YambaCAN flogged with a feather

By Tim Howard

A lame duck Clarence Valley Council has plucked a feather with which to flog a tormentor during the final meeting of its term.

Meeting in caretaker mode on August 27, councillors voted 5-3 to note a three-months overdue report into the council’s $1.048 million costs of interacting with the Yamba Community Action Network.

In February the council supported a notice of motion from Cr Karen Toms to look into:

• a) the allocation of resources required to respond to GIPAs submitted by Yamba CAN Inc since January 2022.
• b) the allocation of resources required to respond to RFI (Request for Information) submitted by Yamba CAN Inc since January 2022.
• c) the cost implications of delays to delivering the Yamba Community Precinct project since January 2022.

The report originally requested for the May council meeting, found GIPAs, RFIs and related delays to projects, chiefly the Yamba Community Precinct Project, had cost council $1.048 million.

Last Tuesday Mayor Peter Johnstone recognised part C of the motion – the most costly – went beyond the pale and moved to remove it from his ultimately successful foreshadowed motion to note the findings of the first two parts of the report.

But the meeting began with a much more sweeping motion from Cr Bill Day to reject the entire thing.

He asked if the report was a genuine investigation or a part of an ongoing vendetta against Yamba CAN and its secretary, Lynne Cairns, who has decided to run for council at this month’s Local Government election.

Cr Debrah Novak brought a point of order at this, saying Cr Day had “no evidence” to support this assertion.

Cr Johnston warned Cr Day of Section 15.11 in the Code of Meeting Practice, Acts of Disorder.

Cr Day continued, pointing out that GIPAs were a “legislated right for all people in NSW”.

“It really doesn’t matter what the cost is or how much some councillors don’t like it.

Mayor Peter Johnstone got his motion to note the report across the line against fierce opposition from some councillors.

It’s L.A.W. law,” he said.

Cr Day also noted the number of GIPAs and RFIs requested were not high and that if council had handled them better, there might have been fewer of them.

Cr Day said there were other parts of the report that revealed suspect motivations behind it.

He was critical of a section of the report that detailed GIPAs and other actions brought by Craig McNeill,

Mr McNeill had been an executive member of YambaCAN, but had resigned and took action against the council privately.

Cr Day questioned why these should appear in a report relating to YambaCAN.

He also questioned the motivation of the author of the report, council general manager Laura Black.

Cr Day did not name Ms Black, but it was clear he was referring to her.

He noted she had been involved in defamation concerns with YambaCAN

“Is it too much to ask that person to declare a conflict of interest?” he said.

At this point Cr Johnstone warned Cr Day.

“I will refer again to the acts of disorder, which you will know you’ve sailed beyond the wind there,” he said.

Cr Day concluded his address with an appeal to his fellow councillors.

“This business item is all about spitefulness, revenge, distortions of the truth and discrediting a candidate for election to this council,” he said.

“Surely there are enough councillors here who are smart enough to understand this and who have enough courage to vote it into the rubbish bin where it belongs.”

Cr Johnson moved his foreshadowed motion at this point.

The next speaker, deputy Mayor Jeff Smith, described the NOM and subsequent report as a “low point” for council.

He said YambaCAN had not done anything wrong and had followed process in its GIPA requests.

He said they had submitted seven of the 48 GIPAs council had dealt with in the term from January 2022 to February 2024.

Cr Smith praised YambaCAN for its spirit of community involvement.

“Why does YambaCAN do it? Because YambaCAN cares,” he said.

“YambaCAN gives a shit about what’s going on in this valley, and I wish more people would be following suit and caring what goes on in council and what goes on in this valley.”

Cr Johnstone shut down further debate, calling for the motion to be put, despite a protestation from Cr Greg Clancy, who had seconded Cr Day’s motion.

Councillors voted 5-3 (Cr Ian Tiley was absent) to put the motion with Crs Day, Smith and Clancy against.

The vote on Cr Day’s motion to reject the report went the same way and debate commenced on the Mayor’s foreshadowed motion.

During questions Cr Smith asked Cr Toms what benefit the community would get from the information in report.

Cr Toms took hold of the flogging feather and claimed the community would “understand the resources that it has cost from YambaCAN’s continual questioning of council business”.

Cr Day asked what if Cr Toms would ban people from exercising GIPAs.

She described the question as a “little bit off” agreeing she did not have the power to ban people from using legislation.

