File size must be less than 2Mb
You must have online publishing permission or full ownership of this image
File types (jpg, png, gif)
28 August 2019
City to River Master Plan submission to Council.
The Vision and Master Plan report talks about meeting the needs of the community, supporting and growing business and growing visitors to the region. I fully support these aims. I also support the CEO’s comment about re-vitalising this area and attracting professional people to Horsham, but why only the City to River. Why not a complete 20 to 30 year plan for the rest of Horsham? For example, what about the rail yards being included in a plan to turn them into a park and recreation area for the residents of Horsham North? What about developing unused parts of the race course into a park and recreation area for the residents of Horsham West?
While I agree with the basic concept of linking the city to the river and that it may be good for Horsham’s development from both a community aspect and as a possible draw for tourism, I believe the proposal as presented has many flaws.
Article continues below
2. Central Activities District.
The re-development of the CAD looks grand but I would expect the community should be made aware of the approximate costs before they are asked to pass comment, particularly the complete re-development of the city block between Firebrace Street, Urquhart Street, McLachlan Street and Roberts Avenue.
I love trees and have planted thousands on my few acres, but when will the Council learn that trees and buildings on Horsham’s Extremely Reactive soils don’t mix and are completely incompatible. The amount of trees shown on the concept plan would wreck many buildings in the main street alone. Was the Consultant not advised of Horsham’s soil conditions before they prepared these lovely (costly) drawings?
Due to the volume of reports I find it difficult to understand how the community could be expected to be aware of the plan to prevent parking in Firebrace Street or at least to change it to parallel parking. This will severely restrict access for the elderly and others with mobility problems along with the shoppers who come to Horsham from out of town. This type of pedestrian/bike access areas only for shopping precincts look nice in bigger cities but are not suited to our rural lifestyle. I believe this proposal will result in the closure of many small businesses in the main street and force shoppers into the hands of the bigger shopping centres where the profits are taken out of the community.
3. Wimmera River Precinct.
This proposed development is called City to River with the aim of connecting the city centre to the river as I understand it. However the only connection I see in the plan is changing Firebrace Street access to the river and planting more trees. Why not look a real picnic area for families along the river with a wading pool for young children and slides and swings in the river for the older kids and young at heart adults?
One of the surprises for me was the removal of the older houses and light industry to the west of Firebrace Street between Harvey Norman/Betta Electrical and the botanic gardens and replacing them with another concrete jungle housing development, This is missing a great opportunity to truly connect the City to the River by turning this area into a community recreation meeting place. An area where we can have weekend and/or night markets, a food market to encourage families to eat out and experience different ethnic cuisines once a week or month along with someone giving cooking demonstrations, a large playground where parents can sit a have a cup of coffee or an ice cream from a nearby caravan while they watch their children play, and especially an area for teenage participation, perhaps a more advanced playground or adventure park or simply a meeting/gathering place for the wider Horsham community.
The proposal also plans to turn the Council depot into another housing estate and another great opportunity to connect the city to the river will go begging. I see this area also being established for family activity by setting up mini golf, perhaps a community vegetable garden or a display herb garden to encourage people to eat healthier foods. One of the aims of this new opportunity should be to encourage community
togetherness and healthier lifestyles and these two areas planned for housing in the master plan could be used to promote these activities instead.
It is difficult to see how removing the lawn tennis, croquet and mini railway will meet objective 1 of the Wimmera River precinct. I believe in fact they strengthen part of the objectives of 1 and 4 of the plan. I find it hard to understand how replacing these existing facilities with an artificial lake does anything to meet any of the objectives. I have heard a lot of strong opposition from the community to removing these Horsham icons.
Apart from walking, sitting and maybe eating, what else is there to attract the community families and visitors to use these areas? We need family based activities. With some lighting and other upgrades, the lawn tennis and croquet meet all the requirements of objective 4 of the master plan. I envisage parents finishing work on a warm summer night and taking their children down to the river precinct to have a hit of tennis or perhaps the Croquet club could have “Come and learn Croquet” nights in the summer. I am sure the community can come up with lots of ideas to make this a family friendly area.
