LOCATION/TYPE

NEWS HOME

[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


Archive
RSS

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Get weekly updates

WHAT TO DO
when your community is targeted

RSS

RSS feeds and more

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate via Paypal

Donate via Stripe

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links

Alerts

Press Releases

FAQs

Campaign Material

Photos & Graphics

Videos

Allied Groups

Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005.

News Watch Home

Rescission motion succeeds: wind farm cable will go ahead 

Credit:  Crookwell Gazette | Sept. 25, 2013 | www.crookwellgazette.com.au ~~

Upper Lachlan Councillors at last Thursday’s meeting reversed the decision made at the August meeting to deny Goldwind developers the right to lay an underground cable along certain lanes to connect the northern section of the Gullen Range wind farm to the State electricity grid.

And subsequently, at a closed meeting, Council decided to enter into an agreement with Goldwind that will allow the cables to be laid along Prices Lane, Learys Lane and Range Road.

Goldwind will be required to reconstruct and bitumen seal the areas affected.

The rescission motion was moved by Crs. James Wheelwright, Paul Culhane and Jo Marshall – the three who had opposed rejection of Goldwind’s request at the August meeting.

This time they were successful, the motion being carried 4/2 without Mayor Cr. John Shaw needing to declare a vote.

Cr. Darren O’Brien was absent from the meeting, and Cr. Brian McCormack declared an interest (his brother’s property is involved in the wind farm) and left the Chamber during the debate.

Cr. Scott Craig joined the movers of the rescission motion to see it carried, while Crs. Malcolm Barlow and John Searl opposed.

Cr. Wheelwright said the rescission was justified because information which would have been made available to Councillors at a closed session of the August meeting was not available at the open meeting debate.

“If the full information had been available to us the decision could have been different,” he added.

Cr. Barlow, opposing rescission, said that the information referred to had been available to Councillors before the meeting. “It was not unknown information,” he said.

“The only matter not mentioned was the estimate of cost by the Director of Works, which was quite superfluous.

“There is nothing new in the rescission motion – Cr. Wheelwright had every opportunity to persuade the other Councillors at the time.”

Cr. Culhane: “Because the report was not before us we could not allude to it; we were unable to hear from our officers for expert advice.”

Cr. Wheelwright said rescission would only take the matter back to Council, and open the debate to all with the additional information available.

Crs. Wheelwright, Craig, Culhane and Marshall voted for rescission, with Crs. Barlow and Searl opposed.

Cr. Barlow also challenged the need for Council going into closed session to further discuss the Goldwind application.

General Manager Mr. John Bell replied: “We’ll be talking about someone else’s finances.”

Cr. Barlow: “All the figures we have are the Director’s estimates.

“Commercial in confidence as I understand it involves competing tenders and costings.

“Here there is only an estimate of a cost to Goldwind to seal the roads.

“I can’t see any reason for a closed meeting.”

Cr. Searl supported Cr. Barlow in this view.

Cr. Wheelwright: “It was listed as a closed meeting before.”

From the crowded public gallery Mr. Humphrey Price-Jones interjected: “We still haven’t been given a reason for a closed Council.”

Cr. Shaw: “It is because of commercial in confidence matters.”

Mr. Price-Jones: “Commercial in confidence is not involved – it’s a matter of transparency.”

The motion for closed meeting was carried with Crs. Barlow and Searl opposed.

Source:  Crookwell Gazette | Sept. 25, 2013 | www.crookwellgazette.com.au

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial educational effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
   Donate via Paypal
(via Paypal)
Donate via Stripe
(via Stripe)

Share:

e-mail X FB LI M TG TS G Share


News Watch Home

Get the Facts
CONTACT DONATE PRIVACY ABOUT SEARCH
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.

 Follow:

Wind Watch on X Wind Watch on Facebook Wind Watch on Linked In

Wind Watch on Mastodon Wind Watch on Truth Social

Wind Watch on Gab Wind Watch on Bluesky