She said the only action in the report was to note the information in it.

Speaking to his motion, the Mayor backed Cr Toms view that the information was necessary for the council to fulfil its obligations to ensure financial stability.

“Cr Toms’ motion is all about allocation of resources,” he said.

“Every year we put in a budget where we budget for the amount of money we going to spend in future years and legal costs.

“You know, there’s money put away for that, but if it’s going to exceed that money, then we need to consider that for future years.”

But he conceded part C of the report was not warranted.

“I do note that the top of this report does mention response to questions with notice YambaCAN and I don’t believe that the cost implications of later Yamba Community Precinct Project really fits in this,” he said.

Councillor Bill Day fought to have the report into what YambaCAN has cost council with GIPA requests ditched.

Cr Clancy was scathing of the NOM and report, saying it had “really dragged council to a low ebb”.

He said he had looked into the number of GIPAs council had dealt with since 2016-17 and the 48 handled between January 2022 and February 2024 was not exceptional.

“If you divide the 48 into two, that’s roughly equivalent to what the normal annual number of GIPAs was,” he said.

“It’s just wrong to be targeting a community group who has every right to put in GIPAs.”

He also pointed out YambaCAN, which formed in late September 2022, was not in existence for the first seven months of the period under investigation.

Cr Clancy said the only contributor to Yamba Community Precinct Project cost overruns was the council itself.

He also said the general manager’s report contradicted itself.

“If you look at the cost implications of delays to Yamba Community Precinct, it says additional design consultant costs associated with developing alternative options and estimates,” Cr Clancy said.

“If you go to the business paper on the top of page seven, under Option B, refurbishment concept only, no detailed design undertaken.

“We can’t have it both ways.”

Cr Steve Pickering took his turn with the feather to attack Cr Clancy’s argument.

He criticised Cr Clancy for using parts of the report he wanted removed to attack the report.

“It’s an oxymoron to say you don’t support the report and then at the same time, actually use the facts and figures out of it,” he said.

“It does not make any sense to me.”

Cr Pickering said he had fielded many requests from the community for details of what GIPAs cost the council.

“When a GIPA request is put through, it might cost $30 for the request, but it’s also costing hundreds, if not 1000s, of dollars for council staff to respond to it,” he said.

“And once that request has been actioned, that information is now publicly available for the rest of the community. Council are about openness and transparency.”

The Mayor took hold of the feather for his right of reply and defended Cr Toms’ original NOM, despite admitting part C was not appropriate.

He agreed with some of Cr Clancy’s arguments and noted how staff had dealt with some GIPAs in less than a day.

But he said the information in the report would help council’s finances and aid transparency.

While defending the need to reveal the cost of GIPAs, Cr Johnson did not explain the necessity of tying those costs to YambaCAN.

He called for a vote, which went 5-3 in his favour and council duly noted that council had incurred not nearly as many costs as had appeared in its original report. Ouch.

For more Yamba news, click here.

Tree replacement ignites councillors’ passions

By Tim Howard

Debate to ensure a landscaping condition on a Yamba development included seven trees of the right species and “local provenance” soaked up about 25% of the latest meeting of Clarence Valley Council.

A report recommending approval of a 14-dwelling sub division at 1 Mulgi St, Yamba, came under fire from some councillors.

The DA, which also attracted nine submission objecting to the proposal, had breached the council’s development control plan, but the staff submission said these breaches were minor and could be overlooked.

But some councillors did not share the staff view.

Cr Greg Clancy moved council should refuse the DA because of the number of DCP variations.

This approach riled Cr Karen Toms who quizzed Cr Clancy over the his claim of DCP variations and asked him to elaborate on his claim.

Cr Clancy said the non-compliances were listed in the council report, but his chief worry was allowing the removal of seven trees that belonged to an endangered ecological community.

He was also concerned that allowing removal of trees contributed to incremental losses to the environment.

“The impact on the environment is that we’re losing seven trees of very important local species which if they were part of an extensive community would be part of the endangered ecological community of swamp open forest, of paperback and swamp oak,” he said.

“So the problem we have is that it’s death by 1000 cuts… it might only be seven trees, but they’re seven significant trees.

“And when I look at the landscaping plan, there’s a whole lot of what I would call weeds that are going to be planted in their place and that that is really a worry.”

In debate Cr Clancy said it was important that if the trees were to be replaced, they were replaced by locally grown trees.