4. City oval.
I agree with Horsham having an oval to a regional standard but not at this location and certainly not as shown on the master plan. I see no spectator facilities in the proposed change and only limited parking availability especially for big events. It also appears the public are going to have free access to all events at the oval which I am sure will please the public, but I can’t see that anyone would be prepared to organise such an activity without a financial benefit. I can’t imagine too many people prepared to stand 3 to 4 deep at the fence in all weathers to watch a footy game, let alone a grand final or regional game or other special events. There appears to be no figures in the report that give an indication as to how many spectators should be catered for nor how many car parking spaces should be provided for. The report does identify a shortage of sports training and match facilities. Why not set up a new purpose made football/cricket oval to the north west as discussed later and then this oval, as is, can be used as a training facility?
The proposal as shown will reduce the length of the city oval by 20 percent, will reduce the capacity of the sound shell for many major community events and remove much of the nearby parking accessibility which will make it difficult for the elderly and disabled to attend.
Of most concern with this proposal is that re-orienting the oval will upset the deep seated soil moisture conditions which will present major problems for establishing a playable sports ground for many years to come.
5. Show grounds area.
The master plan shows two ovals on the showground’s site with the description “New Multi-Purpose Regional Sports and Events Facility Precinct – Indicative only”. I find it difficult to understand how the community and sporting clubs can be expected to provide constructive comments when they are not given the opportunity to see exactly what is envisioned for the showground’s site. It also appears that no discussion has been had about the impact that flooding would have on some of these grounds.
We already have enough sporting facilities in one of the most traffic congested areas of Horsham. Why add more when there is a sensible alternative to develop a whole new indoor/outdoor sporting complex to the north west of Horsham. Starting on a fresh site also has great benefits when the soil moisture conditions are taken into consideration. Pre-used sites develop soil moisture conditions relevant to that usage. When the usage is changed, the soil moisture can take many, many years to change to a new environment causing structural movement in the process. In many cases of deep imposed moisture influenced caused by trees or a long term feed into the soil from water leaks, depressed ground levels etc. the moisture conditions will usually never settle down to a stable condition.
It appears that no serious consideration has been given in the reports for the impact that Horsham soils will have on establishing many of these sports facilities.
Clause 1.3.3 of the Australian Standard for Residential slabs and footings states “Examples of abnormal moisture conditions existing prior to construction include the following:
(a) Removal of an existing building or structure likely to have significantly modified the soil moisture conditions under the footprint of the footing system of the building.
(b) Removal of trees prior to construction.
Sites that are found to have Abnormal Soil Moisture conditions have to be classified as “P’ (problem) sites and treated accordingly.
The term structure can apply to virtually any feature such as embankments or sand, gravel or sealed areas, anything that will have changed the moisture environment compared to the surrounding conditions. When these structures are removed it is almost impossible to return the site to an even soil moisture condition across the site.
This applies to the existing treed area to the east of the basketball stadium, to the greyhound track and many other features in the areas proposed for re-development. While this problem can be overcome by placing buildings on deep piered footing systems, the same does not apply to outdoor courts, sports grounds and parking areas which would be subject to continual maintenance and may render them unusable in the longer term. While it is expected there may be some success stories of car parks and outdoor courts in the Wimmera, there have also been many with serious problems.
The draft master plan proposes to construct outdoor courts and parking areas as part of the multi-purpose sports complex in the treed area to the east of the basketball stadium, which despite numerous objections, has now re-appeared as part of this new plan. It appears the objections raised have not had any impact on the decision makers.
These comments about soil moisture conditions also apply to the athletic track, synthetic hocky pitch and other sports facilities proposed for the showground.
Once again the only logical solution to many of these problems is to open up an entirely new area to the north west of Horsham where regional facilities could be set up in an orderly, economic way that can combine spectator and amenity uses and which will cater for the future expansion of sports facilities. Who can predict the future requirements 20 to 30 years ahead with any degree of certainty?
This option also provides relatively undisturbed soil moisture conditions and offers better traffic access which will reduce this problem from around from around the CAD and river precincts. This is also the best place to locate a new city oval and the proposed multipurpose sports facility.
While this area was considered as a potential site for the proposed multipurpose sports facility it appears no study has ever been made to open it up as a complete sports precinct that could rival anything in regional Victoria. The community first suggested this option in May 2017 and a number of times since but it has never been assessed,
It appears the Council have chosen to ignore the many objections raised against the siting of the multi-use sports complex near the showgrounds. It also appears they are not prepared to open up a discussion on having the stadium, athletic track, hockey pitch and other new sporting facilities organised in a new area to the north west of Horsham where there is ample room to set things out sensibly and most importantly, more room to expand in the future.
