Misleading map

[paulgraftonst]

(hopefully)Here is a copy of the google earth image from the powerpoint presentation that Divalls showed to everyone in council chambers, they claimed their proposed transfer station was around 800 m from residences.

I have combined their map with another google earth image but this time I have left the SCALE in the map so we can see that in reality the distance is more like 300m.

Divalls did not respond to my email questioning this discrepancy.

i660.photobucket.com/albums/uu326/ATCC1970/Goulburnwastestation.jpg

Attachments:

[steve]

Paul,

I agree the information provided in that part of the proponent's presentation is very innacurate and misleading.

An elderly lady lives right on Bridge Street. She is probably less than 50 meters away.

There is also Matt and Vanessa's house, which I believe is the original Goulburn train station before the bridge was built. Their house was built in 1867 by the way. They are train buffs and they have the dream of making their home a bed and breakfast one day.

The Divall site is almost directly opposite them on the other side of the tracks. I estimate that the back corner of their property is also less than 50 meters from the boundary of the Divall site.

The arrow on the right hand side of the Divall/Denrith presentation goes right over John Newtons house at 4-8 Crundwell as well as over 9 Crundwell.

This kind of thing raises serious doubts and questions of integrity and honesty. I believe these factors also need to be considered in the JRPP's decision.

I also believe the proponents need to address these kinds of discrepancies in some kind of public discussion -- not held in and organized by Council like the forum on the 18th.

I suggest this time the discussions be video taped. I naively thought that they were being video taped on July 18th in the Council chamber hall, but later found out they weren't.

Thus, the proponents could make any claims they wanted and not be held accountable later.

This leads to the issue of gurantees. What gurantees and assurances are being given by the proponents or required by Council? Someone suggested a security deposit in the range of millions of dollars would be advisable in case there would one day be a major accident there and signficant river clean up costs would be required, such as when there is an oil spill.

This further leads one to the issue of insurance and bank loans.

If a bank is going to be loaning part of the more than 2 million dollar investment, they would surely require private insurance, just as they would for a home loan.  

But a bank would also need to feel certain a business venture would be financially profitable. And in a case like this, one would expect they would require a contract showing a guranteed income stream from the new project on the part of the Denrith Pty Ltd.

Yet Council has not publicly awarded any contract for either the general waste or the recyclables to be managed by the proponents, Denrith Pty Ltd.  

Nor has Council, to the best of our knowledge, even written any tenders.  

For a business to consider investing such a large sum of money, or for a bank to consider loaning such money, there must be a feeling of high confidence that the income stream will be there.  

In this case though, on what would such confidence be based?  

This adds to the hypothesis in the community, shared by many, that that there have already been informal, non-disclosed meetings and agreements between the proponents and Council.

This is, of course, at the very least, in direct contrast to Council's stated goals of transparency.  
   

[paulgraftonst]

If it was a genuine mistake that Denrith (Divalls) presented that misleading map at the public meeting then they should make a public apology in the Goulburn Post complete with an accurate map that has a scale on it.