He was also critical of what he described as a tendency for staff to overlook DCP non-compliance.

“When you start with a blank sheet of paper, and you’re an architect, you can you can fit it, design what you want to design within the rules of the council,” he said.

“Why can’t we? Why do we keep having these developments that are outside of the DCP requirements?

“I know legally, we can change that we can change. But there’s an expectation that we will every time, and I think we’ve got to get rid of that expectation.”

Cr Ian Tiley came up with a foreshadowed motion that council approve the DA, but not the aspects that did not comply with the DCP.

Cr Clancy’s speech fired up Cr Toms, who said the report to council had everything in it to support approval of the DA.

She read the summary of the report which outlined the involved of the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure.

“The development is subject to recommendations,” she said. “It’s consistent with the objectives of the applicable environmental planning instruments the development is considered to be an appropriate scale and form for the site and the character of the locality.

“The development has appropriate management and mitigation of impacts through conditions of consent.

“The proposed filling of the land will not result in any detrimental impacts on the floodplain or overland flows on neighbouring properties.

“The development subject to the recommended conditions will not result result in unacceptable adverse impact impacts upon the natural or built environments.”

She said council’s professional staff had qualifications far beyond those of councillors when it came to planning matters and these needed to be respected.

But Cr Toms’ passionate defence went too far for Cr Clancy, who called a point of order.

He claimed Cr Toms went too far in asserting council staff primacy over councillors in decision making.

“We are councillors we have a responsibility to assess the information to make a decision,” he said.

“I think that that was I just don’t think that was an appropriate comment about councillors. Thank you.”

Mayor Peter Johnstone overruled the point of order, and Cr Toms continued her attack.

“I agree that councillors have a responsibility,” she said. “Of course we have a responsibility.

“But we also have a responsibility to follow the laws and the legislation and the regulations.

“And we shouldn’t be able to just pull out of the air a couple of things like I’m not happy with a couple of trees being removed.”

The passions introduced into the debate began to bog down meeting process.

Amendments followed by amendments to amendments started to flow.

Councillors were advised that suitable trees of the right species and size were not available.

Cr Clancy countered that trees of the right species and provenance (grown locally) were available at the Townsend Nursery.

Cr Clancy also argued the seven trees needed to be replace by 21 trees, because not all trees planted might survive.

At the end of more than 60 minutes of debate, the council arrived at a motion to approved the DA, but with a condition the seven trees to be removed be replaced with seven trees of local provenance.

The motion passed 8-1 with Cr Clancy against.

For more Yamba news, click here.

BREASTSCREEN NSW VAN IS COMING TO YAMBA, ILUKA AND MACLEAN

The mobile screening van will be open for screening in Yamba from 10 July, Iluka from 7 August and then Maclean from 19 August. Bookings are open now.

BreastScreen NSW provides free breast screening to women to support the early detection of breast cancer.

Maggie Bawer, Acting Director of BreastScreen North Coast, says a regular breast screen is one of the most important things women can do for their health.

“Detecting breast cancer early increases your chance of survival while reducing the likelihood of invasive treatment, such as mastectomy or chemotherapy.

“One in 7 women in NSW will develop breast cancer and around 90 per cent of women diagnosed with breast cancer have no family history. This is why breast cancer screening is so important for all eligible women.”

Maggie says bringing a BreastScreen NSW van to Yamba, Iluka and Maclean makes it easier for women to attend their recommended two-yearly screening.

“Life gets busy and we want women to make their health a priority. Bringing these vital services to the local community means more women can be screened. It’s fast, it’s free and it could save your life.”

The BreastScreen NSW van will be located in the following locations:

• Yamba: On River Street, in front of the Yamba Gold and Country Club.
• Iluka: On Denne Street, outside of Club Iluka.
• Maclean: 7-9 Centenary Drive, Cameron Park car park (behind the CBD and near Ritchies IGA)

An appointment with BreastScreen NSW is free, takes less than 20 minutes and no doctor’s referral is needed.

• All women are invited by BreastScreen NSW to screen every two years from age 50.
• Any woman with a family history of breast cancer should discuss their specific needs with their GP.
• Anyone with breast symptoms should contact their GP or health worker without delay.

The mobile screening van is equipped with a lift system to support women with health conditions or disability to have their mammogram. Women with additional needs are encouraged to let us know when booking their appointment.

To book a free mammogram, visit here or call 13 20 50.

For more Yamba news, click here.