There is no question in my mind that the showground needs re-vitalising, but not as a sports precinct. Why not develop it as a tourist destination and/or community activities. I have already heard of a number of suggestions and I am sure if it was put to the community to suggest ideas there would be many offerings. I have seen a fabulous agricultural museum in Parkes NSW. Why not set up something similar in the showgrounds?
Horsham has little to really attract tourists to the city and I see nothing in this plan that changes that view. This deficiency and the showgrounds area could be made as a specific target for ideas from the community.
6. Final Comments.
I would like to know on what basis the council would finally accept opposition to some of the proposals presented in the Master Plan and some new ideas. Do they have to have a certain number of ratepayers raise an objection before they are prepared to change their proposals and/or do they need a certain number of people with local knowledge or expertise on a relevant subject to speak out before they will consider changing their position? It seems the council is prepared to put a lot of faith in experts from outside the community. These organizations usually prepare their reports based on direction they receive from council officers and if those officers have their own ideas on how things should be done then it is those ideas that often set the direction of the reports.
Will the Council vote on approving the plan as a whole or will it be broken into segments so that each part can be judged on its merits by the councillors and the community?
Apart from the specific City to River area much of the remaining focus is on sports activities. Due to the very serious problems faced with deep soil moisture conditions and traffic congestion the siting of these facilities in this area is incompatible with the aims of this City to River Master Plan. I must emphasise that the Council must look seriously at the sensible proposal of siting these facilities on fresh ground to the north west of Horsham and focus their attention to revitalising the City to River areas for developing family friendly activities to attract professional people and their families to Horsham and to developing truly great tourist draw cards. Why not then advertise Horsham as the “Family Friendly City”.
These proposals are not about what the council wants, nor about what the council officers may want, nor about what I feel is best it must be about what the community wants. However if the community are not properly informed and therefore don’t have ability to make meaningful submissions then they will end up with what the council wants anyway and I don’t believe this represents proper community consultation.
At the recent Rate payers and Residents public meeting the Mayor said that the community could have another opportunity to comment once the community suggestions had been considered and incorporated into the concept plan where applicable. I feel this is an essential part of this process considering the limited amount of information on the plan that the community has been made aware of at this stage.
I offer the following comments out of concern for the direction these proposals will take our great city if they are left as is. At my age I may not see many of the final outcomes. I have no ties with any sporting group or any other group. I act only as a concerned individual for the future of the city I grew up in and have been proud to always call my home.
FIEAust, CPEng. NER
26 August 2019.
CITY TO RIVER - QUESTIONS THE COMMUNITY ON 19 AUGUST 2019
WOULD YOU PLEASE UNDERLINE YOUR YES OR NO ANSWER AND ATTACH A SEPARATE SHEET IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD ANY OTHER COMMENTS. THANKS.
1. REMODELING OF A CITY OFFICE BLOCK.
(a) ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE PLAN CALLS FOR COMPLETE REMODELING OF THE BLOCK BETWEEN URQUHART, FIREBRACE, McLACHLAN STREETS AND ROBERTS AVENUE? YES NO
(b) WOULD YOU BE PREPARED TO SUPPORT THIS PROPOSAL WITHOUT KNOWING THE COST TO THE COMMUNITY? YES NO
2. PARKING IN CENTRAL ACTIVITIES DISTRICT.
(a) ARE YOU AWARE OF THE PROPOSAL TO REMOVE PARKING IN THE MAIN STREET OR TO REPLACE ANGLE PARKING WITH PARALLEL PARKING? YES NO
(b) DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS PROPOSAL? YES NO
(c) WE HAVE AN AGING POPULATION THAT DO NOT TRAVEL ON BIKES. ALSO REGIONAL SHOPPERS AND RURAL RESIDENTS AND RATEPAYERS WILL STILL BE SHOPPING IN VEHICLES. DO YOU ACCEPT THAT MANY SMALL BUSINESSES MAY HAVE TO CLOSE DOWN THROUGH LOSS OF CUSTOM WHICH GOES AGAINST THE OBJECTIVES OF THE PLAN? YES NO
(d) DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THIS PROPOSAL TAKES ACCOUNT OF THE RURAL NATURE OF OUR CITY? YES NO
