than expected in the 12 months to January 2008.
This despite State Government assurances that the forced amalgamation of valley councils into Clarence Valley Council would see economies of scale, annual savings in the vicinity of $1.5 million and an increased ability to take advantage of investment opportunities.
At present the projected budget deficit stands at around $778,840 and the end of this financial year is fast approaching.
Both the mayor and general manager have flagged a review of investment and funding sources.
However, if the books are to balance by 30 June as promised, then expenditure will also have to be carefully examined.

It looks as though North Coast councils are being forced back into the old rates, roads, rats and rubbish mould by the ongoing failure of federal and state governments to address the role of contemporary local government, increasing levels of cost-shifting being forced on this sector and poor investment advice.