3. PROPOSED NEW HOUSING ESTATES.
(a) ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE AREA BETWEEN BETTA ELECTRICAL/HARVEY NORMAN AND THE BOTANIC GARDENS TO THE WEST OF FIREBRACE STREET AND ALSO THAT THE COUNCIL DEPOT AND CONCRETE YARD ARE BOTH PROPOSED TO BECOME HOUSING ESTATES? YES NO
(b) WOULD YOU AGREE WITH INVESTIGATING THE POSSIBILITY THAT THESE AREAS COULD BE TURNED INTO A PUBLIC GATHERING PLACE FOR WEEKEND MARKETS ETC. IN THE FIRST INSTANCE AND A FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT AREA IN THE OTHER WITH MINI GOLF, A SUPER KIDS PLAYGROUND AND AN ADVENTURE PART FOR TEENAGERS? YES NO
4. REMOVAL OF HORSHAM ICONS.
IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW REMOVING THE LAWN TENNIS, CROQUET AND MINI RAILWAY WILL MEET OBJECTIVE 1 OF THE WIMMERA RIVER PRECINCT. I BELIEVE IN FACT THEY STRENGTHEN PART OF THE OBJECTIVES OF 1 AND 4 OF THE PLAN.
(a) DO YOU AGREE WITH REPLACING THE LAWN TENNIS COURTS WITH AN ARTIFICIAL LAKE?
(b) DO YOU AGREE WITH REPLACING THE CROQUET LAWNS WITH GARDENS? YES NO
(c) DO YOU AGREE WITH REPLACING THE MINI RAILWAY WITH A WATER PARK WHICH CAN ONLY BE USED IN THE SUMMER? YES NO
5. CITY OVAL.
(a) ARE YOU AWARE THAT CHANGING THE ORIENTATION OF THE CITY OVAL ALSO INVOLVES A 20 PERCENT REDUCTION IN THE LENGTH OF THE OVAL AND THAT THIS INFORMATION IS NOT SHOWN IN THE REPORTS? YES NO
(b) ARE YOU AWARE THAT CHANGING THE ORIENTATION OF THE OVAL WILL ALSO UPSET THE DEEP SOIL MOISTURE CONDITIONS WHICH WILL PRESENT MAJOR PROBLEMS? * SEE 9 BELOW. YES NO
(c) ARE YOU AWARE THAT CHANGING THE ORIENTATION OF THE OVAL WILL REDUCE THE CAPACITY OF THE SOUND SHELL AREA FOR THE MANY MAJOR EVENTS IT IS USED FOR AND ALSO REMOVE THE NEARBY PARKING ACCESSIBILITY WHICH WILL MAKE ACCESS FAR MORE DIFFICULT FOR THE ELDERLY AND DISABLED? YES NO
(d) ARE YOU AWARE THAT THERE ARE NO SPECTATOR, ELDERLY OR DISABLED FACILITIES SHOWN ON THE PROPOSAL FOR THE NEW OVAL AND ARE YOU AWARE THAT THERE IS INSUFFICIENT CAR PARKING PROVIDED TO CATER FOR REGIONAL SPORTS AND FOOTY FINALS AT THE OVAL? YES NO
(F) DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS PROPOSAL? YES NO
6. SITING OF THE PROPOSED MULTI PURPOSE SPORTS FACILITY.
EARLY LAST YEAR I ADVISED THE COUNCIL ABOUT THE PROBLEMS FACED WITH THE SOIL MOISTURE CONDITIONS FOR THE SITING OF THE PROPOSED MULTI PURPOSE SPORTS FACILITY NEXT TO THE BASKETBALL STADIUM. I HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS WITH A SENIOR COUNCIL OFFICER WHO SEEMED TO TAKE MY CONCERNS SERIOUSLY AND WAS GOING TO INVOLVE ME IN FURTHER WORK BUT NOTHING CAME OF THIS AND I THOUGHT THAT USING THE SITE FOR THIS FACILITY HAD DIED.
(a) ARE YOU AWARE OF MY CONCERNS THAT SOIL MOISTURE CONDITIONS ARE NOT SUITED TO THE FACILITIES BEING PROPOSED FOR THE SITE? * SEE 9 BELOW. YES NO
(b) DO YOU THINK THAT THE PROPOSED MULTI PURPOSE SPORTS FACILITY SHOULD BE LOCATED AT THIS SITE KNOWING THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE DEEP SOIL MOISTURE CONDITIONS AT THE SITE? YES NO
7. SHOW GROUND SITE.
(a) THE MASTER PLAN SHOWS TWO OVALS ON THE SHOWGROUND’S SITE WITH THE DESCRIPTION “NEW MULTI PURPOSE REGIONAL SPORTS AND EVENTS FACILITY PRECINCT – INDICATIVE ONLY”. DO YOU FEEL THE COMMUNITY AND SPORTING CLUBS SHOULD BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE EXACTLY WHAT IS ENVISIONED FOR THE SHOW GROUND SITE. DO YOU FEEL IT IS REASONABLE TO EXPECT CONSTRUCTIVE COMMENTS FROM THE COMMUNITY WHEN THEY ARE SHOWN NO DETAILS OF WHAT MAY BE PLANNED? YES NO
(b) ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH THE FACT THAT SOME OF THE GROUNDS ARE IN FLOOD PRONE AREAS WHICH AFFECT THE SOIL MOISTURE CONDITIONS? YES NO
(c) ARE YOU AWARE THAT CHANGING THE USAGE OF THE SHOW GROUNDS SITE WILL ALSO UPSET THE DEEP SOIL MOISTURE CONDITIONS? * SEE 9 BELOW. YES NO
(d) ARE YOU AWARE OF THE SERIOUS IMPACT THAT THE CLOSURE OF McBRYDE STREET MAY HAVE ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS TO THE NORTH OF McBRYDE AND HAMILTON STREETS? YES NO
8. NORTH WEST HORSHAM OPTION.
THE LOGICAL SOLUTION TO MANY OF THESE PROBLEMS WOULD BE TO OPEN UP AN ENTIRELY NEW AREA TO THE NORTH WEST OF HORSHAM WHERE REGIONAL FACILITIES CAN BE SET UP IN AN ORDERLY, ECONOMIC FASHION THAT CAN COMBINE SPECTATOR AND AMENITY USES AND WHICH WILL CATER FOR THE FUTURE EXPANSION OF SPORTS FACILITIES. WHO CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE REQUIREMENTS 20 YEARS AHEAD WITH ANY DEGREE OF CERTAINTY?
THIS OPTION WOULD ALSO PROVIDE RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED SOIL MOISTURE CONDITIONS AND
OFFER BETTER TRAFFIC ACCESS WHICH WILL REDUCE THIS PROBLEM FROM AROUND THE CAD AND RIVER PRECINCTS. THIS IS ALSO THE BEST PLACE TO LOCATE A NEW CITY OVAL AND THE PROPOSED MULTI PURPOSE SPORTS FACILITY.
WHILE THIS AREA WAS CONSIDERED AS A SITE FOR THE PROPOSED MULTI PURPOSE SPORTS FACILITY IT WOULD APPEAR THAT NO STUDY HAS EVER BEEN MADE TO OPEN IT UP AS A COMPLETE SPORTS PRECINCT THAT COULD RIVAL ANYTHING IN REGIONAL VICTORIA.
THE COMMUNITY FIRST SUGGESTED THIS OPTION IN MAY 2017 AND A NUMBER OF TIMES SINCE BUT HAS NEVER BEEN ASSESSED?
(a) WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THE COUNCIL SHOULD CONDUCT AN IN DEPTH STUDY FOR THIS PROPOSAL IN THE INTERESTS OF HORSHAM’S FUTURE DEVELOPMENT? YES NO
(b) IT APPEARS THE OPEN SPACE STRATEGY HAS IDENTIFIED A LACK OF OPEN SPACE IN THE WEST OF HORSHAM, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THIS PROPOSAL WOULD ASSIST IN ALLEVIATING THAT PROBLEM? YES NO
9. HORSHAM SOILS.
IT APPEARS THAT NO SERIOUS CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE REPORTS FOR THE IMPACT THAT HORSHAM SOILS, WHICH ARE KNOWN STATE WIDE TO BE AMONGST THE WORST IN VICTORIA, WILL HAVE ON ESTABLISHING MANY OF THESE SPORTS FACILITIES?
FOLLOWING IS AN EXCERPT FROM THE SUBMISSION I AM PREPARING TO PRESENT TO THE COUNCIL ABOUT THIS PLAN.
* Clause 1.3.3 of the Australian Standard for Residential Slabs and Footings states “Examples of abnormal moisture conditions existing prior to construction include the following:
(a) Removal of an existing building or structure likely to have significantly modified the soil moisture conditions under the footprint of the footing system of the building.
(b) Removal of trees prior to construction.”
Sites that are found to have Abnormal Soil Moisture conditions have to be classified as “P’ (problem) sites and treated accordingly. The term structure can apply to virtually any feature such as embankments or sand, gravel or sealed areas, anything that will have changed the moisture environment compared to the surrounding conditions. When these structures are removed it is almost impossible to return the site to an even soil moisture condition across the site in many cases.
IT WAS MENTIONED AT THE LAST R&R MEETING THAT TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT, SOIL, FLOODING, ETC. WOULD BE INVESTIGATED IN THE NEXT STAGE. HOWEVER THESE CONSIDERATIONS ARE NORMALLY AN ESSENTIAL PART OF ANY STUDY OF THIS NATURE AS THE FINDINGS WOULD THEN INDICATE THE FEASIBILITY OF THESE PROPOSALS. TO PUT FORWARD THESE PROPOSALS AND THEN FIND THEY ARE NOT SUITABLE BECAUSE OF TRAFFIC PROBLEMS, POOR SOIL CONDITIONS OR FLOODING PROBLEMS APPEARS PUTTING THINGS BACK THE FRONT.
10. SCHOOL PRESENTATIONS.
(a) ARE YOU AWARE THAT COUNCIL OFFICERS HAVE GONE TO SOME PRIMARY SCHOOLS TO PRESENT THE PROJECT EVEN BEFORE THE COMMUNITY HAS HAD A CHANCE TO SUBMIT THEIR INPUT AND THAT THE PRIMARY CHILDREN WERE ASKED TO FILL OUT THE QUESTIONNAIRE EITHER AT THE SCHOOL OR ONLINE AT HOME? YES NO
(b) WOULD YOU ACCEPT THAT THE PRIMARY STUDENTS RESPONSES MAY BE USED TO BOLSTER SUPPORT FOR COMPLETE ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROPOSALS? YES NO
(c) DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS APPROACH OF COUNCIL TO INVOLVE THE COMMUNITIES CHILDREN IN THIS WAY? YES NO
(a) THERE ARE FOUR REPORTS BEING PRESENTED TO JUSTIFY THIS PROJECT WITH MORE THAN 250 PAGES AND THE COMMUNITY HAS ONLY BEEN GIVEN 60 DAYS TO ABSORB THIS VOLUME OF WORK AND TO MAKE SENSIBLE COMMENTS ON ITS CONTENT.
(b) IN ANSWER TO MANY QUESTIONS ALREADY PRESENTED TO COUNCILORS AND COUNCIL OFFICERS THE STANDARD RESPONSE IS THAT THIS REPORT IS ONLY A CONCEPT PLAN PRESENTED TO OBTAIN COMMUNITY INPUT. DO YOU FEEL IT IS ACCEPTABLE THAT THE COMMUNITY SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO GIVE MEANINGFUL RESPONSES WHEN THEY ARE ONLY BEING GIVEN MINIMAL PRELIMINARY INFORMATION? YES NO
(c) WOULD YOU ACCEPT THAT 6 MONTHS IS MORE AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO ALLOW THE COMMUNITY TO DIGEST THE CONTENTS OF THE REPORT THAT WILL SHAPE THE FUTURE OF THE COMMUNITY FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS? YES NO
12. COSTING AND RATES.
ACCEPTANCE OF ANY PART OF THIS PLAN AT THIS TIME WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT EACH PART OF THE PLAN WILL COST APPROXIMATELY, OR BY HOW MUCH IT WILL INCREASE OUR RATES WILL GIVE THE COUNCIL A BLANK CHEQUE TO SPEND OUR RATES ANYWAY THEY SEE FIT.
(a) WOULD YOU AGREE WITH GIVING THE COUNCIL AN OPEN CHEQUE TO SPEND OUR RATES ON SOME OF THESE VERY BIG TICKET ITEMS? YES NO